Zechariah 14

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{tcl43}tcl42}tcl41}tcl40}tcl39}tcl38}tcl37}tcl36}tcl35}tcl34}tcl33}tcl32}tcl31}tcl30}tcl29}tcl28}tcl27}tcl26}tcl25}tcl24}tcl23}tcl22}tcl21}tcl20}tcl19}tcl18}tcl17}tcl16}tcl15}tcl14}tcl13}tcl12}tcl11}tcl10}tcl9}tcl8}tcl7}tcl6}tcl5}tcl4}tcl3}tcl2}tcl1}  •  19 min. read  •  grade level: 11
Listen from:
Finally, Zechariah 14 shows us how all this is brought out. “Behold, the day of Jehovah 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” (vss. 1-2). It is a truly singular state of things. The siege has taken place, with the king of the north at the head of all these nations. It is clearly not the beast who, instead of besieging Jerusalem, supports the false prophet with all his might, and the latter is “the king” who reigns in Jerusalem, whom “the many” accept as the Messiah and Jehovah of Israel. The king of the north is an outside enemy who at the head of all the nations of the east attacks Jerusalem. We must always remember that the man of sin, or the Antichrist, is inside Jerusalem; he is nowhere said to besiege it, for it is too submissive to him as “the king.” With him the beast and his ten kings make common cause. The Assyrian or “king of the north” (Dan. 11:4040And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over. (Daniel 11:40)) is at the head of all the opposed external nations.
The City Is Reduced to the Last Straits When All Nations Gather to Take It Under the Assyrian
This is an important point to bear in mind, and contributes to make the general outline plain. The man of sin, the Antichrist, is accepted by the Jews as the Messiah, and He will reign over the land with the highest pretensions. But he nonetheless hates and is hated by the king of the north, who will seek his ruin and the capture of Jerusalem. Two bad princes may bitterly hate one another, because they are each striving to get the mastery. So the man of sin is not only the lawless enemy of God, but also obnoxious to the ambitious leader of the eastern powers, namely, the Assyrian, who will stand forward the then representative of what may be called the old heathen policy, as well as of modern Russian feeling. Russia will indeed oppose to the last the powers of the west; as it will also be destroyed by the distinct judgment of God (Ezek. 38-39) at a different time and in a somewhat different way from the antichristian coalition.1 There is nothing to choose between them. The western powers have no ground to glory over Russia, unless it be that they are to be more openly apostate and audacious, as they will also be destroyed first. But the doom of the Assyrian will be substantially similar to that of the beast and the false prophet; for if the beast and the false prophet be thrown alive into the lake of fire, the Assyrian will be so a little later. Isaiah 30 reveals that the Assyrian is to have Tophet prepared for him as well as for the king—the anti-Messiah. “For the king also [not ‘yea’] it is prepared”; but the Assyrian will be cast alive into the lake of fire no less than the beast and the false prophet, which last is the Antichrist. The Lord Jesus will appear on both these occasions and take the lead in them, first of all from heaven dealing with the beast and the false prophet, then on the earth and now as the king of Israel, though in an infinitely glorious way, disposing of the Assyrian at the head of all the combined nations who were not destroyed with the beast.
It is to be hoped that these distinctions of scripture may help souls and not perplex them; for it need hardly be said that the object is to solve the chief difficulties by which most students of the prophetic word are arrested. At the same time it is quite possible that those to whom the subject is somewhat new, or who have not maturely considered it, may at first find difficulties suggested or increased, which is necessarily the case in any untrodden and varied ground. But I am satisfied that the true line of things has been pointed out. For, while difficulties may first be augmented by drawing attention to the various actors in the scenes who are too often confounded to the injury of the truth, the darkening of enquirers and the strengthening of objectors, the result will be that the different persons and actions of prophecy will in the long run get cleared and settled in the minds of any who examine with care this large and momentous portion of the divine word.
