Zechariah's valley of the mountains

[Doug]

While reading the thread, "The Revealing of Jesus Christ," which ended in December 2008, I noticed that some posters were preterists, some were dispensationalists. Zechariah's prophecy of the valley of the mountains suggests how a reconciliation can occur, between Christians who support those opposing interpretations of prophecy.

Zechariah 14:1-3
Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
For 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.
Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

I suggest that in Zechariah's prophecy, "Jerusalem" represents the church, as in Hebrews 12:22-23, the church is called the "heavenly Jerusalem," and "mount Sion." Jesus said Jerusalem is the "city of the great king," in Matthew 5:35, and the "city built on a hill," that is trampled by the Gentiles, Luke 21:24. The saints, citizens of the holy city, are scattered, and are "captives" in thousands of deominations and sects, located in all parts of the earth. The "women ravished" in Zech. 14:2 refers to the spiritual seduction of the saints, such as Paul refers to in 2 Cor. 11:3, where Paul says, "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."

This is the general condition of the church, according to Zechariah, when Christ goes forth to "fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle." Daniel's prophecy refers to the power of the saints being "scattered," in Daniel 12:7.

In the "day of battle," the Israelites fought the Canaanites for possession of the land promised to Abraham, but the church's warfare is spiritual. The warfare is against "spiritual wickedness" that has affected the church. Paul said:

Ephesians 6:12-17
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

The Mount of Olives, Zechariah said, would be cleaved in the midst, and half of it would be removed towards the north, and half of it towards the south, forming a great valley between. And through this valley, Zechariah says to flee. Now, this cannot be a description of a literal earthquake, as it would be rather pointless to flee after the event occurred! And fleeing towards the zone of destructive earth movements immediately after the event would be very foolish.

Anyone familiar with the geography of Jerusalem knows the Mount of Olives is a low ridge, which does not present a serious obstacle or barrier, for anyone wishing to go across it. Its height is minimal; it rises only 100 m. or so above the Kidron Valley. There would be no need for spectacular earth movements to allow people to get across the Mount of Olives. That is, if Zechariah's prophecy was about a literal earth movement. But, suppose Zechariah was describing something spiritual, rather than literal tectonic events. What could it be?

"And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives." Jesus stood on the mount of Olives when he gave the Olivet discourse to his disciples, the famous prophecy of Matthew 24 and 25. Zechariah's prophecy, in my view, refers to the Olivet discourse of Jesus. It is represented by the mount of Olives. This is similar to Paul's use of Mount Sinai as a symbol for the Mosaic legislation in Galatians 4:25.

The two interpretations of the Olivet discourse prevalent today are preterism, and dispensationalism. Preterism is represented by the half of the mount of Olives that is removed to the north, and dispensationalism is the half that is removed to the south. These interpretations displace the prophecy from its true application. The wide valley between them, where Zechariah said to flee, represents the proper interpretation, where both parties can agree! The Olivet discourse applies not to Jews of the first century AD, or to Jews in a future seven year tribulation, but to the church today!

Doug

[chuckt]

very very interesting..may i borrow this?

love
chuckt

[Doug]

very very interesting..may i borrow this?

Yes, of course.

Doug

[chuckt]

very very interesting..may i borrow this?

Yes, of course.

Doug

thanks im running it by some preterist, some call them ""hyper"' i will let you know thier comments.


peace
chuckt

[Doug]

Preterist Gary DeMar discussed the prophecy of Zechariah 14 in his book "Last Days Madness," beginning on p. 437. Portions of the book can be viewed at:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=Tii3ulwqzW0C

DeMar tries to apply Zechariah's prophecy to events of the first century AD. He quotes Zech. 14:2, and says: "All this happened when the Roman armies, made up of soldiers from the nations it conquered, went to war against Jerusalem."

DeMar interpreted the splitting of the Mount of Olives as the removal of the barrier separating Jew and Gentile, as Paul described in Eph. 2:14. This seems a highly speculative, and fanciful interpretation, as it suggests Zechariah's prophecy was to be fulfilled by a figure-an analogy! DeMar cites Matthew Henry's Commentary, which proposed a similar interpretation for the first few verses of Zechariah 14.

Matthew Henry's Commentary:
http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/mhc-com/view.cgi?book=zec&chapter=014

Quoting Matthew Henry's Commentary on Zechariah 14:

[3.] "... a broad way of communication opened between Jerusalem and the Gentile world, by which the Gentiles shall have free admission into the gospel-Jerusalem, and the word of the Lord, that goes forth  from Jerusalem, shall have a free course into the Gentile world."

Objection: Zechariah's valley of the mountains is entirely in Israel. Thus it can not refer to a means of "communication" opening to the Gentiles. Besides, the previous verses say Gentiles had taken Jerusalem captive and divided its spoils between themselves (vs. 2), so why would there be any need for such a valley?

Quoting Matthew Henry's Commentary:

[4.] "Those of the Jews that believe shall come in, and join themselves to the Gentiles, and incorporate with them in the gospel-church: You shall flee to the valley of the mountains, that valley that is opened between the divided halves of the mount of Olives; they shall hasten into the church with the Gentiles, as formerly the Gentiles with them, ch. 8:23. The valley of the mountains is the gospel-church, to which there were added of the Jews daily such as should be saved, who fled to that valley as to their refuge. This valley of the  mountains is said to reach unto Azal, or to the separate place, that is, to all those whom God has set apart for himself."

The interpretation is forced upon Zechariah's prophecy, like a pair of pants several sizes too small!

[5.] "They shall flee to the valley of the mountains, to the gospel-church, under dreadful apprehensions of their danger from the curse of the law."

Zechariah says "flee" to the valley of the mountains, because his prophecy identifies the flawed interpretations of preterism and dispensationalism as being among the enemies Christ fights against! Those opposing Christ may be smitten by an awful plague, described in Zech. 14:12-15. It affects horses, camels, asses, and mules, symbolic of those who lack understanding. (Psa. 32:9) Perhaps the plague is a description of their spiritual condition. 

Furthermore, Zechariah says these enemies will fight one another.

Zechariah 14:13
And it shall come to pass in that day, that a great tumult from the LORD shall be among them; and they shall lay hold every one on the hand of his neighbour, and his hand shall rise up against the hand of his neighbour.

Preterists and dispensationalists are notorious for their acrimonious disputes with each other. For example, see:

http://antipreterist.wordpress.com/2008/11/01/zechariah-14-preteristic-or-pre-millennial/

Doug

[Redlettervoice]

II Kings 23

Mt. of Corruption..........is referred to as Mt. of Olives in the
                                   center column reference.

In the day His feet stand on Mt. of Olives???

[chuckt]

author=Redlettervoice link=topic=6401.msg68342#msg68342 date=1247629369]


II Kings 23

Mt. of Corruption..........is referred to as Mt. of Olives in the
                                   center column reference.

