More from He shall Have Dominion by Dr. Ken GentryThe mount of olives was spilt in two to make a way of escape from the surrounding armies as I "read" in Zech 14. Armies that will be destroyed by the Lord not man. That didn't happen in the 1st century.
This entire dispensational scheme is wholly out of accord with the flow of redemptive history, so much so that it has been called an“evangelical heresy” by Meredith G. Kline. Indeed, “A. A. Hodge, B. B.Warfield, and J. G Machen . . . were outspoken opponents of dispensationalism, which they considered close to heresy.” Non-premillennial 5evangelicals vigorously denounce this interpretation. As redemptive history progresses to “the last days” (Isa 2:2–4; 1Co 10:11; Heb 9:26),which Christ institutes in the first century as the “fullness of time” (Mk1:14–15; Gal 4:4; Heb 1:1–2), the entire temple order and sacrificial system is forever done away with (Mt 24:1–34; Heb 8:13; Rev 11).Accompanying the physical temple’s removal, divine worship is forever d e-centralized and universalized (Jn 4:21–23; Mt 28:18–20). In addition,
God merges the redeemed of all nations into one kingdom without ethnic distinction (Ro 11:13–24; Eph 2:12–21; Gal 6:12–16; Rev 7:9–10). This very much contradicts dispensationalism’s reversing the divine economy back to an old covenant-like order, complete with the elevating of the Jewish race over all peoples. Of course, a major problem with the dispensational viewpoint herein Zechariah 14 is it’s a priori interpretive literalism (see ch. 7). The postmillennialist would interpret the passage in a much different light. The whole passage — as often with prophecy — is a mingling of literal and figurative prophetic allusions, as we shall see. The Postmillennial Interpretation The siege of Jerusalem described in Zechariah 14:1–2 points to the AD 70 judgment upon Jerusalem. J. Dwight Pentecost admits that the
disciples who hear the Olivet Discourse would naturally apply Zechariah14 to that event. But then, he says, such requires the confusing of God’s program for the church with that for Israel. So, he and other dispensationalists interpret the passage literalistically, with all the topographical and redemptive historical absurdities this creates. As they
do this they totally omit any reference to the destruction of the very city and temple being rebuilt in Zechariah’s day. Yet this literal temple (the second temple) is destroyed in AD 70, as all agree.
Last edited: