Zechariah 14:4-5 and the Second Coming of Christ

[Arial]

Zechariah 14: 4-5 uses apocalyptic language and therefore should be interpreted according to apocalyptic literature. On that day his feet shall stand on the mount of Olives that lies before, Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley, so that one half of the Mount shall move northward, and the other half southward. And you shall flee to the valley of my mountains, for the valley of the mountains shall reach to Azal. And you shall flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord my God will come, and all the holy ones with him.

Those who received this prophecy would not have understood its full meaning. They were the people of Judah who had returned to the land from their Babylonian exile. They were pre-incarnation of Messiah, his life, death, resurrection, ascension. We are not. In the NT we have the fulfillment of this prophecy in a right now/ not yet way. Right now because Jesus has finished his earthly mission. Not yet, because this is speaking of his second advent, his return. So, we must interpret the prophecy according to what we have in the NT, not according to the only way in which the Jews had of interpreting it.

This OP is to combat a claim made by @CrowCross that Jesus returns three times, not one time. And "claim" is to light a word, for he states it as fact and says that anyone who does not believe what he believes, is contradicting the Bible. In his view, as best I am able to understand, goes like this: With Acts 1:11 "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus , who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."

Crow says that 1 Thess 4:16-17 is that first coming. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
This, he says, matches the passage in Acts.

Then he says, through the dispensational lens, is when Christ comes to take the believers up to heaven so they don't have to go through the judgement that comes for the next seven years. There are a lot of scriptural problems with that but for now, and for the sake of space, suffice it to say that this as a second of three returns itself cannot be verified anywhere in the Bible. It is made to do so to keep a view of a seven year tribulation period intact. (Also unverifiable but the result of speculation and treating Revelation literalisticlly) and a rapture prior to that. If the first cannot be verified, then neither can the second. And it comes from not properly handling the genre of Revelation as apocalyptic literature.

The second of three comings is taken from Rev 19:11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True and in righteousness he judges and makes war.

So at that coming he comes to judge and make war. I am not sure how Crow interprets the make war unless in his view that is this seven year tribulation.

He has our OP passage as Christ's third coming. And here, he reverts back to not NT revelation of OT prophecy, but to the Jewish interpretation (the only one they could have).This, according to @CrowCross is when Jesus comes to reign in Jerusalem for a thousand years in the kingdom of God, national Israel, goes to war again, and finally finally, the other kingdom of God the Church who have been languishing in heaven (while he is on earth and not with him as 1 Thess states)is joined with the first kingdom, national Israel, and the two become one kingdom.

To keep this more contained I will continue in Part 2 where we will look at proper interpretation methods and what that does to the meaning of Zech 14, showing that @CrowCross's three returns of Jesus and his two kingdoms of God derived from this passage are invalid.

 

[Arial]

PART 2 of OP

We need to take a back step here to distinguish between literal and spiritual Interpretation as this is how the Covenant and Dispensational interpretations are usually juxtaposed.

Literal simply means according to the plain sense of the words. Spiritual is usually confused with spiritualizing, and is really not the difference or the issue in these two interpretive methods.

Covenant theology does interpret all scripture according to the plain sense of the words---unless the genre and language are clearly symbolic. In that case it finds within the scriptures how these, symbols, (visions, numbers, images) are used; what they are depicting, since they are deeply rooted in the OT.

Though Dispensationalism claims to interpret literally, they do not. When it comes to apocalyptic (things being revealed through symbolic language) they do not interpret according to the plain sense of the word. They end up interpreting literalisticlly (and there is a difference but I will leave it up to the reader to search out that difference) and they are highly inconsistent. For instance, they may or may not take the man of Zach 14 as literally standing on the Mount of Olives and the mountain being split etc., or riding in on a white horse, but they take everything else in the same passage literally.

Some, I cannot say all, but I believe @CrowCross does, take Zach 14:4-5 so literalisticlly as to see it as a third coming of Christ. The big one. That is because he sees it as a literal and does not interpret the images, therefore it becomes a contradiction of the Acts passage if there is only one return of Christ. How literally he takes the images, I don't know.