In the day His feet stand on Mt. of Olives???

is it past or present? or did he stand and he WILL stand??

chuckt

[Doug]

is it past or present? or  did he stand and he WILL stand??

The Mount of Olives is mentioned many times in the New Testament, in Matthew 21:1, 24:3, 26:30; Mark 11:1, 13:3, 14:26; Luke 19:29, 37, 21:37, 22:39; John 8:1. Every one of these references refers to Jesus being there.

Ernest L. Martin showed that the crucifixion of Jesus occurred upon the Mount of Olives. See for example:
http://www.askelm.com/golgotha/gol000.htm
http://www.askelm.com/golgotha/gol001.htm
http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d920401.htm

Martin cited Hebrews 13:11-13, where the phrases "outside the camp" and "suffered without the gate" are used in reference to the place where Jesus was crucified.

Mark says when Jesus died, the veil of the temple was rent, which was observed by a centurion standing by, which could only be possible if the location of the crucifixion was east of the temple, high on the Mount of Olives.

Mark 15:37-39
And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.
And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.
And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.

Jesus was taken up to heaven from the Mount of Olives. This is indicated in Acts 1:12.

The lack of any reference to Zechariah's prophecy about the Mount of Olives in the Olivet discourse must have seemed anomalous to the disciples, unless they realized that the prophecy that Jesus gave there fulfilled part of Zechariah's prophecy in some way.

Doug

[Redlettervoice]

author=Redlettervoice link=topic=6401.msg68342#msg68342 date=1247629369]


II Kings 23

Mt. of Corruption..........is referred to as Mt. of Olives in the
                                   center column reference.

In the day His feet stand on Mt. of Olives???

is it past or present? or did he stand and he WILL stand??

chuckt

Hey Chuck! 

I wonder what the Mt. of Corruption is...........is it the carnal mind?

 

[Redlettervoice]

is it past or present? or  did he stand and he WILL stand??

The Mount of Olives is mentioned many times in the New Testament, in Matthew 21:1, 24:3, 26:30; Mark 11:1, 13:3, 14:26; Luke 19:29, 37, 21:37, 22:39; John 8:1. Every one of these references refers to Jesus being there.

Ernest L. Martin showed that the crucifixion of Jesus occurred upon the Mount of Olives. See for example:
http://www.askelm.com/golgotha/gol000.htm
http://www.askelm.com/golgotha/gol001.htm
http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d920401.htm

Martin cited Hebrews 13:11-13, where the phrases "outside the camp" and "suffered without the gate" are used in reference to the place where Jesus was crucified.

Mark says when Jesus died, the veil of the temple was rent, which was observed by a centurion standing by, which could only be possible if the location of the crucifixion was east of the temple, high on the Mount of Olives.

Mark 15:37-39
And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.
And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.
And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.

Jesus was taken up to heaven from the Mount of Olives. This is indicated in Acts 1:12.

Doug

Hi Doug!  Good to see ya.  I don't always see all the post
here.  Far from it.  Just can't get everywhere. ha

Two questions for ya:  One...........what "is" the veil?

I know it was a "curtain" but what does that "curtain" represent?



and Two: I'll ask you this cause I been looking at this, what "is" the
CAMP but a coming together of "bodies" that burn?  The "bodies"
of those "beasts" burn.  But.......it would sound like the "redemption
of the bodies" would occur OUTSIDE the Camp.  It of course, was
the place where our Saviour was "crucified."  I just been looking at
the safety there seems to be "in going outside the camp?"

Answer if God gives you anything. 

[chuckt]

Hey Chuck!  

I wonder what the Mt. of Corruption is...........is it the carnal mind?

brings to mind ""high places""'

yes i  beleive  mt. of corruption can be and is carnal mind being emnity with God.

God bless
chuckt

[Doug]

Two questions for ya:  One...........what "is" the veil?

I know it was a "curtain" but what does that "curtain" represent?

In Hebrews, the veil is said to represent Christ's flesh.

Hebrews 10:18-20
Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

The veil was made of wool, and Jesus is the "lamb of God." It was rent from top to bottom when Jesus died.

Through the veil the priests went to approach God in the temple. And it is through Christ's blood shed for us, we can come to God.

Hebrews 10:21-22
And having an high priest over the house of God;
Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

and Two: I'll ask you this cause I been looking at this, what "is" the
CAMP but a coming together of "bodies" that burn?  The "bodies"
of those "beasts" burn.  But.......it would sound like the "redemption
of the bodies" would occur OUTSIDE the Camp.  It of course, was
the place where our Saviour was "crucified."  I just been looking at
the safety there seems to be "in going outside the camp?"

I think the "camp" refers to the camp of the Israelites in the wilderness after they came out of Egypt. It is symbolic of the church, or the saints, for example in Revelation 20:9 the Gentile hordes of Gog and Magog, deceived by Satan, "compass the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city."

Doug

[Redlettervoice]

In Hebrews, the veil is said to represent Christ's flesh.

Hebrews 10:18-20
Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

The veil was made of wool, and Jesus is the "lamb of God." It was rent from top to bottom when Jesus died.

Through the veil the priests went to approach God in the temple. And it is through Christ's blood shed for us, we can come to God.

Hebrews 10:21-22
And having an high priest over the house of God;
Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

"in going outside the camp?"

I think the "camp" refers to the camp of the Israelites in the wilderness after they came out of Egypt. It is symbolic of the church, or the saints, for example in Revelation 20:9 the Gentile hordes of Gog and Magog, deceived by Satan, "compass the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city."

Doug

Since it says from top to bottom, and since there was "two"
veils, according to Hebrews 9, then are the two veils entrances into
the "first" sanctuary, and the SECOND, the "tabernacle" which the
LORD pitched and NOT man? Do you think?

Second Question: "bodies washed with pure water" .......bodies?
....and I pray God you be presented "whole" BODY, soul and spirit.

What ya know on the body being washed? in pure water? in the river?
the "water" that comes from above?

Do you think it happens before one can "present his body"
......

Faithful is He that has called you, and "He" will do it!

[Doug]

Since it says from top to bottom, and since there was "two"
veils, according to Hebrews 9, then are the two veils entrances into
the "first" sanctuary, and the SECOND, the "tabernacle" which the
LORD pitched and NOT man? Do you think?

I would have to do some research to properly answer this. If you want to look into it, there is a great deal of information about the typology of the tabernacle in Book 3 of Fairbairn's Typology of Scripture, available at:
http://vinyl2.sentex.ca/%7Etcc/OP/TOS.html

Other works of his are at:
http://vinyl2.sentex.ca/~tcc/OP/Fairbairn.html

Here is something he said about the reason for the two compartments.

