4 Jesus and the Tabernacles Pilgrimage It is noted that the Feast of Tabernacles was earmarked as that which would draw Israel to Jerusalem (Zech 14:14–16). This appears to be the beginning of the subsequent pattern of pilgrimage feasts. However, OT information regarding the Feast of Tabernacles is general and fragmented, so it is best to be treated in the beginning of the Tabernacles pilgrimage in the NT, where the feast has clearly become connected with pilgrimage occasions and has a significant meaning for Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. Setting the scene—the Tabernacles in retrospect The cycle of the three major Jewish festivals is completed with the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev 23:33–43; Num 29:12–39; Neh 8:13–18; Hos 12:9; Zech 14:16–19), held in autumn, either September or October.1 The calendar in Leviticus (Lev 23:33, 39) specifies an exact date “from the 15th to the 21st of Tishri.” At the early stage, the Feast of Tabernacles is referred to as the Feast of Ingathering, being “at the end of the year” (Exod 23:16). However, a number of scholars point out that the phrase, “at the end of the year,” rather indicates the beginning of the year. In particular, Exodus 34:22 signifies the phrase, “the turn of the year” (NIV) or “the return of the year” (RSV), not the end of the year, and suggests that the year was originally considered to begin in the autumn. In addition to Exodus 23 and 34, the harvest festival is at the turn of the year in Numbers 29:12–38, and appears to be the most important festival of the year, judging from the great number of sacrifices offered.2 Deuteronomy 3l connects the feast with a public reading of the Torah at the end of every seven years, in the years of canceling debts, during the Feast of Tabernacles, stressing its significance. If this were the case, the reason for the claim would be that the Feast of Tabernacles in the autumn celebrated the beginning of the autumnal and winter rains, on which the life of the land depended for a new agricultural season and a fruitful harvest.3 This reckoning of the year from autumn to autumn reflects the ancient Jewish calendar, which was lunisolar. However, the calendar was eleven days shorter than the solar year. This meant that consistent observance of the calendar caused the three festivals to move out of their original season. In order to keep the festivals in line with the agricultural seasons, the traditional biblical and Jewish festal calendar developed a chronological system with New Year in spring and Tishri as the seventh month. Considering the result of external influences, mainly from Babylon, Hakan Ulfgard claims that the change in biblical chronology from an autumnal New Year to a spring New Year was a most significant expression of Babylonian political and cultural influence in the eastern Mediterranean region towards the end of the seventh century.4 In the same vein he also expounds this ideological preference from which the Passover festival in spring emerges as the most important festival of the year in connection with the increased eastern (Babylonian) influence, instead of the ancient harvest and New Year festival in the autumn.5 Like the Passover feast Tabernacles was to last for seven days. Thirteen bullocks were offered for sacrifice on the first day diminished by one bullock each day. On the seventh day seven bullocks were offered (Num 29:12–34). An eighth day of the feast is added in Leviticus 23:36. On the eighth day an assembly was held and one bullock, one ram, and seven lambs were offered (Num 29:35–38). It is impossible to provide the exact function of the day, because of the obscurity of the origin of the eighth day. The eighth day has, however, been regarded as a solemn conclusion to the succession of the great feasts,6 as an independent feast rather than as part of Tabernacles,7 or as a conclusion for the feast designed to help the people make the transition back to normal life.8 This might be “the last and greatest day of the Feast” alluded to in John 7:37. The festival statement, “three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord Yahweh” (Exod 23:17; 34:23) may simply have implied worship at the sanctuaries of Gibeon, Bethel, Gilgal, Dan, Beer-sheba, etc. and not necessarily at the tent of the ark itself at Shiloh. Thus Auerbach suggests that the pilgrimages enjoined in Exodus 23:17 were originally not connected with the three feasts, but were private obligations to be fulfilled at one’s convenience at any time during the year.9 However, the Deuteronomic festival statements provide a most developed version of the three pilgrimage feasts (Deut 16:1–17). Deuteronomy indicates that all males are to be present “at the place he will choose” (Deut 16:5, 11, 15). This Deutronomic principle connects the pilgrimages with the three feasts (Deut 16:16) and the sanctuary. All are to participate in the feast. All indicates, “you, your sons and daughters, your menservants and maidservants, the Levites, and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows” (Deut 16:11, 14). When all men were present at the sanctuary, the rest of the family must have celebrated the feast at home. The feast as a time of rejoicing was also emphasized, particularly for the successful harvest. Be joyful at your Feast . . . For the Lord of your God will bless you in all your harvest and in all the work of your hands, and your joy will be complete (Deut 16:14–15). Leviticus 23 provides a much more detailed account of the Feast of Tabernacles. On the first day you are to take choice fruit from the trees, and palm fronds, leafy branches and poplars, and rejoice before the Lord your God for seven days (Lev 23:40). Although the role and function of this fruit is not explained, the various branches were used to build the booths. All native-born Israelites were required to live in booths made of the various branches for the seven days of the feast. The designation “feast of booths” comes from this requirement. Live in booths for seven days: All native-born Israelites are to live in booths so your descendants will know that I had the Israelites live in booths when I brought them out of Egypt. I am the Lord of your God (Lev 23:42–43). Psalms 43, 76, 81, 118, 132 are connected with the Feast of Tabernacles. Psalm 43:3–4 pictures a crowd in procession approaching the house of God with shouts of joy, observing a festival. So the modern Jewish synagogue ritual assigns Psalm 43 to Tabernacles. The Mishnaic description of Tabernacles confirms that this picture is most appropriate to the feast. Having drawn attention to the similarity between the word sukko, “in Salem is His abode” and sukka, “booth,” H. St. J. Thackeray assigns Psalm 76 to Tabernacles. It is quite probable that the Hebrews who sang the psalm may have seen in it the idea that Yahweh too has his booth in Jerusalem.10 Psalm 81 is also commonly thought to have been originally composed for Tabernacles. Verses 1 to 3 express the joy of the occasion with the playing of instruments, in particular blowing the trumpet at the new moon. Psalms 118 and 132 are also thought to be Tabernacles psalms. Psalm 118 contains explicit mention of the light theme (v. 27). Psalm 132 celebrates David’s