Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Amill Trouble Passages (copied from the Rod of Iron thread)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Amill Trouble Passages (copied from the Rod of Iron thread)

    Starting a new thread, with a post copied out of the Rod of Iron thread, by Divad, to further expound upon and discuss.


  • #2
    Originally posted by David Taylor View Post

    Right it doesnt fit.

    Amill has to account for why Rev 20 spans the NT era and is longer than 1000 literal years, and why the GWT is not a literal 1000 years after Christs return.
    Amill has to also explain why Zech 14 is either not the 2nd coming, and/or if it is, how are the sinners explained.
    Amill also has to account for Isa 65:20’s 100 year old sinner.
    To some premillers, Amill also has to account for Ezek 40-48 not being after the 2nd advent.
    Those I believe are the most troublesome passages for Amill.
    If there are others you see more weighty, please share.


    Premill from my observation though, has many more conflicted passages, especially many teachings of Jesus Himself, that teach no sinners survive the 2nd coming.

    If you would like me to carefully share those, so you can see the weight of their arguement, I will be happy to.

    Trust me, I get your point in regards to Zech 14 and Isa 65:20’s 100 year old sinner. As to your point about Ezek 40-48, that is a difficult one. Presently I don't see some of that fitting after the 2nd coming, mainly in regards to animal sacrificing resuming, while at the same time seeing some of it fitting after the 2nd coming. I am then left asking myself, why would some of it be meaning after the 2nd coming, and some of it wouldn't? To illustrate what I am meaning, consider the following.

    Ezekiel 47:7 Now when I had returned, behold, at the bank of the river were very many trees on the one side and on the other.
    8 Then said he unto me, These waters issue out toward the east country, and go down into the desert, and go into the sea: which being brought forth into the sea, the waters shall be healed.
    9 And it shall come to pass, that every thing that liveth, which moveth, whithersoever the rivers shall come, shall live: and there shall be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters shall come thither: for they shall be healed; and every thing shall live whither the river cometh.
    10 And it shall come to pass, that the fishers shall stand upon it from Engedi even unto Eneglaim; they shall be a place to spread forth nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many.
    11 But the miry places thereof and the marishes thereof shall not be healed; they shall be given to salt.
    12 And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side, shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary: and the fruit thereof shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine.


    If we compare verse 12 with the following, how can verse 12 possibly not be speaking of the same place and same era of time?

    Revelation 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.

    Let's do some closer comparing.

    And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side....and on either side of the river

    shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months...was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month

    and the leaf thereof for medicine....and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

    As to Zech 14 and verses 16-19. How can chronology not help us here? If chronology is unimportant when coming to prophetic events, that could mean the 2nd coming could chronologically precede the first coming, which of course doesn't make logical sense. Therefore, in some cases, probably many cases, how one decides to interpret something has to be determined by what the chronology of events show.

    If we compare verse 2 with verses 16-19, obviously, the latter can't chronologically precede the former. If we then compare verses 16-19 with verse 5 and this part...and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee...., obviously, the latter can't chronologically precede the former here either.

    At this point we then have to determine what event....and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee...is referring to.

    If we compare that with the following in the book of Jude, it seems pretty obvious what event it is referring to.

    Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
    15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
    16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
    17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
    18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

    How many would argue that verse 15 doesn't involve the 2nd coming? This should mean that so is...and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee(Zech 14:5)...also referring to the 2nd coming. Now that we have determined verses 16-19 fit after the 2nd coming, what do we then do with these verses if meaning after the 2nd coming? Do we assume we were lied to here, and that nothing in these verses will actually come to pass?

    What we have to keep in mind, verse 16 indicates that these survivors remaining of the nations which came against Jerusalem, they shall go up from year to year. Obviously, that would be impossible to fulfill within 24 hour or less, therefore, there have to be some extra days post the 2nd coming in order to fulfill these years, or if not that, we then have to conclude that this is meaning forever and ever, that unsaved ppl would get to live on the new earth. We know they are unsaved based on the fact they are threatened with punishment, such as no rain, if they fail to comply with what is commanded of them.

    Comment


    • #3
      Divad, I am copying your post from Friday here, into a new thread, so I can have time to reply to it more carefully in detail, and let if follow a different path that the rod-of-iron thread.
      I likely will create a sister thread to this one, raising similarly, what I am seeing as the most troublesome verses for the Premill view, which also could be a worthwhile discussion.

      I am not unwilling to change my view, and want to always be searching for the most sound, most tendable scriptural view.
      I was raised and initially followed the dispensational pretrib, premill view. I am well familiar with that view.
      I have also studied the pre-wrath view (popularized by VanKampen and Rosenthal), as well as the Chialasts writings from pre-nicene, and the modern historic premill view most commonly attributed to G Eldon Ladd. Likewise, I have looked into other nonPremill views as well. I think we should study other views, beyond what we hold; to better understand why others hold those views, and to better be able to align ours with the best rendering and understanding of the scriptures we can come up with.
      And sometimes, we still may land incorrectly, and sometimes it may just be a timing issue.

      All we can do is be diligent in studying the scriptures, and trying to make the difficult more clear, and do so in a fruitful and patient manner with those whom we currently may have disagreements with. Being highly polarizing in one's view, especially on Eschatalogical topics, is not fruitful. We should all consider this.

      All that being said, let's look deeper into your post from the other thread.


      Originally posted by divaD View Post

      Trust me, I get your point in regards to Zech 14 and Isa 65:20’s 100 year old sinner. As to your point about Ezek 40-48, that is a difficult one. Presently I don't see some of that fitting after the 2nd coming, mainly in regards to animal sacrificing resuming, while at the same time seeing some of it fitting after the 2nd coming. I am then left asking myself, why would some of it be meaning after the 2nd coming, and some of it wouldn't?
      If we can latter, I will be happy to look deeper at Zech 14 (I think you do below anyway) and Isaiah 65.
      For now, I would like to say this for Ezek 40-48.

      Aside from the animal sacrifices it presents; a couple of other problems are found.
      1) It requires a return to Physical circumcision of the flesh (Ezek 44:7-9), which I find untendable as ever occuring 'after' Calvary, from what we are told in the N.T. writings.

      2) The animal sacrifices, sometimes I hear Premill apologists, claim are for memorial only. However, Ezekiel claimed they were for sin and tresspass and meat and burnt and peach offerings (which are not memorial), for the reconciliation and sanctification of the people living at that time, that Christ abolished 'forever' in Hebrews.

      3) If the Premill view venues Ezkeil 40-48 as within it's millennial kingdom reign, it also shows a return to the daily priest roles of men, that Christ abolished 'forever' in Hebrews.

