|
The
NITPICKER'S GUIDE to COG Doctrinal Debate on ...
The Biblical Calendar
If this is your first
visit to the Nitpicker's Guide, be sure to read THE KEYS
before reading this article. It
provides vital background material. See the menu button on
the left.
Clicking on words
in the article that are in italics and underlined will take you to a
short definition in the NITPICKER'S Lexicon. After reading
the definition, use your browser's BACK button to return to the
article at the point you left it. At any time, you can use the
Lexicon menu button at the left to go directly to the Lexicon
for browsing.
Disclaimer: This article is not offered as a
comprehensive treatment of the topic. It is intended to
be merely a helpful overview.
Under Debate
In a
nutshell
"Should
Christians who observe the annual biblical
Feasts
and Holy Days use the modern Jewish calendar to
establish when the celebrations should come during the
year, or should they reject the use of that calendar in
favor of a different one?"
More than
a nutshell
A growing
number of Christians believe that they should observe the
annual Feasts and Holy Days listed in the Bible in Leviticus 23. Many
Christian groups, both
Messianic Jewish groups and
non-Jewish groups, accept the traditional Hebrew calendar
used by modern Jews to determine their times of observance.
But a significant minority have come to reject that
calendar, for a variety of reasons, and have embarked on a
quest to discover what some have referred to as "the
calendar God gave to Moses."
In other
words, they are convinced that God clarified to Moses at
Mt. Sinai exactly how to construct the proper calendar
for the use of the ancient
Israelites, so that they
might come before Him in worship at precise times
established from eternity. Any deviation from this method
would yield a flawed calendar, and thus any worshipper using
such a flawed calendar would miss the proper appointed
times to meet with God.
They are
further convinced that the modern Jewish calendar is just
such a flawed calendar. They insist modern Christians should
reject it and attempt to reconstruct the rules for
establishing the calendar which have God's endorsement.
The
primary aim of this article is not to attempt settle this
debate, but to provide a brief overview of the elements of
the debate for those who are unfamiliar with the subject.
The Webauthor will, indeed, share a personal perspective on
the issues at the end. But each reader is left to come to
his/her own conclusions on the topic.
History of
The Debate in Sabbatarian COG circles
Up until the
1840s, the only organized group of any size in the US who
observed the weekly Sabbath on the seventh day of the
week, Saturday, were the Seventh Day Baptists. This
denomination had (and still has to this day) very little
different from regular Baptists in their basic theology
other than a conviction about the seventh day Sabbath.
In the early
1840s, a movement of Adventists (those expecting that
the second coming of Jesus ... his second "advent" ... would
be soon) formed around a preacher named
William Miller.
A Seventh Day Baptist woman who visited some Adventists
introduced the seventh day Sabbath doctrine to them, the
information spread, and a number of Adventist groups
eventually accepted this doctrine. Out of those groups
several Sabbatarian denominations developed. The
Seventh-day Adventists grew out of the affiliation among
groups which accepted the prophetic pronouncements of
Ellen G. White. Some of those who rejected White's
claims eventually formed various Church of God
groups, including a number of small denominations which
eventually adopted the name Church of God, Seventh Day
(CG7).
None of these
early groups which sprang out of the Adventist movement seem
to have adopted the practice of observance of the annual
Feast days of the Bible. Some did, however, observe an
annual memorial of the sacrifice of Jesus, with a ceremony
involving taking bread and wine, and, in some cases, adding
a footwashing service. The typical way to decide when
to hold this service was to consult the current Hebrew
Calendar, and do it the night before the Jews held their
Passover
seder. But by the early 1900s some of
the Bible teachers in the movement began promoting the
addition of observance of the annual Feasts outlined in
Leviticus 23.
Herbert W.
Armstrong came in contact with one branch of the Church
of God, Seventh Day, around 1920. He accepted from them the
doctrine of the seventh day Sabbath, and eventually became a
preacher, pastor, and traveling evangelist within their
circle of influence. He later came in contact with several
teachers who were promoting the observance of the annual
Feasts, and by the early 1930s was teaching the necessity
for Christians to observe those Feasts.
Historical
evidence seems to indicate that most of these early Church
of God, Seventh Day teachers, including Armstrong, accepted
the custom of using the modern Hebrew calendar to establish
when to hold their Feast observances.
Armstrong
severed his official relationship with the CG7 in the early
1930s and struck out on his own as a radio evangelist. He
formed a small denomination he dubbed the "Radio Church of
God," which sponsored his Plain Truth Magazine and
his Radio Church of God radio program, which he
renamed The World Tomorrow in 1941. The
denomination itself was renamed the
Worldwide Church of
God in 1967, and grew to be the largest Christian
group observing the annual biblical Feasts. Until his death
in 1986, Armstrong continued to use the standard Hebrew
Calendar as the basis for the denomination's own calendar of
annual observances.
This is not
to say that calendar issues were not brought up by mavericks
in the organization from time to time, even while Armstrong
was still in charge. For instance, one ordained WCG
minister, Carl O'Beirn, was forced from the organization in
the late 1960s when he was unrelenting in his pressure for a
calendar change. He insisted the beginning of the sacred
year in spring should be postponed a month if the barley
harvest in Palestine wasn't at a stage of ripeness he
believed to be necessary at the end of the twelfth month of
the year just ending. He evidently had someone contact him
from Palestine with reports on the barley's condition.
Records are not clear on what his general perspective was
regarding other aspects of the modern Hebrew calendar.
By the early
1980s, more and more individuals with a WCG background were
looking into the issue of the need for calendar reform.
Although they have remained in a minority to this day, many
teachers promoting their own versions of such reform are
very aggressive and vocal in their attempts to extend their
influence widely in COG circles. Numerous COG ministries and
websites have sprung up in recent years with the primary
purpose of pushing alternative calendar schemes. Many small
congregations around the US, Canada, Australia, and
elsewhere have found that the introduction of calendar
controversies in their midst have led to constant
contention, and all too frequently to the complete
disintegration of their congregations. And even the larger
denominational COG groups, which often still maintain a
strong doctrinal control over their members, have
found calendar issues to be festering beneath the surface.
So just what
are these controversial issues, and what causes them to
perpetually create debates in COG circles? It will be
helpful first to consider the ...
Scientific
Background to the Controversies
In order for
man to effectively inter-react with both his natural
environment and with other people, some sort of consistent
ordering of time has always been necessary. Whether it was
deciding when to plant crops or when to leave on a journey
to arrive in time for an important gathering, ancient men
needed some type of calendar to guide their planning.
We are so
accustomed, in modern times, to consulting the ready-made
calendar on the wall or in our DayTimer in order to make our
plans, that few have stopped to consider how that calendar
came to be. Unless someone has studied the topic in school
at some point in time, it would be easy to make the careless
assumption that the calendar we use has been around for
thousands of years, and was used, for instance, by Jesus and
Moses. It wasn't. It is the end product of attempts by
scholars in numerous civilizations and over thousands of
years to effectively order time. World society is so
inter-connected now that most nations, in order to do
business in the international marketplace, have just decided
to accept the one common calendar for most of their
scheduling needs. But it was not always so.
Except for
astronomers and astronomy hobbyists, the average person in
the industrialized Western world of the 21st century pays
little attention to the intertwined patterns of movements of
the sun, moon, and stars in the sky. But in ancient times,
these patterns would have been woven into the fabric of
daily life. And they were the guiding lights of almost all
of the earliest attempts at calendar creation.
In an
agrarian society made up primarily of farmers, or in a
nomadic society made up primarily of herdsmen, the details
of the cycles of the seasons would have been vitally
important to the survival of the society. And thus it
wouldn't just be the scholars who paid attention to such
things as the motion of certain constellations at different
times of the year, the changing length of days, or the
phases of the moon. Each farmer, each shepherd would no
doubt keep close watch on such things.
Obviously we
have no record of which humans first, thousands upon
thousands of years ago, came to record the patterns of sun,
moon, and stars and work out many of the details that would
allow them to predict regular cycles of celestial phenomena.
