An Amillennial Interpretation of Zechariah 14 (2 of 8)

by | Feb 28, 2019 | Eschatology

Post #2 “Zechariah 14:1–5: The Lord’s Coming to Jerusalem,” Part 1

Post 1

            The opening verses of chapter 14 portray the final conflict between the nations and the holy city. This conflict culminates in the sudden arrival of the Lord God and his heavenly hosts.

1 Behold, a day is coming for the Lord when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you. 2 For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the houses plundered, the women ravished and half of the city exiled, but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city. 3 Then the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle. 4 In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south. 5 You will flee by the valley of My mountains, for the valley of the mountains will reach to Azel; yes, you will flee just as you fled before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord, my God, will come, and all the holy ones with Him![1]

Verse 2 puts this final conflict into proper perspective: the Lord himself “will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle.” This time when God gathers his enemies against his people “for the war of the great day of God, the Almighty” (Rev. 16:14) is prophesied in several places throughout scripture (cf. Ezek. 38:1–23; 39:1–6; Joel 3:2; Rev. 16:12–16; 19:19; 20:8–9). Here we must focus on the unique picture which Zechariah paints of this event.

The nations gather and battle against Jerusalem, and they are initially successful. They capture the city, loot the houses, rape the women, and even succeed in carrying away captive half the inhabitants. Still, the other half of the city’s people will not be killed or exiled. Why? The Lord himself will appear on the scene and catch the nations in their heinous act of desecration; and when God arrives, he will descend in full battle array. When he touches down on the earth right outside the walls of Jerusalem, the Mount of Olives will split to form a valley, a way of escape for the beleaguered inhabitants of the city. John MacKay explains verse 2 this way: “The message is that the future of the church will involve a time when it will be surrounded by its enemies and seemingly overwhelmed by them…. Under the metaphor of the pillaging of an ancient city, the church is presented as suffering grievously at the hands of her enemies, and yet there has been a remnant left.”[2]

The reference to the Mount of Olives should remind us of Ezekiel’s words, written a generation before Zechariah’s time. MacKay makes the connection when discussing verse 4:

‘His feet’ indicates a theophany, perhaps one where the presence of God causes the earth to shake (Ps. 68:8; 97:4; Micah 1:3–4; Nahum 1:3, 5). The addition ‘east of Jerusalem’ – which was scarcely needed to locate this well-known hill – links this vision with that granted to Ezekiel when the Lord’s glory left Jerusalem and ‘stopped above the mountain east of it’ (Ezek. 11:23). The Lord whose visible presence with his people had then ceased now returns in power, as was similarly forecast in Ezekiel 43:2. It is not of course to some reconstructed city that he comes, but to the New Jerusalem which is the reality symbolised in these visions. It is the city that bears the name ‘the Lord is there’ (Ezek. 48:35).[3]

Dean Davis further opines, “Verse 4 pictures the LORD creating an unexpected way of escape for his people; verse 5 pictures them using it…. Quite intentionally, the imagery used here reminds us of Israel’s miraculous deliverance at the Red Sea (Exodus 14:1ff).”[4]

            But what about the details of the earthquake and Azel, and should we expect the Lord Jesus to descend upon the literal hill called the Mount of Olives? These questions will be answered in the next post.

[1] All scripture quotations are taken from the nasb Updated Edition of 1995.

[2] Ibid., 303–304.

[3] Ibid., 305. Cf. also Andrew E. Hill, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, ed. David G. Firth, vol. 28 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 261.

[4] Dean Davis, The High King of Heaven: Discovering the Master Keys to the Great End Time Debate (Enumclaw, WA: Redemption Press, 2014), 397. Cf. also Barry G. Webb, The Message of Zechariah, The Bible Speaks Today, ed. J. A. Motyer (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 179.

An Amillennial Interpretation of Zechariah 14 (1 of 8)

An Amillennial Interpretation of Zechariah 14 (1 of 8)

by | Feb 26, 2019 | Eschatology

Post #1 “The Need for an Amillennial Approach”

The last chapter of Zechariah tends to be neglected by amillennialists, especially in comparison to the emphasis given it by premillennialists. While amillennialists anticipate a single consummation and glorification of God’s kingdom in connection with the single Second Coming of the Lord Jesus, premillennialists use texts like Zechariah 14 to argue for an intermediate reign of Jesus upon the present earth. Such a reign would separate the Second Coming from the eternal perfection of God’s kingdom by at least a thousand years (a time period taken from Revelation 20). The dispensational variety of premillennialism particularly insists upon a strictly literal reading of Zechariah and other Old Testament apocalyptic literature. The result is a Second Coming which radically subjugates sinners and improves their fallen world without banishing sin and death entirely.