      If one reads carefully Hebrews 9-11; I cannot fathom the idea of how one could attempt to venue Ezkeil 40-48 at any time period, after Calvary.
      If so, it mocks what the Hebrew writer wrote, and calls into question the validity of the book of Hebrews.
      One might say, who holds a Premill Kingdom fulfillment of Ezekiel 40-48 that the opposing view likewise calls Ezekiel's writing into question, if it isn't fulfilled either.
      I get that, and respect that. However, what the opposing view doesn't consider, is that there are other 'interpretations' and/or understandings of Ezekiel 40-48 that could be held, and still accept both Ezekiel and Hebrews as true cannon, and not in conflict with one another. However, a strict wooden interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48 applied after Calvary, cannot exist without conflict.

      4) The Ezekiel temple is deemed Holy by the Lord. Therfore it cannot be some mis-aligned Jewish creation, they do outside of God, that is incorrectly done. 41:4 states it is the holy place. 42:13 mentions the holy chambers and the priests approach the most holy things(offerings) 42:14 mentions the priests garments are holy. 43:7 describes the the Lord's throne and place of his feet dwelling in their midst and his holy name being there; 45:7 says the offerings themselves are holy.

      5) the time of this temple isn't limited but ongoing from what I read. Yet, it continues to show sinners and foreigners and rebels. If the Premill Kingdom is of Christ's perfect rule, and it is either pristine and sinless as some Premill views hold, or it is in a state of purification, and gradual cleansing over the 1000 years time as other Premill views hold, why doesn't Ezekiel 40-48 mention this at all? It shows no reduction of any of the sinful things above, nor a growth toward a time of near perfect kingdom reign at the end.

      6) Strikingly also, is no mention in 40-48 of the 2nd Coming of Christ, the Resurrection, the Judgment, the Gathering of believers in the air, the thousand year boundary, the later great white throne judgment or the eternal state...all bookend items of the premill kingdom view explained outside of Ezekiel 40-48. Does the silence of those items likewas, generate question of it's suggested post-2nd Coming venue?

      On to your next point.

      Originally posted by DivaD
      To illustrate what I am meaning, consider the following.

      Ezekiel 47:7 Now when I had returned, behold, at the bank of the river were very many trees on the one side and on the other.
      8 Then said he unto me, These waters issue out toward the east country, and go down into the desert, and go into the sea: which being brought forth into the sea, the waters shall be healed.
      9 And it shall come to pass, that every thing that liveth, which moveth, whithersoever the rivers shall come, shall live: and there shall be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters shall come thither: for they shall be healed; and every thing shall live whither the river cometh.
      10 And it shall come to pass, that the fishers shall stand upon it from Engedi even unto Eneglaim; they shall be a place to spread forth nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many.
      11 But the miry places thereof and the marishes thereof shall not be healed; they shall be given to salt.
      12 And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side, shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary: and the fruit thereof shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine.


      If we compare verse 12 with the following, how can verse 12 possibly not be speaking of the same place and same era of time?

      Revelation 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.

      Let's do some closer comparing.

      And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side....and on either side of the river

      shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months...was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month

      and the leaf thereof for medicine....and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
      Verse 47:8, 9, and 12 denote the need of healing and medicine. Many 40-48 passages mention their continued abominations. That to me denotes a continuation of the curse of sin and death, still existing in this Ezek 40-48 venue.
      I will grant you, some of the wording of Rev 21-22 clearly is taken from parts of Ezekiel 40-48. No doubt there.
      Does it mean they are the same thing at the same time being described?
      Or could it be similar language being used, to describe one that is similar, yet better than the prior?

      Like I said above, Ezek 40-48 shows sin and rebellion, and healing and medicine needed. This is still a fallen state for those living in Jerusalem and the nations at this time.(40-48)

      When I look at the 22:2 verse you quoted, I see similar language, but not a similar condition. Why do I see it is different? Because We are told in Rev 21 early, that there is no more death. No more crying. No abominations in Jerusalem in Rev 21-22. The only place in Rev 21-22 you find the wicked, are two times they are described as existing outside, in the Lake of Fire. Completely different venue. That New Jerusalem is different that Ezek 40-48's Jerusalem. That is a huge difference between the two.

      Also, notice this passage from Revelation.

      Revelation 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.

      What trouble points do we find here, when attempting to say Ezekiel 40-48's temple is the same?
      Revelation has no temple. Ezekeil 40-48 does.
      Revelation's nations that enter it, are only the nations 'of them which are saved'. Ezekeil 40-48's Jerusalem and temple allows sinners within it.
      Revelation's kings of the earth bring only glory and honor into it. Ezekiel's kings are only associated to whoredom and idolatry.
      Revelation's gates shall never be shut. Ezekiel 46's gates are shut at different times of day and on different days.
      Revelation's temple has no night there. Ezekiel 46's temple has night.

      So while some of the language and imagery between the two are similar, the details describe completely different places and times.
      One is inferior, and one is focused on the things of man and the flesh, in a sinful environment.
      One is superior, and is focused on the things of the redeemed man and His God, in a perfect environment.

      I agree with you the language in some places is similar between the Ezek 40-48 Jerusalem and Rev 21-22 New Jerusalem; however, when you look at the details within those venues, there is much, much conflict, which leads me to believe they are two different pictures of two different places at two different times; and cannot both be describing the same place at the same time.


      Originally posted by DivaD


      As to Zech 14 and verses 16-19. How can chronology not help us here? If chronology is unimportant when coming to prophetic events, that could mean the 2nd coming could chronologically precede the first coming, which of course doesn't make logical sense. Therefore, in some cases, probably many cases, how one decides to interpret something has to be determined by what the chronology of events show.

      If we compare verse 2 with verses 16-19, obviously, the latter can't chronologically precede the former. If we then compare verses 16-19 with verse 5 and this part...and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee...., obviously, the latter can't chronologically precede the former here either.
      I can agree with that logical conclusion. It makes sense, unless other local passages to the contrary, made a clear timing or venue change, we should see 2 and 16-19 chronologically.

      But there are other things that aren't there that we don't have to conceed.

      14:1. the phrase 'a day of the Lord cometh' does not as it is worded, definatively imply the 2nd Coming. Nor does it imply the 1st Coming. At most, without other context, it just indicates an important day will be coming.

      14:2 describes a time coming when Jerusalem will have nations gathered against it to battle; and it will be overtaken, and it will be ravished.

      From Zechariah's time, writing in the 6th century B.C. while in Babylonian exile. A time future for them, with historical record we have in hindsight, that would most logically fulfill 14:2 would be when the Romans, the world power of all then known nations of the world at that time, occupied and overtook Jerusalem. We could also speculate that Zechariah is skipping this overtaking and occupation, and jumping forward another 2000 years; however, there isn't much in the other contemporary OT prophets to support this, nor in the later NT writings. I would suggest Zechariah 14 is speaking of Rome in the time of Christ, not our current future.

