Home

Back

Dealing with the Calendar Question


Author: Frank W. Nelte Date: January 1999


The Main Sections of this Paper

Dealing with the Calendar Question

This is a summary of the main issues that need to be faced when we talk about the present Jewish calendar and the possibility of continuing to use it to calculate the correct days on which God expects us to observe His Holy Days and His Feasts. The main points are in most cases presented without providing detailed supporting evidence--that has already been done elsewhere and is available elsewhere for verification. Included proof is here kept to a minimum.

I. The Right Approach and Attitude

It seems that many people have taken firm positions on this question, be it for or against the Jewish calendar. Thus far in a number of cases the intent seems to have been to defend these positions without regard to evidence to the contrary that may be presented. I personally don't have a position to defend. I would simply like to know what is right in the sight of God. It is towards that end that I have tried to carefully examine this subject.

So I believe that the right approach is as follows:

1) if the present Jewish calendar has God's blessing and support, then there should be some positive evidence for God's support. Let that evidence be presented by those who feel they have it.

2) In a religious sense there is nothing inherently good about something, simply because it has a "Jewish" origin. The Jewish religion and its customs are as far removed from the truth of God as is every other false religion. [The Talmud proves this beyond any shadow of doubt.]

3) So we should examine the Jewish calendar without any bias, neither for nor against, with an open mind and on its own merits.

4) IF we find problems with the Jewish calendar, then we should at the very least be willing to acknowledge these problems.

5) The first criteria that need to be taken into account are any Biblical requirements for the right calendar. These must always take precedence over the customs and traditions of men.

6) Historical indications regarding features of the calendar that was in use during the time of Christ's ministry should be given serious consideration. Any features introduced at a later time may be valid and justified--but that needs to be carefully examined and assessed.

7) Finding faults with other calendars that some people have adopted, does not justify retaining faults that are inherent in the Jewish calendar. Two "wrongs" never make a "right."

8) We need to clearly understand the astronomical facts which any and every calendar has to take into account. We need to also understand the impact these facts have on any calendar.

9) It is only once we have correctly assessed all of the biblical requirements for a correct calendar that we can then evaluate the Jewish calendar against these requirements and, if necessary, construct a correct model which will meet God's approval.

10) God is willing to overlook our "times of ignorance." What people in our recent past may have done (e.g. Mr. Armstrong) is really not the issue. What God now expects from us is summed up by the Apostle James: "Therefore to him that knows to do good, and does it not, to him it is sin" (James 4:17).

II) Biblical Requirements for a Correct Calendar

The Bible does not record detailed information about how the correct calendar should be constructed. Rather, it is always written from the premise that there was already some calendar in existence, which is utilized by the people who are involved.

While the biblically-stated requirements are few, they are important and must be adhered to without compromise. I will show that the present Jewish calendar was constructed with a total disregard for some of these biblical requirements.

Here are the biblical requirements for the correct calendar.

1) It must take into account the movements of both, the moon around the earth, and the earth around the sun. The movements of the moon around the earth will determine when each month is to start. The movements of the earth around the sun will determine when the seasons are observed. Coordinating these two movements into one calendar is what makes the calendar a complex matter.

2) The Passover and the Holy Days of the first month of the year must be in the spring (Exodus 12:2). The calendar must be constructed in such a way that these observances never shift back into winter or forward into summer. What is important about the first month is not so much the start of that month, as the days that are to be observed by God's people. They must be in the spring. (Later we will examine the question of whether the first month may not even start before the beginning of spring.)

3) The months should start at or very close to "the new moons." A calendar that is used on a worldwide basis cannot have the start of each month precisely "AT" the new moon for all locations worldwide--thus also the option of "very close to the new moons." Whether "new moon" must refer to the first faint visible crescent or to the invisible conjunction (molad) is a separate question, which we'll also focus on later.

4) The year must start late enough (!) so that the barley is mature enough by the Sunday during the Days of Unleavened Bread to be available for the wave offering (Leviticus 23:10-14). It is not right to have the Sunday during the Days of Unleavened Bread (and sometimes this will be the first Day of Unleavened Bread) so early that there would (in the area of Palestine) simply not be any barley available for the wave offering.

5) The year must also be late enough (!) so that the Feast of Tabernacles will occur at or after the autumn equinox, which is on September 23 (see Exodus 34:22). Again, the whole Feast of Tabernacles must be in the autumn, not just the last day or two. Tabernacles is not a summer feast; it is an autumn feast!

That sums up the main biblical requirements. We will see quite clearly that the present Jewish calendar violates two of these requirements. Sometimes the Feast of Tabernacles in the present Jewish calendar starts in the summer, which is contrary to Exodus 34:22. And in those same years the Days of Unleavened Bread will be too early for any barley to be available for the wave offering. This makes the present Jewish calendar wrong on two counts. The "postponements" are an additional issue.

III) Some Astronomical Facts

1) The earth revolves once around the sun in exactly 365 days and 5 hours and 48 minutes and 46 seconds.

2) There are different ways to calculate the movements of the moon--since the earth is moving at the same time. What concerns us is how we here on earth perceive the movements of the moon. This is known as a synodic month or a lunation.

3) So from our perspective here on earth, the moon revolves once around the earth in exactly 29 days and 12 hours and 44 minutes and 2.8 seconds.

4) In addition to the solar year, there are 3 different calendars we need to consider:

5) Let's look at a period of 19 years:

6) As can be seen from these figures: In a calendar where the seasons always remain constant (i.e. with solar years), 19 years would be equal to exactly 6939.601782 days. And, as can also be seen, none of the 3 calendars (Julian, Gregorian or Jewish) are totally accurate over a period of 19 years. However, the Gregorian calendar is over 19 years only 0.005718 days too long. By contrast, the Jewish calendar is over 19 years exactly 0.086389 days too long.

[Comment: The Julian calendar was even more inaccurate--over 19 years it was 0.148218 days too long, which is almost double the error of the Jewish calendar. We'll need to remember this later when we look at the shifting of the equinox during the time of the Julian calendar.]

7) In more familiar terms, over 19 years the Gregorian calendar is only 8 minutes and 14 seconds too long. This will only amount to one full day too long in just over 3320 years--thus not really a problem. For the next 2000 years the Gregorian calendar would remain pretty accurate, as far as maintaining the seasons is concerned.

8) But over 19 years the Jewish calendar will be 2 hours 6 minutes 29.3 seconds too long, when compared to 19 solar years! And this is a problem that needs to be considered. This means that the Jewish calendar is one full day too long for every 216 years, creating a gradual but steady shift in the seasons to a constantly later date (i.e. Passover will move 1 full day towards summer and away from the spring equinox every 216 years).

[Comment: As the Jewish calendar is organized into 19-year cycles, this shift will be more apparent every 12 full cycles, which equal 228 years.]

This shift cannot be rectified by "postponements"!

There is no mechanism in the present Jewish calendar, which has been in force since Hillel II introduced it in about 358 A.D., to rectify this steady drift to a later date in relation to the seasons.

9) The Jewish Encyclopedia, copyright 1903, 1912, volume 3, page 500, article "Calendar, History of" makes exactly the same point. It states:

"The assumed duration of the solar year is 6 minutes, 39.43 seconds in excess of the true astronomical value, which will cause the dates of the commencement of future Jewish years, which are so calculated, to advance from the equinox a day in error in 216 years."

10) To summarize this astronomical information:

IV) The Impact of this Astronomical Information

1) From a calendar point-of-view this information creates two problems, both of which will require regular adjustments to compensate for these problems.

A) The movements of neither, the earth around the sun nor the moon around the earth, amount to an exact number of days per revolution. Now since a calendar will require each month to have a certain number of whole days, and also each year to have a certain number of complete days, therefore there must be a mechanism to make some adjustments to allow for the fractions of a day.

B) Additionally, the movements of the moon around the earth are not at all synchronized with the movements of the earth around the sun. Thus, when the earth has completed one revolution around the sun (i.e. one year has passed), then the moon is in a totally different position to the one it was in exactly one year earlier. There is never a time when the moon will be in exactly the same position in relation to the sun and to the earth, as it was in on any previous year (within a space of 6000 years).

[Comment: The concept of a 19-year cycle is based on the premise that after exactly 19 years the moon IS in exactly the same position in relation to the sun and to the earth as it was 19 years earlier. But, as shown above, it is in fact out by over 2 hours. However, the concept of 19-year cycles is a usable one, on the condition that we make provision to compensate for this shift of 1 day for every 216 years.]

2) To compensate for the first problem, our Gregorian calendar has to make a leap-year adjustment every four years, as well as additional adjustments on the full centuries that are not divisible by 400.

3) The second problem only affects a calendar that also involves the movements of the moon, i.e. the Jewish calendar. But the present Jewish calendar ignores this lack of synchronization and has no mechanism for compensating for this problem.

4) Since the 19-year cycles of the Jewish calendar are unavoidably marginally incorrect, therefore the whole system of the 19-year cycles shifts to 1 day later in the year every 216 years--i.e. every single conjunction in the cycle (all 235 of them) shifts to 1 day later.

5) Here is an illustration of this phenomenon.

All of the following dates are for the molad of Tishri for the 17th year of a cycle, which is the year when the Feast of Tabernacles occurs at the earliest possible time. I have also given all the dates in the Gregorian calendar, to avoid confusion.

[Comment: I have applied the same sequence of leap years to this entire list, the sequence which is currently being used. If you have the calendar program produced by Ambassador College, you'll find a different date for the year 75 A.D. than the one I have listed here. The reason is that program applies a different sequence of leap years to dates before about 250 A.D. Thus for 75 A.D. you'll find the molad given as September 28 Julian, which is September 26 Gregorian. That represents the new moon after the one I have listed below. In order to see this shift of one day every 216 years we need to obviously keep the sequence of Jewish leap years within the 19-year cycles consistent.]

"75 A.D. = Molad was Wednesday, August 28 Gregorian;

322 A.D. = Molad was Wednesday, August 29 Gregorian;

550 A.D. = Molad was Sunday, August 30 Gregorian;

797 A.D. = Molad was Sunday, August 31 Gregorian;

1063 A.D. = Molad was Wednesday, September 2 Gregorian;

1215 A.D. = Molad was Wednesday, September 2 Gregorian;

1519 A.D. = Molad was Thursday, September 4 Gregorian;

1804 A.D. = Molad was Wednesday, September 5 Gregorian;

2051 A.D. = Molad will be Wednesday, September 6 Gregorian.

This clearly demonstrates how the new moons unavoidably move to a later date--in this example to 9 days later over a period of 1976 years. That's roughly the time from when the Church was founded to today.