So what about the images?

Prophetic and Apocalyptic language is concrete by design. The OT prophets often used vivid, earthly and dramatic imagery to describe spiritual or future events. They communicate divine truth in concrete, familiar terms. Hebrew thought is more conceptual and image-driven, not abstract or philosophical. They used symbolic geography. "Mountains splitting is a stock imagine in ancient Jewish prophecy to indicate God showing up in power.

Mountains moving = God reshaping history, not God literally displacing geology. The splitting of the mountain and people fleeing is not about geography, but deliverance. It is not describing an actual tectonic event, but communicating God's faithfulness and power to deliver.

All the language and imagery are not normal historical reporting, but hallmarks of symbolic, prophetic-apocalyptic genre.

It is reframed by the NT. His second coming is said to be "in the same way" in Acts1:11, but the NT does not ever describes it as him touching down and splitting the mountain. Instead it emphasizes that his return will bring universal judgement and cosmic renewal, not localized topographical upheaval.

The OT imagery is fulfilled theologically, not geographically. In Covenant theology the passage is understood as symbolically (real events foretold by the imagery, have been (or will be) genuinely fulfilled, but not in the exact physical, geographical, or literal form described in the prophecy) fulfilled in Christ's redemptive work and ultimately in his second coming

 

[CrowCross]

Zechariah 14: 4-5 uses apocalyptic language and therefore should be interpreted according to apocalyptic literature. On that day his feet shall stand on the mount of Olives that lies before, Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley, so that one half of the Mount shall move northward, and the other half southward. And you shall flee to the valley of my mountains, for the valley of the mountains shall reach to Azal. And you shall flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord my God will come, and all the holy ones with him.

Those who received this prophecy would not have understood its full meaning. They were the people of Judah who had returned to the land from their Babylonian exile. They were pre-incarnation of Messiah, his life, death, resurrection, ascension. We are not. In the NT we have the fulfillment of this prophecy in a right now/ not yet way. Right now because Jesus has finished his earthly mission. Not yet, because this is speaking of his second advent, his return. So, we must interpret the prophecy according to what we have in the NT, not according to the only way in which the Jews had of interpreting it.

This OP is to combat a claim made by @CrowCross that Jesus returns three times, not one time. And "claim" is to light a word, for he states it as fact and says that anyone who does not believe what he believes, is contradicting the Bible. In his view, as best I am able to understand, goes like this: With Acts 1:11 "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus , who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."

Crow says that 1 Thess 4:16-17 is that first coming. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
This, he says, matches the passage in Acts.

Then he says, through the dispensational lens, is when Christ comes to take the believers up to heaven so they don't have to go through the judgement that comes for the next seven years. There are a lot of scriptural problems with that but for now, and for the sake of space, suffice it to say that this as a second of three returns itself cannot be verified anywhere in the Bible. It is made to do so to keep a view of a seven year tribulation period intact. (Also unverifiable but the result of speculation and treating Revelation literalisticlly) and a rapture prior to that. If the first cannot be verified, then neither can the second. And it comes from not properly handling the genre of Revelation as apocalyptic literature.

The second of three comings is taken from Rev 19:11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True and in righteousness he judges and makes war.

So at that coming he comes to judge and make war. I am not sure how Crow interprets the make war unless in his view that is this seven year tribulation.

He has our OP passage as Christ's third coming. And here, he reverts back to not NT revelation of OT prophecy, but to the Jewish interpretation (the only one they could have).This, according to @CrowCross is when Jesus comes to reign in Jerusalem for a thousand years in the kingdom of God, national Israel, goes to war again, and finally finally, the other kingdom of God the Church who have been languishing in heaven (while he is on earth and not with him as 1 Thess states)is joined with the first kingdom, national Israel, and the two become one kingdom.

To keep this more contained I will continue in Part 2 where we will look at proper interpretation methods and what that does to the meaning of Zech 14, showing that @CrowCross's three returns of Jesus and his two kingdoms of God derived from this passage are invalid.