But it was very early in the history of Man. And out of
these observations and records, which occurred in all parts
of the Earth, came the first calendars. For a brief overview
of the history of calendar creation, see the
Calendars
Through the Ages website.
For the
purposes of the current discussion, there are several main
factors of the natural world that contribute to calendar
creation, calendar confusion, and calendar controversies:
The earth
rotates on its axis in relation to the position of the sun
in a period that we call a day.
The moon
revolves around the earth in a regular pattern that takes
approximately (but not precisely) 30 days, which we refer to
as a month. As it does so, the pattern of reflection
of sunlight on the moon that can be seen from the earth
changes shape from day to day
The earth
revolves around the sun in a regular pattern that takes
approximately (but not exactly) 365 days. We refer to this
period as a year.
During this
period of one year, the moon goes through its phases
approximately (but not exactly) twelve times. It would
certainly be most convenient for the calendar creators
throughout history if the period of the month would "divide
evenly" into the period of the year! That would have
eliminated a whole lot of juggling which most civilizations
have done as part of their calendar creation. Instead, all
have been forced to keep making adjustments to the
correlation between the months and the years by adding "leap
days" and even "leap months" at various times. There is some
speculation, with a certain amount of supporting
documentation, that there was a time in Earth's history when
there really were exactly thirty days in each month and only
360 days in one year. But there is no question that this has
not been so for well over 2,500 years. So any calendar
creation methods will have to take this reality into
account.
A significant
proportion of calendar matters are related to celestial
phenomena, but there is also a terrestrial (Earthly)
component which many societies have included in their
calendar considerations . Except in the areas nearest the
equator, there are periodic seasons throughout each year
that affect weather and vegetation. These seasons can often
be anticipated by the relative positions of sun, moon, and
stars. Some parts of the Earth, such as the northern parts
of the US, have four very distinct seasons, which vary
widely in temperature, precipitation, plant growth, and
more. Other areas may have only two distinct seasons,
perhaps labeled as "rainy" and "dry." Still others may have
three. Calendar creation throughout history in each of these
varying areas seems to have been particularly adapted to the
seasons of each land. For instance, the ancient Egyptians
tied the official beginning of their year to the annual
flooding of the Nile River, which was essential to the
agricultural productivity of the nation, since the flooding
deposited new rich soil every year. Celestial phenomena that
pointed to this yearly event were therefore central to the
creation of the ancient Egyptian calendar. You can see
details about that
ancient Egyptian calendar on the Calendars Through
the Ages website.
One problem
with calendar considerations is that ancient men had
absolutely no clue what was causing the regular repetition
of these patterns. They noted, for instance, that the sun
came up in the East every day, appeared to travel across the
sky, and disappeared below the opposite horizon. And if they
were in the northern hemisphere, they may have noted that
this process took a longer time during the warm months than
in the cold. But they had no idea that when the sun had
disappeared from their view at night it was above the heads
of people on the other side of the globe, and that at the
times when their days in the northern hemisphere were
shortest, the days were longest far away in the southern
hemisphere. For, of course, they had no idea there was
a southern hemisphere.
These ancient
men also would have noticed the moon alternately "waxing"
(the light portion getting larger) and "waning" (the light
portion getting smaller) throughout the period of the month,
but they also had no clue what was causing this. If you are
not sure what causes it either, you can see some helpful
diagrams on this
lunar phases webpage. And for another helpful way to
envision this, check out this
lunar phase animation.
Ancient men
would also have noticed details of the movement of
constellations in the sky, but would also have had no idea
what was causing this phenomenon either.
At the time
that the Israelites were set free from slavery in Egypt,
somewhere near 3,500 years ago, there were a number of
calendars in use in and around the general portion of the
Earth where their travels would take them, including, in
particular, those of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia. Details
of the
Assyrian and Babylonian calendars can also be seen on
the Calendars Through the Ages website.
Given this
broad historical and scientific overview, we can now turn to
consideration of the calendar we find in the Bible.
Biblical
Background of the Controversies
In spite of
the magnitude of some of the debates about the "Biblical
calendar," the Bible itself has only a few passages that
directly address the topic of just how the ancient
calendar of the time of Moses and during the history of
Israel as a nation under the Judges and Kings was
constructed. Those participating in calendar debates may
make reference to what they believe are hints about calendar
details in other, more obscure passages, but those are often
considerably subject to interpretation.
It seems
reasonable to assume that the Israelites coming out of
bondage in Egypt, as described in Exodus, would have
only been used to the Egyptian calendar of the time. It
wouldn't be long before they might also become familiar with
the calendars used by the inhabitants of the "Promised Land"
and those of the lands through which they passed on the way
there. The Bible never says anything about God instructing
Moses in elaborate details of exactly how He wanted a
calendar constructed, as if the calendar for the Israelites
was to be totally disconnected from and in opposition to all
the calendars of the ancient world. In fact, here is the one
primary scripture around which all calendar debates revolve.
The LORD
said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, "This month is to be
for you the first month, the first month of your year."
(Exodus 1:1-2 )
There is
nothing in that simple statement that indicates God is going
to "start from scratch" at this point in history and hand to
Moses a calendar system totally idiosyncratic and with no
relation to other calendar systems of the time.
This
statement doesn't define the term month, nor
explain how to determine when a month starts, or how long it
lasts. It seems to be that God is relying on Moses' previous
understanding of what a month is, and is just clarifying
that the current month at the time was to be used by
the Israelites to start their own yearly pattern of time.
If one only
has this written scripture to go by, there is no way to tell
if a month begins with the first sighting of a lunar
crescent, or the dark of the moon, or some other standard.
It seems to just be a "given" that Moses will know what is
meant. And at the same time, this passage says nothing
about how the Israelites are to determine when this
"beginning month" will occur the following year. Is it to be
when the stars are in the same configuration that they are
at the current time? Should it be near the spring equinox?
Should it be at a certain observable point in local
agriculture? (The latter would be impossible the next year
... the Israelites were wandering in the wilderness at the
time, not planting crops and settling down, and thus had no
agricultural signs to go by.) And how about the year after
that ... and the year after that? We aren't told in this
passage, and we aren't told clearly in any other Old
Testament passage, either.
In addition,
if we are looking for details on just how the calendar was
to be maintained throughout history, we won't find it in any
commands here either, or elsewhere in the Old Testament.
There is no description of priests or anyone else being
assigned to look for the new moon each month, no
clarification on how the twelve lunar months of a year can
be juggled to keep in line with the 365+ days of a solar
year. Obviously some sort of "leap year" adjustments would
need to be made to keep the "first month of the year" in the
spring, but we are not told of any specific commandments
from God on how this was to be done.
Did God
actually give minute instructions to Moses about all of
these matters, and Moses just didn't bother to write them
down in the documents that became the books of
Exodus-Deuteronomy? Or is it possible that God allowed the
Israelites to adapt elements of one or more of the calendars
of the time into a workable calendar for their own use? Was
the calendar that Moses and the people used during the forty
years of the Wilderness Wanderings, and the processes
whereby it was laid out year by year, exactly the same as
that used throughout the rest of the history of Israel? Or
were there perhaps adjustments made by those with "calendar
responsibilities" to meet changing circumstances? There is
not enough information in the scriptures to establish firm
answers to these questions, and there is little
extra-biblical documentation available until much later in
history.
By the time
of Jesus, there is information available on some of the
aspects of calendar maintenance among the Jews. But we have
no way to verify if what was happening at that time was an
exact reflection of the process as it had been carried out
1,000 years before, or was the end of a long line of
development of details. We do know, for instance, that after
the Babylonian Captivity, the Jews used the Babylonian names
for the months of their own calendar. Is this evidence of a
correlation between some other aspects of the Babylonian
calendar system, or merely a matter of convenience? We can't
say for sure, but we do know that God allowed these names to
be used directly in some of the scriptures of the Old
Testament, with no negative comment about their use.