bringing the ark to Jerusalem, alluding to the feast. It is noted that the branches of a tree were carried during the festal procession (2 Macc 10:6–8). This festal procession might be alluded to in Jesus’ triumphal entry (Matt 21:6–11; Mark 11:1–11; John 12:12–15). Second Chronicles records that the feast was also observed in the time of Solomon (2 Chr 8:13) and Hezekiah (2 Chr 31:3). First Kings 8:2 in particular suggests that the feast associated with the period in the wilderness also has crucial connection with Solomon’s temple dedication. Although 1 Kings’ mention of the feast is not as clear as 2 Chronicles, the temple dedication seems to take place in the month of the Tabernacles celebration. A few chapters later 1 Kings presents Jeroboam’s temple festival with a precise dating, the fifteenth day of the eighth month (1 Kgs 12:32). Ulfgard maintains that this might be attributable to the tension between a lunar-oriented calendar influenced by Babylon and a solar-oriented calendar. The precise dating of Jeroboam’s “anti-festival” (from the author’s point of view) might then indicate the use in the northern kingdom of Israel of a lunar oriented calendar, influenced by Babylonia, in which the fifteenth day of the month (i.e., the day of the full moon) was an important festival day. On the other hand, the silence about the day on which Solomon’s temple was dedicated might reflect the predominance in pre-exilic Judah of an agrarian, solar oriented calendar, in which the fifteenth of the month had no similar significance.11 In Ezra (Ezra 3:4) and Nehemiah (Neh 8:13–18) the feast was celebrated by the returning exiles from the Babylonian captivity, being associated with the temple cult and the Torah. The people who had forgotten the feast responded with fervency to Ezra, as he read Moses’s words (Neh 8:14–15). In particular, Ezra 3:4 is another sign of the feast associated with temple dedication in biblical tradition. According to Nehemiah, the people built the booths on their roofs, in their courtyards, in the courts of the house of God, and in the squares by the Water Gate and the Gate of Ephraim (Neh 8:16). It is clear from the statement that the feast was associated with the wilderness wandering after the Exodus, and historicized to commemorate the wilderness period. The exilic experience appears to be of fundamental significance for those who belong to the community of the returned exiles. For them the Tabernacles celebration made clear their legitimacy as God’s true Israel. Having noticed the tension between the remaining local population and the returning exiles in Ezra and Nehemiah, Ulfgard thus posits that legitimization is sought for the Torah brought from Babylon by Ezra and for the ideological self-understanding as constituting God’s true Israel.12 Giving the festival a historicizing meaning and connecting it with the central biblical ideological/theological concepts of “the Exodus” and “the temple” descriptions of its celebration (halakic rulings, cult concentration, pilgrimage to Jerusalem), Ulfgard claims, serve to strengthen ethnic and religious cohesion and ideological unity within emerging early Judaism marked by its exilic Babylonian background in its controversies with other claimants to the old traditions of Israel.13 As we discussed in chapter 4, the Feast of Passover was highlighted with timely contextualized meanings for the momentous events in the history of Israel, so also the Feast of Tabernacles has developed its own character and meaning in the context of the history of Israel. After the exile the prophet Zechariah saw the eschatological significance of the feast. He envisioned that the surviving nations would go up to the temple in Jerusalem to worship God during the Feast of Tabernacles (Zech 14:16). Since Tabernacles was the last and greatest festival of the Hebrew calendar, the festival was chosen by the prophet to speak of the ingathering of the various Gentile nations as well as of the final restoration of Israel. The prophet stressed the importance of making pilgrimage for the feast, warning that there will be no rain, if they do not go to the temple in Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord Almighty (Zech 14:17). Earlier in Zechariah 14, the rain theme and the light motif were presented in both literal and symbolic ways (Zech 14:6–9). In relation to the origin of Tabernacles, many scholars have adopted the picture that the Feast of Tabernacles had a sedentary origin, namely the Canaanite harvest festival, when the Israelites became permanent dwellers in Canaan.14 Contrary to Mowinckel and to S. H. Hooke’s Myth and Ritual-school, Hans-Joachim Kraus proposes a different origin for the feast.15 Having not denied that there is some connection between the Canaanite sedentary harvest festival and the Feast of Tabernacles, Kraus seeks the real origin of the feast in a “Tent of Meeting” festival among the nomadic tribes of Israel.16 Kraus points out that the Israelites en route from Egypt did not dwell in booths but in tents, and attempts to find a cultic basis for an early tent feast that later developed into the Feast of Tabernacles, as we know it.17 Although his work has been criticized for lack of clear supporting textual evidence for a tent feast among the nomadic tribes, he certainly deals with some important aspects of the Feast of Tabernacles that the traditional argument has failed to explain adequately.18 Thus George MacRae claims that scholars should not disregard the capability of Israel in shaping its own cult and theology, because not all parallels between biblical Israel and its neighbors have to be due to direct influence.19 The Israelites as shepherds depended on tending flocks and herds for their livelihood (Gen 46:31–34). With the evidence that Isaac sowed crops (Gen 26:12) and that Joseph dreamed of the field in which his brothers’ sheaves stood bound and bowed down to Joseph’s sheaf (Gen 37:7), the Hebrew patriarchs might have already been acquainted with agriculture. They tended their flocks, but they also grew crops. Thus it is, as J. B. Segal suggests, quite probable to suggest that they were semi-nomads.20 If this was the case, the Israelites, having a stronger nomadic lifestyle, might have been accustomed to living in tents or the tent might have been widespread enough for the Israelites to have developed a tent feast. Therefore, Kraus and MacRae’s argument still allows much room for debate and consideration. Although the relationship between nomadic and sedentary customs in the history of the feast is not clear, it is certain that it is impossible to separate them in Israel’s history apart from the forty-year nomadic period in the wilderness. As the Passover celebration was suggested to be made up of a nomadic shepherd feast and a sedentary agricultural feast, we may postulate this embracing solution that the Israelites might have developed and combined both forms of the feast, having encountered and adopted both nomadic and sedentary lifestyles. It is, however, noted that the possible details about the sedentary and nomadic background cannot be more than speculation. What is clear is that, whatever its origin, and whatever its precise ritual structure, its meaning and purpose has remained an occasion