Zech 14:1-9

[Iconoclast]

When and How do you see this passage fulfilled? Is it past or future?
How and Why? Any recommended commentary on this?

 

[Iconoclast]

a clarification and question

Calvin offered this:

Stand, he says, shall his feet on the mount of Olives. He does not here promise a miracle, such as even the ignorant might conceive to be literal; nor does he do this in what follows, when he says, The mount shall be rent, and half of it shall thorn to the east and half to the west 180180 “This sign,” [God’s feet standing on the mount,] says Kimchi, “is a type of the clearing of the Gentiles who came against Jerusalem, and who shall fall scattered about.” The Targum gives this paraphrase, “He shall be revealed in his power.” “The rending,” says Drusius, “signifies the flight of the nations, who, on finding God fighting against them, shall flee away in all directions: so that the mountain on which the besiegers fixed their camp shall seem as though divided into parts.”
Theodoret’s language is to the same purpose; he regarded the mountain as symbolic of the enemies assembled against the city — [ὄρος καλει τήν φάλαγγα των πολεμίων], etc.
Marckius’s view of the text is as follows: This mountain rendered access on the east to the city and temple difficult, and intercepted the morning light and the flowing of waters in that direction, both which are referred to afterwards in verse 7 and 8. God’s descent on this mountain was a sign of his great displeasure with that nation, and the rending of the mountain was emblematic of a way being made open for the gospel to spread throughout the world. And he regarded the Lord’s coming in the next verse as his coming in the ministration of the gospel to render it successful through the world by means of his saints, his apostles, and ministers. — Ed. This has never happened, that mount has never been rent: but as the Prophet could not, under those grievous trials, which might have overwhelmed the minds of the godly a hundred times, have extolled the power of God as much as the exigency of the case required without employing a highly figurative language, he therefore accommodates himself, as I have said, to the capacity of our flesh.

The import of the whole is, — that God’s power would be so remarkable in the deliverance of his Church, as though God manifested himself in a visible form and reviewed the battle from the top of the mountain, and gave orders how everything was to be done.

Later on he offers this,which seems to indicate the gospel age, or gospel millennium as the fulfillment of this prophecy. Do you think that this took place around the time of the cross, or at the ascension?
Does Hebrews 12:22-24 speak directly to this?

The same view is to be taken of what follows, that a great valley would be in the middle, for the rent would be one half towards the north and the other half towards the south. It is the same thing as though he had said, that Jerusalem was as it were concealed under that mountain, so that it was hid, but that afterwards it would be on an elevated place, as it is said elsewhere, “Elevated shall be the mountain of the Lord,” say both Isaiah and Micah, “above all mountains.” (Isaiah 2:2; Micah 4:1.) That hill, we know, was small; and yet Isaiah and Micah promise such a height as will surpass almost the very clouds. What does this mean? Even that the glory of the God of Jerusalem will be so great, that his temple will be visible above all other heights. So also in this place, Rent, he says, shall be the mount of Olives, so that Jerusalem may not be as before in a shaded valley, and have only a small hill on one side, but that it may be seen far and wide, so that all nations may behold it. This, as I think, is what the Prophet simply means. But those who delight in allegories must seek them from others.

 

[Peairtach]

T.V. Moore has a good commentary on Zechariah (Banner of Truth). I'll maybe get back on that.

Gary de Mar, an apparently (?) orthodox preterist asigns it to the siege of Jerusalem by the Roman army, which consisted of troops from many nations, in 70 A.D. , the escaping of Christians to the East to Pella in accordance with our Lord's Olivet Discourse, when He indeed stood on the Mount of Olives as He did many times in His ministry, increasing Gospel light from the first century onwards, the giving of the Holy Spirit, Christ's mediatorial reign over all the Earth from his ascension and the collapse of the theocracy, onwards (Some of this may or may not be correct? It sounds more sensible than dispensationalism?)

In general terms it's not best to build an eschatology on difficult and apocalyptic books like Revelation and Zechariah but get it from clearer passages. Then you can go back to Revelation and Zechariah to see how things may fit in to your scheme, postmil, amil or premil.