When you can show me Jesus left on a white horse...whether it be literal or "symbolic"...and the angels say Jesus will return the same way....WHY SHOULD I EXPECT JESUS TO BE RIDING A WHITE HORSE AT 1 THES 4:16?????

Part 1 refuted.

 

[Arial]

When you can show me Jesus left on a white horse...whether it be literal or "symbolic"...and the angels say Jesus will return the same way....WHY SHOULD I EXPECT JESUS TO BE RIDING A WHITE HORSE AT 1 THES 4:16?????

Part 1 refuted.

The OP wasn't dealing with the white horse so in what way was it refuted? Plus, simply telling someone to prove something that doesn't exist is not refuting anything. You shouldn't be expecting Jesus to be riding a white horse at 1 Thess 4:16 or anywhere else. That is the point. Jesus does not come back three times, he comes back once: The second coming is shown in three different places (that we are dealing with) through three different uses of imagery, depending on the purpose that they are depicting. If you read part 2, you might be able to see that, but it will require a mind open to the possibility that you might have been mistaken.

 

[CrowCross]

The OP wasn't dealing with the white horse so in what way was it refuted? Plus, simply telling someone to prove something that doesn't exist is not refuting anything. You shouldn't be expecting Jesus to be riding a white horse at 1 Thess 4:16 or anywhere else. That is the point. Jesus does not come back three times, he comes back once: The second coming is shown in three different places (that we are dealing with) through three different uses of imagery, depending on the purpose that they are depicting. If you read part 2, you might be able to see that, but it will require a mind open to the possibility that you might have been mistaken.

You don't seem to get it.....The angels told them Jesus would return in the same way He left. Do you agree?

Secondly, as I have said several times and you haven't addressed...whether LITERAL or SYMBOLIC.....Jesus didn't leave riding a literal white horse NOR in the symbolic fashion described in Rev 19 when Jesus returns and stands on the Mt. of Olives per Zech 14

 

[CrowCross]

PART 2 of OP

We need to take a back step here to distinguish between literal and spiritual Interpretation as this is how the Covenant and Dispensational interpretations are usually juxtaposed.

Literal simply means according to the plain sense of the words. Spiritual is usually confused with spiritualizing, and is really not the difference or the issue in these two interpretive methods.

Covenant theology does interpret all scripture according to the plain sense of the words---unless the genre and language are clearly symbolic. In that case it finds within the scriptures how these, symbols, (visions, numbers, images) are used; what they are depicting, since they are deeply rooted in the OT.

Though Dispensationalism claims to interpret literally, they do not. When it comes to apocalyptic (things being revealed through symbolic language) they do not interpret according to the plain sense of the word. They end up interpreting literalisticlly (and there is a difference but I will leave it up to the reader to search out that difference) and they are highly inconsistent. For instance, they may or may not take the man of Zach 14 as literally standing on the Mount of Olives and the mountain being split etc., or riding in on a white horse, but they take everything else in the same passage literally.

Some, I cannot say all, but I believe @CrowCross does, take Zach 14:4-5 so literalisticlly as to see it as a third coming of Christ. The big one. That is because he sees it as a literal and does not interpret the images, therefore it becomes a contradiction of the Acts passage if there is only one return of Christ. How literally he takes the images, I don't know.

So what about the images?

Prophetic and Apocalyptic language is concrete by design. The OT prophets often used vivid, earthly and dramatic imagery to describe spiritual or future events. They communicate divine truth in concrete, familiar terms. Hebrew thought is more conceptual and image-driven, not abstract or philosophical. They used symbolic geography. "Mountains splitting is a stock imagine in ancient Jewish prophecy to indicate God showing up in power.

Mountains moving = God reshaping history, not God literally displacing geology. The splitting of the mountain and people fleeing is not about geography, but deliverance. It is not describing an actual tectonic event, but communicating God's faithfulness and power to deliver.

All the language and imagery are not normal historical reporting, but hallmarks of symbolic, prophetic-apocalyptic genre.

It is reframed by the NT. His second coming is said to be "in the same way" in Acts1:11, but the NT does not ever describes it as him touching down and splitting the mountain. Instead it emphasizes that his return will bring universal judgement and cosmic renewal, not localized topographical upheaval.