With so
little to go by directly in the scriptures, how have COG
debaters been able to sustain decades of intense controversy
on how Christians should decide when to observe the Biblical
Feasts?
The Spark
Igniting the Debate
The central
issue that began the major calendar debate in COG circles in
recent history can be summed up in one word ...
Postponements.
Most
Christians first coming to a conclusion that they should
observe the annual Feasts of the Bible do so because they
have studied the literature of some particular group or
teacher who promote such observance. And thus most such
students accept whatever method used by that group or
teacher to decide when these Feasts fall on the common
"Gregorian" calendar we use. Until relatively recent times,
almost all these groups and teachers used the modern Hebrew
Calendar to establish their observances. And thus many such
students have typically assumed that this calendar is merely
a direct continuation of the one introduced to the
Israelites in the book of Exodus. It is not.
Brief
Overview of the History of the modern Hebrew Calendar
There is
little debate about the nature of the calendar methods
accepted by most of the Jews of Jesus' time. The Priesthood
and the Sanhedrin leaders of the time made all the decisions
about calendar matters for the nation. Most records seem to
indicate that the beginnings of months were officially
established by having two witnesses report to a committee of
the priesthood that they had personally seen the first
sliver of the crescent new moon. The priests then officially
declared that the month had begun, and trumpets were blown
announcing this. Many commentators note, however, that this
may have been merely a symbolic process, for the priests had
already calculated using astronomical factors when the new
moon should be first visible, and thus were expecting
the witnesses merely as a formality. In fact, it seems that
if the skies were cloudy on the night the new moon was
expected, and continued to be cloudy the following night,
the new moon was declared anyway. One typical explanation of
the process noted that months were always expected to be
either 29 or 30 days long. Thus the Sanhedrin would meet on
the 30th day of a month. If two witnesses would come forward
on that day confirming that they had seen the new moon, the
previous month was declared to be a 29-day month, and the
current day was declared to be the new moon day. If no one
came forward on day 30, it was declared to be the 30th day
of the current month, and the next day was declared to be
the new moon day. There was no question of waiting another
day hoping someone would come forward finally to say they
had finally seen the new crescent moon. So it is evidently
not correct to say that the new months were totally
established by "visible sightings."
And what
about deciding if a particular month in the spring was to be
the first month of the year, or if it was too early and an
intercalary "leap month" needed to be added? Records
related to first century AD Israel seem to indicate that the
priesthood was particularly concerned about having fresh
sheaves of the first of the barley harvest to use in
preparation for the ceremony of the "wave sheaf offering."
Thus they kept an eye on the maturity of the barley in a
particular plot of land near Jerusalem. If it was obviously
too immature at the time of the new moon to be ready in time
for this ceremony that would be held in less than three
weeks, the priests declared that the beginning of the new
year should be postponed until the next new moon. Thus it
would seem that the beginning of the year was tied directly
to the condition of barley in the land around Jerusalem.
Then again, a
number of commentators seem to indicate that the priesthood
anciently adjusted the beginning of the year based on
other factors at times. The first month was to be the
month of the Passover, and this required many lambs of a
certain age for the Passover sacrifices. Thus if conditions
in the land for some reason led to a late period of lamb
births, some authorities claim that the Priests would
declare the need for an intercalary month, and postpone the
first of the year until the next new moon. Another factor
indicated by some commentators that could lead to the
declaration of the extra month was the condition of the dirt
roads over which pilgrims from all over the land would have
to travel to Jerusalem for the Passover and Days of
Unleavened Bread. If the rainy season had left them too
soggy for travel, if they had not had time to dry out, then
some say the Priesthood also might choose to delay the
declaration of the new year for one month.
Do we have
any record that God approved of this method of
"intercalation"? No, but neither do we have any record that
He condemned it. Both the Bible and history are silent on
the matter. And we can't go back to Exodus or Leviticus and
try to find the "real" method for intercalation that God
wanted used ... the topic isn't addressed at all.
What we do
know is that in 70 AD, the Temple in Jerusalem was
destroyed, and the Priesthood eventually lost its role in
any of these matters. By 135 AD, most of the Jews had been
driven out of the land and forced to migrate to distant
places. Even if a "skeleton crew" of priests had been left
in Jerusalem to make calendar determinations (which it
wasn't) it would have been impossible to get the information
out to all the far-flung Jewish enclaves in time for them to
be able to all keep the spring and fall Feasts at the
announced times. The practical result of this was that using
any method requiring observation in Israel ... of either
moon sightings or barley maturity ... in order, even in
part, to establish calendar details was no longer possible.
Impossible, that is, if one assumes that all Believers
should be keeping the observances on the same days.
Enter the
"Calculated Calendar"
The next step
in the history of "Biblical calendar" development is much
under dispute among those who are proponents of Feast
observance. What is pretty much agreed on is that in the
fourth century, a Jewish leader (variously described as a
"patriarch," a "leader of the Sanhedrin," a "sage," or a
"famous rabbi") named Hillel II made public a Hebrew
calendar based entirely on calculations. Some commentators
insist that he "invented" this calendar himself, others
insist equally adamantly that he was merely making public
and codifying a set of calendar rules that had been kept
secret by Jewish sages from antiquity, but that had been
actually used for many centuries--maybe even back to the
time of Moses--by the priests for establishing the yearly
calendar.
This calendar
gained almost universal acceptance among Jews, and is the
foundation for the calendar used by most Jews to this day.
There is
considerable disagreement on the purpose for Hillel's
calendar. Most Jewish commentators, and many Christians who
observe the Feasts based on this calendar, are convinced
that his efforts were totally based on the fact that by his
time the communities of Jews dispersed throughout the world
were unable to be sure of when to keep the Feasts any longer
since the Sanhedrin was in imminent danger of being
disbanded as a result of persecution by Christian rulers.
Without access to the Holy Land to make visual observations,
or to authorized leaders to make emergency determinations,
the Jewish exiles would be in turmoil regarding when to
observe the annual Feasts. So according to many, Hillel
announced that the Jewish top leadership at the time had
undertaken to announce a perpetual calculated calendar that
would "authorize" all future new moons and new years until
such time in the future (possibly centuries or millennia
away) when a new recognized Sanhedrin was functioning once
again in the Holy Land. It was even admitted that this might
only happen with The Messiah had come to rescue Israel and
set up His Kingdom.
Others see
much more sinister--or shallow--reasons for aspects of the
calendar, including a desire to water down the commands of
the Bible to make observance of the Feasts more convenient.
And the
primary reason for this skepticism is the fact that Hillel,
at least according to some historical sources, seemed to be
revealing for the first time publicly in this calendar the
existence of a concept of "postponements." (Other sources
insist that the postponements developed gradually over time
after Hillel. Evidently the historical record is a
bit sketchy in regard to these issues.)
Postponements
If I
"postpone" an action in my daily life to a later time, it
can mean I have a serious, legitimate reason for wanting to
do the action later. On the other hand, it can indicate that
I just would like to have it align more with my own personal
convenience.
The
postponements in the Hebrew Calendar can be viewed in both
of these ways, depending on one's predisposition. The
standard process of establishing the central "lynch pin" of
the calendar, the new moon of the seventh month of the year
(which coincides with the Feast of Trumpets, known in Hebrew
as Rosh Hoshana) provides that that date must, in
some years, be adjusted by some "rules of postponement"
(termed dehiyyot in Hebrew). They are listed below
(from a NASA website describing various calendars), along
with explanations of the reasons for each. Note that
Tishri is the seventh month of the Hebrew calendar, and
that the term molad refers to the moment at which the
moon is precisely between the earth and the sun, and thus
the moon is completely dark.
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/calendars.html#Hebrew
The dehiyyot are
as follows:
(a) If the Tishri
molad falls on day 1, 4, or 6, then Tishri 1 is
postponed one day.
(b) If the Tishri
molad occurs at or after 18 hours (i.e., noon),
then Tishri 1 is postponed one day. If this causes
Tishri 1 to fall on day 1, 4, or 6, then Tishri 1 is
postponed an additional day to satisfy dehiyyah
(a).
