It must be admitted that most dispensational premillennialists have tended to see at least one of the Israel's feasts fulfilled by the church. The feast of Pentecost is usually seen as fulfilled by the church at her birthday in Acts 2 by many dispensationalists. This creates a problem since it is inconsistent with maintaining a consistent distinction between God's plan for Israel and His plan for the church. This errant notion that the church fulfills the Feast of Pentecost gives ground and a basis to Miller's perspective that the church also fulfills the Feast of Trumpets in the rapture. If this were true, then it would also follow that the rapture would have to occur on the day in which that feast is celebrated. However, I do not think that the church fulfills any of Israel's feasts. Israel's feasts have been and will continue to be fulfilled in relation to Israel. Terry C. Hulbert wrote a doctoral dissertation in 1965 at Dallas Theological Seminary entitled "The Eschatological Significance of Israel's Annual Feasts." Hulbert declares,
The seven appointed times were given as a typical presentation of the commitments made to Israel in the Abrahamic Covenant and those which amplified it. As these can be fulfilled only by Israel, so the typology of the feasts can relate only to that nation. (2)
This does not mean that the church is not built upon the sacrificial work of Christ on the cross. This is certainly the basis for forgiveness of sin in any dispensation. However, it is to say that the seven feasts of Israel do serve as a specific typological prophecy picturing God's plan of redemption for His people Israel. It is important to note what Hulbert has said about the fulfillment of the Feast of Pentecost. His views are illustrated in the chart "Israel's Feast Summary," which I think best expresses the Biblical intent that all seven feasts are to be seen as a fulfillment for Israel and not the church.
The fourth feast did not foreshadow a church composed of sin-prone Jewish and Gentile believers pictured by two loaves of unleavened bread. This point is important, for if the church had fulfilled this feast, it could also fulfill the last three as the Amillennarian claims. However, the church is not revealed in the typology of any of the feasts, being related to them in the same way it is related to unconditional covenants made to Israel. It benefits from God's fulfillments to that nation, but is distinct from it. (1)
If we are going to consistently apply the Grammatical-Historical method of interpretation, commonly known as the normal or literal hermeneutic, then we cannot see any of Israel's feasts being fulfilled by God's program for the church. Why? Because these feasts are given in Leviticus 23 to Israel as part of her law. The church has been given the Lord's Table as the feast we are to celebrate "from now on until the kingdom of God comes" (Luke 22:18). If we see any of the feasts being fulfilled by the church then we are practicing the same kind of "replacement theology" which many practice, but to a greater extreme, who see the church replacing Israel in God's plan. Nowhere does the New Testament speak of the church fulfilling any of Israel's feasts. Therefore, since Israel's feasts are fulfilled only by Israel and not by the church, then Rosh HaShanah or the Feast of Trumpets cannot be a prediction of the rapture of the church. Israel's fifth feast does not give any insight into the day of the year on which the rapture will occur.
Hulbert's summary of the purpose for the fulfillment of Israel's feast makes the best sense within the framework of a consistent literal hermeneutic.
When God fulfilled the first four feasts He had provided everything necessary for Israel to enter into literal kingdom blessing--redemption, separation, resurrection, and the presence of the Holy Spirit. Israel's rejection of these, however, made necessary a national change of heart before the Kingdom could be established. Foreknowing this, God included the Feasts of Trumpets and Day of Atonement in the annual cycle. Thus, the Feast of Trumpets predicted God's alerting of the nation for the impending event which would bring about repentance. The Feast of the Day of Atonement predicted, not the death of Christ which had already been typified in the Passover, but the new reaction of Israel to the Redeemer's death. This change will take place when the believing Remnant repents during the Tribulation period. The event which fulfills this sixth feast is identified as God's intervention to save Israel from destruction as Gentile armies attack Jerusalem. (2-3)
Israel as a nation officially rejected in turn each spiritual provision offered by God and made available through the fulfillment of the first four feasts. The paschal lamb of God pointed out by John the Baptist was rejected as an imposter. The resurrection of Christ, as it answered to the Feast of Firstfruits, was suppressed in its proclamation by the bribe money paid to the sentries, . . . Finally, the coming of the Spirit was rejected at Pentecost as the Jews taunted the apostles with charges of drunkenness.