Nothing Like This in History
Let it be observed that siege is laid by the Assyrian with all the nations who own him as leader against Jerusalem, and that the siege is partially successful, for half the city is taken. Nothing like this has ever been since Zechariah’s day: still less does anything in history resemble what follows, as we shall see presently. It was not so when Ptolemy Soter took the city about B.C. 320, nor when Antiochus the Great took it B.C. 203, nor again B.C. 199, when Scopus the Egyptian general took it once more, nor the following year when it yielded to Antiochus, nor even when it was pillaged B.C. 170 by Antiochus Epiphanes, nor two years later under the frightful efforts of his army under Apollonius to destroy the city and the people, nor after that when his emissary Athenaeus profaned the sanctuary, and set up heathenism, with the utmost scorn to the law, which was followed by the exploits of the Maccabees, the issue being under Simon that the foreigner was expelled B.C. 142, and Acra demolished, as is commonly known. Under John Hyrcanus, the Syrian king Antiochus Sidetes was obliged to abandon the siege. Passing over internal or family disputes which have no possible resemblance, and the intervention of Aretas, it is impossible to identify with the prophecy Pompey’s capture of the temple B.C. 63, nor Crassus’ plunder of the city B.C. 54, nor the Parthian surprise B.C. 40. Herod’s siege was more similar perhaps, but essentially distinct, as we shall see by and by. Neither its final destruction by Titus, nor the move of Bar-Cochba under Hadrian, calls for lengthened remarks, as they are obviously different. Nothing since bears the smallest likeness to the prophecy.
Gross Misinterpretation of Eusebius
How any sensible persons can venture to say, as many have done, that the opening verses describe the past destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans is a real wonder. Waiving “the day of Jehovah” (vs. 1) (which may no doubt apply providentially as an earnest of the great fulfillment), was that a gathering of all the nations? Is it true then that half the people went forth into captivity, and that the rest were not cut off from the city? It is in vain also to smooth over verse 3 with such words as “the Roman power was doomed in its turn to destruction.” For what the prophet intimates is a speedy and awful overthrow, not in the course of ages and elsewhere, but as part of the same suite of events and in the neighborhood by a special display of divine power and glory on behalf of the Jews when at the last extremity; and this attested by the splitting of the mount of Olives toward the east and toward the west into a very great valley, half receding toward the north and half toward the south. To resolve such a carefully put geographical statement into a poetical figure, and to extract from it no more than the disciples fleeing to Pella, as Eusebius tells us, in the breaking out of the Jewish war with Rome, is to run the risk of reducing the prophets to the rank of bombastic dreamers. But the sober fact is, that the application of this chapter in the Dem. Evang. vi. 18 is as dismal a specimen of forcing scripture as anything forged by the mind of a rationalist. There is this only difference between the two, that Eusebius meant well by the Bible, which is not the case with those who plume themselves on “the higher criticism.” But as an unfolding of the divine word they are alike misleading and I must say contemptible. He interprets the chapter of the Savior’s first advent and of the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. The change of circumstance for professing Christians under Constantine seems to have turned a head which never gloried in the reproach of the cross and led to such misinterpretation.
But there is a second siege after this first, or a second attack, at any rate, after the first success. When the Gentiles have been partially successful, Jehovah will “go forth and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And His feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east” (vss. 3-4). This is not His coming from heaven to destroy the lawless one and his party. It is a subsequent and an earthly action. “And the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. And ye shall flee to the valley of my 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” (vss. 4-5). There the paragraph ends.
Right Division of Zechariah 14
What is put as the last clause of the verse ought to be the beginning of a new section. These divisions are not inspired. They are only the effect of an editor’s effort to give the sense, and are sometimes mistaken, as I believe the fact is here. That physical changes are meant seems to my mind beyond doubt. There will be for the alarmed Jews in that great day a complete passage made instantly by divine power through the mount of Olives—a standing witness whether or not this prophecy is fulfilled. “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” (vs. 5). The distress would be immense, the danger in appearance most imminent, when safety opens by the seemingly awful door of a valley so suddenly formed for them through the solid mountain, or as it is here styled (and no wonder) the “valley of my mountains” (vs. 5). It would seem that the alarm is compared to a flight that occurred during a well-known earthquake in Uzziah’s days. We can understand such a phenomenon adding to the terror of successful enemies till they know that it is the hand of God on their behalf.