Any lunar calendar that the Church of God uses, Jewish or otherwise, must have a mechanism to compensate for this move to a later date. There IS such a mechanism available, but it is never used by the Jewish calendar. You simply cannot have a calculated calendar that is based on the movements of the moon, and which will stay constant relative to the seasons without some kind of occasional adjustment. This is a weakness with the Jewish calendar.

[Comment: IF we start out today with a sequence of leap years that meets all of the biblical requirements, then we will not have to make any adjustments at all in the next 500 years! That is far longer than we need to be concerned about. But the present Jewish calendar has already been around for over 1600 years without any adjustments. Also, it started out with a totally unacceptable sequence of leap years. Thus the need for an immediate adjustment.]

V) The Origin of the Present Jewish Calendar

1) The starting date of the Jewish calendar is 3761 B.C., which is supposed to be the molad of Tishri before the creation of Adam and Eve! The Jewish scholar Moses Maimonides, who died in 1204 A.D., discusses the calendar at great length in his work Kiddusch hachodesch. Maimonides explains the starting molad as follows:

"For God gathered together the earth out of which He formed the first man during the first (thirteenth) hour. Since, therefore, from the time of the first foundation of the world to that of the perfected man there had elapsed five whole days and fourteen hours of the sixth day, we must make it our business to know both the month to which those days and hours belong, and also the first New Moon of that year to which the month belongs. From the time therefore of that New Moon, which occurred when the second (fourteenth) hour of the sixth day was ending, there must be subtracted four days, eight hours and 876 chalakim (4d. 8h. 876ch.), which is the excess of a Common Lunar year of twelve months above an exact number of weeks; and we find that the first new moon of the year which preceded the creation of man occurred on the second day of the week, when five hours and 204 chalakim of its night had elapsed. {Maimonides here means: D6 H14 P0 MINUS 4D 8H 876P = D2 H5 P204, or Sunday evening, just after 11:00 p.m..} Its character [molad] is therefore 2d. 5h. 204 ch. And certainly, by computing those years which have elapsed since the creation of the world, this anticipative year may be determined."

{This is quoted from page 43 of Burnaby's Jewish and Muhammadan Calendars, and Burnaby himself has translated a quotation from the Latin version of Maimonides by L. de Compiegne de Veil, which was published in London in 1683 under the title Tractatus de Consecratione Calendarum, et de Ratione Intercalandi.}

2) Maimonides' explanation is clearly not historically factual! Adam and Eve were created by God more than 200 years before 3760 B.C.. Now since the calendar Maimonides is commenting on is the present one, which can be traced back to Hillel II, the question is: where did Hillel II get this date of 3760 B.C. for the creation of Adam and Eve from?

The answer is: there is only one document in all Jewish literature from which this wrong date can come, and that is a work known as The Seder Olam Rabbah (or The Greater Seder Olam), a second century A.D. midrashic chronological work, generally regarded as a work of the tanna Jose b. Halafta. [The "tannaim" were the masters of the "oral law," i.e. the men who wrote the Talmud.]

3) The Seder Olam is a chronological record extending from Adam to the revolt of Bar Kokba in the reign of emperor Hadrian in the 130's A.D.. It is terribly flawed in the chronology it presents--thus the claim that Adam was only created in 3760 B.C..

However, what this flawed date, originating after the second Roman destruction of Jerusalem, proves is the following:

The present Jewish calendar only originated in the 2nd century A.D.! it does not go back to the 1st century A.D.!

Since the starting date of the calendar is based on a document that could not have been written before 130 A.D., as it records the Bar Kokba revolt, therefore the whole calendar calculation had to originate after 130 A.D..

[Comment: For those who are not familiar with the calendar calculations: the starting date is the vital key to the whole calculations. Without it you don't have a calendar! You obtain the molad for the year you wish to use as your starting date by calculating backwards from other known molads.]

So we need to acknowledge that we are dealing with a calendar that was not around during the ministry of Jesus Christ and during the lifetime of the original apostles. It originated at some point after the destruction of Jerusalem in the 130's A.D., and was then preserved by the calendar reform of Hillel II in the late 350's A.D..

VI) The Postponements of The Jewish Calendar

1) There are 4 different rules of postponements, i.e. when after the molad has been calculated, the whole year is "postponed" by one or by two days (the previous year is thus made longer). One rule demands a postponement when the conjunction is calculated as occurring at noon or later (the day finishes at 6:00 p.m.). This may or may not be acceptable, since the motive for this postponement is clearly not a matter of inconvenience?

The next rule is designed to prevent the Day of Atonement from falling on an "inconvenient" day of the week--i.e. to prevent Atonement from falling on a Friday or a Sunday, as well as preventing the Day of Trumpets from falling on a Friday or a Sunday. This rule is aimed at avoiding such an "inconvenience."

There is no justification of any kind for such a postponement!

The remaining two rules are a consequence to this rule--they are to control the number of days in a 19-year cycle--to prevent postponements making cycles too long or too short.

2) The historical evidence preserved in the Talmud makes quite clear that during the first century A.D. (i.e. during Christ's ministry) the Day of Atonement did fall on Fridays and on Sundays!

3) Here are some quotations from the Talmud to prove this:

"Footnote (16) If it were of immediate importance, the shebuth would have been permitted. But in any case when the day of atonement falls on Friday, the vegetables, even if trimmed, cannot be cooked on the Sabbath." Talmud Mas. Shabbath 114b (CHAPTER XV)

"Footnote (12) The Day of Atonement. Where the day of atonement fell on a friday the Shewbread was then baked on a Thursday." Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 100b

"…or if his menstruant wife and his sister were with him in his house and he united, in error, 9 with one of them and does not know with which, or if sabbath and the day of atonement [followed each other] 10…"

"Footnote (10) i.e., when the Day of Atonement fell upon Friday or Sunday." Talmud - Mas. K'rithoth 19a

At the time of Christ's ministry Atonement very clearly fell on both, Fridays and Sundays. These quotations prove this. Therefore the postponement rules, invented in the 2nd century A.D. or later, have no claim for any biblical authority or support. They did not exist during the time of Christ's ministry.

VII) Origin of the Calculations of the Jewish Calendar

1) Around 432 B.C. the Athenian astronomer Meton found that 235 lunations are very nearly equal to 19 solar years. Thus 19-year cycles are normally referred to as "metonic" cycles. The Jewish calendar is clearly based on these metonic cycles. The Greeks considered this to be such an important discovery that this information was engraved in letters of gold on a marble tablet and placed in one of the temples in Athens. But Meton's calculations for the length of the solar year were still out by about 25 minutes or so.

2) Around 146 B.C. another Greek astronomer, named Hipparchus, made some more accurate calculations of the synodic (lunar) months. Hipparchus calculated the 235 lunations at 6939 days plus 16 hours plus 33 minutes plus 3.3 seconds. This is the exact figure which is employed in the calculation of the Jewish calendar!

3) It seems quite clear that the calculations which Hillel II made public in the 350's A.D. are based exactly on the calculations of Hipparchus (via Mar Samuel). This should become quite clear when we realize that 235 lunations are in fact equal to 6939 days plus 16 hours plus 30 minutes plus 57.97 seconds. The Jewish calculation for 235 lunations is in fact 2 minutes and 5.3 seconds too long--the exact same error as embodied in the calculations of Hipparchus.

Thus the entire data for calculating the Jewish calendar is based on two Greek astronomers--they accepted the 19-year cycle from Meton, and they accepted the actual calculations from Hipparchus. These calculations were not perfect, but they were the best ones available; and it was logical to accept them. But they certainly are not "inspired," or "handed down from God."

VIII) It Is Basically the Same as the Babylonian Calendar

1) The Jewish Encyclopedia, article "Calendar, History of" states:

"The Talmud (Yerushalmi, Rosh ha-Shanah i.1) correctly states that the Jews got the names of the months at the time of the Babylonian exile." (volume 3, page 499).

2) Here is the evidence that Ezra simply accepted and adapted the Babylonian names for the months and employed them in "God's" calendar, as some people call it. See the chart for the Babylonian and the Jewish names of the months:

Remember that "Tammuz" was the name of a pagan deity.

3) Now the fact that a servant of God, Ezra, readily switched from good Hebrew names for the months (like Abib, Zif, Ethanim, and Bul) to pagan Babylonian names implies that he also instituted the same calendar that was being used in Babylon. Because the calculations were accurate (i.e. the Babylonian calendar was based on the visual observations of the new moon crescents, and they also intercalated a 13th month seven times in every 19 years), therefore there was no reason to reject it.

So from the time of Ezra onwards the Jews used the identical calendar that was used throughout the empire by the Persians in Babylon. The key here is not the origin of the calendar, but its accuracy and its reliability. The names of the months are not really important.

IX) Hillel II and His Calendar Reform

1) It is a generally accepted tradition that Hillel II introduced his calendar reform in 358/359 A.D.. As stated in the Encyclopedia Judaica:

"…it is a tradition, which is quoted in the name of Hai Gaon (died 1038 A.D.), that the present Jewish calendar was introduced by the patriarch Hillel II in 670 Era of the Seleucids = 4119 Era of the Creation = 358/359 A.D. (500 A.D. claimed to derive from another version, seems to rest on a mistake). This possibly only refers to the present order of the seven leap years in the 19-year cycle." (Encyclopedia Judaica, Copyright 1972, volume 5, article "Calendar," page 48)

Hillel II is credited with establishing the "present order" of the seven leap years within the 19-year cycle.

2) This "present order" is a major problem! It is this "present order" that is responsible for the Feast of Tabernacles starting in the summer in some years.

3) Here is what happened from 358 A.D. onwards. Let's examine when the Feast of Tabernacles would have been observed.

360 A.D. 1st Day FoT = Monday, September 11th Last Great Day = Monday, September 18th

So Hillel's reform caused the Last Great Day to be observed five full days before the end of summer!

4) At the time of Hillel II there were actually five years in every 19-year cycle where his calendar reform caused the Feast of Tabernacles to start in the summer. They were the years 3, 6, 11, 14 and 17 in each cycle. With three of those years the entire seven days of f.o.t. were in the summer--the 6th, 14th and 17th years!

5) Here is the proof from cycle #218, which covers the years 363 - 381 A.D.:

First Day of F.o.T.:

For these years the entire Feast was in the summer.

