Israel's Final Feast Days- The Cross- and the End of the Law- Part 1

Israel’s Final Three Feast Days - The Cross - and the End of the Law? Part 1

Don K. Preston

Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

In an ongoing discussion about the atonement, the rapture and the passing of the Law of Moses, an advocate of the AD 66 Rapture theory, made the rather amazing, yet unfortunately too common, claim that, “The last three so-called unfulfilled Feasts were fulfilled at Calvary.”

(The article, by Tom Riggle,  can be found at 9a. Yahweh’s Final Fall Feast: Tabernacles https://asterisktom.wordpress.com/2025/11/19/9a-yahwehs-final-fall-feast-tabernacles/ Posted on November 19, 2025 by asterisktom)

I wrote a response to Riggle’s claim, but whereas he had, up to that point, been posting my responses on his blog, he let me know that he would no longer be doing that. His reason was that “you blocked me from your YouTube.” This was / is a blatant falsehood and I called him out on it. But he doubled down on it repeating his claim and stating that I had actually said I had blocked him on YouTube. Another falsehood. I then went to my YouTube channel and checked my “blocked” file. I have only blocked two people over a period of several years, and Tom Riggle is NOT one of them. When I provided that proof, he simply said: “Okay, I apologize. I was wrong. You said you were going to block me and I just took your word for it.” Once again, this a total fabrication! I NEVER stated, at any time, that I was going to block him. (He refused to apologize for continuing to tell these falsehoods).

Since Riggle refused to publish my response, and since the issue of the passing of the Law is of such importance, I have decided to incorporate what I wrote, revise and expand it even more and to publish it so that everyone can see what a serious error it is to claim that the last three feast days were fulfilled at the Cross and that the Law was abolished at the Cross.

Let me simply say at this junction that there could hardly be a more anachronistic, disjunctive and unscriptural claim than what Riggle makes in asserting the final three feast days were fulfilled at Calvary.

Riggle told us that the final three feast days were fulfilled at the Cross. Yet, he nonetheless claims that “certain aspects” of Sukkot were not fulfilled until the (imaginary) AD 66 rapture! Why did he make such a claim? It is because Mr. Riggle believes that there was a literal rapture of the church in AD 66. Since Sukkot, Israel’s final feast day, foreshadowed the Harvest / resurrection, then Sukkot could not have been fulfilled at the Cross almost 40 years before the resurrection! This is a self defeating claim, not only for Mr. Riggle, but for anyone claiming to be a preterist or for that matter, even a partial preterist.

Let’s analyze the claim that all three of the final feast days were fulfilled at the Cross, beginning with Rosh Ha Shanah, the Feast of Trumpets.

Keep in mind that in Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28 there is a strict chronological order to the feast days. There is no variation, but, for those who claim that the final three feast days were fulfilled at the Cross– in order maintain that the Law ended at the Cross– they must totally distort that time line. I will demonstrate that as we proceed.

Riggle involves himself in an initial contradiction. On the one hand he says that the final three feasts were fulfill at Calvary. However, he then turns around and says that Rosh HaShanah the “Feast of Trumpets”.... signaled Christ's Ascension -Psa. 47:5; 68:18-19; Eph. 4:8" (https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#label/Tom+Riggle/FMfcgzQcqtcPbcbNwncSQsQDHwDWflKh). We have a right to ask, “Which is it? Was Rosh HaShanah fulfilled at the Cross or over a month later at the Ascension?

Keep in mind that the Cross was the occasion of the Passover, the first of Israel’s feast days. It was also the first month of Israel’s calendar. Rosh HaShanah, on the other hand, was at the beginning of the seventh month:

Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall have a sabbath-rest, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, a holy convocation. You shall do no customary work on it; and you shall offer an offering made by fire to the Lord (Leviticus 23:23-25).

In spite of the clear cut, undeniable chronological placement of Rosh HaShanah in the seventh month, those who claim that the Law passed away at the Cross and that the final feast days were fulfilled at that time, they nonetheless rip Rosh HaShanah out of the seventh month and posit it squarely in the first month. That is anachronism exemplified and it is based squarely and exclusively on preconceived ideas, not exegesis. But this is not all.