By the time of the close of Acts chapter 2, God had done all He could do for Israel until they repented as a nation. Thus, the significance of Peter's second sermon in Acts 3 was that it reemphasized the condition of millennial blessing already laid down in the Old Testament, but as yet unfulfilled. . . .
Of the utmost importance here is the fact that with the shedding of the blood of Christ to take away sin, and with the coming of the Spirit to empower the life of the redeemed, all of the spiritual requirements for the millennial Kingdom had been met as far as God was concerned. But God's provision could not be operative until man appropriated it. This point cannot be overemphasized, for it is not only the reason for the delay in the fulfillment of the final three feasts, it is the basis for understanding the relationship of the church to the feasts. (115-6)
A PRACTICAL OBSERVATION
Even if the rapture could be dated in a fashion...they are so unsure of their speculations that it does not produce any real difference in the lives of those who may be inclined to follow their views. What I mean is that if I really knew that the rapture was to occur on a certain day, then I would clearly live my life differently. If I knew He was coming one year from now, I would cancel my insurance, not worry about long-term debt, and live my life differently. However, since even those who offer these speculations do not really take them serious enough to actually change their lifestyles, because they are not really sure that they are right, then what practical difference does it make if they are right or wrong in their guesses? They, like other believers who have the same Blessed Hope of the any-moment rapture continue to live their lives in the hope that today may be the day.
In addition, even if they were able to come up with the right date for the rapture and they were convinced themselves, how many people would they be able to persuade that they had hit on the correct time, such that it made any kind of a difference. So what if a few thousand believers knew the day of the rapture? Unless it was something that the entire church throughout the whole world had access to then it would not have any kind of impact upon the church and would serve to be nothing more than useless information for the overwhelming majority of the world's believers.
Finally, the actions taken by even those who date-set is not any different than
those who believe that all church age believers are to maintain a lifestyle of
watching and waiting for the any-moment return of Christ. This illustrates, in
the practical realm, that Christ and the Apostle's general commands to soberly
watch and wait for our Lord's return serve the church well to prepare her for the
time in which our Lord will actually rapture His bride.
This current rash of date-setting most likely will have a negative impact upon many people's interest and their perception of the study of Bible prophecy. Critics of the rapture and prophecy will use these abuses to justify to many their opposition to our beliefs. Sadly others who might have otherwise been interested in learning more about the subject may be frightened away by these extreme applications.
Perhaps the thing that bothers me the most about this whole issue is the
apparent lack of understanding by the date-setters, who are advocates of the
Pretrib rapture, that their very date-setting schemes are inconsistent with the
New Testament teaching of the any-moment rapture. They do not seem to
realize that by introducing into our futuristic approach to prophecy ideas and
conclusions that flow from the logic of the long discredited historicist
hermeneutic they are changing and misrepresenting the very character of rapture
theology. Dear rapture friends, please wake up and realize the unintended harm
you are doing to the overall teaching on our Blessed Hope--the rapture!
In spite of many recent trends to the contrary, date-setting is still prohibited
in the Scriptures. Christ said, "of that day and hour no one knows" (Matt. 24:36).
We may believe that we are near the general time of Christ's return since Israel is
back in her land and other players are being placed on the end-time stage.
However, Christ's rapture of His church is a signless event that could happen at
any-moment. When it does then God will complete His plan for Israel as
forecasted in the three Fall Feasts of Israel. Meanwhile, the Feast of Trumpets
does not in any way relate to the rapture of the church.
Our calling as church age believers is faithful watching and eagerly waiting
for our Beloved Bridegroom to catch us up into the clouds and take us to His
Father's house. What a glad reunion with our Savior we will have. The party
which will follow will not be bad either. I don't know about you, but I can't wait
to see Jesus. This is why I am eagerly awaiting His any-moment return, as the
Scriptures teach. Maranatha!
No comments:
Post a Comment