      More telling for me (not mentioned by you above) is the Lord coming and fighting against the nations and His feet standing on the Mt of Olives prophecy.
      Shall we skip when the Lord left Heaven, came to Earth as a man, and literally walked on the Mt of Olives with his feet? We already know that some of the Zech 12 and 13 passages were applied by the NT prophets to Jesus' 1st Advent, so there is some precidence to at least consider this.

      You mention 14:5's above 'my Lord God shall come and all the saints with thee'. But that is very vague. It does not contain any 2nd Coming laguange per say...it just says he will come and his saints with him. Could this not be His incarnation in Bethlehem, heraleded by both the angels on high and shepherds abiding in the fields? Remember the word 'saints' is haggios, which just means his holy ones, it can be used as either holy angels or holy men, and isn't definative. Much of verse 5 sounds similar to the same language Isaiah used and Luke used via John the Baptist, that talked about when he would come (1st Advent) he would make the mountains low and the crooked places straight.....not meaning land-remodeling, but His effect on the people.






      Originally posted by DivaD
      At this point we then have to determine what event....and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee...is referring to.

      If we compare that with the following in the book of Jude, it seems pretty obvious what event it is referring to.

      Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
      15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
      16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
      17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
      18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
      Jude is much different than Zech 14:5b, in that Jude does given additional language tying it to the 2nd Coming ('executing judgment upon all', 'convincing the ungodly', 'referencing the earlier NT writers who spoke of the 2nd Coming being a time of mockers'.
      Zech 15:5 is an island passage without that same corroberation as Jude.

      We could also interpret those with Christ as the great multitudes that followed Him when His feet were walking around all of Galilee and Judea, during his first Advent. Nothing sacrifices that as a legitimate rendering either.

      Before jumping down to verse 14:15-21; le'ts not skip 14:8.
      To me, this is the 2nd most important marker verse, of where to correctly venue Zechariah 14. (The first being 14:4 when the Lord came down and literally walked on the Mt of Olives as recorded in the Gospels), and that is the prophecy of the outflowing of the living waters.

      If we confer with the NT writings, the only place they mention the literal River of Life flowing as a river, is in Rev 22; 1000+ years after the Premill 2nd Advent has occurred. So we cannot tie 14:8's River of Life to Rev 22's River of Life timeline.

      So what other option do we have? Do any other passages mention the River of Life?
      Yes, Ezekiel 47 has a river. however, it isn't the river of life. it is a natural river, with natural fish, and natural fisherman the cast their nets into it to eat fish.
      Another? Nowhere else in scripture is the river of life mentioned outside of Zech 14:8 and Rev 21-22.

      Except....
      John 4 and John 7.
      Jesus mentions the same living waters in both chapters. He said however, that they come from Him as a gift, and that they would not be from Jerusalem, but from the outpuring of the Holy Spirit. This is all the 1st Advent Timing again. Could it not most likely then be, that Zech 14:8's living waters flowing out, are Zechariah's vision of what Christ describes in John 4 and 7?
      Are there any better alternative passages describing the living waters going out from Jerusalem than Jesus Himself, in 1st Century AD being the giver of the Living waters, and of Pentecost and the Holy Spirit being the living waters of which Jesus spoke of? I would like to see a more tendable fulfillement of Zech 14:8 if there is one.

      Originally posted by DivaD
      How many would argue that verse 15 doesn't involve the 2nd coming? This should mean that so is...and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee(Zech 14:5)...also referring to the 2nd coming. Now that we have determined verses 16-19 fit after the 2nd coming, what do we then do with these verses if meaning after the 2nd coming? Do we assume we were lied to here, and that nothing in these verses will actually come to pass?
      Like I said above, nothing convinces me from the text that Zech 14:1-5 is 2nd coming, and I find more evidence it is first coming. Verse 8's living which comes later further corroberates that understanding.

      Before jumping to 14:16; let's look at 14:12.

      14:12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

      Could this not also be a picture of Luke 16, where the rich man dies and is tormented in the flames, where we receive a description of the state of the wicked in torment for rejecting the Lord? Many NT verses discuss the state of the wicked who die without the Lord somewhat similarly. In my mind, those who fought against Jerusalem, are simply those who reject the Lord; and this is their ultimate punishment, no different than the many weeping and gnashing of teeth type verses. Didn't the rich man also beg for water because the flames tormented him so much?

      Could not the initial half of Zech 14 be describing the fulfilled events of the 1st Advent, and then the later half of Zech 14 that talks about people going up every year, and about good and bad people either worshipping the king of not worshipping the king and being punished, not be a picture of the NT harvest era we are in now, where the living waters direct the redeemed to give glory to the Lord; and at the same time growing around us are the wicked who refuse to worship the Lord, and whom the Lord allows to continue to grow, until the final harvest?

      Originally posted by DivaD
      What we have to keep in mind, verse 16 indicates that these survivors remaining of the nations which came against Jerusalem, they shall go up from year to year. Obviously, that would be impossible to fulfill within 24 hour or less, therefore, there have to be some extra days post the 2nd coming in order to fulfill these years, or if not that, we then have to conclude that this is meaning forever and ever, that unsaved ppl would get to live on the new earth. We know they are unsaved based on the fact they are threatened with punishment, such as no rain, if they fail to comply with what is commanded of them.
      What if those people going up yearly, are simply a picture of the NT harvest era; containing both wheat (those who worship the Lord in Spirit as living waters), and those who reject the Lord from the heathen, whom the Lord punishes, and will eventually smite when He does eventually come at the end of the NT harvest?

      Why couldn't Zech 14:1-8 be the events of the first century.
      and Zech 14:9 onward, be the NT harvest era of both the redeemed and the wicked, leading up to the final 2nd coming consummation?


      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by David Taylor View Post
        Divad, I am copying your post from Friday here, into a new thread, so I can have time to reply to it more carefully in detail, and let if follow a different path that the rod-of-iron thread.
        I likely will create a sister thread to this one, raising similarly, what I am seeing as the most troublesome verses for the Premill view, which also could be a worthwhile discussion.

        I am not unwilling to change my view, and want to always be searching for the most sound, most tendable scriptural view.
        I was raised and initially followed the dispensational pretrib, premill view. I am well familiar with that view.
        I have also studied the pre-wrath view (popularized by VanKampen and Rosenthal), as well as the Chialasts writings from pre-nicene, and the modern historic premill view most commonly attributed to G Eldon Ladd. Likewise, I have looked into other nonPremill views as well. I think we should study other views, beyond what we hold; to better understand why others hold those views, and to better be able to align ours with the best rendering and understanding of the scriptures we can come up with.
        And sometimes, we still may land incorrectly, and sometimes it may just be a timing issue.

