In class, we were going over the feasts, and the claim is made that the last feast Christ needs to fulfill is the Feast of Booths/Tabernacles.
It seems odd to me that this feast would be outstanding when everything else appears to have been fulfilled somewhat in rapid succession very early on.
Input? Thoughts? Opinions? Help?
Christ's fulfillment of the Feast of Tabernacles
Re: Christ's fulfillment of the Feast of Tabernacles
The idea that the fall feasts have yet to be fulfilled is fairly standard fare among dispensationalists—though I am not saying they alone hold to the view. I have wondered whether this could be otherwise. I can't make a case, but, just so you know others are asking the same questions, I have wondered if the feast of tabernacles could have been fulfilled in the birth of Jesus (who became flesh and tabernacled among us), or, alternatively, whether the destruction of Jerusalem might have fulfilled these fall feasts (Jerusalem fell in August, and the feasts are usually about a month later, so this may m=not be possible).
Re: Christ's fulfillment of the Feast of Tabernacles
Thanks Steve.
There were many ideas going through my head regarding this. Since the feast follows the Day of Atonement, a day when it was determined if God would accept the sacrifice for Israel's sins, could it be that Christ's death was our Day of Atonement, thus the Feast of Tabernacles would be fulfilled after the crucifixion? If one sees each fulfillment coming in order. So, one would look to an event "shortly" after the Day of Atonement to be the fulfillment of the Feast of Tabernacles?
I don't know much about this topic, it just didn't sit well with me in class the way it was explained. I'm glad to hear that I am not the only one questioning the idea.
There were many ideas going through my head regarding this. Since the feast follows the Day of Atonement, a day when it was determined if God would accept the sacrifice for Israel's sins, could it be that Christ's death was our Day of Atonement, thus the Feast of Tabernacles would be fulfilled after the crucifixion? If one sees each fulfillment coming in order. So, one would look to an event "shortly" after the Day of Atonement to be the fulfillment of the Feast of Tabernacles?
I don't know much about this topic, it just didn't sit well with me in class the way it was explained. I'm glad to hear that I am not the only one questioning the idea.
Re: Christ's fulfillment of the Feast of Tabernacles
My present understanding of the fulfillment of Yom Kippur is identified with the present age. "Today is the day of salvation." Hebrews 9 depicts Jesus going into the Holy of Holies at His ascension, and making intercession for us there at the present. It seems to indicate that His return will be the coming out of the Holy of Holies. Thus, the period between His ascension and His return corresponds to the high priests actions on a single day. I don't know what impact this may have on the interpretation of the feasts of trumpets and tabernacles.
Re: Christ's fulfillment of the Feast of Tabernacles
One of the only non-dispensationalist approaches to the feast material that I'm aware of is from David Curtis, a preterist. His notes on each day can be found here, starting with Passover (he also has an excellent MP3 series on the material):
http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transc ... ssover.htm
His position starts like the dispensational one, with the recognition that the feasts are meant to teach important components of redemptive prophecy, and, critically, that they seem to be fulfilled on the date that they are celebrated (I think it might be interesting to consider the ramification of an incomplete process of redemption started at the cross but not wrapped up until later because of this, something that I've noticed makes Calvinists momentarily incontinent). So, Passover was fulfilled at the crucifixion; Unleavened Bread (where a piece of unleavened bread is wrapped in linen and symbolically buried for three days) is celebrated on the actual days that Christ was in the grave; First Fruits begins being celebrated on the date of Christ's resurrection; and Pentecost was celebrated on a date on which it was symbolically fulfilled by a first harvest that started the church. The idea is that the last three feasts were still outstanding as of the end of the writing of scripture, which in conservative terms would be before 70AD. Curtis's series argues that the last three were fulfilled on the three fall feast days immediately after the sacking of Jerusalem (similar to Steve's thought, though obviously different in detail).
Here's the critical point. If the last three feast days were fulfilled in 70AD (keeping in mind that the Feast of Tabernacles is simply the inauguration of a new era of living in tents on the earth while part of the new kingdom of God, so that it doesn't have a predicted end) then there is no continuing or future fulfillment of prophecy under the Old Covenant (the Feast of Tabernacles marked the final transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant). If we accept that there is no New Testament prophecy that isn't connected to and Old Testament (or Old Covenant) prophecy, then that would mean that New Testament prophecy is fulfilled as well. This might be a bizarre assertion to some, but there are deep implications to the feast fulfillments that can't be ignored.
