20 major reasons to reject the Premillennial doctrine

[keras]

As per normal, you try to explain away the clarity of the NT with your misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the OT. This is horrible hermeneutics.

The NT is quite clear about Salvation and how we should live.
Revelation gives the correct sequence of the end times events.

But it is the Old Testament Prophets who vividly describe for us the Day of the Lord's fiery wrath and what happens after it.

What is 'horrible', is the way the Prophesies are dismissed or ignored by many Christians; to their shame.

 

[sovereigngrace]

The NT is quite clear about Salvation and how we should live.
Revelation gives the correct sequence of the end times events.

But it is the Old Testament Prophets who vividly describe for us the Day of the Lord's fiery wrath and what happens after it.

What is 'horrible', is the way the Prophesies are dismissed or ignored by many Christians; to their shame.

It was actually the opposite. It was Jesus and the NT writers who had a vivid sight of the day of the Lord and the fiery climactic wrath that occurs on it. The OT prophets had an obscured and impaired sight of the First and Second Advents. Their Revelation was veiled and indistinct. The prophets gave what they got. They were a conduit for the Spirit. But they did not necessarily grasp the enormity of the detail.

What you write highlights the massive difference between Amil and Premil hermeneutics. Amils understand the vagueness of the Old by the clarity and detail of the New. The NT puts meat on the bones of the OT. Premils explain away the clear and unambiguous NT concluding detail of the second coming by their mistaken fixation with Revelation 20 and their obsession with the vague detail of the shadow and the type.

This is exactly why you struggle so much in grasping the actual all-consummating detail regarding Christ's return. Your fight is with the inspired text not Amils.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Amills are much more prepared than Premills.
What we Amills preach is
1) "today" is the day of salvation .
2) Do not let him find you sleeping when he comes.
3) Repent or Perish

Premills preach the opposite of all those things.
1) Tomorrow you can get saved in the future millennium.
2) Doesnt matter if you are sleeping you will survive to believe another day.
3) Repent or maybe Perish.

Excellent points, Jeff. All of that is very true. Premil is the doctrine of false second chances.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Bible prophecy refers to a divinely established Utopia (Greek- good place) in which, God puts an end to this world of injustice and unrighteousness on earth and replaces it with a world of justice and righteousness on earth.

Except that scripture calls it the new earth and the "world of justice and righteousness" will last forever instead of just lasting for 1000 years and then becoming a world of injustice and unrighteousness for a "little season".

2 Peter 3:13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

The promise of Christ's second coming will result in the eternal new heaven and new earth, where only righteousness will dwell forever, not a temporary "world of justice and righteousness on earth". You are looking forward to the wrong thing, keras. You should be looking forward to what Peter said we are looking forward to, which is a new heaven and new earth.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Pre-mill does not teach this. No one "gets saved" in the Millennium. No one is lost in the Millennium.

You have a lot of unique views to yourself that most other Premills don't agree with, so you should not think that you can speak for all Premills.

Many Premills believe that people get saved during the Millennium. Including people who are unsaved at the time Christ returns. Amills believe that Christ will take vengeance on all unsaved people when He returns and none of them will survive to get a second chance at salvation.

Paul indicated in 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 that unbelievers will think they are spiritually at peace and safe from having to face any consequences for their rebellion, but then when Christ returns "sudden destruction" will come upon them from which "they shall not escape". The idea of unsaved people surviving His return is simply not taught anywhere in scripture.

 

[keras]

Paul indicated in 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 that unbelievers will think they are spiritually at peace and safe from having to face any consequences for their rebellion, but then when Christ returns "sudden destruction" will come upon them from which "they shall not escape". The idea of unsaved people surviving His return is simply not taught anywhere in scripture.

You have added to what Paul said.
He did not say that would happen when Jesus Returns.

But of course; that is what AMill believers must do all the time. Add to, make scripture not mean what it plainly says and pretend we are now living under the beneficial rule of Jesus.

This is exactly why you struggle so much in grasping the actual all-consummating detail regarding Christ's return.

Who's struggling? I simply read and believe what the 3 main prophesies tell us will happen when Jesus Returns.
ALL of His wrath will be over by then, Matthew 24:29, Revelation 15:1

You should be looking forward to what Peter said we are looking forward to, which is a new heaven and new earth.

Exactly what did 2 Peter 3:12 say we should look forward to?
The terrible Day of the Lord's fiery wrath....

Then; in 2 Peter 3:13 he says, at the end of all that God has planned, the NH, NE and Eternity will come to us.