6) Thus the "present order of leap years" is a clear violation of God's instructions in Exodus 34:22, which state that the Feast of Tabernacles must be on or after the autumn equinox in the northern hemisphere.

7) Because of the inevitable shift to 1-day later every 216 years, today every conjunction is from 7-8 days later in the year. Thus today the Jewish calendar no longer has any F.o.T. that falls entirely into summer. But there are still years where the Feast starts in summer, which still violates Exodus 34:22.

8) In those years the Sunday during the Days of Unleavened Bread was also too early for having any barley available for the wave offering. Here are the dates.

Wave Offering during Days of Unleavened Bread:

Now the very, very earliest that you can expect some barley to be ripe in Palestine is at the beginning of April. So for all of these years the Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread were simply too early! Note also that in 360 A.D. Hillel II required the Passover to be observed in the winter! Passover date for 360 A.D. was Friday, March 17th! That violates God's instructions!

9) There is no way that we can justify these violations of God's instructions! Hillel II had no authority of any kind to place the Passover into the winter and to place the entire Feast of Tabernacles into the summer! [At the time of Hillel II the equinox was still at March 21st in the Julian calendar; so we don't need to make any adjustments in that regard.]

X) The "Oral Law" of the Jews

1) People want to sometimes appeal to "the oral law" of the Jews, in an attempt to somehow claim that the calendar information was "orally" preserved from the days of Moses.

The truth is: there is no "oral law"! And there never has been such an "oral law."

2) In 1897 A.D. Michael L. Rodkinson brought out a copy of The Babylonian Talmud, a monumental task. This set of volumes was published by the New Talmud Publishing Company in New York. It should be clear that Michael L. Rodkinson knew as much about the Talmud as anyone else--and a great deal more than most people. Six years later, in 1903, Michael L. Rodkinson wrote a series of books entitled THE HISTORY OF THE TALMUD. These books were published by the same publishing company.

With his background he was as qualified to write such a series of books as anyone could be. The following information and quotations are all taken from Volume 1 of THE HISTORY OF THE TALMUD by Michael L. Rodkinson.

3) Here is the opening section of chapter 1, on page 5:

"The name 'written law' was given to the Pentateuch, Prophets and Hagiographa, and that of 'oral law' to all the teachings of the 'sages' consisting of comments on the text of the bible. The word Torah alone was applied to the entire Bible, the term 'Talmud' was reserved for the oral law, though the meaning of these two words is identical; namely, 'teaching' or 'study' .....The name 'Talmud' was applied to what was styled by the long phrase 'oral law' (Torah-she b'al-Peh). This word designated all the commentaries of the sages on the scriptures which the pharisees had begun to interpret figuratively."

There is a vast difference between "a law" given by God which is then "orally" preserved--and "the teachings" of the so-called sages, i.e. the chief teachers of the sect of the Pharisees. The "oral law" is nothing more than the personal opinions and teachings of men. It is the exact equivalent of a "Bible commentary" in the Protestant world. And it does not involve any divine inspiration or revelation!

4) On page 7 Rodkinson wrote:

"The Pharisees studied the ancient Mishnayoth, added to them, and explained the biblical texts. ALL this was titled oral law, or, shortly, 'Talmud.'"

The terms "Talmud" and "oral law" are identical in meaning! Yet there are people in God's Church who don't know this, and who on the one hand will readily criticize the inconsistencies and the many ridiculous restrictions found in "the Talmud"--while at the same time appealing to the supposed authority of the Jewish "oral law," not realizing that the Talmud and the "oral law" are one and the same thing.

XI) The Calendar at Noah's Time

1) Genesis 1:31 tells us that God saw everything that He had made, and it was all "very good"! That must have included the annual cycle and the cycles of the moon.

2) But I seriously doubt that God would have described an annual cycle of 365 days plus 5 hours plus 48 minutes plus 46 seconds as "very good." Likewise, a lunar cycle of 29 days plus 12 hours plus 44 minutes plus 2.8 seconds also appears to me to be extremely unlikely to qualify for the description of "very good." Genesis 1:16 specifically refers to the cycles of the sun (from our perspective here on earth) and the moon. It is a fact that both of these irregular cycles make keeping track of the passage of time a complicated task. And neither one of these cycles reflects how God actually talks about time in the Bible.

3) From the account about the flood in the days of Noah we can see that at that time there was a calendar which had 12 months in the year, and where each month was exactly 30 days long, making the year exactly 360 days long. Such a calendar can certainly be described as "very good." In fact, such a calendar is actually perfect!

4) So there must have been a change in the length of the annual cycles and in the length of the lunar cycles. They were "perfect" when God created Adam and Eve, but they are today "corrupt"! The corrupt state of these cycles is one of the consequences of our sins, a penalty that God has imposed.

5) The fact that when God gives prophetic revelations, God" always uses exactly 30 days to represent one month, and exactly 360 days to represent one year, shows that these perfect cycles will be restored after the return of Jesus Christ. [1260 days are equal to 42 months and are equal to three-and-one-half years.]

6) The fact that our present state of affairs is a penalty for human sins should tell us that there simply is no divinely given calendar! God has punished us (humanity) and said, in effect: "Go and make your own calendars; you didn't want what I offered you."

7) God has given us sufficient guidelines as to how a correct, and to Him acceptable, calendar should be set up. It is our responsibility to seek out these God-given guidelines and to then ensure that the calendar we use or construct fulfills all the requirements set out by God.

8) As long as the calendar was based on observations of the new moon crescents, the only factor that needed to be kept in mind was that the people of Israel would never choose a new moon for the start of the year that would cause the Days of Unleavened Bread to be too early for having barley for a wave offering, and also too early for the entire Feast of Tabernacles to fall into the autumn.

9) If the Babylonian calendar in the days of Ezra fulfilled these requirements, then that Babylonian calendar was quite acceptable. IF the Roman calendar today fulfilled these requirements, then it too would be acceptable. But the Roman calendar today ignores the new moons completely; and therefore the Roman calendar is not acceptable. Therefore we cannot use the Roman calendar.

XII) Observation or Calculation?

1) As long as the correct result is achieved, the method by which this is done is immaterial. It is not really a question of observation versus calculation. It is really a question of: what is observed?--what is calculated?

2) While it is clear that both, in Old Testament times and also during the first century A.D., the Jewish calendar was based on observation of the new moon crescent, this does not mean that it is somehow wrong to employ calculations.

3) However, IF calculations are employed, they could equally well focus on first visibility of the new crescent, rather than on the invisible conjunction (the molad)--first visibility was what determined the beginning of a month in New Testament times.

4) In practical terms first visibility will always be at least one day after when the invisible conjunction (the molad) took place, since first visibility always occurs immediately after sunset, at the start of a new day. Thus the conjunction occurred on the previous day (perhaps rarely even two days earlier?).

5) Probably more important than deciding between visibility and invisible conjunction, though, is the matter that there should be consistency! It should not be a matter of the calendar this year being based on the invisible conjunction, but next year (through a postponement) it will be based on first visibility, and the year after (as there is no postponement) it will again be based on the invisible conjunction. If such postponements are based on the traditions of men, to fall in line with "traditional" requirements, they are not acceptable.

6) While in biblical times it was perfectly natural to base the calendar on observing the first new crescent of the moon, that is simply not practical in our modern world, where God's people are spread around the globe. We today must, of necessity, use a calendar based on calculations--if we hope to avoid creating "tohu and bohu," chaos and confusion. The question is only: what do we calculate--the invisible molad or first visibility of the new crescent?

7) In a calendar which is applied uniformly around this entire earth, consistency does become extremely important. Whichever option is chosen (the invisible molad or calculated first visibility), there will always be some areas of this world where the new moon of the Day of Trumpets (for example) will be either before first visibility or else the day after first visibility. Deciding to use the "Jerusalem standard" is not wrong, but it is nevertheless somewhat arbitrary. And making a judgment that brings consistency into the whole process becomes very important in order to avoid confusion.

XIII) Problems with the Jewish Calendar Summarized

1) From its inception in 358 A.D. the present Jewish calendar has been in flagrant defiance of God's instructions! When the entire Feast of Tabernacles was so commonly scheduled to come to an end several days before the end of summer, then there is no defense and no justification for such an arrangement.

2) It cannot be argued that Exodus 34:22 only requires "a part" of the Feast of Ingathering (harvest!!) to fall into the autumn--when the entire Feast repeatedly fell into the summer. Furthermore, even if only a part of the Feast falls into the summer, it still means that the farmers have to stop reaping their crops a week or more before the end of summer--in order to be at the Feast site in time.

3) The fact that today a part of the Feast of Tabernacles still falls into the summer is entirely due to this corrupt arrangement that was installed by Hillel II in 358 A.D. If he had not determined to use an inappropriate sequence of leap years for the 19-year cycles, then no part of the Feast of Tabernacles would ever have fallen into the summer. It IS possible to have a 19- year cycle where the Feast of Tabernacles never begins before September 23rd.

4) This gross violation by Hillel II of God's instructions removes any possibility of Hillel's decisions somehow being "binding" on the people of God. It also makes clear that there was nothing "inspired" about the calendar he made public.

5) It was equally much a violation of God's instructions for Hillel II to move the Passover into the winter!

6) A second, and totally unrelated, problem with the present Jewish calendar is the matter of postponements. From the Talmud (a historical document, though not in any way inspired) it is quite evident that during the ministry of Jesus Christ the Day of Atonement was not postponed away from Fridays and Sundays. These postponements prevent each of the Holy Days from falling on three different days of the week (though the three days are different for different Holy Days).

7) There is not one shred of support in the Bible for these postponement rules, and they did not exist during the first century of the present era. The early Church did not use these postponement rules.

8) One major effect of the postponement rules, which is not generally understood, is as follows:

God arranged the Feasts and Holy Days in such a way that the Sunday during Unleavened Bread is used to represent the day when God the Father accepted the sacrifice of Jesus Christ (i.e. the wave offering). Now this Sunday must move from the 1st Day of Unleavened Bread to the 7th Day of Unleavened Bread (in an irregular pattern) to show that God the Father accepts the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for human beings from ALL seven 1000- year periods in His plan.

The postponement rules prevent the Sunday during Unleavened Bread from ever falling on the 3rd and the 5th and the 7th Days of Unleavened Bread--symbolizing that God the Father does not accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for people who lived during the 3rd and the 5th millennia of human existence, and who will yet live during the 7th millennium of human life. Thus the postponement rules symbolize that salvation will not be available to human beings from three different 1000-year periods in God's 7000-year plan--because God can never accept the wave offering on the 3rd and the 5th and the 7th Days of Unleavened Bread.

