A Response to Kim Riddlebarger Amillennialism.
Stephen Whitsett Jr PhD
There are two factors that play an important role in understanding Zech 12, 14. The first being is to what extent does figurative language play a part into the interpretation of the text. Secondly, chronology has to be derived from all the eschatological scriptures that describes these last day events. If they are literal events then figurative language is used in part to describe literal events.
A common argument put forth by Gentry, Mathison, and Boettner, is that the apocalyptic nature of the book of Revelation disqualifies the necessity for a literal interpretation. Gentry sites several other scholars who he finds fault with such as Ladd, Blevins, and Warfield, concerning a millennium theology that is based on one passage alone in Revelation then trying to harmonize all other NT passages into a strict literal interpretation. Gentry asks the question, “If the thousand years serve as a literal time frame, why is it only mentioned in one highly symbolic book?” Realistically, if a single verse introduces a truth, even though it is mentioned once in all of scripture, it does not negate the truth of that single passage.[1] It is incumbent on the interpreter to understand that one passage through the harmonization of other passages of similar thought. In the case of the Millennium, we look to many old Testament prophecies concerning this time frame.
Beale states concerning the Book of Revelation,
There is always a literal meaning underlying the symbolic meaning, though this literal meaning is often about spiritual realities and sometimes about physical realities, both of which have to do with some kind of historical reality.[2]
So to assume we cannot come to some consensus on Rev 20 contributions to eschatology brings into question the Holy Spirit’s ability to illuminate truth.
A significant factor in interpretating Rev 20 comes from Rev 1 where a key is given to understanding the symbolic language. In the imagery of Rev 1:16 Jesus is holding seven stars. In verse 20 he tells us the seven stars represent the seven churches. This hermeneutic should be applied to all of Revelation just as well as we accept the Second Appearing, resurrection of the dead, great white throne judgment, and the new heaven and earth as physical realities in which the people of the earth participate in and not just heavenly spiritual events.
The inherent nature of apocryphal language creates the tension that exists between the literal and figurative uses of words. When the plain meaning makes sense from a literal interpretation perspective then in that sense the verse should be understood. Occam’s razor applies, when two competing theories are presented, the simpler explanation of the two is to be preferred.
Poythress mentioned Thomas’s comment in this debate, “The proper procedure is to assume a literal interpretation of each symbolic representation provided to John unless a particular factor in the text indicates it should be interpreted figuratively.”[3] Such as Rev 19 where Christ is returning on a white horse. The horse represents a king coming to make war. It is not to be understood He is coming down out of heaven riding on an actual real horse but then it is literal that He comes down out of heaven based on Acts 1:11. The horse signifies the king is coming to make war on his enemies.
The most important discussion of the millennium comes from Blaising, Three Views on the Millennium, which outlines the three main views and the counter arguments presented by others. The three main views discussed are premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism. A fourth category that needs to be added is the partial-preterist postmillennialist or amillennialist paradigm. The PP view argues that the Beast and tribulation are fulfilled in the events of AD 70 and the Jewish Wars. The traditional postmill and amill accepts the idea that the Beast and the tribulation of Revelation unfolds in the last few years of the millennium, at the end of the church age.
From Rev 20:1–10 there are three principal controversies that need to be addressed that shape the main views of eschatology that are harmonized with the millennium timing factors. In Rev 20:1–3 a doctrine of Satan’s binding is propagated either by a symbolical or literal interpretation. Secondly, the first Resurrection of Rev 20:4–5 has also been subjected to both figurative and literal interpretation when the attempt is made to harmonize it with John 5:28–29 where the resurrection of the just and unjust happens in one hour. The third difficulty is that most views make all of Rev 20 a review of the events from the cross, to the present where Satan is unbound until just prior to the day of the Second Appearing that leads to the end of the world and is justified by a recapitulation theory.
Riddlebarger begins his apologetic by underscoring that John did not intend for us to interpret the book literally.[4] Yet in Rev 1:1 begins with stating that, “the things that must soon take place,” implies these are literal events being described within symbolism and not every aspect of the vision is to be taken as figurative. The marriage supper of the lamb is accepted as symbolism in Rev19 but when the armies gather against the rider on the white horse and the Beast and False Prophet are captured we have literal events and are not symbolic of something else as Riddlebarger suggests.[5]
Riddlebarger claims the one major weakness of premill position is the presence of evil during the millennium. In his understanding only the redeemed are living, the resurrected dead, and according to Isa 65 how could there be evil among these resurrected saints?[6] Storms also believes that Rev 19:19–21 signifies the destruction of all the nations of the earth who came against Jerusalem.[7] In rebuttal Rev 19:19 it is the “the Beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war” who are being destroyed. In verse 21 “the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh” describes the field of battle.[8] This battle of Armageddon takes place in the valley of Megiddo, not outside the walls of Jerusalem (Rev 14:20.) The peoples of the nations are not destroyed just those who gathered against the rider on the white horse as a just and fitting reward. Storms and Riddlebarger assume that there are no more nations, that all people of these nations have also been killed based on Rev 20:9.