 

[Iconoclast]

I have T.V.Moores commentary but I think there is alot more in this book and passage.
Keil and Delitzsch does a really good job of showing a progression in the book of Zechariah, in which they look at the whole incarnation leading up to the Triumphal Entry of King Jesus coming to eartlhy Zion Chapters 8-13
then they come to this:

The meaning is not “according to the day when He fought in the day of the war,” as Jerome and many others suppose, who refer the words to the conflict between Jehovah and the Egyptians at the Red Sea (Ex 14:14); for there is nothing to support this special allusion. According to the historical accounts in the Old Testament, Jehovah went out more than once to fight for His people (cf. Josh 10:14,42; 23:3; Judg 4:15; 1 Sam 7:10; 2 Chron 20:15). The simile is therefore to be taken in a more general sense, as signifying “as He is accustomed to fight in the day of battle and slaughter,” and to be understood as referring to all the wars of the Lord on behalf of His people. In vv. 4 and 5 we have first of all a description of what the Lord will do to save the remnant of His people. He appears upon the Mount of Olives, and as His feet touch the mountain it splits in half, so that a large valley is formed.

The splitting of the mountain is the effect of the earthquake under the footsteps of Jehovah, before whom the earth trembles when He touches it (cf. Ex 19:18; Judg 5:5; Ps 68:8; Nah 1:5, etc.). The more precise definition of the situation of the Mount of Olives, viz., “before Jerusalem eastwards,” is not introduced with a geographical purpose-namely, to distinguish it from other mountains upon which olives trees grow-but is connected with the means employed by the Lord for the salvation of His people, for whom He opens a way of escape by splitting the mountain in two. The mountain is split µy; jr;z]mi yxije , from the half (i.e., the midst) of it to the east and to the west, i.e., so that a chasm ensues, which runs from the centre of the mountain both eastwards and westwards; so that the mountain is split latitudinally, one half (as is added to make it still more clear) removing to the south, the other to the north, and a great valley opening between them.

Into this valley the half of the nation that is still in Jerusalem will flee. rhæ ay]Gæ is the accusative of direction (Luther and others render it incorrectly, “before the valley of my mountains”). This valley is not the valley of the Tyropaeon, or the valley between Moriah and Zion (Jerome, Drus., Hofm.), but the valley which has been formed by the splitting of the Mount of Olives; and Jehovah calls the two mountains which have been formed through His power out of the Mount of Olives hârai, “my mountains.” Nor is it connected with the valley of Jehoshaphat; for the opinion that the newly-formed valley is merely an extension of the valley of Jehoshaphat has no foundation in the text, and is not in harmony with the direction taken by the new valley-namely, from east to west. The explanatory clause which follows, “for the (newly-formed) valley of the mountains will reach lxæa; lae ,” shows that the flight of the people into the valley is not to be understood as signifying that the valley will merely furnish the fugitives with a level road for escape, but that they will find a secure place of shelter in the valley. ‘El ‘Atsal has been taken by different commentators, after Symm. and Jerome, in an appellative sense, “to very near,” which Koehler interprets as signifying that the valley will reach to the place where the fugitives are.

I have trouble fully grasping what is offered here,because of lack of training in some of the historical places and events alluded too.
here is the link to their commentary,

HOSEA-MALACHI

and if you scroll through Zech. you will see the Christ centeredness of their view,
Has anyone worked on these portions before,and come up with something much different?

 

[Turtle]

the day of the Lord already come?

When and How do you see this passage fulfilled? Is it past or future?
How and Why? Any recommended commentary on this?

If His feet departed from the mount of olives (as appears the case in Act 1:11,12), then perhaps His "coming in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven" would also indicate His feet touching back down at the same place, as Zechariah 14:4 predicts. In other words, if someone says Zechariah's prophecy of His feet standing on the Mount of Olives was figurative and already fulfilled then I suppose we might think someone is telling us the day of the Lord, spoken by Zechariah, has already come... and that might cause people to be shaken or troubled until they re-read 2 Thess 2:2.

 

[Peairtach]

If you've already come to the premil position from other clearer passages, then this more difficult passage which could be taken to mean that Jesus' feet are physically and literally returning to the Mount of Olives before taking up residence in Jerusalem for 1,000 years will be grist to your mill.

The problem is, is that Zechariah is a highly apocalyptic and hence symbolical book. If you are going to interpret the Lord's feet on the Mount of Olives as literal, you've got a lot of explaining to do with the rest of the passage.

I ruled out a premillennium before I came to this passage, because of other clear theological considerations from easier areas of Scripture. Precisely everything that Zechariah is saying in Zechariah Fourteen is probably deeply mysterious to even those who have studied it most deeply.

It is not a good proof text for premillennialism or Dispensational premillennialism, or shouldn't be because of its difficulties. Although you will get premills using it to back up their theory of the millennium.

Here are a number of commentaries on Zechariah 14 from Christian Classics Ethereal Library. The one's by Calvin, Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, JFB (Jamieson, Faussett and Brown) should be good. John Wesley was an anti-Calvinist, but may say something worthwhile here(?) :-

Bible and Commentary Browser