Zechariah speaks of “all the peoples” (Zech. 12:2), “and all the people of the earth will gather against it (Jerusalem)” (Zech. 12:3), and “I will gather all the nations to fight against Jerusalem” (Zech. 14:2). These verses do not seem to be referring to the Romans in A.D. 70. Further on, Zechariah continues, saying: “On that day the Lord will shield those who live in Jerusalem” (Zech. 12:8), and: “Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights on a day of battle” (Zech. 14:3). I concluded that none of this fits with what happened to Jerusalem in A.D. 70, when the Romans conquered Israel. Finally, the passage says that the Lord will save Israel on that day (Zech. 14:3), whereas in A.D. 70, the Lord judged Israel, as written in Luke 21:20–24. So how can preterists say that Zechariah is speaking of A.D. 70 if, in this passage, the Lord is saving His people? james stuart russell the parousia The AD 70 Doctrine description

>Thus speaks the LORD of hosts, Execute true judgment, and show mercy and compassions every man toward his brother; and oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart. (Zechariah 7:9-10) Although this is an Old Testament quotation, these admonitions seem to be repeated throughout the New Testament as well. (Matthew 25:31-46) >Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, "To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. (James 1:27) Is the modern emphasis by Evangelical and Reformed churches on "Salvation by faith alone through grace alone"---and just saying a "sinner's prayer" for salvation---giving a wrong impression as to what the Christian faith is all about? Should the "discipleship decision" include acceptance of the "social gospel" ,as well as, acceptance of the Apostles Creed (or denomination's creed)? And is Zechariah's verses an accurate presentation of what has historically been called "the Social Gospel". ***Is it non-essential in today's presentation of the Gospel of Grace. (A different gospel? Galatians 1:6-7), or is it an essential part of the evangelical Gospel?*** Is what is called "the Social Gospel" legitimate today, if it doesn't surplant the "Gospel of Grace" for salvation? We are basically seeking a critique of the present status of "the Social Gospel idea" in modern Protestantism denominations---and in actual preaching.

>So the angel of Jehovah said: “O Jehovah of armies, how long will you withhold your mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with whom you have been indignant **these 70 years**?” ([Zechariah 1:12](https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwtsty/38/1#study=discover&v=38:1:12) , NWT) >**1** And in the fourth year of King Darius, the word of Jehovah came to Zechariah on the fourth day of the ninth month, that is, the month of Chislev. **2** The people of Bethel sent Sharezer and Regem-melech and his men to beg for the favor of Jehovah, **3** saying to the priests of the house of Jehovah of armies and to the prophets: **“Should I weep in the fifth month and abstain from food, as I have done for so many years?”** >**4** The word of Jehovah of armies again came to me, saying: **5** “Say to all the people of the land and to the priests, ‘When you fasted and wailed in the fifth month and in the seventh month for **70 years**, did you really fast for me? ([Zechariah 7:1-5](https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwtsty/38/7#study=discover&v=38:7:1-38:7:5) , NWT) I have a copy of "Aid to Bible Understanding", WBTS, 1971, an encyclopedia of the Watchtower. On page 422 under "[Darius](https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200011096#h=31-33) " it says: >It is particularly with regard to the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem that Darius Hystaspis [Darius the Great, Darius I] figures in the Bible record.... it continued stopped until the second year of Darius (520/519). ... During this year the prophets Haggai and Zechariah stirred up the Jews to renew the construction ... the temple work went on to successful completion by the "sixth year of the reign of Darius" (Ezra 6:15).. by March 5/6 of 515 BCE. All of the above dates are in agreement with Parker & Dubberstein's standard work on the chronology of the period, and present no problem to me as an evangelical. The event recorded in Zech 1:7-12 can be dated via Parker & Dubberstein to 9th Feb 519 BC, Gregorian date; and Zech 7:1-5 can be dated to 2nd/3rd Dec 518 BC, Gregorian. The temple of Jerusalem was destroyed at the same time as the city, Jer 52:12-14. If the temple was destroyed in 587 BC per as the Catholic chronologist Valerius Coucke and the evangelical chronologist Rodger c. Young (cf rcyoung.org) then it is easy to understand the meaning of "these seventy years", and easy to understand why the enquirers should be asking the prophet whether it is OK to stop fasting in 518 when the temple rebuild is nearing completion. But if the temple was destroyed in 607 BCE - as per the articles at the end of this question - then in 518 BCE, not seventy, but nearly ninety years have elapsed. So my question is 'How do Jehovah's Witnesses explain "these seventy years" in these passages in Zechariah?' - Part 1: Watchtower, October 1, 2011, page 26 - Part 2: Watchtower, November 1, 2011, page 22