When this symbolism is understood, it should expose who the real author of these postponement rules is--Satan the devil.

XIV) So What Is "Right" about the Jewish Calendar?

1) For a start the Jewish calendar does take the cycles of the moon into consideration. That is a requirement for the correct calendar to use in determining the Feasts and the Holy Days.

2) Apart from the 1-day shift every 216 years it also basically keeps the seasons constant. The key is to start with a sequence of leap years where the earliest year in the 19-year cycle does not start the Feast of Tabernacles before the 23rd of September. In that way it will be usually 500 years or longer before an adjustment to the sequence is necessary (i.e. pulling the whole sequence back a few days so that for no year in the cycle the dates for the Feast of Unleavened Bread are too late).

3) The calculations on which the Jewish calendar is based are accurate enough to be usable. The calculations themselves do not necessarily present a problem.

4) Since the postponements do not feature in any of the calculations (they are simply appended to the end of the calculations when they are deemed necessary), they can easily be avoided.

5) For most of the 19 years in each cycle the present Jewish calendar is quite acceptable. It is only in those years where the Feast of Tabernacles would start before September 23rd, that the previous year should be declared to be a leap year, thereby causing the following year to start one lunar cycle later and placing the Feast of Tabernacles squarely into autumn.

XV) Comparing 19-year Cycles

1) The current cycle of 19 years in the Jewish calendar is #304. Cycle #304 goes from 1997-2015 A.D..

2) The sequence of leap years within a 19-year cycle must always be a variation of the order of "3-3-2-3-3-3-2" (e.g. 3-2-3-3-3-2- 3; etc.). The current Jewish sequence, in harmony with this is: Years 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17 and 19 are leap years.

3) In this present sequence all of the years are sufficiently late to ensure that the Feast of Tabernacles does not start before the autumn equinox except the following years:

I have included Year #14 (2010 A.D.) in the above list because the Holy Day obviously starts after sunset on September 22nd, which is still part of summer.

As you can immediately see, all three of the "problem years" are leap years. This is to be expected! The solution is very simple indeed. Each of those years actually starts one new moon too early. And the way to remedy the problem is to make the preceding year in each case into the leap year.

3) Since Year #6 starts too early, therefore Year #5 must become a leap year, causing Year #6 to start one new moon later.

Similarly, to solve the problem with Year #17, we must make Year #16 into the leap year. And to solve the problem with Year #14, we must make Year #13 into the leap year.

4) Thus: IF we only wanted to cause Year #6 and Year #17 to start later (without affecting any of the other years in the cycle!), then we would have to use the leap year sequence of:

3, 5, 8, 11, 14, 16 and 19.

IF we want to cause Years #6 and #14 and #17 to start later (again without affecting any of the other years in the cycle), then we would have to use the sequence of: 3, 5, 8, 11, 13, 16 and 19.

[Comment: In the calendar program my son and I produced, with the executable file named 'calgraph.exe', there is a pull-down menu at the top named "options." This permits you to change the sequence of leap years used in the calculations for the annual Holy Days. So IF you want the Holy Days calculated based on the sequence of leap years being 3, 5, 8, 11, 14, 16, 19 then you choose "OPTION 3" in this pull-down menu. IF you want the sequence of leap years to be 3, 5, 8, 11, 13, 16, 19 then you simply choose "OPTION 2" in this menu. This is all explained in the online manual of the program. Another option permits you to calculate the Holy Days either with reference to the Jewish postponement rules OR you may choose to ignore the postponement rules completely.]

5) The effect of these changes in the sequence of leap years is that the First Day of Tabernacles is changed as follows:

ALL of the other years in the cycle (i.e. from 1997-2015) remain exactly the same as in the present Jewish calendar. Only the years which had the Feasts scheduled too early have been moved to a later date.

6) My suggestion therefore is:

For the purposes of the Church of God observing the annual Holy Days and Feasts in their correct seasons, we modify the sequence of leap years to be: 3, 5, 8, 11, 13, 16, 19.

For those who have our calendar computer program, this is "Option 2" in the "Options Menu" of the program. For 16 years in each cycle the dates will remain in full harmony with the present Jewish calculations of the "molad of Tishri." Only the 3 years in the cycle, where the Feast of Tabernacles would have started too early, are changed.

XVI) Deciding About Postponements

1) IF the Church would decide to calculate "first visibility," then the whole question of postponements would disappear. There would be no reason to "postpone away" from first visibility.

2) IF the Church continues to base the calendar on the calculation of the invisible molad, then another question arises. Is the calculated invisible conjunction always used to date the start of the month--even when that invisible conjunction takes place at 4 seconds before the end of the day (as in 1579 A.D.)? It is to avoid this type of situation that the Jewish calendar has the rule that says: postpone to the next day if the conjunction occurs in the last quarter of the day (i.e. between noon and 6 p.m.).

3) To illustrate a real cliff-hanger: In the year 1579 A.D. the molad of Tishri was on Sunday, September 20th at exactly 3.3 seconds before 6:00 P.M.! It was at exactly "1 halak" before 6:00 p.m.--less than 4 whole seconds! Should that day have been "postponed" by 4 seconds or not? To me it would be extremely unrealistic to have pronounced September 20th to be the Day of Trumpets in the year 1579.

[Comment: It is our calendar program that allows you to find information like this within a very few minutes. You can scan whole centuries at a very rapid rate.]

4) To take a more recent example: in 1953 the molad of Tishri was on Tuesday, 8th of September at 56 minutes and 53.3 seconds after 5:00 p.m.. This was exactly 3 minutes and 6.7 seconds before the end of the day. The Jewish calendar actually invoked a 2-day postponement for that year. But would a postponement by 3 minutes and 7 full seconds (i.e. to the next day!) not have been the right thing to do anyway?

5) We say that this rule is a postponement "by 1 day." But that does not really convey accurately what happens with this rule. In actual fact this rule of postponement postpones the calendar by a maximum of 6 hours! It is only invoked when at least 18 hours of the day have already passed before the invisible conjunction ever takes place. So this rule postpones the calendar anywhere from a few seconds to a maximum of 6 hours.

6) I personally believe that this is a sensible rule. What is the point when for one particular location on this earth the invisible conjunction is deemed to occur after 23 hours and 57 minutes of the day have already passed (never mind what that may mean for other locations on this planet?)--and we then still declare that day to be the new moon day? It wasn't my idea (the Jews thought of this first), but taking the cut-off time as being when 75% of a day has already passed is certainly something I can identify with. To me this is a sound decision.

7) We will have similar situations in the years 2011 and 2015 A.D.--in both those years the invisible conjunctions will be within 53 minutes of the very end of the day. Similarly, for this present year, 1999, the invisible conjunction will take place at 44 minutes and 30 seconds after 3:00 p.m.--i.e. almost exactly two-and-one-quarter hours before the end of the day. That is why I find the postponement by two-and-one-quarter hours for this year to Saturday, September 11th, for the Day of Trumpets quite acceptable.

8) Apart from postponing by up to a maximum of 6 hours, I don't believe there is any room for other postponements. The other Jewish postponements are designed to manipulate the calendar in such a way that certain Holy Days may never fall on certain days of the week. To comply with such "traditions," the Jews will even invoke a "2-day" postponement which will actually postpone the Day of Trumpets to the day after first visibility. There is no logical justification to use such "manipulation"!

9) To illustrate this lack of astronomical logic in the Jewish postponement rules, consider the following two situations:

A) In 1950 the molad of Tishri was calculated as being early Tuesday morning at 46 minutes and 50 seconds after 2:00 a.m. on September 12th. No postponements were invoked. Thus September 12th was pronounced to be the Day of Trumpets.

B) In 1957 the molad of Tishri was also on a Tuesday, but it was exactly 3 hours and 52 minutes and 50 seconds later in the day than in 1950. That year the molad of Tishri was Tuesday, September 24th at 39 minutes and 40 seconds after 6:00 a.m.. This required a 2-day postponement! Thus September 26th was pronounced to be the Day of Trumpets.

C) So when the conjunction occurs shortly before 3:00 a.m., then there is no postponement. But if the conjunction takes place 3 hours later, then there is a postponement by two days! Such a two day postponement is purely for the purpose of complying with unbiblical human traditions. It amounts to shifting the calendar to suit our own personal desires.

It is precisely this type of whimsical manipulation that the Churches of God should not go along with!

10) Sooner or later the leadership within the churches of God will have to face these situations. Here is what lies ahead for the next few years.

A) 2000 A.D.: molad of Tishri is Thursday, September 28th, at 17 minutes and 13.3 seconds after 1:00 p.m.. While I personally can accept a postponement by four-and-three-quarter hours to September 29th, I don't believe it is correct to postpone the Day of Trumpets to September 30th, as is the case in the Jewish calendar.

B) 2003 A.D.: molad of Tishri is Friday, September 26th at 27 minutes and 16.6 seconds after 4:00 a.m.. The Jewish calendar postpones the Day of Trumpets here to the next day for the only reason that they do not accept a Friday for the Day of Trumpets. This I do not believe is correct.

Consider the following:

In 2003 A.D. IF the molad of Tishri occurred as early as September 25th, Thursday afternoon at 12:01 p.m. (one minute past noon)--or as late as September 27th, Saturday morning at 11:59 a.m. (one minute before noon)--the Jewish calendar would still require the Day of Trumpets to be observed on Saturday, September 27th. This means that the conjunction could occur at any time during a period of almost 48 hours and the Jewish calendar requires exactly the same day for Trumpets. When the conjunction is very nearly 48 hours earlier, logic expects this to result in a Day of Trumpets that is at least one day earlier. But that is not so.

This exposes the arbitrary nature of the Jewish calendar.

C) 2004 A.D.: molad of Tishri is Tuesday, September 14th at 15 minutes and 56.6 seconds after 1:00 p.m.. While I can accept a postponement by four-and-three-quarter hours to September 15th, I don't believe it is correct to postpone the Day of Trumpets to September 16th.

D) 2005 A.D.: molad of Tishri is Monday, October 3rd at 48 minutes and 40 seconds after 10:00 a.m.. The Jewish calendar postpones this to October 4th because of the one postponement rule that states: "when in a common year succeeding a leap year the molad falls on a Monday at 32 minutes and 43.3 seconds after 9:00 a.m., or later, then postpone to the Tuesday." Since it is before noon, the postponement in 2005 A.D. is not justified."

