PDA

View Full Version : Face Melting Guitar Solos and Zech. 14



the rookie
Jul 13th 2006, 05:49 AM
Elsewhere in these forums two astonishing claims were made about Zech. 14:

1. Though this passage is one of the main premil passages that is used to prove a millennial kingdom, it does not contain any details to back up such a claim.

2. This entire chapter was fulfilled in the past.

I'm interested in exploring those claims, and taking a closer look at this chapter:

Zech. 14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD is coming,
And your spoil will be divided in your midst.

The context of this chapter is established here - the eschatological day of the Lord; which historically in the Hebrew understanding involved the day in which the Messiah would come to judge the nations that mistreated Israel (Obadiah 1:15; Joel 3:14) and establish His kingdom (Isa. 2:1-22)
(conversely, for a passage that some INSIST was fulfilled in the past, Isa. 2:10-12 contain elements that are very similar to Rev. 6:15-16, which the very same system INSISTS is the 2nd Coming). Great trouble and shaking would also come to Israel in context to this future day (Isa. 13:6-9; Amos 5:18-20). Zechariah is describing the nature of the trouble that will come to Israel in this day as the nation is almost defeated in this recapitulation of the Zech. 12-13 events.

Zech. 14:2 For I will gather all the nations to battle against Jerusalem; The city shall be taken, The houses rifled, And the women ravished. Half of the city shall go into captivity, But the remnant of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

Zech. 12:1-4 describes the coming siege of Jerusalem as "all the nations of the earth" are gathered against the city, drunk (a stupefied maddness) in their fury, looking to "heave the city away". This passage gives more detail to what will actually take place as the nations come against the city. Josephus did not record these kinds of details taking place in his account of the Roman seige of 70 AD at the hands of Titus; nor did this seige involve "all the nations of the earth." It surely involved many nations - but not all.

Zech. 14:3 Then the LORD will go forth
And fight against those nations,
As He fights in the day of battle.

Again, in this recapitulation, Zech. 12 gave a description of what this would look like - the enemy horses would be struck with blindness and the riders with maddness; later in that passage we are shown the inhabitants of Jerusalem being supernaturally empowered by the Lord to defend themselves against the seige (12:8). One could also put Isa. 63:1-6 here, as the Lord Himself is seen striding towards Jerusalem "mighty to save" as all His robes are covered in blood - it is this passage that John is alluding to in Rev. 19:11-16. as He is moving to "tread the winepress of the nations", which also alludes to Joel 3:13 and Rev. 14:18-20.

Zech. 14:4 And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives,
Which faces Jerusalem on the east.
And the Mount of Olives shall be split in two,
From east to west,
Making a very large valley;
Half of the mountain shall move toward the north
And half of it toward the south.
Zech. 14:5 Then you shall flee through My mountain valley,
For the mountain valley shall reach to Azal.
Yes, you shall flee
As you fled from the earthquake
In the days of Uzziah king of Judah.
Thus the LORD my God will come,
And all the saints with You.

The key feature of this passage (one that you would be hard-pressed to find a past fulfillment of) to me is not the splitting of the Mt. of Olives by Jesus (which many have assumed to be His first act when He lands on the earth - but it does not say that He "lands" on the Mt. of Olives - just that He will stand on it. I think that there are many other passages in the OT that provide a framework for many other events that take place at His Second Coming that precede this one, as I have listed on another thread). The key feature is not that He splits the mountain - but that He does it so that those in Jerusalem might escape the seige! They flee the city through the newly made valley and escape the armies gathered against them before the Lord goes to trample the nations.

it is difficult for me to find any NT or past fulfillment for these passages, and I have barely scratched the surface of the passage. I haven't even come to the face-melting part yet.

the rookie
Jul 13th 2006, 06:06 AM
Zech. 14:6 It shall come to pass in that day
That there will be no light;
The lights will diminish.
Zech. 14:7 It shall be one day
Which is known to the LORD—
Neither day nor night.
But at evening time it shall happen
That it will be light.

The sixth bowl (total darkness) has struck the Antichrist kingdom (Rev. 16:10-11); and the conditions Amos describes are in effect here as well (Amos 5:18-20); the light, as the end of the passage describes, that will break through the veil of supernatural darkness will be the brightness of His coming (2 Thess. 2:8) with the armies of heaven (Rev. 19:14) and the angelic host that follow Him, as Jesus Himself described (Matt. 24:27-31).

I do not think that the intensity of the fifth bowl conditions continue into the sixth bowl and beyond (or else the armies could not gather), but I believe that there is a sequence to darkness and light and these moments will still involved "diminished light" making it tough to distinguish between day and night.

I also believe that this final catastrophic battle will take place in one day - though I think that the seventh bowl is alluding to the Joshua passage of an elongated day (Rev. 16:17-21; Josh. 10:11-14) in which the Lord tramples the winepress of the nations that came against Jerusalem.

Zech. 14:8 And in that day it shall be
That living waters shall flow from Jerusalem,
Half of them toward the eastern sea
And half of them toward the western sea;
In both summer and winter it shall occur.

I think that these "living waters" are the same waters in Isaiah that bring life to the desert places (Isa. 35:1-10) that flow from Jerusalem - specifically from the much disputed millennial temple in Ezekiel (Eze. 47:1-12) that is the "fountain" opened up in Jerusalem (Zech. 13:1) and the very River of Ps. 46:4 and Rev. 22:1-2 that flows from the very throne of God Himself, in the New Jerusalem - from paradise to the millennial earth and from there to the surrounding desert places to the seas on each side, bringing life where it flows.

Zech. 14:9 And the LORD shall be King over all the earth.
In that day it shall be—
“The LORD is one,”
And His name one.

And of course, I see this as the passage that establishes the framework for the "times of the restoration of all things" (Acts 3:21) in which the Lord restores the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6) and establishes His kingdom over the whole earth.

the rookie
Jul 13th 2006, 06:18 AM
Zech. 14:10 All the land shall be turned into a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem. Jerusalem shall be raised up and inhabited in her place from Benjamin’s Gate to the place of the First Gate and the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the king’s winepresses.

The actual land is reformatted around Jerusalem and restructured with details that we have not seen fulfilled in history...

Zech. 14:11 The people shall dwell in it;
And no longer shall there be utter destruction,
But Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

Along with this passage that follows - what time frame would this promise be describing? The complete safety of Jerusalem does not seem to be a conditional promise at all (I'm referencing the disputes on other threads in this forum) but a prophetic reality that accompanies the victory of the Lord over the surrounding nations and the establishment of His kingdom in Jerusalem - the inhabitants in His rule there enjoy a new thing that they have never known - true peace from conflict and strife over their land.

Zech. 14:12 And this shall be the plague with which the LORD will strike all the people who fought against Jerusalem:
Their flesh shall dissolve while they stand on their feet,
Their eyes shall dissolve in their sockets,
And their tongues shall dissolve in their mouths.
Zech. 14:13 It shall come to pass in that day
That a great panic from the LORD will be among them.
Everyone will seize the hand of his neighbor,
And raise his hand against his neighbor’s hand;

Zechariah here comes again to a recapitulation of that cataclysmic battle over Jerusalem and that great seige he describes repeatedly. Here we come to our "face melting guitar solo", in which the gruesome details of the Lord's victory are described. Zech. 12:1-4 is given more detail; this passage also seems to be alluding to the events of 2 Chron. 20 and the victory of Jehoshophat over the multitudes that came against them (who were driven to madness by the Lord through the worship of the singers as the Lord won the victory for them) as well as Rev. 19:21 - the sword of His mouth strikes them, not the sword in His hand. I wonder if the Lord Himself will sing as well - His song (and the song of those who are with Him) driving His enemies to madness (Zeph. 3:14-17). Again - this passage is describing the exact events of 2 Chron. 20 - which makes me wonder whether that passage was a prophetic foreshadowing, or type, of the manner in which the Lord would win His victory.

When was this fulfilled in any other manner?

the rookie
Jul 13th 2006, 06:23 AM
Zech. 14:14 Judah also will fight at Jerusalem.
And the wealth of all the surrounding nations
Shall be gathered together:
Gold, silver, and apparel in great abundance.
Zech. 14:15 Such also shall be the plague
On the horse and the mule,
On the camel and the donkey,
And on all the cattle that will be in those camps.
So shall this plague be.

Again, this scenario is shockingly similar to the 2 Chron. 20 one - it took them three days to gather the spoil of the nations after that battle. This time it will take seven years to gather the spoil (Eze. 39:9) and seven months to bury the dead (Eze. 39:12) which is how Israel will win fame among the nations that are left (or "gain reknown in the day that I am glorified" - Eze. 39:13). Isaiah also spoke of the spoils of victory (Isa. 9:3-5).

The phrases are difficult for me to understand in light of a past fulfillment. There would have to be some heavy symbolism to move the details into some other context. The Eze. 39 passage makes it difficult to reconcile a total annihilation at His coming (burying the dead).

the rookie
Jul 13th 2006, 06:24 AM
That's it for my laptop battery - i'll finish in the morning....

can't wait for the comments....? :pray:

David Taylor
Jul 13th 2006, 02:47 PM
That's it for my laptop battery - i'll finish in the morning....

can't wait for the comments....? :pray:

That's the beauty of AC cords, and those AC/DC car adaptors....but don't get stuck out of town without one. I had to buy one in Kissimmee, FL a few years ago, and they (over)charged me nearly $100 for one....just because they knew I was in a bind and needed one. (I run GPS software on mine, so I needed it charged to know where I was going).

As far as commenting on Zechariah 14, you sure seem to have it all layed out very well.

I think I'll consider converting back to Premillennialism.

..........

Went back and re-read several of the specific NT 2nd Coming passages.

There is noone left from the nations who survivie the 2nd Coming, so I can't allow Zechariah 14 to be interpretted in a manner that creates conflict with the NT passages that are undeniably 2nd Coming....I guess Zechariah had something else in mind, and I most forgoe Premillennialism again. (And I was looking so forward to re-embracing the Premill expecation of animal sacrifices for sin offerings and required circumcision of the flesh that Ezekiel 40-48 require in the Premill system).

BTW,
Rookie, can you be specific on which parts of Zechariah 14 that you find 100% no way possible, for them to have any 1st Century or NT era fulfillment? (I realize you think the entire shebang is 2nd Coming, but surely there are some parts of the chapter you 'could' find 1st century fulfillment....my question is more focused on what parts you find have no possible fulfillment then)....maybe I could spend some time researching those parts.

Hawk
Jul 13th 2006, 03:45 PM
Rookie,

Great post.

Zechariah uses ridiculously strong language, so finding a total fulfillment of much of this chapter at the first coming would be like trying to fit a buff baseball player into a 3 year old's spiderman costume! Of course, it would probably fit symbolically, if you assume he was talking about a big toe or something...

On a more serious note, this chapter is really frightening. The day of the Lord surely will be like none other in history...

I am curious what Paul thinks about what you've laid out. He always has something great to throw into discussions like this that make me ask for more understanding from the Lord!

Hawk

David Taylor
Jul 13th 2006, 04:05 PM
Hawk,
Do you see any verses or phrases described in Zechariah 14's 'ridiculously strong language' that are applicable to the 1st advent or NT era?
(sounds like ole Zech sure was trying to emphasis something very important that was coming down the pike....).

Hawk
Jul 13th 2006, 04:18 PM
Hawk,
Do you see any verses or phrases described in Zechariah 14's 'ridiculously strong language' that are applicable to the 1st advent or NT era?
(sounds like ole Zech sure was trying to emphasis something very important that was coming down the pike....).

Indeed...

I can't think of any off the top of my head... I haven't looked a ton at Zech. 14, but I will keep searching to see if I can find any fulfillments of any phrase whatsoever...

Would love to hear your thoughts once you've done some searching too!

Hawk

David Taylor
Jul 13th 2006, 04:38 PM
Indeed...

I can't think of any off the top of my head... I haven't looked a ton at Zech. 14, but I will keep searching to see if I can find any fulfillments of any phrase whatsoever...

Would love to hear your thoughts once you've done some searching too!

Hawk

Sure Hawk, I think it would be good if we could all study that chapter more closely. Rookie has gotten us started, and there are many commentable things.

I actually put together an analysis of Zechariah 14's fulfillment from a 1st century-NT Era-Endtime perspective (instead of solely Endtime) back in April.

Here are the notes from it, if you are interested.
http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=788157&postcount=73

For me particularly, in trying to gain personal edification and understanding from that chapter, I would like to have brought forward the parts that explicitly could not be fulfilled in the 1st century or NT era; and look and study those parts. (but remember, they can't shouldn't be presented if they create conflict with the NT....the OT never conflicts with the NT; it is our understanding that creates problems)....they always harmonize when received in their given intent and context.

Hawk
Jul 13th 2006, 05:34 PM
Sure Hawk, I think it would be good if we could all study that chapter more closely. Rookie has gotten us started, and there are many commentable things.

I actually put together an analysis of Zechariah 14's fulfillment from a 1st century-NT Era-Endtime perspective (instead of solely Endtime) back in April.

Here are the notes from it, if you are interested.
http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=788157&postcount=73

For me particularly, in trying to gain personal edification and understanding from that chapter, I would like to have brought forward the parts that explicitly could not be fulfilled in the 1st century or NT era; and look and study those parts. (but remember, they can't shouldn't be presented if they create conflict with the NT....the OT never conflicts with the NT; it is our understanding that creates problems)....they always harmonize when received in their given intent and context.

Hey David,

Yeah let's study this thing out together. It'll be helpful for all of us!

I read through your notes from your previous post. For fun, you should repost that to this thread with comments like rookie did on each one on how you came to that conclusion. Then we could talk about it all together. But I'll leave that up to you...

Here are some initial thoughts from your notes, without getting into a lot of detail...

Regarding the Mount of Olives splitting in two - that's a toughie for the NT-era, unless it is somehow spiritualized. But even in the NT there really aren't any references to anything happening to the mount directly, only geographical "the disciples went to" or "Jesus came from" references to be able to spiritualize from.

I looked them up: Matt. 21:1; 24:3; 26:30; Mark 11:1; 13:3; 14:26; Luke 19:37; 22:39; John 8:1, and then also Luke 19:29; 21:37.

Anyways, let's keep going. This should be a good discussion...

Hawk

Matthehitmanhart
Jul 13th 2006, 05:46 PM
The part of Zechariah 14 that I find interesting right now (in terms of it being fulfilled in the future) is in verse 9 where it says that "the Lord (Jesus) shall be King over all the earth in that Day" in the future tense.

Matthehitmanhart
Jul 13th 2006, 06:06 PM
Went back and re-read several of the specific NT 2nd Coming passages.

There is noone left from the nations who survivie the 2nd Coming, so I can't allow Zechariah 14 to be interpretted in a manner that creates conflict with the NT passages that are undeniably 2nd Coming....I guess Zechariah had something else in mind, and I most forgoe Premillennialism again. (And I was looking so forward to re-embracing the Premill expecation of animal sacrifices for sin offerings and required circumcision of the flesh that Ezekiel 40-48 require in the Premill system).

To be fair, none of those NT passages, including 2 Thess 1:6-9, say clearly that all those who are unsaved at the SC will be destroyed at the SC; and since Revelation 20, a NT passage, has unresurrected people inhabiting a future Kingdom in which Christ reigns with the saints with sin still present, I think there's NT precedent to interpret Zech 14 the way rookie did. I know, of course, you disagree, so perhaps you could post on the thread I started on Revelation 20 last night.

Thanks,
Hitman

David Taylor
Jul 13th 2006, 07:28 PM
Face Melting Guitar Solos and Zech. 14

Eddie Van Halen, a pretty fair hand at Guitar Solos, said that the best buitar player he knew, was Roy Clark.

Roy Clark playing Malaguena will melt your face.

Roy Clark or Chet Atkins playing 4 different songs at the same time on one aucustic guitar will also melt your face.

Any solo by Billy Sheehan or John Entwhistle which involves all 10 fingers will melt your face.

Whomever it was (Steve Vai maybe?) that Ralph Macchio was lip-synching to (finger-synching?) in the Cross-roads movie, at the beginning at Juliard School where he was playing for his professor, and switched from classical Mozart to Robert Johnson Mississippi-delta slide blues will melt your face, stir it around, and repaint it back on your skull.

Hawk
Jul 13th 2006, 07:42 PM
Eddie Van Halen, a pretty fair hand at Guitar Solos, said that the best buitar player he knew, was Roy Clark.

Roy Clark playing Malaguena will melt your face.

Roy Clark or Chet Atkins playing 4 different songs at the same time on one aucustic guitar will also melt your face.

Any solo by Billy Sheehan or John Entwhistle which involves all 10 fingers will melt your face.

Whomever it was (Steve Vai maybe?) that Ralph Macchio was lip-synching to (finger-synching?) in the Cross-roads movie, at the beginning at Juliard School where he was playing for his professor, and switched from classical Mozart to Robert Johnson Mississippi-delta slide blues will melt your face, stir it around, and repaint it back on your skull.

Chalk up Eric Johnson on the face melters list too.

Hawk

David Taylor
Jul 13th 2006, 08:21 PM
Regarding the Mount of Olives splitting in two - that's a toughie for the NT-era, unless it is somehow spiritualized. But even in the NT there really aren't any references to anything happening to the mount directly, only geographical "the disciples went to" or "Jesus came from" references to be able to spiritualize from.

I looked them up: Matt. 21:1; 24:3; 26:30; Mark 11:1; 13:3; 14:26; Luke 19:37; 22:39; John 8:1, and then also Luke 19:29; 21:37.

Anyways, let's keep going. This should be a good discussion...

I don't want to spiritualize them. Let's look for literal fulfillment if we can find any.

Matthew recorded a whopper of an Earthquake at the crucifixion.
Bethany (where the Mt of Olives is) is only 1 mile from Jerusalem.

Mat 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

It must have been a doozy of an earthquake for the Roman to say:
Mat 27:54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

Three days later, another great earthquake in the region.

Mat 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake:



So there is no question that there were two giant literal earthquakes in that area, within 3 days of each other, centered on the crucifixion and the resurrection.

However, did Isaiah ever say anything similar to the Zechariah passage about a mountain being cleaved in two, about a great valley being made in the midst of a mountain, about a mountain being removed out of its place like Zechariah did?

Isaiah 40:3 "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain: And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it. "

Let's not immediately jump to spiritualizing.
Let's start from a purely literal expectation....

Did this literally happen in literal fashion to the mountains and valleys and crooked places and hills in Isaiah's day?
Yes or No?




What about when Isaiah said this:
Isaiah 42:15 "I will make waste mountains and hills, and dry up all their herbs; and I will make the rivers islands, and I will dry up the pools. And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight."

Again, let's continue from a purely literal expectation....

Did this literally happen in literal fashion to the mountains and herbs and rivers and pools and crooked places in Isaiah's day?
Yes or No?





Is there any NT fulfillment given to us on Isaiah's prophecy?

What about this one?
Luke 3:3 "And John the Baptist came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth; And all flesh shall see the salvation of God. Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him"

Finally one last time, continuing from a purely literal expectation....

Did this literally happen in literal fashion to the mountains and valleys and crooked places and hills in Isaiah's or John the Baptist's day?
Yes or No?




If No, these did not literally occur in that manner in either Isaiah's or John the Baptist's day, then why assume the same of Zechariah's mountain cleaving and valley straightening imagery?

Could we at least consider the possibility that - that type of language was intended to be symbolic language of something? (Since it wasn't literally fulfilled in that manner in either time it was given).

Could we say Isaiah was pointing forward to something significant that would be fulfilled in John the Baptists time, and John the Baptist, by quoting Isaiah, was confirming it to the multitude who was hearing it?

Did anything significant occur during the life of John the Baptist, that literally made those things occur?
Yes or No?

Did anything in significant during the life of John the Baptist, occur that either his or Isaiah's symbolic imagery could have then been applied to....(in the absence of any literal fulfillment)?
Yes or No?

Could Zechariah's language about the Mt of Olives cleaving in two be a similar imagery as Isaiah and John the Baptist's symbolic imagery which were not fulfilled literally? (and not really have been intended to have had a literal occuraance in the same manner of Isaiah and John the Baptists's imagery weren't fulfilled literally)?

Hawk
Jul 13th 2006, 08:45 PM
Good observations David!

Let's systematically go through all our options.

I suppose it is possible to say that Zechariah was using the same type of symbolic imagery that Isaiah used to describe John the Baptist.

Couple of quick thoughts around the weakness of that perspective...

Zechariah mentions the geographical details of where the Mount of Olives is located and talks about the valley that is made reaching a real location on the earth from the mount. Isaiah talks about "hills", "rough places", etc. in a general sense.

Zechariah explicitly mentions the Lord's feet standing on the mount. If this was some sort of imagery, we would have to speculate about what it means because the NT does not quote it as being fulfilled like it did with Isaiah and John the Baptist.

Perhaps it could be talking about the earthquakes at the crucifixion, but if it is, there is a surprising lack of information in the NT and history books about it in terms of the rest of the details that Zechariah prophesied.

Is there precedent in the NT (OT text with details like this in Zech. 14 with a quoting in the NT as imagery) for perhaps taking Zech. 14 and applying it as imagery like the Isaiah passage?

I'm leaning more towards the "I'm not so sure about that one..." but let's hunt to see if this is even a possibility...

Hawk

cwb
Jul 13th 2006, 09:07 PM
1. Though this passage is one of the main premil passages that is used to prove a millennial kingdom, it does not contain any details to back up such a claim.

2. This entire chapter was fulfilled in the past.


When are you saying zech 14:4 was fulfilled?

David Taylor
Jul 13th 2006, 10:08 PM
Good observations David!

Let's systematically go through all our options.

I suppose it is possible to say that Zechariah was using the same type of symbolic imagery that Isaiah used to describe John the Baptist.

Couple of quick thoughts around the weakness of that perspective...

Zechariah mentions the geographical details of where the Mount of Olives is located and talks about the valley that is made reaching a real location on the earth from the mount. Isaiah talks about "hills", "rough places", etc. in a general sense.

(I'll have to investigate this premise more later...but a good one)



Zechariah explicitly mentions the Lord's feet standing on the mount. If this was some sort of imagery, we would have to speculate about what it means because the NT does not quote it as being fulfilled like it did with Isaiah and John the Baptist.

Don't take me at wanting everything to be imagery....I was focusing on being literal when possible, or in manners similar to how Isaiah or John the Baptist did so.

Since we find explicit evidence in 1st century AD that the Lord's feet did stand on the mount of olives, we don't have to re-proove that to be a historical event. Right?

John 8:1 "Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. "

Luke 21:37 "And in the day time Jesus was teaching in the temple; and at night he went out, and abode in the mount that is called the mount of Olives."






Perhaps it could be talking about the earthquakes at the crucifixion, but if it is, there is a surprising lack of information in the NT and history books about it in terms of the rest of the details that Zechariah prophesied.

I agree....but couple that with Isaiah and John's similar imagery of the effects of Christ's accomplishments in 1st century AD, I see it quite possible if that were the intent of Zechariah in the first place. (Sure wish we could bend his ear for 15 seconds or so)




Is there precedent in the NT (OT text with details like this in Zech. 14 with a quoting in the NT as imagery) for perhaps taking Zech. 14 and applying it as imagery like the Isaiah passage?

I'm leaning more towards the "I'm not so sure about that one..." but let's hunt to see if this is even a possibility...

Hawk

Sounds like a plan.

We know to some degree it did occur.
Things that were literal presentations in the OT were re-stated symbolically in the NT and applied as the fulfillment of Jesus then. (Manna from Heaven, Bread of life, Passover Lamb, etc....)

OOpps....and one more, very specific to Zechariah 14....rivers of living water.....Man Jesus was all over that in applying it to Himself in John 4 and John 7, right?

Boletus
Jul 14th 2006, 06:12 AM
So for whatever its worth I want to share with you all a short dream that I had that is somewhat related to this discussion…

I was lying in an open field and I saw in the night sky the outline of a sword and the scripture reference, Zec14 next to it; however both were somewhat vague and blurry, so I closed my eyes and asked the Lord if I could see more clearly. When I looked again the sword was very clearly outlined and enlarged, and I heard the words: Behold, the hour is short; will you wait with me and keep watch? When I heard this I was overwhelmed with emotion, and then I woke up.

This is of course just my personal experience, I don’t expect to change any ones mind on the subject, but it was one of the more clear prophetic dreams I have ever had.
I find it interesting that the opening words of Zec 14 are “Behold, the day of the Lord is coming”.

Hawk
Jul 14th 2006, 12:01 PM
So for whatever its worth I want to share with you all a short dream that I had that is somewhat related to this discussion…

I was lying in an open field and I saw in the night sky the outline of a sword and the scripture reference, Zec14 next to it; however both were somewhat vague and blurry, so I closed my eyes and asked the Lord if I could see more clearly. When I looked again the sword was very clearly outlined and enlarged, and I heard the words: Behold, the hour is short; will you wait with me and keep watch? When I heard this I was overwhelmed with emotion, and then I woke up.

This is of course just my personal experience, I don’t expect to change any ones mind on the subject, but it was one of the more clear prophetic dreams I have ever had.
I find it interesting that the opening words of Zec 14 are “Behold, the day of the Lord is coming”.

That's intense!!!

Hawk

Jael
Jul 14th 2006, 01:38 PM
So for whatever its worth I want to share with you all a short dream that I had that is somewhat related to this discussion…

I was lying in an open field and I saw in the night sky the outline of a sword and the scripture reference, Zec14 next to it; however both were somewhat vague and blurry, so I closed my eyes and asked the Lord if I could see more clearly. When I looked again the sword was very clearly outlined and enlarged, and I heard the words: Behold, the hour is short; will you wait with me and keep watch? When I heard this I was overwhelmed with emotion, and then I woke up.

This is of course just my personal experience, I don’t expect to change any ones mind on the subject, but it was one of the more clear prophetic dreams I have ever had.
I find it interesting that the opening words of Zec 14 are “Behold, the day of the Lord is coming”.

Awesome...thanks for sharing that!

David Taylor
Jul 14th 2006, 03:07 PM
Zechariah mentions the geographical details of where the Mount of Olives is located and talks about the valley that is made reaching a real location on the earth from the mount. Isaiah talks about "hills", "rough places", etc. in a general sense.

I spent some time looking into your counter-point that since Isaiah and John the Baptist were speaking of 'mountains' and 'hills' and 'rough places' and making the crooked straight, etec, in a general sense....and Zechariah specifically named the mountain (Olivet) and gave geographical details, then we might not be able to use the same pattern in the case of Zechariah.

(I hope we can find common ground in agreeing that Isaiah and John the Baptist's references to making the mountains low, and the crooked straight, and all that was intended to be symbolic and not literally fulfilled at the 1st Advent in Jesus.)

Here are a few more things I have found on this.

This example, from the little book of Nahum, shows symbolic language being applied to very literal and specific places by name, just like Zechariah does....yet also applies them to mountains, and seas, and other similar things in a symbolic and non-literal manner to get show a point.

Nahum 1:2 "the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet. He rebuketh the sea, and maketh it dry, and drieth up all the rivers: Bashan languisheth, and Carmel, and the flower of Lebanon languisheth. The mountains quake at him, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein."

Is this not Nahum making use of symbolic language attributed to God, but applied to literal places like the land of Bashan, Mount Carmel, and Lebanon, and drying up all the rivers?

Do we think this description has literally occurred? Did the hills of Bashan, Carmel, and Lebanon melt, did all the rivers dry up....at his presence (literally), or is this speaking symbolically, and only about the majesty and power and magnanimity of God and His power over all creation?






In another place, in Amos, we see him describing the return of Israel from Assyrian/Babylonian captivity.

Did Amos really mean that 'the hills melted' when they returned from their captivity?

Amos 9:12 "That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them."






Another passage to consider:

Notice Jeremiah is speaking of very spefic named places, and a very specific named time (the time of Nebechadnezzar)....yet many of the things Jeremiah refers to involving calamities were intended to be understood symbolically (of the Babylonian destruction) not literally (of the literal effect on the seas and rivers).

Jeremiah 51:33 "For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; The daughter of Babylon is like a threshingfloor, it is time to thresh her: yet a little while, and the time of her harvest shall come. Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon hath devoured Me, he hath crushed Me, he hath made Mean empty vessel, he hath swallowed Me up like a dragon, he hath filled his belly with My delicates, he hath cast Me out.

Did Nebuchadnezzar literally do all of those things to the Lord of Hosts? Or was Jeremiah speaking symbolically of these events? (I don't)

The violence done to me and to my flesh be upon Babylon, shall the inhabitant of Zion say; and my blood upon the inhabitants of Chaldea, shall Jerusalem say. Therefore thus saith the LORD; Behold, I will plead thy cause, and take vengeance for thee; and I will dry up her sea, and make her springs dry.

The Babylonian empire was bordered by 2 seas, the Mediteranean and the Red seas. Did God literally dry either of them up in punishment of Nebechadnezzar, or was Jeremiah speaking symbolically of these literal seas?

And Babylon shall become heaps, a dwellingplace for dragons, an astonishment, and an hissing, without an inhabitant. They shall roar together like lions: they shall yell as lions' whelps. In their heat I will make their feasts, and I will make them drunken, that they may rejoice, and sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake, saith the LORD. I will bring them down like lambs to the slaughter, like rams with he goats. How is Sheshach taken! and how is the praise of the whole earth surprised! how is Babylon become an astonishment among the nations! The sea is come up upon Babylon: she is covered with the multitude of the waves thereof."

Did either the Red sea or the Mediterranean Sea flood over Babylon? Or again, was Jeremiah using those terms symbolically and not literally?





One other point of consideration....Jesus Himself mentions the Mount of Olives specifically, in regards to something cataclysmic about it...
was He intending to be received symbolically, similar to the phrase we use that speaks of 'faith to move mountains', or was He speaking literally, of an actual earth-moving process that we should expect to literally see?
Mark 11:1, 19-23 "And when they came nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives, he sendeth forth two of his disciples
And when even was come, he went out of the city. And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots. And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away. And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God. For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith."

The only mountain mentioned and visited in Mark chapter 11 is the Mount of Olives, so no other mountain could be 'this mountain'.....so are we to look for the Mount of Olives to literally be removed and cast into the sea; or was this simply a symbolic image to teach a point? (like possibly Zech 14:4, and the other passages from Isaiah, Nahum, Amos, and Jeremiah above)


More meat to chew on when considering how to receive Zechariah 14:4's splitting of the mountain.

the rookie
Jul 14th 2006, 03:36 PM
I want to dive into the juicy discussion that has emerged over the chapter; but before I do I want to finish looking at the parts we haven't looked at yet (v. 16-21). Yesterday was my normal day off / wife's b-day, so I have to pick up this morning after leaving some of you hanging with this thread.

I agree, btw, power cords are a wonderful thing.

Here we go...

Zech. 14:16 And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.

Here is the crux of the debate that has raged throughout these forums as the two "systems" clash - when Jesus returns, what shall be the result of His coming? Total annihilation of the wicked, followed by total judgment of all? Or will there be those who survive the judgments of the book of Revelation that emerge from the final years of history that will constitute what Zechariah calls "everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem"? I will say that I think the argument in itself is a bogus one, because it attempts to draw conclusions and make distictions that are nonexistent: both "sides" actually agree.

I agree that there will be a total annihilation of the wicked - all who gather and "make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army" (Rev. 19:19). Zechariah is not saying that there will be any left from this group - he says that there will be those left from among the nations that gathered against Jerusalem. Many from those nations would not gather under the banner of Antichrist to war against Jesus and His army. Why? I believe that they are not counted among the "wicked" who are expressing the fullness of Ps. 2 and the rage of the nations against the Anointed of God. The verses that are continually quoted in the NT that speak about judgment and wrath poured out on the wicked are all verses that are completely compatible with my theological understanding, not contradictory. The question is whether or not there is room for a group to emerge from the trouble that populates the earth after the Second Coming.

The key issue is whether or not the NT completely negates this possibility - and to be fair this possibility is one that this Zechariah verse makes a powerful argument for. If there is no possibility, then the question I have to ask is why not? Is this is a conclusion that the NT leaves no possibility that Zechariah means what he says here? If those verses leave some possibility that while all the wicked are slain there is some room in the language for this group that Zechariah speaks of, than we have to take an honest look at this passage, rather than attempting to explain it away.

Why? Because, like the rest of the chapter, it is difficult to impossible to find any kind of historic fulfillment to the scenario Zechariah describes. The details that accompany his prophetic narrative are difficult to work around. There is a specific event in view here: the time after the nations came against Jerusalem. There is a specific group in view here: those who were left from those nations. There is a specific outcome of that conflict - they are now commanded to "go up year after year and worship the King (who, in verse 9, is established as the One who is set as the King over all the earth), the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles."

Why the Feast of Tabernacles? This is the one OT feast that has not seen a NT fulfillment - and it is the feast that speaks of the emergence of the people of God from the wilderness (and wandering) into the victory and blessing of receiving the land of covenental promise. This is a yearly feast that celebrates the leadership of the Lord. The methodology of the Lord to bring history to its destined conclusion unto the deliverance of the peoples from the wickedness of unworthy kings and leaders (Dan. 7; Lk. 1:51-55) and the establishment of His perfect rule in full will be remembered and celebrated yearly by all.

This is my view regarding this passage - regardless of whether or not my view is palpable, it is still required that we examine this verse and attempt to determine its fulfillment. The pertinent questions being, when did this take place? The details are too specific to be explained away - this is the Feast of Tabernacles being observed by everyone, not just a few thousand at Pentecost, which takes place months earlier. If this hasn't been fulfilled in the past, when will it be? And if it speaks of an event still to come, how seriously to we take the phrases spoken within this passage?

the rookie
Jul 14th 2006, 04:03 PM
Zech. 14:17 And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, on them there will be no rain.
Zech. 14:18 If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the LORD strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.
Zech. 14:19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.

Continuing with the ongoing theme (I apologize for the redundancy), Zechariah provides even more specific details about this time frame - not only does everyone from those who are left from the nations come yearly, worship the King of Israel (the Lord of hosts), and celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles, but there is a clear penalty for those who refuse - again, because those who refuse to come are in essence refusing to acknowledge the beauty of the leadership of Jesus. There is a picture here given by Zechariah of resistance and rebellion after the Second Coming by those whom the Lord shall rule with a rod of iron. Does this mean that they are unbelievers? No, it just means that they are resistant to the rule of Jesus over their lives, not unlike the majority of believers today that all of us know and love (particularly when we look in the mirror).

Those who take issue with the "sin soaked millennium" of premillennial theology have yet to answer for the "sin soaked millennium" of amillennial theology. As of yet none have made a clear distinction to me regarding this concept. Since none of the amillennial believers have a glorified body, have already inherited an incorruptable spiritual kingdom in their incorruption, and continue to sin on a regular basis, I am stunned at the energy that is spent tearing apart a future millennium that seems to have these same characteristics.

In other words, the argument seems to consitently devolve to "let me tell you what my future is like versus your future". Except, none of you that make this argument are futurists. The argument gets "turned" in-flight from "let me tell you why your millennium is wrong" to "because here is what our future is like". The "proof" of these arguments comes in the form of describing eternity - which we all agree on the substance of. This continually bewilders me. We rarely stay consistent in the argument, which in essence is "let's look at your millennium, and in contrast, I will scripturally examine MY millennium." I think that we would be surprised a the result of such a consistent line of reasoning. Why? Because we live in a "sin-soaked" millennium now in the Amillennial viewpoint. If I am incorrect on this conclusion, then I will say it differently. If I am not, I hope that this point / counterpoint can be laid to rest and we can look at the passages themselves for what they say.

Hawk
Jul 14th 2006, 04:11 PM
Rookie,

You have raised some key issues by laying out this chapter extremely well.

I agree that the details Zechariah presents are too important to simply ignore or explain away, so I think it is important to see if we all can reconcile the chapter with both the premil and amil viewpoints. You've laid out a great case for the premil view.

I hope we can keep the "feel" we have been posting with thus far on this thread, going after the points you presented by asking questions about them instead of pasting either side's 5 "proof" scriptures with little explanation, since we all know what each side believes already.

Hawk

David Taylor
Jul 14th 2006, 04:22 PM
Short Counter-reply
(to premise that we should apply Zech 14:16 to the 2nd Coming, and therefore accept the notion that some wicked from the nations survive).

Past Venue: Earth and all its nations
Earth Population of wicked: (estimated) 1,346,234,655
Event: Noah's Flood
Wicked from the nations who died in this worldwide judgment: 1,346,234,655
Wicked from the nations who survive this worldwide judgment: ZERO

Luke 17:26 "And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed."

Future Venue: Earth and all its nations
Earth Population of wicked: (estimated) 6,000,000,000
Event: The Day the Son of Man is Revealed
Wicked from the nations who died in this worldwide judgment: 6,000,000,000
Wicked from the nations who escape and survive this worldwide judgment: ZERO







postlude confirmation:
II Peter 2:5, 3:4 "(God) spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

I Thess 5:2 "For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. "

II Thess 1:7 "And to you who are troubled rest with us, WHEN the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day."


Conclusion: It is a flawed premise, to believe some wicked (anywhere on the Earth) will escape the fiery judgment of Christ that accompanies His Appearing in the Day of His Coming. The NT teachings on the 2nd Coming tell us we should not apply that premise to Zechariah 14:16.

the rookie
Jul 14th 2006, 04:25 PM
Zech. 14:20 In that day “HOLINESS TO THE LORD” shall be engraved on the bells of the horses. The pots in the LORD’S house shall be like the bowls before the altar.
Zech. 14:21 Yes, every pot in Jerusalem and Judah shall be holiness to the LORD of hosts. Everyone who sacrifices shall come and take them and cook in them. In that day there shall no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.

The idea being communicated here is that there will be an external reality of the Holiness of God reflected in every aspect of community life - that for the first time the Israelites will walk out true holiness in agreement with the character and nature of God. This is a restatement of the same idea given in Zech. 13:1-6 - that Israel will exhibit a corporate "Phineas"-like zeal that has never been seen before in them as a people. Zech. 13:1-6 focuses on a fiery expression of inward devotion while this Zech. 14:20-21 passage focuses on the outward expression of true holiness and dedictation to the Lord. Everything that they posess will be set apart for the Lord, wholly dedicated to the service of Him - not just the "pots" of the temple sacrifice, but even the common pots given to daily use will be consecrated and fit for use before the Lord. There will be no compromise, no allowance for foriegn Gods or foriegn ideas that would pollute the Lord's house, as in the past.

This passage is speaking of an entirely different reality in the way that Israel walks before the Lord in the external expression of true holiness, knit to specific details of their daily life in relation to their King. This passage is not communicating a NT theological reality of sanctification and justification - it is speaking of a specific lifestyle in a specific context. There is a specific expression here in view that is prophesied without regard to the keeping of covenant / obiedience by the Jews - this is a prophetic picture of a coming time that can't be re-worded to fit a Pauline concept - this is a picture of those Pauline concepts walked out on the earth as a picture of what life will be like in regards to radical devotion.

The NT theological concepts that are appealed to as "fulfillment" provide us with the possibility of this kind of expression of radical, wholehearted devotion to God walked out in daily life - through the blood of Christ shed on Calvary and the daily sanctification of a justified believer through maturity and growth in the things of God, we can look to this example as one of where we can go as believers - but the specifics of this scenario bear out more than that. This is the end result of our sancitifcation expressed through the maturity of those who are fully set apart, and an expression of holiness and devotion that is quite foriegn to the western eye, in my opinion. Of course, I believe that this is an exression of devotion that is foriegn to any eye, as Zechariah is giving us a picture of Israel's unprecedented devotion to God in every area in a coming future time.

the rookie
Jul 14th 2006, 04:31 PM
Short Counter-reply
(to premise that we should apply Zech 14:16 to the 2nd Coming, and therefore accept the notion that some wicked from the nations survive).

Conclusion: It is a flawed premise, to believe some wicked (anywhere on the Earth) will escape the fiery judgment of Christ that accompanies His Appearing in the Day of His Coming. The NT teachings on the 2nd Coming tell us we should not apply that premise to Zechariah 14:16.

David -

Thanks for jumping into this thread! As stated earlier, I agree with your premise. I do not think that any of the wicked, ungodly, lovers of self and pleasure, who do not love the truth, who know not God, will survive His coming either. I think that they will all perish at His coming (though not instantaneously) and that none of them will populate the earth. Not one. So we are, as we begin examining this together, on the same exact page.

David Taylor
Jul 14th 2006, 04:38 PM
Why the Feast of Tabernacles? This is the one OT feast that has not seen a NT fulfillment - and it is the feast that speaks of the emergence of the people of God from the wilderness (and wandering) into the victory and blessing of receiving the land of covenental promise.

HHHhhhmmm.....Jesus wasn't the fulfillment of the Feast of Tabernacles and its foreshadow?

Where did He fail in fulfilling the Feast of the Tabernacles?

Is the "emergence of the people of God from the wilderness into victory" a failed fulfillment by Christ?

Luke 15:4 "What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost."
Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was "

I John 5:4 "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world"

"But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. "




Is "the victory and blessing of receiving the land of covenental promise" a failed fulfillment by Christ?