By a richly embroidered curtain or veil, suspended from top to bottom, the innermost portion, consisting of ten cubits square, was cut off from the outer; and was designated "the Most Holy Place," while the other was simply called "the Sanctuary," or the Holy Place. Why should such a division have been formed--a division into two and only two apartments? A reason very naturally suggests itself for this in the general character and design of the erection. It was the Lord's dwelling- place; not as in a state of isolation, however, but as the symbol of his presence among his people, and the medium of intercourse between them and him; at once, therefore, God's and the people's dwelling--the tent of meeting. But however near God may come to his creatures, and however close the fellowship to which he admits them, there must still be something to mark his incomparable greatness and glory. Even in the sanctuary above, where all is stainless purity, the ministering spirits are represented as veiling their faces with their wings before the manifested glory of Godhead; and how much more should sinful men on earth be alive to his awful majesty, and feel unworthy to stand amid the splendours of his throne? If, therefore, he should so far condescend as to pitch among them a tent for his dwelling, we might certainly have expected that it would consist of two apartments ---one which he would reserve for his own peculiar residence, and another to which they should have free access, who, as his familiars, were to be permitted to dwell with him in his house. For in this way alone could the two grand ideas of the glorious majesty of God, which raises him infinitely above his people, and yet of his covenant-nearness to them, be reconciled and imaged together.

The following is a comment by Fairbairn about the cherubim featured on the ark and pictured on the curtains in the sanctuary.

At the two ends of this mercy-seat, and rising, as it were, out of it--a part of the same piece, and constantly adhering to it--there were two cherubim, made of beaten gold, with outstretched wings over-arching the mercy-seat, and looking inwards towards each other, and towards the mercy-seat, with an appearance of holy wonder and veneration. The symbolical import of these ideal figures has already been fully investigated, and nothing more is necessary here than a brief indication of their design as connected with the mercy-seat. Placed as they were with their outstretched wings rising aloft and overshadowing the mercy-seat, they gave to this the appearance of a glorious seat or throne, suited for the occupation or residence of God in the symbolic cloud as the King of Israel. That forms of created beings were made to surround this throne of Deity, and impart to it an appearance of becoming grandeur and majesty, this was simply an outward embodiment of the fact, that God ever makes himself known as the God of the living, of whom, not only have countless myriads been formed by his hand, but attendant hosts also continually minister around him and celebrate his glory. And that the particular forms here used were compound figures, representations of ideal beings, and beings whose component parts consisted of the highest kinds of life on earth in its different spheres--man first and chiefly, and with him the ox, the lion, and the eagle--this again, denoted that the forms and manifestations of creature-life, among whom and for whom God there revealed himself, were not of heaven, but of earth--chiefly indeed, and pre-eminently man, who when the work of redemption is complete, and he is fitted to dwell in the most excellent glory of the divine presence, shall be invested with the glories of what is still to him but an ideal perfection, and be made possessor of a yet higher nature, and stand in yet nearer fellowship with God, than he did in the paradise that was lost. But these new hopes of fallen humanity all centre in the work of reconciliation and love, shadowed forth upon the mercy-seat; thither, therefore, must the faces of these ideal heirs of salvation ever look, and with outstretched wing hang around the glorious scene, as in wondering expectation of the things now proceeding in connection with it, and hereafter to be revealed. So that God sitting between the cherubim, is God revealing himself as on a throne of grace, in mingled majesty and love, for the recovery of his fallen family on earth, and their final elevation to the highest region of life, and blessedness, and glory.--This explanation applies substantially to the curtains, which formed the whole interior of the tabernacle, and which were throughout inwrought with figures of cherubim. Not the throne merely, but the entire dwelling of God, was in the midst of these representatives (as we conceive them to have chiefly been) of redeemed and glorified humanity.

What ya know on the body being washed? in pure water? in the river?
the "water" that comes from above?

Paul spoke of "the washing of water by the word."

Ephesians 5:25-27
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Water can be symbolic of the Spirit, too.

John 7:37-39
In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

This relates to Zechariah's prophecy in chapter 14, because "living water" is mentioned there, flowing from Jerusalem. The living water represents the knowledge of God flowing from the church to the world.

Zechariah 14:8
And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.

Doug

[Redlettervoice]

.


Thanks Doug......... :ty:

[Doug]

William Leroy Pettingill (1866 - 1950), a dispensationalist, and one of the editors of the Schofield Bible, was a pastor for twenty-five years in Wilmington, Delaware, and co-founder with C.I. Schofield of a Bible college in Philadelphia. Former Dispensationalist Carl E. Olson wrote of him:

William M. Pettingill, dean of the Philadelphia School of the Bible and an editor of the Schofield Reference Bible, claimed, "The Sermon on the Mount, then, is not the way of salvation for the sinner. Neither is it the rule of life for the Christian...He [Christ] has not neglected to give his church ample directions for her guidance, but these directions are not to be found in the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon on the Mount is pure law". This was a radical break from 1900 years of Christian teaching, which had always placed great emphasis on the centrality and primacy of the Gospels and the importance of the Beatitudes, considered normative for growth in the Christian faith. But for dispensationalists the writings of Paul became central for the "Church age," while the Gospels were relegated to a peripheral position. In this regard Schofield's teachings strongly resembled those of Marcion, the third-century heretic who made an absolute break between the Old and New Testaments and who placed Paul's writings at the hearth of Christian doctrine.

[Will Catholics be "left Behind"? By Carl E. Olson, p. 175-6]

Arno C. Gaebelein, another editor of the Schofield Bible, wrote:

In our days more than ever before we notice an astonishing misuse of the sermon on the mount. The saddest of all is that many preachers of various evangelical denominations fall back upon it as the most important document of Christendom; for them it seems to become more and more the Gospel, and the consequences are that we hear in our times more ethical preaching, more about becoming better, doing good, improving your better self, etc., than ever before. It would require much time and a great deal of space to show up all the errors which are springing from this application. It is the Gospel of works and evolution. And as this is done there is less preaching of the utter corruption of man, his lost condition and utter helplessness to be righteous (that which the discourse makes very clear), and the salvation of God in our Lord Jesus Christ, the absolute necessity of being born again, the reception of eternal life, the new nature. As the teachings of the Epistle to the Romans have been and are being abandoned in Christendom, the false application of the discourse here in Matthew has been taken up. There is therefore a continual increase of teaching about lifting man out of his lost place into a better sphere by means of ethical teachings taken from the sermon on the mount. This is done under the garb of a social Christianity, union of worshipers (?), the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. . . Surely, if evangelical preachers continue to progress in this awful direction by substituting ethical teachings for salvation by the precious blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, and declare, as not a few have done, that the sermon on the mount is a large enough Bible for us, a general apostasy from the faith will soon be reached.

[Arno C. Gaebelein, The Gospel of Matthew, pages 107-108]

L. S. Chafer called the teachings of Christ in the sermon on the mount "legal beatitudes." He wrote:

    NINE LEGAL BEATITUDES -- The Sermon on the Mount, this kingdom message, opens with the record of the nine-fold blessing which is promised and provided for the faithful child of the kingdom (Matt. 5:1-12). These blessings are won through personal merit. This is in sharp contrast to the blessings in the exalted position of the Christian which he instantly obtains in Christ at the moment he believes.