(c) If the Tishri
molad of an ordinary year (i.e., of twelve months)
falls on day 3 at or after 9 hours, 204 halakim,
then Tishri 1 is postponed two days to day 5, thereby
satisfying dehiyyah (a).
(d) If the first
molad following a leap year falls on day 2 at or
after 15 hours, 589 halakim, then Tishri 1 is
postponed one day to day 3.
Reasons for the
Dehiyyot
Dehiyyah(a)
prevents Hoshana Rabba (Tishri 21) [the seventh day of
the Feast of Tabernacles] from occurring on the Sabbath
and prevents Yom Kippur (Tishri 10) [the Day of
Atonement] from occurring on the day before or after the
Sabbath.
Dehiyyah
(b) is an artifact of the ancient practice of beginning
each month with the sighting of the lunar crescent. It
is assumed that if the molad (i.e., the mean
conjunction) occurs after noon, the lunar crescent
cannot be sighted until after 6 P.M., which will then be
on the following day.
Dehiyyah
(c) prevents an ordinary year from exceeding 355 days.
If the Tishri molad of an ordinary year occurs
on Tuesday at or after 3:11:20 A.M., the next Tishri
molad will occur at or after noon on Saturday.
According to dehiyyah (b), Tishri 1 of the next
year must be postponed to Sunday, which by dehiyyah
(a) occasions a further postponement to Monday. This
results in an ordinary year of 356 days. Postponing
Tishri 1 from Tuesday to Thursday produces a year of 354
days.
Dehiyyah
(d) prevents a leap year from falling short of 383 days.
If the Tishri molad following a leap year is on
Monday, at or after 9:32:43 1/3 A.M., the previous
Tishri molad (thirteen months earlier) occurred
on Tuesday at or after noon. Therefore, by dehiyyot
(b) and (a), Tishri 1 beginning the leap year was
postponed to Thursday. To prevent a leap year of 382
days, dehiyyah (d) postpones by one day the
beginning of the ordinary year.
Endless
wrangling has gone on for years in Church of God circles as
to whether the Jews had a "right" to build these
postponements into their calendar. Some have particularly
suggested that the first three rules seem to just be "rules
of convenience" rather than rules having spiritual
significance. On the other hand, many have suggested that,
on the contrary, they seem in general to have to do with
maintaining proper respect and observance of the weekly
Sabbath in balancing it with the observance of the annual
Holy Days.
The other
primary issue is whether the rules conflict with God's
original intent for the calendar. In establishing the
calendar in Moses' time, was God noting that there are
inviolable "dates" throughout history upon which He has
agreed to meet with those who would worship Him, and if they
miss those dates, they will either miss His blessings or
incur His wrath? Was Moses given by direct revelation from
God a fool-proof calendar system that would provide the
precise dates on which God would "show up" to meet with His
people?
It seems a
little difficult to maintain this rigid interpretation if
one accepts a need for visual sighting of the new moon every
month in order for the priesthood to declare a new moon. If
the new moon of the first month was not sighted because of
clouds, and it was necessary to wait a day, then the Holy
Days associated with Unleavened Bread, as well as Pentecost,
would be shifted by a day. And if the new moon of the
seventh month was not sighted because of clouds, Trumpets,
Atonement, the first day of Tabernacles, and the eighth day
Holy Day after Tabernacles would all be shifted. Thus the
timing of all of these days could not possibly be
predetermined by God--it is subject to "time and chance," to
the caprice of weather on the Earth.
So the
question cannot be would any "postponements" for any reason
somehow conflict with a "calendar fixed for eternity." The
question is whether it was God's intent for His people to be
required to "find" the exact correct days He had
predetermined, or was it His intent that His people have the
authority to determine the process of setting the calendar,
and thereby "declaring" the days in their seasons.
It will be
necessary to consider the details of some of the
alternatives to the Hebrew Calendar that have been proposed
in order to evaluate which of these approaches may be valid.
Main Issues
Under Debate
For the sake
of further exploration of the issues, let us assume that
someone has decided that they wish to keep the annual Holy
Days, but that they believe that the postponements of the
modern Hebrew Calendar are offensive to God. What
alternatives do they have at that point for determining when
they will observe the days?
The first
obvious choice would be to accept all the aspects of the
Hebrew Calendar except the postponements. This seems
to be a typical reaction of many to their discovery of the
postponement issue.
But very few
remain at that conclusion. For once they have concluded that
the Jews did not have the authority to add the postponement
rules, the next obvious question is whether they had the
right to make any of the rules for the calendar. At this
point, many begin looking at the scant Biblical record and
at the hints of history, and decide that the evidence seems
to indicate that the original "calendar God gave Moses" was
based on observation of the moon, not on any calculations.
The first
response of many to this "revelation" is that there must be
some really simple system clearly revealed in the Bible for
recapturing that "original calendar." Surely the Jews have
just added a lot of traditions and complications to
something very straightforward.
And there
are, indeed, many groups and teachers who will provide such
seekers with the simple solution that they are looking for.
The problem is ... these groups and teachers all disagree
among themselves just what that simple system is. Thus some
calendar students will end up jumping on the first bandwagon
of a new calendar presented to them and sticking with it,
and others will drift endlessly from one scheme to another
trying to find the one that will solve all their questions.
Just what
questions need to be settled in order for an individual to
construct a calendar by which they can celebrate the
Biblical Holy Days?
1. When
does a month begin?
Possibilities:
Visible Crescent:
When
the first crescent of a new cycle of the moon
becomes visible in the land of Israel. In this case,
it is necessary to either go to Israel oneself, or
have virtually instant contact with reliable
witnesses there--otherwise, one would miss observing
the Feast of Trumpets.
When
the first crescent becomes visible in the region
where the individual himself lives. In this case, he
must decide whose sightings are acceptable evidence,
and how far his "region" extends. And again, contact
would have to be close to instantaneous, or the
Feast of Trumpets would be missed.
When
the individual himself, in his own back yard, can
see the first crescent.
Although the use of some sort of sighted crescent is
popular in many alternative calendars, there are
some teachers who are adamant that any use of the
sighted crescent is abhorrent because many pagan
religions have used the crescent moon in their
religious observances, or because the crescent moon
is an honored symbol of Islam. Such teachers would
insist that the conjunction should be used instead.
Conjunction:
When
the precise "conjunction" of the moon and earth
occurs (the "dark" of the moon). This would have to
be calculated, rather than sighted, but men have
known how to do this calculation for millennia.
Although this is also popular in many circles, there
are some teachers that are adamant that the use of a
"dark moon" is an abhorrent practice because "God is
light" and the Bible speaks of "two great lights" in
Genesis in connection with establishing times,
rather than specifically saying "the sun and moon"
... indicating that it is the light of each of these
bodies that is important. (Similar reasoning is used
by a minority who insist that the weekly Sabbath is
only the "daylight" hours of Saturday rather than
from sunset to sunset.)
2. When
does a year begin ... i.e., When should an intercalary
("leap") month be added?
Based
on barley:
Some
insist that one can tell when the first month of the
year should be based on the reference in the OT to "the
new moon of Abib." It is assumed by many that the term
Abib means "green ears," that those green ears are of
barley, and that "green" refers to a very specific stage
of development of the barley, after it has developed
grain heads but before it is totally ripe.
First one
has to decide just what defines "green ears" of barley,
and whether the barley needs to be at that stage on the
first day of the new month, or just be at a stage that
clearly indicates it will be "green ears" by a point in
time later in the month. Some assume it would only need
to be at that stage by the point in time that the "wave
sheaf offering" would have been presented at the Temple.
Once the
definition of appropriate barley maturity is decided,
where does an individual need to find this barley in
order to declare that the new year may begin?:
In
Israel: In this case it is necessary that the
individual have immediate contact with a trusted
observer in Israel, and decide just where they need
to look for barley, as it may develop at varying
rates throughout the country. Some who use this
method have one specific plot near Jerusalem where
they plant barley for this express purpose.