Romans 4:13 "For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. "

Acts 13:32 "the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus"

the rookie
Jul 14th 2006, 04:40 PM
I
In another place, in Amos, we see him describing the return of Israel from Assyrian/Babylonian captivity.

Did Amos really mean that 'the hills melted' when they returned from their captivity?

Amos 9:12 "That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them."


I am enjoying the dialogue around the fulfillment scanarios around Zech. 14. I read one of your past threads on this - I'm looking forward to dialoguing with you about this. I wanted to start with your analysis of Amos 9:12, because I do not believe that it applies to a past scanario.

You shouldn't lump in an "Assyrian" return from captivity with a "Babylonian" return. Why? Because, as you know, Amos was speaking to the northern kingdom, not Judah - and there WAS no return from captivity in regards to Assyria. That's why the ten northern tribes are referred to as the "lost" tribes. They have been, to this day, scattered and have never been found because of the manner in which Assyria would repopulate conquered regions.

If James referrs to Amos 9:11 as future in Acts 15, then it stands to reason that the rest of the Amos passage would be future as well - particularly because of a lack of historic fulfillment for a return from Assyrian captivity. Thus, I think that yes, Amos really is referring to a time in which the hills and the mountains will "drip" and "flow" with sweet wine in regards to a future time of great blessing for Israel - and that this will be during a time period involving the restoration of the tabernacle of David and the Gentile participation in this great external (not mostly, in this passage, spiritual or internal) time of blessing.

In that sense, this passage ties into Zech. 14 quite well as we piece together a clear picture of what this coming earthly kingdom will look like.

Mighty Warrior
Jul 14th 2006, 04:41 PM
Short Counter-reply
(to premise that we should apply Zech 14:16 to the 2nd Coming, and therefore accept the notion that some wicked from the nations survive).

Past Venue: Earth and all its nations
Earth Population of wicked: (estimated) 1,346,234,655
Event: Noah's Flood
Wicked from the nations who died in this worldwide judgment: 1,346,234,655
Wicked from the nations who survive this worldwide judgment: ZERO

Luke 17:26 "And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed."

Future Venue: Earth and all its nations
Earth Population of wicked: (estimated) 6,000,000,000
Event: The Day the Son of Man is Revealed
Wicked from the nations who died in this worldwide judgment: 6,000,000,000
Wicked from the nations who escape and survive this worldwide judgment: ZERO







postlude confirmation:
II Peter 2:5, 3:4 "(God) spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

I Thess 5:2 "For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. "

II Thess 1:7 "And to you who are troubled rest with us, WHEN the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day."


Conclusion: It is a flawed premise, to believe some wicked (anywhere on the Earth) will escape the fiery judgment of Christ that accompanies His Appearing in the Day of His Coming. The NT teachings on the 2nd Coming tell us we should not apply that premise to Zechariah 14:16.

As a counterpoint to the "days of Noah" arguement, notice it is not the "days of Noah and his family". In my opinion, Noah is a picture of the church, whereas his family (those present with him on the ark and those in his sons' loins) is a picture of the resistors. The Flood that they survived through is not symbolic of the rapture, but of the tribulation. Jesus makes this plain in Matt. 24:37-41. When He says that one will be taken, this is not the rapture, because in keeping with the context of the Flood, it is that the wicked that will be taken, and the other left. Jesus is essentially saying that half will be taken, swept away by judgment. And by adding the total killed in Rev. 6:8 and 9:18 alone, we find that half of the world's population are destroyed by judgment before His return. Jesus tells that this will happen and why in His parable of the tares among the wheat (Matt. 13:30) and others. Does this make sense? Hopefully I didn't push this topic out to sea, as it is important and extremely interesting. Still my opinion, but the rookie should write a book! Just my two cents. BMV

David Taylor
Jul 14th 2006, 04:42 PM
David -

Thanks for jumping into this thread! As stated earlier, I agree with your premise. I do not think that any of the wicked, ungodly, lovers of self and pleasure, who do not love the truth, who know not God, will survive His coming either. I think that they will all perish at His coming (though not instantaneously)

But those last 3 words are where you stumble rookie (or would that be a balk?)

"though not instantaneously" is contrary to Jesus' words.


Luke 17:26 "And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed."


"The day that the flood came, and they entered the ark; it destroyed them all."
Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed."

Jesus makes it clear there will be no such thing as "though not instantaneously"....it will be that very day He is revealed.

Mighty Warrior
Jul 14th 2006, 04:44 PM
You can't honestly believe that the Flood destroyed them all in one day, can you?

the rookie
Jul 14th 2006, 04:45 PM
HHHhhhmmm.....Jesus wasn't the fulfillment of the Feast of Tabernacles and its foreshadow?

Where did He fail in fulfilling the Feast of the Tabernacles?

Is the "emergence of the people of God from the wilderness into victory" a failed fulfillment by Christ?

Luke 15:4 "What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost."
Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was "

I John 5:4 "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world"

"But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. "

Is "the victory and blessing of receiving the land of covenental promise" a failed fulfillment by Christ?

Romans 4:13 "For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. "

Acts 13:32 "the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus"


You're jumping on a phrase without examiniing my whole point on its merits. Both Passover and Pentecost as Jewish feasts saw a significant NT event happen on those exact days. The Feast of Tabernacles - a late September / early October feast, has no similar fulfillment. In terms of the internal / spiritual ramifications, Christ has won a victory that cannot be reduced to a Jewish feast.

On a side note, why would you pick a parable out of Luke to prove fulfillment? Was that the context of Jesus' statement? Was that what He was trying to communicate to His audience in that story - that the Feast of Tabernacles was fulfilled through His love for the lost sheep? Your hermeneutic is seriously called into question if that is the point you are trying to make here.

the rookie
Jul 14th 2006, 04:47 PM
But those last 3 words are where you stumble rookie (or would that be a balk?)

"though not instantaneously" is contrary to Jesus' words.


Luke 17:26 "And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed."


"The day that the flood came, and they entered the ark; it destroyed them all."
Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed."

Jesus makes it clear there will be no such thing as "though not instantaneously"....it will be that very day He is revealed.

"Though not instantaneously" is a phrase I can safely use from the whole counsel of scripture on this matter - and, just picking your flood scenario, one could safely say that the earth did not "instantaneously" fill with water "instantly" killing all the wicked of that time. It did take 40 days, did it not?

David Taylor
Jul 14th 2006, 04:50 PM
You shouldn't lump in an "Assyrian" return from captivity with a "Babylonian" return. Why? Because, as you know, Amos was speaking to the northern kingdom, not Judah - and there WAS no return from captivity in regards to Assyria. That's why the ten northern tribes are referred to as the "lost" tribes. They have been, to this day, scattered and have never been found because of the manner in which Assyria would repopulate conquered regions.


(We should move an Amos discussion to another thread if we want to expand on it, but I will reply, and let you move it if you want to continue it).

The above comment, is a common and popular teaching within the Pretrib camp today. However, sometimes, if you preach something over and over long enough, you will begin to get people to believe it, even if it is wrong.

I was very specific in including Assyria and Babylon together in the captivity, because historically, that is exactly what occured.

The 10 northern tribes were taken into captivity by Assyria first.
The 2ish southern tribes were taken into captivity later by Babylon.

However, Pretrib totally misses the history here.

The captivity (capturing) was separated, but the return was joint.
(Pretrib has either missed or re-written history on this one).

Assyria while the Northern Kingdoms were in their captivity, was conquered itself, and subjegated and turned over to Babylon. Then, Babylon went and got the lower kingdoms, and Babylon then contained all the tribes, the 10 from its conquering of Assyria, AND the latter captured southern Judean tribes.

When Babylon let Israel go, it wasn't just the 2ish southern tribes, it was all Israel....all the tribes, both from the prior Northern Assyrian capture, and the latter southern Judean capture.

Read specifically Ezra and Nehemiah and other passages that speak of the Babylonian return.....all the tribes of Israel returned and were represented. That is why in the NT, you find several examples mentioned of northern tribes living in the land during the Roman occupation.

The entire idea that the 10 northern tribes were 'lost' is an extra-biblical myth....and Pretrib has popularized it, seemingly solely to create its future need of anyother endtime re-gathering.

You are a smart guy Rookie.....don't be mislead by these types of modern re-writes of history. Israel and Judah together, returned from the Babylonian/Assyrian captivity.

David Taylor
Jul 14th 2006, 04:56 PM
On a side note, why would you pick a parable out of Luke to prove fulfillment? Was that the context of Jesus' statement? Was that what He was trying to communicate to His audience in that story - that the Feast of Tabernacles was fulfilled through His love for the lost sheep? Your hermeneutic is seriously called into question if that is the point you are trying to make here.
I was replying to your comment about "emergence of the people of God from the wilderness into victory" being fulfilled in the Feast of Tabernacles.

Jesus said He had come to save the lost and to bring the lost one out of the wilderness....can you not see how He fulfilled that application of "the "emergence of the people of God from the wilderness into victory"?

I thought it was quite clear. Jesus has brought the people of God our from the wilderness into victory, just like the lost sheep was brought out of the wilderness and saved.

David Taylor
Jul 14th 2006, 05:00 PM
"Though not instantaneously" is a phrase I can safely use from the whole counsel of scripture on this matter - and, just picking your flood scenario, one could safely say that the earth did not "instantaneously" fill with water "instantly" killing all the wicked of that time. It did take 40 days, did it not?


No, I carefully went back and re-read the Genesis narrative before posting.
(not that I thought the Luke account would be conflicted with it)

Genesis nowhere says that the dead of the wicked was progressive.
Genesis says that God would "6:17 bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh"

Genesis does not say it required 40 days to kill all the wicked.

Genesis says that it required 40 days to cover all the Earth (which would be the mountain peaks)....

It took 40 days for the rain to conclude to cover all land....not to destroy all the wicked. Luke says that was accomplished in the day that Noah entered the ark and the flood came.

a sojourner
Jul 14th 2006, 05:00 PM
(We should move an Amos discussion to another thread if we want to expand on it, but I will reply, and let you move it if you want to continue it).

I'd read it! I have never heard before that all 12 tribes returned to the land after captivity. Also, you mentioned that it states in Ezra/Nehemia that all 12 tribes were represented. I could not find it, could you cite the verse or verses you were referring to?

the rookie
Jul 14th 2006, 05:07 PM
(We should move an Amos discussion to another thread if we want to expand on it, but I will reply, and let you move it if you want to continue it).

The above comment, is a common and popular teaching within the Pretrib camp today. However, sometimes, if you preach something over and over long enough, you will begin to get people to believe it, even if it is wrong.

I was very specific in including Assyria and Babylon together in the captivity, because historically, that is exactly what occured.

The 10 northern tribes were taken into captivity by Assyria first.
The 2ish southern tribes were taken into captivity later by Babylon.

However, Pretrib totally misses the history here.

The captivity (capturing) was separated, but the return was joint.
(Pretrib has either missed or re-written history on this one).

Assyria while the Northern Kingdoms were in their captivity, was conquered itself, and subjegated and turned over to Babylon. Then, Babylon went and got the lower kingdoms, and Babylon then contained all the tribes, the 10 from its conquering of Assyria, AND the latter captured southern Judean tribes.

When Babylon let Israel go, it wasn't just the 2ish southern tribes, it was all Israel....all the tribes, both from the prior Northern Assyrian capture, and the latter southern Judean capture.

Read specifically Ezra and Nehemiah and other passages that speak of the Babylonian return.....all the tribes of Israel returned and were represented. That is why in the NT, you find several examples mentioned of northern tribes living in the land during the Roman occupation.

The entire idea that the 10 northern tribes were 'lost' is an extra-biblical myth....and Pretrib has popularized it, seemingly solely to create its future need of anyother endtime re-gathering.

You are a smart guy Rookie.....don't be mislead by these types of modern re-writes of history. Israel and Judah together, returned from the Babylonian/Assyrian captivity.

This is a strange assertion (that it is a "pre-trib" concoction) since dozens of the books and commentaries I have read on this subject were written by amillennial guys. But this is a subject for another day, and another thread. I find no mention of the 10 northern tribes in either of the books you mentioned. Ezra 1:5 specifically speaks of "the heads of the fathers' houses of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and the Levites..."; Neh. 7:6 refers to those who were carried away by Nebuchadnezzar, to return to Jerusalem and Judah (and were harassed in that book by the Samaritans, who were part of the group that we are told in 2 Kings 17 were resettled by the king of Assyria - not something I made up...). There IS a reason we call them "Jews" today and not "Israelites" - they were the captives of Judah (and Benjamin) that were returned and thus we have "Judea" in the NT and "Jews".

the rookie
Jul 14th 2006, 05:10 PM
I was replying to your comment about "emergence of the people of God from the wilderness into victory" being fulfilled in the Feast of Tabernacles.

Jesus said He had come to save the lost and to bring the lost one out of the wilderness....can you not see how He fulfilled that application of "the "emergence of the people of God from the wilderness into victory"?

I thought it was quite clear. Jesus has brought the people of God our from the wilderness into victory, just like the lost sheep was brought out of the wilderness and saved.

David, you are missing my point here. What I called into question was not what Jesus accomplished - but your hermeneutic in applying it to that passage. My question was this - when Jesus told that parable to the people, was He intending that they understand it to be a fulfillment of the Feast of Tabernacles? We both agree on what Jesus accomplished, what we now need to find common ground on is context in regards to specific passages.

the rookie
Jul 14th 2006, 05:13 PM
No, I carefully went back and re-read the Genesis narrative before posting.
(not that I thought the Luke account would be conflicted with it)

Genesis nowhere says that the dead of the wicked was progressive.
Genesis says that God would "6:17 bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh"

Genesis does not say it required 40 days to kill all the wicked.

Genesis says that it required 40 days to cover all the Earth (which would be the mountain peaks)....

It took 40 days for the rain to conclude to cover all land....not to destroy all the wicked. Luke says that was accomplished in the day that Noah entered the ark and the flood came.

I would think that it is now you who are adding words and ideas - "in the day" or in one day is not an idea associated with the Luke 17:27 passage. There is no need to insert an "instantaneous" destruction of the wicked at the flood, and I am surprised that you are fighting to do so. The flood waters would have only needed to wash over the earth in a day according to your thinking, not 40.

David Taylor
Jul 14th 2006, 05:41 PM
(prophecies of the combined return from both houses)
Jeremiah 50:4 "In those days, and in that time, saith the LORD, the children of Israel shall come, they and the children of Judah together"




After-captivity return passages of Israel

Ezra 2:2 "Which came with Zerubbabel: Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mizpar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanah. The number of the men of the people of Israel"

Ezra 2:59 "And these were they which went up from Telmelah, Telharsa, Cherub, Addan, and Immer: but they could not shew their father's house, and their seed, whether they were of Israel"

Ezra 2:68 "And some of the chief of the fathers, when they came to the house of the LORD which is at Jerusalem, offered freely for the house of God to set it up in his place: They gave after their ability unto the treasure of the work threescore and one thousand drams of gold, and five thousand pound of silver, and one hundred priests' garments. So the priests, and the Levites, and some of the people, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinims, dwelt in their cities, and all Israel in their cities. "

Ezra 3:1 "And when the seventh month was come, and the children of Israel were in the cities, the people gathered themselves together as one man to Jerusalem."

Ezra 3:11 "And they sang together by course in praising and giving thanks unto the LORD; because he is good, for his mercy endureth for ever toward Israel. And all the people shouted with a great shout, when they praised the LORD"

Ezra 4:3 "But Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the chief of the fathers of Israel, said unto them"

Ezra 6:15 "And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king. And the children of Israel, the priests, and the Levites, and the rest of the children of the captivity, kept the dedication of this house of God with joy. And offered at the dedication of this house of God an hundred bullocks, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs; and for a sin offering for all Israel, twelve he goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel. "

Ezra 6:21 "And the children of Israel, which were come again out of captivity, and all such as had separated themselves unto them from the filthiness of the heathen of the land, to seek the LORD God of Israel, did eat"

Ezra 7:13 "(Artaxerxes, king) I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm, which are minded of their own freewill to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee."

Ezra 8:25 "And weighed unto them the silver, and the gold, and the vessels, even the offering of the house of our God, which the king, and his counsellors, and his lords, and all Israel there present, had offered"

Ezra 8:35 "Also the children of those that had been carried away, which were come out of the captivity, offered burnt offerings unto the God of Israel, twelve bullocks for all Israel, ninety and six rams, seventy and seven lambs, twelve he goats for a sin offering: all this was a burnt offering unto the LORD. And they delivered the king's commissions unto the king's lieutenants, and to the governors on this side the river: and they furthered the people, and the house of God. Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites."

Ezra 10:5 "Then arose Ezra, and made the chief priests, the Levites, and all Israel"




Nehemiah 7:73 "So the priests, and the Levites, and the porters, and the singers, and some of the people, and the Nethinims, and all Israel, dwelt in their cities; and when the seventh month came, the children of Israel were in their cities. "

Nehemiah 12:47 "And all Israel in the days of Zerubbabel, and in the days of Nehemiah, gave the portions of the singers and the porters, every day his portion: and they sanctified holy things unto the Levites; and the Levites sanctified them unto the children of Aaron."








(written after the return from captivity)

Malachi 1:1 "The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi. "

Luke 2:36 "And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser"

Acts 4:36 "And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite"




For deeper study, there is a good article here that goes into much more depth, and shows many more post-captivity return passages involving the Northern House of Israel.

http://experts.about.com/q/Bible-Studies-1654/10-lost-tribes-1.htm

the rookie
Jul 14th 2006, 09:47 PM
Can we get back on topic? (I did say another topic for another day...)

On the OTHER thread we can perhaps discuss the interchangable useage of "Israel" and "Judah" in the OT when speaking of the southern kingdom after the captivity... ;)

The ACTUAL topic was an examination of Zech. 14 as a future, unfilfilled event...

the rookie
Jul 15th 2006, 12:25 PM
David,

You seemed to jump all over the one point where you seemed to think you had an advantage while ignoring many other questions and issues that were raised - do you care to address them or will we be left wondering about your NT fulfillments of Zech. 14?

David Taylor
Jul 15th 2006, 01:11 PM
David,

You seemed to jump all over the one point where you seemed to think you had an advantage while ignoring many other questions and issues that were raised - do you care to address them or will we be left wondering about your NT fulfillments of Zech. 14?

Rookie,
It's hard to know specifically which points you want addressed when you offer up several long posts of analysis.

So far, I have spoken on a few that jumped out at me (and tried to be thorough....not jumping all over).

Why not bring up the salient questions you feel remain yet-addressed, and we can cover them one by one?

I tried a few posts ago to bring up several other points you raised, regardling the tabernacle and delivery from the wilderness, but I think you missed that post....since I haven't seen you clarify or re-mention it.

That's fine. (I also moved the topic of the 12 tribes to another thread) to keep from sidelining this one.

Go for it....bring up some specific questions...maybe number them so we can distiquish them later.

the rookie
Jul 15th 2006, 01:26 PM
You're jumping on a phrase without examiniing my whole point on its merits. Both Passover and Pentecost as Jewish feasts saw a significant NT event happen on those exact days. The Feast of Tabernacles - a late September / early October feast, has no similar fulfillment. In terms of the internal / spiritual ramifications, Christ has won a victory that cannot be reduced to a Jewish feast.

On a side note, why would you pick a parable out of Luke to prove fulfillment? Was that the context of Jesus' statement? Was that what He was trying to communicate to His audience in that story - that the Feast of Tabernacles was fulfilled through His love for the lost sheep? Your hermeneutic is seriously called into question if that is the point you are trying to make here.

Good - thanks for jumping back in. This is an enjoyable discussion!

Here's the first one....

the rookie
Jul 15th 2006, 01:27 PM
David, you are missing my point here. What I called into question was not what Jesus accomplished - but your hermeneutic in applying it to that passage. My question was this - when Jesus told that parable to the people, was He intending that they understand it to be a fulfillment of the Feast of Tabernacles? We both agree on what Jesus accomplished, what we now need to find common ground on is context in regards to specific passages.

...with the follow up...

the rookie
Jul 15th 2006, 01:28 PM
I would think that it is now you who are adding words and ideas - "in the day" or in one day is not an idea associated with the Luke 17:27 passage. There is no need to insert an "instantaneous" destruction of the wicked at the flood, and I am surprised that you are fighting to do so. The flood waters would have only needed to wash over the earth in a day according to your thinking, not 40.

As well as this little bon mot....

the rookie
Jul 15th 2006, 01:40 PM
As well as a side point to a side point you made earlier...

The amillennial hermeneutic seems to consistently strive to find NT fulfillment of OT passages, while not being too partial to the possibility of dual-fulfillment (we had a great discussion about this on another thread). Not just dual-fulfillment in terms of the OT / future sense (initial fulfillment with a more complete fulfillment in the future) but an initial NT / future fulfillment as well.

The example we hashed around in the other thread was Joel 2 / Acts 2, which I think still has a greater future fulfillment; but John the Baptist would be a more pertinent example in context to what you brought up earlier with Isaiah and John the Baptist in regards to finding a NT fulfillment.

My issue would be this - there seems to be room for a fulfillment to OT passages about Elijah and the forerunner beyond John the Baptist. Jesus Himself opens the door for this, as confirmed later by Peter, in Matt. 17, immediately after the transfiguration of Jesus and the appearance of Moses an Elijah -

Matt. 17:9 Now as they came down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, “Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man is risen from the dead.”
Matt. 17:10 And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?”
Matt. 17:11 Jesus answered and said to them, “Indeed, Elijah is coming first and will restore all things.
Matt. 17:12 But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished. Likewise the Son of Man is also about to suffer at their hands.”
Matt. 17:13 Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist.

There is a seeming paradox - Elijah is both coming (future) and has come (John the Baptist) - which speaks of the first and second coming, the greater fulfillment (global) of the Isaiah 40 passage being future, rather than the local, limited (and lacking signs and wonders) fulfillment personified by John the Baptist. Peter refers to this statement of Jesus in his Acts sermon:

Acts 3:19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,
Acts 3:20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before,
Acts 3:21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.

So, my question is this - is there no room for a more complete fulfillment of OT scriptures in the future, or does your hermeneutic confine them simply to a first century expression with only spiritual ramifications? Jesus and Peter seem to speak of the scripture differently than this, according to how I understand it - there seems to be room for dual fulfillment of OT prophecies.

Hawk
Jul 16th 2006, 06:41 PM
Just wanted to bump this thread back up to the top, as rookie had some really good questions that have yet gone unanswered by any of the amils...

David Taylor
Jul 17th 2006, 03:47 PM
Good - thanks for jumping back in. This is an enjoyable discussion!
Here's the first one....

You're jumping on a phrase without examiniing my whole point on its merits. Both Passover and Pentecost as Jewish feasts saw a significant NT event happen on those exact days. The Feast of Tabernacles - a late September / early October feast, has no similar fulfillment. In terms of the internal / spiritual ramifications, Christ has won a victory that cannot be reduced to a Jewish feast.

On a side note, why would you pick a parable out of Luke to prove fulfillment? Was that the context of Jesus' statement? Was that what He was trying to communicate to His audience in that story - that the Feast of Tabernacles was fulfilled through His love for the lost sheep? Your hermeneutic is seriously called into question if that is the point you are trying to make here.
The reason for my use of that parable, was in answering the wording of your prior question.

When you said earlier,

"Why the Feast of Tabernacles? This is the one OT feast that has not seen a NT fulfillment - and it is the feast that speaks of the emergence of the people of God from the wilderness (and wandering) into the victory"
You implied that we still await its fulfillment, and GOd had not emerged His people from the wilderness into victory.

My useage of the ninety and nine parable, was to show Jesus' own wording of how He came, and how He came to find the lost sheep, and did bring them out of the wilderness and into victory.

Luke 15:4 "What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost."
Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was "

I John 5:4 "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world"

"But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. "

The very fact that you and I are Christians, that Saul of Tarsus became a Christian, and millions upon millions of Jews and Gentiles have become Christians show me, at least, that Jesus did provide the way for the lost sheep to emerge from the wilderness and into victory.

That is why I used that reference.


As for Jesus fulfilling Pentecost and Passover, but not the Feast of Tabernacles/Booths....I don't agree. I believe He did fulfill all three.

Either Christ fulfilled that these three feasts, including the feast of tabernacles, or else we should still be observing this type in it's old testament ordinance "as if" Christ had not Come.

This is what many do not understand. Unless it's fulfilled in Christ, then we must continue it as an unfulfilled ordinance. For just as the Passover and Firstfruits feasts, it was commanded by God to be observed forever!

Either it was fulfilled in Christ, or we fail to observe it and it should still be required.

I believe Jesus fulfilled it.
What portion of it do you find that Jesus did not fulfill?

ShirleyFord
Jul 17th 2006, 06:21 PM
As well as a side point to a side point you made earlier...

The amillennial hermeneutic seems to consistently strive to find NT fulfillment of OT passages, while not being too partial to the possibility of dual-fulfillment (we had a great discussion about this on another thread). Not just dual-fulfillment in terms of the OT / future sense (initial fulfillment with a more complete fulfillment in the future) but an initial NT / future fulfillment as well.

The example we hashed around in the other thread was Joel 2 / Acts 2, which I think still has a greater future fulfillment; but John the Baptist would be a more pertinent example in context to what you brought up earlier with Isaiah and John the Baptist in regards to finding a NT fulfillment.

My issue would be this - there seems to be room for a fulfillment to OT passages about Elijah and the forerunner beyond John the Baptist. Jesus Himself opens the door for this, as confirmed later by Peter, in Matt. 17, immediately after the transfiguration of Jesus and the appearance of Moses an Elijah -

Matt. 17:9 Now as they came down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, “Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man is risen from the dead.”
Matt. 17:10 And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?”
Matt. 17:11 Jesus answered and said to them, “Indeed, Elijah is coming first and will restore all things.
Matt. 17:12 But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished. Likewise the Son of Man is also about to suffer at their hands.”
Matt. 17:13 Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist.

There is a seeming paradox - Elijah is both coming (future) and has come (John the Baptist) - which speaks of the first and second coming, the greater fulfillment (global) of the Isaiah 40 passage being future, rather than the local, limited (and lacking signs and wonders) fulfillment personified by John the Baptist. Peter refers to this statement of Jesus in his Acts sermon:

Acts 3:19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,
Acts 3:20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before,
Acts 3:21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.

So, my question is this - is there no room for a more complete fulfillment of OT scriptures in the future, or does your hermeneutic confine them simply to a first century expression with only spiritual ramifications? Jesus and Peter seem to speak of the scripture differently than this, according to how I understand it - there seems to be room for dual fulfillment of OT prophecies.

But Rookie, to apply your understanding of a dual fulfillment of Elijah of Malachi's prophecy (John the Baptist fulfilled it spiritually - past fulfillment- and Elijah himself will fulfill it physically in the future) to Jesus with a dual past and future fulfillment of OT prophecy would be saying that Jesus came spiritually (but not physically) in the first century in the person of someone else but Jesus will come himself physically in the future., wouldn't it?


The four gospels refer to the ministry of John the Baptist as being a fulfillment of Isaiah 40:3-5:
The voice of one that crieth, Prepare ye in the wilderness the way of the Lord; make level in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low; and the uneven shall be made level, and the rough places a plain: and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all Flesh shall see it together; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.

In the literal sense of the words one might expect a road building crew and a drastic recasting of the landscape. Also one might anticipate some majestic brilliant light visible to all. However, John’s ministry was spiritual, relating to preparation of heart and life, and the glory of the Lord was not some effulgence of light but rather that of a lowly man full of grace and truth. Physical figures were employed to symbolize spiritual truth.



The Coming of Elijah the Prophet

Malachi concludes with the herald: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord. And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers; lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.”

Although some in the past actually expected Elijah to come again and although some still expect Elijah to come again (some identifying him as one of the two witnesses of Revelation 11), the gospels assert that the prophecy was fulfilled in the ministry of John the Baptist. John the Baptist was not Elijah, and he so stated. Nevertheless, Christ spoke of John at Matthew 11:14: “And if you are willing to receive it, this is Elijah that is to come.” Also after his transfiguration with Moses and Elijah, and in response to the question of the three disciples, “Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” Christ answered: “Elijah indeed cometh and shall restore all things; but I say to you, that Elijah is already come and they knew him not, but did unto him whatsoever they would” (Matt. 17:10-12). John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah and he was the fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy.

Some may, however, argue a yet future coming of Elijah from the first part of Christ’s answer: “Elijah is coming and will restore all things.” However, Christ in these words was not referring to a future (after his time) coming. Instead he was referring to what the prophet had said, the words is coming and will restore being a summary of what the prophet said from the time of the original prophecy. In effect, Christ said: The prophet says Elijah will come and restore; Elijah — John being the one who came in the spirit and power of Elijah — has already so come.

Now for what you said about Peter and Acts 3:



There is a seeming paradox - Elijah is both coming (future) and has come (John the Baptist) - which speaks of the first and second coming, the greater fulfillment (global) of the Isaiah 40 passage being future, rather than the local, limited (and lacking signs and wonders) fulfillment personified by John the Baptist. Peter refers to this statement of Jesus in his Acts sermon:

Acts 3:19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,
Acts 3:20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before,
Acts 3:21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.



Peter said, in his preaching and building up the church, that all the Old Testament prophets from Samuel afterwards spoke of “these days” (Acts 3:24).


Acts 3:18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.
19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.

Peter is not saying that all of the OT prophets prophecied concerning the future days leading up to the Second Coming of Christ but of "these days" from the time of Christ's birth to His ascension and Penticost, 10 days afterward just after Penticost, unto the time of Peter's preaching in Acts 3, a little while later.

David Taylor
Jul 17th 2006, 06:22 PM
Originally Posted by the rookie
David, you are missing my point here. What I called into question was not what Jesus accomplished - but your hermeneutic in applying it to that passage. My question was this - when Jesus told that parable to the people, was He intending that they understand it to be a fulfillment of the Feast of Tabernacles? We both agree on what Jesus accomplished, what we now need to find common ground on is context in regards to specific passages.


...with the follow up...

If you are saying Jesus did not fulfill the Feast of the Tabernacle at His 1st Coming, then aren't you calling into question something that He did not accomplish? ?:hmm:?

My useage of that passage was simple.
It was a passage that Jesus taught to the people, that clearly showed them He had come to bring them out of the wilderness and to save them. (Thus fulfilling the Feast of Tabernacles)

The Feast of Tabernacles/Booths/Tents/Ingathering held two primary images that pointed to Christ; the living water that brought purification that they drew from the pool of Saloam and poured out at the temple, where the court of women were lit with torches.

Jesus came to provide both the fulfillment of the water, who from Him flowed the living waters, and from Him came the light, the Light of the world and he described both of these fulfillments in John chapters 7-8 during the Feast of Tabernacles/Booths/Tents/Ingathering.

John 7:2 Now the Jew's feast of tabernacles was at hand.

John 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."

John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."


Jesus Himself fulfilled the aspect of the Feast of Tabernacles as well, in that just as the Hebrew children provided the pre-type in celebrating their 'coming out of Egypt', Jesus Himself, literally came out of Egypt as well, fulfilling the scriptures literally on this aspect as well.


Hosea 11:1 "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. And I that am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt will yet make thee to dwell in tabernacles, as in the days of the solemn feast. "

Matthew 2:14 "When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son."

David Taylor
Jul 17th 2006, 06:31 PM
I would think that it is now you who are adding words and ideas - "in the day" or in one day is not an idea associated with the Luke 17:27 passage. There is no need to insert an "instantaneous" destruction of the wicked at the flood, and I am surprised that you are fighting to do so. The flood waters would have only needed to wash over the earth in a day according to your thinking, not 40.
As well as this little bon mot....

God promised two thing in the Genesis deluge.

1) All living things and all people would be destroyed.
2) All the Earth would be covered by water.

Since it rained 40 days, that tells us the duration it took to cover the mountaintops....(all the Earth), not how long it took to destroy wicked mankind.

Luke gives the duration of how long it took to destroy wicked man.

Luke 17:26 "And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. "

What is the most natural reading of Luke?

That the wicked are destroyed over a long period of days, or on quote, "the day", "the same day", "the day the son of Man is revealed" ?

And in consideration of 2 Thessalonians 2:8's dramatic description.....

2 Thessalonians 2:8 "And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming"

How powerful and destructive upon the wicked shall 'the brightness of His coming' and 'the spirit of His mouth' be?

Do you think some wicked people will have skin that is thick and hardy enough to survive an extra day or two longer than others?

Will they find more effective hiding places, that delays their destruction beyond the day the Son of Man is revealed?

Do you think some crafty men will be able to postpone being destroyed by the brightness of His coming? How?

the rookie
Jul 17th 2006, 06:36 PM
Yes, it's true - "fulfillment" is a lazy term.

My main point was that a significant NT EVENT took place on Passover and Pentecost; thus the OT never seems to mention those two feasts in terms of what is celebrated in the future; only the Feast of Tabernacles seems to be mentioned (Isa. 66 would be the other significant mention of the Feast of Tabernacles). Rather than discuss whether this feast was or was not "fulfilled", it may be more helpful in terms of the conversation around Zech. 14 to discuss why it is mentioned in context to the nations.

I do think that we ARE waiting for the fullness of our victory in Christ - or as Peter calls it, "salvation to the uttermost". The fullness of our salvation being our coming victory over sin and death in the resurrection and the glorified body that is fully able to interact (and walk with) with a Holy God without being destroyed. Unless you believe that we are fully sactified at the new birth as well as being fully justified, which common sense would negate. What Christ accomplished at the cross is not fully manifest in your life presently - though it will in the future - which means that to a measure we are still in the "wilderness" of a world dominated by sin while still battling and fighting for righteousness worked out in our daily walk with Him, though it will not be this way forever.

the rookie
Jul 17th 2006, 06:53 PM
But Rookie, to apply your understanding of a dual fulfillment of Elijah of Malachi's prophecy (John the Baptist fulfilled it spiritually - past fulfillment- and Elijah himself will fulfill it physically in the future) to Jesus with a dual past and future fulfillment of OT prophecy would be saying that Jesus came spiritually (but not physically) in the first century in the person of someone else but Jesus will come himself physically in the future., wouldn't it?

I did not say that Elijah himself would fulfill it in the future. I was only wanting to examine what Jesus was talking about - was He talking about Elijah or the spirit of Elijah? Either way I believe He was talking about a coming future expression that had a global reach with signs and wonders (i.e. Rev. 11) that John the Baptist never walked in. The expression of Elijah exemplified by John was very limited in scope compared to what the scripture speaks of. If "Elijah" came before the first coming, why would we not think that "Elijah" could come before the second coming? Jesus seems to be speaking of this reality.

I don't know why you are applying the above argument to me - that is not what I'm saying at all, and is an inference that frankly, makes no sense.



The four gospels refer to the ministry of John the Baptist as being a fulfillment of Isaiah 40:3-5:
The voice of one that crieth, Prepare ye in the wilderness the way of the Lord; make level in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low; and the uneven shall be made level, and the rough places a plain: and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all Flesh shall see it together; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.

In the literal sense of the words one might expect a road building crew and a drastic recasting of the landscape. Also one might anticipate some majestic brilliant light visible to all. However, John’s ministry was spiritual, relating to preparation of heart and life, and the glory of the Lord was not some effulgence of light but rather that of a lowly man full of grace and truth. Physical figures were employed to symbolize spiritual truth.

No, it's more than that - John had an actual function (not to "symblize spiritual truth") in regards to preparing the way for the coming of the Messiah. He actually did much of what Isa. 40 describes, but there are aspects of Isa. 40 that have a greater application in a coming time frame. "All flesh will see it together" is not "symbolizing spiritual truth", but really speaking of a time when this will be the case when "Elijah" prepares the way for the restoration of all things before the Messiah comes again. Unless you think that the restoration of all things is past and spiritual as well, which you do not.






The Coming of Elijah the Prophet

Malachi concludes with the herald: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord. And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers; lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.”

Although some in the past actually expected Elijah to come again and although some still expect Elijah to come again (some identifying him as one of the two witnesses of Revelation 11), the gospels assert that the prophecy was fulfilled in the ministry of John the Baptist. John the Baptist was not Elijah, and he so stated. Nevertheless, Christ spoke of John at Matthew 11:14: “And if you are willing to receive it, this is Elijah that is to come.” Also after his transfiguration with Moses and Elijah, and in response to the question of the three disciples, “Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” Christ answered: “Elijah indeed cometh and shall restore all things; but I say to you, that Elijah is already come and they knew him not, but did unto him whatsoever they would” (Matt. 17:10-12). John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah and he was the fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy.

I would say that John the Baptist was a fulfillment, but as I said, Jesus in that Matt. 17 passage leaves room for a future fulfillment as well.


Some may, however, argue a yet future coming of Elijah from the first part of Christ’s answer: “Elijah is coming and will restore all things.” However, Christ in these words was not referring to a future (after his time) coming. Instead he was referring to what the prophet had said, the words is coming and will restore being a summary of what the prophet said from the time of the original prophecy. In effect, Christ said: The prophet says Elijah will come and restore; Elijah — John being the one who came in the spirit and power of Elijah — has already so come.

That is your interpretation, but it is a weak one. It changes the meaning of the language and forces it to fit the idea of one and only one fulfillment, since John was dead at the time of Matt. 17 and Jesus was clearly speaking of a future restoration. You have to do a pretty intense dance to make Jesus mean a past restoration of all things through John's ministry, so I appreciate the attempt. It was just a majorly weak argument.


Now for what you said about Peter and Acts 3:

Peter said, in his preaching and building up the church, that all the Old Testament prophets from Samuel afterwards spoke of “these days” (Acts 3:24).


Acts 3:18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.
19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.

Peter is not saying that all of the OT prophets prophecied concerning the future days leading up to the Second Coming of Christ but of "these days" from the time of Christ's birth to His ascension and Penticost, 10 days afterward just after Penticost, unto the time of Peter's preaching in Acts 3, a little while later.


What?? You'll have to exegete this passage a bit clearer, and you'll want to work around the idea of "heaven containing Him until..." since that CLEARLY speaks of a future time, not the present time that you are narrowly fixated upon. To steal from Ladd, Peter was speaking of an "already" (these days) but "not yet" (contained until...) reality. You have to do the same linguistic gymnastics attempted earlier to get around the language used here, and you have instead made the passage more confusing.

David Taylor
Jul 17th 2006, 06:58 PM
As well as a side point to a side point you made earlier...

The amillennial hermeneutic seems to consistently strive to find NT fulfillment of OT passages, while not being too partial to the possibility of dual-fulfillment (we had a great discussion about this on another thread). Not just dual-fulfillment in terms of the OT / future sense (initial fulfillment with a more complete fulfillment in the future) but an initial NT / future fulfillment as well.


Man you are a smart, well-educated, intelligent man. Did you take debate classes or philosophy classes in college....cause that sure went over my simple brain.

I'll take a shot at it, though.....as best I can understand.
I see the NT itself being the best interpretator of the OT, especially when the OT doesn't provide a clear and easily understood interpretation.

I find that the NT writers would be much more sound and trustworthy in explaining and interpretting the OT scriptures than myself, so that when they do so, I try very hard to accept how they do it.

As for your concept of duality. I don't think we should accept it in a generic and assumed way.

'If' dual fulfillment of passages are to be received and accepted, then either the OT or the NT and/or both, should make this reception clear.

We should never pull out the 'dual-fulfillment' trump-card, and attempt to use it on any passage or concept, however, unless either the OT or NT scriptures involving it actually warrant or call for it.

As a bad analogy, I could take the example of Daniel in the Lions den.
I could say it is a dual fulfillment, both of Daniel's day, and of the 2nd Coming.

At the second coming, since Satan is making his final attempt at rebellion against God, and since Satan is a lion going about to see who he can devour, then the dual fulfillment of that passage, is that all Christians will be faced with a literal lions den event like Daniel, at the 2nd Coming, as their final test prior to Christ's return.

But that analogy is simply ludicrous. A horrible analogy.

Nowhere did Daniel intend or lead anyone to expect that type of dual fulfillment.
Nowhere did any NT writer intend or lead anyone to expect that type of dual fulfillment.Therefore, noone should expect it, nor should consider it as a dual fulfillment.

To qualify for dual-fulfillment, there should be evidence in the scriptures, that clearly build the case for this conclusion....more often than not, in both testaments, if the 2nd Coming is involved.

To claim dual-fulfillment, requires a very sound and well developed case, IMO; and not just because someone wants there to be one for any given situation. The NT didn't leave us in the dark, it came to help us better understand.




The example we hashed around in the other thread was Joel 2 / Acts 2, which I think still has a greater future fulfillment; but John the Baptist would be a more pertinent example in context to what you brought up earlier with Isaiah and John the Baptist in regards to finding a NT fulfillment.