        All we can do is be diligent in studying the scriptures, and trying to make the difficult more clear, and do so in a fruitful and patient manner with those whom we currently may have disagreements with. Being highly polarizing in one's view, especially on Eschatalogical topics, is not fruitful. We should all consider this.

        All that being said, let's look deeper into your post from the other thread.



        If we can latter, I will be happy to look deeper at Zech 14 (I think you do below anyway) and Isaiah 65.
        For now, I would like to say this for Ezek 40-48.

        Aside from the animal sacrifices it presents; a couple of other problems are found.
        1) It requires a return to Physical circumcision of the flesh (Ezek 44:7-9), which I find untendable as ever occuring 'after' Calvary, from what we are told in the N.T. writings.

        2) The animal sacrifices, sometimes I hear Premill apologists, claim are for memorial only. However, Ezekiel claimed they were for sin and tresspass and meat and burnt and peach offerings (which are not memorial), for the reconciliation and sanctification of the people living at that time, that Christ abolished 'forever' in Hebrews.

        3) If the Premill view venues Ezkeil 40-48 as within it's millennial kingdom reign, it also shows a return to the daily priest roles of men, that Christ abolished 'forever' in Hebrews.

        If one reads carefully Hebrews 9-11; I cannot fathom the idea of how one could attempt to venue Ezkeil 40-48 at any time period, after Calvary.
        If so, it mocks what the Hebrew writer wrote, and calls into question the validity of the book of Hebrews.
        One might say, who holds a Premill Kingdom fulfillment of Ezekiel 40-48 that the opposing view likewise calls Ezekiel's writing into question, if it isn't fulfilled either.
        I get that, and respect that. However, what the opposing view doesn't consider, is that there are other 'interpretations' and/or understandings of Ezekiel 40-48 that could be held, and still accept both Ezekiel and Hebrews as true cannon, and not in conflict with one another. However, a strict wooden interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48 applied after Calvary, cannot exist without conflict.

        4) The Ezekiel temple is deemed Holy by the Lord. Therfore it cannot be some mis-aligned Jewish creation, they do outside of God, that is incorrectly done. 41:4 states it is the holy place. 42:13 mentions the holy chambers and the priests approach the most holy things(offerings) 42:14 mentions the priests garments are holy. 43:7 describes the the Lord's throne and place of his feet dwelling in their midst and his holy name being there; 45:7 says the offerings themselves are holy.

        5) the time of this temple isn't limited but ongoing from what I read. Yet, it continues to show sinners and foreigners and rebels. If the Premill Kingdom is of Christ's perfect rule, and it is either pristine and sinless as some Premill views hold, or it is in a state of purification, and gradual cleansing over the 1000 years time as other Premill views hold, why doesn't Ezekiel 40-48 mention this at all? It shows no reduction of any of the sinful things above, nor a growth toward a time of near perfect kingdom reign at the end.

        6) Strikingly also, is no mention in 40-48 of the 2nd Coming of Christ, the Resurrection, the Judgment, the Gathering of believers in the air, the thousand year boundary, the later great white throne judgment or the eternal state...all bookend items of the premill kingdom view explained outside of Ezekiel 40-48. Does the silence of those items likewas, generate question of it's suggested post-2nd Coming venue?

        On to your next point.


        Verse 47:8, 9, and 12 denote the need of healing and medicine. Many 40-48 passages mention their continued abominations. That to me denotes a continuation of the curse of sin and death, still existing in this Ezek 40-48 venue.
        I will grant you, some of the wording of Rev 21-22 clearly is taken from parts of Ezekiel 40-48. No doubt there.
        Does it mean they are the same thing at the same time being described?
        Or could it be similar language being used, to describe one that is similar, yet better than the prior?

        Like I said above, Ezek 40-48 shows sin and rebellion, and healing and medicine needed. This is still a fallen state for those living in Jerusalem and the nations at this time.(40-48)

        When I look at the 22:2 verse you quoted, I see similar language, but not a similar condition. Why do I see it is different? Because We are told in Rev 21 early, that there is no more death. No more crying. No abominations in Jerusalem in Rev 21-22. The only place in Rev 21-22 you find the wicked, are two times they are described as existing outside, in the Lake of Fire. Completely different venue. That New Jerusalem is different that Ezek 40-48's Jerusalem. That is a huge difference between the two.

        Also, notice this passage from Revelation.

        Revelation 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.

        What trouble points do we find here, when attempting to say Ezekiel 40-48's temple is the same?
        Revelation has no temple. Ezekeil 40-48 does.
        Revelation's nations that enter it, are only the nations 'of them which are saved'. Ezekeil 40-48's Jerusalem and temple allows sinners within it.
        Revelation's kings of the earth bring only glory and honor into it. Ezekiel's kings are only associated to whoredom and idolatry.
        Revelation's gates shall never be shut. Ezekiel 46's gates are shut at different times of day and on different days.
        Revelation's temple has no night there. Ezekiel 46's temple has night.

        So while some of the language and imagery between the two are similar, the details describe completely different places and times.
        One is inferior, and one is focused on the things of man and the flesh, in a sinful environment.
        One is superior, and is focused on the things of the redeemed man and His God, in a perfect environment.

        I agree with you the language in some places is similar between the Ezek 40-48 Jerusalem and Rev 21-22 New Jerusalem; however, when you look at the details within those venues, there is much, much conflict, which leads me to believe they are two different pictures of two different places at two different times; and cannot both be describing the same place at the same time.




        I can agree with that logical conclusion. It makes sense, unless other local passages to the contrary, made a clear timing or venue change, we should see 2 and 16-19 chronologically.

        But there are other things that aren't there that we don't have to conceed.

        14:1. the phrase 'a day of the Lord cometh' does not as it is worded, definatively imply the 2nd Coming. Nor does it imply the 1st Coming. At most, without other context, it just indicates an important day will be coming.

        14:2 describes a time coming when Jerusalem will have nations gathered against it to battle; and it will be overtaken, and it will be ravished.

        From Zechariah's time, writing in the 6th century B.C. while in Babylonian exile. A time future for them, with historical record we have in hindsight, that would most logically fulfill 14:2 would be when the Romans, the world power of all then known nations of the world at that time, occupied and overtook Jerusalem. We could also speculate that Zechariah is skipping this overtaking and occupation, and jumping forward another 2000 years; however, there isn't much in the other contemporary OT prophets to support this, nor in the later NT writings. I would suggest Zechariah 14 is speaking of Rome in the time of Christ, not our current future.