In 1526 Martin Luther wrote his second commentary of Zechariah in Latin and when he came to chapter fourteen he wrote, “”Here, in this chapter, I give up. For I am not sure what the prophet is talking about.”[9] Among modern day Biblical scholars the concept of Zechariah 12 and 14 being “Second Appearing” passages are universally held, beginning with the notable commentaries such as Barnes, “Notes on the Bible” or Gills “Exposition of the entire Bible.”[10] But for many it remains shrouded in obscurity based in the perplexing language. When symbolism is accepted as the means of interpretation the resulting explanation varies in opinions from scholar to scholar. The goal is to make the case that the literal interpretation can be upheld through the analogy of faith.
Zech 14:16–17 sheds light on the day of His coming, there are survivors. These passages suggest very clearly that the families of the nations who came against Jerusalem on that day survive and then are commanded to come year after year to Jerusalem. Grudem argued the same as well.
When Christ comes at the end of the Tribulation he will defeat all the forces arrayed against Him, but that does not mean he will kill or annihilate all of them. Many will simply surrender without trusting Christ and will thus enter the millennium as unbelievers. And during the entire period of the millennium no doubt many will be converted to Christ and become believers as well.[11]
During the judgments one third of all mankind are killed (Rev 9:15, 18.) Then in Rev 20:8 the numbers are again as the sands of the sea indicating multiplication of people. Jerusalem is the camp of the saints, and this army surrounds Jerusalem and fire is called down to kill the world of the ungodly (2 Pet 3:7.) It is clear that there are survivors of these nations and the battle described in Rev 20 is a second gathering after Satan’s release. Satan was bound to prevent the surviving nations and peoples from the deception that comes later in defiance of the King over the earth when Satan is released to test those who are on the earth.
Revelation 20:4 continues the flow of the vision where now the perspective is in heaven where people are seen sitting on thrones. This connects with Dan 7:22 where it states, “judgment was passed in favor of the Saints of the Highest One, and the time arrived when the Saints took possession of the kingdom.” Then continued in verse 27 “Then the sovereignty, the dominion and the greatness of all the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be given to the people of the Saints of the Highest One “ which is the promised exaltation of the Son of Man and the vindication of the Saints that is fulfilled in the millennium kingdom of Rev 20:4–6.[12]
In Rev 2:26 John states
The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my Father. And I will give him the morning star.
this is where the focus is put on the believer’s role or position of authority who will rule over the nations with a rod of Iron. This again implies a kingdom of people ruling over the nations on earth.
In Revelation 20:4, like Gentry, Riddlebarger presents the same interpretation of “the beheaded.” In his view the Saints who came out of the tribulation are ruling from their place in heaven. They came to life before they died and so are now alive in heaven, and this is interpretated as the first resurrection, people coming to be born again.[13] The issue is that the “dead in Christ”, means they are Christian, and they died at the hands of the beast. It then states without obfuscation, “reigned with Christ for a thousand years.” This demands that those killed by the beast must reign on earth with Christ for the 1000 years. The 1000 years can not start until after the ones who were killed in the Tribulation of the beast are raised back to life in order to rule and reign with him over the nations.
Nore can you say the saints are presently now ruling and reigning from heaven since the reigning and ruling begins after their resurrection and can not be from heaven since they “came back to life.”
Now Riddlebarger goes on to say that,
When John spoke of the first resurrection he did not mean the first from series of resurrection of the same kind rather indicated a difference of kind with the resurrection that follows…. If the first resurrection of a different kind than the second this is a compelling argument for the Amill position rather than an impediment to it as premillennial claims.[14]
Meaning that the first resurrection has to be of a different kind from the second which is referencing bodily resurrection and not the new birth. It can be argued that there is a “difference in kind” between the first and second resurrection. The first resurrection is of the just coming to life and living in Christ, free from the judgment of sin–death that results in the second death, the LOF. The unjust are not raised to a spiritual awakening but for the purpose of the second death in the LOF in which the unjust experience a state of eternal death, bodily. They are not made alive in Christ and therefore a different kind of resurrection from the just.