Premil is the doctrine of false second chances.

AMill is the doctrine of the Biblically confused and those who deny the realities of our worldly situation.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You have added to what Paul said.
He did not say that would happen when Jesus Returns.

But of course; that is what AMill believers must do all the time. Add to, make scripture not mean what it plainly says and pretend we are now living under the beneficial rule of Jesus.

I did not add anything to what he said. I'm going by the context of what he said which you apparently ignore. When else will what Paul described in 1 Thess 5:2-3 happen except on the day Jesus returns?

Remember, the original Bible manuscripts were not written with chapter breaks. So, the context of what he was talking about in 1 Thess 5:2-3 is established back in 1 Thess 4. So, the following is all regarding things that will happen on the day Christ returns:

1 Thessalonians 4:14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words. 5:1 Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. 4 But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. 5 You are all children of the light and children of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness. 6 So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be awake and sober.

In 1 Thess 5:1 Paul said "about times and dates we do not need to write to you". Times and dates related to what? What he had just been talking to them about before that, of course. Which was the day Christ returns. The day He returns is the day that the dead in Christ will be resurrected and the day that we all will be caught up to meet the Lord "in the air".

Paul doesn't change the subject in 1 Thess 5:2 but continues to describe what will happen on the day Christ returns. He had already described what will happen to believers on that day, so in 1 Thess 5:2 he began describing what will happen to unbelievers on that day. They will think they are spiritually at peace and spiritually safe because of being in spiritual darkness. They have no thoughts of God being angry at them while wanting to punish them for their rebellion. So, that's why the day Christ returns to take vengeance on them (also described in 2 Thess 1:7-10) will come upon them suddenly and unexpectedly like a thief in the night.

Notice Paul tells his readers that they "are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief". We believers are expecting Christ's return, so when He does return it will not be totally unexpected like it will be for unbelievers. But before His wrath comes down on unbelievers, we are first caught up to meet Him in the air.

The "sudden destruction" that will come down at that point will be complete because Paul indicated that "they will not escape". This lines up with what Peter wrote in 2 Peter 3:10-13 where he indicated that the heavens and earth will be burned up on that same day of the Lord that Paul wrote about. Peter indicated that the entire earth will be burned up that day which lines up perfectly with Paul saying it will be "sudden destruction" from which people like the scoffers that Peter wrote about "will not escape".

What you miss is that the day of the Lord describes the actual day of Christ's return and what will happen on that day. Peter said that the fulfillment of the promise of Christ's second coming will result in the new heavens and new earth where righteousness dwells (2 Peter 3:13). That is what the day of the Lord, which is the day of Christ's return, will bring about.

Exactly what did 2 Peter 3:12 say we should look forward to?
The terrible Day of the Lord's fiery wrath....

Then; in 2 Peter 3:13 he says, at the end of all that God has planned, the NH, NE and Eternity will come to us.

We're looking forward to the day when Christ comes and His wrath comes down. But, what we should be looking forward to with excited anticipation is not His wrath that results in the destruction of the earth and all the wicked on the earth, but to righteousness being ushered in with the new heavens and new earth. What is noticeably missing there in 2 Peter 3 regarding what we should be looking forward to is anything about an earthly millennial kingdom.

AMill is the doctrine of the Biblically confused and those who deny the realities of our worldly situation.

At least you're not denying that Premil is the doctrine of false second chances.

 

[jeffweedaman]

The Millennium is a Holy Day. It is set aside to allow humanity to live as God intended before Adam disobeyed.

You are describing a pristine earth with no death in it not the millennium. No way will fallen humanity be allowed access to partake of the tree of life.
Only the sheep will inherit this.

 

[DavidPT]

The idea of unsaved people surviving His return is simply not taught anywhere in scripture.

Maybe Zechariah 14 is not Scripture then, because it clearly teaches that in that chapter, and that you indicated Scripture does not teach that. Of course though, you do think that Zechariah 14 is Scripture, yet your denial of what is clearly stated in that chapter makes one wonder how it is that you reason some of these things at times?