My issue would be this - there seems to be room for a fulfillment to OT passages about Elijah and the forerunner beyond John the Baptist. Jesus Himself opens the door for this, as confirmed later by Peter, in Matt. 17, immediately after the transfiguration of Jesus and the appearance of Moses an Elijah -

Matt. 17:9 Now as they came down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, “Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man is risen from the dead.”
Matt. 17:10 And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?”
Matt. 17:11 Jesus answered and said to them, “Indeed, Elijah is coming first and will restore all things.
Matt. 17:12 But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished. Likewise the Son of Man is also about to suffer at their hands.”
Matt. 17:13 Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist.

There is a seeming paradox - Elijah is both coming (future) and has come (John the Baptist) - which speaks of the first and second coming, the greater fulfillment (global) of the Isaiah 40 passage being future, rather than the local, limited (and lacking signs and wonders) fulfillment personified by John the Baptist. Peter refers to this statement of Jesus in his Acts sermon:

Acts 3:19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,
Acts 3:20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before,
Acts 3:21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.



I don't see your point on John the Baptist and Elijah. Are you trying to make Premill wiggle-room for the popularly expected notion that one of the two witnesses of Revelation 11 is suppose to be Elijah?

Otherwise, I cannot find from Jesus' teachings, anything that makes me think John the Baptist 100% fulfilled the prophesies of Elijah Coming.

Matthew 11:12 "And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elijah, which was for to come."

Why should I look for another dual fulfillment, when Jesus said John the Baptist was the fulfillment of Elijah which was to come?

What did Jesus Himself say again later? When the disciples actually saw the spirit of Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration?

Did Jesus at that time, clarify with them, that they should continue to look for Elijah, and another future dual fulfillment of that scripture?

No. Jesus again reminded them what he had said earlier in Matthew chapter 11....

Matthew 17:10 "And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elijah must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elijah truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist."

There was Jesus' second chance to explain there would be a dual-or yet-future fulfillment of Elijah other than John the Baptist....he didn't take that chance, a second time, he re-affirmed John the Baptist in the present tense as fulfillment.

I am satisfied that Jesus had no dual-fulfillment in mind....because he didn't in either time it came up, even vaguely alude or mention it.



So, my question is this - is there no room for a more complete fulfillment of OT scriptures in the future, or does your hermeneutic confine them simply to a first century expression with only spiritual ramifications? Jesus and Peter seem to speak of the scripture differently than this, according to how I understand it - there seems to be room for dual fulfillment of OT prophecies.


Again, I don't have a hermeneutic, and I think you 'having a hermeneutic' might be causing you alot of problems.

I am not going to assume there are any dual-fulfillment prophecies.
All I can do is take OT prophecies, and:

look in the OT to see if they were fulfilled then,or
see if they specifically called for dual-fulfillment, or
look in the NT to see if the NT says to expect a dual-fulfillmentIf neither of the three cases call or explain or instruct to expect a dual-fulfillment of any OT event, then it would be me adding to the scriptures something that is not there, to expect any dual-fulfillment of any passage or event.

The scriptures (whether OT or NT) themselves, must build the case for the necessity of expecting dual-fulfillments of events and prophecies.

The best advice I can see on this, is not to over-generalize the concept of embracing or rejecing dual-fulfillments....but to examine each case carefully, one by one....to see if it is meritous or not from the scriptures.

the rookie
Jul 17th 2006, 07:01 PM
God promised two thing in the Genesis deluge.

1) All living things and all people would be destroyed.
2) All the Earth would be covered by water.

Since it rained 40 days, that tells us the duration it took to cover the mountaintops....(all the Earth), not how long it took to destroy wicked mankind.

Luke gives the duration of how long it took to destroy wicked man.

Luke 17:26 "And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. "

What is the most natural reading of Luke?

That the wicked are destroyed over a long period of days, or on quote, "the day", "the same day", "the day the son of Man is revealed" ?

And in consideration of 2 Thessalonians 2:8's dramatic description.....

2 Thessalonians 2:8 "And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming"

How powerful and destructive upon the wicked shall 'the brightness of His coming' and 'the spirit of His mouth' be?

Do you think some wicked people will have skin that is thick and hardy enough to survive an extra day or two longer than others?

Will they find more effective hiding places, that delays their destruction beyond the day the Son of Man is revealed?

Do you think some crafty men will be able to postpone being destroyed by the brightness of His coming? How?

This one will be hard to debate with you, because you clearly have your conclusions colored by your interpretation of the coming judgment and its instantaneous nature to actually think through the flood account. The idea that the rains came and instantly flooded the earth and instantly killed everyone but those on the ark is not the most "natural reading" based on common sense.

i.e. - "The people entered the Twin Towers, then the planes came, destroying them all." Did the people in the towers die instantaneously? Does the most natural reading of that sentence demand that this be so? As long as your conclusion is set then you will never read the Luke passage differently (or understand the flood account differently), no matter how many times we debate this side point to Zech. 14.

David Taylor
Jul 17th 2006, 07:19 PM
I do think that we ARE waiting for the fullness of our victory in Christ - or as Peter calls it, "salvation to the uttermost". The fullness of our salvation being our coming victory over sin and death in the resurrection and the glorified body that is fully able to interact (and walk with) with a Holy God without being destroyed.

Unless you believe that we are fully sanctified at the new birth as well as being fully justified, which common sense would negate.

What Christ accomplished at the cross is not fully manifest in your life presently


So when Christ said, "It is finished", did He really mean:

It will be finished at the second coming? or
It will be finished 1000 years after the second coming"?Isn't that really what you are saying? (I don't agree)

When Paul said, "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:"

Did Paul really mean:
"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that will be sanctified in Christ Jesus at or after the 2nd Coming, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:"





When Paul said, "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. "

Did Paul really mean:
"And such were some of you: but ye will be at the 2nd Coming washed, but ye will be at the 2nd Coming sanctified, but ye will be at the 2nd Coming justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

When Paul said, "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Did Paul really mean:
"And the very God of peace will sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless at or after the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."




When Paul said, "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:"

Did Paul really mean:
"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God will at the ending chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:"





When the Hebrew writer wrote:
"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. "

Did he really mean:
"By the which will be sanctified through the second coming of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. "




or when the Hebrew writer wrote:
"Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. "


Did he really mean:
""Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people at/after the second coming."





When Jude wrote:
"Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:"

Did Jude really mean:
"Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that at/after the second coming will be sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:"

David Taylor
Jul 17th 2006, 07:31 PM
If "Elijah" came before the first coming, why would we not think that "Elijah" could come before the second coming? Jesus seems to be speaking of this reality.

My question would be, 'what scriptures' did Jesus give us that would make us think "Elijah" would come before the second coming?

When I read the writings of Jesus, I don't see Jesus making any distant-future 2nd coming references at all, quite the opposite....

I see Jesus placing the "Elijah-hat" square on the head of John the Baptist.

Show me Jesus telling me to expect Elijah at the 2nd Coming.

p.s.
I am editing this post late...because I went back and re-read Rookies post and saw this comment that I had previousle missed:

I would say that John the Baptist was a fulfillment, but as I said, Jesus in that Matt. 17 passage leaves room for a future fulfillment as well.

Does Jesus really leave room for a future fulfillment of Elijah?

Let's look at all of Jesus' teaching on Elijah.

Example One)
Matthew 11:13 "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elijah, which was for to come."
Future Second Coming fulfillment, or Present John the Baptist fullfillment?

Example Two)
Matthew 17:10 "And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elijah must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elijah truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist. "
Future Second Coming fulfillment, or Present John the Baptist fullfillment?
(So had Rookie read one more verse, he would have seen Jesus explain John, and his attempt to apply Acts 3:21 here would be incorrect)

Example Three)
Mark 9:11 "And they asked him, saying, Why say the scribes that Elijah must first come? And he answered and told them, Elijah verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought. But I say unto you, That Elijah is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him. "
Future Second Coming fulfillment, or Present John the Baptist fullfillment?

David Taylor
Jul 17th 2006, 07:39 PM
This one will be hard to debate with you, because you clearly have your conclusions colored by your interpretation of the coming judgment and its instantaneous nature to actually think through the flood account. The idea that the rains came and instantly flooded the earth and instantly killed everyone but those on the ark is not the most "natural reading" based on common sense.

i.e. - "The people entered the Twin Towers, then the planes came, destroying them all." Did the people in the towers die instantaneously? Does the most natural reading of that sentence demand that this be so? As long as your conclusion is set then you will never read the Luke passage differently (or understand the flood account differently), no matter how many times we debate this side point to Zech. 14.

So it is more natural, to expect that it took a lengthy progressive 365,000 days for all of the people to be killed by the planes at the twin towers?

You're not making sense rookie.

Didn't the people in the towers die on the day that the plane destroyed them?

Isn't that more natural of reading of either your analogy or the Noah account, than they were destroyed over a progressive 365,000 period of days?

God didn't take 365,000 days to destroy the pre-Deluvian wicked.....even if some humans outside the ark were high upon the tops of mountains, and picnicing on Mt Everest and didn't die until day 40, fundamentally, it was still an immediate judgement and destruction.

God uses the immediate destruction (whether 1 day or 40 days) as being an example of the immediate destruction that will occur at the 2nd Coming.

365,000 days is nothing remotely approaching anything immediate....so why continue to assume it over the natural reading?

Hawk
Jul 17th 2006, 07:42 PM
God uses the immediate destruction (whether 1 day or 40 days) as being an example of the immediate destruction that will occur at the 2nd Coming.


40 days doesn't seem so "immediate" to me...

the rookie
Jul 17th 2006, 08:06 PM
Again, I don't have a hermeneutic, and I think you 'having a hermeneutic' might be causing you alot of problems.

I'm guessing that this is the root of our difficulty in finding common ground. Of course you have a hermeneutic, or a set of rules you follow to interpret scripture, otherwise you could never draw any solid conclusions on the meaning of scripture.

I have no problem with my hermeneutic, nor do I think it causes me any problems. I find that the manner in which I approach scripture is consistent and helpful in seeing a dynamic harmony. I assume you do as well, since I see a clear pattern in your posts. I might not agree with your pattern (and find it maddingly inconsistent at times) but I can't deny that it's there.

What I find maddening about your approach is that it takes theological "absolutes" FIRST (not NT scripture but NT theology as you understand it) and then apply them to scripture (NT first, then OT), which I feel makes for a "force-fit", of which Zech. 14 is an apt case study. Of course, you feel that I do the exact same thing with my understanding of scripture, so we can high-five, wink, and grin at each other from accross the country on this one.


Man you are a smart, well-educated, intelligent man. Did you take debate classes or philosophy classes in college....cause that sure went over my simple brain.

Appreciate the compliment, I think...but no, I took neither. I just think this way. I'm a joy to be married to, though. (note the dripping sarcasm)


I'll take a shot at it, though.....as best I can understand.
I see the NT itself being the best interpretator of the OT, especially when the OT doesn't provide a clear and easily understood interpretation.

I find that the NT writers would be much more sound and trustworthy in explaining and interpretting the OT scriptures than myself, so that when they do so, I try very hard to accept how they do it.

Thus, as you know, you DO have a hermeneutic. What I believe that you do, however, is take a developed understanding of NT theology and draw conclusions that you then build upon with scripture (which is why you guys continually throw dozens of scriptures around to prove your points) rather than trying to get to the heart of what is being said in context. I find your theology in these threads to be consistently sound and intelligent; the problem is that your theological framework provides your interpretive lens rather than examining the scripture on its own apart from your theology - this is why you "proof-text" all the time to get your point accross. The theology is plain to you, thus the meaning of the scripture should be clear and easy for others to grasp. The problem is that often this doesn't work and there are holes in your hermenuetic that aren't as easily explained away as you would want.


As for your concept of duality. I don't think we should accept it in a generic and assumed way.

'If' dual fulfillment of passages are to be received and accepted, then either the OT or the NT and/or both, should make this reception clear.

We should never pull out the 'dual-fulfillment' trump-card, and attempt to use it on any passage or concept, however, unless either the OT or NT scriptures involving it actually warrant or call for it.

The problem is that the NT was never meant to be a comprehensive examination of the OT; they were meant to compliment one another according to a Hebrew mindset (one that you consistently attack as "Pharisaic" and "faulty") in regards to a covenant God who was ushering in the fullness of the Hebraic faith, rather than birthing the Christianity of your theological grid. Thus you are forced to find NT passages that have similar language (or theological ideas if scripture will not fit exactly) and call it "fulfillment" - anything to stay within your theological framework without venturing out into the dangerous territory of language, intent and context.


As a bad analogy, I could take the example of Daniel in the Lions den.
I could say it is a dual fulfillment, both of Daniel's day, and of the 2nd Coming.

At the second coming, since Satan is making his final attempt at rebellion against God, and since Satan is a lion going about to see who he can devour, then the dual fulfillment of that passage, is that all Christians will be faced with a literal lions den event like Daniel, at the 2nd Coming, as their final test prior to Christ's return.

But that analogy is simply ludicrous. A horrible analogy.
Nowhere did Daniel intend or lead anyone to expect that type of dual fulfillment.
Nowhere did any NT writer intend or lead anyone to expect that type of dual fulfillment.Therefore, noone should expect it, nor should consider it as a dual fulfillment.

Again, the problem I see is that you actually do this in the reverse with many of the NT scriptures you quote as "fulfillment" of the OT.

To qualify for dual-fulfillment, there should be evidence in the scriptures, that clearly build the case for this conclusion....more often than not, in both testaments, if the 2nd Coming is involved.


To claim dual-fulfillment, requires a very sound and well developed case, IMO; and not just because someone wants there to be one for any given situation. The NT didn't leave us in the dark, it came to help us better understand.

And how does one develop that well-developed case? This assumes that the NT is comprehensive in regards to the OT, and again, this was never meant to be the case, otherwise the OT would simply be uneccesary and we can simply rely on the NT scriptures alone as our compass - which much of the church does today, ignoring the OT (or having a shallow understanding of it). How does one present a sound and well-developed case? For you, it seems that simply presenting theological ideas backed up with the appropriate scriptures suffices, but the NT was not meant to be a systematic theological treatise - thus when the book of Revelation itself (as a NT book) seems to challenge or even refute your theological framework, call it "symbolic", "hard-to-understand", and look for patterns that back up your theological conclusions.


I don't see your point on John the Baptist and Elijah. Are you trying to make Premill wiggle-room for the popularly expected notion that one of the two witnesses of Revelation 11 is suppose to be Elijah?

Not at all. I don't even think that Elijah is one of the 2 witnesses. I'm not "trying" to "make" anything - I want to understand the heart of Jesus and get to the root of what He is saying apart from my premill understanding. My examination of that passage was not unto proving some later point - it was to honestly examine what seems to be a clear presentation of a dual fulfillment idea that honors all the rules you have set forth in this very point.



Otherwise, I cannot find from Jesus' teachings, anything that makes me think John the Baptist 100% fulfilled the prophesies of Elijah Coming.

Matthew 11:12 "And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elijah, which was for to come."

Why should I look for another dual fulfillment, when Jesus said John the Baptist was the fulfillment of Elijah which was to come?

What did Jesus Himself say again later? When the disciples actually saw the spirit of Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration?

Did Jesus at that time, clarify with them, that they should continue to look for Elijah, and another future dual fulfillment of that scripture?

No. Jesus again reminded them what he had said earlier in Matthew chapter 11....

Matthew 17:10 "And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elijah must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elijah truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist."

There was Jesus' second chance to explain there would be a dual-or yet-future fulfillment of Elijah other than John the Baptist....he didn't take that chance, a second time, he re-affirmed John the Baptist in the present tense as fulfillment.

I am satisfied that Jesus had no dual-fulfillment in mind....because he didn't in either time it came up, even vaguely alude or mention it.

As mentioned elsewhere, I see it differently - for I think we have to ignore the language of Jesus to say otherwise.


I am not going to assume there are any dual-fulfillment prophecies.
All I can do is take OT prophecies, and:
look in the OT to see if they were fulfilled then,or
see if they specifically called for dual-fulfillment, or
look in the NT to see if the NT says to expect a dual-fulfillmentIf neither of the three cases call or explain or instruct to expect a dual-fulfillment of any OT event, then it would be me adding to the scriptures something that is not there, to expect any dual-fulfillment of any passage or event.

The scriptures (whether OT or NT) themselves, must build the case for the necessity of expecting dual-fulfillments of events and prophecies.

The best advice I can see on this, is not to over-generalize the concept of embracing or rejecing dual-fulfillments....but to examine each case carefully, one by one....to see if it is meritous or not from the scriptures.

I agree - but is the NT the only resource for this, or can we look to OT scriptures and examine what has not been fulfilled - honestly, without finding scriptures with similar language that divorces the original passage from its context?

ShirleyFord
Jul 17th 2006, 08:21 PM
I did not say that Elijah himself would fulfill it in the future. I was only wanting to examine what Jesus was talking about - was He talking about Elijah or the spirit of Elijah? Either way I believe He was talking about a coming future expression that had a global reach with signs and wonders (i.e. Rev. 11) that John the Baptist never walked in. The expression of Elijah exemplified by John was very limited in scope compared to what the scripture speaks of. If "Elijah" came before the first coming, why would we not think that "Elijah" could come before the second coming? Jesus seems to be speaking of this reality.

I don't know why you are applying the above argument to me - that is not what I'm saying at all, and is an inference that frankly, makes no sense.

Your understanding then that "If 'Elijah' could come before the first comin, whoy would we not think that 'Elijah' could come before the second coming? Jesus seems to be speaking of this reality", is based on Elijah being one of the two witnesses in Revelation 11?

Where in Revelation 11 do you find 'Elijah' mentioned as one of the two witnesses?

Revelations 11
3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.
5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.
6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.
7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
11 And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.




No, it's more than that - John had an actual function (not to "symblize spiritual truth") in regards to preparing the way for the coming of the Messiah. He actually did much of what Isa. 40 describes, but there are aspects of Isa. 40 that have a greater application in a coming time frame. "All flesh will see it together" is not "symbolizing spiritual truth", but really speaking of a time when this will be the case when "Elijah" prepares the way for the restoration of all things before the Messiah comes again. Unless you think that the restoration of all things is past and spiritual as well, which you do not.


Isaiah doesn't say that "Elijah" is coming physically. And he doesn't say that "Elijah" is coming physically to prepare the way for the Second Coming of Christ. My believing that the coming of John the Baptist fulfilled totally and completely Malachi's prophecy of the coming "Elijah, based solely on how Jesus and the other NT writers interpreted Malachi's prophecy, in no way negates my belief in the restoration of all things by Jesus Christ at His Second Coming.





I would say that John the Baptist was a fulfillment, but as I said, Jesus in that Matt. 17 passage leaves room for a future fulfillment as well.



No He doesn't. Read it again. Besides, Jesus "leaves room", as you suggest, is not the same as His saying that there will be a future fulfillment of Malachi's prophecy as well. Why would He want to keep this hidden from His disciples if that is what He meant, leaving them to figure out amongst themselves what He actually said?

But Jesus never says anything of the sort.





That is your interpretation, but it is a weak one. It changes the meaning of the language and forces it to fit the idea of one and only one fulfillment, since John was dead at the time of Matt. 17 and Jesus was clearly speaking of a future restoration. You have to do a pretty intense dance to make Jesus mean a past restoration of all things through John's ministry, so I appreciate the attempt. It was just a majorly weak argument.


Matthew 17:10 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?

Matthew 17:11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.

Jesus is speaking about the OT prophecy that the scribes read from that Elijah must first come (before the coming of Messiah), as per the disciples question in v. 10.

Then Jesus Himself interprets Malachi's prophecy from Malachi 3:

Matthew 17:12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.

Jesus answer certainly satisfied His disciples.


Matthew 17:13 Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

His disciples back then had no problem understanding and accepting what Jesus. So why can't we His disciples today do the same? I wonder.





What?? You'll have to exegete this passage a bit clearer, and you'll want to work around the idea of "heaven containing Him until..." since that CLEARLY speaks of a future time, not the present time that you are narrowly fixated upon. To steal from Ladd, Peter was speaking of an "already" (these days) but "not yet" (contained until...) reality. You have to do the same linguistic gymnastics attempted earlier to get around the language used here, and you have instead made the passage more confusing.


I absolutely accept Peter's words in Acts 3 "of heaven containing Him until..." as speaking of a future time. But Rookie, you need to stop acceipting what Ladd said about Acts 3 and just read it for yourself. Then you will find that Peter in no way is saying that all of the OT prophets prophecied about the Second Coming of Christ.

That is the mistake modern-day prophets make: Having the OT prophecies fulfilled in the days preceding and at the Second Coming and afterwards, or giving them a dual fulfillment, partly fulfilled at His First Coming and completely fulfilled at His Second Coming. Those OT prophecies pointing to Jesus is however prophecying of His First Coming and what His Coming would accomplish. Those pointing to His Second Coming is very clear and is separate from those pointing to His First Coming.

the rookie
Jul 17th 2006, 08:21 PM
So when Christ said, "It is finished", did He really mean:
It will be finished at the second coming? or
It will be finished 1000 years after the second coming"?Isn't that really what you are saying? (I don't agree)

We're not REALLY going to get into a debate on what should be the basics of systematic theology on this thread, are we? Are we ever going to get back to Zech. 14? I was sure that we would be on the same page with this one - but I am shocked to find out that we are not.

So we have to debate sancitification now. (sigh.) Before we do, I guess I should ask if your definition and disagreement flows from the assumption that my eschatology affects my theology on this issue - because I clearly think that your eschatology colors your conclusions here. This should be basic, meat n' potatoes stuff - are you fully walking out the victory of the cross every day, with every thought, word, and deed? Are you fully mature because of the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross? Are you completely victorious over sin all the time? This seems like a silly debate to me, but I will engage you in it, if it will prosper us.

Every passage you quote below has nothing to do with the Second Coming, (as you are trying to frame the argument) but the PROCESS of sanctification that takes place in the life of every believer as he or she participates with the "fellowship of the Holy Spirit" to fully manifest the fruit of the Spirit - which for the sake of brevity I will simply call "self-restraint" and "self-government" in the war to overcome our sinful nature that rages within all of us PRESENTLY.

Do we really have to debate what "it is finished" means? Are you really contending that it means fully mature, fully perfected believers at the moment of conversion - converted into a fully realized kingdom on earth? Please clarify if this is your viewpoint, but I am slowly suspecting that it is.

the rookie
Jul 17th 2006, 08:27 PM
Your understanding then that "If 'Elijah' could come before the first comin, whoy would we not think that 'Elijah' could come before the second coming? Jesus seems to be speaking of this reality", is based on Elijah being one of the two witnesses in Revelation 11?

Where in Revelation 11 do you find 'Elijah' mentioned as one of the two witnesses?

Revelations 11
3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.
5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.
6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.
7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
11 And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.




Isaiah doesn't say that "Elijah" is coming physically. And he doesn't say that "Elijah" is coming physically to prepare the way for the Second Coming of Christ. My believing that the coming of John the Baptist fulfilled totally and completely Malachi's prophecy of the coming "Elijah, based solely on how Jesus and the other NT writers interpreted Malachi's prophecy, in no way negates my belief in the restoration of all things by Jesus Christ at His Second Coming.





No He doesn't. Read it again. Besides, Jesus "leaves room", as you suggest, is not the same as His saying that there will be a future fulfillment of Malachi's prophecy as well. Why would He want to keep this hidden from His disciples if that is what He meant, leaving them to figure out amongst themselves what He actually said?

But Jesus never says anything of the sort.





Matthew 17:10 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?

Matthew 17:11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.

Jesus is speaking about the OT prophecy that the scribes read from that Elijah must first come (before the coming of Messiah), as per the disciples question in v. 10.

Then Jesus Himself interprets Malachi's prophecy from Malachi 3:

Matthew 17:12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.

Jesus answer certainly satisfied His disciples.


Matthew 17:13 Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

His disciples back then had no problem understanding and accepting what Jesus. So why can't we His disciples today do the same? I wonder.



[color=blue]
[color=black]

I absolutely accept Peter's words in Acts 3 "of heaven containing Him until..." as speaking of a future time. But Rookie, you need to stop acceipting what Ladd said about Acts 3 and just read it for yourself. Then you will find that Peter in no way is saying that all of the OT prophets prophecied about the Second Coming of Christ.

That is the mistake modern-day prophets make: Having the OT prophecies fulfilled in the days preceding and at the Second Coming and afterwards, or giving them a dual fulfillment, partly fulfilled at His First Coming and completely fulfilled at His Second Coming. Those OT prophecies pointing to Jesus is however prophecying of His First Coming and what His Coming would accomplish. Those pointing to His Second Coming is very clear and is separate from those pointing to His First Coming.

Shirley,

I can't even debate this point with you because you spent much time (too much, unfortunately) debating an ASSUMPTION without checking to see what the reality was. As I said to David, I do not believe (nor am I arguing) that one of the two witnesses is Elijah, and so 90% of your post is a moot point and a distraction from Zech. 14, which no one seems to want to touch in here.

If you read most of my posts, you'll find that I am not the "accepting" type to simply take what someone says as truth without challenging it vigourously. I am not "accepting" Ladd over your interpretation of Acts 3:21. I was using his language to make a point easier. I obviously don't agree with your assessment of the "mistake" that modern interpreters make because you have no strong argument or rebuttal to prove otherwise, just a theological grid that is unyielding. None of this helps get to the substance of Zech. 14, nor does it make for deep exegesis on the scripture.

the rookie
Jul 17th 2006, 08:31 PM
So it is more natural, to expect that it took a lengthy progressive 365,000 days for all of the people to be killed by the planes at the twin towers?

You're not making sense rookie.

Didn't the people in the towers die on the day that the plane destroyed them?

Isn't that more natural of reading of either your analogy or the Noah account, than they were destroyed over a progressive 365,000 period of days?

God didn't take 365,000 days to destroy the pre-Deluvian wicked.....even if some humans outside the ark were high upon the tops of mountains, and picnicing on Mt Everest and didn't die until day 40, fundamentally, it was still an immediate judgement and destruction.

God uses the immediate destruction (whether 1 day or 40 days) as being an example of the immediate destruction that will occur at the 2nd Coming.

365,000 days is nothing remotely approaching anything immediate....so why continue to assume it over the natural reading?

I guess my only (exasperated) reply is that you are not making much sense here either. I will take some solace in the fact that you seem to be conceding to common sense - that it took more than a day for the flood to cleanse the earth of wicked people. I never said anything about 365000 days - just that it took more than one. If you are conceding that point than we can happily move on.

John146
Jul 17th 2006, 08:39 PM
Your understanding then that "If 'Elijah' could come before the first comin, whoy would we not think that 'Elijah' could come before the second coming? Jesus seems to be speaking of this reality", is based on Elijah being one of the two witnesses in Revelation 11?

Where in Revelation 11 do you find 'Elijah' mentioned as one of the two witnesses?

Revelations 11
3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.
5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.
6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.
7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
11 And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.




Isaiah doesn't say that "Elijah" is coming physically. And he doesn't say that "Elijah" is coming physically to prepare the way for the Second Coming of Christ. My believing that the coming of John the Baptist fulfilled totally and completely Malachi's prophecy of the coming "Elijah, based solely on how Jesus and the other NT writers interpreted Malachi's prophecy, in no way negates my belief in the restoration of all things by Jesus Christ at His Second Coming.





No He doesn't. Read it again. Besides, Jesus "leaves room", as you suggest, is not the same as His saying that there will be a future fulfillment of Malachi's prophecy as well. Why would He want to keep this hidden from His disciples if that is what He meant, leaving them to figure out amongst themselves what He actually said?

But Jesus never says anything of the sort.





Matthew 17:10 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?

Matthew 17:11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.

Jesus is speaking about the OT prophecy that the scribes read from that Elijah must first come (before the coming of Messiah), as per the disciples question in v. 10.

Then Jesus Himself interprets Malachi's prophecy from Malachi 3:

Matthew 17:12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.

Jesus answer certainly satisfied His disciples.


Matthew 17:13 Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

His disciples back then had no problem understanding and accepting what Jesus. So why can't we His disciples today do the same? I wonder.



[color=blue]
[color=black]

I absolutely accept Peter's words in Acts 3 "of heaven containing Him until..." as speaking of a future time. But Rookie, you need to stop acceipting what Ladd said about Acts 3 and just read it for yourself. Then you will find that Peter in no way is saying that all of the OT prophets prophecied about the Second Coming of Christ.

That is the mistake modern-day prophets make: Having the OT prophecies fulfilled in the days preceding and at the Second Coming and afterwards, or giving them a dual fulfillment, partly fulfilled at His First Coming and completely fulfilled at His Second Coming. Those OT prophecies pointing to Jesus is however prophecying of His First Coming and what His Coming would accomplish. Those pointing to His Second Coming is very clear and is separate from those pointing to His First Coming.

I agree completely. There is no such thing as a dual fulfillment of prophecy. That is what one resorts to when their original view is refuted. John the Baptist already fulfilled everything concerning the Elijah to come. I believe it is very clear. To think that there will be another Elijah is a stretch of the Scripture to support one's doctrine.

ShirleyFord
Jul 17th 2006, 08:45 PM
Shirley,

I can't even debate this point with you because you spent much time (too much, unfortunately) debating an ASSUMPTION without checking to see what the reality was. As I said to David, I do not believe (nor am I arguing) that one of the two witnesses is Elijah, and so 90% of your post is a moot point and a distraction from Zech. 14, which no one seems to want to touch in here.

You certainly infer that you do:


Originally Posted by the rookie
I did not say that Elijah himself would fulfill it in the future. I was only wanting to examine what Jesus was talking about - was He talking about Elijah or the spirit of Elijah? Either way I believe He was talking about a coming future expression that had a global reach with signs and wonders (i.e. Rev. 11) that John the Baptist never walked in. The expression of Elijah exemplified by John was very limited in scope compared to what the scripture speaks of. If "Elijah" came before the first coming, why would we not think that "Elijah" could come before the second coming? Jesus seems to be speaking of this reality.

So you believe that since John the Baptist's ministry didn't have a global reach with signs and wonders that someone else (if not Elijah) must come and fulfill Elijah's ministry as one of the two witnesses will do?

the rookie
Jul 17th 2006, 09:07 PM
I agree completely. There is no such thing as a dual fulfillment of prophecy. That is what one resorts to when their original view is refuted. John the Baptist already fulfilled everything concerning the Elijah to come. I believe it is very clear. To think that there will be another Elijah is a stretch of the Scripture to support one's doctrine.

John the Baptist fulfilled everything concerning "Elijah to come"? That is a pretty bold statement. I'm not looking for something to "support my doctrine" - surely there are easier passages to use if I wanted to accomplish something so meaningless as that; I simply wanted to look at the Matt. 17 passage on its own merits outside of theological conclusions and see if there was common ground here. Care to join, to actually comment on the passage itself exegetically (or, to join in on the actual point of the thread, Zech. 14)? I would love it if you backed up your assertion with scripture. Quoting tons of verses does not prove fulfillment, it simply proves a fulfillment, if we take what Jesus said in Matt. 17 at face value - which no one here seems willing to do.

the rookie
Jul 17th 2006, 09:13 PM
You certainly infer that you do:

No, as you have done many times elsewhere you assumed what i was saying to be so based on your disdain for the dispensational system. I never said that Elijah was coming again, I only used Rev. 11 to back up the assertion that there seems to be a future fulfillment of the OT passages, which seems to be what Jesus is saying in Matt. 17. If you would like to spend your energy refuting the premise that Elijah is coming again, by all means type away - that is not the premise of this thread nor of my discussion with David. I was simply commenting on the amillennial refusal to entreat dual fulfillment of OT passages, and of course all have proven my point quite adequately. The qualifier to this is that one must have a solid NT case to "prove" the possibility of dual fulfillment, so I presented one. I have been rejected out of hand, thus negating the qualifier presented elsewhere. There is NO openness to the possibility of dual fulfillment, even when NT scripture leaves open the possibility of it, which violates the heart of the amillennial hermeneutic - and proving my earlier point that there is a greater loyalty to theological paradigms than the language of scripture itself.


So you believe that since John the Baptist's ministry didn't have a global reach with signs and wonders that someone else (if not Elijah) must come and fulfill Elijah's ministry as one of the two witnesses will do?

Yes, that would sum it up accurately.

the rookie
Jul 17th 2006, 09:19 PM
Does anyone want to comment on the substance of Zech. 14 (as presented earlier) or are we resigned to debating philisophical ideas based on unyielding theological paradigms? I was hoping that laying out and exegeting actual Bible texts could help us have a great discussion, but it seems as if old Zechariah is left to dangle while we argue about the nature of instantaneous destruction, dual fulfillment, and the sanctification of the believer....

This is partly (OK, mostly) my fault based on the questions I asked to jump start this thread, I would love to dive back in to Zech. 14....

David Taylor
Jul 17th 2006, 09:39 PM
Does anyone want to comment on the substance of Zech. 14 (as presented earlier) or are we resigned to debating philisophical ideas based on unyielding theological paradigms? I was hoping that laying out and exegeting actual Bible texts could help us have a great discussion, but it seems as if old Zechariah is left to dangle while we argue about the nature of instantaneous destruction, dual fulfillment, and the sanctification of the believer....

This is partly (OK, mostly) my fault based on the questions I asked to jump start this thread, I would love to dive back in to Zech. 14....


You came back with a big list of things I hadn't answered over the weekend.

I carefully tried to answer each point you brought back for discussion....You picked them, in this thread, and wanted answers.

Many were a 2nd or 3rd offshoot specifically of Zech 14, but all releated.

But again, you brought them back up.

We can go back to Zech 14, but make your mind up.

This is your thread....start with one point...let's beat it to death, either find agreement, or deadlock....then go to another point that you pick.

When the thread gets really wide, with Q&A, it gets unmanageble really fast.

What do you want to talke about now?

What about the Fulfillment of the Feast of Tablernacle part I replied to you...? You haven't touched that reply today, and that is very related to Zech 14.....can you browse back up, and consider replying to that post?

Your choice.

a sojourner
Jul 17th 2006, 09:46 PM
Now THIS is a fun thread to watch! *Tosses handful of popcorn into mouth*

ShirleyFord
Jul 17th 2006, 10:37 PM
No, as you have done many times elsewhere you assumed what i was saying to be so based on your disdain for the dispensational system. I never said that Elijah was coming again, I only used Rev. 11 to back up the assertion that there seems to be a future fulfillment of the OT passages, which seems to be what Jesus is saying in Matt. 17. If you would like to spend your energy refuting the premise that Elijah is coming again, by all means type away - that is not the premise of this thread nor of my discussion with David. I was simply commenting on the amillennial refusal to entreat dual fulfillment of OT passages, and of course all have proven my point quite adequately. The qualifier to this is that one must have a solid NT case to "prove" the possibility of dual fulfillment, so I presented one. I have been rejected out of hand, thus negating the qualifier presented elsewhere. There is NO openness to the possibility of dual fulfillment, even when NT scripture leaves open the possibility of it, which violates the heart of the amillennial hermeneutic - and proving my earlier point that there is a greater loyalty to theological paradigms than the language of scripture itself.



Yes, that would sum it up accurately.




Interestingly, we find the "dual fulfillment" prophecy in the notes of dispensationalist C. I. Scofield in his interpretive notes of Matthew 17:10 (The Scofield Reference Bible - 1917 ed.):

17:10 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?


Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come
Cf Matthew 11:14 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+11:14); Mark 9:11,12,13 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mr+9:11,12,13); Luke 1:17 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=lu+1:17); Malachi 3:1 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mal+3:1); 4:5,6 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mal+4:5,6) All the passages must be construed together.
(1) Christ confirms the specific and still unfulfilled prophecy of Malachi 4:5,6 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mal+4:5,6): "Elias shall truly first come and restore all things." Here, as in Malachi, the prediction fulfilled in John the Baptist, and that yet to be fulfilled in Elijah, are kept distinct.
(2) But John the Baptist had come already, and with a ministry so completely in the spirit and power of Elijah's future ministry Luke 1:17 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=lu+1:17) that in an adumbrative and typical sense it could be said: "Elias is come already." Cf ; Matthew 10:40 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+10:40); Philemon 1:12,17 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=phm+1:12,17) where the same thought of identification, while yet preserving personal distinction, occurs. John 1:27 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=joh+1:27)

ShirleyFord
Jul 17th 2006, 11:03 PM
Does anyone want to comment on the substance of Zech. 14 (as presented earlier) or are we resigned to debating philisophical ideas based on unyielding theological paradigms? I was hoping that laying out and exegeting actual Bible texts could help us have a great discussion, but it seems as if old Zechariah is left to dangle while we argue about the nature of instantaneous destruction, dual fulfillment, and the sanctification of the believer....

This is partly (OK, mostly) my fault based on the questions I asked to jump start this thread, I would love to dive back in to Zech. 14....

Go ahead and dive in Rookie. :D

But you got your "preachers" hat on again. Must've forgot that I'm just a laymen (and a woman at that).

Sorry for the "philisophical ideas based on unyielding theological paradigms", whatever that is. :o

Shirley

Hawk
Jul 17th 2006, 11:06 PM
Interestingly, we find the "dual fulfillment" prophecy in the notes of dispensationalist C. I. Scofield in his interpretive notes of Matthew 17:10 (The Scofield Reference Bible - 1917 ed.):

17:10 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?


Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come
Cf Matthew 11:14 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+11:14); Mark 9:11,12,13 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mr+9:11,12,13); Luke 1:17 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=lu+1:17); Malachi 3:1 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mal+3:1); 4:5,6 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mal+4:5,6) All the passages must be construed together.
(1) Christ confirms the specific and still unfulfilled prophecy of Malachi 4:5,6 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mal+4:5,6): "Elias shall truly first come and restore all things." Here, as in Malachi, the prediction fulfilled in John the Baptist, and that yet to be fulfilled in Elijah, are kept distinct.
(2) But John the Baptist had come already, and with a ministry so completely in the spirit and power of Elijah's future ministry Luke 1:17 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=lu+1:17) that in an adumbrative and typical sense it could be said: "Elias is come already." Cf ; Matthew 10:40 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+10:40); Philemon 1:12,17 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=phm+1:12,17) where the same thought of identification, while yet preserving personal distinction, occurs. John 1:27 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=joh+1:27)






Shirley, surely you must remember the post where rookie clearly told us that he does not subscribe to Scofield's views.

ShirleyFord
Jul 17th 2006, 11:32 PM
Shirley, surely you must remember the post where rookie clearly told us that he does not subscribe to Scofield's views.

Yes Rookie did, Hawk. :) Thanks for the reminder. :hug:

Undoubtedly then, Scofield must've got his views from Rookie, ya think? ;)

Shirley

the rookie
Jul 18th 2006, 04:01 PM
Yes Rookie did, Hawk. :) Thanks for the reminder. :hug:

Undoubtedly then, Scofield must've got his views from Rookie, ya think? ;)

Shirley

So, Shirley, could we adequately sum up your hermeneutic as "if Scofield said it, it is 100% wrong"? As I've brought up elsewhere, I'm sure there were many things that Scofield professed that you do not dismiss out of hand because he professed them (divinity / humanity of Jesus, reality of heaven, holiness of God, etc.). I'm wondering if there is more substance to your evaluation of scripture than this, or is this what you resort to when you run out of ways to exegete a passage? This consistently seems to be the end of your argument throughout these threads rather than discussing scripture on its own merits.

This argument is a straw man, completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Would you care to actually read my analysis of Zech. 14, and comment on what in that passage does not describe the Second Coming event? Would you care to give us your analysis of the actual Matt. 17 verse in question ("Elijah is coming first and will restore all things" - you skipped over this one the last time you took a crack at this)? Otherwise, continue to avoid the substance of the discussion by bringing up the two witnesses and Scofield to your hearts content - it doesn't really concern me or sway me to your viewpoint (I'm not quite sure exactly WHAT you are trying to accomplish as you continue to hammer the same three points).

If you would like my interpretation of that Matt. 17 verse, I think that Jesus Himself at His second coming is "Elijah" who will come to restore all things - I think that Jesus is speaking of the manner in which He is going to prepare the way for the coming of His Father - Jesus is coming "first" to literally knit the hearts of the children to their fathers and the hearts of the fathers to the children. I also think that this passage could be speaking of the church operating in the spirit of Elijah at the end of the age, partnering with Jesus in emerging "first" in maturity and authority to restore all things with Him (1 Cor. 6:2-3); though that is a bit of a stretch for some, I'm sure.

the rookie
Jul 18th 2006, 04:10 PM
You came back with a big list of things I hadn't answered over the weekend.

I carefully tried to answer each point you brought back for discussion....You picked them, in this thread, and wanted answers.

Many were a 2nd or 3rd offshoot specifically of Zech 14, but all releated.

But again, you brought them back up.

We can go back to Zech 14, but make your mind up.

This is your thread....start with one point...let's beat it to death, either find agreement, or deadlock....then go to another point that you pick.

When the thread gets really wide, with Q&A, it gets unmanageble really fast.

What do you want to talke about now?

What about the Fulfillment of the Feast of Tablernacle part I replied to you...? You haven't touched that reply today, and that is very related to Zech 14.....can you browse back up, and consider replying to that post?

Your choice.

Like I said, it was mostly my fault, for sure - what I wasn't thinking through was that seeking "closure" on those points (which I don't think we have) would open up the can of worms that it did.