Therefore, the first resurrection is a coming to life because they have already experienced the new birth prior to their beheading. The language should follow a progression of thought, the beheaded come to life, this is the first resurrection, they rule and reign with Him after coming back to life. Resurrection is the physical dead coming back to life (Heb 11:35.) In the amill interpretation the order of theses passages and understanding is reversed; they experienced the first resurrection, by coming to life in Christ, they rule and reign in heaven, after they have died.
Riddlebarger also makes the claim that,
Therefore, while insisting on understanding these two resurrections as both bodily resurrections. Premillennialist are forced to spiritualize the second death, but the second death is not the death of the body it is something far worse.[15]
Which is inconsistent with the premill view. The second resurrection is not spiritualized as both resurrection of the just and unjust are bodily therefore the second death is not a spiritual death but a physical one where they suffer for the deeds done while in the body in the LOF.
Riddlebarger states
Because the bodily resurrection and the final judgment takes place at the return of Christ (according to the two-age model) there is no possibility of above second advent millennial age populated by people in non-resurrection perishable bodies.[16]
Nowhere is it stated that the great white throne judgment takes place at His coming. The Second Appearing in itself is a judgment as only the righteous (just) are raised. 1 Thess 4 and 1 Cor 15 do not give any indication that the resurrection of the unjust also takes place at the same time. Rev 20:5 is interpretated by premill as the second resurrection of the rest of the dead which is the unjust who are raised to face the Bema seat of Christ at the end of the millennium.
John after identifying these people, states, ἔζησαν[17] (4d), third person plural indicating they lived. If these people are standing before the throne are living,[18] then ἔζησαν indicates a coming back to life. This is the same verb form found in in Rev 2:8 where Jesus talks of Himself as the one “who died and came to life.” These living people are now reigning with Christ as whole persons by means of the ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη. Πρώτη[19] indicates of what comes first, foremost, the πρώτη ἀνάστασις is of these who were beheaded coming back to life. “They” in verse 4c is the antecedent of those who died by beheading and are the dead in Christ coming back to life in the resurrection that happens at Christ’s coming. The thousand years cannot begin until those who were killed by beheading by the beast come to life which takes place at His coming. This makes it impossible for the Mill to begin before the first resurrection that takes place at His arrival. As previously mentioned Augustine promoted the idea this coming to life is the new birth of the Saints but this explanation does not fit the context. “They” are the ones who were beheaded, are the ones coming back to life physically as His army in the vindication of the saints.
If in Rev 20:4 these people were saints who did not submit to the Beast and were killed, so they were not killed in the tribulation that occurred in the destruction of Jerusalem. The tribulation has not yet come, nor has anyone died in this tribulation of Revelation, making this tribulation future, and so, the Beast as well. Therefore, that implies Rev 20:4–6 cannot describe the present Church age but of a future millennium reign of Christ.[20] Vlach again makes the point that if this current age is the millennium reign then this would suggest ‘the reward and vindication is currently taking place in this current evil age.”[21]
A major factor that seems to refute the idea of the saints currently reigning in heaven now, comes from Rev 6:9–11 where these souls of the martyred are being told to “rest for a little while longer” until God’s vengeance is complete on His enemies. The vindication occurs when they come to life and reign in the presence of their enemies.[22]
The resurrection must include those who died in the great tribulation of the Beast and the False Prophet. These are the ones coming to life and reigning with Christ for the thousand years. Meaning the thousand years cannot begin until the dead are raised and come to life, and then reign for the thousand years. Secondly, the ones who were beheaded must be reigning with Him for the entire time period. This first resurrection takes place at the Second Appearing. The purpose of being resurrected into bodies is so that the saints can reign with Christ, on a physical real earth for a literal long length of time. The mill cannot begin in AD 33 before the tribulation takes place and before those who were beheaded in the tribulation are resurrected.
If the beheaded saints are to come to life and reign for a thousand years, in the amill or postmill position this χίλια ἔτη only lasts for only three and half years for them or less. Meaning their reigns begins with their death and ends with Second Appearing soon after.[23] The Second Appearing also ends the forty-two-month tribulation period in their view thus reducing the millennium to a few short years. The millennium certainly could not begin before the Revelation account was even written down since these events are to happen “shortly” after John’s seeing the vision. This negates AD 33 as the beginning of the millennium.
If Rev 20:5b calls dead people coming to life who are in Christ as the “first” this implies there is a second. In Rev 20:5a “The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended,” defines the second resurrection that happens for the purpose of judgment, which is described in Rev 20:13. Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them. In this resurrection the unjust (who are in Hades) are now coming to life and appearing before the judgment seat in heaven to be judged for deeds done while they were alive and in the body.