        More telling for me (not mentioned by you above) is the Lord coming and fighting against the nations and His feet standing on the Mt of Olives prophecy.
        Shall we skip when the Lord left Heaven, came to Earth as a man, and literally walked on the Mt of Olives with his feet? We already know that some of the Zech 12 and 13 passages were applied by the NT prophets to Jesus' 1st Advent, so there is some precidence to at least consider this.

        You mention 14:5's above 'my Lord God shall come and all the saints with thee'. But that is very vague. It does not contain any 2nd Coming laguange per say...it just says he will come and his saints with him. Could this not be His incarnation in Bethlehem, heraleded by both the angels on high and shepherds abiding in the fields? Remember the word 'saints' is haggios, which just means his holy ones, it can be used as either holy angels or holy men, and isn't definative. Much of verse 5 sounds similar to the same language Isaiah used and Luke used via John the Baptist, that talked about when he would come (1st Advent) he would make the mountains low and the crooked places straight.....not meaning land-remodeling, but His effect on the people.







        Jude is much different than Zech 14:5b, in that Jude does given additional language tying it to the 2nd Coming ('executing judgment upon all', 'convincing the ungodly', 'referencing the earlier NT writers who spoke of the 2nd Coming being a time of mockers'.
        Zech 15:5 is an island passage without that same corroberation as Jude.

        We could also interpret those with Christ as the great multitudes that followed Him when His feet were walking around all of Galilee and Judea, during his first Advent. Nothing sacrifices that as a legitimate rendering either.

        Before jumping down to verse 14:15-21; le'ts not skip 14:8.
        To me, this is the 2nd most important marker verse, of where to correctly venue Zechariah 14. (The first being 14:4 when the Lord came down and literally walked on the Mt of Olives as recorded in the Gospels), and that is the prophecy of the outflowing of the living waters.

        If we confer with the NT writings, the only place they mention the literal River of Life flowing as a river, is in Rev 22; 1000+ years after the Premill 2nd Advent has occurred. So we cannot tie 14:8's River of Life to Rev 22's River of Life timeline.

        So what other option do we have? Do any other passages mention the River of Life?
        Yes, Ezekiel 47 has a river. however, it isn't the river of life. it is a natural river, with natural fish, and natural fisherman the cast their nets into it to eat fish.
        Another? Nowhere else in scripture is the river of life mentioned outside of Zech 14:8 and Rev 21-22.

        Except....
        John 4 and John 7.
        Jesus mentions the same living waters in both chapters. He said however, that they come from Him as a gift, and that they would not be from Jerusalem, but from the outpuring of the Holy Spirit. This is all the 1st Advent Timing again. Could it not most likely then be, that Zech 14:8's living waters flowing out, are Zechariah's vision of what Christ describes in John 4 and 7?
        Are there any better alternative passages describing the living waters going out from Jerusalem than Jesus Himself, in 1st Century AD being the giver of the Living waters, and of Pentecost and the Holy Spirit being the living waters of which Jesus spoke of? I would like to see a more tendable fulfillement of Zech 14:8 if there is one.


        Like I said above, nothing convinces me from the text that Zech 14:1-5 is 2nd coming, and I find more evidence it is first coming. Verse 8's living which comes later further corroberates that understanding.

        Before jumping to 14:16; let's look at 14:12.

        14:12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

        Could this not also be a picture of Luke 16, where the rich man dies and is tormented in the flames, where we receive a description of the state of the wicked in torment for rejecting the Lord? Many NT verses discuss the state of the wicked who die without the Lord somewhat similarly. In my mind, those who fought against Jerusalem, are simply those who reject the Lord; and this is their ultimate punishment, no different than the many weeping and gnashing of teeth type verses. Didn't the rich man also beg for water because the flames tormented him so much?

        Could not the initial half of Zech 14 be describing the fulfilled events of the 1st Advent, and then the later half of Zech 14 that talks about people going up every year, and about good and bad people either worshipping the king of not worshipping the king and being punished, not be a picture of the NT harvest era we are in now, where the living waters direct the redeemed to give glory to the Lord; and at the same time growing around us are the wicked who refuse to worship the Lord, and whom the Lord allows to continue to grow, until the final harvest?



        What if those people going up yearly, are simply a picture of the NT harvest era; containing both wheat (those who worship the Lord in Spirit as living waters), and those who reject the Lord from the heathen, whom the Lord punishes, and will eventually smite when He does eventually come at the end of the NT harvest?

        Why couldn't Zech 14:1-8 be the events of the first century.
        and Zech 14:9 onward, be the NT harvest era of both the redeemed and the wicked, leading up to the final 2nd coming consummation?

        Amassing post Dave

        I can dig up my study on the last 4 chapters of Zechariah but basically it seams like they contradict themselves. The last four chapters mention events of the the first advent and then seam to mention end time events also but each chapter states “in that day”

        It all makes sense when you see that it skips back and fourth from talking about the earthly Jerusalem to the heavenly Jerusalem the church.

        That’s why in one section it shows Jerusalem being attacked and another section God protecting Jerusalem

        Its all about the first advent
        Last edited by marty fox; Oct 13 2020, 05:28 AM. Reason: Added info

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by David Taylor View Post
          Verse 47:8, 9, and 12 denote the need of healing and medicine. Many 40-48 passages mention their continued abominations. That to me denotes a continuation of the curse of sin and death, still existing in this Ezek 40-48 venue.
          I will grant you, some of the wording of Rev 21-22 clearly is taken from parts of Ezekiel 40-48. No doubt there.
          Does it mean they are the same thing at the same time being described?
          Or could it be similar language being used, to describe one that is similar, yet better than the prior?

          Like I said above, Ezek 40-48 shows sin and rebellion, and healing and medicine needed. This is still a fallen state for those living in Jerusalem and the nations at this time.(40-48)

          When I look at the 22:2 verse you quoted, I see similar language, but not a similar condition. Why do I see it is different? Because We are told in Rev 21 early, that there is no more death. No more crying. No abominations in Jerusalem in Rev 21-22. The only place in Rev 21-22 you find the wicked, are two times they are described as existing outside, in the Lake of Fire. Completely different venue. That New Jerusalem is different that Ezek 40-48's Jerusalem. That is a huge difference between the two.

          Also, notice this passage from Revelation.

          Revelation 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.

          What trouble points do we find here, when attempting to say Ezekiel 40-48's temple is the same?
          Revelation has no temple. Ezekeil 40-48 does.
          Revelation's nations that enter it, are only the nations 'of them which are saved'. Ezekeil 40-48's Jerusalem and temple allows sinners within it.
          Revelation's kings of the earth bring only glory and honor into it. Ezekiel's kings are only associated to whoredom and idolatry.
          Revelation's gates shall never be shut. Ezekiel 46's gates are shut at different times of day and on different days.
          Revelation's temple has no night there. Ezekiel 46's temple has night.