I thought that I answered your Feast of Tabernacles point, by the way. I think that you missed it, so I shall repost that one. Though you will be hard-pressed to demonstrate how that which Jesus accomplished on the cross (which I am beginning to think for you means "catch all for all things Old Testament") is the "fulfillment" of "all who are left among the nations that came against Jerusalem" coming yearly to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles while Israel exemplifies an outward sanctification never before seen in history (you would have to re-read my brief analysis of Zech. 14:21 again to track with what I am saying there). It is one thing to say that Jesus spiritually "fulfilled" the Feast of Tabernacles; it is another thing to say that there is a comperable NT "event" to match that feast, like there is for Passover and Pentecost; it is another thing beyond that to say that the nations are observing it in Jerusalem as Zechariah describes.

Here's the post - I am omitting the second part, unless you want to debate "entire sanctification" together:

"Yes, it's true - "fulfillment" is a lazy term.

My main point was that a significant NT EVENT took place on Passover and Pentecost; thus the OT never seems to mention those two feasts in terms of what is celebrated in the future; only the Feast of Tabernacles seems to be mentioned (Isa. 66 would be the other significant mention of the Feast of Tabernacles). Rather than discuss whether this feast was or was not "fulfilled", it may be more helpful in terms of the conversation around Zech. 14 to discuss why it is mentioned in context to the nations."

David Taylor
Jul 18th 2006, 05:21 PM
My main point was that a significant NT EVENT took place on Passover and Pentecost; thus the OT never seems to mention those two feasts in terms of what is celebrated in the future; only the Feast of Tabernacles seems to be mentioned (Isa. 66 would be the other significant mention of the Feast of Tabernacles). Rather than discuss whether this feast was or was not "fulfilled", it may be more helpful in terms of the conversation around Zech. 14 to discuss why it is mentioned in context to the nations."


But John 7 and 8 specifically address the Feast of the Tabernacles, and if one carefully reads them in light of that ritual, and in light of what Jesus is teaching, (with consideration for the OT), it is no different than Pentecost or Passover.

You are assuming that the OT references no endtime practice of Pentecost or Passover, but does reference the endtime practice of Tabernacles.

I believe, the NT tells us rather, that all three are completed in Christ....and have no future or endtime expectation beyond Christ at the endtime.

In terms of the Feast of the Tabernacles in relation to the nations mentioned in Zechariah 14, we find in John chapters 7 and 8, Jesus showing the effects to the nations as the rivers of living waters flow out of Jerusalem to them, and how He coming to be a light to the world, would be the light that brings the nations out of darkness.

John 7-8 was a passage that Jesus taught to the people, that clearly showed them He had come to bring them out of the wilderness and to save them. (Thus fulfilling the Feast of Tabernacles)

The Feast of Tabernacles/Booths/Tents/Ingathering held two primary images that pointed to Christ; the living water that brought purification that they drew from the pool of Saloam and poured out at the temple, where the court of women were lit with torches.

Jesus came to provide both the fulfillment of the water, who from Him flowed the living waters, and from Him came the light, the Light of the world and he described both of these fulfillments in John chapters 7-8 during the Feast of Tabernacles/Booths/Tents/Ingathering.

John 7:2 Now the Jew's feast of tabernacles was at hand.

John 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."

John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."


Jesus Himself fulfilled the aspect of the Feast of Tabernacles as well, in that just as the Hebrew children provided the pre-type in celebrating their 'coming out of Egypt', Jesus Himself, literally came out of Egypt as well, fulfilling the scriptures literally on this aspect as well.


Hosea 11:1 "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. And I that am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt will yet make thee to dwell in tabernacles, as in the days of the solemn feast. "

Matthew 2:14 "When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son."

ShirleyFord
Jul 18th 2006, 05:42 PM
But John 7 and 8 specifically address the Feast of the Tabernacles, and if one carefully reads them in light of that ritual, and in light of what Jesus is teaching, (with consideration for the OT), it is no different than Pentecost or Passover.

You are assuming that the OT references no endtime practice of Pentecost or Passover, but does reference the endtime practice of Tabernacles.

I believe, the NT tells us rather, that all three are completed in Christ....and have no future or endtime expectation beyond Christ at the endtime.

In terms of the Feast of the Tabernacles in relation to the nations mentioned in Zechariah 14, we find in John chapters 7 and 8, Jesus showing the effects to the nations as the rivers of living waters flow out of Jerusalem to them, and how He coming to be a light to the world, would be the light that brings the nations out of darkness.

John 7-8 was a passage that Jesus taught to the people, that clearly showed them He had come to bring them out of the wilderness and to save them. (Thus fulfilling the Feast of Tabernacles)

The Feast of Tabernacles/Booths/Tents/Ingathering held two primary images that pointed to Christ; the living water that brought purification that they drew from the pool of Saloam and poured out at the temple, where the court of women were lit with torches.

Jesus came to provide both the fulfillment of the water, who from Him flowed the living waters, and from Him came the light, the Light of the world and he described both of these fulfillments in John chapters 7-8 during the Feast of Tabernacles/Booths/Tents/Ingathering.

John 7:2 Now the Jew's feast of tabernacles was at hand.

John 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."

John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."


Jesus Himself fulfilled the aspect of the Feast of Tabernacles as well, in that just as the Hebrew children provided the pre-type in celebrating their 'coming out of Egypt', Jesus Himself, literally came out of Egypt as well, fulfilling the scriptures literally on this aspect as well.


Hosea 11:1 "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. And I that am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt will yet make thee to dwell in tabernacles, as in the days of the solemn feast. "

Matthew 2:14 "When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son."





Amen Dave!

Jesus (Israel) also explained in John 14 about His tabernaceling with Israel(His disciples) spiritually, and then with all of the nations (beginning with Cornelius and his house in Acts 10), which fulfilled totally the OT Feast of Tabernacles just as He fulfilled spiritually the OT Feasts of Passover in His death, Firstfruits at His Resurrection and Penticost, when He poured out His Holy Spirit on the day of Penticost, so that we could enjoy spiritually the union that His Feast of Tabernacles brings to us with Him, every day, 24/7, until He returns and we get to tabernacle physically with Him forever in His kingdom, New Jerusalem, that He brings with Him and sets up on the new earth!

Shirley

the rookie
Jul 18th 2006, 05:48 PM
I just want to be really clear here - you are honestly saying that you believe that Zech. 14:16-21 was prophesying about that specific Feast of Tabernacles in which Jesus stood before those in Jerusalem and connected the pouring of the golden pitcher of water with Himself as a means of helping them understand the internal reality of life in the inner man:

It was at this feast that water would be poured from a golden pitcher into a basin at the foot of the altar along with a pitcher of wine. This symbolized the desire for an open heaven and the abundant rain of God's grace - literally and spiritually. It was during this ceremony that Jesus stood in the temple declaring, "If any man thirsts, than let him come to me and drink. He that believes in me, as the scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." (John 7:37-28)

The Temple was also to be illuminated by the torches and lights of the people, as well as the golden candlesticks within - the Temple was to be, symbolically, a light to the world. It was the day after the end of this festival, when the lights were put out, that Jesus stood and proclaimed, "I am the light of the world." (John 8:12)

This feast is also called the "Feast of the Ingathering" related to the harvest - which I am sure you see as fulfilled through the continued evangelization of the nations.

The problem I have with this is that Jesus wasn't standing before them to "fulfill" the Feast of Tabernacles. He was standing before them to help them connect with who He is. To say that Jesus "fulfilled" the Feast of Tabernacles on that day is both clumsy and misleading. Are you saying, that in the moment of that "fulfillment", the disciples that believed in Him experienced a transformation in their inner man? How, specifically, did Jesus fulfill the Feast of Tabernacles in that moment? Are you saying that this is the event that coincides with Passover and Pentecost in regards to NT expressions? How would that be so? What happened in that moment that would be comparative to those two events, which actually had real spiritual impact on the internal life of a believer?

This interpretation (and the really bothersome comparison of Hosea 11 and Matt 2) is a strange way to speak of "literal fulfillment" of OT scripture. Your system of scripture interpretation claims a NT grid to interpret OT scripture, when really you do no such thing - you seem to consistently use NT scripture to back up your theological grid while finding language similar enough to rob / remove the OT scriptures of their actual context. You don't even have to really study the OT in your system of scripture interpretation - whenever the same word or idea appears, you can just apply it and consider the matter done. I don't find this to be a consitent or helpful way to interpret scripture, personally.

Why? Because your whole interpretive system is suspect. It starts with conclusions and then inserts those conclusions into the OT and the Book of Revelation. Revelation from God to man is progressive and unfolding - to use the end of the book to interpret the beginning is to change the meaning and intent of the beginning according to your interpretation of the end. You remove the foundation and use the top if the building to design the base. Your hermeneutic sounds reasonable, but I am sure that I will always find holes in the details because of the manner in which you consistently change the meaning of OT verses. We were meant to read and understand the OT first; then we interpret the NT in light of what came before it. This is what the early believers did, and to do opposite is a grave mistake, in my opinion.

ShirleyFord
Jul 18th 2006, 06:21 PM
I just want to be really clear here - you are honestly saying that you believe that Zech. 14:16-21 was prophesying about that specific Feast of Tabernacles in which Jesus stood before those in Jerusalem and connected the pouring of the golden pitcher of water with Himself as a means of helping them understand the internal reality of life in the inner man:

It was at this feast that water would be poured from a golden pitcher into a basin at the foot of the altar along with a pitcher of wine. This symbolized the desire for an open heaven and the abundant rain of God's grace - literally and spiritually. It was during this ceremony that Jesus stood in the temple declaring, "If any man thirsts, than let him come to me and drink. He that believes in me, as the scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." (John 7:37-28)

The Temple was also to be illuminated by the torches and lights of the people, as well as the golden candlesticks within - the Temple was to be, symbolically, a light to the world. It was the day after the end of this festival, when the lights were put out, that Jesus stood and proclaimed, "I am the light of the world." (John 8:12)

This feast is also called the "Feast of the Ingathering" related to the harvest - which I am sure you see as fulfilled through the continued evangelization of the nations.

The problem I have with this is that Jesus wasn't standing before them to "fulfill" the Feast of Tabernacles. He was standing before them to help them connect with who He is. To say that Jesus "fulfilled" the Feast of Tabernacles on that day is both clumsy and misleading. Are you saying, that in the moment of that "fulfillment", the disciples that believed in Him experienced a transformation in their inner man? How, specifically, did Jesus fulfill the Feast of Tabernacles in that moment? Are you saying that this is the event that coincides with Passover and Pentecost in regards to NT expressions? How would that be so? What happened in that moment that would be comparative to those two events, which actually had real spiritual impact on the internal life of a believer?

This interpretation (and the really bothersome comparison of Hosea 11 and Matt 2) is a strange way to speak of "literal fulfillment" of OT scripture. Your system of scripture interpretation claims a NT grid to interpret OT scripture, when really you do no such thing - you seem to consistently use NT scripture to back up your theological grid while finding language similar enough to rob / remove the OT scriptures of their actual context. You don't even have to really study the OT in your system of scripture interpretation - whenever the same word or idea appears, you can just apply it and consider the matter done. I don't find this to be a consitent or helpful way to interpret scripture, personally.

Why? Because your whole interpretive system is suspect. It starts with conclusions and then inserts those conclusions into the OT and the Book of Revelation. Revelation from God to man is progressive and unfolding - to use the end of the book to interpret the beginning is to change the meaning and intent of the beginning according to your interpretation of the end. You remove the foundation and use the top if the building to design the base. Your hermeneutic sounds reasonable, but I am sure that I will always find holes in the details because of the manner in which you consistently change the meaning of OT verses. We were meant to read and understand the OT first; then we interpret the NT in light of what came before it. This is what the early believers did, and to do opposite is a grave mistake, in my opinion.

Rookie,

While I don't have perfect understanding on anything yet, since I'm still in my mortal body, I do have a pretty good understanding of the OT Feasts, probably better than any other topic in the Bible, after having studied them diligently over a 10 year period, while I was still a dispensationalist/pretrib/ premil. And before I ever heard of any kind of tribs, mills or isms. So my understanding doesn't come from any man made system. It certainly didn't come from anything that I was reading, or hearing, or being taught by man at the time.

All I had was my Bible and the Holy Spirit to teach me, and my determination to spend the time to do the studying and praying.

Through that, I finally learned how to study the Bible and how to understand it. And how my love for my Lord has increased because of it. Because you see, I now understand better what my Lord did for me at Calvary. I better understand His Gospel. I better understand Who He really is, and Who He is in my life. I better understand what His Salvation that He has given me means.

And especially this:

When He said, I will never leave you nor forsake you, I can really believe it because He dwells within me by His Spirit fulfilling the Feast of Tabernacles in my life. I don't even have the thought any more that my Lord is way out yonder some place, so far away that He might not hear me when I call.

Shirley

David Taylor
Jul 18th 2006, 08:33 PM
Are you saying, that in the moment of that "fulfillment", the disciples that believed in Him experienced a transformation in their inner man? How, specifically, did Jesus fulfill the Feast of Tabernacles in that moment? Are you saying that this is the event that coincides with Passover and Pentecost in regards to NT expressions? How would that be so? What happened in that moment that would be comparative to those two events, which actually had real spiritual impact on the internal life of a believer?

How did Jesus fulfill the FoT at that moment?

Go back just a short period prior to John 7-8. We see outside of the Temple-area speech, Jesus doing a short individual explanation to someone about this very thing.

John 4:7 "There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink. (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.) Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw. Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly. The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, AND NOW IS, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. "

Should we have any doubt, that it was fulfilled now, at this moment, as Jesus says?

Did He giver her a promisary note to be redeemed at the 2nd Coming, or was the living water now being given immediately?

You asked "what happened in that moment that would be comparative to those two events, which actually had real spiritual impact on the internal life of a believer?"

Jesus gave the answer, in how it specifically changed that woman's life, and was beginning to change the lives of thousands upon millions soon thereafter.






This interpretation (and the really bothersome comparison of Hosea 11 and Matt 2) is a strange way to speak of "literal fulfillment" of OT scripture.
Why so?

Matthew 2 is the only place in the Bible that speaks of being the fulfillment of Hosea 11.....so why would that be strange? Why would that be unliteral, when Jesus literally did go to, and come out of Egypt....showing Himself to be the fulfillment of the ingathering of the hebrews from Egypt and the wilderness into the true promised land?

Do we find any scripture given anywhere in the Bible that points to Hosea 11 being fulfilled in the Premill Kingdom era, and quoted as such? No.

We find 1 single scripture that is given to us as its fulfillment, and it is Matthew 2 at Christ's sojourn into Egypt.

Why is it so hard to accept? It is the most natural and reasonable expectation to accept....given no instruction to do otherwise from the scriptures.



Your system of scripture interpretation claims a NT grid to interpret OT scripture, when really you do no such thing - you seem to consistently use NT scripture to back up your theological grid while finding language similar enough to rob / remove the OT scriptures of their actual context.
I have no grid. I simply take the scriptures that say they are fulfilled, and accept that they have been fulfilled by the scriptures that say they are a fulfillment of them.

The NT specifically speaks 72 times of fulfillment. Can we trust it as a valid source of fulfillment then, or should we turn to external systems that Dispensationalism or Premillennialism offer, and their expectations of fullfillments instead (even though the NT never mentions any of them)?

I will make a concession.
If the OT makes a prophecy, and it is an important one.....

I believe 100% that:
It is either fulfilled and explained somewhere else in the OT
or
somewhere in the NTAnd

If it is an important prophecy that wasn't fulfilled anywhere in the OT, then you can bet your bottom dollar, somewhere in the NT it will be explained and discussed. God did not leave us in the dark. His word contains the understanding of all fulfillment.

The system you seem to approach from my observation is, let's take what seems to be OT prophecies, let's assume they weren't fulfilled in the OT, let's assume they weren't fulfilled in the NT, (if we find NT reference to them in relation to the 1st Advent or the present NT era, and they conflict with the external Premillennial framework, let's not accept their application), and let's move them forward and advance them as unfulfilled scriptures.

That is a dangerous approach Rookie. It places your ability to understand and interpret the OT prophecies ahead of that of the NT writers, and sometimes even Jesus. Because what it does, is say, "That really wasn't a fulfillment, or it was an incomplete fulfillment, or it was a spiritualized fulfillment.....therefore we should take it upon ourselves to dismiss it, and not accept it, and look for a more palatable fulfillment of it in our Premill Kingdom framework." But the scriptures do not require this, nor dictate that you should do this.

My foundational approach is to interpret scripture with scripture, to conceed to the writings of the NT apostles in explaining the OT scriptures that were either fulfilled or yet-to-be fulfilled, and accept that. I avoid placing my ability to interpret over that of the NT writers, because they, not me, are better at understanding and interpretting and explaining the OT scriptures.
When this leads to the Amillennial framework, instead of Premill....it isn't because I started with that as my presupposition, but it is the result of accepting what and how the NT writers themselves explain the prophetic scriptures....and how they explain the OT writings.




You don't even have to really study the OT in your system of scripture interpretation - whenever the same word or idea appears, you can just apply it and consider the matter done. I don't find this to be a consitent or helpful way to interpret scripture, personally.
I would be extremely wreckless to not study the OT. For the OT is what brought Jesus to us, and what spoke of Him. To see the OT scriptures fulfilled and explained by the NT scriptures is a great cause for glory and honor and admonishon if not simple awe, at how the Lord has orchestrated history, and built it soundly and clearly focused on Jesus and what He accomplished with His incarnation, death, burial and resurrection.

Was Jesus just rattling off the mouth with nothing meaningful to say, when He told them, "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, Jesus expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. " Luke 24:27

What is my alternative?

Assume a Premillennial framework, and take random passages from the OT and claim they apply to a future Premill kingdom that is conflicted with many, many NT passages, that finds no clear or specific OT support, and that if held, brings most of the NT endtime second coming passages into conflict with its system....AND....it devalues both the cross and the 2nd Coming as neither being the prophesied and expected consumate fulfillments that each are so clearly given to be in so many scriptures.

In the Premill system, much if not most of the OT passages much be post-poned:

beyond where they were given locally at that time,
beyond Bethlehem,
beyond Golgotha,
beyond Pentecost,
beyond this present age, and
even beyond the Glorious 2nd Coming.....

into an age and period the Bible makes no clear definition or description of anywhere, but is built upon out-of-context suppositions.
The NT went into great detail explaining how Jesus was the fulfillment of all of the OT feasts.....and that they all pointed to Him as their goal. I find no justification whatsoever, to still hold to the types and figures and shadows of the Old, that were fulfilled in the New. Premill can't let them go, though, because it needs to keep them in order to create validation and need for an undocumented flimsy expectation that is the most unmentioned and undescribed event of all human history.

There are more details and explanations and data found in the Bible about relatively obscure localized battle between Pharoah of Egypt and king Sennacherib of Assyria that only spanned a few months period, than there is detailing and explaining and discussing the post-2nd Coming Premill Kingdom era that is suppose to span 1,000 years semi-golden age.

Yet the Premill view will still take many, many OT prophecies that the NT clearly gives us as being fulfilled in 1st century AD or thereafter, and attempt to dismiss those applications, and push them off postponed after the 2nd Coming. Now that's a consistent and helpful way to interpret scripture!

the rookie
Jul 19th 2006, 07:16 PM
How did Jesus fulfill the FoT at that moment?

Go back just a short period prior to John 7-8. We see outside of the Temple-area speech, Jesus doing a short individual explanation to someone about this very thing.

Should we have any doubt, that it was fulfilled now, at this moment, as Jesus says?

Did He giver her a promisary note to be redeemed at the 2nd Coming, or was the living water now being given immediately?

You asked "what happened in that moment that would be comparative to those two events, which actually had real spiritual impact on the internal life of a believer?"

Jesus gave the answer, in how it specifically changed that woman's life, and was beginning to change the lives of thousands upon millions soon thereafter.

That sounds fantastic. One problem - it's just simplistic theology. You keep assuming that I am speaking of the Second Coming in relation to "living water", and in doing so continually reframe the discussion to one that suits your argument. It's convenient that the discussion has shifted from the Feast of Tabernacles to living water, because in doing so, it makes it simple to exaggerate the lunacy of anyone who would assert that the "living waters" aspect of an internal spiritual reality won't be fulfilled until the Second Coming. I noted that you attempted to do that with your sanctification verses to - you must have avoided pressing that one because it is another straw man argument that you would lose badly.

I guess before we continue this line of discussion you should define what you see "living waters" flowing through the inner man actually meaning. Then we can see if we actually speak the same language. I'm hoping we do, but as I said in my last post, the manner in which you interpret scripture leaves me wondering. Pentecost and Passover had paralell NT events transpire that were major foundation stones for the NT church. Your continued attempts to place the Feast of Tabernacles on that level only serve to reveal your agenda (negate Zech. 14 as a future coming event) while hiding behind spiritual language.



Why so?

Matthew 2 is the only place in the Bible that speaks of being the fulfillment of Hosea 11.....so why would that be strange? Why would that be unliteral, when Jesus literally did go to, and come out of Egypt....showing Himself to be the fulfillment of the ingathering of the hebrews from Egypt and the wilderness into the true promised land?



I was speaking of this in context to a fulfillment of the Feast of Tabernacles, of which neither verse hints at or speaks of any such thing. That is your theological insertion into those passages, using the word "wilderness" to weakly back up your claim. The problem is, no first century believer would have read Hosea 11 / Matt. 2 and thought "hallelujah! the Feast of Tabernacles has been fulfilled!"


I have no grid. I simply take the scriptures that say they are fulfilled, and accept that they have been fulfilled by the scriptures that say they are a fulfillment of them.

Oh, but you DO have a grid! Your continual denials are empty - EVERYONE has a grid by which they read scripture. This is not an insidious, evil accusation or attack on your character that you have to strenuously deny. All of us read the Bible through paradigms and frames of reference by which we filter the information contained within. To say that you are a 'completely unbiased" reader of the scripture is a disconnect from reality. You apply your grid to the NT passages you use to interpret the OT - that was VERY clear from your brief post on the other thread in which you "proved" a verse-by-verse NT fulfillment of Zech. 14.

The question is not whether we have a grid or a lens through which we interpret scripture - the question is whether or not we have the correct one. Your grid is very greek, and very western - which puts you in good company. But thinking "greek" and applying greek concepts to the scripture isn't always the most helpful thing when the majority of scripture was written by Hebrews who thought in Hebrew paradigms and grids in the way they framed their thoughts and ideas.


The NT specifically speaks 72 times of fulfillment. Can we trust it as a valid source of fulfillment then, or should we turn to external systems that Dispensationalism or Premillennialism offer, and their expectations of fullfillments instead (even though the NT never mentions any of them)?

I trust the NT explicitly. It's your interpretation of it that is suspect. And in terms of fulfillment, the NT explicitly speaks of it in regards to the person and nature of Christ Jesus in relationship to His first advent - because the gospels were written by evangelists looking to prove to their own people that the messiah had come. Luke was looking to prove to his own people as well, which is why there is more exposition and less OT scripture. And John was trying to prove His divinity to a new generation of believers dealing with the issues of heresy outlined in his first letter.

I'm not interested in proving my system. I am interested in truth, and the system of hermeneutics that I use is helpful to me to get to the heart of what the scripture actually says, not what I want it to say. If I read a passage that works against the framework of my understanding, I don't force it to fit (as I believe you have done with Zech. 14). I wrestle with it in prayer and fasting contending for the renewing of my mind to grasp and come into agreement with the heart of the Lord. I am loyal to Him, not premillenialism.

You should understand - I am not fighting for premillennialism on this thread. I am fighting for the truth and the heart of Zech. 14. That's all I care about. If you provide a convincing argument for why what I laid out in the beginning of this thread is off or wrong, then I will change teams in a minute and not look back. You would need more than strong language and passionate theological ideas, however.

I know you feel the same way, which is why I enjoy this dialogue. We just need to start speaking the same language on some things so that these discussions can become even MORE productive.


I will make a concession.
If the OT makes a prophecy, and it is an important one.....

I believe 100% that:
It is either fulfilled and explained somewhere else in the OT
or
somewhere in the NTAnd

If it is an important prophecy that wasn't fulfilled anywhere in the OT, then you can bet your bottom dollar, somewhere in the NT it will be explained and discussed. God did not leave us in the dark. His word contains the understanding of all fulfillment.

I know you didn't mean to say it this way, so you get a pass from me. I am sure that we both agree that EVERY OT prophecy is important, not just the ones we pick and choose to be. Paul in 2 Tim. 3:16 was speaking of the OT after all, and not the NT - since it had not been canonized yet.

Your premise in the last paragraph is fatally flawed, by the way. Why would this have to be so? This assumes the supremacy of the NT over the OT, which the last verse I mentioned explicitly denies. If that verse is true, why would there have to be a NT explanation for EVERY unfulfilled prophecy? That idea is your invention, and one that I would appreciate you backing up with scripture. The Bible doesn't leave us in the dark - the whole of scripture is able to stand on its own, even if there are OT passages that the NT doesn't speak of. Would you like to amend this statement? It truly is in error, and I say that with much love.

This is an absurd statement to make. Since the NT apostles considered the OT to be inspired scripture, with a dynamic continuity to the NT, to a chasm, they would not feel the need to authenticate and validate every OT prophecy. In fact, much of what they taught their fellow Hebrew believers assumed a deep familiarity with those passages, which is why the writer of Hebrews and the writer of Revelation quotes enough of an OT passage to connect them with the entirety of an OT idea in full.

The flip side of your line of reasoning is that the OT cannot stand alone - but needs a NT verse to verify or support it. That's not what you are saying - you are saying that the whole of OT prophesy can be verified in the NT, but it's the same logic. The OT can stand alone. It does not need the NT to verify it, authenticate it, or validate it. Thus when the NT apostles wrote letters they addressed specific issues and laid theological groundwork that the WHOLE OF SCRIPTURE would flesh out in its entirety.

That last paragraph is why I could never subscribe to an amillenial view, and why i believe that your interpretation of OT prophecy is greatly flawed at its foundation.


The system you seem to approach from my observation is, let's take what seems to be OT prophecies, let's assume they weren't fulfilled in the OT, let's assume they weren't fulfilled in the NT, (if we find NT reference to them in relation to the 1st Advent or the present NT era, and they conflict with the external Premillennial framework, let's not accept their application), and let's move them forward and advance them as unfulfilled scriptures.

That is plainly and simply wrong. I spend hours per day working to understand the history and the culture of the OT (and NT) to gain a better understanding of what did and did not happen. I am to dogged to lay hold of what is true to "assume" anything. You think that I am "assuming" Zech. 14 is unfulfilled? I don't need a history book - common sense tells me so. But its common sense built upon a foundation of painstakingly studying the passages and their context, the history, and the culture. I wouldn't need a history book to tell me that the enemies of Judah never had their faces melted off, but I still dive in anyway, just because I don't want to miss something.

"if we find NT reference to them in relation to the 1st Advent or the present NT era, and they conflict with the external Premillennial framework," sounds noble - the problem is in the details of that statement. For I've found that "NT reference" means "if Zechariah spoje about living waters flowing from the eastern sea, with the other half to the western sea, in both summer and winter," then all I need to do is type "living water" in my Bible program and any NT references to "living water" satisfy my curiosity on the issue. No exegesis needed! Just argue "fulfillment" and then the guys that contend with you can be labeled as those who obviously do not value the present spiritual reality of the cross and the blood of Jesus.


That is a dangerous approach Rookie. It places your ability to understand and interpret the OT prophecies ahead of that of the NT writers, and sometimes even Jesus. Because what it does, is say, "That really wasn't a fulfillment, or it was an incomplete fulfillment, or it was a spiritualized fulfillment.....therefore we should take it upon ourselves to dismiss it, and not accept it, and look for a more palatable fulfillment of it in our Premill Kingdom framework." But the scriptures do not require this, nor dictate that you should do this.

Again, it sounds noble - except you are doing the EXACT SAME THING! You place your theological conclusions and greek ideas ahead of Jewish thinking writers to fit a framework that does violence to the actual context of what they were writing about. I am not tryng to "dismiss" NT fulfillments of scripture, regardless of what your opinion of the matter is. I am not trying to lean on my own understanding at all.

I want to build a careful framework to really know and understand the heart of these men by connecting to the Lord in prayer and fasting. I want to agonize over these passages. I want to wrestle with them, the way that I wrestle with the heart of God. I am hungry for the knowledge of God, not the knowledge of the end-times. I want to know and walk with God - and so, at the end of the day I can assure you that I approach these passages with trembling, ot a cavalier loyalty to a system. I have to stand before Him one day and answer to Him about how I sought Him out - believe me, I have no interest in a self-satisfied "rightness" that doesn't translate into a radical lifestyle of holiness and prayer. I want to live wholly and fully for Him in deep devotion and tender love. "Premillennialism" is not my goal at the end of the day.

Sorry, got a bit passionate for a moment. I just want to make sure we understand something here - I adhere to a premillennial view, but at the end of the day the sum total of my life before God is much more than a contending for ideas. Your assessment stung a bit - for if I am coming accross as a premillenial loyalist rather than a Jesus loyalist than I need to repent and go cry over some Psalms (and Song of Solomon) for awhile.


My foundational approach is to interpret scripture with scripture, to conceed to the writings of the NT apostles in explaining the OT scriptures that were either fulfilled or yet-to-be fulfilled, and accept that. I avoid placing my ability to interpret over that of the NT writers, because they, not me, are better at understanding and interpretting and explaining the OT scriptures.
When this leads to the Amillennial framework, instead of Premill....it isn't because I started with that as my presupposition, but it is the result of accepting what and how the NT writers themselves explain the prophetic scriptures....and how they explain the OT writings.

As one who is observing your posts and thought process from a distance, you don't have to receive a single thing from me. But I'll say this, and you can take it and think on it or you can dismiss me as someone with an agenda, but I think that you are not fully connected with your thought processes here. Again, it sounds noble and true - but I promise you the memory and the rhetoric plays tricks on us that we cannot see. I still see myself as a 190 pound athlete with incredible stamina, but that is because my memory is more powerful than reality.

I've read many of your posts and it is clear to me that you are not doing what you think you are, at least when it comes to this topic. Your heart for Jesus and your sincerity is unquestionable and unassailable. You debate and defend your viewpoint because you sincerely are passionate for the reality of the cross and the redemptive power of the Holy Spirit NOW in the life of a believer - I've seen that clearly. But I've also seen that you take your interpretation / conclusion, cross-reference it to NT verses, and use that line of reasoning to "prove" what you believe to be true about the OT. You do it without realizing it. But it is clear to me, as one observing from a distance.

In other words, if you truly used scripture to interpret scripture, you would be a bit more concerned with what the NT audience heard and understood (initial context) to ascertain meaning, intent, and context. Then you would carefully do the same with the OT passages. If they match up, then scripture interprets scripture. If they don't - even if the language and wording is similar - than you have to try again. I have found you are willing to settle for scriptural similarities rather than scriptural exegesis. That may sound harsh, and you can surely (and understandably) hit me back on that one, but it is not easy for me to type that assessment, I assure you. I am not typing it because I want you to agree with me on Zech. 14, I promise you.

the rookie
Jul 19th 2006, 07:17 PM
I would be extremely wreckless to not study the OT. For the OT is what brought Jesus to us, and what spoke of Him. To see the OT scriptures fulfilled and explained by the NT scriptures is a great cause for glory and honor and admonishon if not simple awe, at how the Lord has orchestrated history, and built it soundly and clearly focused on Jesus and what He accomplished with His incarnation, death, burial and resurrection.


I appreciate this. As I have said, I honor and value your heart for Jesus.


What is my alternative?

Assume a Premillennial framework, and take random passages from the OT and claim they apply to a future Premill kingdom that is conflicted with many, many NT passages, that finds no clear or specific OT support, and that if held, brings most of the NT endtime second coming passages into conflict with its system....AND....it devalues both the cross and the 2nd Coming as neither being the prophesied and expected consumate fulfillments that each are so clearly given to be in so many scriptures.

In the Premill system, much if not most of the OT passages much be post-poned:
beyond where they were given locally at that time,
beyond Bethlehem,
beyond Golgotha,
beyond Pentecost,
beyond this present age, and
even beyond the Glorious 2nd Coming.....

into an age and period the Bible makes no clear definition or description of anywhere, but is built upon out-of-context suppositions.

Those are all fair and insightful observations. I do not want to fall into those traps and want to be honest with scripture. Call me on these whenever you feel its appropriate.
The NT went into great detail explaining how Jesus was the fulfillment of all of the OT feasts.....and that they all pointed to Him as their goal. I find no justification whatsoever, to still hold to the types and figures and shadows of the Old, that were fulfilled in the New. Premill can't let them go, though, because it needs to keep them in order to create validation and need for an undocumented flimsy expectation that is the most unmentioned and undescribed event of all human history.

There are more details and explanations and data found in the Bible about relatively obscure localized battle between Pharoah of Egypt and king Sennacherib of Assyria that only spanned a few months period, than there is detailing and explaining and discussing the post-2nd Coming Premill Kingdom era that is suppose to span 1,000 years semi-golden age.

Yet the Premill view will still take many, many OT prophecies that the NT clearly gives us as being fulfilled in 1st century AD or thereafter, and attempt to dismiss those applications, and push them off postponed after the 2nd Coming. Now that's a consistent and helpful way to interpret scripture!

This paragraph is at the core of our disagreement, and if you are still amenible after this post, will surely be fleshed out in dozens of passages over time. I can't comment because the post has gone on too long and you may not want to be my friend later. But of course I would assess this topic totally differently. ;)

David Taylor
Jul 19th 2006, 08:53 PM
That sounds fantastic. One problem - it's just simplistic theology. You keep assuming that I am speaking of the Second Coming in relation to "living water", and in doing so continually reframe the discussion to one that suits your argument. It's convenient that the discussion has shifted from the Feast of Tabernacles to living water, because in doing so, it makes it simple to exaggerate the lunacy of anyone who would assert that the "living waters" aspect of an internal spiritual reality won't be fulfilled until the Second Coming. I noted that you attempted to do that with your sanctification verses to - you must have avoided pressing that one because it is another straw man argument that you would lose badly.

Sorry to be a simplistic theologian. I guess Premillennialism requires you to be a sophisticated and complicated theologian then? (you are doing quite well too!)

I don't want to loose badly. I could care less about 'winning' a discussion.
I don't care to intruduce a straw man either.

Look, You are presenting the idea that Zechariah 14 is 2nd Coming and afterward.

Therefore, when say the NT shows a "significant NT EVENT took place" on both Passover and Pentecost, but not the feast of tabernacles, I am showing you otherwise.

Zechariah 14:8 says clearly, "And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem"

You apply it to the 2nd Coming, --unless you are now going back and applying some parts of Zech 14 to the 1st Advent, and some to the 2nd Advent.

My entire point was to show you that significant event, both from John 4, and John 7-8....and in the life of individuals then....not postponed.

If one expects Zechariah 14 to be 2nd Coming only, then 'in that day' above, the day when 'living waters shall go out', that significant event won't occur until the 2nd Coming.

Jesus however, said otherwise.
Jesus showed the fulfillment of 'in that day' in regards to the living waters, as being NOW, at the 1st advent. Not postponed.

Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw. Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly. The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, AND NOW IS, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. "




I guess before we continue this line of discussion you should define what you see "living waters" flowing through the inner man actually meaning. Then we can see if we actually speak the same language. I'm hoping we do, but as I said in my last post, the manner in which you interpret scripture leaves me wondering. Pentecost and Passover had paralell NT events transpire that were major foundation stones for the NT church. Your continued attempts to place the Feast of Tabernacles on that level only serve to reveal your agenda (negate Zech. 14 as a future coming event) while hiding behind spiritual language.
I won't speak for Jesus. He showed during the Feast of Tabernacles, that He was its fulfillment by the present availability He brought of the living waters to go forth out of Jerusalem, fulfilling Zechariah 14:8.
You might not want to accept His application to it then, but I can't persuade you to accept or refuse it. That's between the two of you guys.

P.s. I don't have an agenda. Jesus showed me the Living Waters aspect of the Feast of Tabernacles was fulfilled in His 1st Advent. I don't need to further an agenda that would suggest otherwise.

Perhaps you might want to give us other OT or NT passages that show the living waters coming out of Jersualem are to be postponed to the 2nd Coming.....surely there are other clear passages that teach this, in which we can know to accept over the 1st Advent application Jesus gave us in John 4, 7-8.

List em.....we'll take a look!






I was speaking of this in context to a fulfillment of the Feast of Tabernacles, of which neither verse hints at or speaks of any such thing. That is your theological insertion into those passages, using the word "wilderness" to weakly back up your claim. The problem is, no first century believer would have read Hosea 11 / Matt. 2 and thought "hallelujah! the Feast of Tabernacles has been fulfilled!"

Some did.
Most didn't....wasn't that part of the problem.
Most wouldn't have said Moses taught of Jesus.
Most wouldn't have said the prophets taught of Jesus.
Most wouldn't have said the Psalms taught of Jesus.

Yet Peter told us that the scriptures taught of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus for the remission of sins.

Jesus Himself said that all of the above wrote of Him.

Matthew knew something about Hosea 2, because he is the only person in the entire Bible that qouted that verse....and Matthew (not Dave) applied it in fulfillment to Jesus coming out of Egypt.

Why on earth would Matthew do such a spurious thing?

The Faithful NT Jews had no problem in knowing that the Feast of Tabernacles was to celebrate their exodus out of Egypt and the wilderness, and their thankfulness for it. And those same Faithful NT Jews also had no problem in knowing that Jesus had come, to fulfill that pre-figure and pre-type, with the true Feast of Ingathering....the true and final exodus from the wilderness.....just as Jesus taught in Luke 15:4.

It was no accident Jesus taught that He had come to save the lost sheep from the wilderness; thus showing His fulfillment of the Feast of Tabernacles.

Whom better than Jesus, to lead His people (those who would received and trust Him), out of captivity and into His Light and living waters!






Oh, but you DO have a grid! Your continual denials are empty - EVERYONE has a grid by which they read scripture. This is not an insidious, evil accusation or attack on your character that you have to strenuously deny. All of us read the Bible through paradigms and frames of reference by which we filter the information contained within. To say that you are a 'completely unbiased" reader of the scripture is a disconnect from reality. You apply your grid to the NT passages you use to interpret the OT - that was VERY clear from your brief post on the other thread in which you "proved" a verse-by-verse NT fulfillment of Zech. 14.

You think so Rookie, only because the Premill system forces its adherents to do it so many, many times....continuously. For me to take a NT quotation of an OT passage, and say it was fulfilled when the NT writer said it was (1st century AD) is not 'me placing a grid or paradigm or frame' over the scriptures.

It is letting the scripture stand as it is given.

Premill so often, cannot do this.
It cannot take an OT passage that is quoted in the NT, and allow it to stand as it is given to us by the NT writer; but rather, Premill must say, "No, that's not really the correct application....that should really be applied only in the Premill Kingdom age....or that is a dual fulfillment that can only fully be fulfilled in the Premill Kingdom age".

That is forcing a grid over the scriptures.
Allowing Matthew or Mark or Luke or John or any other NT writer who quotes specific passages in the OT, and makes 1st century NT application of them, is not 'gridding' anything.

And often, you don't even realize you are doing it. (I didn't either when I was Premill).




The question is not whether we have a grid or a lens through which we interpret scripture - the question is whether or not we have the correct one. Your grid is very greek, and very western - which puts you in good company. But thinking "greek" and applying greek concepts to the scripture isn't always the most helpful thing when the majority of scripture was written by Hebrews who thought in Hebrew paradigms and grids in the way they framed their thoughts and ideas. This is usually the time that Premillennialism will try to advance the idea that Matthew 24 was only written to the Jews, and Chrisians shouldn't read or apply that chapter to themselves....please don't go there.




I trust the NT explicitly. It's your interpretation of it that is suspect.
Then why so many times, can't you leave things alone, and just accept them where the NT writers puts them, instead of trying to postpone them to a later Premill Kingdom?





And in terms of fulfillment, the NT explicitly speaks of it in regards to the person and nature of Christ Jesus in relationship to His first advent - because the gospels were written by evangelists looking to prove to their own people that the messiah had come. Luke was looking to prove to his own people as well, which is why there is more exposition and less OT scripture. And John was trying to prove His divinity to a new generation of believers dealing with the issues of heresy outlined in his first letter.

So what are you trying to say then....that the gospels aren't harmonious? (I don't think you are), that the gospels aren't written for us (I hope you aren't), or that the gospels are somehow incomplete and we need the Premill view to teach us about what is going to happen that the gospels never mention? (that's what I am afraid of....for some reason, 1830 was a really bad year for the origination and growth of extra-biblical new teachings)





I'm not interested in proving my system. I am interested in truth, and the system of hermeneutics that I use is helpful to me to get to the heart of what the scripture actually says, not what I want it to say. If I read a passage that works against the framework of my understanding, I don't force it to fit (as I believe you have done with Zech. 14). I wrestle with it in prayer and fasting contending for the renewing of my mind to grasp and come into agreement with the heart of the Lord. I am loyal to Him, not premillenialism.