In the amill position of claiming the reign of Christ is in heaven from the cross to the present. Vlach makes the objection that,
First, although Jesus’s exaltation to the right hand of the Father is a powerful display of glory to the courts of heaven and evil spiritual forces (see Eph. 1:21-23), heaven is not the realm where God tasked Adam and mankind to rule from. God placed Adam on earth, and it is from earth that the Last Adam needs to reign.[24]
Which in one sense is not a strong objection but with Acts 1:6 a more forceful appeal is made. When the disciples asked if it was at that time He was to restore the kingdom Christ admonished them it was still future. The disciples did not view the promised restoration as happening then or did Christ suggest it was to happen soon. The timing for the restored kingdom of Israel must follow the return of Christ, in which He rules in a restored nation of Israel in which He sits on the throne of His father David.
Another point that needs to be taken into consideration is the nature of the kingdom. The descriptions in Zech 8 (or Isa 65, 66) of Jerusalem are more in line with a millennial kingdom than that of the intertestamental period. Jerusalem is called the “faithful city” (v 3) where men will live to old age and children will play in the streets (v5) (see also Isa 65:20.) Which implies that Jerusalem exists in a revived nation of Israel. In verse 13, “And as you have been a byword of cursing among the nations, O house of Judah and house of Israel, so will I save you, and you shall be a blessing.” Then verse 20 “Many peoples and strong nations shall come to seek the LORD of hosts in Jerusalem and to entreat the favor of the LORD. Thus says the LORD of hosts: In those days ten men from the nations of every tongue shall take hold of the robe of a Jew, saying, ‘Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you” (Zech 14:16-19.) None of which could have been said for the last two thousand years of history. This passage indicates earthly rulership and not one from heaven.
Grudem notes that in the scenario created in Zech 14:16–19 in which nations can be punished after His return simply does not fit the present age or the eternal one.
In Isa 2:2 “nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.” In what other historical time period do we find this true? If these are the characteristics or the nature of the millennium kingdom we are again perplexed to understand how this was fulfilled or to be fulfilled in any time period following His ascension. While we may believe He rules from heaven the promise remains that He will one day rule from the seat of His father David in a restored kingdom of Israel.
Riddlebarger and other amillennialist have challenged this golden era of peace and cite the ongoing fracture of human society as evidence in their schema.[25] The premillennialist on the other hand accepts Christ rule on earth as a complete authoritarian as the nations are accountable to Him. In the absence of satanic deception Christ is at work among the nations. Riddlebarger then has a misperception towards premillennialism as explained before.
If the premillennial position is correct the golden age of the millennium in which Christ reigned for 1000 years ends with glorified men and women revolting against the visible rule of Christ when Satan is released from the abyss at the end of that time.[26]
The argument is again based on their understanding that there are no survivors of the nations. They assume that the premill position is that only the resurrected righteous are the ones on earth ruling, but the very fact the Saints’ rule over the nations with a rod of iron indicates the survivors are not only the resurrected and the Christian Saints who were changed at His coming but of the survivors of the Revelation judgments are in need of being ruled. In the new heaven and earth of Rev 21, 22, He is king over the earth and the saints need no “ruler” with a rod of iron.
In this third pericope the thousand years comes to its end with the release of Satan from his prison. Based in these verses, Satan begins to again deceive the nations to gather them for battle. In an abbreviated narrative they march across the earth, surround the camp of the saints, who are in the “city he loves.” Fire comes down to consume them and Satan is then thrown alive into the LOF “with” the beast and false prophet. Three points of understanding are conveyed.
The thousand years ends with the release of Satan, not the Second Appearing. This passage never indicates a coming of Jesus. Satan must be released in order to begin to deceive the nations for his brief time, which leads to the final destruction of all the wicked leading into the great white throne judgment of all men in heaven.
In Rev 20:9 Jerusalem is being described as the “city he loves” not the place of harlotry or in need of judgment and destruction. There is no description in Revelation of Jerusalem being destroyed or of one stone being torn down as a form of God’s wrath being poured out against her. The “grapes of wrath” (Rev 14:19, 20) is against the beast and his kingdom of the ungodly.
If Christ is ruling with the Saints in the city he loves, the camp of the saints, then He is not coming for a second time at the end, He was already there. In order for Jerusalem to be the camp of the Saints implies that Jerusalem is the barracks of the armies of the heavens, the saints who returned with Christ in Rev 19. Then again Jerusalem was not destroyed in Rev 20:9. Nor was Jerusalem the camp of the saints in AD 70.