After this the new section begins. “And Jehovah my God shall come, and all the saints with Thee” (vs. 5). For it would be harsh to suppose that He comes afresh after His going forth and fighting against the congregated nations, as already described in verse 3. I think therefore that the context proves it must be taken as another paragraph, presenting His coming in another point of view and for other ends.
Peculiarity in Verse 5
There is a peculiarity in the construction of the last clause of verse 5: “And Jehovah my God shall come, and all the saints with Thee.” The MSS. differ too; for near forty, and all the versions, give “with him”; and some again follow the Rabbis in understanding “with thee” of Jerusalem. But the difficulty is cleared up as the text stands by seeing that the prophet turns to Jehovah who is thus to be seen interfering for the Jew, and for the greater force exclaims “Jehovah my God shall come” (vs. 5), following up this sudden change by describing in such a scene the presence of others foreseen in his vision, “and all the saints with Thee” (vs. 5). Zechariah supposes himself addressing Jehovah in these words.
An Obscure Phrase in Verse 6
“And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark” (vs. 6) [or possibly “and dark”].2 To take this as the prediction of a period of unmitigated calamity, which may be regarded as comprehending the long centuries of Jewish suffering since Titus took the city, is an idea natural to such as can interpret the preceding verses of that famous siege. The phraseology in the close of the verse is hard. The text would mean that the precious lights should withdraw themselves; others with the Keri take it as “shall not be, but condensed darkness,” or thick fog.
But the incalculably great event of the day is plain enough, having its effect not only on the earth, but even in the heavens. This was reserved for the new section. The earthly fact and the destruction of foes were mentioned in the former part; another and higher fact with its consequences falls under the latter. Now the prophet looks at Jehovah coming with His holy ones—not so much here to fight a battle, but His saints coming with Him. This has an evidently deeper purpose. Hence the marked outward change which introduces that day, in order that in every way it may stand out distinctly from all before. It is absurdly wrong to dislocate verse 7 from verse 6, as if a time wholly different were intended. Not so; it is the continuation of the same unique circumstances. Hence there will be no such changes as men have known through light and darkness following each other, but it shall be one day which shall be known to Jehovah—not day succeeding night, “but it shall come to pass that at evening time it shall be light” (vs. 7). God thus marks the new era as significantly by a revolution in the heavens as He had by His intervention and the rent of mount Olivet on the earth. Thus evidently is there another paragraph introducing another order of events, with their accompaniments and effects.
Living Waters
But what follows is not dreadful like the yawning mountain, but most encouraging. At the evening time, instead of the darkness of night coming on, the brightness of the day continues. If the rending of Olivet was in keeping with the hopeless confusion from which they had to emerge, when all things must be shaken, the dawn of a new and brighter day shines on all from above. “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” (vs. 8). Unlike the torrents of the desert which dry up in time of heat, this should be ever flowing. It is a literal fact, I suppose, but highly significant of spiritual blessing at the same time. From the holy city go forth westward and eastward the waters which are destined to heal the long miseries of a world groaning under Satan’s thralldom, themselves the effect and the symbol of the rich blessing which Jehovah then diffuses far and wide, and this above all the changes ordinary in nature: in summer and in winter it shall be. Drought and frost will not affect them; neither will the obstruction of the hilly ground toward the west: the waters shall flow as steadily to the great sea on the west as to the Dead Sea on the east.
In this connection the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea are specially named. For it may be well to explain, that in Hebrew the east is reckoned the point at which one looks, and the west is thus behind the spectator. Hence Arabia is called the land of the right hand, as the north would be the left. Of course therefore to one with Palestine as his standpoint and thus facing, the Dead Sea would be in front and the Mediterranean in the rear.
One Jehovah for the Earth, and Jerusalem Dwelling in Safety
But there are better blessings still. “In that day there shall be one Jehovah, and His name one” (vs. 9). Idols fall; the King of kings reigns without rival or dispute. This is explicit, as if to cut off all possibility of evasion on the plea of previous figurative language. Who can pretend that it is so here?