To me, the real question that gets us from point A to point B is whether or not the feasts have to be fulfilled on the days they are celebrated. I've seen arguments for and against by people more familiar with Judaism than I am, so it's still not a dogmatic issue for me. But, if we presume for a moment that they are indeed fulfilled on the actual day they are celebrated (as the examples of the first four track) and that the feast of Trumpets is the next in line, I think it's very interesting that theologians completely unaware of the symbolic nature of the feast system have decided that the rapture should be next major event. Why is this important? Because the feast of Trumpets is the fall harvest. And, there are interesting pieces of vocabulary that both share. For starters, the other major feasts happen at the full moon. This is why they are easy to peg on the calendar from year to year. But, the feast of Trumpets begins at the rise of the new moon in September. Watchers are placed on the walls who stand by to blow trumpets at the moment the new moon is observed. The High Priest, AKA to them as the Thief in the Night, checks on them throughout the night to make sure they haven't fallen asleep at their posts. If he catches them asleep he lights their garment on fire and they end up running around town naked (or so the lore goes). Because that moon phase can be either tough to observe or tough to predict on a calendar, the feast could begin at any time over a 48 hour or so period. It's the only feast in the system for which the observers couldn't know the day or hour it would begin. If the above is true, and I'm only repeating the lore that is passed on by Messianic Jews and dispensationalists who claim to be able to prove it, I think it would indicate that the event that we call the rapture was being referred to in vocabulary that was familiar to the original audience (and so needed no explanation to them, though we've obviously missed the point), so that they would have expected it to happen on some feast of Trumpets celebration in their future.
Steve's position that the Day of Atonement has at least already started would demand that the feast of Trumpets was already fulfilled at some point in the past. As Duncan points out in his first book, I think it is highly interesting that from the time of the beginning of the Jewish war to the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles in 70AD was 1335 days. It was 1290 days from the time of the beginning of the war to the sacking of Jerusalem. It was 1260 days from the invasion of Judea to the sacking of Jerusalem. These seem like odd coincidences if they are not associated to prophecy.
Doug
http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transc ... ssover.htm
His position starts like the dispensational one, with the recognition that the feasts are meant to teach important components of redemptive prophecy, and, critically, that they seem to be fulfilled on the date that they are celebrated (I think it might be interesting to consider the ramification of an incomplete process of redemption started at the cross but not wrapped up until later because of this, something that I've noticed makes Calvinists momentarily incontinent). So, Passover was fulfilled at the crucifixion; Unleavened Bread (where a piece of unleavened bread is wrapped in linen and symbolically buried for three days) is celebrated on the actual days that Christ was in the grave; First Fruits begins being celebrated on the date of Christ's resurrection; and Pentecost was celebrated on a date on which it was symbolically fulfilled by a first harvest that started the church. The idea is that the last three feasts were still outstanding as of the end of the writing of scripture, which in conservative terms would be before 70AD. Curtis's series argues that the last three were fulfilled on the three fall feast days immediately after the sacking of Jerusalem (similar to Steve's thought, though obviously different in detail).
Here's the critical point. If the last three feast days were fulfilled in 70AD (keeping in mind that the Feast of Tabernacles is simply the inauguration of a new era of living in tents on the earth while part of the new kingdom of God, so that it doesn't have a predicted end) then there is no continuing or future fulfillment of prophecy under the Old Covenant (the Feast of Tabernacles marked the final transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant). If we accept that there is no New Testament prophecy that isn't connected to and Old Testament (or Old Covenant) prophecy, then that would mean that New Testament prophecy is fulfilled as well. This might be a bizarre assertion to some, but there are deep implications to the feast fulfillments that can't be ignored.
To me, the real question that gets us from point A to point B is whether or not the feasts have to be fulfilled on the days they are celebrated. I've seen arguments for and against by people more familiar with Judaism than I am, so it's still not a dogmatic issue for me. But, if we presume for a moment that they are indeed fulfilled on the actual day they are celebrated (as the examples of the first four track) and that the feast of Trumpets is the next in line, I think it's very interesting that theologians completely unaware of the symbolic nature of the feast system have decided that the rapture should be next major event. Why is this important? Because the feast of Trumpets is the fall harvest. And, there are interesting pieces of vocabulary that both share. For starters, the other major feasts happen at the full moon. This is why they are easy to peg on the calendar from year to year. But, the feast of Trumpets begins at the rise of the new moon in September. Watchers are placed on the walls who stand by to blow trumpets at the moment the new moon is observed. The High Priest, AKA to them as the Thief in the Night, checks on them throughout the night to make sure they haven't fallen asleep at their posts. If he catches them asleep he lights their garment on fire and they end up running around town naked (or so the lore goes). Because that moon phase can be either tough to observe or tough to predict on a calendar, the feast could begin at any time over a 48 hour or so period. It's the only feast in the system for which the observers couldn't know the day or hour it would begin. If the above is true, and I'm only repeating the lore that is passed on by Messianic Jews and dispensationalists who claim to be able to prove it, I think it would indicate that the event that we call the rapture was being referred to in vocabulary that was familiar to the original audience (and so needed no explanation to them, though we've obviously missed the point), so that they would have expected it to happen on some feast of Trumpets celebration in their future.
Steve's position that the Day of Atonement has at least already started would demand that the feast of Trumpets was already fulfilled at some point in the past. As Duncan points out in his first book, I think it is highly interesting that from the time of the beginning of the Jewish war to the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles in 70AD was 1335 days. It was 1290 days from the time of the beginning of the war to the sacking of Jerusalem. It was 1260 days from the invasion of Judea to the sacking of Jerusalem. These seem like odd coincidences if they are not associated to prophecy.
Doug
Re: Christ's fulfillment of the Feast of Tabernacles
Doug,
Thanks for those insights, Bro!
Thanks for those insights, Bro!