Such a “millennial” reign is a problem for the amillennialist because it contradicts the straightforward eschatology of the New Testament. The apostles and prophets and Jesus himself all declare that the very event of Christ’s return will be the end of sin and death. The Second Coming immediately brings the final separation of the righteous from the wicked, the end of the opportunity for repentance, and the eternal glory of a new creation freed from sin’s curse. Further problems also arise when a dispensational hermeneutic is applied to Zechariah 14. Because the role of apocalyptic symbolism is minimized, the result is a renewed Judaism, complete with temple worship and required annual feasts. Although some details may differ from earlier historical iterations, this is essentially the Mosaic system of worship resurrected. It would be a titanic reversal of Christ’s blood-bought accomplishments and a return to those types and shadows which his priestly work has rendered obsolete (Heb. 7:18–22; 8:13; 9:8–10; 10:1, 8–9, 18). A premillennial interpretation of Zechariah’s last chapter, especially that demanded by dispensational literalism, is clearly untenable when seen through the lens of the New Testament.

For these reasons, an interpretation is needed which does not posit an intermediate messianic reign including renewed Judaism and the lingering effects of Adam’s fall. The interpreter must understand that the Old Testament prophets often foretold New Testament realities through the symbolic use of Old Covenant language. A woodenly literal hermeneutic cannot consistently explain such prophecies as that of Malachi 1:11: “For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations,” says the Lord of hosts.” On the one hand, literal aspects of the Old Covenant such as incense and grain offerings could only be legitimately performed at the authorized location of the Jerusalem temple. On the other hand, the New Covenant era renders such a sacrificial system obsolete. However, once the interpreter acknowledges that the Spirit speaking through Malachi used Old Covenant institutions as pictures of future, New Covenant realities, Malachi’s words harmonize well with those of Jesus recorded in John 4:21 and 23: “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father…. But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.”

Similarly, the apocalyptic mention of Jerusalem in Zechariah 14 must be allowed to point beyond the earthly city of David. “For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come” (Heb. 13:14). Indeed, those in the New Testament church already “have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” (Heb. 12:22). We are not of the old Sinai covenant “which corresponds to the present Jerusalem”; we are of the new covenant corresponding to “the Jerusalem above” who “is our mother” (Gal. 4:24–26). James the Lord’s brother points to the prophecy of Amos and thus confirms that God has rebuilt and restored the ruined tabernacle of David so that the Gentiles may seek the Lord and be called by his name (Acts 15:13–18). The nations are now joining themselves to Zion, the redeemed city of God, the New Testament church of Jesus Christ. If James and the other apostles could confidently use such a hermeneutic, so can we. This hermeneutic will provide us with an amillennial interpretation of Zechariah 14. Concerning Old Testament promises fulfilled after Christ’s First Advent, John MacKay rightly says, “The realisation is in terms of the heirs and successors of the Old Testament Zion, Jerusalem and Israel. This is not to rewrite the promise, but to satisfy it in its fullest and proper extent.”[1]

Beginning with the next post, this blog series will present such an amillennial approach to the last chapter of the Book of Zechariah.

 

[1] John L. MacKay, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi: God’s Restored People, Focus on the Bible Commentary Series (Fearn, Ross-shire, Scotland, Great Britain: Christian Focus, 2010), 417.

John Owen—A Caveat, part 13

John Owen—A Caveat, part 13

by | Oct 17, 2018 | Eschatology

Conclusion

If Owen was indeed wrong as we have seen, what can we learn from this fact?  It is to answer this question that I have taken so much time to firmly disagree with the properly revered John Owen.  I believe there is something to be learned from the serious exegetical mistake he makes with 2 Peter 3. I think there are important lessons to be learned.

First, this shows that no one—not even the man who is probably the greatest of the Puritan and Reformed Scholastics—may be given an almost infallible status by us.  The fact is that in some places—it has appeared to me—that if Owen said it, that was the end of all discussion.  That is certainly not true with regard to his preterist interpretation of 2 Peter 3.  It may not be true in other places.

Second, this shows that we may not fix one period of church history, and one group of theologians in that history, as the standard of orthodoxy for all times.  The Bible teaches a developmental or progressivist view of church history.  That means that, not only was there progressive revelation in the Bible, there is progressive enlightenment of the church during this inter-adventual period.  This is the straightforward implication of the parables of Jesus regarding the wheat and weeds, the mustard seed, the leaven, and the seed growing by itself.

