What Gary DeMar misses
After studying Zechariah for a exegetical paper for the Prophets class at WTS - I came across Gary DeMar's treatment of Zech 12. In his treatment Mr. DeMar insist that the fulfillment of Zech 12 comes in the story of the Book of Ester. He further insisted that biblical prophecy is not always about the end-times and that Zech 12 is no exception.
What I believe Mr. DeMar misses is that in every case of Old Testament prophecy there is a near historical Horizon that indeed the prophets had in view and there is a far eschatology horizon that the prophets sometimes did not have in view. He dismissed the interpretation of the Prophecy as referring to the church throughout the time from the resurrection to Christ and His second coming. Although he did allow that to be an application of the text. After he accused every other commentator of importing his own prophetical expectation on the text - he then goes on to insist the meaning of words in obscure context bolster his position. For example, he claims that "In that day" formula is never used in the OT to refer to the Second coming. Though I would agree that they did not refer to a "Second" coming, I would certainly say that the formula is almost universally recognized as a pointer to the Day of the LORD. A coming day of both judgment and blessing. Its not until the revelation of Christ that we see that there is a dual aspect of the "Day of the LORD".
Basically Mr. Demar is not wrong in seeing a historical fulfillment. Even his interpretation of verse 10 were God is said to be pierced is not off base - For indeed the Jews did pierce God in there disobedience and it is not wrong to assume that God did open up a fountain of cleansing to the House of David. The real problem is the short-sideness of Mr. Demar's understanding of prophecy.
If we wanted to press Mr. Demar further we could question the accuracy of the images of the Cup of Staggering and the Stone of offense as well as the blind/mad horses. All of these pictures of judgment were once designated against Judah and Jerusalem themselves (Deut. 28:28; Jer 25; Isa 51) but know have been applied to the nations. Not only that all of these judgment signs are repeated and consummated in the Lord Jesus himself (who drinks the cup of God Wrath, is the stone of stumbling, whose death darkens the whole earth for 3 hours ). These pictures are not meant to have a one-to-one correspondence with history so that they have only one meaning. Like the prophets frequently speaking about the sun going dark and the moon filling with blood etc. Or even the Day of the LORD - which manifest itself in all of the historical judgments against Israel. If Mr. DeMar is willing to see that not all the pictures are fulfilled in Ester - then why must he insist that they only can be referring to it?
One other historical note: if Ester is the fulfillment of Zech 12 - then why is the Name of God absent from the story? Even if you take the acrostic of the chapters as spelling (hwhy) Zech 12 describes quite a different reliance on God and subsequent repentance.
Another concern comes from the grammar. Many commentators note the difference of Zech 9-14 from the first eight chapters. The common consensus is that this comes from the eschatological focus of the later chapters on the whole. though this does not mean that the first eight chapters are not concerned with things on an eschatological scale, it is a recognition that there is a greater effort to push beyond the immediate horizon and grasp and the final horizon in the later part of Zech. In Chapter 12 the burden particularly states that this vision is of Israel but the speaks only of Judah and Jerusalem. Then it establishes that the God who is speaking this fantastic work of encouragement is none other than the creator. By drawing on the image of creation Zech give the reader the confidence in unfolding events as being nothing short of a re-creation. It should also be noted that the second part of Zech (9-14) contain a dense proportion of passages specifically applied to Jesus in the NT. The NT writers hermeneutic was clearly to see these texts as eschatological.
However, I can't get to bent out of shape when he brings up the inconsistency in the Dispy interps.
Perhaps if I get the time I will more formally address the problems that I see, but for know a quick response will do.