        (1) "Blessed are the poor [humble] in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (vs. 3). To the Christian it is said: "Put on, therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercy, kindness, humbleness of mind" (Col. 3:12). In the teachings of grace, "put on" does not mean to pretend, or assume; it is the manifestation of the regenerate life through the power of the Spirit (Eph. 4:24; 6:11).

        (2) "Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted" (vs. 4). Mourning does not belong to the Bride of Christ. To her a different message is given: "Rejoice in the Lord always; and again I say, Rejoice" (Phil. 4:4).

        (3) "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth" (vs. 5). Under grace, meekness is wrought in the Christian by the Spirit (Gal. 5:23), and is never rewarded. While the meek in the kingdom will inherit the earth, the believer has an "inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you" (I Peter 1:4).

        (4) "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled" (vs. 6). The Christian may crave a closer walk with the Father; but he is already "made the righteousness of God in Him [Christ]" (2 Cor. 5:21).

        (5) "Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy" (vs. 7). In the kingdom mercy from God will be made to depend wholly on the exercise of mercy toward others. This is pure law. Under grace, the Christian is besought to be merciful, as one who has already obtained mercy (Eph. 2:4,5; Titus 3:5).

        (6) "Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God" (vs. 8). Opposed to this, and under grace it is written: "God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the, face of Jesus Christ" (2 Cor. 4:6).

        (7) "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God" (vs. 9). In the kingdom there will be special distinction given to those who promote peace. "They shall be called the children of God." Under grace, no one is constituted a child of God by any works whatever. "For ye are, all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:26).

        (8) "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake: for theirs is the [millennial] kingdom of heaven" (vs. 10). The issue here again is righteousness. The Christian under grace, on the contrary, suffers with Christ and for His sake, and his reward is in heaven.

        (9) "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you... for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you" (vs. 11). In grace the believer is called to suffer for Christ's sake: "For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on Him, but also to suffer for His sake" (Phil. 1:29). It should be noted that when the children of the kingdom are compared to any class of men in suffering, they are taken back to prophets which were before them, and not to the saints who comprise the Body of Christ.

[Quoted by Miles J. Stanford, http://withchrist.org/MJS/paul.htm]
   
Dispensationalists have a serious problem with their application of the sermon on the mount to the millennial reign, because in the midst of the beatitudes, Jesus refers to the saints being persecuted. Dispensationalists such as Chafer rejected the first three gospels saying they were written for Jews, according to Ed Knorr, who comments:

Thus, the doctrine of the separation of Israel and the Church, the foundation of dispensationalism, was born out of Darby's attempt to justify his newly fabricated rapture theory with the Bible. Dispensationalists believed justification for carving up the Scriptures came from 2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV) "rightly dividing the word of truth." Subsequent dispensationalists divided the Scriptures in terms of categories of people: Jew, Gentile, and Christian. Chafer taught that the only Scriptures addressed specifically to Christians were the gospel of John, Acts, and the Epistles! Pettengill taught that the Great Commission was for the Jews only. Scofield taught that the Lord's prayer was a Jewish prayer and ought not be recited by Christians. Along with much of the New Testament, the Old Testament was described as "not for today." Ryrie dismissed the validity of the Old Testament commands to non-Jews because "the law was never given to Gentiles and is expressly done away for the Christian."  Christians were even mocked as legalists for believing in the Ten Commandments! As other critics have observed, this segmentation of the Bible makes dispensationalism a Christianized version of cultural relativism.    

Revelation and Bible Prophecy--A Comparison of Eschatological Views: Classical Dispensationalism and Preterism
http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~knorr/public/comparison_of_eschat_models.pdf

The truth is, I think, the teachings of the sermon on the mount are intended for Christians in this age, however impractical they may be. They are not "works" intended to obtain salvation, but "fruits" in the lives of those who have the Spirit of Christ.

Here is a chart comparing the teachings of Jesus in the sermon on the mount with the teachings of James, Peter, and Paul:
http://vinyl2.sentex.ca/~tcc/OP/JJPP.html

Doug

[Doug]

Zechariah said, "And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains...," and so, if the two halves of the mount of Olives that are displaced from their positions represent dispensationalism and preterism, both of which are flawed interpretations of the Olivet discourse of Jesus, many of those who "flee" from these belief systems may be led to do so by the Spirit of Christ. In this post, I list alphabetically and comment on some dispensationalists who have been led to abandon that flawed belief system.

Michael W. Adams
http://lovebrokethru.com/?cat=12

William Cox, author of "An Examination of Dispensationalism"
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/9170/COX1.HTM

Ken Fields
http://theworldfrommywindow.blogspot.com/2009/03/what-is-dispensationalism-can-dispys.html

A.J. Gordon is an early example of a prominent Bible teacher who rejected "the whole Darby system of interpretation." He was the pastor of the Clarendon Street Baptist Church in Boston. He was one of the speakers at the Niagara Bible Conference on prophecy, held at Niagara on Lake Ontario from 1883 to 1897. The conference grew from a small Bible study fellowship initiated in 1875 by a handful of men including Nathaniel West, J.H. Brookes and W.J. Erdman. Gordon joined them in 1876. George Eldon Ladd wrote of him:

"In his book on the Lord's coming (Ecce Venit, 1889), Gordon parts company with the whole Darby system of interpretation. Although he constantly emphasized the importance of the truth of the Lord's return and often sounds like one who holds the "any-moment" view, Gordon did not look for a personal Antichrist and a three and a half year Tribulation. In its stead, he embraced the historical interpretation believing it is "more scriptural, and rests upon the more obvious and simple interpretation of the Word." (p. vi). Antichrist was the Papacy; the temple of God in which Antichrist sits in II Thessalonians 2 was the Church. "Where a Judaizing interpretation would lead us from this phrase of the apostle, to imagine a future temple rebuilt in Jerusalem, enthroning an infidel Antichrist, we have only to collate the passages in which the expression occurs to find how invariably it stands for Christ's mystical body, the church" (pp. 110f). ... On the secret rapture, he said, "upon the whole question of a secret rapture, we would speak with reserve, knowing that there are scriptures which give a different impression" (p. 246). There is no hint in Gordon's book of anything but a single, glorious, visible coming of Christ."

The Blessed Hope, by George Eldon Ladd, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1980.  p. 47-48.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=dxqAd0ECsBgC&pg

Bob Hayton is another former believer in Dispensationalism who made his escape. He is the author of a series of blog posts on 'Understanding the Land Promise.' Hayton says,

Some of you probably know that I am a former dispensationlist. I have since embraced Covenant Theology, at least in a broad sense. One of the key factors in my change concerning this position centered on the promise of the land.

In my experience, the promise concerning a land for Abraham's descendants plays a vital role in supporting the claims of Dispensationalism. Since the specific plot of land promised in Genesis 15 has not yet been completely occupied by Israel, we must expect a future literal fulfillment of this promise. This leads to the conclusion that God still has dealings with physical/national Israel and promises He must keep for them, which in turn leads us to understand that God's plans for the Church are different than His plans for Israel. God thus has two peoples, Israel and the Church, and two purposes (at least) for His interactions with man in this world.