Zech 12, 14 adds to our scenario which is a Second Coming passage that speaks of these armies that gather against Jerusalem. The Lord who comes with His saints protects the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Clearly the armies that returned with Him are the ones who are ruling and reigning with him for the thousand years. Secondly, He sets up His kingdom over the earth from Jerusalem, and to Jerusalem the survivors of these nations must come year after year (Zech 14:16.) If on that day He comes He protects the inhabitants of Jerusalem and gives victory to Jerusalem, then Jerusalem is not the harlot nor defeated in the Revelation account. This verse could not be any clearer about Jerusalem fate in that last great tribulation that comes upon the whole earth.
Riddlebarger offers a narrative that he states is the context of the passage but in the process over spiritualized most of the passage.
In Ham’s essay, “Reading Zechariah and Matthew’s Olivet,” he scrutinizes the relationship of Matthew’s Olivet Discourse to Zechariah exegetically. “Insinuation is used to demonstrate how the two texts relate without the authors explicit intent to draw upon the same exact context and meaning but is being used textually to create an incitement for the reader to think back to the comparison being made.”[27] These connections allow Matthew’s readers to recognize the parallel of Jesus’ παρουσία with the coming of Yahweh from an OT perspectives where an army is being sent to destroy the offending nation.[28]
Wolters[29] in 2002 detailed an outline of the seven most common views held by scholars over the years concerning the interpretation of Zech 14. Most interpretations suffer from a lack of historical context as the idea of a restored Israel was an unimagined event before 1948. The majority of these views center on a literal interpretation of the first few verses concerning the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 while the rest of the chapter is interpreted symbolically or metaphorically.
The first noted observation of these interpretations is that when symbolism is applied there is no consensus as to the intended meaning of the text among scholars. Each has their own interpretation. When a literal interpretation is employed the scholars find sustained agreement among themselves. The literal approach to interpretation of Zech 14 was put forth and made popular by J. N. Darby in his dispensational views, yet he lacked the modern-day perspective of Israel’s regathering for a second time.
When the literal interpretation is employed and using analogy of faith, where scriptures are used to interpret scriptures a complete representation emerges from the language of a Second Appearing of Christ that happens “On That Day.” When the plain meaning provides a solid consistent coherence with all scriptures why should it not be accepted as the standard form of interpretation? Many straightforward prophecies can be found in Duet 28, and Daniel that require a literal interpretation as they were fulfilled providing a precedence of understanding.
The stand is taken that the Second Appearing has not happened as a fact and presupposition through which to interpret Zech 14 and Revelation prophecies. This understanding is fundamental to the purpose of Revelation in relating the events and things that will happen in those Last Days. The future days of Revelation fulfillment cannot be conflated with days of the past as demonstrated in the last chapter.
As an introduction to Zechariah, he is a post exilic prophet and one of the last just prior to the intertestamental period. The prophecy was given by the prophet Zechariah in the eighth month of the second year of the reign of Darius, and therefore about two months after Haggai’s first prophecy and the commencement of the rebuilding of the temple, which that prophecy was intended to promote (Zech 1:1; Hag 1:1, 15.) The simple warning of Zechariah was to not repeat the sins of the past, but Israel is again put under judgment. The text simply does not tell us why or for what sin this judgment it to come. Still, it is not the final word concerning her future as if she comes to an end and will be found no more. Zech 14 ends with the promise of victory over her enemies. Like many prophecies before, judgment is declared against Israel and demonstrated in history as fulfilled, but the promise of restoration always follows these times of judgment based on the promises made to Abraham and David (Isa 2:1-5; 9:5,7; 11:6.)
In the following is a literal commentary of the events chronicled in Zech 14. While it is admitted some symbolism does exist within the passage, the symbolism can be understood in a literal interpretation that maintains a consistency and coherence with the nature of Christ coming on that day.
In the opening verses of Zechariah 12 and 14 which begins with a narrative of the siege at Jerusalem, is the last decree of destruction to go against her based on historical evidence. The Olivet Discourse is the last declaration made under the OT parameters directly naming Jerusalem as the recipient of God’s judgment. The siege at Jerusalem is a minor construct of chapter 14 but fundamental to the declarations made in which Judah and Israel are given salvation over their enemies on a day of Godly retribution.
Zechariah 13 describes the intertestamental period in which there is no prophet’s voice in the land. A shepherd appears who will be struck down (13:7) and in response two thirds of the people will be cut off and perish but one third shall be left alive and be refined by the fire (13:8.) The remnant will call upon the Lord and God will call them his people (13:9.)