[Comment: This postponement rule is to avoid problems with the length of a 19-year cycle. When no postponements for "inconvenience" are allowed, then this rule also becomes redundant.]

E) 2007 A.D.: molad of Tishri is Wednesday, October 12th at exactly 26 minutes after 4:00 a.m. Since the Jewish calendar does not allow the Day of Trumpets to fall on a Wednesday (which would cause Atonement to fall on a Friday), therefore Trumpets is postponed to October 13th. This postponement is also not justified.

That covers the next few years.

XVII) The Effects of Postponements Made Plain

1) There are 7 days in the week, totaling 168 hours.

2) There are only 4 days in the week on which the Jewish postponement rules allow the Day of Trumpets to fall. This means that each of those 4 eligible days (Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday) must on average cover molads that cover 168/4 = 42 hours. In actual practice this is as follows.

3) when the molad occurs any time between: Saturday 12:00:00 p.m. and Monday 11:59:55 a.m.--Trumpets will be on a Monday. This spans a time a few seconds short of 48 hours.

4) when the molad occurs any time between: Monday 12:00:00 p.m. and Tuesday 3:11:20 a.m.--Trumpets will be on a Tuesday. This spans a time a few seconds under 15 hours and 12 minutes.

5) when the molad occurs any time between: Tuesday 3:11:25 a.m. and Thursday 11:59:55 a.m.--Trumpets will be on a Thursday. This spans a time a few seconds over 56 hours and 48 minutes.

6) when the molad occurs any time between: Thursday 12:00:00 p.m. and Saturday 11:59:55 a.m.--Trumpets will be on a Saturday. This spans a time a few seconds short of 48 hours.

7) So the 4 "eligible" days for the Day of Trumpets break the 168 hours of each week up into 4 blocks of time as follows:

48 hours + 48 hours + 56.75 hours + 15.25 hours = 168 hours.

This information should make abundantly clear just how much "manipulation" is involved in fixing the dates for the present Jewish calendar. The times for the actual conjunctions are almost incidental, when in one case the molad can cover a period of over 56 hours to still qualify for one specific day of the week--and in another case the molad can only cover a period of barely over 15 hours before requiring a postponement to the next day.

Compare this kind of manipulation with the option of having a calendar where the Day of Trumpets can fall on all 7 days of the week, and where each of these "eligible" 7 days covers exactly 24 hours! Even if a postponement of 6 hours was invoked (i.e. if the molad occurs between noon and 6:00 p.m.)--this would still retain a block of exactly 24 hours for each possible day for Trumpets to fall on, since such 6-hour postponements would be applied uniformly and consistently for every day of the week.

Rejecting the postponement rules will do away with all this manipulation, which was not a part of the Jewish calendar during the time of the early apostles.

XVIII) The "Shifting Equinox" of The Julian Calendar

1) As we saw earlier, over a period of 19 years the Julian calendar was 0.148218 days too long. In simpler terms: for every 19 solar years the Julian calendar was 3 hours and 33 minutes and 26 seconds too long. Put another way, for every 128 years the Julian calendar was 1 day too long.

2) The effect of this was that, as viewed in the Julian calendar, the spring equinox was moving to a constantly earlier date, at the rate of 1 day earlier for every 128 years.

3) By contrast, the Jewish calendar is "only" 1 day too long for every 216 years. So when we view the dates for Holy Days in the Julian calendar, this tends to create an optical illusion! It will "seem" as if all of the Feasts and Holy Days are moving to a constantly earlier time in the year, when in actual fact they have always moved to a constantly later time in the solar year.

4) This "optical illusion" continued until 1582 A.D., when the Gregorian calendar came into use. Because the Gregorian calendar keeps the equinox at a fixed date in the calendar (i.e. it keeps the seasons in fixed positions), therefore it has been readily apparent since then that all of the Holy Days move to a constantly later date.

5) The reason for this "optical illusion" of the Holy Days apparently moving to an earlier date is that the error in the Julian calendar was almost twice as large as the error in the Jewish calendar. Thus, for the time it took the Julian calendar to move the equinox to a date two days earlier (i.e. 128 * 2 = 256 years), in the context of the Jewish calendar the equinox had moved only slightly more than one day earlier (256 / 216 = 1.18).

Thus, even though in the Julian calendar the spring Holy Days "appeared" to be moving to an earlier date, the distance between them and the equinox was in fact constantly increasing--i.e. in relation to the equinox they were moving steadily towards a later date.

6) I mention these facts for those who may examine dates in the Jewish calendar before 1582 A.D. and then feel that the problems I have described earlier in this paper did not apply to the early New Testament times. Yes, those problems did apply! Understand that irrespective of when in the history of man (i.e. any time after the original conditions were changed!) you apply a calendar that determines months by the appearance of new moon crescents, it is inevitable that your new moon dates will move to a time later in the year in respect to the seasons. This is an inevitable consequence of the time taken by the earth to go around the sun and the time taken by the moon to go around the earth.

XIX) Things about a Calendar That Can Be Negotiated

As mentioned earlier, the fact that God altered the heavenly cycles as a penalty for our sins, indicates that God expects us to determine how to correctly devise a calendar that meets His requirements. We ourselves have to make some decisions in this process.

1) We have seen the requirements that are fixed and not negotiable. They include having the F.o.T. late enough in the year to ensure that it always falls completely into the autumn. At the same time the Days of Unleavened Bread must always be late enough to ensure the availability of ripe barley for the wave offering.

2) In the context of a calendar being applicable to only one nation, or to a small geographic area (the area of Palestine compared to the area of the United States or of Canada) it is certainly feasible to have it based on visual observations.

3) But when you have even one single country as large as the United States of America, with several different time-zones in one country, then it becomes impractical to rely on visual observations of the new moons. Visual observations could lead to the same Monday falling on different dates within the same country. Example: visual observations can lead to pronouncing Monday to be the 1st day of the month in Los Angeles, but in New York that Monday may have to be the 30th day of the previous month and only Tuesday will then become the 1st day of the new month. That creates confusion.

4) Applying a calendar to a worldwide context makes visual observations totally impractical as a foundation for the calendar. So calculations are a requirement for any calendar that will be applied on a worldwide basis.

5) However, whether such calculations are aimed at establishing the invisible conjunction (the molad), or whether they are aimed at calculating first visibility of the new moon is something I believe should be negotiable. However, it seems unlikely that those who have taken up positions on either side of this issue will be prepared to enter into any negotiations. Most seem interested only in arguing their specific view on this issue, which has become rather emotive for many people. We really could use some "peacemakers" with questions like this.

6) My view is: as long as a calendar meets all the God-given requirements, it must also be practical! That includes adhering to the internationally recognized dateline! We simply cannot just make up our own "datelines" where we would like to see them. At no point in history has Jerusalem, for example, been a dateline! It is not our prerogative to decide to put the dateline there.

7) In this regard there is something some people who argue for using visual observations to determine the calendar tend to ignore. That is as follows:

They do not want to establish a calendar that would actually be functional, something that could be used worldwide without any other calendar existing at the same time! They simply want a calendar for one single purpose only--to determine the annual Feasts and Holy Days--but they are not looking for a calendar they could use for planning their daily jobs, their business interviews, their international travel, their vacations, their banking transactions, etc. No, for those things they already have a very suitable calendar, thank-you very much!

The point here is: Yes, it is fine to continue using the Gregorian calendar for regulating every facet of our lives, except for Holy Day observance. I myself will also do that. But the calendar we accept for determining the annual Holy Days is not just some religious toy either! The calendar we use for determining the annual Holy Days must be of such a nature that it is capable of fulfilling all of the calendar needs for our everyday requirements--work, play, vacations, intercontinental travel, commerce, etc.--and it must be capable of doing this in the total absence of any other calendar existing anywhere on earth! In other words, it must be a real calendar!

If the Gregorian calendar was abolished worldwide with immediate effect, and if it was to be replaced worldwide with the calendar we are talking about, then anything that is dependent on visual observations is totally out of the question. The purpose of a calendar is not to tie us down and to restrict us, so that we wait with bated breath each month as "some witnesses" come forward and pronounce that they did indeed see the new crescent of the moon in some specific geographic location.

If you have enough people going out looking for the new crescent, you are bound to have arguments and disagreements--some people will "see" a new crescent on a given evening when others who were also looking for it didn't see the new crescent. So do those who didn't "see" it have to simply accept that the other people's evidence must be correct? Or could they in good conscience say: "I really looked very carefully and it simply wasn't there tonight. Therefore I will have to look again tomorrow before deciding that the new month has started."? Or will they accept observation at a specific locality as being valid on a worldwide basis?

Depending on visual observations for your real calendar is at best unreliable and confusing. People 200 miles west of where you are may "see" the new crescent on an evening when it will not yet be visible in your area. People on one side of a mountain range (the Rockies?) may see it on an evening when it will not yet be visible on the other side of the mountain range. Would there be an agreed-to location (e.g. the west coast of the USA) at which first visibility is determined? What about people in Britain and in Europe who would also like to go by visual observations?

How would you book an airline ticket for the first day of the month three months from now--when it hasn't even been decided yet how many days the intervening months are going to have, because it will depend on visual observations? Today the world is a global village--and any calendar we decide on must be practical and functional under all the conditions which normally apply to a calendar. Visual observations may have an emotional appeal (if you went out to actually look for the new crescent and then you saw it, that may make you feel good), but the calendar was never intended to be something emotional. It has to be practical; it has to work in the real world!

Many times the people who insist on visual observations don't acknowledge the confusion this would create, because they really want it both ways! On the one hand they want to hold up visual observation as the all-important deciding factor in determining the start of a new month. But on the other hand some also want to utilize access to all of the modern electronic means of instant communication! So they want to be able to receive a phone-call or an e-mail message or a fax message from someone in a totally different part of the world, telling them that the new crescent has or has not been sighted! And such a phone-call or fax message or e-mail message will then be accepted by them as the deciding evidence, even though the new crescent was not visible in their area. They want instant communications to other parts of the world, but they don't acknowledge that the very existence of such instant communications places different demands on a calendar. Others place observing the new crescent in their own particular locality as a priority.

8) Supporters of visual observations will also sometimes present the analogy to how the start of the Sabbath is determined--by the actual sunset time at our specific locality. They reason: in the same way we can determine the start of the Holy Days by local observations of the new moon crescents.

This analogy is flawed and falls short!