Some
place in his own region: In this case, he must
decide whose observations of the state of barley are
acceptable evidence, and how far his "region"
extends.
In
one's own back yard: In this case, it is necessary
for every person to grow barley, which might be
quite a problem for many.
Note
that whichever of these choices is made, it is
impossible to plan ahead for any of the annual Holy
Days for that year until the observation of barley
is made. Since the state of the barley may indicate
an extra month must be added to the calendar, all
Holy Days would shift by a month. This means that no
solid plans could ever be made, for instance, for
arranging facilities for observance of the Feast of
Tabernacles more than seven months ahead of time,
and for the Spring Holy Days more than one month
ahead of time.
Barley as the deciding factor in establishing the
first month of the year: Further considerations
During the forty years in the Wilderness, the
Israelites were wandering, not putting down roots
and planting crops. Therefore they would have had no
barley to use in deciding when the first month began
each year. Did that mean they did not have a
calendar? That is highly unlikely. Were they using
the Equinox or some other standard? We aren't told.
In
most COG calendar discussions on when the
intercalary month should be added, the emphasis
is the fact that historical references indicate that
the Priests inspected the barley to be sure it would
be at appropriate ripeness for the wave sheaf
offering to be held after the Passover and during
the Days of Unleavened Bread. What is seldom
mentioned in COG circles is the historical evidence
that the Priesthood might also insert a month if the
roads were still too muddy from the rainy season to
allow pilgrims to come from all over Israel to
Jerusalem for the Passover, or if lambing season
came so late that the large number of lambs
necessary for the Passover were not available.
Based
on the Equinox
Some
insist that one can know which new moon should be
declared to begin the first month of the year by
calculating how close it is to the Spring Equinox
(the point of time in which the length of the day
and night is equal). There are two possibilities for
how to make this decision:
The
New Moon closest to the Equinox, whether
before or after it falls. In this case it is usually
assumed that what is important is that the Passover
fall after the Equinox, and thus "in spring."
The
first New Moon after the Equinox. In this
case it is assumed that the whole of the first month
ought to fall in spring.
However, a significant number of calendar teachers
insist that any connection between the Equinox and
the construction of a Holy Day calendar is
absolutely to be avoided, because pagan societies
have used the Equinox to establish the time for
pagan religious observances.
Further
Questions
Although the
two issues above, about the beginning of each month and the
beginning of the year, generate the most controversy, there
are several other questions that enter the mix for some
people.
1. Did God
intend the cycle of Holy Days to be permanently connected
with the harvest seasons in the land of Israel, or, now that
there are people around the world who wish to observe them,
should they become regional harvest festivals?
This
question is particularly of interest to people who live
in Australia. For, of course, they have to observe the
Spring celebrations of Passover, Unleavened Bread, and
Pentecost in the fall. And they have to observe the
"Fall Feasts" of ingathering in Spring.
2. Just how
important is it for individuals to gather with groups for
observance of the Holy Days? I.e., are the Holy Days
individual appointments with God, or group
appointments?
This
question is particularly significant to people who have
concluded that they disagree with just about everyone
else on earth (or at least with everyone they know) on
exactly how the "true Biblical calendar" should be
constructed. Are they obligated by God to stand alone
for their calendar convictions ... or is the very fact
that their idiosyncratic calendar keeps them separated
from all other believers a hint that there might be
something wrong with their calendar assumptions?
3. Just how
prominent should rejection of "things Jewish" be in calendar
considerations?
There is
a strong undercurrent of what might be construed as
"anti-Semitism" in some COG alternative calendar
teachings, far beyond just whether Jewish leaders such
as Hillel II had divine approval for instituting
arbitrary calendar features such as postponements.
Sometimes
this is in reaction to those who do use the Hebrew
Calendar, and who insist that the following scripture
gave "the Jews" carte blanche to create the calendar.
What
advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the profit
of circumcision?
Much every way: first of all, that they were
intrusted with the oracles of God.
(Rom 3:1-2)
The
assumption is that this means that the Jews were given
the responsibility for preserving both the text of the
Old Testament, and for establishing the calendar.
Obviously, there is nothing in the context of this
passage that clarifies just what Paul had in mind. Most
teachers who are antagonistic to the Jewish calendar
still agree that it was the Jews who carefully preserved
the written Biblical documents. They would just disagree
that this passage has anything to do with the calendar.
But such
teachers often do similar scripture twisting when it
comes to some other passages. For instance:
I
hate, I despise your feasts, and I will take no
delight in your solemn assemblies.
Yea, though ye offer me your burnt-offerings and
meal-offerings, I will not accept them; neither will
I regard the peace-offerings of your fat beasts.
Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I
will not hear the melody of thy viols.
But let justice roll down as waters, and
righteousness as a mighty stream. (Amos 5:21)
Some
calendar teachers have insisted that this is evidence
that the Jews of the time of Amos had already corrupted
the calendar with such things as postponements, and thus
God was indicating here that He despised their feasts
because they were on the wrong days. But the context
seems quite clear ... He was despising their
attitudes and actions, their lack of justice
and righteousness. And therefore their attempts to honor
Him on the Feasts with their lips and their perfunctory
offerings disgusted Him. There is nothing here, or
anywhere else in either Old Testament or New, that
indicates that the Jews had somehow "lost" or
"corrupted" the knowledge of when to properly observe
the Holy Days.
One
teacher has even tried to indicate that in the following
passage, Jesus, speaking to His physical brothers, was
clarifying that the Feast of Tabernacles of His time was
being held on the wrong days.
Go ye
up unto the feast: I go not up unto this feast;
because my time is not yet fulfilled.
And having said these things unto them, he abode
still in Galilee.
But when his brethren were gone up unto the feast,
then went he also up, not publicly, but as it were
in secret. (John 7:8-10)
It is
difficult to understand how someone could so twist this
scripture to mean something so unrelated to its context.
Jesus is obviously not addressing a calendar issue, but
whether it is His time to make His ministry public in
Jerusalem.
Another
attempt to insist that any acceptance of Jewish example
regarding the calendar is related to this passage:
Then
spake Jesus to the multitudes and to his disciples,
saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses
seat: all things therefore whatsoever they bid you,
these do and observe: but do not ye after their
works; for they say, and do not. (Mat 23:1-3)
Inexplicably, some calendar teachers have insisted that
Jesus is here saying that the calendar the Pharisees
used at the time was incorrect, that it was one of their
"works," and that thus the multitudes were under no
obligation to follow it. This seems to be the exact
opposite of what Jesus is saying in context. He in fact
says that the people should "do and observe" the
teachings of the Pharisees, but not emulate the example
of their actions ...
Yea,
they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne,
and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves
will not move them with their finger. But all their
works they do to be seen of men: for they make broad
their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their
garments,
and love the chief place at feasts, and the chief
seats in the synagogues, and the salutations in the
marketplaces, and to be called of men, Rabbi. But be
not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and
all ye are brethren. (Mat 23:4-8)
As a
matter of fact, this is not a useful passage to use to
establish anything about the calendar, as that is not
the topic under discussion. It could possibly be assumed
that "sit in Moses' seat" means that they have some sort
of inherited authority of Moses to declare law--or
establish the calendar. But it is more likely that the
implication is that when the Pharisees taught directly
from the Torah, their words should be obeyed because
they were not their own, but those of the Torah.
As for
Jesus' approach to the primary calendar in use in Israel
during His life on earth, He seemed to be keeping the
same days as everyone else throughout the Gospels ... if
not, it is likely He would have been attacked publicly
by His opponents for that.
 Personal
from the Webauthor
The Bottom
Line
There is no
debate about the fact that the Hebrew "calculated calendar,"
with its postponements and all, has allowed most Jews around
the world to be united in keeping the same Feasts for over a
thousand years. It has also allowed large numbers of modern
Christian Feast keepers (and Messianic Jews) to be united in
keeping the same Feasts for at least a century.