The opening verses of Zechariah 14 responds to the time of when the shepherd will be struck down and Israel will be judged for this crime. A shepherd is one who is given to watch over the sheep. Jesus often used sheep and shepherd as an analogy for his parables and called himself the Great Shepherd, which was reminiscent of David the shepherd boy King. The purpose of the prophecy is to show that this is not to be the end of Israel.
The promise of Zech 14 is that on a day to come, God will battle against those ungodly nations who were used in Jerusalem’s day of punishment. Just as Babylon was also punished on a day of God’s choosing. The day of her punishment then is not the same day as her vindication.
There is one declaration of judgment against Jerusalem in the Gospels, the Olivet Discourse.[30] There is no declaration of judgment found in any NT epistle. There are no scriptures found in Revelation that promotes Jerusalem destruction for striking down the shepherd and killing OT prophets. No other decree of destruction from God exists after the completion of the cannon of scriptures.
Revelation 2, 3 deals with judgments on the church, not Israel. Revelation being apocalyptic language, somewhere there should be OT language in conjunction with a decree against Jerusalem if she is to be destroyed for a third time but no such scriptures exist. Instead, there are references to her in Revelation as “the place where our Lord was crucified” (Rev 11:8) and “the camp of the saints, the city he loves” (Rev 20:9.)
Wolster takes note that Luther accepted the first three verses of Zechariah 14 (Zechariah 12:2) apply to AD 70 and then allegorized the rest to be about the Church age which he linked to Daniel 7:27. He also stated that there is no common consensus to its real interpretation other than many of the passages found in Zechariah are used by John in describing last days events of Revelation.[31]
Many scholars accept Zech 14:1–2 as a reference to the events of AD 70 in opposition to what happened in the days of the Maccabees. The trials of Antiochus Epiphanies were never considered as a decree of Judgment as some have suggested. While there are similarities to the later Roman invasion of Israel, it was not a judgment against Jerusalem but natural events of human history. Daniel 10 and 11 speaks of events and even describes the time of the Maccabees but never declares any of it to be a judgment upon Israel.[32] Zechariah 2:6–12 speaks of the regathering and blessing upon Jerusalem following the Babylonian exile that leads to the coming of the Messiah. Zechariah is prophesying about the time of the Messiah.
In Zech 14:3 (12:9) God declares he will “go out and fight against those nations as when he fights on a day of battle.” In context God’s day of battle is not against Jerusalem but against those nations specifically who came against her. Historically it is demonstrated that the day of judgment and vindication never happen in the same day. God’s intent was to punish Israel for her sins but according to His promises made in the Covenant with Abraham He will also fight against her enemies on a day of vindication (Exe 23:22.)
In Zech 14:4a, he states, “On that day, his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives that lies before Jerusalem on the east…” in part, this passage mirrors the promised events of Acts 1:11 with the pledge of a Second Appearing. “That day” is the day of His coming down or Second Appearing. His coming in the same manner in which He left which requires that the man Christ Jesus returns from out of the clouds from where He had been taken up. There is no indication this should be taken metaphorically as the angel stated “this Jesus” will come in the same way as in how he left. Why should it not be taken literal that he will again stand on the mount of Olives?
In Zech 14:4b the Mount of Olives is split in two by a very great earthquake. (Rev 6:12; 8:5; 11:13, 19; 16:18) and they will flee as they did in the days of Uzziah (Amos 1:1.) Then the LORD my God will come, and all the holy ones with Him, is quoted in part by Paul in 1 Thess 3:13 where it is tied to His coming. Rev 19:14 depicts the coming of the Lord with all His saints following on white horses, as His army. This is what connects Zech 14 to the NT as a Second Appearing passage.
This becomes a unique day in contrast to the day of His death in which darkness covered the land from the sixth to the ninth hour (Matt 27:45.) In the day of His coming “there is no light, cold or frost, but also no night, and yet still there will be light”[33] (14:6, 7.) From out of the ground rivers flow from east to west which is a symbol of life (14:8.) It is stated that this waters will continue to flow during the summer and winter. This becomes a statement demonstrating in the days following His coming, that seasons and times continue, and it is not a day in which time ends.
Zech 14:9 the Lord becomes King over all the earth, which implies His kingdom comes to earth. In the Second Appearing Christ comes down and in Acts 1:6 the disciples ask him if He at that time was going to restore Israel as a Kingdom. Jesus did not deny their assertion but clearly stated the time for that restoration of Israel has been fixed by the father. In this Second Appearing He reestablishes Israel as a nation from which He rules the nation with a rod of iron (Rev 19:15.) He becomes King all over the earth from Jerusalem (Isa 2:2, Zech 14:9; Obad 1:21.) The phrase the LORD will be one and His name one implies as from Psalm 22:28, 47:7, that Christ rules sovereignly but in context He now rules upon the earth and over the earth of all nations at His coming. The same Lord who came and appeared the first time comes a second time to rule from mount Zion over the nations (Mic 4:2, 7; Isa 24:23, 25:6; Jer 26:18; Zech 8.) To claim that his rule and kingdom is still from heaven is redundant, but because he comes down and to Earth requires the establishment of His kingdom rule has now come down upon the earth.
