Latter portion of Zech 14

[JMTC]

Let me first admit that I share the view point of a premillennialist, and hopefully you'll consider reading further. These are the four basic rules of interpretation I apply to interpreting scripture. They were formulated by Dr. David L. Cooper, the late director of the Biblical Research Society.

1) The Golden Rule of Interpretation- When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning, unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.

2) The Law of Double Reference- Often a block of Scripture is speaking of two different persons or two different events that are separated by a long period of time. But in the passage itself they are blended into one picture, and the time gap between the two persons or two events is not present in the text itself. The fact that a gap of time exists is known because of other Scriptures, though in the particular text itself the gap of time is not seen.

3) The Law of Recurrence- In some passages of Scripture there exists the recording of an event followed by a second recording of the same event giving more detail to the first. Hence, it often involves two blocks of Scripture. The first block presents the description of an event as it transpires in chronological sequence. This is followed by a second block of Scripture dealing with the same event and the same period of time, but giving further details as to what transpires in the course of the event.

4) A text apart from its context is a pretext- A verse can only mean what it means in its context and must not be pulled out of its context. When it is pulled out of its context, it is often presented as meaning something that it cannot mean within the context.

I apply these four rules when studying scripture. If in the case of Zechariah not all of the events have transpired in a literal sense, I am obligated to believe that these events are yet to come (see rule two above). I choose not to interpret some of the chapter as symbolic and some literal. Instead, rule number two the Law of Double Reference would allow me to say that some of the events took place (70 AD) and some will take place in the future.

[Paidion]

Thanks JMTC, I tend to think the same way.

I once heard about an old Mennonite man (I don't know whether or not he was familiar with Dr. Cooper's works) who expressed "The Golden Rule of Intepretation" as follows:


"If the literal sense of Scripture makes sense then it makes no sense to take it in any other sense."

[Othniel]

Let me first admit that I share the view point of a premillennialist, and hopefully you'll consider reading further. These are the four basic rules of interpretation I apply to interpreting scripture. They were formulated by Dr. David L. Cooper, the late director of the Biblical Research Society.

1) The Golden Rule of Interpretation- When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning, unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.

2) The Law of Double Reference- Often a block of Scripture is speaking of two different persons or two different events that are separated by a long period of time. But in the passage itself they are blended into one picture, and the time gap between the two persons or two events is not present in the text itself. The fact that a gap of time exists is known because of other Scriptures, though in the particular text itself the gap of time is not seen.

3) The Law of Recurrence- In some passages of Scripture there exists the recording of an event followed by a second recording of the same event giving more detail to the first. Hence, it often involves two blocks of Scripture. The first block presents the description of an event as it transpires in chronological sequence. This is followed by a second block of Scripture dealing with the same event and the same period of time, but giving further details as to what transpires in the course of the event.

4) A text apart from its context is a pretext- A verse can only mean what it means in its context and must not be pulled out of its context. When it is pulled out of its context, it is often presented as meaning something that it cannot mean within the context.

I apply these four rules when studying scripture. If in the case of Zechariah not all of the events have transpired in a literal sense, I am obligated to believe that these events are yet to come (see rule two above). I choose not to interpret some of the chapter as symbolic and some literal. Instead, rule number two the Law of Double Reference would allow me to say that some of the events took place (70 AD) and some will take place in the future.

Thanks for taking the time to post JMTC!

As a theology major and someone who, like many here, spends much of my free time trying to understand the Bible, I can appreciate these points, however I would like to add some thoughts for your consideration.

1) Regarding the golden rule: I can't tell you how often I've heard variations of this hahaha. A man once said: "If the text makes plain sense, seek no other sense, lest you be left with nonsense." I want to emphasize the fact that we mustn't ever try to dance around passages or seek meanings unnecessarily. However, that doesn't always mean literal. I used to think the same way as you currently do until I realized some things.

As Christians, we believe the inspired New Testament correctly interprets and fulfills the Old Testament. Here lies the dilemma. If you look at the way OT scripture is used in the NT, you will find there is seldom a completely literal fulfillment.

For example: Isaiah 8:14 says that the Messiah would be a "stone of stumbling." Was Isaiah implying that Jesus would be a rock? Not at all, this is clearly a figure of speech. To force a literal interpretation of this would be ludicrous.

Isaiah 49:6 says that the Christ would be a light to the Gentiles. Jesus didn't go throughout the land shining like a light bulb. This is understood as symbolic.

When we try to apply a consistent literalism to the Bible, we find that it is impossible if we expect it to make any rational sense.