The feast of Trumpets was the feast that foreshadowed the Day of Judgment. In ancient Jewish sources, this is taken for granted. The Misha (Mishnah Rosh HaShanah 1:2), the Babylonian Talmud (Babylonian Talmud, Rosh HaShanah 16a–16b), the medieval scholar Maimonides (Maimonides (Rambam), Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Teshuvah 3:4), and Israel’s most eminent commentator Rashi all agree on this (Rashi on Rosh HaShanah 16a). (Sources from ChatGPT).

And one thing is for certain, the feast of Trumpets was the festival of the new moon, of which Paul spoke in Colossians 2:16-17. (More on Colossians 2 as we proceed): “Let no man judge you in respect to new moons, feast day or sabbaths...). The thing to be noted is that Paul said those feast days “are a shadow of the good things about to come” (Colossians 2:17). When Paul wrote, those feast days were still– present tense– shadows of the “good things about to come.” He did not say that they had been shadows of the good things that had already come! When I pointed out the present and future tenses found in Colossians 2, Riggle literally scoffed. However, on other occasions he constantly appealed to the past tense Greek found in certain texts!

When we honor those Greek tenses, then when Paul said that the new moon festival was still a shadow of the good things to come, that is tantamount to saying that the Judgment was still to come. And of course, that is precisely what we find in the NT epistles. We find one text after another affirming that the judgment, at the sounding of the trumpet, was to happen in the first century, at the coming of Christ, after the Cross: Matthew 24:29-34; 1 Corinthians 15:52; 1 Thessalonians 4; James 5:9; 1 Peter 4:5, 7, 17; Revelation 11:15f).

Take note that in Jewish thought, as we have seen, Rosh HaShanah foreshadowed the JUDGMENT. Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur is the time when “the books were opened” for the judgment. Where does Revelation posit the judgment with the opening of the Books? At the end of the Millennium (Revelation 20:10f). Thus, to posit the fulfillment of Rosh Ha Shanah demands that the Cross was the end of the Millennium! But to my knowledge, none of those who posit the fulfillment of Rosh Ha Shanah at the Cross believe that Calvary was the end of the Millennium.

If one claims that the final feast days were fulfilled at Calvary, this means that since Rosh HaShanah foreshadowed the judgment, the judgment had to have occurred at the Cross! But wait! The judgment would only take place after the preaching of the Gospel into all the world. Paul, speaking in Acts 17:30-31, said that the appointed time for that judgment was “about to come.” In Revelation 14, judgment only comes after the preaching of the Gospel into all nations (Cf. Matthew 24:14 also). Revelation also says that the hour for that judgment had arrived when John wrote (14:6-8).There is patently no justification for saying that Rosh HaShanah was fulfilled at Calvary.

The view that the final feast days were all fulfilled at Calvary demands that the fifth feast, which was to be at the beginning of the seventh month, is ripped out of its chronological place in the festal calendar, and placed back within the second month of the year. This is a total disruption and distortion of the entire festal calendar. The same is true of Yom Kippur.

Yom Kippur was the sixth of the seven feast days, to be observed in the seventh month and tenth day of the month (Leviticus 23:26ff). But according to Riggle and those who claim the final feasts were fulfilled at Calvary, just like they do with Rosh HaShanah, they rip Yom Kippur out of the seventh month, and out of the tenth day, and they posit it in the first month on the first day! What exegetical justification is offered for this anachronistic distortion of the festal calendar? It is a preconceived idea that the atonement HAD to be accomplished in one single event. That in spite of the fact that when pressed, they often tell us that the Atonement was not actually accomplished while Jesus was on the Cross. No, he had to be resurrected, ascend, and to enter the MHP in heaven, there to offer his life! So much for the claim that Atonement was fully accomplished while Jesus was on the Cross!! Then we come to Sukkot.