The OT imagery is fulfilled theologically, not geographically. In Covenant theology the passage is understood as symbolically (real events foretold by the imagery, have been (or will be) genuinely fulfilled, but not in the exact physical, geographical, or literal form described in the prophecy) fulfilled in Christ's redemptive work and ultimately in his second coming

I don't see Jesus coming 3 times unless you count the time when Jesus was born in the flesh.

Zech is literal. We read where God did literally move mountains....
Psalm 104:8 the mountains rose and the valleys sank to the place You assigned for them—

 

[Arial]

I don't see Jesus coming 3 times unless you count the time when Jesus was born in the flesh.

Zech is literal. We read where God did literally move mountains....
Psalm 104:8 the mountains rose and the valleys sank to the place You assigned for them—

Crow, you have said that he comes back three times in some of your posts. I did not make that up.

Does he also literally wrap himself in light, stretch out the heavens like a tent, lay beams of his upper Chambers on the waters, ride on the wings of the wind (does the wind literally have wings?) Ps 104.

Psalm 104 is a Psalm of praise for God in creation using poetic imagery.

So, where is some "homework" of refuting what was said in my post. Something besides just saying Zech is literal with the implied support of Ps 104 being literal when it says the mountains rose and the valleys. To put that into perspective our argument against the two part OP would go something like this. In Ps 104 we read where God literally moved mountains, therefore Zech is literal."

 

[Arial]

You don't seem to get it.....The angels told them Jesus would return in the same way He left. Do you agree?

Secondly, as I have said several times and you haven't addressed...whether LITERAL or SYMBOLIC.....Jesus didn't leave riding a literal white horse NOR in the symbolic fashion described in Rev 19 when Jesus returns and stands on the Mt. of Olives per Zech 14

How can you read what I said about it and still say this. Look.

. That is because he sees it as a literal and does not interpret the images, therefore it becomes a contradiction of the Acts passage if there is only one return of Christ. How literally he takes the images, I don't know.

So what about the images?

Prophetic and Apocalyptic language is concrete by design. The OT prophets often used vivid, earthly and dramatic imagery to describe spiritual or future events. They communicate divine truth in concrete, familiar terms. Hebrew thought is more conceptual and image-driven, not abstract or philosophical. They used symbolic geography. "Mountains splitting is a stock imagine in ancient Jewish prophecy to indicate God showing up in power.

Mountains moving = God reshaping history, not God literally displacing geology. The splitting of the mountain and people fleeing is not about geography, but deliverance. It is not describing an actual tectonic event, but communicating God's faithfulness and power to deliver.

All the language and imagery are not normal historical reporting, but hallmarks of symbolic, prophetic-apocalyptic genre.

It is reframed by the NT. His second coming is said to be "in the same way" in Acts1:11, but the NT does not ever describes it as him touching down and splitting the mountain. Instead it emphasizes that his return will bring universal judgement and cosmic renewal, not localized topographical upheaval.

The OT imagery is fulfilled theologically, not geographically. In Covenant theology the passage is understood as symbolically (real events foretold by the imagery, have been (or will be) genuinely fulfilled, but not in the exact physical, geographical, or literal form described in the prophecy) fulfilled in Christ's redemptive work and ultimately in his second coming

 

[CrowCross]

Crow, you have said that he comes back three times in some of your posts. I did not make that up.

Where?

Does he also literally wrap himself in light, stretch out the heavens like a tent, lay beams of his upper Chambers on the waters, ride on the wings of the wind (does the wind literally have wings?) Ps 104.

Psalm 104 is a Psalm of praise for God in creation using poetic imagery.

So, where is some "homework" of refuting what was said in my post. Something besides just saying Zech is literal with the implied support of Ps 104 being literal when it says the mountains rose and the valleys. To put that into perspective our argument against the two part OP would go something like this. In Ps 104 we read where God literally moved mountains, therefore Zech is literal."

Did Jesus LITERALLY walk on water? Cause a coin to appear in a fishes mouth? Rise from the dead?