There is only one reason why it actually works for us to decide locally, based on sunset times, when the Sabbath will start for us, without this also creating confusion. That one reason is that our determining the start of the Sabbath this way is predicated upon the existence of a calendar which is already in force! If we did not have a calendar that decides for us when a Monday starts, when the Tuesday starts, etc., then our Sabbath observances would be totally confused! You wouldn't know which sunset to use for the start of the Sabbath. There must be a calendar already in existence in order for you to be able to decide which sunset signals the start of the Sabbath.

Furthermore, sunset cannot be compared to the appearance of the new moon crescent! Sunset moves in a very controlled and smooth and predictable pattern from east to west--and this pattern is never interrupted. The sun will always set earlier further east (e.g. in New York) than it will set further west (e.g. in Los Angeles). But this is not how the appearance of the new moon crescents works at all!

Sometimes the new crescent will be visible in New York before it will be visible in Los Angeles. As that would mean that it would then be visible in Los Angeles later, but still on the same day, this situation does not present a difficulty. But at other times it will be visible in Los Angeles before it will be visible in New York; and that could present a problem unless the people on the east coast would accept visibility on the west coast as a valid criterion.

Unless we already had some calendar in existence, into which we can slot these new moon crescents, there would be worldwide confusion if the new crescents themselves would actually be used to determine the start of each new month. You might have different calendars for Los Angeles and London and Jerusalem and Sydney and Honolulu, etc.. At some times some of these cities would be in harmony, while the following month they might be at variance with some cities they were in harmony with for the previous month.

Confusion!

Recall our earlier reference to the fact that the movements of the moon are not at all synchronized with the movements of the earth. And in the calendar we are talking about the movements of the moon are not at all intended to merely "slot into" the movements of the earth around the sun. No, in the calendar we are talking about the movements of the moon will be used to decide the calendar itself! It is the movements of the moon that will determine when the next month will start; and it is the movements of the earth around the sun (i.e. the passage of days!) that will then be forced to "slot into" the movements of the moon!

In determining the start of the Sabbath the movement of the earth around the sun takes precedence, while the movements of the moon are totally ignored! But in the calendar we are talking about, the movements of the moon take precedence, while the movements of the earth around the sun are of only secondary importance."The movements of the earth are only taken into account to prevent the seasons from drifting to a later date in the year. But the movements of the moon will determine the start of every month in the year.

So the analogy to the way we determine the start of the Sabbath is completely inappropriate as an analogy to the way we should determine the start of a new month.

9) Another point that I believe is negotiable is as follows: IF we select to retain the calculated invisible molad (and I myself don't have any objection to this) as the determining point for the new moons, then we need to establish whether we always proclaim the day of the molad to be the Day of Trumpets, or whether we will "postpone" when that conjunction occurs in the last 6 hours of the day. If accepted, such postponing should be done consistently and without any bias for or against any particular day of the week.

XX) For Those Who Want More Technical Details

This information is for those who want to know more of the technicalities that are involved.

1) Within any 19-year cycle there will be a considerable variation of the dates (as viewed in the Gregorian calendar) on which the Day of Trumpets will fall. The difference between the earliest date and the latest date on which the Day of Trumpets will fall may be as much as 29 days.

There is an earliest possible date. If the conjunction is one day earlier, then it means that the conjunction one new moon later must be chosen for Trumpets, thus making it 29 days later than the earliest acceptable date.

2) For the First Day of the Feast of Tabernacles to be no earlier than September 24th (i.e. starting on the evening of September 23rd), it means that Trumpets cannot be earlier than September 10th. So if there will be a molad on September 9th before noon, then that cannot be the molad of Tishri; the molad of Tishri will have to be the next molad, on October 9th.

3) So in order to ensure that the earliest possible F.o.T. does not start before September 24th, it means that the latest possible F.o.T. in that same 19-year cycle may start on October 23rd.

[Comment: As there are 30 possible days on which the 19 years within each cycle could perhaps start, it means there are 11 days in that 30-day period, which do not have a year starting on them. Some of those 11 "free" dates could be at the start or at the end of that 30-day period--and thus affect when the "earliest" and the "latest" years start. Every 19 years the exact same dates in the Gregorian calendar will be repeated, with possibly a 1-day shift on some occasions. After 216 years (more readily apparent after 12 full cycles) all the dates will be one day later.]

4) So while the 19 years within the cycle will have F.o.T. starting on dates between September 24th and October 23rd, this means that the Feast of Unleavened Bread (always 177 days before F.o.T.) will start on dates between March 31st and April 29th.

5) There will at most be one year when Unleavened Bread may start as early as March 31st--every other year in the cycle will have a later starting date. And while March 31st represents the earliest possible date when there could be some barley available for the wave offering, by April 29th barley will certainly have been available for some time.

6) Over the next 216 years (better observable over 12 full cycles of 228 years) the whole system will move to one day later. After about 432 years it will have moved to two days later. By then the earliest F.o.T. will start on September 26th and the latest F.o.T. will start on October 25th. However--when you have F.o.T. starting as late as October 25th, this means that there must be a month which started on September 11th--and that month could have resulted in a Feast of Tabernacles starting on September 25th. So then the time may have arrived to again consider adjusting the sequence of leap years within the cycle to "pull back" the one year in the cycle that is starting one month later than it needs to start.

7) As far as I am aware, all of the different church organizations of the Church of God which have come out of the Worldwide Church of God, are anticipating the return of Jesus Christ within the next 50 years, certainly less than 216 years from now! So the point is: if we now set up a system that meets all of the biblical requirements, then the gradual drifting to a later date is not going to be an issue for us at any time.

In the above points I have tried to explain the principles involved, to help you grasp the whole process. However, I can see some people still being unhappy with the 1st Day of Unleavened Bread being as early as "March 31st." The above is the theoretical explanation. Next, I will give the dates in actual practice.

XXI) The Actual Dates for the Present Cycle

1) I have suggested that we accept two changes to the Jewish calendar. They are:

A) Change the sequence of leap years to be: 3, 5, 8, 11, 13, 16, 19 instead of the one that is currently employed by the Jews (and which even the Jewish Encyclopedia acknowledges may need to be changed at some point in time).

The effect of this would be that 16 years in every 19 years remain the same. The 3 years in the cycle that currently start too early will all start exactly one new moon later--but the other years are unaffected by this.

B) Reject the unbiblical and totally unjustified Jewish postponement rule that prevents Atonement from falling on a Friday or a Sunday or a Tuesday--the last one means that Trumpets can never fall on a Sunday. But retain the rule that postpones Trumpets from 4 seconds to a maximum of 6 hours--to me this is an eminently practical rule, especially for a calendar that will be applied worldwide.

2) The following data is based on applying this leap year sequence of 3, 5, 8, 11, 13, 16, 19. And the dates are based on rejecting all the postponement rules except this one that postpones from 4 seconds up to 6 hours. The last column represents for purposes of comparison the dates for the First Day of Tabernacles as calculated by using the present Jewish calendar (i.e. with the leap year sequence that is currently being employed!) and then applying all of the postponement rules; i.e. the way it would be if we simply continued with the present Jewish calendar as we have done up until now.

As you can see from this list, in practice the earliest dates for the First Day of Unleavened Bread in this cycle will be Year #3 and Year #11.

Year #3 = 1999 = April 1st, a Thursday. Thus the wave offering on the Sunday would be required on April 4th.

Year #11 = 2007 = April 2nd, a Monday. Thus the wave offering on the Sunday would be required on April 8th.

And in the event that we really do have until Year #19, 2015 A.D.: in that year the First Day of Unleavened Bread would be on Saturday, April 4th. So the wave offering would be required on Sunday, April 5th.

3) What I am showing is that, while in theory this sequence of leap years could require the wave offering as early as March 31st, in actual practice in the present 19-year cycle it will not be required before April 4th. And that is late enough to have some barley with a relatively high moisture content available for the wave offering. (Mechanical harvesting can only be done with a much lower moisture content than is possible for harvesting manually with a sickle. So with manual harvesting the grain is available at an earlier date.) [Comment: In the following cycle, due to the Days of Unleavened Bread starting on Saturday, March 31st in 2018 A.D., the wave offering would be required on Sunday, April 1st.]

4) The above dates also make clear that in practice with the above 19-year cycle the Feast of Tabernacles will never start before September 25th--and that IS certainly after the autumn equinox.

5) The last two columns compare the dates for the First Day of Tabernacles in this suggested calendar with the dates as they are in the present Jewish calendar. This is what we find:

A) For three years in the cycle the Jewish calendar will observe all of the Holy Days one month earlier. Those years are: 2002, 2010 and 2013.

B) In 8 of the remaining 16 years all of the Holy Days remain unchanged from the way they are in the current Jewish calendar. This means that the Jewish calendar either applies NO postponements for those 8 years, or at most it only applies the rule of postponing from 4 seconds to 6 hours. Those 8 years are: 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2015.

C) In the other 8 years the Jewish calendar will place all the Holy Days one day later than I am suggesting in this calendar model. Those 8 years, where the Jewish calendar will place all the Holy Days one day later, due to unjustified postponements, are: 2000, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2011, 2012 and 2014.

And that is about it!

6) I have not discussed the question of using calculated first visibility as opposed to the invisible molad, as I believe there are potential merits in both these options. To present them at this stage would, I believe, only distract us from the major issues at stake--admitting that the Jewish calendar at times violates God's instructions by placing the Feasts too early in the year, and admitting that there is no biblical support of any kind for the postponement of the Day of Atonement.

However, IF we did opt for calculated first visibility instead of using the invisible molad, then we would most likely also end up agreeing with the Jewish calendar for about 8 years in the cycle. We would have the same dates as the present Jewish calendar for those 8 years where they postpone by one day--and we would most likely be one day later than the Jewish calendar for those 8 years where we are in agreement with them when we employ the molads. Either way we will be in agreement with the Jewish calendar about half the time (apart from the 3 years where they are too early!) and the other half of the time we would be either one day earlier or else one day later than the Jewish calendar.

[Comment: This also shows up the lack of consistency in the present Jewish calendar. When either of the above two options is applied consistently, then the Jewish calendar will be in agreement with each option about half the time. The Jewish calendar is not consistently based on the molad, nor is it consistently based on first visibility--the postponement rules really give it roughly a 50-50 mixture of both options. When they postpone, they are in agreement with first visibility; when they don't postpone, they are in agreement with the invisible molad. And it is all done in order to preserve "the traditions of the pharisees"!]

XXII) When Should the First Month Start?