for thanksgiving and rejoicing in the harvest. It is thus quite safe to say that the feast had its own particular meaning before it was later associated and reinterpreted in the light of the wilderness period of the whole exodus experience. While the Feast of Passover was historicized in remembrance of the Exodus event, the Feast of Tabernacles was associated with the wilderness wandering of Israel. Mowinckel, however, maintains that it was the Feast of Tabernacles, not the Passover, that was originally associated with the story of the Exodus, combining the feast with the Creation.21 Tabernacles was the New Year festival on which the king formally ascended his throne or renewed annually his royal dignity. It was the season of Creation; and Creation myths, widespread throughout the Near East, are echoed in the history of Israel. Just as the world was created from water, so the nation of Israel had been created from the sea through which they passed on their release from Egypt.22 For him the Creation represents the creation of Israel as the Lord’s chosen people, which is an historical foundation for the kingdom of God, manifested in the Exodus from Egypt. Creation and the rise of Israel should become one: Creation reaches its climax in the rise of Israel.23 Mowinckel also finds in Psalms 47, 93, and 95–100 that the enthronement of God as King stands as the dominant theme, particularly in relation to the Feast of Tabernacles that was the New Year celebration. A chief characteristic of the Psalms can be found in the phrase “Yahweh has become King” (Pss 47:8; 93:1; 96:10; 97:1). This celebration also proclaims the kingship of God as his reign or rule (Pss 46:10; 47:3; 95:3; 96:7; 97:6, 8, 10–12; 98:9; 99:4). God “comes” (Ps 98:9), “makes himself known” (48:4; 76:2f; 98:2), and “goes up” (47:6) to the temple to seat himself on his throne (Pss 93:2; 97:2; 99:1). This is the pinnacle of the enthronement psalm that Mowinckel finds. For Yahweh’s enthronement day is the day when he comes (96:13; 98:9) and “makes himself known” (98:2), reveals himself and his “salvation” and his will (93:5; 99:7), when he repeats the theophany of Mount Sinai (97:3ff.; 99:7f.) and renews the election (47:5) of Israel, and the covenant with his people (95:6ff.; 99:6ff.).24 The feast in which Yahweh became King is bound up with God’s works of salvation in the life of the people through which he manifests to the entire world who he is. For Israelites God’s coming and making himself known becomes reality expressed through the symbols and rites of the feast and reexperienced by the pilgrims who join the feast every year. Thus Mowinckel considers the festal experience as the message of the feast.25 Although Mowinckel does not directly refer to the idea of the pilgrimage paradigm, his understanding of the enthronement psalms combined with the Feast of Tabernacles highlights the knowing God motif, one of the main pilgrimage paradigms, and offers the underlying dynamic of the feast. Since his coming as King was the main idea of the feast, it is no wonder that the Feast of Tabernacles was known as “the day of Yahweh.”26 God “remembers his creation” and comes to bring renewal to the natural world.27 In the light of the repeated creation and renewal of life and nature, the Feast of Tabernacles that was a New Year festival had a special connection with the rainy season, which closed the agricultural year and opened the new one. Zechariah 14 recognizes rain for a fruitful harvest as a gift from God in response to the pilgrimage the Israelites made (Zech 14:17). The rain motif was also connected with the theme of light (Ps 118:27; Zech 14:6–9). In the feast God comes and brings along with him rain to defeat drought and light to vanquish the evil powers including the enemies of Israel. The Mishnah shows how pilgrims traveled to the temple for the Feast of Tabernacles (m. Bikkurim 3:2–5), with a vivid picture for procession—that pilgrims would be met by the music of the flute until they reached the Temple Mount (m. Bikkurim 3:3–5).28 The Mishnah also describes the water (m. Sukkah 4:9) and light (m. Sukkah 5:2–4) ceremony of the temple during the festival. From the biblical tradition to the intertestamental literature the Feast of Tabernacles, like the Feast of Passover, underwent a development from whatever was its original celebration to a “historicized” one. Although some of the original ideas have remained right down to the Second Temple period, all these symbols and rites of the feast were gradually reinterpreted in the context of the history of the Israelites. Generally speaking, the feast that was identified with the wilderness period was a time of joy and thanksgiving as well as that of petition to God for rain. In the water drawing ceremony, the pilgrims looked to a future time, the eschatological hope of salvation, expecting that life-giving waters would one day flow from the temple and fill the land for his people, as water flowed from the rock in the wilderness. In John 7 and 8 all that we have found out about the Feast of Tabernacles is thrown into sharp relief. In Jesus’ Tabernacles pilgrimage the feast is given new meaning and significance. Jesus and the Tabernacles pilgrimage (John 7:1—10:21) Considering the quantity and value of sacrifices offered to the Lord, it is not surprising that the Feast of Tabernacles was called the great feast of the Jewish year, exerting a great impact on the lives and expectations of the Jews. Thus Josephus called it “a most holy and most eminent feast of the Hebrews” (Ant. 8.4.1§ 100). The festival also became the most joyous occasion of the Jewish year, because it came at the completion of harvest. As such, a question is raised: When we consider how popular and important the Feast of Tabernacles was in Jesus’ time, why is it that such a significant feast has been neglected in the Synoptic Gospels? The Synoptic Gospels do not offer any record of the Jesus’ Tabernacles pilgrimage; it is found only in John’s Gospel. If Jesus thought about popularity and effective revealing of his identity, he would have chosen Tabernacles, which was the most crowded among the three feasts. Although the Feast of Tabernacles was the most joyous and crowded pilgrimage festival among the three pilgrimage feasts, most of the time Jesus chose the Feast of Passover to go to Jerusalem. This confirms the strong probability that Jesus thought about the meaning of the feast and the meaning of his pilgrimage when he planned or arranged his journey to Jerusalem. His pilgrimage to Jerusalem was very much purpose and intention driven. This is supported by Robert Lightfoot’s comment that Jesus went to Jerusalem only “in connection with a festival.”29 This becomes clearer in terms of the way Jesus used the feasts to proclaim his message and to reveal who he was. The riddle of John 7:8–10 presents the intention of Jesus’ journey to the Feast of Tabernacles. But when the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles was near, Jesus’ brothers said to him, “You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the miracles you do. . . . ” Jesus told them, “The right time for me has not yet come; for you any time is right. . . . You go to the Feast, I am not yet going up to the