In Zech 14:10 Jerusalem and Israel’s surrounding land is described as remaining after the great earthquake and Jerusalem is lifted up or becomes the center piece in which the waters flow downward. The key verse is found in 14:11 where the prophet declares that it shall be inhabited, for there shall never again be a decree of utter destruction. Jerusalem shall dwell in security. The focal point is in Jerusalem existence and security following His return. This implies two things. Jerusalem will continue to exist as an inhabited city after His coming. Secondly, if the last declaration of judgment against Jerusalem was in the Olivet Discourse, then the promise is that following her regathering Jerusalem will continue to exist in safety and is guaranteed by the presence of the King who now dwells in the city with His saints. Jerusalem becomes the camp of the saints (Rev 20:9.) It is impossible for Jerusalem to be destroyed in the narrative of Revelation 17-19 because she is protected on the day of His coming.
In verse 14:13 the attention is again turned to the nations who have come against her. Meaning Christ comes on a day in defense against the nations that have gathered against her for a second time (Zech 12:8.) In the ensuing battle salvation is given to Judah (12:7) and the inhabitants are given strength by the Lord of Hosts (Zech 12:5.) These verses clearly do not describe the events of AD 70 or of any time before but described the narrative of Rev 19 where Christ defeats the nations who have come against her. The nations are plundered of their wealth and plagues strike the beasts in reminiscent of Moses and the plagues of Egypt and the day of deliverance.
In Zech 14:16 the most remarkable statement is made, ”Then everyone who survives of all the nations that have come against Jerusalem shall go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Booths.” This verse clearly implies the victory of Christ over his enemies. The restoration of the kingdom of Israel with Christ rulership over the nations. The realty portrayed is the continued presence of Christ in Jerusalem as these nations are to come to Jerusalem and worship the King. The survivors of these nations who come against Jerusalem, will then come year after year to Jerusalem to give homage to the King. All of which implies people will continue to live after his coming upon the earth and that Christ dwells in Jerusalem. Again, there is no historical evidence of fulfillment of these prophecies following after AD 70.
To maintain a consistent hermeneutics if the first two verse are taken literal of nation gathering against Jerusalem, then verse 16 must also be taken literal. The events of AD 70 are of one day, The other day is a day when they gather against her and Christ himself returns in glory and power.
The following passages (17–19) also implies that there are sinners as well.
If any of the families of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, there will be no rain on them. And if the family of Egypt does not go up and present themselves, then on them there shall be no rain; there shall be the plague with which the LORD afflicts the nations that do not go up to keep the Feast of Booths. This shall be the punishment to Egypt and the punishment to all the nations that do not go up to keep the Feast of Booths.”
which establishes a view of Christ coming and ruling on earth during a time of peace. The very “golden era” described in Isa 65:17 (Isa 66:18-24.) It is the new heaven and earth of Isa 65.
The relevance of Zech 14, 12 demonstrates that the literal language is intended to shed light on the day of His coming. The interpretation must also follow a solid hermeneutic that if the introduction in the verses 1-3 reiterates and acknowledged a real event in time, the siege at Jerusalem, then the following verses must remain faithful to the literal reference and that “Day of the Lord.”
IF the “day of the Lord” is the context of Zech 14, 12 a day of judgment and of his coming against the nations, then the specific language shows an ongoing “time”.
Zecheriah 14
- On that day living waters shall flow out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea. It shall continue in summer as in winter. – which shows a passing of time after his coming on earth
- And the LORD will be king over all the earth. On that day the LORD will be one and his name one. In the Amillennium position how can he be king over the earth after his coming if it leads to the new heaven and earth? (it is here that Riddlebarger and others spiritualize this Jerusalem to be the “new Jerusalem.)
- And it shall be inhabited, for there shall never again be a decree of utter destruction. Jerusalem shall dwell in security. – If Jerusalem is to dwell in security it implies time following. It also implies there are enemies still existing and the mere fact that days follow after his coming in order for Jerusalem to dwell in security, “In the midst of her enemies.”
- Then everyone who survives of all the nations that have come against Jerusalem shall go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Booths. – Coming year after year again demonstrates a time following the day of his coming.
