Latter portion of Zech 14

[Othniel]

After examining the chapter and listening to Steve's lecture on the topic several times, I have a question.

I am convinced that the premillennial way of interpreting the chapter makes no sense. With localized worship, temple sacrifices, and places that are no longer around, it seems the chapter is referring to something in the past.

But here's the dilemma: If it is referring to something in the past based on this logic, wouldn't it have to find its fulfillment at a time when the Old Covenant was still in place? If I say that futurism can't be true because we have no need for animal sacrifices and localized temple worship, wouldn't that disqualify a 70AD fulfillment because the New Covenant had been put in place at that time?

Why would nations rally to Jerusalem which had been destroyed? If Jerusalem is a spiritual designation, how should I understand the plagues God will bring against those who do not go there?

I guess It's just difficult for me because the language in verses 16-21 don't strike me as overtly symbolic. However, I would like to hear your (non premillennial) explanations of this.

[Duncan]

Hi Othniel,

My take on Zech 14 can be found here. http://planetpreterist.com/content/day- ... chariah-14

[Paidion]

On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives that lies before Jerusalem on the east, and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley, so that one half of the Mount shall move northward, and the other half southward. (Zechariah 14:4)

Was the Mount of Olives split in two in this way in A.D. 70?

[Duncan]

I address this question of the splitting of the Mount of Olives in the article I referenced. Here is the link again. http://planetpreterist.com/content/day- ... chariah-14

[Othniel]

Was the Mount of Olives split in two in this way in A.D. 70?

Hey Paidon,

I don't find it necessary to take the topographical splitting of the mount of olives literally.

As a former premillennialist I can understand the desire to take it to take this verse literally, but when we consider the kind of language used by Old Testament prophets, we find many cases where they refer to topographical changes in a non-literal way.

"The word of the LORD that came to Micah... which he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem... For behold, the LORD is coming out of His place; He will come down And tread on the high places of the earth.The mountains will melt under Him, And the valleys will split Like wax before the fire, Like waters poured down a steep place" (Micah 1:1,3-4 )

Here we see a graphic scene depicted regarding the judgment of Samaria and Jerusalem. Sure we could import the idea that this is literal and still future, but we would have to ignore the fact that Micah tells us who this is directed at.

In a poetic prayer Habakkuk writes "He stood and measured the earth; He looked and startled the nations. And the everlasting mountains were scattered, The perpetual hills bowed. His ways [are] everlasting" (Habakkuk 3:6).

There is no reason to take this literally. If we believe that the "everlasting mountains were scattered" or will be scattered, we must also necessarily believe that God literally marched through the land (Hab 3:12) and through the sea with horses (Hab 3:15). This language is clearly figurative. Any less than that would be clearly against context and literary style.

Another example is found in Isaiah 40:3-4 which, according to the New Testament, was referring to John the Baptist: "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: "Prepare the way of the LORD; Make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted And every mountain and hill brought low; The crooked places shall be made straight And the rough places smooth."

To me, it seems as though arguing for a literal fulfillment of this would be arguing against the plain interpretation of the New Testament. There is no hermeneutical reason why we should take the splitting mountain of Zechariah 14 literally when the language so clearly resembles other non-literal prophecies.

So to answer your question Paidon, the mountain didn't split in 70 A.D., and no one expected it to. However, I am still pondering the figurative meaning of the splitting.

[Othniel]

Hi Othniel,

My take on Zech 14 can be found here. http://planetpreterist.com/content/day- ... chariah-14

Thanks for your reply Duncan!

Once I examine your link more thoroughly I will post a reply. Meanwhile, I am eager to hear if anyone else has thoughts on the subject. Could it be referring to the Maccabean revolt? If it is, where can I find information about that revolt?

[Paidion]

Othniel, I have heard such arguments before. On what basis do you decide what to take "literally" and which to take figuatively? Do you simply take figuratively everything you think could not happen "literally?
How do you know that Jesus was a historical figure? We have no evidence of His existence outside of the gospel narratives. Perhaps He was simply the concept of a perfect man who served God perfectly, and the stories of Him in the gospels were figurative representations of an ideal man.

[Othniel]

Othniel, I have heard such arguments before. On what basis do you decide what to take "literally" and which to take figuatively? Do you simply take figuratively everything you think could not happen "literally?
How do you know that Jesus was a historical figure? We have no evidence of His existence outside of the gospel narratives. Perhaps He was simply the concept of a perfect man who served God perfectly, and the stories of Him in the gospels were figurative representations of an ideal man.

Great question Paidion!

The answer is simple: context. It may seem as though people in the preterist camp just take things literally when they want too and figuratively when they want too, but this is not the case. For example, I was able to tell that Micah 1:1-4 was non-literal because the context (verse 1) made it clear.