Sukkot was the Feast of Harvest. See my book, Resurrection Feast Fulfilled: A Study of the Relationship Between Israel's Final Feast- Sukkot- https://preteristdoctrine.com/bp-store/?s=Resurrection+feastand the Resurrection. It was commonly called the feast of the turning of the year, because it was the last feast of the year (Yes, I am fully aware of Shemini Atzerat, the feast of the eighth day, the day after the final day of Sukkot. (See my YouTube video series on Shemeni Atzerat and its incredible eschatological significance. This feast day symbolized the New Creation).

Anyway, as just suggested, Riggle claims that Sukkot was fulfilled on Calvary, but, not really. He said, “The last three so-called unfulfilled Feasts were fulfilled at Calvary. However, There really is only one Feast here, Trumpets and the Day of Atonement being “holy convocations.” (This is a false dichotomy - DKP). And, even though the Feast was fulfilled in AD 30, there are "aspects that point to the Parousia and Rapture of AD 66.” Let’s look a bit closer.

All of Israel’s feast days were convocations. The original Hebrew word used in Leviticus 23 means “rehearsal.” This is what Paul meant when he said that the “New moons, feast days and Sabbaths” were shadows of “the good things about to come” (Colossians 2:16-17). Thus, as this article demonstrates it is important to realize that Israel’s feast days were all types and shadows with the last three feast days being foreshadowing of the eschatological consummation, the Judgment (Rosh Ha Shanah), Yom Kippur (parousia), Sukkot (Harvest / Resurrection). How then, if this is true, can anyone claim that the final three feast days were fulfilled at Calvary? Those final feast days were typical of the last days consummation, not the initiation of the last days.

Notice that Riggle, and those who espouse the AD 66 Rapture doctrine, say Sukkot (Feast of Harvest) was fulfilled on Calvary, but then they claim that there are “aspects that point the Parousia and Rapture of AD 66” (Riggle). Well, if Sukkot was fulfilled at Calvary, it was FULFILLED– not partially, but fulfilled.

Keep in mind that Sukkot was the feast of Harvest, and that on the calendar, it occurred at the end of the year. Notice some of the severe issues raised by the claims of Riggle and others in regard to Sukkot.

They claim that the feast of the Harvest / the In-Gathering was fulfilled at the Cross. But then, they have Pentecost - the feast of first fruit!! - being fulfilled after the feast of the Harvest! How can you even suggest that the feast of harvest was in any way fulfilled before the first of first fruit was fulfilled? But wait! Again, they tell us that “aspects” of Sukkot were not, after all, fulfilled at the Cross but in AD 66! Riggle never explained or defined exactly what “aspects” were not fulfilled until AD 66?

If Sukkot was fulfilled at Calvary, when did the planting and growing season” take place According to Paul, Christ in his resurrection was the first fruit of the harvest! But his resurrection came after Calvary, not on Calvary. By positing the fulfillment at Calvary, Riggle and those like him are saying that the harvest took place before the sowing of the seed (the preaching of the Gospel) ever even took place! I ask, with respect, how can it be possibly argued that the harvest– an end of the year event, take place at the very first of the year before the seed had even been sown??

Remember that throughout the NT, we find the prediction that the harvest would be at the end of the age at the Parousia of Christ (Cf. Matthew 13:31ff/ Matthew 21:22f; 1 Corinthians 15:21f; Revelation 14). The Cross was not the Parousia of Christ. It was not the end of the age when Christ sent forth his angels. The Cross was not the judgment; it was not the harvest.

So, once again, we are faced with the brutal reality that the contention that the final three feast days were fulfilled at Calvary destroys the chronological flow of Israel’s festal calendar.

In light of all the above, and we could add even more, I suggest that the claim that the Law was removed at the Cross in the fulfillment of the final three feast days in Israel’s calendar makes an anacrhonistic mishmash of the festal calendar!