My particular understanding of Dispensationalism included the notion that the church age was basically a parenthesis from his plan for Israel. And that his plans for Israel would be culminated in a physical thousand year reign in which the Temple and its physical sacrifices would be reinstated. Many dispensationalists today do not agree with these particular views, but nevertheless there are many who still hold to them, largely because of their support of Dispensationalism.

Since land was so central to Dispensationalism, when I saw how the New Testament treated the land promise, I soon became more and more convinced that Dispensationalism is flawed, and Covenant Theology or something similar to it, must be the preferred way of understanding how Scripture fits together.

http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/2008/06/03/understanding-the-land-promise-part-1/
A search for the rest of this 7-part series is recommended.

Carl E. Olson, author of "Will Catholics Be Left Behind?"
http://www.carl-olson.com/Site/Books.html

Arthur W. Pink (1886-1952), is another example of a Bible teacher who escaped from dispensationalism, towards the end of his life. There is a biography here:
http://www.theologue.org/PinkBio.html

His articles refuting what he came to view as "the modern and pernicious error of Dispensationalism" are available at the links below.

http://www.theologue.org/refutation-pink.html
http://www.spiritone.com/~wing/applican.htm

Nathan Pitchford, an ex-dispensationalist, offers several well-written articles about the defects of dispensationalism at his web site:

http://pitchfordsramblings.com/category/articles/dispensationalism/

In his article "Are There Two Gospels in the New Testament?" he says:

"Of all the Dispensationally-derived errors in the Church today, one of the most serious is this two-gospel teaching. It is in flagrant contradiction to the overwhelming tenor of New Testament truth, and it brings one to the brink of several very destructive heresies."

In his article "Dispensationalism and the Eclipse of Christ" he says:

"I am indeed grateful for the many resources available today which demonstrate scripturally that Dispensationalism is in error. I think that our current need is not so much to argue that Dispensationalism is wrong - although such efforts will certainly continue to be helpful - as it is to show just how grave and far-reaching the errors really are."

Pitchford says:

"I have come to the conclusion that Dispensationalism is a much more serious threat to a well-informed biblical worldview than I was once inclined to think of it. Dispensationalism is not exclusively (or even predominantly) a complicated eschatological schema that lends itself to bizarre novels. The eschatological phenomena, which are so predominant to many people, have their roots in a soil from which spring ideas and conceptions of all of redemptive history, and which even extend to one's understanding of the position and nature of the Redeemer."

Kim Riddlebarger, a former Dispensationalist Premillennialist who abandoned that position says:

"... I consider dispensationalism to be a very problematic way to read Scripture. While dispensationalism is a hermeneutic (despite protests to the contrary), one can be a dispensationlist and a five-point Calvinist. John Nelson Darby and John MacArthur come to mind. But dispensationalism's two interpretive presuppositions (that God has distinct redemptive purposes for Gentiles and national Israel, and that we must interpret biblical prophecy "literally") are highly problematic. God's redemptive purpose is to save his elect-both Jew and Gentile. This is why there is one gospel, and this is why Paul can tell us that Christ's purpose (under the new covenant) is to make Jew and Gentile one (cf. Ephesians 2:11-22). This flies directly in the face of the dispensational hermeneutic which sees one gospel, but distinct redemptive purposes for Jew and Gentile.

And while dispensationalists rail against those who "spiritualize" the Bible, the amillennarian insists upon interpreting Old Testament prophecy as Jesus and the apostles do. The tough thing for dispensationalists to face is that Jesus and the apostles do the very thing dispensationalists claim should not be done. This means that at the end of the day, it is dispensationalists who don't take the Bible "literally" since they insist that Old Testament passages which speak about the role of Israel, tell us in advance what the New Testament writers actually mean. This, of course, is highly problematic. The New Testament writers must be allowed to interpret the Old Testament, especially in light of the coming of Christ."

http://tinyurl.com/cdsuzx

Rev. Stephen Sizer. Another person who has abandoned Dispensationalism is Anglican minister Stephen Sizer. He tells of his concern about Zionist persecution and murder of Arab Palestinian Anglican Christians below:

"I was raised as a Christian by American Evangelicals who were Zionists and I didn't know that there was anything wrong with that because it seemed very clear in the Bible that the Jews were the chosen people. The Bible can easily resonate with today; all those paradigms can be manipulated very easily in populist books to put a gloss on what's happening, and I was raised on all of that. ... It was only when I went to Palestine as a young minister determined to visit the Holy Land that I discovered the Palestinians, and initially, I kept them at a distance. We were fed the line that the Arabs were terrorists. But then one day I got off the bus and I discovered there was an Arab Palestinian Anglican church in Palestine and I discovered they were like me: worried about their children's education, where they would get their food from. And they had to deal with people rushing to hospitals not because of a car accident but because they'd been shot by an Israeli soldier. That deeply troubled me."

http://www.thedailynewsegypt.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=12005

Below is an excerpt from one of Sizer's books.

Zionism and Anti-Semitism

It is true that at various times in the past, churches and church leaders have tolerated or incited anti-Semitism and even attacks on Jewish people. Racism is a sin and without excuse. Anti-Semitism must be repudiated unequivocally. However, we must not confuse apples and oranges. Anti-Zionism is not the same thing as anti-Semitism despite attempts to broaden the definition. Criticising a political system as racist is not necessarily racist. Judaism is a religious system. Israel is a sovereign nation. Zionism is a political system. These three are not synonymous. I respect Judaism, repudiate anti-Semitism, encourage interfaith dialogue and defend Israel's right to exist within borders recognised by the international community and agreed with her neighbours. But like many Jews, I disagree with a political system which gives preference to expatriate Jews born elsewhere in the world, while denying the same rights to the Arab Palestinians born in the country itself. Jimmy Carter is not alone in describing the Zionism practiced by the present government of Israel as a form of apartheid.

Supercessionism or Replacement Theology

This is a favourite 'straw man' of Christian Zionists. They criticise their opponents for implying the Church has 'replaced' Israel. The implication is that the Jewish people cease to have any role within the purposes of God. This is clearly refuted in Romans 9-11.

The Scriptures are however unambiguous in distinguishing between the old and new covenants. In Hebrews, the writer says, "By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear." (Hebrews 8:13). There is therefore, from a Christian perspective, no sense in which the old covenant can be viewed as still in force or applicable. On the night that Jesus was betrayed, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you." (Luke 22:20). When Jesus died on the cross, a new covenant was established with his precious blood that supercedes the basis of the old covenant. The writer to Hebrews continues, "For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance--now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant." (Hebrews 9:15).