Yes, some of the bible is symbolic....Israel is the fig tree. Some times God is described in anthropomorphicterms. Sometimes the bible is poetic...heck, even parables. Do you know sometimes the bible is literal?

Do you know that 6 times the millennial kingdom is specifically said to be 1,000 years in length. 6 times!

Your problem is when you try to spiritualize every aspect of the bible...you usually get it wrong. Your post on the rapture and now the 1000 year reign demonstrate that.

 

[Hazelelponi]

You shouldn't be expecting Jesus to be riding a white horse at 1 Thess 4:16 or anywhere else.

Zechariah 10:3 is one of the clearest passages where Judah is likened to a warhorse under God’s command:

“The Lord of hosts cares for his flock, the house of Judah, and will make them like his majestic steed in battle.”

This is not just poetic—it’s covenantal imagery. Judah, once wayward, is restored and empowered, no longer scattered but formed into God’s instrument of war, strength, and purpose. The people of God are not discarded; they are remade into something glorious under the hand of their King.

This restoration is echoed in Ezekiel 36:24–28, where God promises:

“I will take you from the nations and gather you... I will give you a new heart and a new spirit... and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.”

The picture is one of cleansing, renewal, and unbreakable covenant. The Lord does not abandon Judah—He purifies and transforms them, making them wholly His.

And when we behold Revelation 19, we see Jesus Christ riding forth on a white horse. This is not mere symbolism; it is the eschatological fulfillment of His redeeming work. He appears not as a meek Lamb, but as the conquering King—faithful and true—coming in righteousness to judge and to make war.

The warhorse of Zechariah finds its ultimate counterpart in Christ’s own triumph. He is the commander who leads. He is the Victor who secures. And His people, remade by grace, follow Him—not as casualties of war, but as sharers in His victory.

 

[Arial]

Where?

Good question, since you know I won't search through all of your posts to find it. So, an actual quote aside, even the idea comes from three passages that YOU use.1. 1 Thess 4. 2. Rev 19. 3. Zach 14. All of which you say are depicting different returns because 2 and 3 don't match 1 and 1 and 3 don't match 2 and 1 and 2 don't match 3.

The only way, according to you. to not contradict the Bible, is to say he returns on more than one occasion. But that would be reading into the Bible something it does not say. In the epistles and the Gospels, multiple returns for different purposes is not mentioned, and neither is it mentioned in the Prophets. What is mentioned is that he returns at the end of the age to judge the living and the dead, and bring a new heaven and a new earth ----the consummation.

If that return is seen in 1 Thess 4, and 1 Cor 15, the resurrected and glorified saints return with him.

Did Jesus LITERALLY walk on water? Cause a coin to appear in a fishes mouth? Rise from the dead?

Yes. Does that make Psalm 104 literal in the same sense? The first is historical narrative and the second is obviously poetic metaphor for literal truths about God. You may not think making these distinctions is at all necessary in interpretation, but you yourself show that they are. Not doing so messed up a great deal of correct interpretation of scriptures. Read the following.

Covenant theology does interpret all scripture according to the plain sense of the words---unless the genre and language are clearly symbolic. In that case it finds within the scriptures how these, symbols, (visions, numbers, images) are used; what they are depicting, since they are deeply rooted in the OT.

Prophetic and Apocalyptic language is concrete by design. The OT prophets often used vivid, earthly and dramatic imagery to describe spiritual or future events. They communicate divine truth in concrete, familiar terms. Hebrew thought is more conceptual and image-driven, not abstract or philosophical. They used symbolic geography. "Mountains splitting is a stock imagine in ancient Jewish prophecy to indicate God showing up in power.

All the language and imagery are not normal historical reporting, but hallmarks of symbolic, prophetic-apocalyptic genre.

It is reframed by the NT. His second coming is said to be "in the same way" in Acts1:11, but the NT does not ever describes it as him touching down and splitting the mountain. Instead it emphasizes that his return will bring universal judgement and cosmic renewal, not localized topographical upheaval.

Do you know that 6 times the millennial kingdom is specifically said to be 1,000 years in length. 6 times!