There is no
evidence that, prior to the second half of the 20th century,
anyone in the past 2000 years has followed any of the
calendar methods proposed by most calendar reform proponents
in order to observe the Feasts. Does this indicate that the
"true" knowledge of the Holy Days was completely lost to
history, only to be rediscovered by some COG scholar? Does
this mean that God had rejected the worship of all of those
who were sincerely trying to honor Him on the Biblical days,
and was only waiting for someone to rediscover "the calendar
God gave to Moses" before His blessings could come upon a
group of Believers once again? And, of course, only one (or
none) of the alternative calendars can be the correct one.
So does this also mean that only the relative handful of
Believers who get on the right bandwagon of reform can
possibly please God?
Perhaps so.
Has there
been fruit to show that God is "more pleased" with some new
calendar? Have the Feast celebrations of any of the
alternative groups been so overwhelmingly supernaturally
blessed that a neutral observer could use miraculous "signs"
to make a choice among the calendars?
Perhaps so.
I've not seen the evidence of this, but that is not to say
that it cannot be so.
But it is
difficult to establish this by looking at the fruit born by
those groups which have most vigorously approached calendar
reform. The fruit has primarily been division of fellowship
groups down into smaller and smaller rival groups, and an
almost unending focus on the mechanics of the calendar,
rather than on the lessons of the Feasts as they point to
salvation through Jesus Christ.
This is not
to criticize the zeal or the sincerity of any individuals
who spend much of their time concerned about calendar
reform. Nor should anything included in this article be
construed to be an attempt to dissuade any individual from
following their conscience in calendar matters. Indeed, we
must all some day stand alone before our Lord and Savior and
give account for our actions.
The question
is whether up until that time we should allow debatable and
idiosyncratic calendar issues to perhaps require us to
worship all alone at times of "commanded assemblies."
I recently
received an email from someone in Australia who was
concerned he might soon have to make that choice. He was
trying hard to find anyone who had come up with the same
calendar that he had constructed, what he called the "Simple
Observed Calendar." The simplicity of his calendar in his
eyes was the fact that, indeed, everyone in the world could
construct one just like it very simply. For each person, no
matter where they lived on earth, was to plant a two-by-two
foot patch of barley in their own back yard. They were to
watch every month for the first observable crescent and
declare the new moon for themselves. And when spring
approached they were to watch their own patch of barley
closely. The new moon that arrived after the barley reached
some predetermined level of maturity (he didn't clarify that
for me) was the new moon of the first month.
Granted, he
was a bit puzzled still on what to do about the fact that
the seasons were backwards in Australia from Israel. He
hadn't quite decided yet if perhaps they ought to disconnect
their observances from the Biblical model and have Passover
in their own spring, and Tabernacles in their own autumn.
And he didn't seem to have considered yet what people in
polar lands or at the equator, where barley was not
indigenous, should do either.
I don't know
what he'll ultimately decide, but I can absolutely guarantee
that there is zero historical evidence that anyone
ever kept the Feasts based on a calendar like his. So he is
starting something totally idiosyncratic. He is,
however, convinced that he is merely following the lead of
the Holy Sprit in his project. And he is equally convinced
that those who don't agree with him are "limiting the Holy
Spirit."
In Conclusion
In 2002, I
submitted an article to a COG publication explaining, for
anyone interested, my reasons for continuing to use the
modern Hebrew calendar as the basis for my religious
observances. This article is included below not as an overt
attempt to get any readers to agree with my approach, but
merely as further input for consideration.
Why I use
the standard calendar to determine yearly feast days
Every year
since 1996, shortly after the Feast of Tabernacles ends and
long before Passover comes, the perennial topic of the
so-called sacred calendar appears on the Internet forums
frequented by former WCG members.Long discussion threads
form on issues such as whether the month begins with the
first sighted crescent of the moon over Israel or perhaps
with the calculated "conjunction" of the earth and moon or
some other possibility.
Some
invariably insist that believers should contact
representatives of the Karaite Jews near Jerusalem and
inquire about the state of the development of barley in the
area in spring before they decide to declare that the first
month of a new year has begun. Others will insist the barley
is irrelevant and one need only to accept the first new moon
after the vernal equinox as the beginning of the year. Still
others will insist that considering the vernal equinox as
part of determining a calendar is a pagan practice to be
avoided.
Nary a
resolution
I have
participated on several such forums since early 1996. I
watch the discussions, dialogues, and debates on the forums
year after year and have come to see that there never is any
resolution to any of these matters. After the first couple
of years, the same people seem to periodically bring out the
same arguments from storage and post them one more time. The
same people seem to pull out their same rebuttals in
response. I have seen nothing new as part of the mix since
1997.
New
participants may come along who have only recently become
aware of the issues. Such people may wish to gather input
from others on the forum on aspects of the topic. I can
understand that. But again it doesn't seem to end with each
side posting its best information and then letting the buyer
sort it through. Once again endless point-counterpoint
threads develop that end up going only in circles.
Sincere
question, sincere answer
After the
first couple of years I decided to bow out of such dialogues
most of the time. I had stated my position, and most
regulars on the forums knew what that was. I saw no profit
in trying to rephrase my few points over and over. But one
forum recently a participant asked a pointed question of
some of us who do happen to use the modern Hebrew calendar
to decide when to observe the holy days. I believed his
question to be sincere and not just looking to pick a fight.
I knew he had come to different conclusions from mine on
these matters long ago, but I respect his diligence and zeal
as he attempted to understand how best to serve God. I also
appreciate his attempt not to let his calendar convictions
separate him from brethren who look at matters differently.
So I decided to post an answer to his question.
Here's why
I follow the calendar
After I
posted my comment on the forum, a friend wrote me to note
that my words echoed his reasons perhaps even more clearly
than he could have expressed them himself. He suggested I
put the post on Ron Dart's Christian Educational Ministries
forum and submit a version of the material to The
Journal--News of the Churches of God newspaper.
I posted it
on CEM, and Ron Dart, the CEM's founder, immediately
responded that I had expressed his own perspective on the
matter and suggested I submit a version of it to The
Journal. Others noted to me publicly and privately that
they share my perspective and found my explanation helpful.
One fellow in Australia asked permission to print out what I
wrote and take it to his fellowship group as the basis for a
discussion on the issues.
I therefore
share in this article the original information similar to
the way it appeared on the forums: why I follow the
calculated Jewish calendar.
No exact
dates foreordained
It might help
to understand that most of us who prefer not to change have
no desire to convince you that you should keep any
particular calendar. We have merely chosen our own course
and are willing to explain why. I believe the reason I look
at the calendar issue differently from some others is that
we come to the table with entirely different assumptions
from which to reason about the matter. Let me describe first
what I believe the average assumption system to be of those
who are convinced they must dump the modern Hebrew calendar
in favor of one or the other alternate calendrical systems.
Their concept
seems to be that they have appointments to keep between
themselves, as individuals, and God. Thus, if they can't
figure out what calendar He uses, they will miss those
appointments and make God mad. This must surely include the
assumption that God foreordained an exact set of dates for
all eternity from the foundation of the world upon which He
was willing to meet with those who worship Him. And, as time
moved forward, He showed up on those exact dates willing to
accept worship. If the individuals miss them, it is their
tough luck.
Multiple
errors
I believe
every aspect of this assumption system to be in error.
First, I see no indication in Scripture that the holy days
as instituted at Sinai were to be kept "between an
individual and God." They were commanded assemblies. They
were a corporate (relating to a unified body of individuals)
observance. They were times when the whole nation got
together.
The
individual who decided he didn't agree with the priesthood's
decision on what day to declare as the Day of Atonement, for
instance, was not at liberty to pick a different day and
invent some little ceremony to replace the goats at the
temple ceremony (such as the Jews have invented since the
temple is gone. The orthodox sling a chicken around their
head and declare that to be their atonement).