A chart minutely distinct is appended, which refutes all pretense of heavenly glory being meant, or the spiritual blessing we have now in Christ: “All the land shall be turned as into a plain from Geba [in Benjamin on the northern frontier of the kingdom of Judah] to Rimmon south of Jerusalem; and it shall be lifted up and inhabited in its place [the city on its old site] from Benjamin’s gate unto the place of the first gate up to the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king’s wine-presses. And they shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more curse; and Jerusalem shall dwell in safety” (vss. 10-11). Then in verses 12-15 we learn the provision for the due maintenance of order and honor in the earth. The awful judgment of the nations which fought against Jerusalem is set forth. We see the last sample of this stroke in Ezekiel 38-39 before peace flows like a river. It is really painful to see how Catholics like C. à Lapide and Protestants like Venema pare down the glorious hopes of Israel to the circumstances of the Maccabean times.
The Nations to Own Its Central Authority, and This in the Worship of Jehovah
From verse 16 we have the regulation of the homage imposed on the residue of those hostile nations during the kingdom. Its proper theocratic character is unquestionable, and too distinct from the nature of Christianity to call for argument. “And it shall come to pass that every one that is left of all the nations which come against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, Jehovah of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, Jehovah of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith Jehovah will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles” (vss. 16-18). I do not pretend to say how, or how far, all the nations will attend the final feast of ingathering, the type of glory: the fact is certain, and God will see to its fulfillment. Jerusalem thus, as the city of the great King, is the religious metropolis of the earth; and there all must be at least represented year by year. We are not warranted in concluding that absence of the Passover here implies that it will not then be celebrated; for we know from the end of Ezekiel (which clearly speaks of the same time and circumstances) that it will be observed as well as the feast of Tabernacles, but not Pentecost, the characteristic feast which finds its full meaning exhausted in the church that now is, and therefore appears in God’s wisdom to lapse. To refer the close of Ezekiel to the post-captivity state is to despise unwittingly both scripture and the facts, in order to avoid the divine testimony to the total change of dispensation at the end of this age.3 As Egypt might be thought unaffected by the penal want of rain in case of failure to come up, the punishment is expressly said to fall there.
Holiness Pervading All and All Things in Jerusalem and Judah
But so thorough and complete would be the change, that holiness pervades things the most common. The very pots, the humblest utensils in Jehovah’s house, “shall be like the bowls before the altar” (vs. 20)—those that were most holy. “Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto Jehovah: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of Jehovah of hosts” (vs. 21). I admit the curse of a mercenary caste of religious teachers, and we see what a stumbling-block the covetousness of the Jewish priesthood proved in Israel; but I see no reason to abandon the simple force of Canaanite here, while allowing broad and deep principles as well as facts. He was in the land when Abram entered it; he was not banished from the land by the victories of Joshua. The enemy, never fully expelled before, should vanish then. All is to be according to God, as far as this can be in the earth till God in the most absolute way make all things new. Who can wonder when Jehovah takes the kingdom?
 
1. Unless Gog be identified with the Assyrian, there is no intimation that the former is thrown alive into Tophet, as the latter is.
2. One can hardly regard as certain the reading at the end of this verse, that of the Keri being apparently the best and well supported, especially if we give weight to the ancient versions. Translators and commentators differ widely. According to the Ketib, the sense would run, “there shall not be the light of precious things, they shall withdraw themselves,” or be withdrawn; according to the Keri, it might be “and density” or “but density,” that is, darkness. Dathe, Maurer, and so forth contend for the rendering “lux non erit sed frigus et gelu”; and so the LXX Sym. Syr. Vulg. But the process of extracting such a result seems as precarious as the result when extracted. And is it not pitiful the comment of such a man as Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus near the Euphrates early in the fifth century, and one of the most learned and moderate of the Greek fathers, who perverts all this to the Gospel history and finds this verse for instance fulfilled in the darkness of the cross, and the leader of the apostles warming by the fire with the high priest’s servants. One wonders not that such trifling breeds or provokes rationalism.
3. The statement in Hebrews, that where remission of sins is, there is no more offering for sin, applies to the Christian simply, and in no way forbids other facts which the prophets clearly predict of an age wholly different and not yet arrived.