Great passage, but I find it hard to believe. I have yet to see you try to seriously consider if Zech 14 'could' have 1st century application, and not have been intended as a Premill prooftext. I have yet to see you wonder why no NT writer ever explained or expounded on the Zech 14 teachings as being '2nd Coming' and 'future Premill Kingdom' expectations. I have yet to see you acknowledge that much of Zech 14 can be explained and applied to the 1st century AD and this present age.

I was loyal to Premillennialism for about 5 years, once I started to see it's problems start showing up all over the place. I will admit it, and I had great difficulty releasing that view at one time. But when you realize that only a 1 single NT passage can be misapplied to depict it, and only a small handful of 3 or 4 OT passages can be misapplied to depict it; eventually it becomes clear that the correct application of those passage completely dismiss it.

There is absolutely no biblical purpose in the Premill Kingdom that is not already given to us in either the 1st Advent and present age; or the eternal age to come.

If you stop approaching passages with a Premill framework, you might start to see how those passages could have been received or understood differently. I hope you might some day.




You should understand - I am not fighting for premillennialism on this thread. I am fighting for the truth and the heart of Zech. 14. That's all I care about. If you provide a convincing argument for why what I laid out in the beginning of this thread is off or wrong, then I will change teams in a minute and not look back. You would need more than strong language and passionate theological ideas, however.
I can't give you strong language or passionate ideas that can amount to a hill of beans. All I can do is remind you of the things Jesus has already done, has already fulfilled, and has already completed....and what the NT specifically says has been done, by how it quotes specific OT passages.

Spend 2 or 3 days studying Zechariah 14 as if it were meant to apply to the 1st Coming and the present age....see if you can figure out why Zechariah used the language he did in the way he did; and see if you can understand the most odd part of it all.....why the NT quotes and makes application of Zechariah 14 and applies it to the 1st Advent and thereafter.

****----To be continued.....(thread limit exceeded) -----*****

David Taylor
Jul 19th 2006, 08:54 PM
***-----continuation of Rookie's earlier long-threaded reply-----***



I know you feel the same way, which is why I enjoy this dialogue. We just need to start speaking the same language on some things so that these discussions can become even MORE productive.
I agree. You show much more depth of consideration, and much more patience and control than many Premillennialists I have known. I enjoy your participation as well. I don't want to assemilate you into the Borg Amill Collective either.....I want scriptures to be honored.....and I want all of us to properly understand them....and I don't want us going off on wild, man-made goose-chases that we have bought off on.

Perhaps you could start a new thread sometimes, with the intent on showing me the reason and specifically unique necessity of the Premill Kingdom that Christ hasn't either fulfilled to this point, or will fulfill in the age of eternity to come. I have the hardest time getting Premillers to do this task.



I know you didn't mean to say it this way, so you get a pass from me. I am sure that we both agree that EVERY OT prophecy is important, not just the ones we pick and choose to be. Paul in 2 Tim. 3:16 was speaking of the OT after all, and not the NT - since it had not been canonized yet.

I agree....think about that sometime when you are having a wavering moment, and the doubt of Premill is trying to creep in. Go through the NT and examine all of the passages that mention the word 'scripture' or 'word of God'.....because as you say, they are talking about the OT. (since the NT wasn't cannonized yet). Then you will find droves more of passages from the OT that are quoted and pointed as fulfillment of what Jesus accomplished at the 2nd Coming (not postponed to a later Premill Age).




Your premise in the last paragraph is fatally flawed, by the way. Why would this have to be so? This assumes the supremacy of the NT over the OT, which the last verse I mentioned explicitly denies. If that verse is true, why would there have to be a NT explanation for EVERY unfulfilled prophecy? That idea is your invention, and one that I would appreciate you backing up with scripture. The Bible doesn't leave us in the dark - the whole of scripture is able to stand on its own, even if there are OT passages that the NT doesn't speak of. Would you like to amend this statement? It truly is in error, and I say that with much love.
I don't pose the NT as being supreme over the OT.
My intent was that the NT would not leave anything hanging.
It would not leave unfulfilled prophecies to confuse the reader, or to make them think 'another testament of Joseph Smith or Mohammed' or someone else was to be expected.
The NT clarifies and explains many of the OT prophecies. That is my point. It doesn't leave confusing unfulfilled prophecies out there for us to wonder about.



This is an absurd statement to make. Since the NT apostles considered the OT to be inspired scripture, with a dynamic continuity to the NT, to a chasm, they would not feel the need to authenticate and validate every OT prophecy. In fact, much of what they taught their fellow Hebrew believers assumed a deep familiarity with those passages, which is why the writer of Hebrews and the writer of Revelation quotes enough of an OT passage to connect them with the entirety of an OT idea in full.

The flip side of your line of reasoning is that the OT cannot stand alone - but needs a NT verse to verify or support it. That's not what you are saying - you are saying that the whole of OT prophesy can be verified in the NT, but it's the same logic. The OT can stand alone. It does not need the NT to verify it, authenticate it, or validate it. Thus when the NT apostles wrote letters they addressed specific issues and laid theological groundwork that the WHOLE OF SCRIPTURE would flesh out in its entirety.
This analogy would only be true if the NT wasn't needed for our understanding....or if there was vast OT prophecies left untidied up and unexplained. I haven't yet found where the OT wasn't complimented and clarified in the NT. Do you think there are vast parts of OT prophecy that the NT writers simply chose to avoid mentioning?

The OT and the NT go together, and the NT does a great job of explaining things in the OT that OT people didn't understand, or often got wrong. I think we should be grateful for its writing and provience to us.




That last paragraph is why I could never subscribe to an amillenial view, and why i believe that your interpretation of OT prophecy is greatly flawed at its foundation.
So you were just toying with me earlier when you said you would "change teams in a minute and not look back" if a convincing arguement was given. In actuallity then, based on this comment, there is no possibility of a convincing arguement.

BTW, which paragraph were you referring, I missed it in your response. Is it worth a more careful examination? Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly, or spoke with a fat-tongue or something?




That is plainly and simply wrong. I spend hours per day working to understand the history and the culture of the OT (and NT) to gain a better understanding of what did and did not happen. I am to dogged to lay hold of what is true to "assume" anything. You think that I am "assuming" Zech. 14 is unfulfilled? I don't need a history book - common sense tells me so.
But its common sense built upon a foundation of painstakingly studying the passages and their context, the history, and the culture.
Well there ya go....looks like your mind is already made up then!
You've built your own 'common sense' so that it is well palatable to yourself.

Is that anything like "The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire"?

I used to apply Zech 14 as future post-2nd Coming too, but now I don't. Does that mean I am now turning to someone elses vomit instead of my own?

One of the things the Proverb writer brought to my attention, when I was having problems with the Premillennialism of my youth, was this verse "lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. "
I didn't want to let Him direct my understanding if it meant to question the interpretations that I held from Premillennialism.....it just had to be true. I couldn't have been wrongly holding those interpretations for so many years.







I wouldn't need a history book to tell me that the enemies of Judah never had their faces melted off, but I still dive in anyway, just because I don't want to miss something.

Based on what Jesus told us regarding the rich man in Luke 16, I doubt that folks like him and Judas Iscariot, and Caiphus, and Hitler have very cool faces right about now.....even if they were able to take several million cased of cool-mint gel aftershave with them to their present destination.

I'll dive in with ya....just not to the place those enemies are enjoying.




"if we find NT reference to them in relation to the 1st Advent or the present NT era, and they conflict with the external Premillennial framework," sounds noble - the problem is in the details of that statement. For I've found that "NT reference" means "if Zechariah spoke about living waters flowing from the eastern sea, with the other half to the western sea, in both summer and winter," then all I need to do is type "living water" in my Bible program and any NT references to "living water" satisfy my curiosity on the issue.
That's a great start.

No really. Do alot of Bible program searching....because it oftentime will show you more wisdom by what it doesn't find, than what it does find. (Like a suitable future alternative understanding of Zechariah 14:8 besides what Jesus gave and applied in John 4 and 7.




No exegesis needed! Just argue "fulfillment" and then the guys that contend with you can be labeled as those who obviously do not value the present spiritual reality of the cross and the blood of Jesus.
Even though you are speaking sarcastically, you are now making alot of sense! The exegesis you so frustratingly want, is in the NT passages that you so ardently are fighting to not apply them to.

Why?
Because there are no other verses given to us in the NT to apply them better to. The NT, then, in John 4 and 7, have given you the exegesis by showing you the proper application....(and no viable other alternative). We just gotta chose to heed what we have been given or not.





Again, it sounds noble - except you are doing the EXACT SAME THING! You place your theological conclusions and greek ideas ahead of Jewish thinking writers to fit a framework that does violence to the actual context of what they were writing about. I am not tryng to "dismiss" NT fulfillments of scripture, regardless of what your opinion of the matter is. I am not trying to lean on my own understanding at all.
And I never knew I was a greek....geek maybe....I sure didn't pledge during college, and I have been called a hillbilly many, many more times than a Greek. But then again, the NT Hebrews seem to have their applications of Jewish thinking down pretty good....so I'll stick with their application of the OT fulfillments when they quote them.

(Yes I know, you hate it when I do that).





I want to build a careful framework to really know and understand the heart of these men by connecting to the Lord in prayer and fasting. I want to agonize over these passages. I want to wrestle with them, the way that I wrestle with the heart of God. I am hungry for the knowledge of God, not the knowledge of the end-times. I want to know and walk with God - and so, at the end of the day I can assure you that I approach these passages with trembling, ot a cavalier loyalty to a system. I have to stand before Him one day and answer to Him about how I sought Him out - believe me, I have no interest in a self-satisfied "rightness" that doesn't translate into a radical lifestyle of holiness and prayer. I want to live wholly and fully for Him in deep devotion and tender love. "Premillennialism" is not my goal at the end of the day.
What a beautiful and heartfelt salutation! I could restate the same thing in complete agreement altering the term "Premillennialism" to "Any-millennialism".

It is great to find a Premill brother who says he doesn't want to hold a cavalier loyalty to a system. Amen!

I don't want to be right either. That is why I try my best to answer scripture with scriptures that I find that have already given the answer, (in the form of direct quotes that say, "This it is fulfilling the scriptures....")

But I know you don't like it when I do that....but I gotta keep doing it. If I have a 'grid' with my own name on it, I would want it to be the grid that is based on using scriptures to interpret scriptures grid.....so that I am as far removed as possible from having to make a personal or private interpretation.

Thanks for the long reply. You and I are kindred spirits in many ways....we get going, and try to be short and concise and to the point....but more often than not, we just find too blame many points to have to cover.

Sorry for being so long winded.

I will admit this.
Of the 3 main Premill OT proof-text passages (Zechariah 14, Isaiah 65, and Ezekiel 40-48)....Zechariah 14 was the most difficult to realize for me, that it wasn't speaking of the 2nd Advent or thereafter.

If that makes you feel any better....it is the most difficult OT Premill-advanced passage. (luckily the NT is adamant that no mortals survive the 2nd Coming in droves of passages....so that helped me alot, to see I was mis-applying Zech 14).

Thanks for the sharetime!





Sorry, got a bit passionate for a moment. I just want to make sure we understand something here - I adhere to a premillennial view, but at the end of the day the sum total of my life before God is much more than a contending for ideas. Your assessment stung a bit - for if I am coming accross as a premillenial loyalist rather than a Jesus loyalist than I need to repent and go cry over some Psalms (and Song of Solomon) for awhile.

Sorry if I stung you....it wasn't my intent. I believe you believe me, as I you.



As one who is observing your posts and thought process from a distance, you don't have to receive a single thing from me. But I'll say this, and you can take it and think on it or you can dismiss me as someone with an agenda, but I think that you are not fully connected with your thought processes here. Again, it sounds noble and true - but I promise you the memory and the rhetoric plays tricks on us that we cannot see. I still see myself as a 190 pound athlete with incredible stamina, but that is because my memory is more powerful than reality.

I've read many of your posts and it is clear to me that you are not doing what you think you are, at least when it comes to this topic. Your heart for Jesus and your sincerity is unquestionable and unassailable. You debate and defend your viewpoint because you sincerely are passionate for the reality of the cross and the redemptive power of the Holy Spirit NOW in the life of a believer - I've seen that clearly. But I've also seen that you take your interpretation / conclusion, cross-reference it to NT verses, and use that line of reasoning to "prove" what you believe to be true about the OT. You do it without realizing it. But it is clear to me, as one observing from a distance.

In other words, if you truly used scripture to interpret scripture, you would be a bit more concerned with what the NT audience heard and understood (initial context) to ascertain meaning, intent, and context. Then you would carefully do the same with the OT passages. If they match up, then scripture interprets scripture. If they don't - even if the language and wording is similar - than you have to try again. I have found you are willing to settle for scriptural similarities rather than scriptural exegesis. That may sound harsh, and you can surely (and understandably) hit me back on that one, but it is not easy for me to type that assessment, I assure you. I am not typing it because I want you to agree with me on Zech. 14, I promise you.

I wish the many Premill reasons to not accept NT quotations and fulfillments would find other NT applications elsewhere. That would make it much easier to consider what you say. But when the NT only applies them uniquely to 1st century fulfillment, and gives no inclination to post 2nd-Coming fulfillment as the many sections of Premillennialism requires, it makes it quite difficult to consider doing that.

I do however, appreciate dialoging with you. Of all of the Premillers on this board, I especially enjoy discussing things with you, Misty, and Hawk. You guys walk the walk, and don't get into being personal, insultive, or short-tempered. A rare trait often, when discussion millennialism on eboards. Thanks a bunch, and don't change your 'how'.....(but feel free to adjust your 'what' as the Lord leads in His own time).

"that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel"

David Taylor
Jul 19th 2006, 09:16 PM
if you are still amenible after this post, will surely be fleshed out in dozens of passages over time. I can't comment because the post has gone on too long and you may not want to be my friend later.

Sure I'm still amenible.

And why wouldn't I want to be your friend later?

Doesn't Christ's living water run through both our veins brother???

(trick question....but hopefully you get the intent)

Your my most favorite Dennis Quad fan aka anonymous-Premill friend and brother I know!

John146
Jul 19th 2006, 09:40 PM
John the Baptist fulfilled everything concerning "Elijah to come"? That is a pretty bold statement. I'm not looking for something to "support my doctrine" - surely there are easier passages to use if I wanted to accomplish something so meaningless as that; I simply wanted to look at the Matt. 17 passage on its own merits outside of theological conclusions and see if there was common ground here. Care to join, to actually comment on the passage itself exegetically (or, to join in on the actual point of the thread, Zech. 14)? I would love it if you backed up your assertion with scripture. Quoting tons of verses does not prove fulfillment, it simply proves a fulfillment, if we take what Jesus said in Matt. 17 at face value - which no one here seems willing to do.

Okay then. I'll talk about Matthew 17. I'm still studying Zechariah 14 and I am not at a point where I can add anything much of value to that discussion except to say that you have to at least allow for the possibility of a figurative, spiritual interpretation (at least partly) and you have to acknowledge that there is no mention of a thousand year reign of Christ anywhere in that chapter. And, with that, on to Matthew 17:

10And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
11And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
12But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. 13Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist. - Matthew 17:10-13

This really isn't difficult. Why do you make it so? I believe Jesus was saying (in my New Slang Version) "Yeah, you're right, they said Elijah would first come and restore all things. This is true. But, hey, guess what? He already came! And no one noticed! And they did whatever they wanted with him and killed him. And they will do the same with Me."

David Taylor
Jul 19th 2006, 09:47 PM
Okay then. I'll talk about Matthew 17. I'm still studying Zechariah 14 and I am not at a point where I can add anything much of value to that discussion except to say that you have to at least allow for the possibility of a figurative, spiritual interpretation (at least partly) and you have to acknowledge that there is no mention of a thousand year reign of Christ anywhere in that chapter. And, with that, on to Matthew 17:

10And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
11And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
12But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. 13Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist. - Matthew 17:13

This really isn't difficult. Why do you make it so? I believe Jesus was saying

(in my New Slang Version)
"Yeah, you're right, they said Elijah would first come and restore all things. This is true. But, hey, guess what? He already came! And no one noticed! And they did whatever they wanted with him and killed him. And they will do the same with Me."



There is a new-slang version bible already...it's called "The Message"....
let's see how close you came to it:

The Message Bible
Matthew 17:10-13" The disciples, meanwhile, were asking questions. "Why do the religion scholars say that Elijah has to come first?" Jesus answered, "Elijah does come and get everything ready. I'm telling you, Elijah has already come but they didn't know him when they saw him. They treated him like dirt, the same way they are about to treat the Son of Man." That's when the disciples realized that all along he had been talking about John the Baptizer."


Pretty close....good job with the slang version! You got the intent of it!

John146
Jul 19th 2006, 10:22 PM
There is a new-slang version bible already...it's called "The Message"....
let's see how close you came to it:

The Message Bible
Matthew 17:10-13" The disciples, meanwhile, were asking questions. "Why do the religion scholars say that Elijah has to come first?" Jesus answered, "Elijah does come and get everything ready. I'm telling you, Elijah has already come but they didn't know him when they saw him. They treated him like dirt, the same way they are about to treat the Son of Man." That's when the disciples realized that all along he had been talking about John the Baptizer."


Pretty close....good job with the slang version! You got the intent of it!

:lol: Wow, that is pretty similar. Thanks for sharing that. "John the Baptizer"? Good for a laugh. I think this thread needed the mood to be lightened a little bit. Just a little intense in here. Great discussion, though. I admire the passion of both you and the rookie. I wish I was a little more knowledgeable of the chapter (Zech 14) in question, but you are doing a great job.

Hawk
Jul 19th 2006, 11:37 PM
I do however, appreciate dialoging with you. Of all of the Premillers on this board, I especially enjoy discussing things with you, Misty, and Hawk. You guys walk the walk, and don't get into being personal, insultive, or short-tempered. A rare trait often, when discussion millennialism on eboards. Thanks a bunch, and don't change your 'how'.....(but feel free to adjust your 'what' as the Lord leads in His own time).



Thanks David!! And likewise, I have thoroughly enjoyed all our dialogue and look forward to more of the same in the future! You have shown meekness and humility in every conversation - a trait that He will look very highly upon when we stand before Him in judgment - no matter our end-time doctrine. I am thoroughly convinced the Lord is more concerned with the progression of our heart in love and meekness than He is with our understanding and timeline of end-time events...

Rookie, I really like what you said - because it is clear about you and about David too - that each of us are hungry for truth and our loyalty is to Jesus, not to a system or a doctrine.

You are a blessing David!

:hug:

Hawk

Hawk
Jul 19th 2006, 11:39 PM
"John the Baptizer". Man, that's a good one! I wonder what else the Message has like that.

:lol: :lol:

a sojourner
Jul 20th 2006, 03:41 AM
This is like the part of the show where DJ and Stephanie have been arguing, but the violins and saxophone start playing softly in the background and Uncle Joey shows them how much the sisters love each other, and they hug with tearstained eyes! *throws back another handful of popcorn*

the rookie
Jul 20th 2006, 04:33 PM
I posted a really long response to the earlier responses. And then my computer died. There's that POWER CORD THING AGAIN! You would think I would learn. So, it may take me some time to recover from this emotional blow, but I'll regather myself in time and get this thing back on track.

In the meantime, I suggest you entertain yourselves not with the "Full House" theme, but with David Hasselhoff's "Hooked on a Feeling" on Youtube.

You will find that we all need to get hooked on a feeling.

David Taylor
Jul 20th 2006, 04:43 PM
I posted a really long response to the earlier responses. And then my computer died. There's that POWER CORD THING AGAIN! You would think I would learn.

Sorry to hear that....maybe it was God sending a helicopter....or a boat....

Psalms 145:17 "The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works."

the rookie
Jul 21st 2006, 03:54 PM
Perhaps you could start a new thread sometimes, with the intent on showing me the reason and specifically unique necessity of the Premill Kingdom that Christ hasn't either fulfilled to this point, or will fulfill in the age of eternity to come. I have the hardest time getting Premillers to do this task.

I appreciate your graciousness and tenderness in responding to some hard points. I appreciate that it also emboldened you to feel comfortable to say some hard things right back, which is fun. Thanks for that, David.

Rather than rehash both of our posts, I'll just focus on a few points and move on - hopefully back to the text of Zech. 14 at some point.

First, I want to address what I said about "changing teams". That was not disingenuous. Many, many times my interpretation or understanding of scripture has collided with someone else's who had a better, clearer, more logical exegesis of a passage or hit me with something that I had missed. Many times I have "changed teams" in less than a minute when it made sense to me to do so according to what I know to be true in the Word (or what I know to be orthodox). I will continue to do so. I will do so, however, when the actual exegesis of a passage is sound.

One thing that I have seen you do over and over is simply present passages (often out of context) as a means of proof-texting your theological assertions. Rarely (hardly ever) in these forums have I seen a premil / amil discussion that stays on the meat of a passage itself. That is ultimately what concerns me. Over and over again Bible passages are left behind to debate theological points backed up with scripture. Maybe this is simply the nature of this kind of discussion, since there is such a theological gap between the two "camps" that theological grids need to be debated just as much as the passages themselves.

What I meant when I said "prove fulfillment and label the other guy as the one who doesn't like the cross" was that most premillennials I know love the spiritual applications and fulfillments through Jesus. I was trying to say that most of the arguments in here that are presented in this light are bogus - we continually agree on those points (like salvation in relationship to the Jew and Gentile) yet are forced to debate on bogus terms - just because I see a future natural fulfillment of many OT scriptures does not mean that I dismiss or devalue the present spiritual realities. I see the Bible (and prophecy) as the fullness of both, not one or the other. The word "Pharisee" gets thrown around often in the face of the premill earthly kingdom expectation, which is part of this bogus line of reasoning. This presumes, as I have said, that we do not value the spiritual or that which was accomplished on the cross. I want to be clear - where the amillennial says "only spiritual!" the premill says "both!", not "only physical!" Too often the argument devolves to one versus the other, and it is vexing.

OK. Moving on to the above quote - I agree with you. And "Hitman's" thread on the Premill purpose of the millennium seemed to be a valid attempt to satiate this desire, not that his presentation was helpful to you, since you see all of those reasons listed as an insult to what Jesus accomplished in the first century. Until we bridge that theological gap, such a discussion would be rather pointless and devolve into yet another conceptual (rather than scriptural) debate.


I wish the many Premill reasons to not accept NT quotations and fulfillments would find other NT applications elsewhere. That would make it much easier to consider what you say. But when the NT only applies them uniquely to 1st century fulfillment, and gives no inclination to post 2nd-Coming fulfillment as the many sections of Premillennialism requires, it makes it quite difficult to consider doing that.

This is the main point I wanted to hit in response, out of everything you said. Because this comment is simply not true. There ARE NT applications, very clear ones. When presented, however, they are simply dismissed out of hand because they do not fit the prevailing assumption that is inserted into the scripture passages. Despite all the protests to the contrary, it is not so simple for the amillennial to appeal to the apostolic interpretation in the NT scripture to interpret the OT. "Scripture interpreting scripture" sounds lofty, but I have not seen it. It's as if amills (and you) really believe that they approach the scripture with no bias or lens and simply "let it speak for itself". You all say this all the time, and in the repreating of it have come to believe it - but it is just not true.

To let "scripture interpret scripture", logically interpretation has to begin somewhere. You have to interpret the initial passage somehow to let it interpret the other passages you are comparing it against. You act as if your interpretation isn't an interpretation at all - no, this is the apostles interpretation - I'm arguing with the apostles, not you. What? Am I the only one who sees the logical fallacy here? You continually beg the question and yet claim that scripture speaks for itself free from your interpretation. How do you do an inductive study of the Word? At what point are we discussing YOUR interpretation and when are we discussing the APOSTLE'S interpretation? How do we separate the two?

I have no interest in discussing scripture this way. I simply want to take a passage of scripture, apply the best interpretation I can from an inductive study and examination of the passage, and test that interpretation against other brothers and sisters in Christ to sharpen and test our conclusions together. I have the Holy Spirit alive and jealous within me in regards to my hunger for truth (1 Jn. 2:27). My hope is to fellowship with other brethren who have the Holy Spirit within them and compare my interpretation with theirs and go after God together. When the discussion becomes something akin to me discussing the scriptures with someone who is convinced that it is me vs. them and the apostles then discussion will never get real far.

What is at the core of your point in the quote above is that I CAN point to many NT scriptures that support a premill supposition. But rather than let "scripture stand for itself" you dismiss those passages WITH YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION. Whether you claim that the apostles agree with your interpretation or not is irrelevant to me. You do not, and cannot, do what you are proposing to do above. Romans 9-11 means what you say it means, not what I think; the book of Revelation is symbolic and hard, and doesn't mean what it says either - it means what you say it means...there is no Antichrist coming, the apostle John (and Paul) was agreeing with you that it's spiritual, Satan, etc....there is no literal 1000 years, the scripture means something else...and so on and so on. The "other NT applications" are there, but they are explained away and made to fit the system.


I do however, appreciate dialoging with you. Of all of the Premillers on this board, I especially enjoy discussing things with you, Misty, and Hawk. You guys walk the walk, and don't get into being personal, insultive, or short-tempered. A rare trait often, when discussion millennialism on eboards. Thanks a bunch, and don't change your 'how'.....(but feel free to adjust your 'what' as the Lord leads in His own time).
Thanks for the kind words. This has been very helpful for me (and hopefully you). Until the above inconsistencies and hermeneutical flaws are addressed, I probably won't be adjusting the what anytime soon. There are still a few loose ends, but I would love to get back to Zech. 14. Starting with other verses for "living waters" that could be future, physical and literal in the scripture (i.e. Ps. 46, Isa. 35, Eze. 47, and Rev. 22) but looking at the whole chapter in terms of what I laid out.

Thanks David - you're a good man!

the rookie
Jul 21st 2006, 04:04 PM
Okay then. I'll talk about Matthew 17. I'm still studying Zechariah 14 and I am not at a point where I can add anything much of value to that discussion except to say that you have to at least allow for the possibility of a figurative, spiritual interpretation (at least partly) and you have to acknowledge that there is no mention of a thousand year reign of Christ anywhere in that chapter. And, with that, on to Matthew 17:

10And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
11And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
12But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. 13Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist. - Matthew 17:10-13

This really isn't difficult. Why do you make it so? I believe Jesus was saying (in my New Slang Version) "Yeah, you're right, they said Elijah would first come and restore all things. This is true. But, hey, guess what? He already came! And no one noticed! And they did whatever they wanted with him and killed him. And they will do the same with Me."

One could say that you are the one making it difficult, but that's neither here nor there - wouldn't you agree? The issue is the passage itself, and it's fulfillment. One could argue that the KJV is the original slang version, since it was the common speech of the day when it was translated. Anyhow, I like the NKJV - it says it clearly: Elijah is coming, and will restore all things. The idea that there had already been one fulfillment of this is what Jesus was speaking of - John the Baptist. But John the Baptist did not "restore ALL things." Which is why Peter uses the same phrase later in Acts 3:21 - and speaks of the restoration of all things as a future event, not a past one that was "fulfilled" at the time of John the Baptist and his ministry. Who restores all things, John the Baptist or Jesus? I'm sure I can guess the answer to your question, so if your answer is "Jesus", than why would you do a force-fit here as if the answer was John? Why are you making it more difficult than it needs to be? ;)

I'll ask again what I asked earlier. How did John the Baptist fulfill EVERY OT passage that spoke of the forerunner reality?

You may want to look at this a bit closer, since the OT forerunner passages focus on the cataclysmic destruction with fire (in relation to what follows his coming) that Peter seems to be referencing in 2 Pet. 3. These same cataclysmic passages are the ones that John himself preached from during his ministry. So I wouldn't just throw a bunch of scriptures up here and consider the matter settled.

David Taylor
Jul 21st 2006, 04:57 PM
Rather than rehash both of our posts, I'll just focus on a few points and move on - hopefully back to the text of Zech. 14 at some point.

Yep, there is some good (and tough) stuff in Zech 14 to work over. I look forward to the times when we can hit one of those points, and stayed focused on it for a post or two, before getting sidetracked.





One thing that I have seen you do over and over is simply present passages (often out of context) as a means of proof-texting your theological assertions.
That is when I wish you would go out of your way to bring it to my attention. I most certainly do not want to ever take things out of context; or to 'proof-texting'. At least I can have the opporunity to explain 'why' I have done so; or understood something in a certain way and maybe re-explain it more clearly.
If I do some grave 'out-of-context' manuever like the serpent-seed folks do with Genesis 6, or the pre-trib folks do with Rev 4:1, or the mormons do with John 10:16....then I want to be called on it, and spend some time clearly examining what was said.
OK?




just because I see a future natural fulfillment of many OT scriptures does not mean that I dismiss or devalue the present spiritual realities. I see the Bible (and prophecy) as the fullness of both, not one or the other.
Yet far to many Premillers will be completely inconsistent with applications of natural and spiritual scriptures....solely to keep from rocking their prime-directive idea of their being a 1000 year premill kingdom. If there is a 1000 year premill kingdom, then it can stand the test of any and all criticisms that will be applied to it. Where you loose alot of the Amillers, and why alot of Premillers abandon Premill and move to the Amill view, is because of alot of what is speculated to occur in that Premill era by Premillers.....which creates huge problems from the NT scriptures. You may not agree, (but you should), and you at least have a vague idea of what I am referring to (if not maybe even a slightly troubled concern that you might not want to admit). The Amill view, however, would boldly and confidently say that nothing is left to be fulfilled in a supposed 1000 year premill era that is not either fulfilled 1) at Calvary, 2) the NT era thereafter, or 3) at the 2nd Coming and the eternal New Earth state.

Amill would love for Premill to carefully and clearly show it specific things that must occur in that Premill Age that cannot be already attributed to those 3 clear biblically presented venues. Perhaps many of us ex-Premillers would reconcider or never left Premill had any Premill brethren been able to provide that satiable necessity.






The word "Pharisee" gets thrown around often in the face of the premill earthly kingdom expectation, which is part of this bogus line of reasoning. This presumes, as I have said, that we do not value the spiritual or that which was accomplished on the cross. I want to be clear - where the amillennial says "only spiritual!" the premill says "both!", not "only physical!" Too often the argument devolves to one versus the other, and it is vexing.

I don't think this comparison is done to devalue any 'spiritual' acknowledgements that Premill may hold; but rather this:

To bring bold attention to the fact that the Premill view, fundamentally, is making the exact same error that the Pharisees did in both camps expectation of the Kingdom.

That is not to say that Premillers are Pharisees....but they hold the same Premill Kingdom era expectations, which Jesus (and the NT writers) directly rebuted. That more than anything I say, should be a wake-up call or a self-check moment for both you Rookie, and others who might find this to be a possibility. I will acknowledge now, that when I was still a Premiller, that troubled me personally alot.....I just couldn't admit it, for if I did, then the only next logical course was to begin the road of questioning and abandoning the Premill framework, of which I was not yet ready to do at that time.





OK. Moving on to the above quote - I agree with you. And "Hitman's" thread on the Premill purpose of the millennium seemed to be a valid attempt to satiate this desire, not that his presentation was helpful to you, since you see all of those reasons listed as an insult to what Jesus accomplished in the first century. Until we bridge that theological gap, such a discussion would be rather pointless and devolve into yet another conceptual (rather than scriptural) debate.

But that unbridged theological gap is humongous. It is core NT Christianity IMO.

We do need to do everything in our strength to bridge that gap, study it, reconsider it, and carefully make wise decisions on it.

What you see as pointless, I see as aversion because it can very quickly cause extreme stress to the Premill view. Most Premillers stand pretty firm on the Premill view; and will fight hard to substantiate it....yet they will not fight hard to disregard or dimish the main tennants of the Cross and NT Christianity....but the actions and rituals and characteristics of the Premill Kingdom itself, does that very fact. It creates a huge discord with the Cross and NT Christianity; and many Premillers do see it as problematic, and tend to want to avoid stressing it too hard, because of their reluctance at the possibility that it might cause them to go in a millenniarian direction they don't think they want to go in. That's why you find alot of Premillers create eisogetical red-herring explanations like "the animal sacrifices are done for memorials to Jesus", etc.... They know that is absurd and ridiculous, yet they find this unsupportable premise the best way to keep from abandoning Premill; and keeping ahold of the OT scriptures that they think demand Premill.









I wish the many Premill reasons to not accept NT quotations and fulfillments would find other NT applications elsewhere. That would make it much easier to consider what you say. But when the NT only applies them uniquely to 1st century fulfillment, and gives no inclination to post 2nd-Coming fulfillment as the many sections of Premillennialism requires, it makes it quite difficult to consider doing that.

This is the main point I wanted to hit in response, out of everything you said. Because this comment is simply not true. There ARE NT applications, very clear ones. When presented, however, they are simply dismissed out of hand because they do not fit the prevailing assumption that is inserted into the scripture passages.
You'll have to reply to this one and give an example or two....I can't think of any specific example you might be referring to. Perhaps I too, didn't explain myself well originally also.




Despite all the protests to the contrary, it is not so simple for the amillennial to appeal to the apostolic interpretation in the NT scripture to interpret the OT. "Scripture interpreting scripture" sounds lofty, but I have not seen it.


Well, to be blunt...."open your eyes". That is not meant to be smart-elecked, but to say this. When an OT verse is specifically quoted in the NT, (especially when it is only quoted once, or if multiply quoted, only applied to the same thing), and when it is never quoted anywhere else in the OT being applied to something else, nor anywhere else in the NT being applied to something else, you gotta accept it where the apostles give it.

An example.

Micah 5:2 about Jesus' birth in Bethlehem is never requoted anywhere else in the OT. It is only directly quoted once in the NT in Matthew 2, and is indirectly referred to once in Luke 2. Scripure has interpretted Scripure.

Jesus is the ruler from everlasting to everlasting born in Bethlehem.
There can be no other application.

Many, many other OT-NT quotations follow this same framework.
Yet, Premill often, simply won't accept the ones that it want to re-apply to the Premill Kingdom age, even though the NT quote never even vaguely does so. Even when the NT quote specifically places the fulfillment in 1st century AD. Even when the NT nowhere else mentions it; nor does the OT anywhere else say it is fulfilled differently.

It's not that interpretting scripture with scripture is a bad thing; it is that the Premill system won't do it, if doing it might challenge or create a misapplication of an accepted OT Premill passage.

We've got to remove ourselves from assuming something in the text, that isn't there; to the extent that it causes us to not allow the apostles to apply OT things where the apostles chose to apply them.

If I have gotten off base here, and missed your point (I probably have), reel me back in, and let's break it down, and use an example or two.



It's as if amills (and you) really believe that they approach the scripture with no bias or lens and simply "let it speak for itself". You all say this all the time, and in the repreating of it have come to believe it - but it is just not true.

Unfortunately, I may fail....show it to me, though. Because I sure do try my best to allow scripture to interpret scripture, and to let what the NT writers tell us apply where they put it. (and not remove it to some non-mentioned mythical era).




To let "scripture interpret scripture", logically interpretation has to begin somewhere. You have to interpret the initial passage somehow to let it interpret the other passages you are comparing it against.


I don't think I agree with this premise.
If you take two specific passages that are quoted, one in the OT, and one in the NT; and they are unique enough to know that one is a quotation of the other, then if the later (NT) quotation provides the venue and explanation, (ei: "Thus fulfilling the scriptures which saith, blah, blah, blah") then you can understand the apostles application, without doing any personal interpretation.

You simple receive what the NT writer has explained, and say, "Oh...OK....that's what the OT writer was talking about."

That's not personal interpretation....that's simply acceptance of NT apostolic authority.





You act as if your interpretation isn't an interpretation at all - no, this is the apostles interpretation - I'm arguing with the apostles, not you. What? Am I the only one who sees the logical fallacy here? You continually beg the question and yet claim that scripture speaks for itself free from your interpretation. How do you do an inductive study of the Word? At what point are we discussing YOUR interpretation and when are we discussing the APOSTLE'S interpretation? How do we separate the two?


I have in the past, and will try very carefully in the future, to specifically denote what 'my interpretations' are, when they differ or are not directly supported by NT apostolic fulfillments.

If I imbed my interpretation into the apostles, then by all means call me on it, and let's see if you did catch me in the cookie jar, or if I simply didn't explain myself clearly, or if I simply misinterpretted something.

Again, you are speaking in such broad stroked generalities, it is hard to reply carefully without an example.




I have no interest in discussing scripture this way. I simply want to take a passage of scripture, apply the best interpretation I can from an inductive study and examination of the passage, and test that interpretation against other brothers and sisters in Christ to sharpen and test our conclusions together. I have the Holy Spirit alive and jealous within me in regards to my hunger for truth (1 Jn. 2:27). My hope is to fellowship with other brethren who have the Holy Spirit within them and compare my interpretation with theirs and go after God together. When the discussion becomes something akin to me discussing the scriptures with someone who is convinced that it is me vs. them and the apostles then discussion will never get real far.

I can agree with that 100%....that is why you and some other folks like you bring so much value to these discussions; over some who are simply mouth-only, and no ears and no heart and no desire. (other than to continually spout what their pastor has ingrained in their ears)

Biblical truth is sweet honey to our souls; and I love it! I could care less how many times the Lord corrects me, and has to change my thinking, as long as He is continuing to increase my wisdom, and to direct me to fuller and better understanding of His truth.





What is at the core of your point in the quote above is that I CAN point to many NT scriptures that support a premill supposition. But rather than let "scripture stand for itself" you dismiss those passages WITH YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION.

OK. again, we need some examples. Maybe start 3 or 4 new threads for each of these type points, so we can get specific. I'd like that, and I'd love to see an earnest Premill attempt at studying the NT writings about 'the premill kingdom' that don't involved only Revelation 20 (which is daily beat to death over and over again)





Whether you claim that the apostles agree with your interpretation or not is irrelevant to me. You do not, and cannot, do what you are proposing to do above.
Maybe this is the problem.
You see what I have written as a claim that the apostles agree with my interpretation.

I would say No. I don't want to have an interpretation. I want to take what the apostles said, and accept it where, and when, and how they spoke it. Even if it places an OT prophecy somewhere I might not think it should go.

I really like the NASB and the NKJV....simply because they italicize and denote all NT passages that are quotes of OT passages. I honestly feel, that if we had a full enough familiarity of all of the NT quotes of OT passages, the concept of Eschatology becomes simple to understand....much like soteriology and the divinity of Jesus. There is no way anyone can say they believe both the OT and the NT, and then say that Jesus is not God.
Why? Because there are so many OT quotations that uniquely can only apply to YHWH that the NT re-applies solely to Jesus.

Either the NT is fraud and Jesus is not God, or the NT is true and Jesus is God.

Both cannot be true. (This type of approach of OT - NT prophecy-fulfillment causes fits for the unsuspecting Jehovah Witnesses that ring the doorbell)






Romans 9-11 means what you say it means, not what I think; the book of Revelation is symbolic and hard, and doesn't mean what it says either - it means what you say it means...there is no Antichrist coming, the apostle John (and Paul) was agreeing with you that it's spiritual, Satan, etc....there is no literal 1000 years, the scripture means something else...and so on and so on. The "other NT applications" are there, but they are explained away and made to fit the system.


Again, it's hard to take generalization and discuss them without getting irrational and emotional. We could take any of those topics and develop them from either side if you wish...I'm pretty open to doing so anytime.




Thanks for the kind words. This has been very helpful for me (and hopefully you). Until the above inconsistencies and hermeneutical flaws are addressed, I probably won't be adjusting the what anytime soon. There are still a few loose ends, but I would love to get back to Zech. 14. Starting with other verses for "living waters" that could be future, physical and literal in the scripture (i.e. Ps. 46, Isa. 35, Eze. 47, and Rev. 22) but looking at the whole chapter in terms of what I laid out.

Thanks David - you're a good man!


I'd like to get into those other living waters passages.

What specifically, do you really think a 'living water' truly is?
My off-the-hip answer would be, "Eternal Life given me by Jesus".
What would your off-the-hip answer be?

David Taylor
Jul 21st 2006, 05:06 PM
One could say that you are the one making it difficult, but that's neither here nor there - wouldn't you agree? The issue is the passage itself, and it's fulfillment. One could argue that the KJV is the original slang version, since it was the common speech of the day when it was translated. Anyhow, I like the NKJV - it says it clearly: Elijah is coming, and will restore all things. The idea that there had already been one fulfillment of this is what Jesus was speaking of - John the Baptist. But John the Baptist did not "restore ALL things." Which is why Peter uses the same phrase later in Acts 3:21 - and speaks of the restoration of all things as a future event, not a past one that was "fulfilled" at the time of John the Baptist and his ministry. Who restores all things, John the Baptist or Jesus? I'm sure I can guess the answer to your question, so if your answer is "Jesus", than why would you do a force-fit here as if the answer was John? Why are you making it more difficult than it needs to be? ;)

I'll ask again what I asked earlier. How did John the Baptist fulfill EVERY OT passage that spoke of the forerunner reality?