Also, premillennials don't have exclusive rights on literal interpretation, they only claim that they do. This brings us to:

2) The law of double reference: I know well the many gaps that are necessary in the premillennial scheme. There are two huge problems with this being in your four points:
Firstly, There is no logical reason we need to bend scripture and insert a gap when the text implies no such thing. If the text doesn't say it, we are simply reading into the text what we already believe instead of letting the text mold our own thinking. This method (known as Eisegesis), where you impose your view instead of letting the Bible instruct your view, is not a good interpretive method.

And secondly, why would you import gaps if you believed in consistent literalism? Allow me to demonstrate this point.

It is frequently taught by premillennials that there is a gap in Daniel 9 between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel. The Bible says in Daniel 9:24 "Seventy weeks are determined for your people," referring to Israel. Yet here's the problem. Dispensational Premillennialists would argue that 69 of the weeks clearly transpired, but that there is still a 70th week waiting to happen.

Dan 9:26-27 read: "26 And after the sixty-two weeks [previous verse indicates this is the 69th week (7+62=69)] Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolation are determined. 27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate."

Now, though many look at these verses and automatically import the idea of a future antichrist, there is no reason to import a 2,000 year gap between verse 26 (which premillennialists also take as past) to verse 27. As a preterist, I take this chapter quite literally and chronologically. I see no reason to import a gap when the text never implied such a thing.

Or how about Matthew 16:28 and Matthew 24:30? They import more gaps and time changes on the text because otherwise the text wont say what they want it to say.

Mat 16:28 reads, "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

Mat 24:30 reads, "Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and the tribes of the earth [or land] will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

When seen through the premillennial lens, Mat 24 is talking about the second coming, and even though chapter 16 uses the same language to describe something that would happen before those hearing it would die, premillennials refuse to take it at face value. That is not literal.

Another common one is Revelation 1:1.
Rev 1:1 - "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants things which must shortly take place."

and Revelation 1:3: "Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near."

I take these verses literally because context dictates I take them so. Premillennials with their many timelines dance around these verses and many others arbitrarily. I would suggest that you refrain from importing gaps unless the text directly tells you to.

3) The law of recurrence. I fully agree with this law. It is more commonly referred to as "Hebrew Parallelism." It's their form of poetry.

4) A text apart from its context is a pretext. I also agree with this point. Context is everything in my opinion. The best way to interpret the Bible, is with the Bible. The difficulty is, many many Bible teachers forgo context and get tunnel vision on verses. In fact, this also clashes with the imported gaps of premillennials. While I'm sure there is times when things jump around, I think it's much more reasonable to assume that a writer who is speaking of something is continuing his thought in colorful language, than it is to assume that the writer suddenly jumps thousands of years ahead for a verse, then jumps right back to what he was saying.



My friend, there is so many time scripture speaks figuratively it's not even funny. I will never understand why so many people embrace the premillennial method of interpretation. Just to get you thinking, here are some examples of figurative language in the Bible:

Isa 55:12 describes tree's clapping their hands.

Jer 1:18 says that the Lord told Jeremiah that He had made him "an iron pillar and a bronze wall."

In John 6:53-58, Jesus asks people to drink His blood and eat His flesh.

John 19:7 - Jesus says "I am the gate."

In Jeremiah 18:18 people who opposed Jeremiah said, "Let's attack him with our tongues."

There are many references to God's fingers (psa 8:3), ears (31:2), and eyes (2 Chron 16:9), while we know that God is Spirit.

God is said to have feathers and wings in Psa 91:4

I could go on and on...

The study of hermeneutics (interpretation) is crucial when trying to understand what the Bible is actually saying. Understanding things like literary styles and genres like legal (ex. Torah), Narrative (ex. tragedy like Samson, epic like Israel's wanderings, romance like Song of Songs, Heroic like Abraham, Satire like Jonah, etc), parallel passages (letting the Bible interpret itself), Wisdom literature (ex. Proverbs), Apocalyptic (ex. Revelation, Zechariah, etc.), Stories (Gospels), etc., are all very important in discovering how we should understand a passage. It's the difference between reading a novel and reading the Newspaper. The difference between reading poetry and an essay. Knowing what you're reading will dramatically affect how you are to understand a text.

If you listen to just 10 minutes of Steve Gregg's lecture on Zechariah 14, you will see why the futurist view of it is riddled with a huge number of problems.

[JMTC]

I have not and will never assume that the Bible does not contain figurative/symbolic references. All I'm saying is that whenever you attempt to interpret scripture, use the literal meaning first. It is obvious that there are areas where the literal meaning will have to be substituted for symbolic/figurative meaning as seen in some previous posts.

I do not see any problem in in Matthew 16:28 if you consider Jesus referencing those who were to witness His transfiguration. If you look closely at the description of Jesus after the transfiguration and how He will appear in Revelation there are similarities. If Peter, James, and John were present this explanation might have merit.

I do agree that Matthew 24:30 deals with the end of the end of the age and the second coming.