Feast. . . . ” However, after his brothers had left for the Feast, he went also, not publicly, but in secret (John 7:2–10). The manuscript tradition of verse 8 has preserved two readings in the Greek: evgw. ouvk avnabai,nw (I am not going up) and evgw. ouvpw. avnabai,nw (I am not yet going up). Instead of evgw. ouvk avnabai,nw reading evgw. ouvpw. avnabai,nw has been generally rejected, because this reading is regarded as an attempt by early scribes to avoid the difficulty created by Jesus’ going to Jerusalem in verse 10.30 Chrys Caragounis, however, argues contra the explanations that ouvpw is a later correction for the originality of ouvk.31 Since the reading ouvk is currently and dominantly accepted, what was felt to be a textual problem has, nevertheless, become an interpretation issue. Many attempts have been made to provide a possible solution for the problem. When Jesus told his brothers that he would not go up to Jerusalem, he probably meant that he did not follow what his brothers asked him to do in Jerusalem. Thus for Morris and Carson verse 8 merely implies that he is not going up now, until the Father signals him to go to Jerusalem.32 Although verse 8 strongly implies that he would not go to Jerusalem this time, the fact that later he went to Jerusalem in secret has provoked debates. For the solution of this difficulty John Bernard simply suggests that Jesus “altered his plans afterwards (v. 10).”33 Barrett assumes that when Jesus spoke with his brothers, his time to go to Jerusalem had not yet come, but the proper time would come soon.34 Jesus might have meant attending later festivals, not this one. For Francis Moloney a moment of revelation for Jesus would be associated with another feast.35 These explanations, however, do not solve the contradiction. We have to note that Jesus emphasizes twice, in verses 6 and 8, that his time has not yet come. The right time for me has not yet come; for you any time is right. The Greek word kairo,j used here is different from w[ra in John 2:4. However, verse 30, “his time has not yet come,” employs w[ra, like Jesus responded to his mother in 2:4, “My time has not yet come.” On this view, kairo,j and w[ra mean the same thing. Through the term kairo,j we see clearly that Jesus’ times were determined by his Father’s providence. Having noticed the significance of the meaning of “his time,” Brown tackles the problem by positing “two levels of meaning.” When Jesus speaks of his time, he means “his hour” not to come at the Festival of Tabernacles but to go up to the Father.36 Although Jesus’ continual reference to the relationship with the One who sent him (John 3:17, 34; 4:34; 5:23, 24, 30, 36–38; 6:29, 38–39, 44, 57; particularly 7:33, “I go to the one who sent me”) indicates that the Father is the destination of his journey, Brown’s interpretation is flawed because of the fact that Jesus is going up, not to the Father, but to this particular feast. Considering a comparison with John 2:4 where Jesus refused his mother’s demand and later did exactly what she had required, it is quite probable that Jesus’ “I am not going up” is, as Barrett, C. Giblin, Ridderbos, and Schnackenburg point out, simply a rejection of his brother’s inadequate expectation and understanding (John 7:3–5),37 not an absolute denial of his intention to visit the feast at the proper time.38 Although Jesus’ plain answer is “no” to the question, we have to notice that his answer is conditioned by his brother’s inadequate expectation, it is obvious to use this feast as a vehicle for his message. So the debate whether we take “not” or “not yet” as the original reading would not be a matter to consider after all. The reasons as to why Jesus decided to go to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles was probably due to the great symbolic representation of the feast, through which Jesus had to reveal and claim himself to be the fulfillment of the feast. Jesus did go up to Jerusalem in secret in the middle of the festival and began to teach in the temple court (John 7:14), yet “He never participated in the feast.”39 The discretion of his journey was exactly the opposite of what his brothers asked him to do. There is no evidence that his disciples accompanied Jesus on his Tabernacles pilgrimage. Although they are naturally thought of as witnesses, it is not certain that they were present with Jesus when he revealed himself. However, the incomprehension of Jesus’ brothers serves a broader function as the modes of instruction for the readers. The Fourth Gospel shows the readers how even the closest of the people did not understand him. Thus the brothers’ misconception about Jesus’ journey had to be signified in the need of distinguishing between his own way of pilgrimage and the traditional way of pilgrimage. In his own way of pilgrimage, Jesus “went up” to Jerusalem for the feast and finally, on the cross, goes to the Father. Helfmeyer points out that whenever “going” is mentioned in Israel, the Hebrew mind can conceive of spatial going only as determined by specific places, persons, or actions.40 Thus in this context, “going up” for Jesus meant setting forth with a destination. Stephen Motyer thus posits: His apparent vacillation is a vivid means both of distancing himself from the Jerusalem celebration, and of remaining in contact with it in order to proclaim its fulfillment.41 Jesus’ teachings provoked different reactions to him. During the feast, the authorities searched for him, asking, “Where is that man?” There was a great deal of debate regarding Jesus’ identity among the crowds (John 7:12). They could not express their opinion about him because of fear of the Jews (v. 13). The Jews here refer to the authorities that searched for Jesus in verse 11. Some believed in him as the Messiah, whereas some reacted to their perception of Jesus’ blasphemy by trying to arrest him. No one knows where the true Messiah will come from, but everyone knows that Jesus is from Galilee (John 7:25–27). This misconception arose because of the misleading notion that the Messiah’s origins were to be hidden by God when he appears. Therefore, Jesus’ origin should not have been known to anyone, if he was indeed the Messiah. For the Jerusalemites Jesus could not be the Messiah, for they knew where Jesus came from. Such knowledge about the Messiah does reflect popular messianism at that time.42 Although many pilgrims still believed him on the basis of the miraculous signs (John 7:31), Jesus’ response to the misconception opens with a proclamation by crying out. Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, “Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from. I am not here on my own, but he who sent me is true. You do not know him, but I know him because I am from him and he sent me” (John 7:28–29). The verb kra,zw appears four times in John (John 1:15; 7:28, 37; 12:44). Morris argues that it denotes a loud shout.43 For Barrett and Carson it was to introduce a public and solemn pronouncement.44 Jesus pronounced that only those who recognize who he is, the incarnate word, know God the Father. In sending his Son, God was in fact revealing himself to them and making himself known as he really was.45 Since Jesus is the revelation of the Father (John 14:6–9), without Jesus and his word there is no possibility of knowing God. Since knowing Jesus is knowing God the Father, not recognizing Jesus is not knowing God. Ridderbos argues that “knowing” is not just intellectual but refers to total relatedness. It is rooted in a choice that embraces not only the intellect and not only the heart, but also the human will.”46 One who rejects the revelation through Jesus Christ cannot possibly know God, since knowing God is provided only through Jesus and his words. Therefore, Jesus’ presence serves as a test of antecedent pretensions about knowing God.47 One cannot help but note the irony. For those who joined the celebration rejoiced in their knowledge and allegiance to the one true God and each day of the festival they were supposed to confirm it, but they disregarded and rejected Jesus, the sent One of the one true God. It is against this background that Jesus stood up and cried out on the last and greatest day of the festival. On the last and greatest day of the feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.” By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified (John 7:37–39). He spoke his words with great emphasis and authority in his mind. The Feast of Tabernacles forms the background for his revelation, his self-disclosure. In the feast, Jesus’ self-disclosure is bound up with God’s works of salvation in the life of the people through which Jesus manifests to the entire world who he is. Since for Israelites God’s coming and making himself known becomes reality expressed through the symbols and rites of the feast, Jesus offers the underlying dynamic of the feast, making himself known as the living water. In order to properly understand Jesus’ self-revelation, we need to know the significance of the ritual of that feast. The Mishnah provides a vivid picture of the procession of the water-libation ceremony (m. Sukkah 4:9) and light (m. Sukkah 5:2–4) during the seven days of Tabernacles. On each of the seven days people with their palms and their willows made their way in procession down to Siloam and a priest filled a golden flagon with water. When the priest reached the Water Gate, the people returned to the temple reciting Isaiah 12:3: “With joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation.” Then they blew a trumpet blast, while the priest with the golden flagon went to the ramp to the altar and poured the water into one of the two silver bowls and the wine into the other bowl as an offering to God. At the same time as the priest poured the water into the basin, the people surrounding the altar would shout to the priest, “Raise thy hand!” to show that he really poured water into the basin.48 Through a hole the water and wine flowed out onto the altar. While this was being done, Hallel (Pss 113–118) was sung to the accompaniment of flutes. When the choir came to the words, “O give thanks to the Lord” (Ps 118:l), “O work now then salvation” (Ps 118:25), and “O give thanks unto the Lord” (Ps 118:29), the worshipers waved their palms and willows at the altar. But on the seventh day the priests marched round the altar seven times to commemorate the victory at Jericho and the water was poured out to the base of the altar of burnt offering in the temple. If Jesus’ words were, as some commentators believe, given on the seventh day, it was probably at the most dramatic moment that Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If any man is thirsty, let him come to me and drink” (John 7:37).49 Although it is still not certain whether the ceremony of the water drawing was held on the seventh day or eighth day, on the basis of the fact that many Jews in the first century consider the feast as an eight-day event,50 many commentators favor a time following cessation of ceremonies on the eighth day.51 Regardless of the debates over the seventh-day setting with water drawing and torch-lighting ceremony and the eighth-day setting with joyful assembly and celebration, the whole dramatic ceremony of the feast, along with living in booths, would have given the feast its special character, leaving an impressive image or impact on the pilgrims during the celebration. If Jesus’ proclamation happened on the eighth day, which lacked the water libation and dancing, what Jesus indicated in declaring, “If any man is thirsty, let him come unto me and drink,” was what was sought and celebrated during the seven days of the feast. This time Jesus invited the whole of Israel to come and drink of the living water he provides, just as the women at the well had previously been invited (John 4:13). It is quite probable that the idea of “living water” was not foreign to Jesus’ listeners due to the water drawing ceremony, which also symbolized the hope and prayer for rain and fruitfulness as a harvest ritual, and a reminiscence of the water that sprang from the rock in the wilderness, as well as the two prophecies in Ezekiel 47:1–11 and Zechariah 14:16–19. The two prophecies recognize the temple and Jerusalem as the source of living water, expressing the eschatological hope of salvation. Ever-deepening waters flow out from the Temple (Ezek 47:3–6). Everything will live where the river goes (Ezek 47:9). On that day living waters shall flow out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea; it shall continue in summer as in winter (Zech 14:8). Jesus declared himself as the present source of living water to those present at the feast who expected a future time when life-giving waters would flow from the temple. The allusion is unmistakable that through his proclamation Jesus completes his mission to bring life into the world (John 1:4; 3:15; 17:2). Leonard Goppelt indicates that “life,” although the word is fully compatible with Hellenistic concepts, conveys the idea of the new creation in this context.52 This is why the life-giving water would flow, not from the Jerusalem Temple, but from Jesus who is the new Temple, perfecting all that has been promised by the water ceremonies of the Feast of Tabernacles. Whoever believes in me, streams of living water will flow from within his heart (John 7:38). All who believe in Jesus will have life-giving water. The phrase, “within his heart,” can be translated differently according to putting punctuation after “drink” (v. 37) or after “me.” Putting a full stop after “me,” some commentators take the phrase “his heart” as a christological reference.53 Barrett claims that John used the word “heart” as a means to transfer the prophecy from the city to a person.54 However, it is also probable that in this particular context the phrase must refer to the believer who is the source of life-giving water.55 Those who come to Jesus to drink the living water can become the source of life-giving water for others. This reading seems to be more natural in this context. For the word his must refer to the preceding he, the believer. However, the important thing for us to appreciate is that Christ is the source and provider of the living water. This idea is clearly indicated in Jesus’ invitation. His invitation to the woman at the well (John 4) also provides a key to understanding the text. As the source of living water Jesus becomes the new Temple from which the waters of life will be outpoured and the new Rock