Zechariah 12
- while Jerusalem shall again be inhabited in its place, in Jerusalem. In order to inhabit means that people are living.
Riddlebarger went on to say,
In addition to looking for allusions to the passage in the Book of Revelation in order to properly understand the passage … The use of dramatic symbols and metaphors (the reference to the Mount of Olives splitting open forming a large valley, the mountains being leveled, “living water,” etc.) tells us that a literal interpretation is not in view
and yet in Rev 11, “And at that hour there was a great earthquake, and a tenth of the city fell. Seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake, and the rest were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven.” Living water could be understood as “fresh” water and not salt water. The strongest case against the Amill position is they are unable to prove from the language that is it to be taken figuratively. As an example many of the prophecies of Daniel concerned literal events in time but were recorded cryptically and in generalities. We find the same language in Zech 12, 14.
Conclusion
In the very simple application of figurative language for Rev 20 leads to an amill or post mill paradigm where Jesus returns at the end of the Millennium. IF one takes the approach of continuing chronology from Rev 19 the Premillennial paradigm emerges. The real issue of interpretation is determined by either aligning gospel and epistles references with Revelation account or forcing the Revelation account to align with epistolary references. The later has proven to be a more consistent way of interpretation. The main detriment is forcing assumption upon a text such as assuming all people are judged and destroyed in Rev 19:21, which is making Rev 20:9 the actual second coming in a recapitulation view. So objection are made when the reader has the recapitulation view in mind and then argues against a premill paradigm. The premill view must be analyzed through the consistent application of its parameters and not judging it by the parameters of the post or amill paradigms. When both systems are laid out side by side which produces a more complete harmonization with all of Eschatological passages?
[1] Matt 27:52-53 is an example of an event recorded only once yet accepted as truth.
[2] G.K. Beale, and David Campbell, Revelation: A Shorter Commentary,” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 12.
[3] Vem S. Poythress, “Review of Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary,” WTJ
55, no. 1 (Spring 1993): 165.
[4] Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Time, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2013), 226.
[5] Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 227.
[6] Riddlebarger, A Case for the Millennium, 249.
[7] Sam Storms, “Revelation 20:1-15 -Part 1” Oklahoma City, OK, (2022): https://www.samstorms.org/all-articles/post/revelation-20:1-15—part-i
[8] The FP notes the same language is used in Matt 24:28 therefore this suggests it is the same event of Rev 19.
[9] Martin Luther, “Lectures on Zechariah. The German Text, 1527” in Luther’s Works, Vol. 20: Lectures on the Minor Prophets III: Zechariah (ed. Hilton C. Oswald; Saint Louis: Concordia, 1973), 153-347 (337).
[10] Wolters “Zechariah 14” 40.
[11] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1002.
[12] Vlach, Michael J. “Premillennialism and the Kingdom: A Rationale for a Future Earthly Kingdom.” MSJ 29, no. 2 (Fall 2018): 229.
[13] Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 243.
[14] Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 244.
[15] Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 247.
[16] Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 234.
[17] TGL, s.v. “ἔζησαν.”
[18] In Matt 10 Jesus declares that Abraham, Moses, and David are living, while their bodies remain dead.
[19] TGL, s.v. “Πρώτη.”
[20] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1001.
[21] Vlach, Premillennialism And The Kingdom, 230.
[22] Vlach, Premillennialism And The Kingdom, 230.
[23] There were no Saints in Jerusalem experiencing the great Tribulation of Jerusalem as they all fled being warned by prophecy. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastes 3.5.3.
[24] Vlach, Premillennialism And The Kingdom, 223.
[25] Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 234.
[26] Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 234.
[27] Clay Ham, “Reading Zechariah and Matthew’s Olivet Discourse.” In Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels, Gospel of Matthew, (London: T & T Clark, 2008,) 85–97.
[28] Ham, “Reading Zechariah and Matthew’s Olivet Discourse,”88.
[29] See Albert Wolters, “Zechariah 14: A Dialogue With The History Of Interpretation.” MAJT 13, (2002):
[30] The Olivet Discourse is never mentioned in the Gospel of John supporting the idea that John wrote his gospel after AD 70.
[31] Wolters, Zechariah 14, 45.
[32] See Sam Frost, “Daniel Unplugged,” (Lynchburg, TN; McGahan Publishing House, 2021.)
[33] The wording can be interpretated as symbolism as in Isa 13:10, 4:23; Eze 32:7, 8 but of the opposite, light instead of darkness. (Pro 4:18, 19) A revealing of the transfigured glory of Christ.
Leave a Reply