1) It seems we are all agreed that the Passover must be in the spring. I have pointed out that the Days of Unleavened Bread cannot be so early in the year that no barley would be available for the wave offering. To meet that requirement, it means that the 1st month can never start before March 18th.

2) But is that sufficient? Or should the first month of the year not even start in the winter? Should the 1st month never start before March 21st?

3) As far as I can see, the Bible does not really specify whether all of the 1st month must be in the spring, or whether a part of the first month being in the spring is sufficient. I suspect that only a part of the 1st month being in the spring will fulfill the requirements--and it obviously has to be a large enough part to ensure the availability of some barley for the wave offering, and also to ensure that the entire F.o.T. falls in the autumn.

4) However, in practical terms the difference between the minimum requirements (i.e. the year starting on or after March 18th) and this proposal (i.e. the year starting on or after March 21st) is only 3 days. And I don't feel that accepting such a proposal would go against the principles revealed in the Bible.

So I myself feel that this question is also something that could be negotiated.

5) In Practical Terms:

When we look at the proposed leap year sequence of years 3, 5, 8, 11, 13, 16, 19 we find that the years 3, 11 and 19 would start the year before March 21st. So the solution is to have each of these three years start one new moon later. The way that is achieved is by changing the sequence to: 2, 5, 8, 10, 13, 16, 18.

This sequence of 2, 5, 8, 10, 13, 16, 18 is "OPTION 1" in the menu selection of our calendar program. So you can use our program to also give you all the dates for this sequence of leap years.

6) The following data is based on applying this leap year sequence of 2, 5, 8, 10, 13, 16, 18. And the dates are again based on rejecting all the postponement rules except the one that postpones from 4 seconds up to 6 hours. The last column again represents the dates for the First Day of Tabernacles as calculated by using the present Jewish calendar (i.e. with the leap year sequence that is currently being employed!) and then applying ALL of the postponement rules; i.e. the way it would be if we simply continued with the present Jewish calendar as we have done up until now. [see chart on next page]

7) The effects of this option would be as follows:

A) This will result in a 19-year cycle where for six years the Holy Days will be one month later than in the Jewish calendar. This is due to the fact that in the Jewish calendar there are 6 years where Nisan 1 is placed before the start of spring. Those 6 years which will start one month later than the Jewish calendar are: Years 3, 6, 11, 14, 17 and 19 in the 19-year cycle.

[Comment: It would affect this present year 1999, by placing all the days in this year one new moon later.]

B) For a further six years all the dates will be exactly the same as in the present Jewish calendar. Those years are: Years 1, 2, 5, 10, 12 and 13 in the 19-year cycle.

C) For the remaining seven years the dates would all be one day earlier than the Jewish calendar. Those 7 years are when the Jewish calendar employs an unjustified postponement. The years involved are Years 4, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16 and 18.

8) As can be seen from the above data, if we insist that Nisan 1 can never fall before March 21st, then it will create a calendar where we will be at variance with the Jewish calendar by one month for six years in every 19-year cycle. I am pointing this out merely as an observation, not from a desire to adhere to the Jewish calendar.

9) As I said above: I don't know that this approach is necessarily required by the Bible, but neither am I automatically against the possibility of using this line of reasoning (that all of the 1st month should lie within the spring). My reason is that it is quite clear to me that the 1st month may at the very most start 3 days before the start of spring in order to ensure that the Feast of Tabernacles never starts before the autumn. And perhaps by insisting on starting the year these 3 days later, it will be more likely that some barley is available in the earliest years of the cycle?

10) With this system the earliest Days of Unleavened Bread will be in Year #8 and Year #16. The latest Holy Days would be in Year #19 and Year #11.

This would look as follows:

Year #8 2004 AD

1st UB Monday, April 5th--Sunday, April 11th

Year #16 2012 AD

1st UB Friday, April 6th--Sunday, April 8th

Year #11 2007 AD

1st UB Wednesday, May 2nd--Sunday, May 6th

Year #19 2015 AD

1st UB Sunday, May 3rd--Sunday, May 3rd

Earliest starts for FoT:

2004 = September 29th

2012 = September 30th

Latest starts for FoT:

2015 = October 27th

2007 = October 26th

11) Thus in this sequence of leap years, where the year will never start before the spring equinox, we will have the following characteristics:

A) The year will fluctuate by 28 days (earliest FoT on September 29th and latest FoT on October 27th).

B) The wave offering would never be required earlier than about April 8th, nor later than about May 3rd - 6th. The "latest" dates may appear to be a bit late--and perhaps they are?

It may, however, be helpful to point out that in the present Jewish calendar, with its postponements and all, the latest Sundays during the Days of Unleavened Bread (the wave offering Sundays) are scheduled to fall as late as:

2024 AD = Sunday April 28th, and

2062 AD = Sunday April 30th.

And the latest starting dates for FoT are scheduled to be:

2005 AD = October 18th, and

2043 AD = October 19th.

Let's try to get an overview perspective on all these different possibilities.

XXIII) How Much "Shifting" Is Actually Involved?

1) In the present Jewish calendar the earliest Days of Unleavened Bread will start on March 26th in 2013 AD, the latest Days of Unleavened Bread will start on April 24th in 2005 AD, the earliest FoT will start on September 19th in 2013 AD, and the latest FoT will start on October 18th in 2005 AD. (Two cycles later, in 2043 AD FoT is scheduled to start on October 19th.)

Note these earliest and latest dates!

2) If we make only 2 changes to the sequence of leap years (i.e. change Year #6 to #5, and Year #17 to #16 as the leap years), then we have the following results:

The earliest Days of Unleavened Bread will start on March 30th in 2010 AD, the latest Days of Unleavened Bread will start on April 27th in 2002 AD, the earliest FoT will start on September 23rd in 2010 AD, and the latest FoT will start on October 21st in 2002 AD.

Assessment: These 2 changes will result in the earliest dates being exactly 4 days later than the present Jewish calendar, but the latest dates will only be 3 days later than the present Jewish calendar.

3) If we make only 3 changes to the sequence of leap years (i.e. change Year #6 to #5 and Year #17 to #16 and Year #14 to #13 as the leap years), then we have the following results:

The earliest Days of Unleavened Bread will start on April 1st in 1999 AD, the latest Days of Unleavened Bread will start on April 28th in 2010 AD, the earliest FoT will start on September 25th in 1999 AD, and the latest FoT will start on October 22nd in 2010 AD.

Assessment: These 3 changes will result in the earliest dates being exactly 6 days later than the present Jewish calendar, but the latest dates will only be 4 days later than the present Jewish calendar.

4) If we make 6 changes to the sequence of leap years (i.e. change Year #3 to #2 and Year #6 to #5 and Year #11 to #10 and Year #14 to #13 and Year #17 to #16 and Year #19 to #18 as the leap years), then we have the following results:

The earliest Days of Unleavened Bread will start on April 5th in 2004 AD, the latest Days of Unleavened Bread will start on May 3rd in 2015 AD, the earliest FoT will start on September 29th in 2004 AD, and the latest FoT will start on October 27th in 2015 AD.

Assessment: These 6 changes will result in the earliest dates being exactly 10 days later than the present Jewish calendar, but the latest dates will only be 9 days later than the present Jewish calendar. (They will be only 8 days later than the Jewish dates 2 full cycles from now in 2043 AD.)

5) evaluation of this data:

A) The dates in the present Jewish calendar are clearly too early for FoT and for the Days of Unleavened Bread in some years (e.g. 2013 AD). Something needs to be done about this.

B) Making only 2 changes achieves a shift to 4 days later in the year for the earliest date. This is not sufficient, as FoT will still start after sunset on September 22nd in 2010 AD, which is still in the summer. It is also highly unlikely that barley would be ripe as early as March 30th. So this is not a good solution.

C) Making only 3 changes achieves a shift of the earliest dates to 6 days later in the year. This will ensure that FoT will never start before the end of summer. Furthermore, the latest dates will only be 4 days later than dates sometimes used by the present Jewish calendar. This is a possible option to consider. However, April 1st may still be too early to have ripe barley available? Only 3 years during this cycle will actually start in the winter, i.e. before March 21st.

[Comment: Year #3 in this sequence of leap years for the current cycle is 1999 AD, which will have the 1st Day of Unleavened Bread on Thursday, April 1st. Therefore the wave offering would only be required on Sunday, April 4th. However, in the following cycle year #3 will be 2018 AD and then the 1st Day of Unleavened Bread would be Saturday, March 31st. Therefore the wave offering would be required on Sunday, April 1st. This illustrates that with this sequence the wave offering may be required as early as April 1st.]

D) Making a total of 6 changes achieves a shift of the earliest dates to 10 days later in the year. By April 5th there should certainly be some barley available for the wave offering. The latest dates will be 9 days later in the year than the latest dates used by the present Jewish calendar. This is also a possible option to consider.

In plain terms: even though this option involves making 6 changes to the sequence of leap years, the overall effect is no more than pushing the Feast of Tabernacles a little over one full week further into autumn from the way things are under the present Jewish calendar. That could be a desirable factor from a farmer's perspective?

6) The point we should understand very clearly is this:

There is no one specific sequence of leap years that the bible automatically requires us to accept and implement!

It is up to us to see that the sequence we select (this is what Hillel II should really have done back in 358 AD!!) meets all of the biblical requirements. And making this selection at different times in the history of God's Church (i.e. whether we do this in 200 AD or in 1000 AD or in 1999 AD), will result in selecting different sequences.

So as I see it, there are two possible choices we today can make, both of which would satisfy those requirements. We could make either only 3 changes or we could make 6 changes to the sequence of leap years. There is no point in considering making 4 or 5 changes--since the only reason for considering 6 changes as opposed to 3 changes is the desire to never have Nisan 1 start before the beginning of spring--and making 4 or 5 changes provides no advantages over making only 3 changes.

I believe that both of these options would meet all of God's requirements. And this brings us to the penultimate point I would like to cover in this paper.

XXIV) A Matter of Authority

1) The biblical requirements for a calendar that we have examined show that the year cannot start earlier than a certain date. However, are there any indications that a year cannot start later than a certain date, as long as there is not a shift to the next season in the year?

In other words: as long as the Seventh Day of Unleavened Bread is still within spring, is there a requirement that Unleavened Bread conclude by a specific date?

2) For example, under the present Jewish calendar the Feast of Pentecost will always fall into the latter part of spring. It will never fall into summer! For Pentecost to fall on the first day of summer (June 21st), the Sunday during the Days of Unleavened Bread would have to be on May 3rd, exactly 7 weeks before June 21st.