First there have to be all nations gathered against Jerusalem. Then the LORD then has to go forth and fight against those nations. Then there has to be the plague upon those that fought against Jerusalem. After all of those events, we are then told there are some remaining of the nations which fought against Jerusalem, except you apparently deny that fact though it is clearly stated in that chapter. Why do you deny something that is plainly stated? You don't think something ultra silly do you, that Zechariah 14:12 has already been fulfilled? You don't think, chronologically, that Zechariah 14:16-19 is meaning before Zechariah 14:12 is fulfilled first, do you?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Maybe Zechariah 14 is not Scripture then, because it clearly teaches that in that chapter, and that you indicated Scripture does not teach that. Of course though, you do think that Zechariah 14 is Scripture, yet your denial of what is clearly stated in that chapter makes one wonder how it is that you reason some of these things at times?

This was the most predictable response ever. You can't support your view with New Testament scripture at all, so you always resort to bringing up Zechariah 14. But, you are not the One to decide what is supposedly clearly stated in Scripture. I don't need to consult with you regarding how to interpret Zechariah 14 as if you are the Ultimate Authority on how that passage should be interpreted.

If your interpretation of Zechariah 14 was accurate, then why are you completely unable to support it with New Testament scripture? The New Testament reveals mysteries hidden in the Old Testament, not the other way around. Your failure to understand this concept is why you don't interpret Old Testament prophecies correctly. You try to interpret them in isolation without the aid of the New Testament, which is unwise.

I can't emphasize enough how important it is to interpret Old Testament prophecies by allowing the New Testament to shed light on them and help us understand them. Our interpretation of Old Testament prophecies should be based on the fuller picture of God's plans given in the New Testament.

Some things that are not made clear in the Old Testament are made clear and brought to light in the New Testament. One example of this is what things will be like when the new heavens and new earth are ushered in. We should use New Testament scripture to form the foundation of our understanding of the new heavens and new earth.

John is quite clear that "there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain" at that time. And Peter indicated that the new heavens and new earth would be a place where only righteousness would dwell (2 Peter 3:13). We should interpret a passage like Isaiah 65:17-25 according to John and Peter's descriptions of the new heavens and new earth instead of coming to ridiculous conclusions like thinking that Isaiah 65:17-25 is talking about something different than what Revelation 21:1-4 and 2 Peter 3:13 are talking about.

Another example of how the New Testament sheds light on things not made clear in the Old Testament is how Gentile believers will inherit the promises made to Abraham and his seed as well as Israelite believers. The Old Testament would seem to indicate that the promises were for Israel, but that is without the benefit of the New Testament shining light on the reality of who God's promises to Abraham were truly made to which were to Jesus and those who belong to Him (Galatians 3:16,29).

I bring this all up because I see Zechariah 14 similarly. Regardless of what it may appear to be saying on the surface if it is all interpreted literally, the reality can be much different than that. The possibility that at least some of it is figurative language has to be taken into account. If you compare Zechariah 14:8 to John 7:37-39 then you should be willing to at least acknowledge this possibility.

As long as you continue to disagree with me that the foundation of our doctrine should be established by clear New Testament scripture rather than purposely obscure Old Testament prophecies then we will continue to disagree on how to interpret passages like Zechariah 14.

First there have to be all nations gathered against Jerusalem. Then the LORD then has to go forth and fight against those nations. Then there has to be the plague upon those that fought against Jerusalem. After all of those events, we are then told there are some remaining of the nations which fought against Jerusalem, except you apparently deny that fact though it is clearly stated in that chapter. Why do you deny something that is plainly stated? You don't think something ultra silly do you, that Zechariah 14:12 has already been fulfilled? You don't think, chronologically, that Zechariah 14:16-19 is meaning before Zechariah 14:12 is fulfilled first, do you?

Don't waste time with trying to tell me what is supposedly plainly stated. I don't trust your discernment enough to ever believe you that something is supposedly plainly stated.

David, we've been over Zechariah 14 many times in the past. Do you really want to go over it yet again? I don't. I think we've gone over it enough already.

If you can clearly show how your interpretation of Zechariah 14 can be supported by New Testament scripture, then please do so. Up to this point in time, you have never done so. If you can do that then maybe we can talk about it from another angle that we haven't talked about this before.

If you can show how observing the feast of tabernacles would somehow not involve performing animal sacrifices and offerings, then please do so. Otherwise, whether you acknowledge it or not, by believing that Zechariah 14 will be fulfilled in the future after Christ returns means you have to believe that animal sacrifices will be reinstated in the future at that time and that will not happen.

 

[jeffweedaman]

If your interpretation of Zechariah 14 was accurate, then why are you completely unable to support it with New Testament scripture?

That would prove very difficult to do as NT Scripture consistently presents the opposite scenario of no survivors.
What is one to do then? We should let the NT take the guesswork out of interpreting the old independently .