          So while some of the language and imagery between the two are similar, the details describe completely different places and times.
          One is inferior, and one is focused on the things of man and the flesh, in a sinful environment.
          One is superior, and is focused on the things of the redeemed man and His God, in a perfect environment.

          I agree with you the language in some places is similar between the Ezek 40-48 Jerusalem and Rev 21-22 New Jerusalem; however, when you look at the details within those venues, there is much, much conflict, which leads me to believe they are two different pictures of two different places at two different times; and cannot both be describing the same place at the same time.
          This is one thing I like about you and Eric in particular, regardless that we don't see eye to eye on all of these things. Both of you go that extra mile to try and actually work through these things with others. I'm not saying there are not other Amils like that as well, but you two are pretty much second to none when it comes to this board, meaning when it comes to working through some of these things in this manner, such as you are doing in this post.

          Ezekiel 47:12 And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side, shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary: and the fruit thereof shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine.


          I would like to point out one thing that makes it impossible that any of this can be meaning anything in this present age.

          whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed

          This is not saying no one will bother eating of it, this is saying there is no end to this fruit, and that billions and billions of years from now, as an example, it shall continue to bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary.

          Haven't you ever wondered, the fact saints put on immortality in the twinkling of an eye at the last trump, why they still even need access to this fruit from the tree of life after that?

          Some have suggested that the tree of life is simply meaning Jesus. I see that making zero sense, based on some of the following.

          Genesis 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

          To be consistent here, if one takes the tree of life to be meaning Jesus, so must they take the tree of knowledge of good and evil to be meaning a person. Some have suggested that it means satan. If that is true, who or what does the serpent mean in this account? If the tree of knowledge of good and evil is meaning satan, the serpent can't be meaning him as well. satan can probably do a lot of extraordinary things, but I doubt that he can be physically present in 2 different places at the same time.

          Revelation 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

          Jesus is the speaker here. Does Jesus really mean this instead....To him that overcometh will I give to eat of Me, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

          But, if we compare with Revelation 22...

          Revelation 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.
          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.

          As can be seen here, Jesus is on the throne, not on either side of the river. And besides, how could verse 2 possibly be a description of Jesus? which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month


          Perhaps you don't even think the tree of life is meaning Jesus to begin with, yet there are many that do. I don't see how they could myself, but that's me.


          This is all I have for now. It takes me awhile sometimes, to formulate my thoughts, then try and express them in writing, or in this case, in typing. I'm still interested in discussing Zech 14 further, so eventually I plan on trying to address some of what you brought up concerning that. As to what you brought up concerning the animal sacrificing in Ez 40-48, no need for me to discuss that with you, since I'm pretty much on the same page you are, thus, pretty much agree with your assessment, therefore, nothing for me to debate/dispute regarding any of that.



          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by divaD View Post

            This is one thing I like about you and Eric in particular, regardless that we don't see eye to eye on all of these things. Both of you go that extra mile to try and actually work through these things with others. I'm not saying there are not other Amils like that as well, but you two are pretty much second to none when it comes to this board, meaning when it comes to working through some of these things in this manner, such as you are doing in this post.
            Thank you for saying that. I like that about David T as well. When it comes to explaining OT prophecies he really goes the extra mile (and then another extra mile after that) and it's much appreciated.

            And, with that, I will leave you two to this discussion and go get some popcorn and just watch this one. Of course, I'll add something if I think it would be helpful, but I'll mostly just sit back and enjoy reading this discussion.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by divaD View Post

              If we compare that with the following in the book of Jude, it seems pretty obvious what event it is referring to.

              Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
              15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
              16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
              17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
              18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

              How many would argue that verse 15 doesn't involve the 2nd coming? This should mean that so is...and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee(Zech 14:5)...also referring to the 2nd coming. Now that we have determined verses 16-19 fit after the 2nd coming, what do we then do with these verses if meaning after the 2nd coming? Do we assume we were lied to here, and that nothing in these verses will actually come to pass?

              What we have to keep in mind, verse 16 indicates that these survivors remaining of the nations which came against Jerusalem, they shall go up from year to year. Obviously, that would be impossible to fulfill within 24 hour or less, therefore, there have to be some extra days post the 2nd coming in order to fulfill these years, or if not that, we then have to conclude that this is meaning forever and ever, that unsaved ppl would get to live on the new earth. We know they are unsaved based on the fact they are threatened with punishment, such as no rain, if they fail to comply with what is commanded of them.
              I would contend that Jude 1:15 is not referring to Jesus' Return.
              God and Jesus don't Judge all until the end of the Millennium, as Revelation 20:11-15, makes clear.

              Isaiah 28:10 tells us how prophecies are mixed up, we must make sure where they fit and what Jude wrote in verse 14 is about the Return with the armies of heaven, [NOT human 'saints'] and then; after His Millennium reign, will come the GWT Judgment.
              Jesus does separate the nations. Mathew 24:31-33, but this does not fit Jude 15.

              Also; Jude 1:16-18 pertain to now. Paralleled by 2 Peter 3:13-4
              I believe, from the few scriptures that do describe the Millennium period, that only righteous people will be there, Satan will be chained up, so there is no temptations or sins. Proved by how only near the end of the 1000 years, will people again be deceived by Satan.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by David Taylor View Post




                I can agree with that logical conclusion. It makes sense, unless other local passages to the contrary, made a clear timing or venue change, we should see 2 and 16-19 chronologically.

                But there are other things that aren't there that we don't have to conceed.

                14:1. the phrase 'a day of the Lord cometh' does not as it is worded, definatively imply the 2nd Coming. Nor does it imply the 1st Coming. At most, without other context, it just indicates an important day will be coming.

                14:2 describes a time coming when Jerusalem will have nations gathered against it to battle; and it will be overtaken, and it will be ravished.

                From Zechariah's time, writing in the 6th century B.C. while in Babylonian exile. A time future for them, with historical record we have in hindsight, that would most logically fulfill 14:2 would be when the Romans, the world power of all then known nations of the world at that time, occupied and overtook Jerusalem. We could also speculate that Zechariah is skipping this overtaking and occupation, and jumping forward another 2000 years; however, there isn't much in the other contemporary OT prophets to support this, nor in the later NT writings. I would suggest Zechariah 14 is speaking of Rome in the time of Christ, not our current future.

                More telling for me (not mentioned by you above) is the Lord coming and fighting against the nations and His feet standing on the Mt of Olives prophecy.
                Shall we skip when the Lord left Heaven, came to Earth as a man, and literally walked on the Mt of Olives with his feet? We already know that some of the Zech 12 and 13 passages were applied by the NT prophets to Jesus' 1st Advent, so there is some precidence to at least consider this.