Here then is the biblical basis for a kind of supecessionism. But notice the succession is first of all from one covenant to another, not from Israel to the Church. This is because both covenants were, in their first instance, made with the people of God who at that stage were predominantly Jewish. "The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." (Jeremiah 31:31). This is why Jesus initially sent his Apostles only to the Jews. "These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: 'Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.'" (Matthew 10:5-6). But when the majority rejected his ministry, Jesus warned, "Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit." (Matthew 21:43). Jesus here describes the succession that would occur within a generation. The apostle Peter, preaching after Pentecost, and citing Moses, similarly warned those who rejected Jesus, "Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from their people." (Acts 3:23). Covenantalists believe there has only ever been one people of God - whether under the old or new covenant - and one way to God - by grace alone and through faith alone. Both Israel and the Church have been a mixed company of believers and unbelievers, Jews and Gentiles. Only God knows who is numbered among his faithful remnant. At various times in history it has been clearer than in others - for example when all but the family of Noah perished or the entire generation who entered Sinai, perished there apart from a handful. That is why many Covenantalists are uncomfortable describing the Church as the 'New Israel'. The term never appears in the Bible.

Zion's Christian Soldiers? The Bible, Israel and the Church, by Stephen Sizer, p. 6-7
http://www.stephensizer.com/books/zions-christian-soldiers/

Oswald Smith, noted author and the minister of People's Church in Toronto, Ontario, believed the "rapture" doctrine but upon searching the Scriptures for himself, he could not find a single verse in the Bible to uphold this view. Smith wrote:

"I had been taught that the Greek word 'parousia' always referred to the Rapture and that other words were used for the coming of Christ in glory ... but I found that this is not true. ... We might go through all the writers of the New Testament, and we would fail to discover any indication of the so-called 'two stages' of our Lord's coming ... That theory had to be invented by man. Search and see. There is no verse in the Bible that even mentions it."

Perhaps more could be added to the list. The writings of some of the people noted above are very informative. The other side of the story is, who are the ones who have escaped from preterism? 

Doug

[Doug]

The other side of the story is, who are the ones who have escaped from preterism?

I was surprised to discover, after writing this, that Todd Dennis, developer of the Preterist Archive, at http://www.preteristarchive.com/, has rejected preterism, and now refers to himself as "AN OVERJOYED IDEALIST"!

Former Hyper Preterist Todd Dennis "I do think it IS AMAZING how the Holy Spirit used PreteristArchive.com to bring Full Preterism to the theological table only to then refute it!"

I find this very exciting...

Doug

[sheila]

 :2c:

   I have a few thoughts....

  that cleaving of Mt Olive...relates to the King of the North and

the King of the South in Daniels vision .

  Fleeing by my mountain valley..and the beautiful land is

synomonous, spiritually speaking...as in the days of King Uzziah

speaks of unlawful/corruption of the King of Israel taking on a

preistly function

   Judah and Israel were also cleaved in the days following

Solomon and his loving of many foreign wives.Thus Kings of the

earth consorting with daughters of a foreign god


   That Jesus ascended unto the Father from this place of

corruption,shows that HE offered acceptable sacrifice unto the

Father as both KING AND PREIST[Shiloh/legal right]


   Just as the call goes out to flee Babylon[corruption harlotry

with Kings of the earth]


   In Matthew 17 Jesus went upon a HIGH MOUNTAIN and was

transfigured,shortly after. This is the Mountain that was MOVED

figuratively and spiritually to the Mt of Olives that is split..by

faith.That is why we must flee to the Mountains in faith.

  For we are transfigured and Glorifed on that HIGH MOUNTAIN

as Jesus Christ was through this seed of faith.

  Mt Zion to the Mount of OLIVES that is cleaved.Thus we have

two wittnesses...Jesus Christ and the HOLY SPIRIT,two

wittnesses,two olive trees,two MOUNTAINS and they are ONE

   For we are sown in corruption and raised in incorruption


   Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and

nothing shall be impossible to you

[sheila]

  Psalms 23

   Yeah,though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death

   I will fear no evil,for you are with me

[Doug]

At the Preterist Archive, there is a web page already that documents several examples of ex-preterists. Sadly, some of these are people who have turned to unbelief.
http://www.preteristarchive.com/FormerHyP/index.html

Taylor Adams reviewed the book "When Shall These Things Be," and commented, "I was a hyper-preterist. Then I read this book. I read it in order to refute it. I could not..."

Dorothy Anderson, former hyper-preterist.
http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/a/anderson-dorothy.html

"It may come as a shock to some, but I no longer hold to the FP position..."

Return from Oz (2008) "I do believe full preterism is dying out. The reason: In order to have fellowship today and further their studies, a large number of full preterists have been reduced to embracing those who hold the full preterist position regardless of their other doctrinal beliefs, like denial of the bodily resurrection of Jesus, universalism, denial of the trinity, the emergent Church "truth can't be known", etc."

John Anderson, Host of the "Voice of Reason" radio show announced his departure from belief in Full Preterism in Nov. 2007.

Marcus Booker, moved to Idealism.

Jared Coleman converted to atheism after a long struggle ... "eschatology probably played a small role in the demise of my faith."

David P. Crews, former preterist, became an unbeliever.

Jonathan M. Companik
http://www.preteristarchive.com/PartialPreterism/companik-jonathan_p_01.html

Todd Dennis, Founder and Curator of the Preterist Archive.
http://www.preteristarchive.com

On Leaving Full Preterism After A Decade
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Idealism/2008_dennis_introduction.html

Though full preterist systems don't deny that spiritual truths can be applied from the events of AD70, the idealist takes exactly the opposite view -- that AD70 itself was an application (outward show) of eternal spiritual realities - and was not the Substance in itself. (Not "Re-Fulfillment"!)  ..The most common complaint against the full preterist view is its inability to answer the "what now?" questions... but there is a concern that runs much deeper.  By identifying  the corporate "consummation of the ages" as having been settled for all time in AD70, the individual believers' "transition period" is removed from today, being made a first century reality alone.  This error neglects the importance of the "glory to glory" process at work in the life of the believer, and chooses rather to accept that there is no sin, death, or devil to be contended with today.  In short, full preterist doctrine chooses the corporate over the individual, and this betrayal results in much suffering."

Philip S. Desprez (d. 1879)
http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/d/desprez_p-s.html

"Wrote second-oldest known Full Preterist book, but left that view for a more critically mature approach, built a wide reputation as a higher critic of the books of Daniel and Revelation.  His take on full preterism after his conversion away: "something more was intended by the coming itself and the unearthly scenes with which it is said to be accompanied, than the destruction of Jerusalem and the subsequent establishment of Christianity.  However momentous the ruin of their city might have been to the Jews, it could not have materially affected the Gentile converts to whom the warnings relating to the advent were principally addressed."