 

[Spiritual Jew]

That would prove very difficult to do as NT Scripture consistently presents the opposite scenario of no survivors.

I agree. That is most clear in 2 Peter 3:3-13, but it is also taught in several other passages like Matthew 24:37-39, 1 Thess 4:14-5:6, 2 Thess 1:7-10 and Rev 19:11-21. Premil has to try to explain all these NT passages and more away in order to support their view.

What is one to do then? We should let the NT take the guesswork out of interpreting the old independently .

Exactly. But, this concept is completely lost on Premils. It's quite noticeable that they never try to use NT scripture to support their interpretation of Revelation 20. I don't blame them since there is no NT scripture that supports their interpretation of Revelation 20.

There's lots of NT scripture that teaches something very different than their interpretation of Revelation 20, though. Including other scripture in the book of Revelation itself.

If they would compare Revelation 20:6 to Revelation 1:5-6 they would see that John indicated that Jesus was reigning and His followers were already made priests in His kingdom before he wrote the book.

If they would compare Revelation 11:15-18 to Revelation 20:11-15 then they would see that the seventh trumpet signaling "the time of the dead, that they should be judged" is signaling that the time for what is described in Rev 20:11-15 will have arrived at that point and Rev 20:11-15 obviously occurs after the thousand years are over. Which means the seventh trumpet will sound after the thousand years are over. And we can see from passages like Matthew 25:31-46 that the judgment will indeed occur when Christ returns, so that means He will return after the thousand years are over.

Unlike Premil, we use NT scripture all the time to support our view of Revelation 20. Which has the fuller and clearer revelation of the truth, the NT or OT? The answer is obvious to us, but not to them.

 

[jeffweedaman]

I agree. That is most clear in 2 Peter 3:3-13, but it is also taught in several other passages like Matthew 24:37-39, 1 Thess 4:14-5:6, 2 Thess 1:7-10 and Rev 19:11-21. Premil has to try to explain all these NT passages and more away in order to support their view.

Exactly. But, this concept is completely lost on Premils. It's quite noticeable that they never try to use NT scripture to support their interpretation of Revelation 20. I don't blame them since there is no NT scripture that supports their interpretation of Revelation 20.

There's lots of NT scripture that teaches something very different than their interpretation of Revelation 20, though. Including other scripture in the book of Revelation itself.

If they would compare Revelation 20:6 to Revelation 1:5-6 they would see that John indicated that Jesus was reigning and His followers were already made priests in His kingdom before he wrote the book.

If they would compare Revelation 11:15-18 to Revelation 20:11-15 then they would see that the seventh trumpet signaling "the time of the dead, that they should be judged" is signaling that the time for what is described in Rev 20:11-15 will have arrived at that point and Rev 20:11-15 obviously occurs after the thousand years are over. Which means the seventh trumpet will sound after the thousand years are over. And we can see from passages like Matthew 25:31-46 that the judgment will indeed occur when Christ returns, so that means He will return after the thousand years are over.

Unlike Premil, we use NT scripture all the time to support our view of Revelation 20. Which has the fuller and clearer revelation of the truth, the NT or OT? The answer is obvious to us, but not to them.

Completely agree, Well said.

 

[DavidPT]

T

If your interpretation of Zechariah 14 was accurate, then why are you completely unable to support it with New Testament scripture? The New Testament reveals mysteries hidden in the Old Testament, not the other way around. Your failure to understand this concept is why you don't interpret Old Testament prophecies correctly. You try to interpret them in isolation without the aid of the New Testament, which is unwise.

Look at how you are arguing, though, one sided. You argue that if my interpretation of Zechariah 14 is correct, then why doesn't the NT support it? Why aren't you also asking, if your interpretation of the NT is correct, why isn't Zechariah 14 supporting it? Isn't the idea to not pit the OT against the NT, but instead, have these two testaments squaring? You don't seem to want to try and do that in this case. No matter how you choose to interpret the NT, none of that is making any of Zechariah 14 go away. None of that is solving anything recorded in Zechariah 14. None of that is squaring both testaments. You apparently think the NT trumps the OT, and that all that matters, all that counts, is what the NT says,and not what the OT says as well. When I think what matters is, what do both testaments combined say.