                You mention 14:5's above 'my Lord God shall come and all the saints with thee'. But that is very vague. It does not contain any 2nd Coming laguange per say...it just says he will come and his saints with him. Could this not be His incarnation in Bethlehem, heraleded by both the angels on high and shepherds abiding in the fields? Remember the word 'saints' is haggios, which just means his holy ones, it can be used as either holy angels or holy men, and isn't definative. Much of verse 5 sounds similar to the same language Isaiah used and Luke used via John the Baptist, that talked about when he would come (1st Advent) he would make the mountains low and the crooked places straight.....not meaning land-remodeling, but His effect on the people.



                Let's start with this. For one thing, the chronology you propose here doesn't seem to be logical to me. If you have verse 2 pertaining to what eventually happened in 70 AD, that places verse 3 during those same events. The fact all Jews that had converted to Christianity at the time, they all got out of Jerusalem safely at the time, yet look what verse 3 indicates?

                Zechariah 14:3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

                This would be indicating, assuming verse 2 was involving events connected with 70 AD, that the Lord then went forth, to fight against the Romans, on behalf of the unbelieving Jews still remaining in the city. Why would He have done that? How many Romans does history record that lost their lives at the time? The fact they would be in battle with the Lord, how could any of them possibly win that battle?

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

                And his feet shall stand in that day. In what day? How can it not be in the day when the LORD shall go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle? And we already know verse 3 would have to be some time during/after the events recorded in verse 2, and that verse 2 would have to be a time post Christ's ascension. Even if it were meaning 70 AD, though, IMO it isn't, that would still make it post the ascension.


                Zechariah 14:5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.

                When shall they flee? How can it not be once verse 4 comes to pass, where that verse already began with verse 3? That chronologically places....and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee....during/after the events recorded in verse 2. What events during 70 AD could possibly explain that part? Speaking of 70 AD, I would like to point out something in Matt 24 that proves Preterists are wrong to conclude Christ came in any sense during those events.

                Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
                22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
                23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
                24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
                25 Behold, I have told you before.
                26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
                27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

                Take note of what 23-26 says. That is the type of Christ that comes during the GT, not the one in verse 27, that one meaning the real Christ.

                If we fast forward to the following verses, this further proves Preterists are wrong to conclude Christ comes in any sense during the time recorded in verse 21.

                Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
                30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
                31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

                Clearly, the trib of those days in verse 29 are meaning the same great trib that began in verse 15. And notice where verse 30-31 places the coming and gathering seen in those verses. It places it after the trib of those days.

                I bring all of this up to show, the fact there are numerous ppl, so not just only Preterists, that insist the trib that begins with verse 15, this is in relation to the events having to do with 70 AD. Yet, notice that the chronology of events in Zech 14:2-5 match the chronology of events starting with Matt 24:15 and ending with Matt 24:31.

                If, according to verse 5 in Zech 14, that the LORD God shall come, and all the saints with Him, would that not be because of the coming we see recorded in Matt 24:30, and the gathering we see recorded in Matt 24:31? And does not Matt 24:29 show that both the coming and the gathering are after the GT that began in verse 15 of that same chapter?

                Thus far, am I not at least interpreting Zech 14 in light of the NT? Jude is also in the NT, right? Very few, if any at all, would argue that Jude 1:14-15 doesn't involve the 2nd coming and judgment on the ungodly. In light of verse 12 in Zech 14, and in light of verse 5 in that same chapter, why would anyone argue that verse 12 is not meaning judgment on the ungodly in the end of this age? And if it is meaning that, how can...and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee...possibly not involve the 2nd coming in order to fulfill what is recorded in verse 12?



                I better stop here for now, this post is already getting too lengthy, and I haven't even addressed the rest of what you concluded about Zech 14. Will have to try and do that in another post or posts.


                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Keraz View Post

                  I would contend that Jude 1:15 is not referring to Jesus' Return.
                  God and Jesus don't Judge all until the end of the Millennium, as Revelation 20:11-15, makes clear.

                  Isaiah 28:10 tells us how prophecies are mixed up, we must make sure where they fit and what Jude wrote in verse 14 is about the Return with the armies of heaven, [NOT human 'saints'] and then; after His Millennium reign, will come the GWT Judgment.
                  Jesus does separate the nations. Mathew 24:31-33, but this does not fit Jude 15.

                  Also; Jude 1:16-18 pertain to now. Paralleled by 2 Peter 3:13-4
                  I believe, from the few scriptures that do describe the Millennium period, that only righteous people will be there, Satan will be chained up, so there is no temptations or sins. Proved by how only near the end of the 1000 years, will people again be deceived by Satan.
                  Let me ask you this since I find your position confusing, the fact you place the thousand years after the 2nd coming, and not prior to the 2nd coming as Amils do. Where do you have Christ dwelling during the millennium? Logically speaking, it can't be on the earth if you have the coming in Jude meaning after the thousand years. But, if you have Christ dwelling on the earth during the thousand years, how does it make logical sense to have Him coming after the thousand years if He is already on the earth during the thousand years to begin with?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by divaD View Post

                    Let me ask you this since I find your position confusing, the fact you place the thousand years after the 2nd coming, and not prior to the 2nd coming as Amils do. Where do you have Christ dwelling during the millennium? Logically speaking, it can't be on the earth if you have the coming in Jude meaning after the thousand years. But, if you have Christ dwelling on the earth during the thousand years, how does it make logical sense to have Him coming after the thousand years if He is already on the earth during the thousand years to begin with?
                    The prophecies are clear; Jesus will Return and then reign on earth for the next 1000 years. At the end of it, He will then hand the Kingdom to the Father 1 Corinthians 15:24

                    King Jesus will reign from the new Temple in Jerusalem, which will be cleansed and re-dedicated at the 1290th day after it was desecrated by the Anti-Christ. Daniel 12:11

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by divaD View Post

                      Let's start with this. For one thing, the chronology you propose here doesn't seem to be logical to me. If you have verse 2 pertaining to what eventually happened in 70 AD, that places verse 3 during those same events. The fact all Jews that had converted to Christianity at the time, they all got out of Jerusalem safely at the time, yet look what verse 3 indicates?

                      Zechariah 14:3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

                      This would be indicating, assuming verse 2 was involving events connected with 70 AD, that the Lord then went forth, to fight against the Romans, on behalf of the unbelieving Jews still remaining in the city. Why would He have done that? How many Romans does history record that lost their lives at the time? The fact they would be in battle with the Lord, how could any of them possibly win that battle?