Nathan DuBois, moved to Idealism.
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Idealism/2006_dubois_jerusalems.html

Roderick Edwards
See Hyperpreterism Discussion, http://nohidingthetruth.wordpress.com/
http://unpreterist.blogspot.com/

G.R. Gaudreau, went from catholic to full preterist to skeptic.
http://www.preteristarchive.com/CriticalArticles/1999_gaudreau_journey.html

"It was in October 1996, when I came to Preterism, that I started having these very serious doubts and I just couldn't get rid of them. I kept trying to bury them, but they just kept coming back.  I'm glad I found these errors and I'm grateful to that man who first posted the list of errors. He had a lot of courage. He met with a lot of opposition and stood his ground, because he knew he was right. He could not, would not, ignore the evidence."

Cho Sun Hoon, went from evangelical to full preterist to catholic.
http://www.preteristarchive.com/CriticalArticles/2006_hoon_fullpret-to-catholic.html

"Then as I adopted the full preterist viewpoint, I began doing more research, and even attended a live debate between a futurist and a preterist.  The more I learned about preterism, the more I was looking for applications of preterism for the present day:  Namely, where is the parousia (presence of God) if it came to an end?  Some of the full preterist arguments were so convincing, yet there was something missing"

William Price

"Preterism removes the comfort and hope of the return of Christ. It relinquishes to the past any thought of Messieh's return. It is an empty and void Gospel which has destroyed many homes and churches because of it's damnable lies. The truth is, as a former full and partial preterist, I know and see for myself the damage this lie does. It eliminates hope, peace, and future glory with Christ. Full is far worse than partial, because it outright denies the resurrection. What a lie!"

Brian Simmons
http://antipreterist.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/why-i-dont-invest-in-religious-utopias/

Robert Townley (1816-1894) First known full preterist, first ex-full preterist.
http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/t/townley-robert.html

Russell Warren
http://russwarren.blogspot.com/2007/03/reflections-on-end-of-movements.html

"I would, I guess, consider myself a cautious partial preterist, but no where near the "full" preterism I held in my (earlier) youth..."

Many of the above are examples that fit the prophecy of Zechariah, "And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains..." The valley is not literal, but figurative, and represents the way we should go, that lies in the wide area, between the two popular but flawed interpretations of the Olivet discourse, preterism and dispensationalism. These are represented by the the two halves of the mount of Olives, which are displaced from their proper positions, in Zechariah's prophecy.

Doug

[Doug]

I have a few thoughts....

  that cleaving of Mt Olive...relates to the King of the North and

the King of the South in Daniels vision .

  Fleeing by my mountain valley..and the beautiful land is

synomonous, spiritually speaking...as in the days of King Uzziah

speaks of unlawful/corruption of the King of Israel taking on a

preistly function

   Judah and Israel were also cleaved in the days following

Solomon and his loving of many foreign wives.Thus Kings of the

earth consorting with daughters of a foreign god

The Israelites consorted with the daughters of Moab in the valley of Shittim, Numbers 25:1.

"And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor."

Zechariah's prophecy describes living waters flowing from Jerusalem, in summer and winter.

Zechariah 14:8
And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.

The Mount of Olives is part of a long ridge east of Jerusalem. The city itself lies on a divide or a watershed, so the natural drainage is toward the east on one side, and toward the west on the other. However, the "living waters" emerging from Jerusalem would not be confined to the existing drainage. In John's Gospel, "living waters" are identified with the Spirit of God [John 7:39]. Zechariah's prophecy describes the formation of a spiritual valley through the Mount of Olives, that provides a route for the "living waters."

In Joel's prophecy, the waters that flow from the temple reach the valley of Shittim.

Joel 3:18
And it shall come to pass in that day, that the mountains shall drop down new wine, and the hills shall flow with milk, and all the rivers of Judah shall flow with waters, and a fountain shall come forth out of the house of the LORD, and shall water the valley of Shittim.

The valley of Shittim was located east of Jerico, on the far side of the Jordan valley. It was where the Israelites camped, before they entered the promised land, and where they were seduced, and sinned by committing fornication with the daughters of Moab, and spiritual fornication with Baalpeor. I think there is an anaolgy suggested here, between the spiritual waters, and the knowledge of the Gospel flowing forth from God's church, which provides a remedy for spiritual fornication.

I think Zechariah's prophecy identifies dispensationalism, and preterism, as examples of the rival suitors Christ fights against. The doctrines of John N. Darby, Wm. Kelly, C.I. Schofield, L.S. Chafer, etc., are represented by the half of the Mount of Olives that is moved towards the south, while the teachings of James Stuart Russell, Max R. King, etc., are represented by the half that moves towards the north. Of course there are many others.

In Ezekiel 47, a stream emerging from the temple of God soon becomes a wide river, with fish in it, that flows eastward, and heals the Dead Sea. Ezekiel's temple is figurative, representing the church, and the river flowing from it is a spiritual river, picturing the knowledge of God flowing from the church to the world. Zechariah's prophecy of a wide valley being formed in the midst of the Mount of Olives suggests that this valley may be the route through which Ezekiel's river reaches the Dead Sea, symbolic of the people of the world, Psalm 65:7; Isaiah 17:12, 57:20.

Doug

[Doug]

Below is a comment on the origins of preterism, by Dr. Ronald Cooke, in "The Unmitigated Twaddle of Jesuit-Romanist Preterism"
http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=twaddle

It is well for the reader to realise that while Ken Gentry and Edward Stevens engage in debate as to what form of 'preterism' is orthodox, that none of the Reformers were preterist in their approach to the book of Revelation. They argue about hyper-preterism, exegetical preterism, theological preterism, consistent preterism, full preterism and R. C. Sproul weighs in with radical preterism and moderate preterism without ever seeming to recognise that preterism is a Jesuit-Romanist invention, not a Protestant Reformed teaching.

ORIGINS

Preterism was first advanced in 1604 by Jesuit Luis de Alcasar to destroy the Reformed Protestant teaching that the papacy was Mystery Babylon, the Great Whore and the historical Antichrist.

WHAT SCHOLARS HAD TO SAY ABOUT PRETERISM

Henry Alford (an Anglican Greek scholar)

'The praeterist view found no favour and was hardly so much as thought of in the time of primitive Christianity. Those who lived near the date of the book of Revelation itself had no idea that its groups of imagery were intended merely to describe things then passing, and to be in a few years completed. This view is said to have been first promulgated in anything like completeness by the Jesuit Alcasar, in his "Vestigatio Arcani Sensus in Apocalypsi" (1604). Very nearly, the same plan was adopted by Grotius. The next great name among this school of interpreters is that of Bossuet the great antagonist of Protestantism.'

Charles Hodge

Also dismissing the Jesuit-Romanist Preterist approach, Charles Hodge noted that the preterists of his time for the most part were German Rationalists.

'[they] were German interpreters who, denying any real prediction of the future, confine the views of Daniel and John to their contemporary history'.

He lists some of the liberal scholars such as Ewald, DeWette and Lucke, who not only denied the predictive element in Scripture but also denied the inspiration and authority of the Word of God.