We preterists use the historical grammatical method of interpretation just like premillennialists. I look towards the previous verses, the literary style, the historical context, and of course, other scripture to determine what should be taken literally and what should be taken symbolically. The real battle isn't literal or non-literal, it's context.

Do you disagree? If you do, I would have to ask you the same question you asked me. How do you determine what to take literally and what not to take literally? From what I've read of your posts in the past Paidion, you adhere to a form of premillennialism. And though premillennial scholars lift up literalism as the ultimate hermeneutic, they are horribly inconsistent. Being a former student of premillennialism myself, I would be happy to quote any number of verses that are taken symbolically by that camp. However, we both know that they are there. And so I won't take the time posting them for now, unless of course you or anyone else would like some examples, in which case I would be happy to take the time to post some.

We shouldn't think "literal good, figurative bad," but rather "does the context of this verse lead me to take a non-literal interpretation." In Zechariah, considering the apocalyptic imagery and supporting scriptures, I believe the topographical changes should be taken non-literally.

And as for your questions about the incarnation, it made me chuckle.

First of all, there is nothing in the context of Jesus life and ministry that would lead us to believe Him to be a symbolic figure rather than a real man. To even suggest that this would be the case is quite ridiculous hahaha. The literary styles of the gospels compared to many of the prophetic books of the Bible are worlds apart.

Secondly, you would be sorely mistaken if you think that there is "no evidence of His existence outside of the gospel narratives." I could provide you with direct quotes from ancient secular authorities such as Cornelius Tacitus (A.D.55-120), Lucian of Samosata, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger (A.D. 112), Thallus (A.D. 52), and Mara Bar-Serapion (around A.D. 70), which all wrote manuscripts that in some way or another verify the actual existence of Jesus the Christ. If that isn't good enough, we also have Jewish references to a real Jesus in the Jewish Talmud, not to mention all the ancient Christian sources which verify His existence.

So given this information, I see no problem with taking some passages literally and some symbolically based on the context.

[Paidion]

Secondly, you would be sorely mistaken if you think that there is "no evidence of His existence outside of the gospel narratives." I could provide you with direct quotes from ancient secular authorities such as Cornelius Tacitus (A.D.55-120), Lucian of Samosata, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger (A.D. 112), Thallus (A.D. 52), and Mara Bar-Serapion (around A.D. 70), which all wrote manuscripts that in some way or another verify the actual existence of Jesus the Christ.

I would be grateful to you if you should provide these quotes. Yes, that would be "good enough" indeed.

[Othniel]

Secondly, you would be sorely mistaken if you think that there is "no evidence of His existence outside of the gospel narratives." I could provide you with direct quotes from ancient secular authorities such as Cornelius Tacitus (A.D.55-120), Lucian of Samosata, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger (A.D. 112), Thallus (A.D. 52), and Mara Bar-Serapion (around A.D. 70), which all wrote manuscripts that in some way or another verify the actual existence of Jesus the Christ.

I would be grateful to you if you should provide these quotes. Yes, that would be "good enough" indeed.

Fair enough Paidion, I will provide you the information you desire. In these quotes you will find that Jesus is referenced many times in ways that in no way allude to a symbolic figure, but rather imply an actual, physical, person. These references were all found in Josh McDowell's book "New Evidence That Demands A Verdict."

Cornelius Tacitus - Roman historian

"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also." (Annals XV, 44)

Lucian of Samosata - Greek satirist

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account... You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property" (Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11-13)

Suetonius - Roman historian

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [another spelling of Christus], he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome" (Suetonius, Life of Claudius, 25.4)

Luke refers to this event in Acts 18:2. Suetonius later writes about the Christians suffering and dying at the hands of Nero (A.D. 64) for their conviction that Jesus Christ had really lived, died, and rose from the dead.

Pliny the Younger - Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor

In writing to the emperor Trajan, he writes that he "made [Christians] curse Christ, which a genuine Christian cannot be induced to do." In the same letter he says of the people being tried: "They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guild, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to do any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up." (Epistles X, 96).

Thallus - One of the first secular writers who mentioned Christ who was quoted by writers such as Julius Africanus.

"thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun -- unreasonably, as it seems to me (unreasonably, of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of the full moon, and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died)." (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18.1).

Mara Bar-Serapion - Syrian philosopher

"What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for god; He lived on in the teaching which He had given." (Bruce, NTDATR, 114).

Babylonian Talmud - Ancient Jewish law book

"It has been taught: On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu. And an announcer went out in front of him, for forty days (saying): 'He is going to be stoned, because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.' But, not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the eve of Passover" (Sanhedrin 43a; cf. t. Sanh. 10:11; y. Sanh. 7:12; Tg. Esther 7:9).

There is Much Much Much more, but this will suffice. Should you desire further instruction on the subject Paidion, I would recommend you purchase McDowell's book "New Evidence That Demands A Verdict."