In apocalyptic style, Zechariah declared that God's feet will stand upon the mount of Olives, split it in half, fight against all Israel's enemies, then the survivors of all the nations will be required to go up to Jerusalem yearly to keep the Feast of Tabernacles, or be cursed.
This can't refer to a still-future event, because we're in a New Covenant now - keeping the Feast of Tabernacles is not a requirement.
It can't refer to the second coming of Christ, because Christ isn't coming to a single geographical location, such as Jerusalem, where people can say, Lo here, or lo there. He will be seen by all.
The second coming is the end of the world. But Zechariah's prophecy describes life going on after the event - and an Old Covenant lifestyle at that.
Physical Jerusalem wasn't the ultimate object of the patriarchal Promises. What the Promise foresaw was the heavenly city which hath foundations whose builder and maker is God. The blessing described saw beyond physical blessings to spiritual and eternal. The Promise looked beyond the Law; it saw wider than the physical nation of Israel which was later constituted by that Law, to all nations. The Law was only an interim thing, and only for the Jews while they waited for the Promise, the promise which their nation was gifted and called to be the custodians of.
So, the return of Christ doesn't need to be to physical Jerusalem specifically: it will be for all the world to see. Every eye seeing Him won't be possible unless there is a suspension - or end - of the current physical order of things. There isn't anything remaining which must happen in Israel in order to fulfil prophecy. Therefore the return of Christ doesn't need to literally be to the mount of Olives.
But there was a time when Jerusalem was the focal point of God's concerns, and that was when Israel was still under the Old Covenant. There was a time when the Feast of Tabernacles was a requirement, and that was under the Old Covenant.
Zechariah was prophesying to a nation in captivity, whose imminent concern was getting back to their land. In light of that, and all of the above, and in consideration of the Apocalyptic-genre of Zechariah's writings, the most likely scenario is that Zechariah was prophesying about the return from Babylonian captivity.
It's dramatic language, certainly - but the return from captivity was an event in Israel's history second in magnitude only to the exodus from Egypt. It was powerful!
In the context of those prophecies are Messianic prophecies such as: They shall look upon Him whom they have pierced; and, Smite the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered - which the Gospels assert were fulfilled by Christ's first coming, they don't await future fulfilment at His second coming.
Where does this leave us? and Israel. It leaves us fair and square in the Gospel. In the New Covenant. The message for today is the message of the cross.
This can't refer to a still-future event, because we're in a New Covenant now - keeping the Feast of Tabernacles is not a requirement.
It can't refer to the second coming of Christ, because Christ isn't coming to a single geographical location, such as Jerusalem, where people can say, Lo here, or lo there. He will be seen by all.
The second coming is the end of the world. But Zechariah's prophecy describes life going on after the event - and an Old Covenant lifestyle at that.
Physical Jerusalem wasn't the ultimate object of the patriarchal Promises. What the Promise foresaw was the heavenly city which hath foundations whose builder and maker is God. The blessing described saw beyond physical blessings to spiritual and eternal. The Promise looked beyond the Law; it saw wider than the physical nation of Israel which was later constituted by that Law, to all nations. The Law was only an interim thing, and only for the Jews while they waited for the Promise, the promise which their nation was gifted and called to be the custodians of.
So, the return of Christ doesn't need to be to physical Jerusalem specifically: it will be for all the world to see. Every eye seeing Him won't be possible unless there is a suspension - or end - of the current physical order of things. There isn't anything remaining which must happen in Israel in order to fulfil prophecy. Therefore the return of Christ doesn't need to literally be to the mount of Olives.
But there was a time when Jerusalem was the focal point of God's concerns, and that was when Israel was still under the Old Covenant. There was a time when the Feast of Tabernacles was a requirement, and that was under the Old Covenant.
Zechariah was prophesying to a nation in captivity, whose imminent concern was getting back to their land. In light of that, and all of the above, and in consideration of the Apocalyptic-genre of Zechariah's writings, the most likely scenario is that Zechariah was prophesying about the return from Babylonian captivity.
It's dramatic language, certainly - but the return from captivity was an event in Israel's history second in magnitude only to the exodus from Egypt. It was powerful!
In the context of those prophecies are Messianic prophecies such as: They shall look upon Him whom they have pierced; and, Smite the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered - which the Gospels assert were fulfilled by Christ's first coming, they don't await future fulfilment at His second coming.
Where does this leave us? and Israel. It leaves us fair and square in the Gospel. In the New Covenant. The message for today is the message of the cross.
No comments:
Post a Comment