that provides water to satisfy the people’s thirst as with Moses in the wilderness. From the rich Jewish background for the Feast of Tabernacles John also draws this living water into the Spirit, which the water symbolizes (John 7:39). The picturesque presentation of the Creation scene in Genesis 1:2, “the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters,” sets a precedent for the dual imagery of water and the Spirit. This Creation typology might be behind Jesus’ demand for the new birth by water and the Spirit (John 3:5). Sukkah 5:55a: Rabbi Jehoshua ben Levi (c. 250) said, “Why did they call it (the court of women) the place of drawing water? Because it was from there that they drew the Holy Spirit, according to the word.” Living waters that would flow from Jerusalem (Zech 14:8–9) would be naturally connected with a number of other texts about the spirit of God being poured out as water, such as Isaiah 44:3 and Joel 2:28. Thus the Mishna reflects the traditional expectation of the Spirit with the greatest delight, as the pilgrims entered into the procedures of the water drawing ceremony. He that never has seen the joy of the Beth ha-She’ubah (the water-drawing) has never in his life seen joy (m. Sukkah 5:1). As noted in the text, “Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water” (John 7:38), Jesus proclaimed himself as the source of life-giving water with the Greek verb flow r`eu,sousin in the future tense. Therefore, the Fourth Gospel informs us that the gift of living water is the future gift of the Spirit (John 7:39). This futuristic interpretation of the water as the Holy Spirit is so significant for the link between the messianic symbol of the water (Ezek 11:19; 36:26–27; 39:29; Isa 44:3; Joel 2:28; 3:1), the Holy Spirit, and Jesus’ glorification. It took Jesus’ glorification through his life and his death to pave the way to Pentecost, and to open the floodgates for the Spirit to become the living water to all men. And so this link emerges for the Pentecost pilgrimage in the light of the gift of the Holy Spirit that the glorification of Jesus will bring. Another distinctive ceremony of the Feast of Tabernacles was the nocturnal illumination of the women’s courtyard in the temple with which Jesus’ proclamation is introduced. I am the light of the world; whoever follows me will not walk in darkness but will have the light of life (John 18:12). As Jesus proclaimed himself a spring of living water on the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, he now reveals himself as the light of the world. Jesus makes use of the light imagery within the context of the festival as background for the dialogue. Mishnah Sukkah 5:2–4 spoke of the light ceremony performed during the feast. Four golden candlesticks were set up in the court of the women in the evening of the first day of the feast. The four tall golden candlesticks had four ladders to reach the candles and four golden bowls holding oil. Wicks were made from the drawers and girdles of the priest. When these wicks were lit, there was not a courtyard in Jerusalem that did not reflect the light of the Beth haSheubah. With the burning torches the worshipers danced to singing and to the playing of many instruments. When the two priests reached the court of the women in the ceremony procession, the priests turned towards the temple and proclaimed: Our fathers when they were in this place turned, “with their backs toward the Temple of the Lord and their faces toward the east, and they worshipped the sun toward the east” (Ezek 8:16); but as for us, our eyes are turned toward the Lord. The light ceremony is certainly linked with “the OT faith in the Lord as the Light of his people (Ps 27:1)”56 and expressed with a confirmation “Light is Yahweh in action.”57 The link between the light ceremony of Tabernacles and the use of the pillar of fire leading the wandering Israelites through the desert (Exod 13:21; 14:24; 40:38) indicates its association with recollection of “the nation’s experience at the Exodus and the hope for a second Exodus.”58 Each day at the feast the priests proclaimed their allegiance to the one true God. And Jesus proclaimed himself as the light of the world (John 8:12) who is the one sent by the one true God (John 8:16, 18, 26, 29). The priests, however, turned their backs on the light of the world, knowing neither Jesus nor his Father. They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father (John 8:27). Then they asked him, “Where is your father?” (John 8:19). Who are you?” they asked (John 8:25). So they were the questions that Jesus had been answering throughout these encounters with the Jews at the Feast of Tabernacles. The questions in the narrative create a crucial point within the knowing God motif for the Tabernacles pilgrimage. During the celebration of Tabernacles Jesus revealed himself as the light of the world and the living water, responding to their ignorance of who Jesus is and who his Father is. Passages from the Old Testament show that God himself dwells in light (Dan 2:22), that he covers himself with light “as with a garment” (Ps 104:2), and his brightness is like the light (Hab 3:4). Thus Psalm 43:3 suggests that to come to the light is in reality to come to God who is the light and salvation (Ps 27:1). Hans Conzelmann points out: The Fourth gospel does not call God light, but God’s manifestation in Jesus, for the relation of God and revelation is not described as an emanation of revelation from light but as sending.59 Thus knowing Jesus sent by God was knowing God, and vice versa. It is noticed that the verb to know in John 8:19 (oi;date) and in verse 55 (oi=da) is used six times to highlight the importance of the true knowledge of God and of the true recognition of Jesus. They were, however, not able to comprehend his revelation beyond what they saw. The incomprehension of the Jews not knowing God intensifies in verse 55 to make Jesus claim, “I do know Him.” Thus Jesus’ affirmation made it clear that the question, “who are you?” can be understood only in terms of the Father. But they did not grasp that Jesus was speaking to them of God the Father (v. 27). George Beasley-Murray said: To say, with Bultmann, that Jesus’ knowledge of God is “no more nor less than his knowledge of his own mission” (301) is surely insufficient. Blank points out (as Schlatter did before him, Der Glaube, 219) that the Fourth Gospel never speaks of Jesus believing in God, but always of his knowing him, and he cites Thomas Aquinas, that Jesus knows God “as God knows himself” (Krisis, 245 and n. 48). The strong asseveration to the Jews, that to say he did not know God would make him “a liar like you,” implies that they are not merely mistaken about their supposed knowledge of God but lying. That is manifest in their rejection of the revelation of God through Jesus and their hatred of the messenger.60 Jesus’ “I AM” sayings, including, “I am the living water” (John 7:37–38 paraphrase) and “I am the light of the world,” (John 8:12) speak on behalf of the Father in order to make God known. Jesus’ Tabernacles pilgrimage was a journey to reveal to others something about God and as a vehicle to reveal who he was, so that others may come to know him and the Father. The evangelist