You may want to look at this a bit closer, since the OT forerunner passages focus on the cataclysmic destruction with fire (in relation to what follows his coming) that Peter seems to be referencing in 2 Pet. 3. These same cataclysmic passages are the ones that John himself preached from during his ministry. So I wouldn't just throw a bunch of scriptures up here and consider the matter settled.


Rookie, (What is your first name....I never caught it?)
What I think you are missing, in your reply to Eric, is that you are doing an 'either-or' application of Elijah...to either JtB or to Jesus.

But was Jesus really doing an either-or?

I believe Jesus was referring to them both, because of how both the OT passage, and the NT quotation and announcement of the passage, was given to us.

Elijah would come and do what? Announce Messiah.

Elijah coming and announcing Messiah brings about that resitution. Jesus didn't leave anything unfinished or undone.

When the scriptures said the disciples undestood Jesus spoke of JtB, it was simply saying that John the Baptist as the forerunner of Jesus was the fulfillment of the OT prophetic passage.

Notice later at Calvary, the unbelievers say Jesus is calling for Elijah....but Elijah wasn't going to come. He had come.

"Eli, Eli, Lamasabachthani", wasn't a call for Elijah to come at all, but just showed that they too, missed the fulfillment of that prophecy; and they still thought Elijah was yet to come.

Something to ponder on anyway.

Elijah, JtB, and Jesus are all involved in that prophecy and fulfillment.
Nothing remains...if something does in regards to Elijah...what yet is there for Elijah to do?

the rookie
Jul 21st 2006, 05:17 PM
I'd like to get into those other living waters passages.

What specifically, do you really think a 'living water' truly is?
My off-the-hip answer would be, "Eternal Life given me by Jesus".
What would your off-the-hip answer be?

GOOD last post, David. Very thoughtful, very, very well-done. I appreciated it. You made some fair points - particularly in the area of my observations and their generalities. I gravitate towards "big picture" and was summarizing my observations from the many posts I've read in the short time I've been here. But without examples those general observations are not helpful - well said. I'm sure we'll get to the "meat" of my arguments over time in many other threads, and as usual we'll both call it as we see it.

"Off the hip" answer: both spiritual internal as well as physical external.

"Living waters" flowing within the inner man are a direct result of interaction with our spirit-man and the Holy Spirit (particularly over the Word itself, but also with prayer and fasting). The "thirst" that will be satiated with living waters is the thirst for God Himself and a living relationship with Him. This "thirsting" and "satisfying" reality begins at the new birth and will continue forever. This living waters reality was initiated and made a spiritual reality the moment it became possible for the Holy Spirit to indwell human beings (in my "off the hip" opinion) not at the Feast of Tabernacles (which was the point of my earlier post).

"Living waters" physical, future, and external are the waters that will flow from the throne (Rev. 22) through the city (Ps. 46) to bring life to the earth (Eze. 47) and cause desert places to fourish (Isa. 35) restoring the earth (creation) to the glory it is groaning and waiting for (Rom. 8).

the rookie
Jul 21st 2006, 05:21 PM
Jesus didn't leave anything unfinished or undone.

Elijah, JtB, and Jesus are all involved in that prophecy and fulfillment.
Nothing remains...if something does in regards to Elijah...what yet is there for Elijah to do?

But you don't really believe that, because you believe that Jesus is coming (future) to bring in a new heavens and a new earth - as well as finally conquer sin and death in full. So you actually do believe that there are things yet undone for Jesus to accomplish.

What remains to be done (future) according to Peter is for the times of the restoration of all things to commence. Heaven must contain Jesus until that appointed time (still to come).

John146
Jul 21st 2006, 06:49 PM
One could say that you are the one making it difficult, but that's neither here nor there - wouldn't you agree? The issue is the passage itself, and it's fulfillment. One could argue that the KJV is the original slang version, since it was the common speech of the day when it was translated. Anyhow, I like the NKJV - it says it clearly: Elijah is coming, and will restore all things. The idea that there had already been one fulfillment of this is what Jesus was speaking of - John the Baptist. But John the Baptist did not "restore ALL things." Which is why Peter uses the same phrase later in Acts 3:21 - and speaks of the restoration of all things as a future event, not a past one that was "fulfilled" at the time of John the Baptist and his ministry. Who restores all things, John the Baptist or Jesus? I'm sure I can guess the answer to your question, so if your answer is "Jesus", than why would you do a force-fit here as if the answer was John? Why are you making it more difficult than it needs to be? ;)

I'll ask again what I asked earlier. How did John the Baptist fulfill EVERY OT passage that spoke of the forerunner reality?

You may want to look at this a bit closer, since the OT forerunner passages focus on the cataclysmic destruction with fire (in relation to what follows his coming) that Peter seems to be referencing in 2 Pet. 3. These same cataclysmic passages are the ones that John himself preached from during his ministry. So I wouldn't just throw a bunch of scriptures up here and consider the matter settled.

You make good points here. It's worthwhile to determine what "restore all things" means. I'll save that for another post after I study that further. In the meantime, here is how I currently look at it. I want to break things down into more detail than I did before so that you can see why I interpret the passage the way I do.

I'll quote the passage here for reference:

9And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.
10And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
11And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
12But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. 13Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist. - Matthew 17:9-13

From verse 9, we see that the subject is Jesus rising from the dead. In verse 10, they are asking why it says in the Old Testament that Elijah must first come. Come before what? Before Jesus rises from the dead. Then in verse 11 we see that Jesus agrees with them that Elijah must first come saying "Elias truly shall first come". Now, notice the first word in verse 12 is "BUT". Jesus is countering something in verse 12. What is He countering? The idea that Elijah had not yet come as the disciples believed at that time which is why they asked their question because they were confused. In response to their confusion in thinking that Elijah still had to come Jesus said "BUT I say that Elias is come already". He was saying in effect "You're expecting a future coming of Elijah, but I'm telling you that he already came." Then in verse 13 we see that they finally realize that Jesus was speaking of John the Baptist. Now, look again at verse 13. Notice that it does not say that "Jesus was speaking to them of John the Baptist as well as a future Elijah". It just says that "Jesus was speaking to them of John the Baptist.". Now, maybe you believe that John the Baptist is coming again in the future, I don't know. But I don't believe that.

David Taylor
Jul 21st 2006, 07:46 PM
OK Rookie (I missed your first name again....Bill, Fred, Mortimer, Francisco, maybe Homer? ...help me remember.....).

Let's look at this physical, future, and external expectations.

Since you begin with Revelation 22 let's start there.

Do you agree this is literally describing the New Jerusalem, after it has come down from Heaven?
"And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life. And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. "

So to re-iterate, when you say:

"Living waters" physical, future, and external are the waters that will flow from the throne (Rev. 22) through the city (Ps. 46) to bring life to the earth (Eze. 47) and cause desert places to fourish (Isa. 35) restoring the earth (creation) to the glory it is groaning and waiting for (Rom. 8).
Your analogy above, is speaking of the Scripture I posted in blue above it correct, in the New Jerusalem, correct?

Hawk
Jul 21st 2006, 08:13 PM
OK Rookie (I missed your first name again....Bill, Fred, Mortimer, Francisco, maybe Homer? ...help me remember.....).

Let's look at this physical, future, and external expectations.


Great place to start David!



Since you begin with Revelation 22 let's start there.

Do you agree this is literally describing the New Jerusalem, after it has come down from Heaven?


I'm not rookie but my guess is that he would say "yes"...



"And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life. And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. "

So to re-iterate, when you say:

Your analogy above, is speaking of the Scripture I posted in blue above it correct, in the New Jerusalem, correct?

Yep. Rookie, feel free to correct me if this is not what you meant.

Hawk

the rookie
Jul 21st 2006, 08:50 PM
You make good points here. It's worthwhile to determine what "restore all things" means. I'll save that for another post after I study that further. In the meantime, here is how I currently look at it. I want to break things down into more detail than I did before so that you can see why I interpret the passage the way I do.

I'll quote the passage here for reference:

9And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.
10And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
11And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
12But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. 13Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist. - Matthew 17:9-13

From verse 9, we see that the subject is Jesus rising from the dead. In verse 10, they are asking why it says in the Old Testament that Elijah must first come. Come before what? Before Jesus rises from the dead. Then in verse 11 we see that Jesus agrees with them that Elijah must first come saying "Elias truly shall first come". Now, notice the first word in verse 12 is "BUT". Jesus is countering something in verse 12. What is He countering? The idea that Elijah had not yet come as the disciples believed at that time which is why they asked their question because they were confused. In response to their confusion in thinking that Elijah still had to come Jesus said "BUT I say that Elias is come already". He was saying in effect "You're expecting a future coming of Elijah, but I'm telling you that he already came." Then in verse 13 we see that they finally realize that Jesus was speaking of John the Baptist. Now, look again at verse 13. Notice that it does not say that "Jesus was speaking to them of John the Baptist as well as a future Elijah". It just says that "Jesus was speaking to them of John the Baptist.". Now, maybe you believe that John the Baptist is coming again in the future, I don't know. But I don't believe that.

Right on two counts. I don't believe that John the Baptist is coming again, nor do I believe that Jesus was speaking of literal "Elijah" to come, either. In other words, Jesus was building a framework for them to understand that John was not the literal man, Elijah - so that they would understand that the future "Elijah" would not be literal Elijah either.

Whether I believe Elijah is one of the two witnesses or not (to be honest, I'm not sure - could be from the context of Rev. 11, but who cares? It's irrelevant in some ways and not the point of Rev. 11, actually.) has no bearing on this passage, because Jesus is establishing a context for a "non-literal" Elijah, both the one that HAD come (John the Baptist) and the one TO COME (the one whom would restore all things). When the disiples understood that He had been speaking of John the Baptist, they got it - they were asking about literal Elijah coming, which Jesus helped them understand was not the case: John the Baptist (or, a "non-literal Elijah") was the fulfillment, but the greater "Elijah" IS coming and will restore ALL THINGS. In other words, Jesus Himself (another "non-literal Elijah") is "Elijah to come".

Whether you believe that Jesus "restored all things" at the cross or will "restore all things" in the future is irrelevant to this discussion, which is a straight exegesis of the text. If you buy into my exegesis than you have to wonder why Jesus would refer to Himself as a forerunner who would restore all things, or as One who would come in the spirit of Elijah; but that, of course, is the heart of our debates. :)

the rookie
Jul 21st 2006, 08:54 PM
OK Rookie (I missed your first name again....Bill, Fred, Mortimer, Francisco, maybe Homer? ...help me remember.....).

Let's look at this physical, future, and external expectations.

Since you begin with Revelation 22 let's start there.

Do you agree this is literally describing the New Jerusalem, after it has come down from Heaven?
"And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life. And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. "

So to re-iterate, when you say:

Your analogy above, is speaking of the Scripture I posted in blue above it correct, in the New Jerusalem, correct?

Yes, that's correct. The tree of life "brings healing to the nations", not in a spiritual manner but in the manner in which the tree and the river interact with the millennial earth, as depicted in the other passages highlighted. Though one might argue that the tree of life has value for healing the nations now (which I agree with), that argument is irrelevant because of the context of the passage in speaking of a future interaction with the nations.

David Taylor
Jul 21st 2006, 09:07 PM
Yes, that's correct. The tree of life "brings healing to the nations", not in a spiritual manner but in the manner in which the tree and the river interact with the millennial earth, as depicted in the other passages highlighted.

But Revelation 21-22 isn't discussing the millennial Earth.
Revelation 21-22 is discussing the New Earth after the old Earth was passed away.

Revelation 21:1 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband."

the rookie
Jul 21st 2006, 09:22 PM
But Revelation 21-22 isn't discussing the millennial Earth.
Revelation 21-22 is discussing the New Earth after the old Earth was passed away.

Revelation 21:1 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband."


How can you be so sure? To paraphrase wpm - "Revelation is a difficult book, and we need to navigate it carefully together"; to paraphrase john146 - "Revelation is not chronological but a series of visions"; etc., etc.

Since "1000" is not literal, "1/4 of the earth" is not literal; and there doesn't seem to be a logical chronology (as amillennials have presented) then how can we be sure that Rev. 21:9-22:5 is speaking of this? Rev. 21:9 seems to be another one of those "non-chronological visions" that john146 was speaking of, since the city seems to be descending again after it already descended in 21:2.

Just wondering. :)

David Taylor
Jul 21st 2006, 09:28 PM
How can you be so sure? To paraphrase wpm - "Revelation is a difficult book, and we need to navigate it carefully together"; to paraphrase john146 - "Revelation is not chronological but a series of visions"; etc., etc.

Since "1000" is not literal, "1/4 of the earth" is not literal; and there doesn't seem to be a logical chronology (as amillennials have presented) then how can we be sure that Rev. 21:9-22:5 is speaking of this? Rev. 21:9 seems to be another one of those "non-chronological visions" that john146 was speaking of, since the city seems to be descending again after it already descended in 21:2.

Just wondering. :)

So are you saying that you are starting to take up bad Amillennial habits then?

Isn't Revelation 21:9 simply a retelling of the same point that Revelation 21:1-2 just told?

(I hope you're not one of those guys who thinks Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are two completely different Creation accounts)

Tell you what.

Here's Revelation 21-22.

You tell me which verses are talking about the premill kingdom
as opposed to
which verses are talking about the New Jerusalem in the New Earth.

21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
21:10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
21:11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;
21:12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
21:13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates.
21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
21:15 And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof.
21:16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.
21:17 And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.
21:18 And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass.
21:19 And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald;
21:20 The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolyte; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst.
21:21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls: every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.
21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
21:25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.
21:26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.
21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
22:4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.
22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
22:6 And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.
22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.
22:8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
22:9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.
22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
22:21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

To make it easy, just repost the entire section, and highlight the verses that you think are discussing the Premill Kingdom in blue,
and the verses you think are discussing the New Jerusalem in the New Earth in red.

Ezekiel_37
Jul 21st 2006, 09:56 PM
So are you saying that you are starting to take up bad Amillennial habits then?

Isn't Revelation 21:9 simply a retelling of the same point that Revelation 21:1-2 just told?

(I hope you're not one of those guys who thinks Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are two completely different Creation accounts)



of course they are different accounts. Mankind in Gen1 and Adam in Gen2.
Too much proof to say otherwise.



(the end of the book is much like the beginning)



in His service
c

windwords7
Jul 21st 2006, 09:57 PM
Great stuff everyone. I am new here but I am following this thread quite closely and wanted to chime in real quick on the tree of Rev 22:2. What purpose does a "tree of life" whose leaves heal the nations have in the "new earth". The new earth is not in need of healing. The implication is clear that this tree and its fruit and leaves are for this current earth that is of course in the greatest need of healing.

Furthermore, when you look at 22:3 this is further solidified with the reference "there will be no more curse". The new heavens and earth are already free from any curse.

Clearly, this has to be in relationship to this present earth that resides to this day under the curse. It is us that has been redeemed from the curse of the law by the cross of Christ and the earth is still groaning for its redemption.

In what context other than Rookie's (I know, not another one ;) )version of events could these seemingly obvious events play out?

I hopeful to become an asset to this and other conversations here. Seems like a great place and I love the dialog.

Mighty Warrior
Jul 21st 2006, 11:16 PM
of course they are different accounts. Mankind in Gen1 and Adam in Gen2.
Too much proof to say otherwise.



(the end of the book is much like the beginning)



in His service
c
Here's a link where I describe why Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 cannot be separate creation accounts (I'm on posts #26 and #30):

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=11710&page=2

But let's keep this thread on topic. If you'd like to reply in the proper thread, I'd be more than happy to dialogue with you there.

Thanks, BMV

John146
Jul 21st 2006, 11:46 PM
Right on two counts. I don't believe that John the Baptist is coming again, nor do I believe that Jesus was speaking of literal "Elijah" to come, either. In other words, Jesus was building a framework for them to understand that John was not the literal man, Elijah - so that they would understand that the future "Elijah" would not be literal Elijah either.

Whether I believe Elijah is one of the two witnesses or not (to be honest, I'm not sure - could be from the context of Rev. 11, but who cares? It's irrelevant in some ways and not the point of Rev. 11, actually.) has no bearing on this passage, because Jesus is establishing a context for a "non-literal" Elijah, both the one that HAD come (John the Baptist) and the one TO COME (the one whom would restore all things). When the disiples understood that He had been speaking of John the Baptist, they got it - they were asking about literal Elijah coming, which Jesus helped them understand was not the case: John the Baptist (or, a "non-literal Elijah") was the fulfillment, but the greater "Elijah" IS coming and will restore ALL THINGS. In other words, Jesus Himself (another "non-literal Elijah") is "Elijah to come".

Whether you believe that Jesus "restored all things" at the cross or will "restore all things" in the future is irrelevant to this discussion, which is a straight exegesis of the text. If you buy into my exegesis than you have to wonder why Jesus would refer to Himself as a forerunner who would restore all things, or as One who would come in the spirit of Elijah; but that, of course, is the heart of our debates. :)

I appreciate the response, but I don't feel that you responded directly to the points I was making. In verse 10, would you not agree that the disciples were asking why the scribes said that Elijah must first come BEFORE Jesus rises from the dead? Look at the context. In verse 9 Jesus told them not to tell anyone what they had just seen until after He rose from the dead. That is when they asked the question about whether Elijah was supposed to come first. Come first before what? Before He rises from the dead. What else? There's no mention of His second coming in the verses preceding the question, so it couldn't be referring to that. There is mention of Him rising from the dead, however. With all of that in mind, is Jesus' answer not the same as saying "Elijah truly shall first come and restore all things BEFORE I rise from the dead"?

I understand that this is not a crucial issue because you don't use this verse to try to say that Elijah will be one of the two witnesses or anything like that. But I think it's interesting and I still wanted to discuss it a little further just so you understood why I believe what I do and I didn't feel that you were seeing what I was really saying.

I promise that if you at least respond to my method of interpreting the passage one way or another, I will not try to discuss it any further because I realize it's not on topic. :)

the rookie
Jul 22nd 2006, 01:54 AM
I appreciate the response, but I don't feel that you responded directly to the points I was making. In verse 10, would you not agree that the disciples were asking why the scribes said that Elijah must first come BEFORE Jesus rises from the dead? Look at the context. In verse 9 Jesus told them not to tell anyone what they had just seen until after He rose from the dead. That is when they asked the question about whether Elijah was supposed to come first. Come first before what? Before He rises from the dead. What else? There's no mention of His second coming in the verses preceding the question, so it couldn't be referring to that. There is mention of Him rising from the dead, however. With all of that in mind, is Jesus' answer not the same as saying "Elijah truly shall first come and restore all things BEFORE I rise from the dead"?

I understand that this is not a crucial issue because you don't use this verse to try to say that Elijah will be one of the two witnesses or anything like that. But I think it's interesting and I still wanted to discuss it a little further just so you understood why I believe what I do and I didn't feel that you were seeing what I was really saying.

I promise that if you at least respond to my method of interpreting the passage one way or another, I will not try to discuss it any further because I realize it's not on topic. :)

I totally follow your reasoning. The problem with your interpretation is that it doesn't take into account what the disciples were actually asking when they asked the question. Thus you would naturally misinterpret Jesus' answer. Think about it - why would they ask if Elijah was coming first - and what would be the context of his coming? And why would Jesus correct their understanding of who "Elijah" actually was?

1. Because they had just seen Elijah - literally, as he appeared on the mountain. Why is this important? Because what happens when three Jews who had been waiting for Elijah to come (in an eschatological sense) prior to the establishment of the kingdom of Israel actually see Elijah on a mountain in the midst of God authenticating Jesus as His Son (Ps. 2). Regardless of whether you buy into a literal kingdom, you cannot dismiss the disciples kingdom expectation at this phase of their lives. Remember, you can say that their expectation changed later - but it had not as of Acts 1:6. So the kingdom expectation is still a reality in their minds.

2. Jesus follows this experience with the quote you highlighted - He refers to Himself as the Son of Man (having just been validated as the Son of God). That phrase in the Jewish mind is also VERY loaded. It is the phrase that Jesus would use to link Himself to the human messiah (there was great debate in the rabbinical schools of the day in regards to the nature of the Son of Man - human or divine? How could this man approach God? Jesus used it to identify himself as the human messiah) who approaches the Ancient of Days in Dan. 7:13...and receives dominion and glory and a kingdom in Dan. 7:14.

Again, your interpretation of Dan. 7:13-14 is not important right now; what matters is that, in that moment, they think of those two verses as messianic and earthly kingdom. Why did the Jews think "earthly kingdom"? Why were they so erroneous in the amill thought process? Because of the context of Dan. 7:26-27, or the long awaited "great reversal" - the Ancient of Days takes an earthly kingdom and dominion from the one who ruled wickedly and gives that earthly kingdom to the saints of the Most High; the kingdom is an everlasting one in which "all dominions" (earthly) shall serve Him.

3. It is in this light that they ask the question about Elijah, who was prophesied (and expected) by Malachi to come as a messenger who would prepare the way before the "coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord." (Mal. 3:1; 4:5) Again, in their minds this question is being asked in terms of the cataclysmic eschatological day that is great and terrible - and ushers in the kingdom of Dan. 7. They had just seen Elijah - and he didn't do much except stand around. Their question, in part, was something along the lines of "what was the point of that?" In essence, they were asking, "what did Elijah actually DO back there?" It seemed as if Jesus with His comment about the Son of Man coupled with the appearance of literal Elijah was speaking of this long awaited Dan. 7 moment - they had just heard the voice of God!

With these three factors in mind, Jesus' answer is critical. He is correcting their paradigm in two critical ways:

1. To confirm that Elijah is coming - in other words what they had just seen on the mountain was not the fulfillment of the Malachi passages. That fulfillment was still to come (future). He will restore all things. In other words, there was a function for the Elijah to come - and it is in context to Mal. 4:6, or a restoration knit to a healing the family unit in a manner that will be indicative of widespread revival conditions that accompanied the prophetic expectation of the coming kingdom. They were still to expect that coming, future function of Elijah to come.

2. "But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him..." In other words those looking for Elijah (the Jews) had already missed the messenger who would prepare the way (Mal. 3:1) in the person of John the Baptist. A "non-literal" Elijah had come to prepare the way for the coming of the Messenger of the Covenant - the One in whom they would delight. In the same manner, a non-literal Elijah (Jesus Himself) was coming - not the man they saw on the mountain - to fulfill the function Malachi prophesied.

I understand your points that you are making about the grammatical flow of the passage. I just disagree with your assertion. You assume that they are asking about Elijah coming before Jesus rises from the dead. The assumption is that they understood that Jesus was going to die and rise from the grave, hence their question - which might leave some room for the grammatical flow as you see it, though I still would not agree.

The gospel accounts were clear that they never understood that Jesus was supposed to die - and never fully grasped the "rise from the dead" part (which is why they were hiding in fear after His crucifixion, why Peter denied knowing Him, etc.) until after they saw Him. So to assume they asked a question related to the timing of His resurrection is a leap that ignores the rest of the story. My point is that their question was birthed from a TOTAL cluelessness as to what just happened, not that they were trying to figure out a chronology of events. I also do not believe that Jesus was answering a "chronological question", but again, as I said, was reorienting their paradigm a bit.

the rookie
Jul 22nd 2006, 02:08 AM
So are you saying that you are starting to take up bad Amillennial habits then?

Isn't Revelation 21:9 simply a retelling of the same point that Revelation 21:1-2 just told?

(I hope you're not one of those guys who thinks Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are two completely different Creation accounts)

Tell you what.

Here's Revelation 21-22.

You tell me which verses are talking about the premill kingdom
as opposed to
which verses are talking about the New Jerusalem in the New Earth.

I'll make it easier. The pattern of the book of Revelation, which is very easy (and not mysterious) to follow is one of God showing John chronological visions (from chapter 4 and following) with parenthetical explanations of the chronological events inserted within. It is always easy to spot a parenthetical section - an angel comes to John in the midst of the "action" and shows (or tells) John things that give context to what he has just seen.

Thus Rev. 4-6 is chronological; 7 is a parenthesis (to answer the critical question asked in 6:17 - "who can stand?" Ch. 7 gives us the answer); 8-9 continues the chronology; 10:1-11:6 is parenthetical; 11:7-19 is chronological; 12-14 a parenthesis; 15-16 chronological; 17-19:10 parenthetical; 19:11-20:8 chronological...

and 20:9-22:5 is the final "parenthesis." It is describing the New Jerusalem as it relates to and interacts with the millennial earth (while also functioning as the home of the resurrected saints both then and forever).

....and I realize that we will now never get back to Zech. 14....:lol:

On the bright side, I see the Genesis accounts as the same....

windwords7
Jul 22nd 2006, 05:33 AM
I'll make it easier. The pattern of the book of Revelation, which is very easy (and not mysterious) to follow is one of God showing John chronological visions (from chapter 4 and following) with parenthetical explanations of the chronological events inserted within. It is always easy to spot a parenthetical section - an angel comes to John in the midst of the "action" and shows (or tells) John things that give context to what he has just seen.

Thus Rev. 4-6 is chronological; 7 is a parenthesis (to answer the critical question asked in 6:17 - "who can stand?" Ch. 7 gives us the answer); 8-9 continues the chronology; 10:1-11:6 is parenthetical; 11:7-19 is chronological; 12-14 a parenthesis; 15-16 chronological; 17-19:10 parenthetical; 19:11-20:8 chronological...

and 20:9-22:5 is the final "parenthesis." It is describing the New Jerusalem as it relates to and interacts with the millennial earth (while also functioning as the home of the resurrected saints both then and forever).

....and I realize that we will now never get back to Zech. 14....:lol:

On the bright side, I see the Genesis accounts as the same....

Man I love you.....:hug: :spin:

the rookie
Jul 22nd 2006, 05:28 PM
Thanks! The feeling is mutual!

windwords7
Jul 23rd 2006, 02:53 PM
Couldn't sleep last night so I was reading Zech 14 around 2 am and was struck with how fascinating a passage it really is. I know this thread got off onto to other issues but I would love to see some more conversation about how this passage could have ever been fulfilled in history to date. It just doesn't seem possible. There are some spectacular and specific statements in there which really challenge an already fulfilled view.

Any chance that those who beleive that this is alreay fulfilled could get back to answering Rookies specific points? I hope so!

Junietta
Jul 23rd 2006, 03:53 PM
Zech 14:1-4
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. 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.


Rev 14:1, 6-8
1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads. ~~~~ :6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, 7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. 8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.


Compare Zechariah 14 with Rev. 14. It looks to me like they are speaking of the same event. The Lord will stand on the mountain and bring judgment on the evil ones. The Lord will fight for Jerusalem. Babylon will fall as we see in Rev. 18. Babylon being Satan's kingdom. Compare the rest of the passages to see if you think they are speaking of the same time period.


Zech 14:7-9
7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light. 8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be. 9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

Rev 18:19-21
19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate. 20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her. 21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.
KJV

the rookie
Jul 24th 2006, 03:09 PM
Zech 14:1-4
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. 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.


Rev 14:1, 6-8
1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads. ~~~~ :6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, 7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. 8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.


Compare Zechariah 14 with Rev. 14. It looks to me like they are speaking of the same event. The Lord will stand on the mountain and bring judgment on the evil ones. The Lord will fight for Jerusalem. Babylon will fall as we see in Rev. 18. Babylon being Satan's kingdom. Compare the rest of the passages to see if you think they are speaking of the same time period.


Zech 14:7-9
7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light. 8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be. 9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

Rev 18:19-21
19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate. 20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her. 21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.
KJV




I think that your comments have merit, and are worth studying out further! I agree, there are many interesting parallels to the book of Revelation - particularly in regards to the Second Coming drama, which I feel Zech. 12-14 is speaking of.

Yes, there are first advent passages that the NT writers use, but John also uses the "those who pierced Him shall mourn: in Rev. 1 as a future event; and the nations seems to be gathering against something in Rev. 16 (Rev. 19 tells us that they are gathering against Jesus to "make war against Him"); we see some of the details of that war in Zech. 14 - particularly the "face melting" part, which I do not see as hell (as David hinted earlier) but as what literally happens when Jesus strikes them with "the sword of His mouth" from Rev. 19; which Zech. 3 tells us is singing.

In other words, the "sword from His mouth" is a prophetic song that strikes His enemies (and drives them to madness, Zech., 12:2-3) and melts their faces off (Zech. 14). Graphic, but intriguing nonetheless.

the rookie
Jul 25th 2006, 01:51 PM
The other thing that would be sweet to have closure on, since no one wants to actually examine Zech. 14 closely (except for the folks that agree that it seems to be future) is the "Feast of Tabernacles fulfilled in John 7" point.

The only reason I bring up this dead horse yet again is to clarify something I said earlier, when I was asking for a time frame of fulfillment and whether or not Jesus wanted THAT MOMENT (the end of the feast) to be understood as the fulfillment for His listeners. What I got was a lecture about how Jesus is the fulfillment without ever going back to the text itself.

Why did I ask about what Jesus meant (context) and whether that moment is to be viewed by the church as a fulfillment of a Jewish festival on par with Passover and Pentecost (timing) is that it was explained that in that exact moment that Jesus said the phrase "living waters" both Zech. 14:8 AND the Feast of Tabernacles was "fulfilled".

The reason I pressed that issue was because not even JOHN believed that line of reasoning - it is a man-made conclusion inserted into the text (a theological conclusion that was presented as a "scriptural proof", or eisegesis). How do we know that John didn't see those two passages fulfilled in that moment?

On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.” But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. (John 7:37-39)

The "living waters" that would flow "from the belly" (KJV) could NOT be fulfilled in that moment - it was a prophetic pronouncement of the Holy Spirit to come, speaking of the reality of the indwelling Holy Spirit after Pentecost AFTER Jesus had been glorified. Not only is this passage not the fulfillment of Zech. 14:8 (which is speaking of literal waters, not spiritual waters, thus the geographic locations); it's not the "fulfillment" of the Feast of Tabernacles either. Why? Because according to John, NOTHING HAPPENED.

It's not enough to simply cross-reference verses with similar language, paste your theological idea to them, and then proclaim "fulfillment" of an OT passage. It's not that I am "not open" to Zech. 14 having some kind of NT application or fulfillment, it's just that I'm not open to forcing one to explain away scripture, either.

the rookie
Jul 26th 2006, 07:00 PM
I'm giving this a bump because I have no interest in letting Zech. 14 fade away...:D

Miz BT
Jul 27th 2006, 02:08 AM
I'm bumping it too, because although I haven't been posting I'm learning a lot by spectating...

Jael
Jul 27th 2006, 01:43 PM
In other words, the "sword from His mouth" is a prophetic song that strikes His enemies (and drives them to madness, Zech., 12:2-3) and melts their faces off (Zech. 14). Graphic, but intriguing nonetheless.

Rookie, you throw out some great things to think about.:) Could you expand on why you think the "sword" is a prophetic song?

the rookie
Jul 28th 2006, 08:08 PM
Rookie, you throw out some great things to think about.:) Could you expand on why you think the "sword" is a prophetic song?

I think that we clearly see Jesus "dipped" or covered in blood as He moces from Bozrah to Jerusalem (Isa. 63:1-6 & Rev. 19:11-16) where the armies of the nations have gathered against Him (Zech. 12:1-3; Rev. 16:12-16; 19:19) to make war;

I think that from that time forward we do not see any kind of physical warfare (outside of Psalm 110:5-6) but we do see in those passages men being driven to madness, horses struck with confusion, and the armies being struck by a plague like no other in Zech. 14:12-14 as flesh, eyes, and tongues dissolve in the midst of a great panic and neighbors begin to strike one another in their maddness. What is going on?

I think that "the sword from the mouth" that strikes them is the key - it is the 2 Chron. 20 scenario of the worshippers that sing, driving the armies gathered against Judah to strike one another down in their madness; it takes three days to clean up in the aftermath of this victory - that belonged FULLY to the Lord; this time we see a picture of a singing deliverer in Zeph. 3:17 - the One who is "mighty to save" that rejoices over them in singing (which is the same phrase from Isa. 63:2). I think that the "sword from His mouth" is a song of praise that drives those who are already drunk with maddness (Zech. 12:1-3) into a frenzy like the one described in Zech. 14:12-14 - and they slay themselves in their drunkennes.

Just to stir the pot and provoke scorn, I happen to think that this is the "new song" that only the 144,000 can learn in Rev. 14:1-5.

ShirleyFord
Jul 28th 2006, 08:59 PM
I think that we clearly see Jesus "dipped" or covered in blood as He moces from Bozrah to Jerusalem (Isa. 63:1-6 & Rev. 19:11-16) where the armies of the nations have gathered against Him (Zech. 12:1-3; Rev. 16:12-16; 19:19) to make war;

I think that from that time forward we do not see any kind of physical warfare (outside of Psalm 110:5-6) but we do see in those passages men being driven to madness, horses struck with confusion, and the armies being struck by a plague like no other in Zech. 14:12-14 as flesh, eyes, and tongues dissolve in the midst of a great panic and neighbors begin to strike one another in their maddness. What is going on?

I think that "the sword from the mouth" that strikes them is the key - it is the 2 Chron. 20 scenario of the worshippers that sing, driving the armies gathered against Judah to strike one another down in their madness; it takes three days to clean up in the aftermath of this victory - that belonged FULLY to the Lord; this time we see a picture of a singing deliverer in Zeph. 3:17 - the One who is "mighty to save" that rejoices over them in singing (which is the same phrase from Isa. 63:2). I think that the "sword from His mouth" is a song of praise that drives those who are already drunk with maddness (Zech. 12:1-3) into a frenzy like the one described in Zech. 14:12-14 - and they slay themselves in their drunkennes.

Just to stir the pot and provoke scorn, I happen to think that this is the "new song" that only the 144,000 can learn in Rev. 14:1-5.

Gotta be kidding, right Rookie?

Why would the Lord be singing, worshiping and praising, Himself?

Besides, we are not told the words to the "new" song the 144,000 sang:

Revelations 14:3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.

They are singing before the throne to Jesus.

Revelations 14:1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.

Shirley

Jael
Jul 28th 2006, 09:04 PM
Shirley has a good point; if the 144,000 are singing their song before God's throne, isn't it more likely that their song is simply a praise song that is unique to them because their experience on earth was also unique?

the rookie
Jul 28th 2006, 10:05 PM
I said I would stir the pot and provoke scorn, as is my way...:D

So Zeph. 3 is not about the Lord singing? The Lord doesn't sing? That seems to be a strange way to reply to my point, with an assumption that Jesus wouldn't sing after His return. Did Jesus ever sing on the earth during His first advent? What did He sing about?

Unfortunately, the bulk of my answer has to do with issues that involve an earthly Mount Zion, not a heavenly one (so we'll leave that alone for now); and "enopion" (before the throne) does not mandate that they are before the throne of Jesus - (the Father IS seated on a throne in Rev. 4, after all - and Jesus (Son of David, Lion of the Tribe of Judah) approaches that throne to take the scroll in Rev. 5; we do not see Jesus on the throne one time throughout the book until 20:11); nor does the "they" even relate to the 144,000 at all; the "they" are the harpists playing their harps from the preceding verse.

The 144,000 are on earth, not in heaven - we assume that they are in heaven. The "before the throne of God" in v. 5 was added by translators and is not in the actual greek.

a sojourner
Jul 28th 2006, 11:30 PM
I said I would stir the pot and provoke scorn, as is my way...:D

Unfortunately, the bulk of my answer has to do with issues that involve an earthly Mount Zion, not a heavenly one (so we'll leave that alone for now); and "enopion" (before the throne) does not mandate that they are before the throne of Jesus - (the Father IS seated on a throne in Rev. 4, after all - and Jesus (Son of David, Lion of the Tribe of Judah) approaches that throne to take the scroll in Rev. 5; we do not see Jesus on the throne one time throughout the book until 20:11); nor does the "they" even relate to the 144,000 at all; the "they" are the harpists playing their harps from the preceding verse.

The 144,000 are on earth, not in heaven - we assume that they are in heaven. The "before the throne of God" in v. 5 was added by translators and is not in the actual greek.

I agree that the throne the 144,000 are before belongs to the Father, but not that the word "they" refers to the harpists.
John says, "And I heard a voice from heaven like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder; the voice I heard was like the sound of harpists playing on their harps." There are no actual harpists...

And I might not be tracking with you on this one, but in 14:3 it certainly does say "before the throne of God" in Greek... :confused

the rookie
Jul 29th 2006, 12:21 AM
I agree that the throne the 144,000 are before belongs to the Father, but not that the word "they" refers to the harpists.
John says, "And I heard a voice from heaven like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder; the voice I heard was like the sound of harpists playing on their harps." There are no actual harpists...

And I might not be tracking with you on this one, but in 14:3 it certainly does say "before the throne of God" in Greek... :confused

Yup. Just not in verse 5. So the "harpists" (or the harp equivalents :D) are before the throne of God; the 144,000 are not.

Rev. 14:2 and I heard a voice out of the heaven, as a voice of many waters, and as a voice of great thunder, and a voice I heard of harpers harping with their harps, (Young's Literal Translation)

In Rev. 5:8 the 24 elders had harps; now someone else does (not the 144,00). Rev. 15:2 tells us who - those who emerged from the tribulation victorious over the beast and his three-fold assault on their faith, standing on the sea of glass, having harps of God.

cwb
Jul 30th 2006, 05:46 AM
I'll make it easier. The pattern of the book of Revelation, which is very easy (and not mysterious) to follow is one of God showing John chronological visions (from chapter 4 and following) with parenthetical explanations of the chronological events inserted within. It is always easy to spot a parenthetical section - an angel comes to John in the midst of the "action" and shows (or tells) John things that give context to what he has just seen.

Thus Rev. 4-6 is chronological; 7 is a parenthesis (to answer the critical question asked in 6:17 - "who can stand?" Ch. 7 gives us the answer); 8-9 continues the chronology; 10:1-11:6 is parenthetical; 11:7-19 is chronological; 12-14 a parenthesis; 15-16 chronological; 17-19:10 parenthetical; 19:11-20:8 chronological...

and 20:9-22:5 is the final "parenthesis." It is describing the New Jerusalem as it relates to and interacts with the millennial earth (while also functioning as the home of the resurrected saints both then and forever).

....and I realize that we will now never get back to Zech. 14....:lol:

On the bright side, I see the Genesis accounts as the same....

Did you mean 21:9 instead of 20:9 as the start of the final "parenthesis"? I am only asking because it seems like 20:9 follows 20:8 and there shouldn't be any parenthesis there.

ShirleyFord
Jul 30th 2006, 03:07 PM
Did you mean 21:9 instead of 20:9 as the start of the final "parenthesis"? I am only asking because it seems like 20:9 follows 20:8 and there shouldn't be any parenthesis there.

Carl,

I'm with Rookie on this one.

Revelations 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

Revelations 20:8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

Then a "parenthesis", eternity begins:

Revelations 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

Rookie probably wouldn't agree here though, but I believe that from v. 9 onward refers to the Second Coming of Christ.

Revelations 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Revelations 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

Revelations 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Revelations 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Revelations 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Revelations 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Compare this to these Scriptures about the Second Coming. The Second Coming is the day of the Lord, the day of God, the day of Christ:

2 Peter 3
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
(compare with Rev. 21)

1 Thessalonians 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night

The Second Coming is the day of Christ:

Philippians 1:10 That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ;

Philippians 2:16 Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain.

2 Thessalonians 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

The Second Coming is the last day:

John 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

John 11:24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.



Shirley

Mighty Warrior
Jul 30th 2006, 10:41 PM
I've had this conversation with the rookie before, so I know that he meant 21:9, not 20:9.

spiritual jew
Jul 30th 2006, 11:04 PM
There's something important here to consider....that is the nature of the writings of the prophets;When the prophets wrote concerning future prophecies, they had a message for their own time in a literal sense, but were also speaking using the same language for future generations in a spiritual and world wide sense.
When they construct something written in their own language they are inspired through God's spirit to write,it addresses not only the literal time period,but that of future generations after that time...For that reason partial fulfillments are seen in one sense which may not be discernable or recognizable using the same method of interpretation in connection with even the very same thought...

Thus there are multiple applications to what the prophets wrote, and not just one; and that's what I think we're getting hung up on right now....So when we consider the prophecy in Zecheriah, we ought to keep in mind that there are dualalities with multiple fulfillments spanning the course of time in his prophecy where there would appear on the surface to be only one literal one..

the rookie
Jul 31st 2006, 05:25 AM
Did you mean 21:9 instead of 20:9 as the start of the final "parenthesis"? I am only asking because it seems like 20:9 follows 20:8 and there shouldn't be any parenthesis there.

Thanks for that! You're totally right. I meant Rev. 21:9.

spiritual jew
Jul 31st 2006, 05:40 AM
If there were any parenthesis in the Word of God concerning His most important messages, He would have revealed that information to us very clearly, and He hasn't done that.

Amos 3:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=37&chapter=3&verse=7&version=9&context=verse)
Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets

the rookie
Jul 31st 2006, 04:20 PM
If there were any parenthesis in the Word of God concerning His most important messages, He would have revealed that information to us very clearly, and He hasn't done that.