Days for
Christians
Another set
of assumptions I believe to be in error regards the purpose
of the days for Christians. In ancient Israel the average
individual Israelite did not have an individually separate
covenant with God; the covenant was with the nation. It was
by being a part of the nation that he kept his connection to
God. He could be "cut off" from his people for various
reasons under the law, and those would, in essence, cut him
off from God. He did not have the personal freedom to
perform ritual sacrifices, including the Atonement
sacrifices. He was dependent on the intermediation of the
priest, for he had no access to the presence of God in the
Holy of Holies. Keeping the appointments of the holy days
was extremely important, because they were the times God
came down close to the nation.
No
appointment necessary
Speaking as a
Christian, for me this has all changed. The veil is rent;
the priesthood has been changed; I have access, 24-7-365,
into the Holy of Holies. Christ, through the power of the
Holy Spirit, is with me and in me at all times. I don't have
to wait for Him to show up to an appointment. I don't have
to go to the temple in Jerusalem, at only the appointed
times, to worship God. I worship Him in spirit and in truth
at all times.
To try to go
back and superimpose upon this reality the kind of
ritualistic approach to worship that fears to make a mistake
in "timing" seems to me to reject the reality of the New
Covenant. Thus the issue for me of the purpose of the holy
days is not to individually worship God and come into His
presence. I worship Him all the time, and He is ever present
with me. The purpose of the holy-day times is to be with His
people--whom I really can't be with all the time. The holy
days are for corporate (relating to a unified body of
individuals) worship, in which we raise our voices together.
They are for edifying and building up one another so we may
reach out to a dying world with hope. They are to bind us
together in love as a family.
A calendar
can unify
So how should
we decide when to come together?
Historically,
for most of 2,000 years, the Jews have maintained their
unity throughout the world with their calendar. It has
served as an agreed-upon standard that allows for all of
them to plan to be together for times of corporate worship.
Most of the
Christian groups of the past 100-plus years who decided that
the holy days of Leviticus were relevant to Christians
(there were quite a number outside the Worldwide Church of
God) have chosen to adopt the Hebrew calendar for the very
reasons I just gave here: It has a track record of bringing
people together; it allows for planning. Enter the
contemporary Church of God calendar arguments.
Happy to
make changes
I am
convinced that most people who feel like I do would be happy
to make a change regarding the calendar if all the people
proposing change would come up with the same alternative.
For instance, if the only complaint anyone had was that we
ought to dump the postponements, and all could agree that
that was the only change that should be made, I would be
happy to make that change.
Unfortunately, from day one of the calendar bickers, large
numbers of calendar proponents seem unable to agree on the
elements to make a new, improved calendar to take the place
of the one they consider to be old and icky. Thus we have at
least a dozen differing propositions, proposed equally and
equally adamantly by equally adamant folks.
Given the
assumptions I share with you here--about my meeting with God
all the time, and the fact that I don't need an appointment
to get in to see Him, but I believe He wants me to use the
yearly cycle of the holy days to draw closer to other
people--what should I do when I view these dozen distinct
options?
The One
True Calendar
One last
assumption before I answer this question: I believe that if
God wanted me to keep an exact date for the holy days He
would not play peekaboo with me and make me try to guess
which of the many variations has His imprimatur as the One
True Calendar.
I didn't
raise my own child either of these ways:
**"Guess what
I expect from you, and if you don't guess right you get a
smack."
**"Guess
where I hid your baby bottle, and if you don't guess right
you don't get the bottle."
If the holy
days are a blessing from God--which I believe they are--then
I do not believe He would insist that I must keep them by
some system that He refused to state clearly in the Bible.
Just what
do you mean?
Just why do I
go along with the contemporary Hebrew calendar?
It's not
because I believe it to be "the calendar God gave to Moses."
It's because I am not convinced that any one specific
alternative is superior to the others for the purpose I
believe to be the most important aspect of holy-day
observance: bringing His people together.
What I have
seen instead is that the debate has divided God's people
into smaller and smaller pieces, down to where quite a few
commanded assemblies contain exactly one person in
observance of the holy days. I believe this to be a
distortion of the purpose for the cycle of holy days as it
applies to the Body of Christ.
A miss and
a mile
Even if I
believed I must tremblingly approach only one point in time
for an observance, else I will displease God, I fail to see
how leaving one system that has imperfections and jumping to
one of the dozen or more alternatives with their
imperfections would assure me of pleasing God more.
If there is
that one perfect time, then only one--or none--of those
dozen or more can have it correct. The rest are as wrong as
the Hebrew calendar, whether they are a day off or a month
off. If God will show up on only one specific day, then a
miss is a good as a mile.
After 20
years in the corporate COGs (1968-1978 WCG, 1978-1988 Church
of God International), I spent eight years isolated from any
holy-daykeepers in organized groups. I spent eight years
apart from a Feast of Tabernacles with others of like belief
except for my family and a handful of close friends.
That
wilderness experience was over in 1996 when I got back in
contact with the COG world via the Internet. I want to
gather with as many brethren as possible now. I believe that
pleases God. I believe He is in the midst any time we get
together. I believe He will show up this fall among the
1,000-plus people who will be where I will be for the Feast
of Tabernacles (in the Destin, Fla., area). We will schedule
that gathering based on a calendar we can agree on, not
because it has some fanciful abstract perfection but because
we can agree on it so we can make our plans.
Before
calendar issues were cool
If you think
God would be more pleased with me if I would choose one of
the other calendars, possibly including one that might make
it impossible for me to find any others to assemble with, I
must disagree with you. I don't expect you to agree with any
of my assumptions in this article. I didn't offer them to
try to convince you. I offered them because some people on a
forum asked.
I didn't come
to these assumptions, nor the conclusions I've drawn from
them, lightly, nor without much prayer and many years of
careful consideration of the calendar issues. As I've
mentioned before, I was studying calendar issues before
calendar issues were cool in the wider COG circles. I wept
over the division they were causing clear back in 1989.
Time has not
brought the debate any closer to resolution. Nor has it
brought any new information into the mix. Folks just don't
seem to realize they are not quibbling over the facts; they
are passing one another in the night because their basic
assumption systems are just different. I have no problem
with those whose assumptions are different from mine in this
matter. I respect their conclusions that apply to
themselves. I wouldn't want anyone to go against his
conscience in this or any other issue. Each of us is
accountable to God for walking in the light he has on any
subject.
Fat chance
Some time ago
on one of the forums, someone who was new to the calendar
controversies posted how pleased he was to learn about a new
way to have a biblical calendar. He suggested that the
leaders of the COGs get together and have a big calendar
conference. Surely, this person implied, if people of
goodwill who simply want to please God get together in a
room and present their ideas, they will speedily come to a
consensus. This person seemed to think that all the COGs'
calendar problems are a result of "poor communication."
The following
comments are based on my response to that forum poster.
Sounds
good, but watch out
I'm happy
when someone finds what he thinks is a simple answer to
issues he has only recently become aware of. Unfortunately,
many, many others who have gone before, for two decades and
more, have not found things quite so simple. This is why the
calendar issues are still so volatile in COG circles and why
the sincerest of people function with several contradictory
calendars, each claiming to be the One True Calendar.
You have
probably not considered certain issues of the calendar, and
that's putting it mildly. To paraphrase a proverb, the first
person to bring his case sure sounds good--until the next
guy comes along and shoots holes in it. The idea of a
calendar conference--perhaps a modern Sanhedrin meeting of
COG folks--is trotted out every so often as a solution.
Sometimes the newly enlightened will suggest a big study
session. He assumes sincere people of goodwill who are led
by the Holy Spirit will come to a unanimous decision.
Others have
suggested everyone put forth his best solution and ask the
group to draw lots after prayer for God's guidance and agree
to abide by the decision so arrived at. One such suggestion:
"Have a time
of prayer and fasting and then have different members of
each church gather together and draw lots to see which
calendar God wants us to follow. I for one would be willing
to accept this path because it is possible that I could be
wrong, and so can you."
I'm right
and you're not
What's wrong
with this supposed solution?