presented Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles as having two important elements: the revealing of Jesus’ identity and the opportunity for the reader to be taught through his Tabernacle pilgrimage. This revelation that discloses God as the Father of Jesus would be known, when they lift up the Son of man in crucifixion (John 8:28). His crucifixion was the consequence of not knowing God, of the Jews not recognizing Jesus as the Son of God. John 15:21 also states that not knowing God is a reason for the persecution of Jesus’ disciples. To the disciples who were also described as men who do not know, full knowledge is promised when Jesus is glorified after the crucifixion and sends to them the Holy Spirit (John 14:15–21; 16:7–15). This link thus emerges for the Pentecost pilgrimage in the light of the Holy Spirit that the glorification of Jesus will bring. Schnackenburg sums up the meaning of knowing God in relation to obedience to his will. In the name of Jesus Johannine Christianity denied Judaism’s relationship with God, not belief in God (cf. 8:54) but obedience to his will, living union with God, for that is what this “knowing God” means. All supposed “knowledge” about God and salvation becomes shattering ignorance where there is no faith in him who possesses the true knowledge of God and reveals the way to salvation.61 It appears that the Feast of Tabernacles offers an appropriate setting for all the symbols and various aspects of Jewish messianic expectations through which Jesus manifests himself as Messiah. In their deeper meaning Jesus canvassed knowing God, which means obedience to his will, his living union with God (John 8:28–29). His living union with God is constantly referred to in terms of the “I and He” formula in the Fourth Gospel (John 7:28–29; 8:12–30, 48–59; 10:29–30; 14:6–7, etc). Jesus, the revealer of the Father, expressed the nature of God in the Feast of Tabernacles, claiming himself to be “the living water” and “the light of the world.” So the feast became “the backdrop for Jesus’ self-revelation as the one who brings salvation, drawing on the festival images of outpoured water and light.”62 Jesus also went to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Dedication, giving the Sanhedrin and the Jewish leaders another chance to see the light (John 10:22–23; 2 Macc 10:5–8).63 The distinguishing features of the feast were the illumination of houses and synagogues, a custom probably taken over from the Feast of Tabernacles. He here reminded them of that great discourse that he had delivered at the Feast of Tabernacles two months before, adding solemnly, “I and my father are one” (John 10:30). On this occasion he was claiming not only to be Messiah, but also to be divine. And he as the light of the world appealed to his life and to his works, as undeniable proofs of his unity with the Father (John 10:34–38). The Fourth Gospel that begins with the words “in the beginning” indicates that the original creation without light was the dark chaos in which man did not know God. However, the light of man that gives life came into the dark sinful world (John 1:1–13). As the Word of God, life, and light reveals the Father to man, those who love darkness reject the very life of God provided through Jesus Christ to the believer (John 5:25–26). Thus light is eternal life (John 1:4) by which man knows God. There is a strong probability that the light imagery, the reference to Jesus, also has a link with an Exodus typology theme, together with the rivers of living water (John 7). The Israelites in the wilderness were normally camped at night. However, on occasions, the people traveled by night as well as by day (Exod 13:21; 14:24; 40:38). What they had to do was to follow the pillar of fire when it lifted and went before the people as their guide. Although there is a distinction between the Angel of the Lord and the pillar (Exod 14:19), we read that it was the Lord himself who looked down from the pillar (Exod 14:24) and led his people in the pillar (Exod 13:21–22). As the pillar of fire was light for those on the way to the promised land, Jesus became the guiding light for his followers. As the prophet Isaiah invited the Israelites to walk according to God’s word, “to come, let us walk in the light of the Lord” (Isa 2:5), so those who follow him will therefore never “walk in darkness.” Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life (John 8:12). You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. The man who walks in the dark does not know where he is going (John 12:35). In the Fourth Gospel64 the term “light and darkness” occurs in conjunction with the Greek “walk peripate,w,”65 and Jesus’ confrontation with his opponents is continually referred to as a battle between light and darkness (John 1:5; 3:19–21; cf. 9:4–5; 12:35–36, 46). In many passages of the Old Testament the call to walk according to God’s word is proclaimed in the antithesis of good and evil that is expressed by the figures of light and darkness (Isa 5:20; 59:9–10; Job 24:13–17; 30:26). This is also true in the Fourth Gospel as well as 2 Corinthians 6:14 and 1 John 1:5–7.66 Clearly the healing of the blind is conceived of as a “sign” of the triumph of light over darkness, confirming his identity as the light of the world (John 9:1–7). In view of this, it should be noted that it was night when Judas went out from the last supper to betray the Lord (John 13:30), and that it is twice repeated and stressed that Nicodemus, before his new birth, visited Jesus at night (John 3:2; 19:39). Thus the notion of “walking in the light/darkness” indicates two ways in which people may choose to walk. There is a dynamic equivalent of this parallel in the Dead Sea Scrolls (negative expressions: 1QS I 25, 1QS II 12, 1QS IV 12, 1QS V 11, 1QS V 5, 1QS VII 19, 1QS IX 10, 1QS XI 10). This walk metaphor is found everywhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in one form or another, shaping the way they saw themselves and the future. The community, therefore, appealed to its people to walk in his ways in order to have a relationship with him, stressing that, for the community, the mainspring of the ethical ideal derived from a sense of the inner spiritual qualities rather than external qualities. Drawing a parallel between “walking in the light” and “walking in the darkness,” the Fourth Gospel also urges its community to walk in the light, and not in the darkness. “Walk in the light,” as Heinrich Seesemann sees, refers not merely to practical conduct but to the whole stance of the believer or of faith itself.67 In this regard, the Fourth Gospel might differ from the Dead Sea Scrolls, for it defines “light” as faith and perception, and the Dead Sea Scrolls as the sphere of the blessed.68 It is particularly noticeable that the thanksgiving hymns in the Dead Sea Scrolls clearly point out that the Holy Spirit is the medium to make it possible for humanity to walk in the perfect way that leads to salvation. The way of man is not established except by the spirit which God created for him to make perfect a way for the children of men (IQH XII 32). In the same way, to the disciples who were disheartened by Jesus’ prediction of his death, Jesus promised his everlasting presence with