How can prophecies, regardless what sense they might be meaning, not involve chronology? How can Zechariah 14 be void of chronology? For example. How can verses 16-19 be meaning before verse 2 is fulfilled first? How can verse 12 be meaning before verse 2 is fulfilled first? So on and so on. This alone already undeniably proves that chronology is relevant in Zechariah 14, or at least it undeniably proves it to someone trying to agree with the text rather than trying to fight with it instead.

 

[Timtofly]

You have a lot of unique views to yourself that most other Premills don't agree with, so you should not think that you can speak for all Premills.

Many Premills believe that people get saved during the Millennium. Including people who are unsaved at the time Christ returns. Amills believe that Christ will take vengeance on all unsaved people when He returns and none of them will survive to get a second chance at salvation.

Paul indicated in 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 that unbelievers will think they are spiritually at peace and safe from having to face any consequences for their rebellion, but then when Christ returns "sudden destruction" will come upon them from which "they shall not escape". The idea of unsaved people surviving His return is simply not taught anywhere in scripture.

You reject the truth about the Millennium just as most pre-mill do then. Neither acknowledge the resurrection to an incorruptible permanent physical body.

 

[Timtofly]

Remember, the original Bible manuscripts were not written with chapter breaks. So, the context of what he was talking about in 1 Thess 5:2-3 is established back in 1 Thess 4. So, the following is all regarding things that will happen on the day Christ returns:

1 Thessalonians 4:14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words. 5:1 Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. 4 But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. 5 You are all children of the light and children of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness. 6 So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be awake and sober.

In 1 Thess 5:1 Paul said "about times and dates we do not need to write to you". Times and dates related to what? What he had just been talking to them about before that, of course. Which was the day Christ returns. The day He returns is the day that the dead in Christ will be resurrected and the day that we all will be caught up to meet the Lord "in the air".

Paul doesn't change the subject in 1 Thess 5:2 but continues to describe what will happen on the day Christ returns. He had already described what will happen to believers on that day, so in 1 Thess 5:2 he began describing what will happen to unbelievers on that day. They will think they are spiritually at peace and spiritually safe because of being in spiritual darkness. They have no thoughts of God being angry at them while wanting to punish them for their rebellion. So, that's why the day Christ returns to take vengeance on them (also described in 2 Thess 1:7-10) will come upon them suddenly and unexpectedly like a thief in the night.

Notice Paul tells his readers that they "are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief". We believers are expecting Christ's return, so when He does return it will not be totally unexpected like it will be for unbelievers. But before His wrath comes down on unbelievers, we are first caught up to meet Him in the air.

The "sudden destruction" that will come down at that point will be complete because Paul indicated that "they will not escape". This lines up with what Peter wrote in 2 Peter 3:10-13 where he indicated that the heavens and earth will be burned up on that same day of the Lord that Paul wrote about. Peter indicated that the entire earth will be burned up that day which lines up perfectly with Paul saying it will be "sudden destruction" from which people like the scoffers that Peter wrote about "will not escape".

What you miss is that the day of the Lord describes the actual day of Christ's return and what will happen on that day. Peter said that the fulfillment of the promise of Christ's second coming will result in the new heavens and new earth where righteousness dwells (2 Peter 3:13). That is what the day of the Lord, which is the day of Christ's return, will bring about.

So chapter breaks only work when you want them to? Revelation 19 and 20?

 

[keras]

I did not add anything to what he said. I'm going by the context of what he said which you apparently ignore. When else will what Paul described in 1 Thess 5:2-3 happen except on the day Jesus returns?

Paul did not say 1 Thess 5:2-3 would happen when Jesus Returns.
You DID add the Return to Pauls Words. Bad you!
Jesus does not Return like a thief, the sudden destruction refers to the Sixth Seal worldwide disaster. Isaiah 29:5-6

You apparently think the NT trumps the OT, and that all that matters, all that counts, is what the NT says,and not what the OT says as well. When I think what matters is, what do both testaments combined say.

Quite correct and we must believe in all of the Bible.
But AMill believers must play fast and loose with scripture to make their theory work.
Which is a theory that denies Jesus His reward and we humans the experience of living under a truly beneficent King.

 

[Timtofly]

You are describing a pristine earth with no death in it not the millennium. No way will fallen humanity be allowed access to partake of the tree of life.
Only the sheep will inherit this.

The tree of life is not on earth. It is in Paradise. The tree of life is not a magical mythological phenomenon. Wrong forum if you think the tree of life gives everlasting life to fallen humans.