According to **Matthew** *(chapter 21)* the prophecy of **Zechariah 9:9** is fulfilled in Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. This makes Jesus the King of Zion: Matthew 21:1-5 >**1** And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two > disciples, **2** Saying unto them, Go into the village over against > you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: > loose them, and bring them unto me. **3** And if any man say ought > unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he > will send them. **4** All this was done, that it might be fulfilled > which was spoken by the prophet, saying, **5** Tell *ye* the daughter > of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an > ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. Zechariah 9:9 >Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. So according to the prophecy of **Zechariah** (and the gospels of **Matthew** and John), those who recognize their King and Savior "arriving, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass." are identified as the "**daughter of Zion**". To my knowledge, Christians are the only peoples holding this belief, wouldn't that make Christians the "daughter of Zion"?

For those Protestants that believe that Mary had other children after Jesus was born, what do they make of Zechariah 12:10-14? > 10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of > Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on > me, **the one they have pierced**, and they will mourn for him as one > mourns for an **only child**, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves > for a **firstborn son**. 11 On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be > as great as the weeping of Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. 12 > The land will mourn, each clan by itself, with their wives by > themselves: the clan of the house of David and their wives, the clan > of the house of Nathan and their wives, 13 the clan of the house of > Levi and their wives, the clan of Shimei and their wives, 14 and all > the rest of the clans and their wives. All Christians agree that Jesus was pierced and was a firstborn son. Why should we not also conclude from this passage that Jesus was also an **only child**? One Catholic article makes this point: http://whynotcatholicism.net/view/mary-ever-virgin To connect Mary with this passage, is added this from Luke 2: > 34 Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: “This child > is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to > be a sign that will be spoken against, 35 so that the thoughts of many > hearts will be revealed. **And a sword will pierce your own soul too**.”

>**Zechariah 14:1-5 (DRB)** Behold the days of the Lord shall come, and thy spoils shall be divided in the midst of thee. 2 And I will gather all nations to Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken, and the houses shall be rifled, and the women shall be defiled: and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the rest of the people shall not be taken away out of the city. 3 Then **the Lord** shall go forth, and shall fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. 4 **And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is over against Jerusalem** toward the east: and the mount of Olives shall be divided in the midst thereof to the east, and to the west with a very great opening, and half of the mountain shall be separated to the north, and half thereof to the south. 5 And you shall flee to the valley of those mountains, for the valley of the mountains shall be joined even to the next, and you shall flee as you fled from the face of the earthquake in the days of Ozias king of Juda: and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with him. >**Acts 1:1-12 (DRB)** The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, of all things which Jesus began to do and to teach, 2 Until the day on which, giving commandments by the Holy Ghost to the apostles whom he had chosen, he was taken up. 3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion, by many proofs, for forty days appearing to them, and speaking of the kingdom of God. >4 And eating together with them, he commanded them, that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but should wait for the promise of the Father, which you have heard (saith he) by my mouth. 5 For John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence. 6 They therefore who were come together, asked him, saying: Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 7 But he said to them: It is not for you to know the times or moments, which the Father hath put in his own power: 8 But you shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth. >9 And when he had said these things, while they looked on, he was raised up: and a cloud received him out of their sight. 10 And while they were beholding him going up to heaven, behold two men stood by them in white garments. 11 Who also said: Ye men of Galilee, why stand you looking up to heaven? **This Jesus who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come, as you have seen him going into heaven**. >12 Then they **returned to Jerusalem from the mount that is called Olivet, which is nigh Jerusalem,** within a sabbath day's journey. Question -- According to those who reject the deity of Christ (that He is "the LORD"), are these two passages speaking of two separate Lords? (EDIT: Since it doesn't seem to be clear: both mention a Lord returning to, or landing upon at least, the mount of Olives, probably an apocalyptic or end times event; that's the perceived connection. If Jesus is Yahweh, both refer to the same Lord. If not—well, that's the whole question.)

Although there are some who celebrate the feast of Tabernacles they are definitely in a minority. A prophecy in Zechariah speaks of a time when *all nations* will have to keep the feast: > Zech 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord 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, the Lord of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. 18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the Lord will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles We know that Jesus celebrated it (John 7:2) and if we believe the prophecies then we will keep the feast again in the future. The current period of not celebrating appears anomalous. Why don't Christians generally celebrate Tabernacles now?