Barnes

This 19th century Bible commentator observed that when the Reformed Protestant position that the papacy was the historical Man of Sin had become settled, the Jesuits introduced their positions to counter the teaching of the reformers. He thought it not a little remarkable that the Jesuit positions originated in the necessities of the papal cause oppressed by Protestant interpreters. In other words the Jesuits felt that Protestantism was winning the battle over Roman Catholicism by depicting Rome as the Great Harlot Church, Mystery Babylon and the historical antichrist. So they deliberately worked to counteract the Protestant Reformed teaching by propounding the preterist approach to the Apocalypse.

It seems the argument was made that the "Mystery Babylon," the harlot of Rev. 17, was not the Roman Catholic Church, but Jerusalem, which was destroyed by the Romans. But that is obviously incorrect.

In Rev. 11:8, where John refers to the place where Jesus was crucified, as a "great city," we should notice that Jesus was crucified outside Jerusalem.

Hebrews 13:12
Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

The preterists often suggest Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem. That is not the case, as the author of Hebrews declares above. The "great city" that John referred to, called "Sodom" and "Egypt" spiritually or figuratively, is mystical Babylon, which represents the worldly society from which believers have escaped, like Lot escaped from Sodom, and like the Israelites escaped from bondage in Egypt under Moses.

Doug

[Doug]

Below is a quote from W.M. Alexander's book on Zechariah, providing his view of the general subject of chapter 14. He concludes, (correctly, IMO) that the prophecy applies to the church. My interpretation of the cleaving of the Mount of Olives, and half moving towards the north, and half moving towards the south, as the two rival interpretations of the Olivet Discourse of Jesus, preterism and dispensationalism, seems to fit within this general outline by Alexander.

At this point we may conveniently pause to inquire into the meaning and intent of the oracle, the signification of the language of which we have been engaged in investigating. As it is an expansion with fuller details of the prophecy in the close of the preceding chapter, we must start from the assumption that what is referred to here is not any one great historical event, or any series of events, but the kingdom of God in its experience and development and ultimate triumph, in the world. The highly figurative description of the prophet, couched in language which does not admit of a literal interpretation, of itself necessitates our resorting to a spiritual application of his utterance. The appearance of Jehovah on Mount Olivet, the sudden cleaving of that mountain by an earthquake, so as to cause a valley to stretch through its centre, the extinguishing of the heavenly luminaries, causing a darkness that might be felt to overspread the land, the breaking forth of light at evening when, according to natural law, darkness should begin to assume the sway, the sending forth of streams from one point in diametrically opposite directions, the making of the whole hilly region round Jerusalem into a plain like the Arabah, so as that Jerusalem should come to be elevated over the whole land--all that is so conspicuously figurative that a literal interpretation of it has never been seriously proposed by any one except some of the Rabbins. Figurative also is the representation of a gathering of all nations against Jerusalem; this at no time has been realised, nor could it be so at any time. But if all this be figurative, it cannot be of Jerusalem as the actual metropolis of Judea that the prophet here speaks; it must be to Jerusalem as to the centre of the kingdom of heaven upon earth, and as representing that kingdom that the oracle relates. Hence in the overthrow and ruin of Jerusalem here described we are to find the abolition of the ancient economy, the decaying and vanishing away of the former under which the kingdom had been established of old, an event which was brought about by the assault of the hostile heathen powers of the world. The kingdom itself, however, was not thereby averted; amid the general ruin a remnant was preserved, and that not by flight from the city but in it, there permanently to abide. Around this, the nucleus of the renovated kingdom, the protecting care of the Omnipotent should be vouchsafed; on the enemy His judgments should fall, and lest His people should be involved in these, a way of escape should be made for them, and they should flee and be in safety. Seasons of darkness and calamity might come, and amid the ominous gloom the face of heaven might be obscured, and it might seem as if God's favour was withdrawn; but this should be only for a season; the dark day would in due time decline, and at the evening there should be light. Ways should be made by which the kingdom, as it expanded, might extend over the earth--a path should be cut through the most obdurate obstacles, obstructions should be removed, and streams of blessing should flow in all directions over the earth. Then should Jehovah be recognised as King over all the earth, and be worshipped as the one and only God. Then should Jerusalem, "the new," "the heavenly Jerusalem," "Jerusalem the free," which is the mother of all the people of Christ (Rev. iii. 12,xxi. 2; Heb. xii. 22; Gal. iv. 26; comp. Phil. iii. 20), "the Church of the living God" (i Tim. iii. 15), be exalted, and be filled with inhabitants to the full extent of her proper boundaries. Then shall the saints inherit the earth; then shall the true people of God, being all righteous, be free from all calamity, injury or assault; perfect security shall be enjoyed and the calm of a great peace shall settle down on the world, so long troubled and vexed by the storms of evil. The ban which has rested on the race because of sin since the first transgression, shall then be for ever taken off; there will be no need to make men acknowledge God's supremacy by the judgments which He executes; a willing obedience shall be rendered to Him by all; His servants shall serve Him, they shall see His face, and His name shall be on their foreheads.

Zechariah: His Visions and Warnings by Wm. Lindsay Alexander.
James Nesbet & Co., London, 1885.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=jVMHAAAAQAAJ
p. 317-319

Doug

[Doug]

Here are seven remarkable parallels between the prophecy Jesus gave his disciples on the Mount of Olives, recorded in Matthew 24, and Zechariah 14:1-9.

1. The church is overcome by false teachers

Matt. 24:4-5
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
Matt. 24:11
And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
Zech. 14:2
For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished...

Zechariah refers to women being ravished, as if in a military invasion, but his prophecy can also be interpreted as referring to spiritual seduction. Even so, there is much immorality in the church.

2. Iniquity abounds

Matt. 24:12
And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
Zech. 14:2
... and half of the city shall go forth into captivity ...

Many Christians are taken captive again by sin.

3. A promise to those who are faithful

Matt. 24:13-14
But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Zech. 14:5
... and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.

Recognizing the fulfillment of prophecy is a source of comfort to the saints

4. Judgment of the church

Matt. 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
Zech. 14:3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

Recognizing the "abomination of desolation" probably involves understanding what prophecy reveals about the state of the church.

5. The saints flee to the mountains

Matt. 24:16
Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
Zech. 14:5
And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah:

The mountains are symbolic of the promises of God, and the covenants, and prophecies of scripture. The valley of the mountains is symbolic of the true interpretation of the Olivet discourse, which applies it to the present, not to 70 AD as preterists say, or to a future seven year tribulation as dispensationalists say. The saints abandon error, when Christ reveals the truth. (That is what not going back to fetch our clothes refers to.)

6. The light is affected

Matt. 24:29
Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light
Zech. 14:6-7
And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark: But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.

This light is spiritual understanding. People are in spiritual darkness, even though today we are flooded with information. The sun becoming dark is symbolic of the gospel being obscured, for example by the ET doctrine.

7. Nations mourn, living waters go forth from the church to the world

Matt. 24:30
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Zech. 14:8-9
And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be. And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

Christ reigns in his church, and also in the earth.

Doug