I referred above to Colossians 2:16-17. When Paul wrote Colossians (AD 62 or so) he said that the New Moons (that is Rosh HaShanah) feast days (that is all the convocations) and the Sabbaths were still– PRESENT TENSE– shadows of the good things “about to come.” In addition to Colossians 2, in Hebrews 9-10 the author describes the High Priestly functions on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). Virtually all scholars agree that Hebrews is setting forth the typological significance of the events of that day. William Lane offers this on Hebrews 9:

The writer’s distinctly priestly perspective is evident in the formulations of v. 28b as well. The reference to Christ’s return to those who wait for him draws its force from the analogy with the sequence of events on the Day of Atonement. The people waited anxiously outside the sanctuary until the high priest emerged from the Most Holy Place after he had fulfilled his office (Lev. 16:17). His re-appearance provided assurance that the offering he had made had been accepted by God (William Lane, Word Commentary, Vol. 47b, Hebrews 9-13, (Dallas: Word, 1991), 250).

This is confirmed by the fact that in Hebrews 9: 9 we find this: (“which is symbolic for the present age– many translations render it as “symbolic,” Other render it as a “figure”). The writer is undeniably positing the Old Covenant High Priest’s actions and the cultic actions on Yom Kippur as “symbolic” for "the present time"-- that was his own time!  More accurately, the word translated as symbolic is παραβολὴ, parabole, which actually means a parable! Thus, Hebrews is setting forth the entire drama of Yom Kippur as a type, a shadow, as a parable. He does not say that only the offering of Jesus’ life was a parable, while omitting the other actions of that day. It was the Day of Atonement that he presents as a type and shadow, just as Colossians 2 suggests. But this is not all.

Notice Hebrews 10:1f:

For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins (Hebrews 10:1-2).

Notice the use of the word “for” (Greek gar) at the beginning of chapter 10:1. This word gives us the reason WHY Christ was to come again for salvation (after dying on the Cross and entering into the MHP). According to Hebrews Jesus’ second appearing was necessary to fulfill the parabolic, symbolic, figuration of the Day of Atonement that is found in “the law.” (Incredibly, Riggle completely redefines the word "salvation" in Hebrews 9:28 and strips it of its Atonement significance. For Riggle and others, Hebrews 9:28 had nothing to do with the consummation of the Atonement process, even though the entire context IS the Atonement process!!)

Take note that the author says “the law, having a shadow of the good things to come.” Just like Colossians 2 says that the New Moons, feast days and sabbaths were, when Colossians was written, shadows, Hebrews affirms that continuing present tense reality. He used the present participle active form to describe the Law and the Atonement practices. The feast days had not been fulfilled. The law itself had not yet been fulfilled because the law remained as a shadow of the good things to come (mellonton, μελλόντων).

You simply cannot affirm that the Law had passed away at the Cross, when Hebrews- written in the AD 60s- said that the Law was still unfulfilled and was still a shadow of what was “about to come.” You cannot say “had passed away” when Hebrews says the law was “nigh unto passing” (8:13). And you cannot say “had been removed” when chapter 12:25f says it was “being removed.” Just like Paul said the feast days continued to be shadows of the good things about to come, Hebrews says that the Law, with its typological Yom Kippur actions, was still a shadow when the book was written. But the shadow function anticipated what was about to come (mellonton, μελλόντων) when Hebrews was written. The Greek then, is very clear, the Jewish feast days had not yet been fulfilled when Colossians and Hebrews were written.

What has been Mr. Riggle’s “response”? He has openly ridiculed me for appealing to the Greek, just waving it aside as if it is not relevant! It is only “irrelevant” because he knows it destroys his entire argument!

And let me remind you again that Riggle admits that there are “aspects” of even Sukkot that were still, when Paul wrote, unfulfilled until AD 66! Thus, if those “aspects” were unfulfilled, they were therefore still shadows of the good things that had not yet come. (Of course, the irony and self contradiction in Mr. Riggle’s dismissive attitude of the Greek tenses in Colossians is that he has repeatedly emphasized the Greek tenses in other texts! So, when he wants to and it fits his purposes, the Greek tenses are really important! But when the Greek tenses in Colossians and Hebrews challenges his views, he changes the present participles into aorists and he changes the future of mello into past tenses as well! The irony here is incredible).

 

More to come! Be sure to get a copy of my book, Torah To :Telos, Volume 1: The Passing of the Law