As much as we love the Puritans and as much as we love our Baptist forefathers, church history did not end with them.  Nor did the church’s insight into the Scriptures cease developing. Valuable as is our honored confession of faith, it is a human document which reflects the best understanding of the Scriptures by the church at a certain point in time in that development.  Personally, I do not think that we have come to the place where it is good to think of attempting an expansion or refinement of that great document.  But in principle we must admit that such a place could come in a future era of the church.

Third, let me finally express my view that it is particularly in the doctrinal area where Owen goes wrong that we must be ready for further light upon Scripture to have been given to the church since the 17th century.  There have been vast and important developments in eschatological thought since Owen wrote.  There was the prevalence of postmillennialism for a time, followed by the rise of historic premillennialism and dispensational premillennialism in reaction to postmillennialism.  There has been the long critique of Dispensationalism by Amillennialism, the splintering of Dispensationalism as a result, and the rise of a new and wiser form of Amillennialism.  I think this history is significant.  I think it has presented us with an alternative to Owen’s preterism which is vastly to be preferred.

John Owen—A Caveat, part 13

John Owen—A Caveat, part 12

by | Oct 15, 2018 | Eschatology

So far, I have covered seven points in my case against John Owen’s preterist view of 2 Peter 3.  Let me add another argument in this post.  Here is my eighth objection to Owen’s exegesis.

The Conclusive Case against Owen’s Interpretation Continued

The whole Olivet Discourse speaks (according to Owen) only of the coming of Jesus for the destruction of Jerusalem.  Peter’s words allude to Matthew 24.  We have repeatedly noted the insistence of Owen on this fact.

My objection is that this straightforwardly and directly implies that the account of the judgment found in Matthew 25:31-46 must refer to the coming of Jesus at the destruction of Jerusalem.  There is a seamless web of references to Christ’s coming between Matthew 24 and 25.  Thus, Matthew 25:31-46 must refer to the coming of Jesus at the destruction of Jerusalem.  But this requires a preterist understanding of the words of Matthew 25:31-32:  “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. 32 “All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.”  It also requires that Matthew 25:46 be a reference to an event that happened at the destruction of Jerusalem: “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”  Not only is such an understanding of Matthew 25:31-46 unlikely to the point of impossibility, it is also dangerous in a broader way

Upon Owen’s interpretation, what are we to think of the other references to the coming of Christ throughout 1 and 2 Peter? Must they not be thought of as references to the coming of Christ at the destruction of Jerusalem?  It would seem so.    Thus, for instance, are we to take a preterist interpretation on 1 Peter 5:4? “And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.”

This brings us, then, to the most serious challenge and difficulty for orthodox preterists like Owen.  They have to show how their views can be held without leading directly down a slippery slope to Hyper-preterism?  Upon Owen’s interpretation, it seems to me, it is difficult to find any clear text in the New Testament that teaches the Second Coming of Christ in glory at the end of the age.

John Owen—A Caveat, part 13

John Owen—A Caveat, part 11

by | Oct 11, 2018 | Eschatology

So far, I have covered six points in my case against John Owen’s preterist view of 2 Peter 3.  Let me add another argument in this post.  Here is my seventh objection to Owen’s exegesis.

The Conclusive Case against Owen’s Interpretation Continued

Owen assumes that the false teachers of 2 Peter are a reference to the Jews who clung to the Old Testament institutions and the legalism that had grown up around them.  Here is Owen once more: “He speaks of that wherein both the profane scoffers and those scoffed at were concerned, and that as Jews; —some of them believing, others opposing the faith.  Now, there was no particular concernment of that generation in that sin, nor in that scoffing, as to the day of judgment in general; but there was a peculiar relief for the one and a peculiar dread of the other at hand, in the destruction of the Jewish nation; and, besides, an ample testimony, both to the one and the other, of the power and dominion of the Lord Jesus Christ; —which was the thing in question between them.” (Works, 9:134)

This account of the false teachers with whom Peter was contending is out of sync with the whole presentation of them in 2 Peter.  These men were not legalistic defenders of the Old Judaism.  Peter makes clear that they had been and perhaps still were professing Christians (2 Peter 2:1-2, 20-22) who distorted the teaching of the Apostle Paul (2 Peter 3:16) and (far from being legalists) were antinomians in their views and practice (2 Peter 2:12-18).

To sum up:  the false teachers of 2 Peter 2 and 3 were not Jews opposing Christ, but antinomians who had professed Christ and followed Paul, but who had distorted Christian truth to their own destruction.  Cf. Matthew 24:48 for the background of Peter’s thought which predicts every feature of these false teachers.

Pin It on Pinterest