Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Zechariah 14:16 ¶ Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Zechariah 14:16 ¶ Then everyone who is left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and celebrate the Feast of Booths (Tabernacles). |
Subject: participate in the feast of tabernacles? |
Bible Note: Dear Brother Mark, Sorry... I didn't mean to misquote you. Yes, please direct me to the sources that you mention. I'd like to see if they have solid Scriptural authority to arrive at such conclusions regarding the feasts. A couple of decades ago everyone was into typology. They saw types all over Scripture! Typology can, indeed, be found in the Word. For example, we know that the brass serpent of Numbers 21:9 is a type of Christ because we have the authority of John 3:14 to see it as a type; we know that Adam of Genesis 2 was a anti-type of Christ because we have the authority of 1 Corinthians 15:47 to see Adam as a anti-type; we know that Melchizedek of Genesis 14 was a type of Christ because we have the authority of Hebrews 7 to see Melchizedek as a type; etc. However, the fact that Joshua is the Hebraic form of the name Jesus does not give us authority to view Joshua, son of Nun, as a type. (There were very many similar types taught!) Consequently, things like the interpretations of the feasts, need to be examined with a very critical eye, lest we read into Scripture what Scripture does not actually say. Regarding commentaries, this might prove useful: Doctors Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart (authors of "How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth") recommend that a commentary ought to be chosen on the following basis: 1. The commentary should be exegetical 2. The commentary should be based on the original languages of Scripture 3. The commentary should discuss all possible meanings of a given text, offering the pros and cons of each, before the author presents his preferred meaning 4. The commentary should discuss text-critical questions 5. The commentary should discuss the historical background of texts as appropriate, and provide solid historical information at the beginning of sections (i.e., books, etc.) 6. The commentary should give bibliographies so that you can further study issues if you wish Personally, I would add that the commentary should be well accepted by the broader church; i.e., one that has stood the test of time. All of these factors provide you with a valuable tool to aid in your studies of the Word. It seems to me that to show preference for a commentary based on an eschatological position might, at best, leave you ignorant of other perspectives, or, at worst, lead you to an incorrect conclusion in your studies of the Word. It behooves us to remember that our eschatology is not inerrant, nor our commentators, but only the text of the Scripture as originally transmitted. In Him, Doc |