Zechariah 14 and the Gospel

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
There is no understanding of end time events and prophecy without placing those events within the context of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is the CENTER of all things. There is this false gospel that exits that promotes the "other children of Abraham" as having promises that do not require Jesus Christ. All the promises of God require Jesus Christ. All of them.

2Co 1:20 For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory.

I include this thread in this area of the forum for that reason. This isn't just about end time events. This about the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Zec 14.....

In the Greek OT. Zechariah verse 1 is different than the Hebrew manuscripts used to produce the most Hebrew/English Bible. The Hebrew of the MT comes from various codices that vary themselves. They vary from the Dead Sea Scrolls and Jews that produced the LXX. Choices must be made and I can tell you that the choice is clear in the Greek OT. In fact, in the book of Revelation, you will find that John is assuredly referencing the Greek OT. We know because modern Hebrew grammar shows that John is referencing the same "mistakes" that are found grammatically in the Greek OT John is referencing. (Not that I believe it is actually grammatically wrong in Greek.)

In verse #1, you find the first correction that needs to be made to what most people read....

Zec 14:1 Behold, the days of the Lord come, and thy spoils shall be divided in thee.

Notice the word.... days. Not day. Days. So let us start there.......

Who accepts the word "days" instead of "day"?
 
Last edited:
This is not a prophecy of the gospel of Christ

this is a prophecy of end times events, God said these things will happen. and they will

Read my words carefully. I chose them carefully. All prophecy is to the glory of Jesus Christ. All of them have to do with promises that are Jesus Christ's alone.

To deny this is preach a false Gospel. You have no promises without Jesus. None.
 
Who accepts the word "days" instead of "day"?

Not really sure why it could matter.

I'm not dogmatic, but I would tend to go with the singular day here since contextually that holds up as the singular is constantly mentioned, stylistically the singular metaphor of "The Day of YHWH" is a metaphor for God's time of judgment (not necessarily a singular day), and the MT will generally be given first preference without a good reason otherwise.

It shall be one day Which is known to the LORD (Zech. 14:7 NKJ)

If the DSS had plural I would tip my hat but sadly that passage is not preserved for us.

 
Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
Rom 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
Rom 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
Rom 11:30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
Rom 11:31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
Rom 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

I believe there are many misunderstandings that come about in the preaching of the Gospel through a mischaracterization of the words you read above. Some of this comes from the baggage of what others taught us. I once believed that there would come a time where the "Father" would drag "Jews" to Jesus so they could be saved at the "end of times".... in the "day of the Lord".

When I used to ask the question "what about all those Jews that died without Jesus Christ before that day"...... I was basically told to ignore that. It doesn't matter. Just believe that the Father would "bring them all" to Jesus. Well, some of you already know this creates many problems in the continuity of Scriptures.

The verses above are usually ripped from their context when teaching such a doctrine. The person seeking to teach this will only begin with verse 25 when the context is basically the entire chapter (chapters are man made distinctions. Sometimes they work. Sometimes they don't.)....... you will see the truth of what Paul is saying.

First. Lets deal with the "remnant". Lets "back up" to find the context.....

Rom 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded

Notice how Paul appeals to how Jews are currently being saved and are referenced as the "remnant".

Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Notice the words "at this present time"....... Thusly, Jews from that present time are included not excluded from the context of this supoosed future event of Jesus Christ saving.....

Thusly, you have to believe that all Jews will be saved to make this false understanding true. Yet, we know that some have already been blinded and thusly damned.

Rom 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
Notice how through their fall (those blinded) salvation has come to Gentiles.

Rom 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

We also know that unbelief is what has damned Hebrews.

Rom 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
Rom 11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

The same unbelief that damns Gentiles. Is the same unbelief that damns Jews. (Joint heirs, Joint condemnation).

We also know that God will KEEP saving Jews.......Hebrew peoples are still being saved today. Paul isn't making an argument that a future event will cause all Jews to be saved. He is making the argument that all Jews and Gentiles are joint heirs and Jews still have hope from that moment forward in Jesus Christ. Out of Jews will come a remanent.

Rom 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

Rom 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

God hasn't cast away His people.

Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

So we see that there isn't any future promise for an event that will change all Jews in the near future.......

The "time of Gentiles" is no different than the "time of the Jews". Which is now. EVERYONE must be part of the same process because of Jesus Christ. The single vine. The single tree. That time is now. Now is the time. The "fulness of the Gentiles" is from the time Paul to the time of return of Christ. Jews are still being included.

I warn you Jews that are waiting for an overwhelming powerful event to "save you".... that you have no witness other than the sign given to the prophet Jonah....

Luk 11:29 And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.
Luk 11:30 For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.
Luk 11:31 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.
Luk 11:32 The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

That sign is clear in that God has chosen to make of twain one new man...... So making peace.

Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
Eph 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
Eph 2:17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

You "Jews" can't keep hating Gentiles. They repented. Ninevah. Repented. I don't know why you want to hate your brothers in Jesus Christ. We don't hate you. We love you. There is hope in Jesus Christ. You need Him. Please listen to the Gospel and get saved NOW.....