Although
flipping a coin--which is much the same idea as casting
lots--may be a way to settle disagreements such as what time
to have services or who gets to speak at a gathering, I do
not believe this is a useful way to settle the matter of
calendars. You would have to assume that God, indeed, was a
cooperating party in this exercise. But, unless He came down
and told you, through the mouth of a valid prophet, that He
wished this to be done to settle this matter, I think it
would be unacceptably presumptuous to assume His benediction
on the process.
Besides, the
losers in this sort of exercise would never accept the
decision of the lots if they were cast against their
preconceived notions. Thus flipping the coin, casting the
lots, would be useful, perhaps, only for those few who were
convinced they could be wrong.
That doesn't
include a whole lot of folks these days.
Unity? Ha!
This very
method was suggested and soundly rejected in at least one
Sabbatarian setting I am aware of. In 1996 my husband,
George, and I attended a conference, national in scope,
called "Unity Conference on the Calendar," presented by a
loose affiliation of sacred-name groups that had a
congregation near where we lived in Michigan at the time.
Many Church of God folks may not realize that precisely the
same arguments over the calendars have raged for years in
sacred-name circles that have tormented the COGs.
These
particular people had decided that surely, if they could
just get together in one room and lay the possibilities out
and discuss them openly and seek YHWH's face on the matter,
He would make the matter clear to them.
Warm
fuzziness
The opening
session was full of warm fuzzies and heartfelt prayers and
pleas for unity. Then the calendar presentations started.
Discussions familiar to the COGs began:
And on and on
and on.
Thanks,
Herb
Presenter
after presenter presented his slant. As the two days wore
on, so did tempers, which got shorter and shorter. At one
point, during a break, two men were almost nose to nose,
red-faced, shouting. I was afraid they would break into
fisticuffs. At another point a whole delegation from one
area stomped out in protest over an obscure issue and stood
outside on the lawn for an extended and appropriate period.
Herb Solinsky
of Carrollton, Texas, was there as a guest presenter, even
though he was not in these sacred-name people's extended
fellowship. For those who don't know Herb, he created the
main massive calendar research paper starting in the
mid-1980s that began much of the brouhaha in COG circles
over the calendar. Others have conducted their own studies
and written their own papers, of course. But Herb has
outdone them all for thoroughness. At this gathering he gave
a talk, complete with more than 100 overhead-projection
diagrams, that lasted, I think it was, for about six
hours--with no potty break! I sat through the whole thing
because I wanted to get as much out of it as I could.
Copiously
noting
George got
worn out about two hours into the presentation and went out
to our car and took a nap. Herb had covered the bases:
everything from consulting with the nation's foremost expert
on barley (and thus he had copious notes on how barley grows
in the Jerusalem area) to doing primary research--that is,
an examination into original material about the topic rather
than just reading encyclopedias and other reference
works--on just about every aspect of the Hebrew words,
ancient customs, astronomical concepts and so on.
No challenge
from the audience could phase Herb; he had at hand a copious
note to answer to every inquiry and objection.
Yep, you
guessed it. Nothing Herb Solinsky said changed anyone's mind
about anything. I remember watching Herb, who is not all
that tall, and a guy about twice his size go toe to toe
during a break, with the other man virtually shouting at
him: "Let's cast lots to settle this once and for all! Don't
you believe YHWH would answer?" The man towered over the
soft-spoken, ever-courteous Herb. I almost expected him to
try to squash poor Herb like a bug.
But Herb kept
his cool, and his calm answer was essentially what I noted
earlier: Lots aren't for settling doctrine. Everyone else in
attendance but the hothead who had wanted to cast lots
agreed with Herb.
The rub is
there
When you and
your friends and brethren can come to an agreement that
allows you to gather in peace on what you agree to be the
correct dates (whatever that means), then there is no
problem for you, even if the decision you come to is shown
someday to be just as incorrect as the Hebrew calendar with
its postponements.
The problem
comes when you hope to influence a wider group. You will
find that whatever system you have decided upon is just one
of many in the marketplace of COG calendar ideas.
Now you
know
Now can you
understand why many of us have decided to stick with the
standard Hebrew calendar, especially since God has not
revealed a clear, definitive alternative? The Hebrew
calendar, from my perspective, leads to the most productive
situation. It will allow me, for instance, to meet on the
same days with close to 1,000 people in Destin this fall for
the Feast of Tabernacles, where I will see many Internet
friends and have a great time worshiping and rejoicing with
them before God.
A
perturbed gentleman
After I
posted some of the above comments on the CEM forum, one
gentlemen was quite perturbed with me. He insisted I was not
correct when I stated I "use" the Hebrew calendar, because I
do not observe such celebrations as Purim and Hannukah, and
I do not follow the Jewish custom of observing Pentecost on
a specific calendar date (Sivan 6, which may fall on various
days of the week). Instead I count 50 days beginning with
the Sunday during the week of Unleavened Bread, always
ending up on a Sunday.
My response
to him was that he was mistaking the items scattered on the
calendar with the underlying calendar itself. I use the
modern Hebrew calendar to decide when to observe the holy
days. I accept for sake of communal observance the dates on
that calendar on which to start the months. I don't "follow"
the Hebrew calendar. I "use" its most basic form, which sets
the beginnings of months, to help me act on the biblical
statements about the holy days.
The issue of
the timing of Pentecost is no problem for me. Pentecost is
one of the events scattered across the base of the calendar.
I happen to believe that the Bible is clear on counting it,
thus I can use the calendar to count it myself. I cannot
dogmatically account for why the Jews have chosen to count
from the first day of Unleavened Bread to get to a Sivan 6
Pentecost because I find the text clear that one needs a
"morrow after the seventh Sabbath" (Leviticus 23:6) as part
of the equation.
Because I am
convinced of the symbolism of Jesus being the fulfillment of
the wave-sheaf offering, and since His appearance to Mary
was early on a Sunday morning, and because I do not believe
the first day of Unleavened Bread was Saturday that year, I
find this corroborates in my own mind that the count should
be from a Sunday rather than Nisan 16.
A calendar
is not an oracle
George and I
use the Hebrew calendar not because we believe it is
endorsed by the biblical statement that the Jews have the
oracles of God (Romans 3:1-2). We believe that statement to
refer to the preservation of the text of the Old Testament.
Rather, we use it because we have not seen one clear
alternative that is obviously a perfect calendar upon which
all holy-daykeepers can agree and that has God's
endorsement. Until we do, we see no persuasive reason we
should withdraw ourselves from large numbers of our brothers
and sisters and go off and try to keep a supposed perfect
calendar with just our family or a handful of others who
happen to agree on some calendar variation.
I have
friends from all over the country with whom I gather during
feast times. Last year at Tabernacles time several families
of us who rented condos near each other near St. Petersburg,
Fla., got together in my condo for informal services to sing
and worship and study and talk every day. We had come from
locations as distant as Michigan, Tennessee, West Virginia,
Pennsylvania, Texas and even Germany.
At other
times we have participated in larger, more-formal
independent Feast sites such as the one sponsored by CEM.
That's where we'll be this year. We have been blessed by
these celebrations and believe them to have pleased God.
A godly
choice
That someone
doesn't embrace the newest calendar fad does not mean he is
a blind, ignorant sheep following a guru who tells him what
to think and do. I have independently studied the calendar
controversies since the 1980s. I have no guru. I am not
unusual in this regard. Many in non-corporate COG circles
have come independently to the same conclusion.
When we find
others of like mind to rejoice with us using an alternative
calendar, and we attempt with all our hearts to worship the
Father in spirit and truth, then I believe our activities
please God. I wrote this article because I believe it useful
for those embroiled in calendar controversies to understand
that it is possible for others--even those who follow the
Hebrew calendar--to understand the issues yet conclude that
the use of the Hebrew calendar is a godly choice.
Some may find
the following article by Ronald L. Dart of further interest
regarding calendar questions.
Why We Use the Hebrew Calendar
|
The NITPICKER'S GUIDE
TO THE GALAXY