Amos 3:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=37&chapter=3&verse=7&version=9&context=verse)
Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets

Instead of unsupported conclusions, would you care to take on Revelation or Zech. 14 for us? :D

spiritual jew
Aug 1st 2006, 03:46 AM
Instead of unsupported conclusions, would you care to take on Revelation or Zech. 14 for us? :D

Oh, you mean unsupported conclusions such as a "parenthesis" that is never spoken of in the Bible..

What I think will help in both books is a consistant key principle; When future prophecies are related in the new testament, those prophecies come from other places in the Bible.....The first time names,places, and things, are mentioned in the Bible, they have a literal and local connotation...The following times those things are repeated they take on added dimention and more signifigance than the first time;

In other words, when we see every symbol,place,name,color,number,etc etc in prophecies of the future, what we're actually looking at is the past being used to explain the future...While the future is explaining the past in a much larger and more signifigant scale...

It sounds very complicated,but it's actually the same pattern we see when we think of how living organisms actually grow....

It's one of the ways we can tell Who the Author is..

I hope that helps; let me know if you have any questions about that...I would be more than happy to explain more

the rookie
Aug 1st 2006, 05:03 PM
Oh, you mean unsupported conclusions such as a "parenthesis" that is never spoken of in the Bible..

What I think will help in both books is a consistant key principle; When future prophecies are related in the new testament, those prophecies come from other places in the Bible.....The first time names,places, and things, are mentioned in the Bible, they have a literal and local connotation...The following times those things are repeated they take on added dimention and more signifigance than the first time;

In other words, when we see every symbol,place,name,color,number,etc etc in prophecies of the future, what we're actually looking at is the past being used to explain the future...While the future is explaining the past in a much larger and more signifigant scale...

It sounds very complicated,but it's actually the same pattern we see when we think of how living organisms actually grow....

It's one of the ways we can tell Who the Author is..

I hope that helps; let me know if you have any questions about that...I would be more than happy to explain more

A simple "no" would have been sufficient...;)

honcho
Aug 1st 2006, 05:34 PM
Sprititual Jew is correct, none of the chapters in Revelation are parenthetical.

Hawk
Aug 1st 2006, 05:52 PM
It's too bad we aren't getting to Zech. 14. There are still many issues that rookie brought up that nobody has tackled yet... And I am very curious about this chapter!

Perhaps the parenthetical discussion can be moved to another thread?

:D

honcho
Aug 1st 2006, 06:55 PM
It's too bad we aren't getting to Zech. 14. There are still many issues that rookie brought up that nobody has tackled yet...
:D

There's not much to tackle that Rookie hasn't already covered on the first page of this thread, he has most of the bases covered.

One thing I find interesting is that day he returns it will be a day with "no cold or frost. It will be a unique day" v.6. If he returned the summer months like June, there naturally would be no cold or frost, it would be a normal day. If He came in the winter months like December and there was no cold or frost, it would be "a unique day." His coming in December would end the Tribulation that started 3.5 years earlier during the summer months, like maybe June.

David Taylor
Aug 1st 2006, 07:51 PM
It's too bad we aren't getting to Zech. 14. There are still many issues that rookie brought up that nobody has tackled yet... And I am very curious about this chapter!

Perhaps the parenthetical discussion can be moved to another thread?

:D


Hawk,
Your PM Feature is turned off. I wanted to send you a PM about a couple of questions that I sent your way....you've been out for a while, and they've gotten buried:
http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=888850&postcount=39

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=888846&postcount=10

As for this thread, I too, would like to discuss more on Zech 14, and Rookie's points. I am not sure, presently, what points are left undiscussed though. Not everyone agrees with Rookie's analysis; but I can't remember anything that has not at least been discussed or tackled.

What particular 'hanging chads' remain in this Zech 14 study?

Junietta
Aug 2nd 2006, 02:00 AM
Zech 14:6
6 On that day there will be no light, no cold or frost. 7 It will be a unique day, without daytime or nighttime-a day known to the LORD. When evening comes, there will be light.
NIV
Zech 14:6
6 It shall come to pass in that day
That there will be no light;
The lights will diminish.
NKJV
Zech 14:6
6 In that day there will be no light; the luminaries will dwindle.
NASU
Zech 14:6
6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:
KJV
Zech 14:6
6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that there shall not be light; the bright ones shall withdraw themselves:
ASV
Zech 14:6
6 And it will come about in that day that there will be no light; the luminaries will dwindle
NAS
Zech 14:6-7
6 On that day there shall be neither cold nor frost. 7 And there shall be continuous day (it is known to the LORD), not day and not night, for at evening time there shall be light.
RSV
Zech 14:6
6 The sun and moon and stars will no longer shine,
TLB

David Taylor
Aug 2nd 2006, 03:57 PM
Zech 14:6
6 On that day there will be no light, no cold or frost. 7 It will be a unique day, without daytime or nighttime-a day known to the LORD. When evening comes, there will be light.
NIV
Zech 14:6
6 It shall come to pass in that day
That there will be no light;
The lights will diminish.
NKJV
Zech 14:6
6 In that day there will be no light; the luminaries will dwindle.
NASU
Zech 14:6
6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:
KJV
Zech 14:6
6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that there shall not be light; the bright ones shall withdraw themselves:
ASV
Zech 14:6
6 And it will come about in that day that there will be no light; the luminaries will dwindle
NAS
Zech 14:6-7
6 On that day there shall be neither cold nor frost. 7 And there shall be continuous day (it is known to the LORD), not day and not night, for at evening time there shall be light.
RSV
Zech 14:6
6 The sun and moon and stars will no longer shine,
TLB


Zech 14:6
6 In that day there will be no light; the luminaries will dwindle.

Zech 14:6
6 The sun and moon and stars will no longer shine




Darnkess, in the middle of the day that should normally be light; the illuminaries dwindled and not shining

Luke 23:44 "And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst. And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

Matthew 27:45 "Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Mark 15:33 "And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

the rookie
Aug 2nd 2006, 06:13 PM
Zech 14:6
6 In that day there will be no light; the luminaries will dwindle.

Zech 14:6
6 The sun and moon and stars will no longer shine




Darnkess, in the middle of the day that should normally be light; the illuminaries dwindled and not shining

Luke 23:44 "And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst. And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

Matthew 27:45 "Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Mark 15:33 "And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"



2 problems, which I will continue to highlight until I am blue in the face.

1. You have to provide a convincing argument that Zech. 14 as it was initially delivered by the prophet was meant to be broken up piecemeal and divorced from it's initial context as a progressive, sequential unfolding "story line" realted to Israel's trouble and trial to "apply it" to NT passages that COULD have parallell meaning (which you are claiming as "fulfillment");

2. You have to provide this by establishing that those passages were meant to be understood as fulfillments by the NT writers of the Zech. 14 passage.

You can do neither. You simply take NT texts and juxtapose them with OT texts and call it "fulfillment". You continually do so with no regard for the intent of the writer (you never actually exegete the passages to clearly demonstrate the intent of the NT writer to commnicate this idea, you simply list them and only those who share your conclusions are able to celebrate your "proofs"). I don't say this to be mean, I'm just trying to hint that a bit of exegesis around issues 1 and 2 would be helpful. It would show that you have a consistent hermeneutic.

I have asked for this on other threads regarding other passages (like Isaiah 11) and the only thing I get is "logic" based on an application of NT theological conclusions from an amill perspective, not an exegesis of the passage itself. I eagerly await an actual exegesis of the passage, which no one else seems to want to provide. :B

David Taylor
Aug 2nd 2006, 07:10 PM
2 problems, which I will continue to highlight until I am blue in the face.

1. You have to provide a convincing argument that Zech. 14 as it was initially delivered by the prophet was meant to be broken up piecemeal and divorced from it's initial context as a progressive, sequential unfolding "story line" realted to Israel's trouble and trial to "apply it" to NT passages that COULD have parallell meaning (which you are claiming as "fulfillment");

Dennis,
First you need to present a more compelling alternative OT/NT scripture that was written after Zechariah which describes a time when it would specifically be dark during normal daylight time...with the sun dwindling....

I've provided 3 passages describing such a darkening event that occurred after Zechariah 14 was written.

I haven't notice you presenting any, just saying mine was making you blue-faced.

When you provide a better alternate scriptural fulfillment, then we'll see which of the two provide the most convincing arguement.





2. You have to provide this by establishing that those passages were meant to be understood as fulfillments by the NT writers of the Zech. 14 passage.

You can do neither. You simply take NT texts and juxtapose them with OT texts and call it "fulfillment". You continually do so with no regard for the intent of the writer (you never actually exegete the passages to clearly demonstrate the intent of the NT writer to commnicate this idea, you simply list them and only those who share your conclusions are able to celebrate your "proofs").

Actually, I have alot of regard for the intent of the writer. I believe Zechariah was speaking of the 1st Advent and what would occur at and after it.

I believe the gospel writers, when speaking of the darkinging during daylight that occured at the crucifixion, very well were aware it was fulfilling what Zechariah spoke of.

And since John himself quoted several times (pierced him, living waters flow, Christ dividing the spoils, Christ walking on the Mt of Olives, etc...) specifically from Zechariah 14 and venued those quotes at Calvary, there is excellent intent (at least to satisfy me) that the NT writers would have understood the darkening light of Zechariah 14 as a fulfillment as well.

Again, what better alternative scriptures written after Zechariah 14 was written do we have that say otherwise?

David Taylor
Aug 2nd 2006, 07:46 PM
I have asked for this on other threads regarding other passages (like Isaiah 11) and the only thing I get is "logic" based on an application of NT theological conclusions from an amill perspective, not an exegesis of the passage itself. I eagerly await an actual exegesis of the passage, which no one else seems to want to provide. :B

Dennis,
Keep banging your head on the wall...eventually you'll may knock those Premill assumptions out of it!

I gave you as clear an exegesis of Isaiah 11 as I could do. Sorry it wasn't sufficient for you. At least I try to answer any and all questions and passages you bring up. I suppose the only way you would find actual exegesis of the passage from me, were if I ran it through the Premill screen.

OK...here is 'sound' Premill exegesis of Isaiah 11.

ACTUAL EXEGESIS of ISAIAH 11 (which happens to be the Premill Spin!)

11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
(This must be properly exegetically applied to the 2nd Coming. It would be a careless esiogetical spiritualizing away of the passage to apply it to the 1st Coming.)

11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;
(This must be properly exegetically applied to the 2nd Coming. It would be a careless esiogetical spiritualizing away of the passage to apply it to the 1st Coming, even though the NT quotes it and applies it to the 1st Coming, we shouldn't make the mistake to apply it there.....obviously it should be applied to the 2nd Coming....why?)

11:3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:
(This is a continuing picture of the 1000 year millennial reign of Christ that occurs at the 2nd Coming...none of this was intended to be understood as occuring at the 1st Coming. Were it not the 1000 year venue, Isaiah would have not so clearly explained it to be! )

11:4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth: with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
(Again, only at the 2nd Coming will Christ judge and reproove and smite the wicked.....the rich guy in Luke 16's example of judgment and reproof and smiting and torment need not be considered...that would only confuse the very clear Premill exogesis being applied here!)

11:5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.
(Again, this can only occur at the 2nd Coming, for everyone knows rigtheousness and faithfulness were not girdled to Christ at the 1st Coming. )

11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
(Wolves still eat lambs, and leopards still eat goats....and little children aren't zoo keepers; again, a very literal picture of an event that can only be applied literally to the 1000 year premillennial kingdom of peace....well forget the slaughter of innocent goats that occur during that period....we want to be focused on which literal goat is being intended by the writer....not the slaughtered temple goats, nor the goats who were cast into everlasting fire when Christ came at the 2nd Coming....only the peace-loving Premill Kingdom goats are being described!)

11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
(Don't let the cow fool you....it is not that pretrib rapture cow from Exodus 10:26 which was not 'left behind'....and it is not that anathema cow #1001 that lives on hill #1001 that doesn't belong to God in Psalms 50. We're talking the literal cow who eats with the bear during the Premill kingdom of peace! Where the animal kingdom has had the curse of sin and death removed; but the plant and human kingdoms are still suffering from it.)

11:8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
(This must be one of those 100 year old children from the Isiaah 65 description of the Premill Kingdom of peace...who do die...I guess the cockatrice did it! Now we know.....the rest of the story!)

11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.
(This holy mountain must be some other mountain the Mt Zion in Jerusalem, during the Premill Kindgom....because we know from Dennis' careful exegetical teaching on Revelation 21-22 that it is speaking of the Premill Kingdom, not the eternal state, and therefore there will be no mountains and no sea in the Premill Kindgom....Similarly, we shouldn't ever apply this to the NT era where the gospel went out unto all the world sharing the knowledge of the Lord....that obviously isn't a clear exegetical understanding of the intent of Isaiah....he probably never even know the NT gospel era would occur....since we know from our exegetical study of Isaiah that most of his writings focus on the 1000 year premill kingdom, and rarely mention the NT era.)

11:10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
(Again, don't even consider the application of this passage to the 1st Advent and the NT era harvest of billions of Gentiles.....they are a drop in the bucket compared to the true and intended audience Isaiah truly had in mind, the Premill Kingdom of Gentiles, who would number the sands of the seas in rebellion against CHrist....ooops....shouldn't have went there. Still yet, don't apply this to the NT era; it must only be properly exegetically applied to the Premill Kingdom era, regardless of how again, it seems to be a direct NT quote that NT writers applied to the NT era....don't let them fool you into taking that bait. Hold your application for another 2000 years or so.....for proper juxtaposition!)

11:11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.
(Isn't it great to see all of the far-future prophecy coming to life? Isaiah could have simply taken the easy way, and used names of towns and kingdoms that were common and thriving during both Isaiah's day and Jesus' 1st Advent day, and used them in application to that time period....but no, Isaiah did one far better! He venued a time 2500 years into the future when those long dormant and dead cities, kingdoms, and powers would rise again from the dust of the Earth, and be repopulated and reborn during the future Premill Kingdom period. Isn't it wonderful to see how Isaiah made these beautiful applications for all to see and easily identify and understand in his 'intended' manner? The Premill Kingdom manner?)

11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
(Now were talking Dispensationalism to the max in the Premill Kingdom....gotta love it! Gotta keep those ethnic divides and subsets and disunity during the Premill Kingdom....When Paul said the racial and ethnic divisions between Jew and Gentile were ceased in Christ, he forgot to tell us there was a expiration date; and that those divisions would be reinstated in the Premill Kindgom. Here is the proof! )

11:13 The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off: Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim.
(Glad to see those tribal divisions set back up so that they can be stripped of their envying and vexing during the Premill Kindgom! Put I am disappointed that Ephraim was mentioned and not Reuben...Reuben seems to be missing from the Assyrian captivity, to the Babylonian Captivity, to the Roman Occupation, to the NT Diaspora, and still yet in the glorious Premill Kingdom.....oops...I forgot Ezekiel tells us Reuben is back again in the Premill Kingdom offering his tribes slaughtered bulls blood for sin offerings to regain his eternal land possession that he has mostly never held throughout most of human history....gotta love those eternal land holders, even the inept ones!)

11:14 But they shall fly upon the shoulders of the Philistines toward the west; they shall spoil them of the east together: they shall lay their hand upon Edom and Moab; and the children of Ammon shall obey them.
(WooHoo.....Philistines and Edomites, and Moabites, and Ammonites will be found too, and repopulate the Premill Kindgom....were they lost back when Reuben and the 10 northern tribes were lost? Have they been hiding out in the caves of Nepal and Tibet with the orange-robed monks maybe?)

11:15 And the LORD shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea; and with his mighty wind shall he shake his hand over the river, and shall
smite it in the seven streams, and make men go over dryshod.
(Another clear picture of the peaceful premill kingdom age....with all of its love and peace and prosperity and brotherly love for all humans on the planet....except the Egyptian dudes that peeved the Lord above...now why were they allowed into His Prefect Premill Kingdom?)

11:16 And there shall be an highway for the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria; like as it was to Israel in the day that he came up out of the land of Egypt.
(Here must be where Reuben comes home...after 2700 years of Assyrian captivity...A poignant end to a wonderful Isaiah chapter 11 expanation of what, who, and how the future 1000 year Premill Kingdom of peace and tranquility will unfold as described by Isaiah and Zechariah and John.)

the rookie
Aug 2nd 2006, 11:20 PM
Who is Dennis?

I appreciate the sarcasm. I wasn't speaking about you when I mentioned Isaiah 11.

If you would lay out the passage as you understand it that would be helpful.

the rookie
Aug 3rd 2006, 12:21 AM
My two initial problems still stand.

"A critical explanation or interpretation of a text" = exegesis, according to the Oxford American Dictionary.

A sound exegesis is derived from a consistent hermeneutic, or "method or theory of interpretation."

You derive your hermeneutic from your system, which demands that the OT be interpreted by your interpretation of the NT. Despite your continual insistence to the contrary, you have not convincingly proven that you are able to explain a passage apart from your theological construct.

You can inisist that I do the same, but other than sarcasm, have not been able to prove this contention. In order for me to "prove" that I do not have a preconceived bias, you have asked that I try to find a NT application for Zech. 14, which you insist was written about the first advent of Jesus.

Again, the problem is not that I am unable to do so, it is that I am unable to do so without doing violence to the context of the passage, which was meant to be understood as a narrative explanation of events that take place in relationship to Israel's established (by the prophet) physical danger at the hands of the nations surrounding her. To break the passage up piecemeal and isolate verses apart from their initial meaning is to change what Zechariah said initially. This is not a premillennial bias. This is a loyalty to the passage itself.

You, on the other hand, are forced to interpret the passage in a way that does not harmonize with the flow of the passage as a whole. You must do so because your theological construct does not allow you to read the passage as it was written, and you must also therefore force those passages into a supposed NT context that spiritualizes the language in a manner it was not meant to be initially understood. I appreciate that you see my insistence of a thourough examination of those passages as the product of a premillenial bias. I hope you appreciate how I see that you are forced to explain away certain passages that do not fit your paradigm in a spiritualized manner because of your no-millennial bias.

Thus our impasse.

The impasse could be addressed if someone from the amillennial group could simply explain the meaning of this text to us (or exegete the text). As is the case up to this point, however, no one has attempted to explain Zechariah's account here in terms of what the verses mean. We have seen a few verses addressed, but still not the passage as a whole.

So, I remain unconvinced and even more convinced of the truth of my "bias". :D

John146
Aug 3rd 2006, 09:34 PM
My two initial problems still stand.

"A critical explanation or interpretation of a text" = exegesis, according to the Oxford American Dictionary.

A sound exegesis is derived from a consistent hermeneutic, or "method or theory of interpretation."

You derive your hermeneutic from your system, which demands that the OT be interpreted by your interpretation of the NT. Despite your continual insistence to the contrary, you have not convincingly proven that you are able to explain a passage apart from your theological construct.

You can inisist that I do the same, but other than sarcasm, have not been able to prove this contention. In order for me to "prove" that I do not have a preconceived bias, you have asked that I try to find a NT application for Zech. 14, which you insist was written about the first advent of Jesus.

Again, the problem is not that I am unable to do so, it is that I am unable to do so without doing violence to the context of the passage, which was meant to be understood as a narrative explanation of events that take place in relationship to Israel's established (by the prophet) physical danger at the hands of the nations surrounding her. To break the passage up piecemeal and isolate verses apart from their initial meaning is to change what Zechariah said initially. This is not a premillennial bias. This is a loyalty to the passage itself.

You, on the other hand, are forced to interpret the passage in a way that does not harmonize with the flow of the passage as a whole. You must do so because your theological construct does not allow you to read the passage as it was written, and you must also therefore force those passages into a supposed NT context that spiritualizes the language in a manner it was not meant to be initially understood. I appreciate that you see my insistence of a thourough examination of those passages as the product of a premillenial bias. I hope you appreciate how I see that you are forced to explain away certain passages that do not fit your paradigm in a spiritualized manner because of your no-millennial bias.

Thus our impasse.

The impasse could be addressed if someone from the amillennial group could simply explain the meaning of this text to us (or exegete the text). As is the case up to this point, however, no one has attempted to explain Zechariah's account here in terms of what the verses mean. We have seen a few verses addressed, but still not the passage as a whole.

So, I remain unconvinced and even more convinced of the truth of my "bias". :D

Are you still convinced that there will be survivors after Christ's return even though passages such as Luke 17:26-30, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10, 2 Peter 3:7-13, Revelation 11:15-18, and Revelation 19:15-21 indicate otherwise? Are you still convinced that there will be two separate physical resurrections of believers even though Daniel 12:1-2 and John 5:28-29 indicate otherwise? Are you still convinced that there will be two separate times of Judgment when Daniel 12:1-2, 2 Timothy 4:1 and Matthew 25:31-46 indicate otherwise? How do you reconcile those passages with your view of Zechariah 14?

Hawk
Aug 3rd 2006, 09:48 PM
Are you still convinced that there will be survivors after Christ's return even though passages such as Luke 17:26-30, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10, 2 Peter 3:7-13, Revelation 11:15-18, and Revelation 19:15-21 indicate otherwise? Are you still convinced that there will be two separate physical resurrections of believers even though Daniel 12:1-2 and John 5:28-29 indicate otherwise? Are you still convinced that there will be two separate times of Judgment when Daniel 12:1-2, 2 Timothy 4:1 and Matthew 25:31-46 indicate otherwise? How do you reconcile those passages with your view of Zechariah 14?

I cannot speak for rookie but personally I am more interested in a simple exegesis of Zech. 14 from an amillennialist perspective as rookie has done from the premil perspective.

The scriptures you have pointed out have been more than adequately discussed in other threads on this board...

the rookie
Aug 4th 2006, 06:53 AM
Are you still convinced that there will be survivors after Christ's return even though passages such as Luke 17:26-30, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10, 2 Peter 3:7-13, Revelation 11:15-18, and Revelation 19:15-21 indicate otherwise? Are you still convinced that there will be two separate physical resurrections of believers even though Daniel 12:1-2 and John 5:28-29 indicate otherwise? Are you still convinced that there will be two separate times of Judgment when Daniel 12:1-2, 2 Timothy 4:1 and Matthew 25:31-46 indicate otherwise? How do you reconcile those passages with your view of Zechariah 14?

Hey, that reminds me - since you're jumping back in - you never commented on my little exegesis of Matt. 17...

the rookie
Aug 4th 2006, 02:34 PM
I just figured out the "Dennis" thing. Hahaha.

David, I'm curious about another point as well (I went back and re-read the thread last night - there are actually many, many, "hanging chads" that we could hit). You never addressed the sanctification issue you brought up in post #61 that I answered in #67. I never heard from you either in regards to my exegesis of Matt. 17 in post #106 and #119. Beyond Zech. 14 those points were left out there and I'm interested in your thoughts.

John146
Aug 4th 2006, 02:43 PM
I cannot speak for rookie but personally I am more interested in a simple exegesis of Zech. 14 from an amillennialist perspective as rookie has done from the premil perspective.

The scriptures you have pointed out have been more than adequately discussed in other threads on this board...

I don't agree with that. They've been discussed, but premils have yet to address them adequately. But I won't say any more about them here. David Taylor is an amillenialist and has done an exegesis of the Zechariah 14 passage, but you disagree with him. So be it. I give rookie and David Taylor credit for trying, but obviously no one has been able to prove anything from the passage one way or another. I'm not much into speculation, so I'd rather not give my exegesis without being able to solidly back it up with other Scripture.

John146
Aug 4th 2006, 02:46 PM
Hey, that reminds me - since you're jumping back in - you never commented on my little exegesis of Matt. 17...

For good reason. You may recall that I requested you would respond one last time in more detail to what I had said and then I said that if you would do that, I would not say any more about it, since it was off topic. You did respond (thanks, by the way) and I was honoring my promise to not say any more about it in this thread. If you still want me to discuss it with you here, let me know.

the rookie
Aug 4th 2006, 02:48 PM
For good reason. You may recall that I requested you would respond one last time in more detail to what I had said and then I said that if you would do that, I would not say any more about it, since it was off topic. You did respond (thanks, by the way) and I was honoring my promise to not say any more about it in this thread. If you still want me to discuss it with you here, let me know.

Feel free to comment on Matt. 17 or share your exegesis of Zech. 14. Both are pertinent to the discussion.

John146
Aug 4th 2006, 04:21 PM
Feel free to comment on Matt. 17 or share your exegesis of Zech. 14. Both are pertinent to the discussion.

I don't yet have a full exegesis of Zechariah 14. I will say, though, that I think it is a mistake to try to interpret the entire passage literally, which you seem to do. You don't try to interpret Zechariah 13 literally, do you? If you did, you might not realize that it is speaking of the first coming of Christ. Of course we know that it is not speaking of a literal fountain (Zech 13:1) or a literal shepherd with literal sheep (Zech 13:7). Both of those references speak of Christ at His first coming. Zechariah 13:7 is even quoted in Matthew 26:31 and we can read John 7:37-39 and realize that the fountain is Christ Himself because He said "If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.".

Bible prophecy is not intended to be interpreted only literally. I see a reference in Zech 14:8 to living waters going out from Jerusalem. John 7:37-39 equates living water with the receiving of the Holy Spirit. Couldn't Zech 14:8 be a reference to the disciples, after being filled with the Holy Spirit, going out to the Gentile nations to spread the gospel? In the same vein, couldn't the splitting of the Mount of Olives refer to the divide between the saved and the lost that was created with Christ's death and resurrection? You may recall that Jesus said that He did not come to bring peace, but a sword, even dividing families. We should read Zechariah 14 with the perspective that some may be literal and some may be figurative, just like the rest of the book of Zechariah.

As far as Matthew 17, I will have to go back and read that discussion again before giving any more thoughts on that.

the rookie
Aug 4th 2006, 05:01 PM
We should read Zechariah 14 with the perspective that some may be literal and some may be figurative, just like the rest of the book of Zechariah.

I'm guessing the aspects that point to the 1st Advent are literal, while the ones that seem to indicate events that have not taken place yet are really figurative and were also speaking of the 1st Advent.

John146
Aug 4th 2006, 06:29 PM
I totally follow your reasoning. The problem with your interpretation is that it doesn't take into account what the disciples were actually asking when they asked the question. Thus you would naturally misinterpret Jesus' answer. Think about it - why would they ask if Elijah was coming first - and what would be the context of his coming? And why would Jesus correct their understanding of who "Elijah" actually was?

1. Because they had just seen Elijah - literally, as he appeared on the mountain. Why is this important? Because what happens when three Jews who had been waiting for Elijah to come (in an eschatological sense) prior to the establishment of the kingdom of Israel actually see Elijah on a mountain in the midst of God authenticating Jesus as His Son (Ps. 2). Regardless of whether you buy into a literal kingdom, you cannot dismiss the disciples kingdom expectation at this phase of their lives. Remember, you can say that their expectation changed later - but it had not as of Acts 1:6. So the kingdom expectation is still a reality in their minds.

2. Jesus follows this experience with the quote you highlighted - He refers to Himself as the Son of Man (having just been validated as the Son of God). That phrase in the Jewish mind is also VERY loaded. It is the phrase that Jesus would use to link Himself to the human messiah (there was great debate in the rabbinical schools of the day in regards to the nature of the Son of Man - human or divine? How could this man approach God? Jesus used it to identify himself as the human messiah) who approaches the Ancient of Days in Dan. 7:13...and receives dominion and glory and a kingdom in Dan. 7:14.

Again, your interpretation of Dan. 7:13-14 is not important right now; what matters is that, in that moment, they think of those two verses as messianic and earthly kingdom. Why did the Jews think "earthly kingdom"? Why were they so erroneous in the amill thought process? Because of the context of Dan. 7:26-27, or the long awaited "great reversal" - the Ancient of Days takes an earthly kingdom and dominion from the one who ruled wickedly and gives that earthly kingdom to the saints of the Most High; the kingdom is an everlasting one in which "all dominions" (earthly) shall serve Him.

3. It is in this light that they ask the question about Elijah, who was prophesied (and expected) by Malachi to come as a messenger who would prepare the way before the "coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord." (Mal. 3:1; 4:5) Again, in their minds this question is being asked in terms of the cataclysmic eschatological day that is great and terrible - and ushers in the kingdom of Dan. 7. They had just seen Elijah - and he didn't do much except stand around. Their question, in part, was something along the lines of "what was the point of that?" In essence, they were asking, "what did Elijah actually DO back there?" It seemed as if Jesus with His comment about the Son of Man coupled with the appearance of literal Elijah was speaking of this long awaited Dan. 7 moment - they had just heard the voice of God!

With these three factors in mind, Jesus' answer is critical. He is correcting their paradigm in two critical ways:

1. To confirm that Elijah is coming - in other words what they had just seen on the mountain was not the fulfillment of the Malachi passages. That fulfillment was still to come (future). He will restore all things. In other words, there was a function for the Elijah to come - and it is in context to Mal. 4:6, or a restoration knit to a healing the family unit in a manner that will be indicative of widespread revival conditions that accompanied the prophetic expectation of the coming kingdom. They were still to expect that coming, future function of Elijah to come.

2. "But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him..." In other words those looking for Elijah (the Jews) had already missed the messenger who would prepare the way (Mal. 3:1) in the person of John the Baptist. A "non-literal" Elijah had come to prepare the way for the coming of the Messenger of the Covenant - the One in whom they would delight. In the same manner, a non-literal Elijah (Jesus Himself) was coming - not the man they saw on the mountain - to fulfill the function Malachi prophesied.

I understand your points that you are making about the grammatical flow of the passage. I just disagree with your assertion. You assume that they are asking about Elijah coming before Jesus rises from the dead. The assumption is that they understood that Jesus was going to die and rise from the grave, hence their question - which might leave some room for the grammatical flow as you see it, though I still would not agree.

The gospel accounts were clear that they never understood that Jesus was supposed to die - and never fully grasped the "rise from the dead" part (which is why they were hiding in fear after His crucifixion, why Peter denied knowing Him, etc.) until after they saw Him. So to assume they asked a question related to the timing of His resurrection is a leap that ignores the rest of the story. My point is that their question was birthed from a TOTAL cluelessness as to what just happened, not that they were trying to figure out a chronology of events. I also do not believe that Jesus was answering a "chronological question", but again, as I said, was reorienting their paradigm a bit.

Okay, you are correct when you say that they were asking why the scribes said that Elijah must come first before the Lord established His kingdom. I was wrong in saying that they were asking why the scribes said that Elijah must come first before Jesus rises from the dead. That is clear from reading the account in Mark 9 because it shows that the disciples did not know what rising from the dead meant:

9And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.
10And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean.
11And they asked him, saying, Why say the scribes that Elias must first come?
12And he answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought. 13But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him. - Mark 9:9-13 (KJV)

But let's look at verses 12 and 13. In verse 13, Jesus is countering what He had said in verse 12. In verse 12, He was agreeing with the disciples when He said that "Elias verily cometh first". Then He said "BUT I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come". I believe it can be read as "You're right that Elijah was to come first, but I'm telling you that He already came".

Also, while I admitted to a mistake I made in the interpretation of the disciples' question, I think you are mistaken in thinking that Elijah refers to not only John the Baptist but also to Jesus in the future and that Elijah (Jesus) had to come before a literal earthly kingdom was set up. Isn't that the mistake the Jews made originally, thinking His kingdom would be a literal, earthly physical kingdom? I believe you are making the same mistake. I also think you are mistaken in thinking that a future Elijah (Jesus) has to come just before the great and dreadful day of the Lord(Malachi 4:5). I know you don't believe in a pre-trib Rapture, so this tells me that you believe the day of the Lord in Malachi 4:5 is a reference to a future Millenial kingdom, which I find to be strange.

First, let's address the idea that Elijah, who you believe is Jesus, must come just before the arrival of an earthly millenial kingdom. I think you need to remember that Jesus' kingdom is not of this world. When Jesus prayed "Thy kingdom come" was He talking about the Millenial kingdom or the eternal New Jerusalem kingdom? Jesus spoke of His kingdom many times and never was it in reference to anything but His eternal spiritual kingdom, which He is preparing now and will bring with Him down from heaven to the new earth(Revelation 21). So, while this does not prove that Elijah wasn't going to come before the second coming it does show that it is a mistake to think that Elijah would come to prepare the way for a future millenial kingdom. That is something that you are inserting into the text.

So, doesn't Malachi 4:5 clearly show that Elijah comes just before the day of the Lord, which relates to the second coming? Hold on a minute. Is "the day of the Lord" always a reference to the second coming in Scripture? The day of the Lord is mentioned in Joel 2 and I can show how that was referring to the first coming of Christ and more specifically to His death on the cross. That's why it's called both great and dreadful.

1Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand;
2A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations. - Joel 2:1-2

Okay, we see that it is a day of darkness, even in the morning. I don't know about you, but this reminds me of the conditions that occurred when Jesus was on the cross when even in the morning it was dark and it was dark throughout the day. Also, it says there will never be a day like it again even after many generations. Doesn't that imply that there is still going to be life on this earth after the day of the Lord? Sure seems like it. You might try to say that's referring to the millenial kingdom, but I would beg to differ.

10The earth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble: the sun and the moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining:
11And the LORD shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for he is strong that executeth his word: for the day of the LORD is great and very terrible; and who can abide it? - Joel 2:10-11

We know that right after Christ died, there was an earthquake and we know that it was dark.

Then later in Joel 2, we read this:

27And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the LORD your God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed.
28And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
29And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.
30And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.
31The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the LORD come. 32And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call. - Joel 2:27-32

The fulfillment of this can be found in the following passage:

16But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
19And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:
20The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:
21And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
22Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. - Acts 2:16-24

I believe that everything that was quoted was fulfilled at that time, otherwise it would not have been quoted. People make the mistake of assuming that every reference to the last days refers to the very last days just before Christ comes. They also make the mistake of assuming that every reference to "the day of the Lord" is a reference to the second coming. Therefore we should not make that mistake with Zechariah 14:1.

So, the next seemingly unresolved issue is what Jesus meant by "restore all things". How could John the Baptist restore all things, right? Isn't that something only Jesus can do? Well, it depends on what "restore all things" means. I think it is a reference to preparing the way for Christ. Look at what Zechariah said about his son John after he was born:

76And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;
77To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,
78Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us,
79To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace. 80And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel. - Luke 1:76-80

So, John the Baptist restored all things by preparing the way for Christ and teaching about Him before He appeared and began His ministry so that people's hearts were ready to accept the salvation that Christ brought to them.

the rookie
Aug 5th 2006, 01:58 AM
Okay, you are correct when you say that they were asking why the scribes said that Elijah must come first before the Lord established His kingdom. I was wrong in saying that they were asking why the scribes said that Elijah must come first before Jesus rises from the dead. That is clear from reading the account in Mark 9 because it shows that the disciples did not know what rising from the dead meant:

9And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.
10And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean.
11And they asked him, saying, Why say the scribes that Elias must first come?
12And he answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought. 13But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him. - Mark 9:9-13 (KJV)

But let's look at verses 12 and 13. In verse 13, Jesus is countering what He had said in verse 12. In verse 12, He was agreeing with the disciples when He said that "Elias verily cometh first". Then He said "BUT I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come". I believe it can be read as "You're right that Elijah was to come first, but I'm telling you that He already came".
You established this in your last post on this subject. I know that you see it this way. I was hoping that you would move on to address some of the points I made in exegeting the passage, in terms of why they would be asking this question in context to their understanding of Malachi and what they understood would follow.


Also, while I admitted to a mistake I made in the interpretation of the disciples' question, I think you are mistaken in thinking that Elijah refers to not only John the Baptist but also to Jesus in the future and that Elijah (Jesus) had to come before a literal earthly kingdom was set up. Isn't that the mistake the Jews made originally, thinking His kingdom would be a literal, earthly physical kingdom? I believe you are making the same mistake. I also think you are mistaken in thinking that a future Elijah (Jesus) has to come just before the great and dreadful day of the Lord(Malachi 4:5). I know you don't believe in a pre-trib Rapture, so this tells me that you believe the day of the Lord in Malachi 4:5 is a reference to a future Millenial kingdom, which I find to be strange.
The reason that context is important, continuing my thought from above, is that is important to understand that "why" to gain insight into Jesus' answer and what that would mean apart from our theological bias. If the "Jews made that mistake" originally, then why didn't Jesus correct that mistake? It is the same issue of Acts 1:6 - another instance where Jesus did not correct the mistake you attribute to the Jews faulty grasp of theology related to the promised kingdom.

In your thinking, Jesus DID correct their thinking by speaking in the next sentence after the "restoration of all things" (which Peter still clings to as future in Acts 3:21) by calling their attention to Elijah. So the solution lies in what it means to "restore all things". If you can convincingly establilsh that Jesus meant that John the Baptist would restore all things, and was not speaking of Himself, than you will gain ground. You address it below, so we'll see how you do.

I find it strange, conversely, that the events described in Malachi (and 2 Pet. 3) do not require the coming of Elijah first in your understanding, since Malachi says it clearly and explicitly. But you address that below.


First, let's address the idea that Elijah, who you believe is Jesus, must come just before the arrival of an earthly millenial kingdom. I think you need to remember that Jesus' kingdom is not of this world. When Jesus prayed "Thy kingdom come" was He talking about the Millenial kingdom or the eternal New Jerusalem kingdom? Jesus spoke of His kingdom many times and never was it in reference to anything but His eternal spiritual kingdom, which He is preparing now and will bring with Him down from heaven to the new earth(Revelation 21). So, while this does not prove that Elijah wasn't going to come before the second coming it does show that it is a mistake to think that Elijah would come to prepare the way for a future millenial kingdom. That is something that you are inserting into the text.
You may want to go back and change the way you have framed this out. You are rebutting my premillennial view, but I was only talking about the disciple's kingdom view that they still held as they left their encounter with Elijah on the mountain. In context to scripture, specifically Malachi, I believe that he said that Elijah must come before the great and dreadful Day of the Lord. So the "kingdom is not of this world" statement does not help you get around what Malachi said. To really attack my point you have to get around the Day of the Lord to gain some ground. Let's see how you do....


So, doesn't Malachi 4:5 clearly show that Elijah comes just before the day of the Lord, which relates to the second coming? Hold on a minute. Is "the day of the Lord" always a reference to the second coming in Scripture? The day of the Lord is mentioned in Joel 2 and I can show how that was referring to the first coming of Christ and more specifically to His death on the cross. That's why it's called both great and dreadful.
On cue, you bring in one of my favorite and most studied passages in scripture, Joel 2.


Okay, we see that it is a day of darkness, even in the morning. I don't know about you, but this reminds me of the conditions that occurred when Jesus was on the cross when even in the morning it was dark and it was dark throughout the day. Also, it says there will never be a day like it again even after many generations. Doesn't that imply that there is still going to be life on this earth after the day of the Lord? Sure seems like it. You might try to say that's referring to the millenial kingdom, but I would beg to differ.
So, in context to the crucifixtion, (and this darkness) - since you have established that Joel was speaking of the first Advent and the cross - than the gospel writers failed to record the part where the "people come, great and strong, the like of whom has never been; nor will there ever be any such after them, even for many successive generations." (Joel 2:2)


10The earth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble: the sun and the moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining:
11And the LORD shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for he is strong that executeth his word: for the day of the LORD is great and very terrible; and who can abide it? - Joel 2:10-11

We know that right after Christ died, there was an earthquake and we know that it was dark.
Wait!! Why did you skip all the way to verse 10? You started with Joel 2:1-2, and then went all the way to verse 10? Are we throwing that out of the Bible? Since Joel 2:1-11 are one continual narrative describing the same sequence of events in the same time frame, can I request that you go back, and exegete verses 3-9 for us? Are those verses inconsequential? Since Joel 2:1-11 is clearly the first Advent, we need to devour these verses and study all of the events described, since Joel was prophesying here about the cross...



I believe that everything that was quoted was fulfilled at that time, otherwise it would not have been quoted. People make the mistake of assuming that every reference to the last days refers to the very last days just before Christ comes. They also make the mistake of assuming that every reference to "the day of the Lord" is a reference to the second coming. Therefore we should not make that mistake with Zechariah 14:1.
I know you believe that - which is why I'm wondering why you skipped so many verses that so clearly describe the first advent and the cross. We made it all the way to the end of the chapter, and so much was missed here.

Since the chapter headings are not inspired, and Joel 2-3 is one unit of thought, I'm wondering if you could continue on and demonstrate how Joel 3 was fulfilled in the past as well.


So, the next seemingly unresolved issue is what Jesus meant by "restore all things". How could John the Baptist restore all things, right? Isn't that something only Jesus can do? Well, it depends on what "restore all things" means. I think it is a reference to preparing the way for Christ. Look at what Zechariah said about his son John after he was born:

76And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;
77To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,
78Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us,
79To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace. 80And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel. - Luke 1:76-80

So, John the Baptist restored all things by preparing the way for Christ and teaching about Him before He appeared and began His ministry so that people's hearts were ready to accept the salvation that Christ brought to them.
You believe that John the Baptist truly "restored all things" as Jesus spoke and Peter quoted in Acts 3:21? Are you just being obtuse and looking to work your way out of a jam, or do you really believe this? Either way, I don't know if we can really fairly discuss this point. It would be like debating with a postmillennial who is wanting to prove how the world will get better and better...there are some things that are just too self-evident to spend time refuting.