Notice also how Calvinists and the like have made themselves the remanent. You're not. I love the Scriptures.
 
Last edited:
Not really sure why it could matter.

I'm not dogmatic, but I would tend to go with the singular day here since contextually that holds up as the singular is constantly mentioned, stylistically the singular metaphor of "The Day of YHWH" is a metaphor for God's time of judgment (not necessarily a singular day), and the MT will generally be given first preference without a good reason otherwise.

It shall be one day Which is known to the LORD (Zech. 14:7 NKJ)

If the DSS had plural I would tip my hat but sadly that passage is not preserved for us.


Because the prophecies are fulfilled over multiple days/times. Not one singular time. Which is what was being said.

I don't believe nor understand exactly what you're saying above. You seem to be saying "day" is right and is actually "days" and it doesn't matter......

Days is right. The MT is wrong. It is wrong in many places. The Greek OT is better. You need to know this and Jews do too.
 
You seem to be saying "day" is right and is actually "days" and it doesn't matter......

Yeah. The "Day of the Lord" is a motif in the literature, not a singular day. The word "day" can mean just like "time of."

This is also why Young Earth Creationism is silly in their dogmatic wooden literalism, God bless their hearts.

The Greek OT is better. You need to know this and Jews do too.

It makes glaringly obvious mistakes in several places, where the translator either did not know the grammar or meaning of a word. It also contains a lot of paraphrase, replacing Hebraisms with a more Hellenistic phrase. We must not idolize it, even if it can contain the superior older reading in places or help us understand how a Hebrew word was defined at the time.
 
Yeah. The "Day of the Lord" is a motif in the literature, not a singular day. The word "day" can mean just like "time of."

This is also why Young Earth Creationism is silly in their dogmatic wooden literalism, God bless their hearts.



It makes glaringly obvious mistakes in several places, where the translator either did not know the grammar or meaning of a word. It also contains a lot of paraphrase, replacing Hebraisms with a more Hellenistic phrase. We must not idolize it, even if it can contain the superior older reading in places or help us understand how a Hebrew word was defined at the time.
I never said we should idolize the Greek OT. I hope I didn't give that impression. I said it was better.

The same is true of the MT. We shouldn't idolize it as well.
 
Yeah. The "Day of the Lord" is a motif in the literature, not a singular day. The word "day" can mean just like "time of."

This is also why Young Earth Creationism is silly in their dogmatic wooden literalism, God bless their hearts.



It makes glaringly obvious mistakes in several places, where the translator either did not know the grammar or meaning of a word. It also contains a lot of paraphrase, replacing Hebraisms with a more Hellenistic phrase. We must not idolize it, even if it can contain the superior older reading in places or help us understand how a Hebrew word was defined at the time.

I believe I said this before to you. There are about 5 to 10 verses that are superior in the MT. Jerome was right about one of them. There are literally hundreds of areas in the Greek OT that are superior. (just to give context. not idolizing anything. I know the living Word. Jesus Christ. I am prima scriptura but I start with sola scriptura. I try to make my case from the Scriptures and I'm usually successful.
 
I believe I said this before to you. There are about 5 to 10 verses that are superior in the MT. Jerome was right about one of them. There are literally hundreds of areas in the Greek OT that are superior. (just to give context. not idolizing anything. I know the living Word. Jesus Christ. I am prima scriptura but I start with sola scriptura. I try to make my case from the Scriptures and I'm usually successful.

I'm not sure I would agree with that ratio. The MT is pretty solid overall, even if not perfect.

We see it's accuracy in comparing Isaiah in the DSS one thousand years earlier—one thousand!—and there are very minor differences.
 
I'm not sure I would agree with that ratio. The MT is pretty solid overall, even if not perfect.

We see it's accuracy in comparing Isaiah in the DSS one thousand years earlier—one thousand!—and there are very minor differences.

I would challenge anyone to ignore Wesley Huff. He is wrong. Dead wrong. It is not true that the Great Isiah scroll matches the MT word for word. In fact an essential argument from apologetics is the facts of the virgin birth. Such is clear from the Greek OT of Isaiah. That man went on Joe Rogan and lied. Purposely lied. Joe asked about the great Isaiah scroll and Wesley Huff appealed not to the Great Isaiah in its entirety. He referenced other DSS fragments.
 
Last edited:
Not really sure why it could matter.

I'm not dogmatic, but I would tend to go with the singular day here since contextually that holds up as the singular is constantly mentioned, stylistically the singular metaphor of "The Day of YHWH" is a metaphor for God's time of judgment (not necessarily a singular day), and the MT will generally be given first preference without a good reason otherwise.

It shall be one day Which is known to the LORD (Zech. 14:7 NKJ)

If the DSS had plural I would tip my hat but sadly that passage is not preserved for us.

the question is. Did all that God said would happen happen?