That no doubt is because "millennial " or "millennial kingdom" is never used in the Bible. So here is a question: Does Revelation present it message through symbolic and figurative visions but with only one exception? When it uses numbers? And if we look into the use of multiples of tens e.g. "tens of thousands" or anything that refers to 1000, is it indicating exact numbers, or is it depicting something else? Something such as "a great many", "an uncountable number" the "exact number not known or not revealed, but a LOT"?

So, a millennial kingdom is never mentioned in scripture, let alone that it is a 1000 years in length. See how presuppositions are read into the Bible words?

Your problem is when you try to spiritualize every aspect of the bible...you usually get it wrong. Your post on the rapture and now the 1000 year reign demonstrate that.

There, at last, is the famous word attached to Covenant theology in order to discredit it! Spiritualize! Please provide your definition of that word, because if it is a correct definition, it will not match what I showed in Part 2 when I presented the covenant view. It is used in that way because what is said according to covenant theology is shown to at least be something to be considered, even possibly correct, and who wants to let go of their escape hatch they have built?

 

[CrowCross]

Good question, since you know I won't search through all of your posts to find it. So, an actual quote aside, even the idea comes from three passages that YOU use.1. 1 Thess 4. 2. Rev 19. 3. Zach 14. All of which you say are depicting different returns because 2 and 3 don't match 1 and 1 and 3 don't match 2 and 1 and 2 don't match 3.

Face-palm. I see backpedaling.

Rapture....first return in the clouds. Often called the "appearing"

2nd Coming....the white horse event where Jesus stands on the Mt. of Olives and it splits like the bible says.

 

[Arial]

Face-palm. I see backpedaling.

Rapture....first return in the clouds. Often called the "appearing"

2nd Coming....the white horse event where Jesus stands on the Mt. of Olives and it splits like the bible says.

Well is he riding on a white horse or is he standing on the Mount of Olives?

 

[Arial]

Face-palm. I see backpedaling.

Rapture....first return in the clouds. Often called the "appearing"

2nd Coming....the white horse event where Jesus stands on the Mt. of Olives and it splits like the bible says.

Where is your refutation of the rest of that post? It is well noted that you do not deal with what you cannot deal with and stick to your mantra instead, or like the above, first slant a demeaning remark towards the poster.

 

[Arial]

@CrowCross

I have a sincere question. Is a pre-trib rapture the sole area of your study of God and his word, in his word? I ask because I have very seldom seen you engage with anything else.

A bit of my own history. When I was reborn into Christ in the early eighties, Revelation and this seven year tribulation and a pre-trib rapture ran neck and neck with a focus on the activity of demons, as the most, talked about and written about subjects. There was nothing I read or heard that connected it as being dispensational in its Bible interpretation framework. It was all treated, just as you treat it, as an indisputable fact. There was an obsession of written material on solving the puzzle of the images in Revelation and tying them to current events. The embedding of the ideas into the minds of Christians from day one, and never looking at anything else, or doing proper hermeneutical and exegetical work of supporting what is said, is very difficult to break out of. It becomes near impossible to read any of Scripture through any other lens.

But it places all of redemption on a human centric level. It is no longer Christ centered. The book of Revelation becomes about humans and not about Christ. However, the entire Bible from cover to cover is Christ centered. It does not suddenly, in the last book become human centered. The title of that book is The Revelation of Jesus Christ. Dispensationalism has made that "of" to mean things Christ is revealing about the future. But that is wrong. It is Christ being revealed just as all the rest of the Bible is. This revelation of Jesus is not a chronological narrative of his person and work, but a revealing of his entire person and work and its culmination in the future from the time of writing, when he returns.. And it is not shown in chronological order but from different perspectives and what was taking place in the heavenlies that we cannot see as it has played out historically. Each series of judgments ends in the same place. With his return.

So I ask again, in a different way. Are you seeking Christ and his return, is it his glory and power and preservation you see in Revelation, and the surety of it? Or is your heart and mind set on examining the news and technology to discern how close it is to your escape from tribulation? Is it his return that fills you with joy, or the escape from his return?