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

                      And his feet shall stand in that day. In what day? How can it not be in the day when the LORD shall go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle? And we already know verse 3 would have to be some time during/after the events recorded in verse 2, and that verse 2 would have to be a time post Christ's ascension. Even if it were meaning 70 AD, though, IMO it isn't, that would still make it post the ascension.


                      Zechariah 14:5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.

                      When shall they flee? How can it not be once verse 4 comes to pass, where that verse already began with verse 3? That chronologically places....and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee....during/after the events recorded in verse 2. What events during 70 AD could possibly explain that part? Speaking of 70 AD, I would like to point out something in Matt 24 that proves Preterists are wrong to conclude Christ came in any sense during those events.

                      Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
                      22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
                      23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
                      24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
                      25 Behold, I have told you before.
                      26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
                      27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

                      Take note of what 23-26 says. That is the type of Christ that comes during the GT, not the one in verse 27, that one meaning the real Christ.

                      If we fast forward to the following verses, this further proves Preterists are wrong to conclude Christ comes in any sense during the time recorded in verse 21.

                      Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
                      30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
                      31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

                      Clearly, the trib of those days in verse 29 are meaning the same great trib that began in verse 15. And notice where verse 30-31 places the coming and gathering seen in those verses. It places it after the trib of those days.

                      I bring all of this up to show, the fact there are numerous ppl, so not just only Preterists, that insist the trib that begins with verse 15, this is in relation to the events having to do with 70 AD. Yet, notice that the chronology of events in Zech 14:2-5 match the chronology of events starting with Matt 24:15 and ending with Matt 24:31.

                      If, according to verse 5 in Zech 14, that the LORD God shall come, and all the saints with Him, would that not be because of the coming we see recorded in Matt 24:30, and the gathering we see recorded in Matt 24:31? And does not Matt 24:29 show that both the coming and the gathering are after the GT that began in verse 15 of that same chapter?

                      Thus far, am I not at least interpreting Zech 14 in light of the NT? Jude is also in the NT, right? Very few, if any at all, would argue that Jude 1:14-15 doesn't involve the 2nd coming and judgment on the ungodly. In light of verse 12 in Zech 14, and in light of verse 5 in that same chapter, why would anyone argue that verse 12 is not meaning judgment on the ungodly in the end of this age? And if it is meaning that, how can...and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee...possibly not involve the 2nd coming in order to fulfill what is recorded in verse 12?



                      I better stop here for now, this post is already getting too lengthy, and I haven't even addressed the rest of what you concluded about Zech 14. Will have to try and do that in another post or posts.

                      divaD,

                      Dont have time to reply now, but quickly, verse 2 has nothing to do with 70 AD.
                      I agree with you on that.
                      Nothing in Zechariah 14 specifically addresses 70 AD., nor was that my intent, so maybe a re-try.

                      Instead of AD 70, rather, verse 2 shows the Roman armies of the first century occupying Israel, as the force gathered against her during Jesus time.(earlier, culminating in His crucifixion)

                      A better verse to undersand Verse 2 is this verse Peter gave us in Acts 4, showing at Jesus' death, the fulfilled Psalm had occurred.



                      "The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. "

                      Will reply more fully to the rest tomorrow.

                      p.s.
                      (I just finished that other thread I talked to you about doing the other day, the problems of premill, similar to the problems of amill thread)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by David Taylor,
                        Amill has to account for why Rev 20 spans the NT era and is longer than 1000 literal years, and why the GWT is not a literal 1000 years after Christs return.
                        Amill has to also explain why Zech 14 is either not the 2nd coming, and/or if it is, how are the sinners explained.
                        Amill also has to account for Isa 65:20’s 100 year old sinner.
                        To some premillers, Amill also has to account for Ezek 40-48 not being after the 2nd advent.
                        Those I believe are the most troublesome passages for Amill.
                        If there are others you see more weighty, please share.
                        A thousand years is like a day to God. With that in mind, a thousand years representing a certain day is no problem.
                        Zech.14 is about Jesus's 1st advent, where he defeated our enemies and how believers should see their enemies (like standing corpses) as a result of Christ's victory.
                        Isa.65 should also be viewed in the light of Jesus's triumph (100 years of age being a very short life compared to eternal life in Christ).

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          [I tried reading all the posts, not sure if I may have missed a reference to the following... so I bring it up here, for your consideration]

                          I often place the following passage in my posts (when covering this subject; sometimes just the reference, in order to conserve "length")

                          Luke 22:14-18 (esp. 16,18),30 -

                          14 And when the hour was come, He reclined, and the apostles with Him. 15 And He said to them, “With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I say to you that never again will I eat thereof, until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

                          17 And having received the cup, having given thanks, He said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves. 18 For I say to you that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now until the kingdom of God shall come.” [see also Matt26:29 "until that day when I drink it NEW *with [G3326 - *accompanying] you..."]
                          ...

                          30 so that you may eat and may drink at My table in My kingdom, and may sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. [see also Matt19:28 (and comp. Matt25:31-34 for its TIMING)]




                          First question re: the above passage:

                          --what does it mean for Jesus to "eat the Passover" at some future time-frame (i.e. "not eat THEREOF... UNTIL"), are you thinking this means "not including the [animal meat]" (because "all THAT" had to occur/conclude BEFORE the Cross/His death) ??

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by TheDivineWatermark View Post
                            [I tried reading all the posts, not sure if I may have missed a reference to the following... so I bring it up here, for your consideration]

                            I often place the following passage in my posts (when covering this subject; sometimes just the reference, in order to conserve "length")

                            Luke 22:14-18 (esp. 16,18),30 -

                            14 And when the hour was come, He reclined, and the apostles with Him. 15 And He said to them, “With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I say to you that never again will I eat thereof, until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

                            17 And having received the cup, having given thanks, He said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves. 18 For I say to you that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now until the kingdom of God shall come.” [see also Matt26:29 "until that day when I drink it NEW *with [G3326 - *accompanying] you..."]
                            ...

                            30 so that you may eat and may drink at My table in My kingdom, and may sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. [see also Matt19:28 (and comp. Matt25:31-34 for its TIMING)]




                            First question re: the above passage:

                            --what does it mean for Jesus to "eat the Passover" at some future time-frame (i.e. "not eat THEREOF... UNTIL"), are you thinking this means "not including the [animal meat]" (because "all THAT" had to occur/conclude BEFORE the Cross/His death) ??
                            The kingdom of God also includes the New Heaven and Earth.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Dave L View Post

                              The kingdom of God also includes the New Heaven and Earth.
                              Okay, so how are you saying this ^ relates to the phrase in v.16 "[not eat THEREOF] until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God” ? I'm not grasping how you are viewing this. Thanks.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X