them through the Holy Spirit (John 14:15–21). Through the Holy Spirit the light becomes the vivid manifestation in those in whom Jesus, the light of the world, dwells. Rudolf Bultmann makes it clear that The light that the believer has is always the light that is Jesus . . . He gives light and He also is light: He gives it as He is it, and He is it as He gives it.69 Jesus’ Tabernacles pilgrimage proves the organic connection between the festal experience and the goal of his pilgrimages. With all the rich experiences contained in the feast Jesus revealed his saving works through manifesting who he is as the light of the world and the living water. As Mowinckel finds that the enthronement of God as king stands as the dominant theme in relation to the Feast of Tabernacles (Pss 47, 93 and 95–100), so Jesus as the Messiah “comes” (Ps 98:9), “makes himself known” (Pss 48:4; 76:2f; 98:2), and “goes up” (Ps 47:6) to the temple to seat himself on his throne (Pss 93:2; 97:2; 99:1). For Jesus’ Tabernacles pilgrimage was a revelation of who he really is. For Israelites God’s coming and making himself known became reality through the revelation of Jesus expressed through and within the symbols and rites of the feast. Thus the Feast of Tabernacles combined with the enthronement psalms offers the underlying dynamic of the feast, the knowing God motif. This is what the Fourth Gospel intends and the readers should note. In terms of beneficiary, Jesus’ Tabernacles pilgrimage does not show the same pattern as the journeys recorded in the OT. In the journeys of the OT the people who participated in them gradually came to fully know who God the Father was. It was a lifelong journey. However, Jesus’ revelation of himself is the main agenda from the first Passover pilgrimage and throughout all his subsequent visits to Jerusalem. Conclusion As we discussed with regard to the Feast of Passover in chapter 4, the Feast of Tabernacles has developed its own character with timely contextualized meanings for the momentous events in the history of Israel. While the Feast of Passover was historicized in remembrance of the Exodus event, the Feast of Tabernacles was associated with the wilderness wandering of Israel. Like the Passover celebration, the Israelites might have developed the Feast of Tabernacles, having encountered and adopted both a nomadic and sedentary lifestyle. It is, however, noted that the possible details about the sedentary and nomadic background cannot be more than speculation. It is clear that whatever its origin, and whatever its precise ritual structure, its meaning and purpose has remained an occasion for thanksgiving and rejoicing in the harvest. In the light of the repeated creation and renewal of life and nature, the Feast of Tabernacles that was a New Year festival had a special connection with the rainy season, which closed the agricultural year and opened the new one. Zechariah 14 recognizes rain for a fruitful harvest as a gift from God in response to the pilgrimage the Israelites made (Zech 14:17). The water motif was also connected with the theme of light (Ps 118:27; Zech 14: 6–9). Although some of the original ideas have remained right down to the Second Temple period, all these symbols and rites of the feast were gradually reinterpreted in the context of the evolving history of the Israelites. In Jesus’ Tabernacles pilgrimage the feast was imbued with new meaning and further significance. Thus Jesus empties Tabernacles of its ritual significance and then leaves the ceremony behind, offering the light and water once offered there.70 This confirms a strong probability that Jesus thought about the meaning of the feast and meaning of his pilgrimage when he planned or arranged his journey to Jerusalem. His pilgrimage to Jerusalem was very much purpose and intention driven. The discretion of his journey (John 7:14), however, indicates that his brothers’ misconception about his journey had to be signified in the need of distinguishing between Jesus’ own way of pilgrimage and the traditional way of pilgrimage. The reasons as to why Jesus decided to go to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles was probably due to the great symbolic representation of the feast, through which Jesus had to reveal who he was and claim himself to be the completion of the feast. His teachings in the temple provoked different reactions. In response to the debate Jesus pronounced that only those who recognize who he is, the incarnate word, know God the Father. In sending his Son, God was in fact revealing himself to them and making himself known as he really was.71 Since Jesus is the revelation of the Father (John 14:6–9), without Jesus and his word there is no possibility of knowing God. Since knowing Jesus is knowing God the Father, not recognizing Jesus is not knowing God. One who rejects the revelation through Jesus Christ cannot possibly know God, since knowing God is provided only through Jesus and his words. Therefore, Jesus’ presence serves as a test of antecedent pretensions about knowing God.72 For the pilgrims who joined the feast, God’s coming and making himself known became reality expressed and reexperienced by the revelation of Jesus through the symbols and rites of the feast. For the feast in which Yahweh became King is bound up with God’s works of salvation in the life of the people through which he manifests to the entire world who he is. With all the rich experiences contained in the feast the revelation of Jesus became the message of his Tabernacles pilgrimage. Thus his Tabernacles pilgrimage offers the underlying dynamic of the feast, the knowing God motif. This is what the Fourth Gospel intends and the readers should note. As in the journeys recorded in the OT the people who participate in pilgrimage with Jesus come gradually to fully know who God the Father was in their lifelong journey, so Jesus’ pilgrimages to Jerusalem appear to be a gradual progression towards the full comprehension of God the Father and Jesus the Son for the disciples, the people Jesus encountered, and the readers of the Gospels. Thus Jesus’ Tabernacles pilgrimage is a key element of Jesus’ self-consciousness. It is noted that the “knowing and not knowing God” motif runs through from the very beginning of the Gospel to the whole of the Tabernacles discourse and plays a significant role in the Johannine presentation of Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles. The emphasis on the light and water themes in the Tabernacles rituals will be a clear indication of the messianic aspect of the feast with the knowing God motif. Becoming the living water and the light of the world and replacing the water and light of the Tabernacles rituals, Jesus in the Fourth Gospel spiritualizes the light and water themes that Jesus shows us to be fulfilled in his own person and in anticipation of eschatological blessings.73 In particular, the futuristic interpretation of the water as the Holy Spirit (John 7:39) is so significant for the link between the messianic symbol of the water, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus’ glorification. This link thus offers a prerequisite for the Pentecost pilgrimage in the light of the Holy Spirit that the glorification of Jesus will bring.