 

[Timtofly]

This was the most predictable response ever. You can't support your view with New Testament scripture at all, so you always resort to bringing up Zechariah 14. But, you are not the One to decide what is supposedly clearly stated in Scripture. I don't need to consult with you regarding how to interpret Zechariah 14 as if you are the Ultimate Authority on how that passage should be interpreted.

If your interpretation of Zechariah 14 was accurate, then why are you completely unable to support it with New Testament scripture? The New Testament reveals mysteries hidden in the Old Testament, not the other way around. Your failure to understand this concept is why you don't interpret Old Testament prophecies correctly. You try to interpret them in isolation without the aid of the New Testament, which is unwise.

I can't emphasize enough how important it is to interpret Old Testament prophecies by allowing the New Testament to shed light on them and help us understand them. Our interpretation of Old Testament prophecies should be based on the fuller picture of God's plans given in the New Testament.

Some things that are not made clear in the Old Testament are made clear and brought to light in the New Testament. One example of this is what things will be like when the new heavens and new earth are ushered in. We should use New Testament scripture to form the foundation of our understanding of the new heavens and new earth.

John is quite clear that "there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain" at that time. And Peter indicated that the new heavens and new earth would be a place where only righteousness would dwell (2 Peter 3:13). We should interpret a passage like Isaiah 65:17-25 according to John and Peter's descriptions of the new heavens and new earth instead of coming to ridiculous conclusions like thinking that Isaiah 65:17-25 is talking about something different than what Revelation 21:1-4 and 2 Peter 3:13 are talking about.

Another example of how the New Testament sheds light on things not made clear in the Old Testament is how Gentile believers will inherit the promises made to Abraham and his seed as well as Israelite believers. The Old Testament would seem to indicate that the promises were for Israel, but that is without the benefit of the New Testament shining light on the reality of who God's promises to Abraham were truly made to which were to Jesus and those who belong to Him (Galatians 3:16,29).

I bring this all up because I see Zechariah 14 similarly. Regardless of what it may appear to be saying on the surface if it is all interpreted literally, the reality can be much different than that. The possibility that at least some of it is figurative language has to be taken into account. If you compare Zechariah 14:8 to John 7:37-39 then you should be willing to at least acknowledge this possibility.

As long as you continue to disagree with me that the foundation of our doctrine should be established by clear New Testament scripture rather than purposely obscure Old Testament prophecies then we will continue to disagree on how to interpret passages like Zechariah 14.

Don't waste time with trying to tell me what is supposedly plainly stated. I don't trust your discernment enough to ever believe you that something is supposedly plainly stated.

David, we've been over Zechariah 14 many times in the past. Do you really want to go over it yet again? I don't. I think we've gone over it enough already.

If you can clearly show how your interpretation of Zechariah 14 can be supported by New Testament scripture, then please do so. Up to this point in time, you have never done so. If you can do that then maybe we can talk about it from another angle that we haven't talked about this before.

If you can show how observing the feast of tabernacles would somehow not involve performing animal sacrifices and offerings, then please do so. Otherwise, whether you acknowledge it or not, by believing that Zechariah 14 will be fulfilled in the future after Christ returns means you have to believe that animal sacrifices will be reinstated in the future at that time and that will not happen.

Zechariah 14 has been fulfilled?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Look at how you are arguing, though, one sided. You argue that if my interpretation of Zechariah 14 is correct, then why doesn't the NT support it? Why aren't you also asking, if your interpretation of the NT is correct, why isn't Zechariah 14 supporting it? Isn't the idea to not pit the OT against the NT, but instead, have these two testaments squaring? You don't seem to want to try and do that in this case. No matter how you choose to interpret the NT, none of that is making any of Zechariah 14 go away. None of that is solving anything recorded in Zechariah 14. None of that is squaring both testaments. You apparently think the NT trumps the OT, and that all that matters, all that counts, is what the NT says,and not what the OT says as well. When I think what matters is, what do both testaments combined say.


How can prophecies, regardless what sense they might be meaning, not involve chronology? How can Zechariah 14 be void of chronology? For example. How can verses 16-19 be meaning before verse 2 is fulfilled first? How can verse 12 be meaning before verse 2 is fulfilled first? So on and so on. This alone already undeniably proves that chronology is relevant in Zechariah 14, or at least it undeniably proves it to someone trying to agree with the text rather than trying to fight with it instead.

Really? The fact is, there is no actual chronology in your understanding of Zechariah 14. It supposedly starts off with the coming of the Lord and then (according to you) is a record of Armageddon. This is not chronological unless you are Pretrib.

1¶Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.