John146
Aug 5th 2006, 02:35 AM
I find it strange, conversely, that the events described in Malachi (and 2 Pet. 3) do not require the coming of Elijah first in your understanding, since Malachi says it clearly and explicitly. But you address that below.

No, what I was saying is that I do not understand why you require the second coming of Jesus before the day of the Lord, if we're speaking in terms of the day of the Lord being in the future. I see the future day of the Lord and the second coming of Christ as being the same event. Your belief that they are not the same event is what struck me as being strange. Of course, I believe the day of the Lord spoken of in Malachi 4 is the same as the day of the Lord being quoted as being fulfilled in Acts 2.



On cue, you bring in one of my favorite and most studied passages in scripture, Joel 2.


So, in context to the crucifixtion, (and this darkness) - since you have established that Joel was speaking of the first Advent and the cross - than the gospel writers failed to record the part where the "people come, great and strong, the like of whom has never been; nor will there ever be any such after them, even for many successive generations." (Joel 2:2)


Wait!! Why did you skip all the way to verse 10? You started with Joel 2:1-2, and then went all the way to verse 10? Are we throwing that out of the Bible? Since Joel 2:1-11 are one continual narrative describing the same sequence of events in the same time frame, can I request that you go back, and exegete verses 3-9 for us? Are those verses inconsequential? Since Joel 2:1-11 is clearly the first Advent, we need to devour these verses and study all of the events described, since Joel was prophesying here about the cross...

Of course the other verses are not inconsequential. I simply don't have a good explanation for them beyond speculation. You know what? I don't know the meaning of every verse in Scripture. I could speculate on the other verses and make a fool of myself, but I'd rather not. Do you believe that what I said about Joel 2:1-2 & Joel 2:10 is valid or not? That's up to you. If we determine that those verses are speaking of the first coming of Christ as well as Joel 2:28-32, then, while it's not a guarantee that the entire passage is speaking of the first coming, it does make it more likely.



Since the chapter headings are not inspired, and Joel 2-3 is one unit of thought, I'm wondering if you could continue on and demonstrate how Joel 3 was fulfilled in the past as well.

I'd rather not, since if I don't explain every verse, you will disregard anything I say.



You believe that John the Baptist truly "restored all things" as Jesus spoke and Peter quoted in Acts 3:21? Are you just being obtuse and looking to work your way out of a jam, or do you really believe this? Either way, I don't know if we can really fairly discuss this point. It would be like debating with a postmillennial who is wanting to prove how the world will get better and better...there are some things that are just too self-evident to spend time refuting.

I don't believe the reference in Acts 3:21 is speaking of the same thing as the reference in Matthew 17. The onus is on you to prove me wrong. I'm afraid the fact that they use similar wording won't suffice. You'll have to show how the context of both is the same. I've already shown that the phrase "the day of the Lord" does not always apply to the time of the second coming of Christ and you apparently disagree with that. What can I say? You can believe the entire quote in Acts 2:16-21 is not fulfilled, but I just don't believe anything would be quoted except what was being fulfilled at that time.

the rookie
Aug 5th 2006, 02:46 AM
I'd rather not, since if I don't explain every verse, you will disregard anything I say.

It would help you prove my earlier two assertions about amillennials wrong, sure. Why? Well, see below.


I don't believe the reference in Acts 3:21 is speaking of the same thing as the reference in Matthew 17. The onus is on you to prove me wrong. I'm afraid the fact that they use similar wording won't suffice.

Since that is your standard, than I am now free to discard every "proof" you have offered me, and your comment below is now meaningless. Your hermeneutic is dependant on "similar language", as evidenced by your "proof" of the Day of the Lord being a first Advent reality.


I've already shown that the phrase "the day of the Lord" does not always apply to the time of the second coming of Christ and you apparently disagree with that. What can I say? You can believe the entire quote in Acts 2:16-21 is not fulfilled, but I just don't believe anything would be quoted except what was being fulfilled from Joel 2 at that time.

You have not "proved" anything. The Jewish concept of the Day of the Lord from the prophets (starting with Obadiah) is easy to define - it was clearly eschatological and involved judgment. The usage of that phrase always meant those two things to the Jewish readers (and the prophets that spoke those words). The usage of that phrase in the New Testament (by Paul, Peter, and James) always meant the same thing. Remember, you need more than similar language to prove something that contradicts the usage of this phrase in context as the NT writers present it.

cwb
Aug 5th 2006, 02:52 AM
Wait!! Why did you skip all the way to verse 10? You started with Joel 2:1-2, and then went all the way to verse 10? Are we throwing that out of the Bible? Since Joel 2:1-11 are one continual narrative describing the same sequence of events in the same time frame, can I request that you go back, and exegete verses 3-9 for us? Are those verses inconsequential? Since Joel 2:1-11 is clearly the first Advent, we need to devour these verses and study all of the events described, since Joel was prophesying here about the cross...



What army do you believe Joel 2:1 - 11 is speaking about?

the rookie
Aug 5th 2006, 03:08 AM
What army do you believe Joel 2:1 - 11 is speaking about?

The initial context was the Babylonian army that God was raising up to judge Israel in the same three-fold manner that the locust army of chapter one invaded their land; the destruction of the locust plague could not compare to the coming destruction of the three-stage invasion of the Babylonians. (In other words, the locusts came three times - the coming demonized army would also come three times over a 20 year time frame from 605 to 587 BC)

This is the army that Joel was talking about.

But the entire prophetic word as it culminates with Joel 3 is speaking of a greater army than the Babylonian one - and the events that surrounded the coming of THAT army to strike Israel would culminate in the "winepress of the nations" that Joel spoke of and John echoes in Rev. 14:20 related to the gathering of the nations against Jerusalem in the "valley of Jehoshaphat" or the "valley of decision" leading to the deliverance of the remnant in Mount Zion (Joel 2:32) and the establishment of Jerusalem as the dwelling of God (Joel 3:17).

The prophetic oracle of Joel has clear near / far implications in regards to the events described in Joel 3. The "For behold" of 3:1 clues us in that Joel 2:28 - 3:21 were meant to be understood as one unit of thought with a progressive, unfolding story line related to Israel's ultimate deliverance (in contrast to the earlier promise of judgment in the near future, as is the continual pattern of the minor prophets - short term judgment with the promise of long-term eschatological deliverance).

The book breaks down into these units:

Joel 1:1 - 2:11 - initial warning of coming crisis
Joel 2:12 - 2:27 - parenthesis describing God's solution for the people and promise of blessing and refreshing of the people related to repentance
Joel 2:28 - 3:21 - continuation of the crisis and the ultimate eschatological climax

honcho
Aug 5th 2006, 04:14 AM
What army do you believe Joel 2:1 - 11 is speaking about?

The fifth trumpet, Rev. 9:1-11.

cwb
Aug 5th 2006, 05:11 AM
The initial context was the Babylonian army that God was raising up to judge Israel in the same three-fold manner that the locust army of chapter one invaded their land; the destruction of the locust plague could not compare to the coming destruction of the three-stage invasion of the Babylonians. (In other words, the locusts came three times - the coming demonized army would also come three times over a 20 year time frame from 605 to 587 BC)

This is the army that Joel was talking about.

But the entire prophetic word as it culminates with Joel 3 is speaking of a greater army than the Babylonian one - and the events that surrounded the coming of THAT army to strike Israel would culminate in the "winepress of the nations" that Joel spoke of and John echoes in Rev. 14:20 related to the gathering of the nations against Jerusalem in the "valley of Jehoshaphat" or the "valley of decision" leading to the deliverance of the remnant in Mount Zion (Joel 2:32) and the establishment of Jerusalem as the dwelling of God (Joel 3:17).

The prophetic oracle of Joel has clear near / far implications in regards to the events described in Joel 3. The "For behold" of 3:1 clues us in that Joel 2:28 - 3:21 were meant to be understood as one unit of thought with a progressive, unfolding story line related to Israel's ultimate deliverance (in contrast to the earlier promise of judgment in the near future, as is the continual pattern of the minor prophets - short term judgment with the promise of long-term eschatological deliverance).

The book breaks down into these units:

Joel 1:1 - 2:11 - initial warning of coming crisis
Joel 2:12 - 2:27 - parenthesis describing God's solution for the people and promise of blessing and refreshing of the people related to repentance
Joel 2:28 - 3:21 - continuation of the crisis and the ultimate eschatological climax


So you believe the army in 600 BC was an army which,"hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it.". It seems to me that the army spoken of in Joel 2 is an army greater than the U.S. military. Also was the army in 600 BC an army where the members could not be wounded as it says in verse 8 of Joel 2? I am having trouble believing that the army in Joel 2 is speaking any army that was around in 600 BC.

the rookie
Aug 5th 2006, 06:21 AM
So you believe the army in 600 BC was an army which,"hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it.". It seems to me that the army spoken of in Joel 2 is an army greater than the U.S. military. Also was the army in 600 BC an army where the members could not be wounded as it says in verse 8 of Joel 2? I am having trouble believing that the army in Joel 2 is speaking any army that was around in 600 BC.

I'm thinking you didn't quite read my post carefully enough. I said that the initial context was unquestionably Babylon. The prophecy was TO Judah in regards to their impending national crisis. No serious scholar or commentator questions that. As I said, the three stage invasion of Babylon was exactly like the three stage locust plague that struck the land. The army raised up by the Lord for judgment was the "Chaldeans" of Habbakuk 2.

That is the "near" context. The "far" context is as you say, culminating with the Joel 3 armaggeddon scenario depicted as the winepress of the nations. Did you miss that part? I thought it was clear.

honcho
Aug 5th 2006, 11:42 AM
The army raised up by the Lord for judgment was the "Chaldeans" of Habbakuk 2.
The context is modern Babylon, none other than the good old United States and how we have taken captive "all the peoples" and "all the nations" through usury. Economic conquest in addition to military conquest of the nations like Afghanistan and Iraq.

"The just shall live by faith" or "the righteous will live by his faith" v.4 is the Church in America.


That is the "near" context. The "far" context is as you say, culminating with the Joel 3 armaggeddon scenario depicted as the winepress of the nations.
The is not any near fulfillment in Joel, the entire chapter concerns the day of the Lord.


Did you miss that part? I thought it was clear.

Compare again Joel 2:1-11 and Rev. 9:1-11.

Hawk
Aug 5th 2006, 02:19 PM
Oh man.

We are never going to get back to Zech. 14. :cry:

Junietta
Aug 5th 2006, 02:50 PM
Joel 2 is not Rev 9

The day of the Lord is not in the same time period as

trumpet number five

cwb
Aug 5th 2006, 03:26 PM
The context is modern Babylon, none other than the good old United States and how we have taken captive "all the peoples" and "all the nations" through usury. Economic conquest in addition to military conquest of the nations like Afghanistan and Iraq.




How do you get that modern Babylon is the United States.

cwb
Aug 5th 2006, 03:32 PM
I'm thinking you didn't quite read my post carefully enough. I said that the initial context was unquestionably Babylon. The prophecy was TO Judah in regards to their impending national crisis. No serious scholar or commentator questions that. As I said, the three stage invasion of Babylon was exactly like the three stage locust plague that struck the land. The army raised up by the Lord for judgment was the "Chaldeans" of Habbakuk 2.

That is the "near" context. The "far" context is as you say, culminating with the Joel 3 armaggeddon scenario depicted as the winepress of the nations. Did you miss that part? I thought it was clear.

Actually, your post is confusing a little. What exactly is the three stage invasion of Babylon. Also in your post you said seemed to say this army was demonized . Do you believe this the armey in Joel 2: 3-10 is a demonized army. See, I always thought that the army in Joel 2: 3-10 refers to the army that follows Jesus Christ in Revealtion 19 to conguer the beast.

cwb
Aug 5th 2006, 03:47 PM
Oh man.

We are never going to get back to Zech. 14. :cry:

I do think alot of stuff we are talking about does relate to Zech 14 though indirectly. By the way I have seen some postes say that Zech 14 refers to the first coming of Jesus Christ. In mattew 24, His desciples came and asked him what was the sign of His coming when He was sitting on the mount of olives. I tend to think when the disciples asked this question they were referring to Zechariah 14 and were asking when Jesus would come to the mount of Olives and rule the whole earth (Zech 14:9). If Zech 14 were refering to His first coming, it seems to me when the deciples asked the question, Jesus would have answered something like "What do you mean by asking what is the sign of my coming? I am here now!". Maybe I am just misunderstanding those who suggest that Zech 14 is referring to His first coming. Zech 14:9 says



And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.


Do those who believe Zech 14 is referring to Christ's first coming believe that Christ is king over all the earth today and that He is king over the whole middle east and is ruling over what is going on there.

the rookie
Aug 5th 2006, 05:44 PM
Actually, your post is confusing a little. What exactly is the three stage invasion of Babylon. Also in your post you said seemed to say this army was demonized . Do you believe this the armey in Joel 2: 3-10 is a demonized army. See, I always thought that the army in Joel 2: 3-10 refers to the army that follows Jesus Christ in Revealtion 19 to conguer the beast.

Sorry. Babylon invaded Judah three times from 605 BC to 587 BC, taking captives at each stage (like Ezekiel and Daniel) culminating with the seige of Jerusalem and the destruction of Solomon's Temple in the final invasion. That's what Jeremiah wrote about in Lamentations.

The army is a negative army, not a positive one.

the rookie
Aug 5th 2006, 05:51 PM
Hawk, were you looking for this...? :OFFT:

cwb
Aug 5th 2006, 06:02 PM
Sorry. Babylon invaded Judah three times from 605 BC to 587 BC, taking captives at each stage (like Ezekiel and Daniel) culminating with the seige of Jerusalem and the destruction of Solomon's Temple in the final invasion. That's what Jeremiah wrote about in Lamentations.

The army is a negative army, not a positive one.


I would agree that the army is a negative one - to the beast and his followers.

the rookie
Aug 5th 2006, 06:58 PM
I would agree that the army is a negative one - to the beast and his followers.

Good rhetoric, bad bible scholarship.

cwb
Aug 5th 2006, 07:23 PM
Good rhetoric, bad bible scholarship.


How so? The army being spoken of is an army that can not be wounded. Also this army is "a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, " (Joel 2:2). To me that me the army spoken about is an army superior to the U.S. military. The armies that gather against Jerusalem will be defeated and the members of those armies will not be able to fall on a sword and not be wounded (Joel 2:8). Also in verse 11 I believe it is made clear whose army is being spoken about:


And the LORD shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp [is] very great: for [he is] strong that executeth his word: for the day of the LORD [is] great and very terrible; and who can abide it?

His army is a positive army. I would agree that it is negative to those on the wrong side.

Hawk
Aug 5th 2006, 11:34 PM
Hawk, were you looking for this...? :OFFT:

Dude, that was exactly what I was looking for.

the rookie
Aug 7th 2006, 02:34 PM
No, what I was saying is that I do not understand why you require the second coming of Jesus before the day of the Lord, if we're speaking in terms of the day of the Lord being in the future. I see the future day of the Lord and the second coming of Christ as being the same event. Your belief that they are not the same event is what struck me as being strange. Of course, I believe the day of the Lord spoken of in Malachi 4 is the same as the day of the Lord being quoted as being fulfilled in Acts 2.



Of course the other verses are not inconsequential. I simply don't have a good explanation for them beyond speculation. You know what? I don't know the meaning of every verse in Scripture. I could speculate on the other verses and make a fool of myself, but I'd rather not. Do you believe that what I said about Joel 2:1-2 & Joel 2:10 is valid or not? That's up to you. If we determine that those verses are speaking of the first coming of Christ as well as Joel 2:28-32, then, while it's not a guarantee that the entire passage is speaking of the first coming, it does make it more likely.



I'd rather not, since if I don't explain every verse, you will disregard anything I say.



I don't believe the reference in Acts 3:21 is speaking of the same thing as the reference in Matthew 17. The onus is on you to prove me wrong. I'm afraid the fact that they use similar wording won't suffice. You'll have to show how the context of both is the same. I've already shown that the phrase "the day of the Lord" does not always apply to the time of the second coming of Christ and you apparently disagree with that. What can I say? You can believe the entire quote in Acts 2:16-21 is not fulfilled, but I just don't believe anything would be quoted except what was being fulfilled at that time.

I find it strange that the "onus" is on me to prove while you relieve yourself from the burden of proving your own assertions. Joel 2:28-3:21 is one progressive and continuous unit of thought; to state flatly that the entire passage (beginning with the Day of the Lord) is speaking of the first advent, claim that you have "proved" it, and then tersely avoid the consequences of that proof seems irresponsible to me.

Thus, my initial two assertions a few posts back still stand. The amillennial system will always be flawed as long as its adherants insist on divorcing passages from their context to serve their viewpoint. Their eisegesis begins in Rev. 20, flows backwards through the book of Revelation, and continues as the OT becomes reinterpreted to serve the initial premise of "no-millennium".

Lots of theological assertions, lots of proof-texting....and it falls apart when the details are examined in context...

a sojourner
Aug 7th 2006, 02:42 PM
Thus, my initial two assertions a few posts back still stand. The amillennial system will always be flawed as long as its adherants insist on divorcing passages from their context to serve their viewpoint. Their eisegesis begins in Rev. 20, flows backwards through the book of Revelation, and continues as the OT becomes reinterpreted to serve the initial premise of "no-millennium".

You know that I am not amillenial, but this statement was unfair. Watch this:


The pre-millennial system will always be flawed as long as its adherants insist on divorcing passages from their context to serve their viewpoint. Their eisegesis begins in Rev. 20, flows backwards through the book of Revelation, and continues as the OT becomes reinterpreted to serve the initial premise of a "1,000 year-millennium".

Fight fair, Dennis!

Hawk
Aug 7th 2006, 03:09 PM
You know that I am not amillenial, but this statement was unfair. Watch this:

Fight fair, Dennis!

Well, the text does say "a thousand years".... So the argument is always based on hermeneutic.

Jael
Aug 7th 2006, 04:36 PM
I'm still wondering where Dennis came from?:lol:

Regarding the army in Joel 2, just because it says they are the Lord's army doesn't mean they're the good guys. The Lord who raises up that army to accomplish His purposes, just like He used the Babylonian army. Thus they can be His army without being for Him...

the rookie
Aug 7th 2006, 04:41 PM
You know that I am not amillenial, but this statement was unfair. Watch this:



Fight fair, Dennis!

I'm not sure I follow your definition of "fair." I have no problem with your adjustment to my assertion. I think that your insertion of "pre-millennial" instead of "no-millennial" is VERY fair, and if I were honest I would need to address your statement if you backed it up with some instances where I have inserted my theological framework into the text wrongly. A theological framework or a paradigm by which one views scripture is unavoidable, and I have been honest about that. But we must make sure it is a theological framework that maintains the integrity of ALL scripture in its context as it was meant to be understood, not just the passages that fit within our framework.

Amillennials take the 25 scripture verses that back up their viewpoint and use them as a framework to interpret the rest of scripture, divorcing the OT passages from their context in the name of the superiority of the apostolic interpretation (which is really their interpretation of the apostolic interpretation). This is not okay. I try to fight "fair" when pointing out this inconsistency, and none thus far have proven my two earlier assertions wrong.

In fact, the "Day of the Lord" point and the Joel 2 scenario proved my two assertions, which was the point I made that you did not like. The assertion that all OT prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus at His first advent is a necessary invention to propagate a "now millennial" system that does not hold up under scrutiny. What is unfair about the scrutiny and the conclusion?

It is not that I "would not accept" any conclusions about Joel 3 and the first advent, it is that the statement was too bold and made too hastily. Upon examination of Joel 3 it is clear that the passage was meant to be understood as eschatological, with the "Day of the Lord" maintaining its integrity as a phrase that is eschatological. To attempt to twist and change these passages is an attempt to rework them to fit a theological assertion, which I do not want to do.

So I say to you, apply my own standard as you will. That is totally "fair".

John146
Aug 7th 2006, 05:18 PM
I find it strange that the "onus" is on me to prove while you relieve yourself from the burden of proving your own assertions. Joel 2:28-3:21 is one progressive and continuous unit of thought; to state flatly that the entire passage (beginning with the Day of the Lord) is speaking of the first advent, claim that you have "proved" it, and then tersely avoid the consequences of that proof seems irresponsible to me.

Thus, my initial two assertions a few posts back still stand. The amillennial system will always be flawed as long as its adherants insist on divorcing passages from their context to serve their viewpoint. Their eisegesis begins in Rev. 20, flows backwards through the book of Revelation, and continues as the OT becomes reinterpreted to serve the initial premise of "no-millennium".

Lots of theological assertions, lots of proof-texting....and it falls apart when the details are examined in context...

The fact of the matter is that you are unable to adequately reconcile many passages in the New Testament with your view and therefore you have to resort to insisting on literally interpreting difficult to understand Old Testament prophecies to try to support your view. Why get bogged down in passages like Zechariah 14 when the New Testament spells things out for us? Also, why do you insist on interpreting Zechariah 14 completely literally while we know that the rest of Zechariah contains both literal and figurative language?

In other threads, we discussed the first and second resurrections and why the premillenial view does not line up with Scripture. I don't recall you joining in on that conversation. I'm speaking of John 5:28-29 and Daniel 12:1-2, which show that the resurrection of the saved and the wicked occurs at the same time. But we know from Revelation 20 that the first resurrection is only for the saved. So your belief that the first resurrection is mentioned in John 5:28-29 or Daniel 12:1-2 does not hold up. Your belief that there are two separate judgments also cannot be backed up with Scripture. 2 Timothy 4:1, John 5:28-29, Daniel 12:1-2 and Matthew 25:31-46 all indicate that the judgment of the saved and the lost occurs at the same time. 2 Timothy 4:1 even says specifically that the Judgment occurs at the appearing or second coming of Christ. Your lack of acknowledging that all of the wicked are destroyed at the second coming of Christ is also troubling. I believe an overwhelming case can be made for that concept from reading Luke 17:26-30, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10, 2 Peter 3:7-13, Revelation 11:15-18, and Revelation 19:15-21. I don't think I need to convince you that all of the saved are physically resurrected and receive their immortal bodies and then are caught up to meet the Lord in the air. So, how does this leave any mortal human beings on the earth for a supposed literal earthly thousand year reign? Clearly, the premillenial view has much difficulty in trying to reconcile those passages with their view, but the amillenial view has no such difficulty.

the rookie
Aug 7th 2006, 05:50 PM
The fact of the matter is that you are unable to adequately reconcile many passages in the New Testament with your view and therefore you have to resort to insisting on literally interpreting difficult to understand Old Testament prophecies to try to support your view. Why get bogged down in passages like Zechariah 14 when the New Testament spells things out for us? Also, why do you insist on interpreting Zechariah 14 completely literally while we know that the rest of Zechariah contains both literal and figurative language?

Are you trying to prove my point for me? You must not have read what I wrote too closely. Of course I think that I am able to reconcile "many passages in the New Testament". But that is not the topic of this thread. There is no "resorting" to insisting on a literal interpretation in my earlier exegesis of Zech. 14 - there is an insistence to loyalty to the passages as they are written in their context. If the context is literal and meant to be understood that way, so be it. You and I don't get to decide based on our theological preference.

How do you decide which passages were meant to be literal and which were meant to be figurative? And, conversely, the inclusion of figurative language does not preclude the ignorance of grammatical flow and the progression of a thought. If I am using literal language and then tell you that "Jesus is the door" you do not have license to subeseqently dismiss everything I said before that as figurative and meandering. Your assertion is arbetrary and it is a great example of the amillennial double standard regarding "private interpretation". While an amillennial seeks to avoid it, they subsequently embrace it when looking at OT passages.

The amill hermeneutic is consistently "NT literal, OT figurative" and your assertions do not change that. Rather than exegete Joel 3 or Zech. 14, you are reduced to telling me I am wrong rather than proving it. You can't show me in the passage where I am wrong, so you resort to the intial tactics of the End Time Forum gang. Rather than tackle a passage, simply quote the same 25 verses that seem to prove your point. Isn't this what I said earlier? Aren't you doing exactly what I said you were doing?


In other threads, we discussed the first and second resurrections and why the premillenial view does not line up with Scripture. I don't recall you joining in on that conversation.
Those conversations would not have been a fruitful or productive use of my time, since the "battle lines" were clearly drawn and there was no ground to be gained. I am not interested in a "tit-for-tat" in which the ETF camp makes makes the rules and then hits back when the rest of the gang doesn't play along. Even in this thread, the "rules" of the game were toyed with so that the premill guy had to try to interpret the passage on amill terms or else there could be no ground gained. (please, rookie, try to find some NT fulfillments of the OT passages...) When I would not interpret the passage according to the amill framework than the discussion ground to a halt. My reasoning is sound - that the passage was not meant to be understood as a piecemeal collection of verses that had random fulfillments over a 3 1/2 year time frame of Jesus' first advent.

So rather than engage in fruitless debate, I tried to examine acutal Bible passages closely rather than throwing dozens of verses out of context back and forth. But I found that getting an amillennial to actually explain an OT passage is nearly impossible and just as fruitless. (I reference your response to my Joel 3 invitation).


I'm speaking of John 5:28-29 and Daniel 12:1-2, which show that the resurrection of the saved and the wicked occurs at the same time. But we know from Revelation 20 that the first resurrection is only for the saved. So your belief that the first resurrection is mentioned in John 5:28-29 or Daniel 12:1-2 does not hold up. Your belief that there are two separate judgments also cannot be backed up with Scripture. 2 Timothy 4:1, John 5:28-29, Daniel 12:1-2 and Matthew 25:31-46 all indicate that the judgment of the saved and the lost occurs at the same time. 2 Timothy 4:1 even says specifically that the Judgment occurs at the appearing or second coming of Christ. Your lack of acknowledging that all of the wicked are destroyed at the second coming of Christ is also troubling. I believe an overwhelming case can be made for that concept from reading Luke 17:26-30, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10, 2 Peter 3:7-13, Revelation 11:15-18, and Revelation 19:15-21.
Again, you are forced to resort to the party line here. Zech. 14? Figurative. Joel 3? Fulfilled. How? Let's quote lots of unrelated NT passages! I was VERY familiar with the amillennial viewpoint before I ever came to these forums, so the refresher was appreciated but unnessesary, since you'll find other versions on practically EVERY thread an amillennial dialogues with a premill.

You are troubled by my "lack of understanding that all the wicked are destroyed?" I appreciate your concern. I am troubled by your avoidance of Zech. 14, Joel 3, Matt. 17, Acts 1:6, Acts 10-11, Rom. 9-11, etc., etc. I do not think your case is so overwhelming, but again, such discussion would be fruitless. I am not so easily swayed by the underwhelming case that has been presented by the amillenials on this forum. You are not so easily swayed by my urging to actually examine passages of the Bible in context. So where can we go from here?


I don't think I need to convince you that all of the saved are physically resurrected and receive their immortal bodies and then are caught up to meet the Lord in the air. So, how does this leave any mortal human beings on the earth for a supposed literal earthly thousand year reign? Clearly, the premillenial view has much difficulty in trying to reconcile those passages with their view, but the amillenial view has no such difficulty.
I appreciate that you have avoided difficulty. I would think that the application of the carnal unrenewed mind to the transcendent things of God and His thoughts (higher and unlike ours) would necessarily lead to difficulties and a wrestling to lay hold of truth but I'm glad that someone somewhere has found a way around this. I will on my end continue to wrestle in prayer to lay hold of passages that continually challenge my viewpoint so that I can lay hold of the truth.

I suppose once you have found a comfort zone and certainty of truth you would no longer wrestle but rather seek to evangelize others to your viewpoint. I am not quite at that phase yet and will choose to approach the divide between amill and premill by looking closely at passages of scripture rather than concepts in scripture. Again, that's why I avoid most of the debates now in the other threads, since the ETF gang has chosen the latter approach, which is why all of their threads tend to be topical rather than scriptural in their titles.

Appreciate the dialogue...

John146
Aug 7th 2006, 07:26 PM
Tell me how the passages I quoted are unrelated and how I take them out of context. That's a claim that should be backed up. You seemed to have no problem discussing Matthew 17 in this thread. You love discussing Joel 2-3 in this thread. So, why not the passages I quoted. You made the bold claim that I'm taking them out of context, so please back up your claim.

David Taylor
Aug 7th 2006, 09:35 PM
Their eisegesis begins in Rev. 20, flows backwards through the book of Revelation, and continues as the OT becomes reinterpreted to serve the initial premise of "no-millennium".


Actually, from what I have read of the writings of the many Amillennialists on this forum, they do not believe in a 'no-milennium' scenerio.

I realize that the term Amillennial in its technical composition means that, but it is also the commonly used term to distinguish itself from Postmillennialism.

Personally, I would say that all Amillennial posters on this forum (that I have read) are actually and truly Postmillennial; although that term has become commonly accepted as meaning the Whidby Utopian type of Postmillennialism. (which noone here I have read agrees with)

What you really have, are Premill and Postmill fundamentally.

Postmill then, is broken down further based on its details and expectations.

Amill is a more clearly understood description of Postmill.

I personally find Postmill more accurate, but also more confusing because of its common mis-association with the Whidby Utopian expectation.

I doubt any Amillers (or Postmillers) hear on this forum would agree that there is no millennium.

Rather, we are in the millennium; and it is the term John used to describe the intra-advent period between the 1st and 2nd Comings of Christ when the gospel is going out to the nations, and prior to the final judgment and eternal state.







Lots of theological assertions, lots of proof-texting....and it falls apart when the details are examined in context...

Actually, Premill has its own robust assortment of theological assertions and proof-texting, which also fall apart when the details are examined in context.

Both systems fail miserably in the eye of the other-sides beholder.

Back to the melting guitar solos of Roy Clark and Robert Johnson.

Perhaps Zechariah chapter 15 holds all the answers, and the lost Robert Johnson recordings. Where is Ron Wyatt when we need a new archeological discovery?

David Taylor
Aug 7th 2006, 09:41 PM
Tell me how the passages I quoted are unrelated and how I take them out of context. That's a claim that should be backed up. You seemed to have no problem discussing Matthew 17 in this thread. You love discussing Joel 2-3 in this thread. So, why not the passages I quoted. You made the bold claim that I'm taking them out of context, so please back up your claim.

This is Dennis' thread about Guitar Solos and Zechariah 14.

If he wants to chase rabbits into other books and passages, then there should be some patience and consideration for others as well.....if they have a point that seems important to them.

In regards to face melting guitar solos, I noticed this weekend that CMT is now playing re-runs of Hee Haw. For those interested in that part of this thread, you'll find some of the best guitar duets and duels of all time in that catalog.

Roy Clark trading licks with Chet Atkins, Glen Campbell, Jerry Reed, Buck Trent, Eddie Van Halen, Merle Travis, etc...)

the rookie
Aug 7th 2006, 09:45 PM
Tell me how the passages I quoted are unrelated and how I take them out of context. That's a claim that should be backed up. You seemed to have no problem discussing Matthew 17 in this thread. You love discussing Joel 2-3 in this thread. So, why not the passages I quoted. You made the bold claim that I'm taking them out of context, so please back up your claim.

Are you actually reading my posts?

I made the bold claim that you have taken Joel 2-3 out of context and presented the need for you to back up your "proof" that Joel's "Day of the Lord" was in regards to the first advent.

So, I am discussing Joel because YOU initially brought up that passage. YOU made the claim that all of those passages were fulfilled at the first advent. I have asked you now many times to back up that claim. YOU have refused, and are now evading the issue altogether by seeking to drag me into a debate over the NT passages you feel comfortable with as opposed to two passages you have admittedly not spent as much time on (Zech. 14 and Joel 3) though feel comfortable enough with those passages to make unsupported claims to their fulfillment.

I have stated that the amillennial tactic is one of avoidance of the details and a clinging to the 25 scriptures they feel comfortable enough with to establish their viewpoint rather than actually examine an OT Bible passage. Your answer is to challenge me to look at the 25 verses with you? Eric, you have to admit that it is a bit odd that you are playing so strong to "type".

Tell you what. I will go back and forth on as many NT passages and concepts you like if you will simply exegete those passages and tell us what Joel and Zechariah were saying to the Jews prior to the Babylonian invasion and after the return from exile. Break down the passages for us. Prove that these passages all were fulfilled in the first advent. Do so without skipping major passages with really important details. Honor the prophets and their intent and language, if you can.

I would ask that, if you are going to engage me in a dialogue on my thread, you actually read my posts and consider the point they are making. Firing off a response with an "aha!" isn't really that productive at the end of the day, wouldn't you agree?

the rookie
Aug 7th 2006, 10:52 PM
I don't agree with that. They've been discussed, but premils have yet to address them adequately. But I won't say any more about them here. David Taylor is an amillenialist and has done an exegesis of the Zechariah 14 passage, but you disagree with him. So be it. I give rookie and David Taylor credit for trying, but obviously no one has been able to prove anything from the passage one way or another. I'm not much into speculation, so I'd rather not give my exegesis without being able to solidly back it up with other Scripture.

David Taylor did not do an exegesis of Zech. 14, he linked them to NT verses that COULD qualify as a fulfillment of those passages. That was helpful, but not an exegesis. An examination or explanation of the passage itself (as I defined earlier - dictionary definition) is what was being spoken of here.

a sojourner
Aug 8th 2006, 04:04 AM
ok, ok... I'll start it off. Just a disclaimer, however, this is literally my first time really reading this part of the Bible. I simply want to move this thread away from the side-arguments and give the Dennis some of his beloved exegesis. So if I goof it up forgive me.


Zechariah 12-14

Zech. 12-14 contains a prophecy introduced as 'an oracle,' (12.1) So these three chapters must to some degree be approached as a unit.


The word of the LORD concerning Israel:

This oracle is primarily about Israel.


Thus says the LORD, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the human spirit within:

Why does God introduce Himself this way? Perhaps these three items help us to frame the content of the following prophecy. The three items are: God as Creator of the heavens, God as the founder of the earth, and God as the one who formed of the human spirit.
They each seem to speak of God's soveriegnty in different arenas - the first over the spirit-realm; the second over the physical, earthly affairs; and the third over the heart of men.


See, I am about to make Jerusalem a cup of reeling for all the surrounding peoples; it will be against Judah also in the siege against Jerusalem.

This seems to be the 'thesis statement' of the oracle. This is the first event described, followed by a series of other events introduced by the formula "on that day." Therefore the other events in this series most likely refer to the same 'day' on which God makes Jerusalem a "cup of reeling for all the surrounding peoples," and may even be different discriptions of the same event.


On that day I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it shall grievously hurt themselves. And all the nations of the earth shall come together against it.

All the peoples will try to use Jerusalem for their own means, but it will backfire. This will cause them to try and destroy it instead.


On that day, says the LORD, I will strike every horse with panic, and its rider with madness. But on the house of Judah I will keep a watchful eye, when I strike every horse of the peoples with blindness. 5 Then the clans of Judah shall say to themselves, “The inhabitants of Jerusalem have strength through the LORD of hosts, their God.”

When the nations go up against Jerusalem, God will strike their armies with panic, madness and blindness. Some evidence of God literally doing this sort of thing:

Cf. Ex. 14.23 Then the Egyptians took up the pursuit, and all Pharaoh’s horses, his chariots and his horsemen went in after them into the midst of the sea. 24 And it came about at the morning watch, that the LORD looked down on the army of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and cloud and brought the army of the Egyptians into confusion. 25 And He caused their chariot wheels to swerve, and He made them drive with difficulty; so the Egyptians said, “Let us flee from Israel, for the LORD is fighting for them against the Egyptians.”
Also: Deut. 7.22 “And the LORD your God will clear away these nations before you little by little; you will not be able to put an end to them quickly, lest the wild beasts grow too numerous for you. 23 “But the LORD your God shall deliver them before you, and will throw them into great confusion until they are destroyed."
As well as:1Sam. 5.8 So they sent and gathered all the lords of the Philistines to them and said, “What shall we do with the ark of the God of Israel?” And they said, “Let the ark of the God of Israel be brought around to Gath.” And they brought the ark of the God of Israel around. 9 And it came about that after they had brought it around, the hand of the LORD was against the city with very great confusion; and He smote the men of the city, both young and old, so that tumors broke out on them.

Jerusalem will be unaffected by these plagues and therefore Judah will know that God is giving them strength and fighting for them. This verse and 12:7 draw a distinction between those who inhabit Jerusalem, and Judah. It is most likely that the inhabitants of Jerusalem are a sub-group of Judah, rather than a seperate people group. It is Jerusalem, not Judah, who are delivered by God in 12:5.


On that day I will make the clans of Judah like a blazing pot on a pile of wood, like a flaming torch among sheaves; and they shall devour to the right and to the left all the surrounding peoples, while Jerusalem shall again be inhabited in its place, in Jerusalem.

Judah, with their God-given strength will then go conquering, while holding Jerusalem.


And the LORD will give victory to the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem may not be exalted over that of Judah.

Judah, not to be outdone by Jerusalem in 12:5, is given victory.


On that day the LORD will shield the inhabitants of Jerusalem so that the feeblest among them on that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the angel of the LORD, at their head.

Not only does God send madness, etc. on Jerusalem's enemies, he also strengthens them to fight.


And on that day I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

This passage and the next seem to make a jump that I don't quite understand yet. We go from judgement and deliverance to mourning. A new character (who we all know is Jesus, but from a narrative point of view appears to be inserted randomly into the story) is introduced, the 'one whom they have pierced.'


Zech. 12.10 **And I will pour out a spirit of compassion and supplication on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that, when they look on the one whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.

This is perhaps also a 'thesis' type of verse. It introduces a new facet of the narrative; the first being threat/deliverance, the second concerns this 'one whom they have pierced' who we know is the Messiah.

This is the first verse that gives light to the time-frame in which the preceeding events happen. This verse is quoted or referenced in the following verses: Matt. 24:30; John 19:37; Rev. 1:7. The time-frame that one puts the fulfilment of this prophecy is dependant on when they believe that the two New Testament references take place.
The most definitive of them is John 19 which says:

For these things came to pass, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, “Not a bone of Him shall be broken.” 37 And again another Scripture says, “They shall look on Him whom they pierced.”

This of course refers to the cross. As for Matt. 24 and Revelation, there is obviously much discussion concerning their fulfilment.

At any rate, 12:11-14 further describe the mourning.


On that day a fountain shall be opened for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and impurity.

This verse also strongly suggests the atonement. The cleansing from sin and impurity was a an important aspect of the cross. The verse is also somewhat similar to Rev. 22.1.


Zech. 13.2 **On that day, says the LORD of hosts, I will cut off the names of the idols from the land, so that they shall be remembered no more; and also I will remove from the land the prophets and the unclean spirit. 3 And if any prophets appear again, their fathers and mothers who bore them will say to them, “You shall not live, for you speak lies in the name of the LORD”; and their fathers and their mothers who bore them shall pierce them through when they prophesy. 4 On that day the prophets will be ashamed, every one, of their visions when they prophesy; they will not put on a hairy mantle in order to deceive, 5 but each of them will say, “I am no prophet, I am a tiller of the soil; for the land has been my possession since my youth.” 6 And if anyone asks them, “What are these wounds on your chest?” the answer will be “The wounds I received in the house of my friends.

I know Dennis has a theory about this one; you can ask him about it.

13:7-9 seem to form a 'parenthetical' section. It does not fit the previous patterns, and changes voices.


“Awake, O sword, against my shepherd,
against the man who is my associate,” says the LORD of hosts.
Strike the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered;
I will turn my hand against the little ones.

Cf. Matt. 26:31; Mark 14:27.
These verses strongly suggest that this happened the night Jesus was crucified, since that's what he said was happening. It could be that there is something a dual-fulfilment that we can still expect, but at the very least, Jesus tipped us off to one of them.


In the whole land, says the LORD,
two-thirds shall be cut off and perish,
and one-third shall be left alive.
9 And I will put this third into the fire,
refine them as one refines silver,
and test them as gold is tested.
They will call on my name,
and I will answer them.
I will say, “They are my people”;
and they will say, “The LORD is our God.”

Two thirds of the Land will perish, and the remaining third will be refined by God and will be called his people. Spiritual Israel? National Israel? Ask Dennis or Mr. Taylor.

---

Ok, so maybe it wasn't the most in depth, well informed look at Zech. But at least it brings us up to Ch. 14. Someone else can take over from here.

Hawk
Aug 8th 2006, 01:59 PM
Hey, it looks like we might actually be getting back to Zechariah 14! :pp :bounce: :D

the rookie
Aug 8th 2006, 02:01 PM
Good stuff bro - it gives a framework to build on for the two chapters I didn't hit, for sure. The seemingly random shift begins a return to the original narrative from a more negative angle for Israel, as Zechariah is unflinching about presenting the trial that Israel will endure before her ultimate deliverance and victory. To establish a clear narrative flow helps to lay out the implications and begin to flesh out an application.

Thanks for "humoring me" by actually looking at a Bible passage. It's a good habit to get into, once you start...

the rookie
Aug 9th 2006, 09:02 PM
hmmm....no answer from Eric....soooo, let's turn the lights out on this thread . Helpful discussion, though...