I completely agree with the comments on the study of hermeneutics.

[Singalphile]

I was always taught "literal first", too. Perhaps all the different camps and denominations can take each of the 31,000 or so verses in the books of the Bible and put a check by the ones that they interpret literally. Then we can just all join whichever sect has the most checks.

I was wondering the other day when and why God first decided on (or revealed) the AD 70 judgement of Israel. Would it be in Zechariah, I wonder? Jesus certainly treated it as a certainty, I think.

[JMTC]

In response to the Law of Double Reference two events that are separated by a long period of time, is it fair to say that this occurred in Luke 4:16-21? We see Jesus speaking in the synagogue and He quotes Isiah 61:1-2 (only half of verse 2) and stops mid sentence. He then states "Today the Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." The second half of verse 2-11 wouldn't be fulfilled until His second advent.

Similar temporal intervals also appear in Daniel chapters 2, 7, 8, and 11. Is it fair to say that partial fulfillment (69 weeks) could have taken place with future fulfillment (the 70th week) to follow?

I might be mistaken but I believe the 70 AD judgement of Israel is mentioned throughout the book of Isiah. It appears that the fall and restoration of the nation (Israel and Judah) are repeated prophetically.

[Othniel]

In response to the Law of Double Reference two events that are separated by a long period of time, is it fair to say that this occurred in Luke 4:16-21? We see Jesus speaking in the synagogue and He quotes Isiah 61:1-2 (only half of verse 2) and stops mid sentence. He then states "Today the Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." The second half of verse 2-11 wouldn't be fulfilled until His second advent.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts JMTC

I love that story in Luke 4. I can just imagine Jesus singing the scriptures aloud.

In regards to the gap, to be honest I don't see any need to import one here lol.

Firstly, Jesus said it was fulfilled. To me that has a grand impact on how I will interpret the verse, even if I wondered about a possible future fulfillment.

Secondly, I actually don't see anything in Isaiah 61 that would lead me to consider a future fulfillment beyond what Christ did. So the inspired teachings of Christ show us that verses 1-2 are speaking about his work during the first advent. We know that for sure. Beginning in verse 3 of Isaiah 61, we find that this same person referred to will give people beauty for their ashes (v.3). That sounds like Jesus work. He gives gladness and anointing rather than mourning. He helps the people put on praise rather than a faint spirit, all these things in order that we may be oaks of righteousness, firmly planted people who are sturdy, that we may glorify the Lord (v.3). Nothing here indicates a future fulfillment. Jesus has done this and continues to do this to this day.

What about the ruins? Well it seems rather clear to me that this is still talking about those to whom Christ ministers. We are being repaired, restored, and remade. We are new Creations, old things have passed away and all things are becoming new (2 Cor 5:17).

He now makes us priestss of the Lord (v.6)

Even in verse 8, this is still clearly talking about what Jesus has already done. "I will faithfully give their recompense, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them." Jesus did that already in the upper room, it's called the New Covenant. This whole chapter is speaking about what will happen in this New Covenant that Jesus made. We now are clothed in salvation and are made righteous and beautiful like a bride (v.10).

Similar temporal intervals also appear in Daniel chapters 2, 7, 8, and 11. Is it fair to say that partial fulfillment (69 weeks) could have taken place with future fulfillment (the 70th week) to follow?

I personally have not found any need to place gaps anywhere in Daniel that I know of. The only time I would ever impose a gap is if the New Testament writers clearly interpreted a text to have said gap. So far I haven't seen anything that would indicate this. I would be incredibly careful about accepting time gaps. Teachers who throw gaps everywhere don't often know how wrong a hermeneutic this is in my opinion.

If you find more examples of places people have told you there are gaps, I would love to take a look and examine them. Meanwhile, test everything!

[Paidion]

As for the trumpt card "ταχος" (shortly) which preterists use to discredit futurism, Paul used the word in his letter to the Romans as follows:

For your obedience has become known to all. therefore I am glad on your behalf; but I want you to be wise in what is good, and simple concerning evil. And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen. (Romans 16:19,20 NKJV)

When did God crush Satan under the feet of the Roman church? Within a week or two? A month or two? A year or two? It seems to me that the condition of that church centuries later and into the middle ages still demostrated a lot of Satan activity within it.

Another place where "ταχος" is used where it seems to refer to a much later time is found here:

And the Lord said, “Hear what the unrighteous judge says. And will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them? I tell you, he will give justice to them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?” (Luke 18:6-8 ESV)

When will God give justice speedily to his elect who cry to him day and night? It doesn't seem to have happened much in New Testament times, or even up to the present time. Notice Christ, in the sentence immediately following this, speaks of His coming. Could He have had in mind that God would give justice to His elect on the day of His coming? From Christ's day until the present, there doesn't seem to be much justice.