# Messiah In the Feasts and Their Eschatological Implications



## gjw1684 (Jan 6, 2016)

Recently, I've been reading through some Facebook feeds on eschatology and I wanted to get some input on this. Some brothers have written on how the Biblical feast days inform their view of eschatology. Here are the links for those who are interested in engaging

http://hazakim.com/messiah-in-the-feasts-and-their-eschatological-implications/
http://hazakim.com/messiah-in-the-feasts-and-their-eschatological-implications-part-27/
http://hazakim.com/messiah-in-the-feasts-and-their-eschatological-implications-part-37-first-fruits/
http://hazakim.com/messiah-in-the-f...ogical-implications-part-47-shavuotpentecost/
http://hazakim.com/messiah-in-the-feasts-and-their-eschatological-implications-part-57/
http://hazakim.com/messiah-in-the-feasts-and-their-eschatological-implications-part-67-sukkot/
http://hazakim.com/messiah-in-the-f...alism-in-ancient-jewish-christian-literature/

They have written some articles for the purpose of input and criticism. In particular, they are using their articles to open a dialogue with amillennial and postmillenial brothers on the issue. The most controversial article would be on part 6 of the series which stresses a clear historic pre-millennialism (and a 3rd temple advocate).


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 7, 2016)

Hello Gabriel (and a belated welcome to PB!),

For you to hold such interest in this, are you leaning to the Historic Premil view?

I really don't want to interact with all the hazakim material—being very busy at this time—but a few thoughts:

In Col 2:16-17—Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ—we have the caution concerning these OT types; and note the word "holyday" is also translated in other versions (I use the AV) "festival" or "feast". These are shadows, and while typical of things pertaining to Christ, ought not be used to establish New Covenant doctrine, especially when other hermeneutic approaches are given us by Christ and the apostolic authors, those being _spiritual_ interpretations of Old Testament prophecies and types when referring to the eschatological Kingdom of God.

There are only two ages or worlds (_aiōn_) spoken of as regards the NT period [the KJV which I use usually translates aiōn as world instead of age] :
Matt 12:32 whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world [age], neither in the world [age] to come.

Matt 13:39, 40, 49 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world . . . So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just

Luke 18:29, 30 There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.

Luke 20:34, 35 The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage

Eph 1:20-21 [God set Christ] at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come

Gal 1:4 …our Lord Jesus Christ, Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father​ 
A one thousand-year literal millennium (in which Christ supposedly reigns from a literal earthly Jerusalem) would posit a third age, which is unheard-of in the NT. The literalist interpretive approach to OT prophecies requires _some_ place in the NT age, _before_ the eschaton, for their literal realization, hence the fabrication of the third "millennial" age.

In Rev 20:4 the vision is in the heavens, John seeing _the souls_ of those beheaded (martyred), from whence Christ reigns over all heaven and earth. The "thousand" years is, like most of the numbers in Rev, symbolic. It means fullness, completeness, as in Psalm 50:10, "For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills." _Only_ a thousand hills? No, for this means all the hills, all the cattle, in all the world! The "thousand" years refers to the entire NT church age, from the first advent of Christ to right before His second advent.

In this and in this post you may see an examination of the faulty structure of the Historic Premil schema.

I am aware of the premil interpretation of Zechariah 14:1-4 (having held it for many years when I was premil myself), but I have found the Amillennial interpretive approach the only one that satisfies, resolving all the various aspects of complex apocalyptic vision into a cogent and really simple whole. The Book of Revelation is a wonder of prophetic riches, accessed only by the amil hermeneutic.

I'm a Jew myself, and I find the recourse to the old types as the basis for hermeneutic strategy quite inadequate in light of the New Testament revelation and teaching.

I see you are serious about eschatology, Gabriel. Might I ask what your PhD is in? Good interacting with you!


----------



## earl40 (Jan 7, 2016)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I see you are serious about eschatology, Gabriel. Might I ask what your PhD is in? Good interacting with you!



Steve is there any evidence that in the "Historic Premil schema" that there would be some kind of earthly temple within early church writings? Or is it simply assumed they believed such?


----------



## gjw1684 (Jan 7, 2016)

Thank you for such a thorough response. I am actually not leaning towards the Historic Premil view (I'm a convinced amil guy), but I have a number of friends who do hold the view. I've read a good deal on eschatology over the past few years (including much of the PB discussions) and for the most part, most Historic Premil have certain well-known "go-to" prooftexts for their position. This was the first time personally that I've heard this argument being presented for the Historic Premil position so I was wondering if anyone else has had heard it before and have interacted with it before.

My initial response is that it is a somewhat inconsistent argument. Hazakim argues that numerous redemptive-historical events coincided on the feast days virtually in sequential order. However, what they have failed to explain is why there is a significant time gap between the Spring Feasts fulfillment and the Fall Feasts fulfillment. I would expect this type of argument from a person who may be a partial (or full) preterist who may look at most of the events of Revelation as already being historically fulfilled at this point. Personally, I've heard a position like this from those who follow the Dispensational Pre-Mil position. 

FYI... I'm not a theologian of any stretch. My PhD is in atmospheric physics.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 7, 2016)

Hi Earl,

Yes, there were a few early on who thought that, though in the main—_after_ Augustine—there was a rudimentary Amillennialism that predominated, until the recent centuries. 

I find it noteworthy that of all the established doctrines of the church only eschatology is still in flux, not yet fully developed. The idealist amil view held forth by William Milligan in the 1800s was a great step forward, and its modification by the current "modified" or "eclectic" idealists (Beale, Hendriksen, DE Johnson, Smalley, Dean Davis, Bauckham, etc) have fine-tuned it even further. I hold that it will go through a little more of this fine-tuning—i.e., further _expostion_—as we draw nearer the eschaton. Geerhardus Vos, speaking of discerning the Antichrist, enunciated a principle that is applicable here,
“[It] belongs among the many prophecies, whose best and final exegete will be the eschatological fulfillment, and in regard to which it behooves the saints to exercise a peculiar kind of eschatological patience.” (_The Pauline Eschatology_, p. 133)​ 
O.T. Allis in his book, _Prophecy and the Church_, expressed the same sentiment:
“The usual view on this subject [‘the intelligibility of prophecy’] has been that prophecy is not intended to be fully understood before its fulfilment, that it is only when God ‘establishes the word of his servants and fulfills the counsel of his messengers,’ that the meaning and import of their words become fully manifest.” (p 25)​ 
Stuart Olyott in his,_ Dare to Stand Alone: Daniel Simply Explained_, thinks likewise:
“We must realize that some of the Bible’s teachings relating to the very last days will not be understood until we are _in_ those days. That is why it is both unwise and dangerous to draw up detailed timetables of future events. Some parts of the Word of God will not become obvious in their meaning until the days of which they speak have dawned.” (p 166)​
Laboring in this area I find quite exciting, when coupled with our need for real holiness and closeness of walk with the Saviour.


----------