If it did (like say Jesus was born of a virgin in Bethlehem. and when he comes the lame will walk. the blind will see etc etc. Or he comes 69 weeks after the command to restore jerusalem. Literal prophecy which came true to the T

Then we can say it is fulfilled.

if we do not. then we can KNOW it is yet future
 
I would challenge anyone to ignore Wesley Huff. He is wrong. Dead wrong. It is not true that the Great Isiah scroll matches the MT word for word.

Lol.

I have a little homework assignment for you.

Go back and see in my post where I mentioned "word for word."

Go back and see in my post where I mentioned "Wess Huff."


I was studying the Bible before Wes Huff was even born, as I'd guess, you probably were too.

In fact an essential argument from apologetics is the facts of the virgin birth. Such is clear from the Greek OT of Isaiah. That man went on Joe Rogan an lied. Purposely lied. Joe asked about the great Isaiah and Wesley Huff appealed not to the Great Isaiah in its entirety. He referenced other DSS fragments.

He just got excited and exaggerated. He has been corrected by many and expressed an apology as far as I know.

You got your panties in a bunch over this, friend.

I've compared quite a bit line by line—I'm not relying on apologetics quotes for my information here.

Go to Fred Miller's site and take a look for yourself.
 
the question is. Did all that God said would happen happen? If it did (like say Jesus was born of a virgin in Bethlehem. and when he comes the lame will walk. the blind will see etc etc. Or he comes 69 weeks after the command to restore jerusalem. Literal prophecy which came true to the T, Then we can say it is fulfilled. if we do not. then we can KNOW it is yet future

Uh, I wasn't really addressing this, but sure.

Many prophecies are dual and triple layered.

Jesus on the Cross was the "Day of YHWH" for us Christians in a sense.
 

I see that you laugh at lies. A little leaven does what? You can't have the truth with lies involved. I don't care how you approach it. You will face God with it. I will not.

I have a little homework assignment for you.

Go back and see in my post where I mentioned "word for word."

Go back and see in my post where I mentioned "Wess Huff."

You're a lot like Wesley Huff. I am exacting in what I say. I would have never told Joe Rogan what he told him.... You know why? I'm not a liar. You can be okay with lying if you want. That speaks to your character. Not mine.

You're exaggeration the connection to the MT. Which produces a lie of epic portions in knowing the Scriptures. You prefer it that way because you're lying to yourself. I don't lie to myself. I don't lie to others. I speak truth regardless if you want to hear it or not. The fact you're laughing about my commitment offends me greatly. You shouldn't be teaching anyone. You're not capable of it at all. You speak in half truths and nonsense.

I was studying the Bible before Wes Huff was even born, as I'd guess, you probably were too.

Oh... it is okay... Wes is young and it doesn't mean anything because he is young.... Can you hear what you write. He needs to be rebuked. Not coddled. You coddle him because he believes what you believe. What you believe is a lie. Holding back information by being "loose" with the facts creates lies.

What do you think Joe Rogan will do when he discovers what Wes Huff said was wrong? Will he mock God?

He just got excited and exaggerated. He has been corrected by many and expressed an apology as far as I know.

You got your panties in a bunch over this, friend.

I've compared quite a bit line by line—I'm not relying on apologetics quotes for my information here.

Go to Fred Miller's site and take a look for yourself.

Why call me friend. We are dramatically opposed in this. It is nothing more than a debate tactic. You don't really consider me a friend.

I don't care what Fred Miller said. He is wrong too. Both of you are wrong. I don't need either of you to explain away the ramifications of lying. I know them well. It is why I don't do it.

He did worse than this with what he claimed about the fragment of John he is trying to value..... I wonder who will buy it.....

Intents are unknown to the average person. You can see them clearly in how people are loose with the truth. I have no other agenda. I don't want peoples money. I covet no man's silver or gold. I don't want Joe to like me and invite me back to his program. I tell the truth regardless of what it means. If it will cause issues that should not happen, then I will keep my mouth shut instead of using "lies" in an attempt to "sell God".
 
Last edited:
Like what?

2 For I will gather all the nations to battle against Jerusalem; The city shall be taken, The houses rifled, And the women ravished. Half of the city shall go into captivity, But the remnant of the people shall not be cut off from the city. (Zech. 14:2 NKJ)

Like Jerusalem the literal physical city was literally taken, houses were literally rifled, women were literally raped, and they literally went into captivity.
 
Last edited:
the question is. Did all that God said would happen happen?

If it did (like say Jesus was born of a virgin in Bethlehem. and when he comes the lame will walk. the blind will see etc etc. Or he comes 69 weeks after the command to restore jerusalem. Literal prophecy which came true to the T

Then we can say it is fulfilled.

if we do not. then we can KNOW it is yet future

You're running away and deciding "were" the issue is yourself. Your problem is with what Zec 14 says. I'm going to prove it. You need to learn. Not teach. You have enough teachers already. Do you accept everything you hear from your preferred teachers. It sure does look like it.
 
Back
Top Bottom