However, the present Jewish calendar never has the 7th Day of Unleavened Bread later than April 30th. So Pentecost can never fall in the summer in the present system.

3) However, when we see to it that the Feast of Tabernacles never starts before September 23rd, then sometimes the 7th Day of Unleavened Bread will be as late as May 4th. And if that May 4th happened to be a Sunday, then Pentecost would be on June 22nd, the second day of summer!

So it is clear that in a calendar where Tabernacles never starts in the summer, Pentecost will sometimes be in the first few days of summer. This shows that Pentecost cannot be limited to the spring.

I mention this point because the timing of Pentecost does not impose any "seasonal" restrictions on the calendar--it could be in either late spring or in early summer.

4) Similarly, while Tabernacles should never start before the first day of autumn, is there any restriction as to how late in autumn it may be observed? Is there really any instruction that requires Tabernacles to start no later than October 18th/19th (present Jewish calendar), as opposed to starting only on October 27th (8 or 9 days later)?

Exodus 34:22 tells us that we are to observe the feast of ingathering "…at the year's end." The Hebrew phrase translated as "at the year's end" is "the 'tequfah' of the year." The word 'tequfah' refers to the two solstices (June 21st, December 21st) and the two equinoxes (March 21st, September 23rd), the four dates that signal the start of each of the four annual seasons. Perhaps the expression "at the tequfah of the year" implies that Tabernacles really should take place at the first possible date after September 23rd, the start of the season of autumn? Or, since the Hebrew here used does not contain the preposition for "at," perhaps any time after the tequfah is acceptable?

[Comment: The expression "at the year's end" is used twice in the Old Testament. In one case it includes the preposition "at," and in the other case it does not include a preposition for "at." In Exodus 34:22 the Hebrew reads "tequfat hashanah," "ha" being the definite article attached to the form "shanah," meaning "year." There is no preposition for "at" in this expression. In 2 Chronicles 24:23, which speaks about the army of the king of Syria coming to fight against king Joash "at the end of the year," the Hebrew expression is "litequfat hashanah," "li" being the preposition for "at." So 2 Chronicles 24:23 clearly does include the preposition. In recognition of the absence of a preposition in Exodus 34:22 the Interlinear Bible, edited by Jay P. Green, Sr., has placed the word "at" within brackets in the text itself and printed the word "at" in italics in the marginal column English rendition.]

5) There is one other possible limitation that has occurred to me. And that is as follows:

Once there is with certainty some barley available for the wave offering, then the preceding new moon should have been made the 1st day of Nisan. I believe that to make the new moon after barley has become available the 1st day of Nisan, places the year one new moon too late.

6) Now while some barley may be available as early as April 1st, we should also admit that in order to find some barley by that date we will really have to scrape the barrel and possibly employ some tricks (like growing the barley in a box on our balcony or in some hothouse). It would be a great struggle to find any mature barley in Palestine before about April 4th/5th.

7) The result of this is that someone must make a decision! While it could be acceptable to have the Days of Unleavened Bread start as early as April 1st, it certainly would not be wrong to decide that date is still "too early." And if the new moon leading to an April 1st First Day of Unleavened Bread is not selected as the start for the month of Nisan, then Nisan will only start one new moon later.

Someone must have the authority to make binding decisions in such ambiguous situations!

8) In plain English: In some years it could be quite acceptable before God to start the new year either on March 19th (leading to a 1st Day of Unleavened Bread on April 1st) OR on April 17th (one new moon later). Neither of those two choices automatically violates the calendar requirements, as I understand them.

9) Now it should be quite clear to us that the pharisees (i.e. the present Jewish religious authorities) do not have such authority over deciding when the people of God today should observe the annual Holy Days. They are completely shackled by their own traditions! And we are commanded to obey God rather than men!

They do not have the authority to tell us which days to observe. Thus we don't observe "Passover" when the Jewish religion would tell us to observe it. We don't observe "Pentecost" when the Jewish religion would tell us to observe it. Similarly, we don't let them tell us to observe the 2nd Day of Pesach, the 8th Day of Pesach, the 2nd Day of Shavuot, the 2nd Day of Rosh Hashanah, the 2nd Day of Succoth and the day of Chanukah. We reject their authority to impose the observance of these days on us.

And neither do they have the authority to tell us which new moon should start the new year. Nor do they have the authority to tell us whether we must use the invisible molad or first visibility of the new crescent to start a month. Their misuse of the calendar (placing Passover into the winter, completing Tabernacles before the end of summer, inventing postponement rules to make the placing of Holy Days more convenient, etc.) has completely destroyed any binding authority they may (?) at some time in the past have had in the matter of deciding about the calendar.

All they happen to have is a fairly good method of calculating the invisible conjunctions of the moon. That is something we may be able to use?

10) So we have to look elsewhere for someone (or some body of leaders) who has the authority to decide for the people of God today in such ambiguous situations.

To me it would be a tragedy of the greatest proportions if the various church organizations of the Church of God today would make such decisions independently and at variance with other organizations of the Church of God! That would be one of the saddest days in the modern history of God's Church, as it would finalize the divisions that have overtaken us!

11) King Jeroboam introduced a totally new religious calendar (feast in the 8th month, etc.) to cement the division of the 12 tribes of Israel--his motivation was totally selfish.

We are in danger of the strife over the calendar doing the same thing to God's Church today--entrenching divisions amongst us more firmly.

12) We cannot use this potential danger as an excuse to not face the very real problems with the present Jewish calendar. But neither should those same problems become an excuse for every man to do that which is right in his own eyes.

13) If the churches of this world can at times get together in order to discuss matters of mutual concern and interest, can the people of God not do the same thing? Have we lost our humility to accept input from others who may be able to point out to us things we haven't thought of or considered?

14) About two-and-one-half years ago I already suggested that the various organizations that today make up the Church of God get together to reach some common decision on this matter--for the sake of God's little ones! At that time I mentioned the possibility of Dr. Meredith perhaps chairing such a meeting. A number of people who read that article took me to task for suggesting Dr. Meredith to chair such a meeting.

I can now see that my suggestion of Dr. Meredith was a big mistake on my part. I have made a few blunders over the past few years, and that is possibly one of the greater ones. So I now wish to apologize for having made that suggestion. Those of you out there who took exception with my proposal: you were right and I was wrong! I have read the letters Dr. Meredith wrote recently when he started his new church, and it is quite clear to me, sadly so, that Dr. Meredith is not the man who will put the spiritual well-being of God's people above self-interests.

15) But once again I feel compelled to ask the question:

How many of the churches of God that have come out of WCG actually have the honesty and the integrity to openly face the problems inherent in the present Jewish calendar? Or is all or some willing to do still only a blind defense of the status quo, the traditions we have inherited? Am I an enemy of the people of God because I insist on squarely facing up to the problems with the Jewish calendar, because I insist on calling a spade a spade?

16) How many of the present church organizations are willing to consider discussing a matter of mutual interest, like this calendar issue, with some of the other organizations? Or are they so worried about "preserving and protecting their turf" that it would never cross their minds to even consider making some decisions for the benefit of ALL of God's people today, irrespective of their organizational affiliations? I hope this latter situation is not the case at all!

17) I would like to beseech and implore all those who are in any positions of influence in any of the churches of God today to reach out to their counterparts in some of the other organizations in an effort to openly address this matter of the calendar. Do it for the sake of God's scattered people! Not until we have acknowledged the existence of real problems are we in a position to consider possible solutions.

I don't think we realize the incredible boost to their morale that ALL of God's people, scattered throughout various different organizations right now, would get if they could see their leaders sitting down with the leaders of some of the other organizations for the explicit purpose of reaching an agreement about the calendar questions, and striving to resolve the problems for the common good of ALL of God's people!

We already are agreed about Sabbath observance, tithing and not eating unclean meats. We also are agreed about the need to observe the annual Feasts and Holy Days--but the calendar questions threaten to divide us further. In the multitude of counselors there is wisdom and safety. And if we are all guided by God's Spirit, will the Spirit of God not guide us into a common understanding? Do we in faith seek a better understanding of the will and the ways of God?

And if we really don't reach a common understanding with some of the other organizations, at least we should have the confidence that we tried to come to a common understanding, for the sake of all of God's people everywhere. It would be to our shame if, when the time comes for God to take us to a place of protection, we will be found observing God's Holy Days at different times from others who will also be taken to that place of protection--because we could not agree on how to resolve the problems inherent in the present Jewish calendar.

18) I am not saying that what I have suggested in this paper has to be the final answer. Yes, there may be relevant issues that I have not even considered in this paper? But the things I have mentioned could perhaps form a starting-point for some kind of discussion amongst different organizations?

19) When God's people know that the leadership of their particular organization has not really been willing to face up to genuine objections to the present Jewish calendar, then that creates a considerable amount of insecurity. After the unbelievable deceptions that were foisted upon God's people in recent years, we cannot afford to ignore genuine questions that are presented to the leadership. We have to work at again establishing a trust and a confidence in the leadership.

20) So please, whoever you may be, face up to the real problems with the Jewish calendar. Consider possible solutions to those problems. And see if you can in any way have an influence so that those solutions may be implemented on a level higher than just one single organization. Do it for the little ones amongst the people of God!

Now to the last point I believe is important to understand.

XXV) the Importance of the Right Motivation

1) God is in the process of putting us human beings through a training program to first of all reveal the type of character we have, and then to help us, through the gift of His Holy Spirit, to shape and to mold that character into something that He, Almighty God, will want to co-exist with for all future eternity.

All of God's laws and God's instructions to us are aimed at achieving that goal--of bringing out into the open how our minds work and to expose the thoughts and the intents of our hearts (see Hebrews 4:12). None of God's laws are an end in themselves. Everything God has done since Genesis 1:3 has been done for the purpose of achieving that goal--of ultimately sharing His existence with multiple millions of other immortal beings within the context of the Family of God.

2) It is towards the goal of exposing the thoughts and the intents of our hearts that God has always used "progressive revelation," right from the time of creating Adam and Eve onwards. It is not so much our actions that God is interested in, as He is in our motivation for those actions. The "why" for what we do in life is far more important to God than the things we do themselves, because the "why" has to do with the character that is being created and developed in us.

Doing all the right things in life (keeping the Sabbath, not eating unclean meats, etc.) is not nearly as important to God as is our motivation for doing those right things. In doing what is right God requires us to use our minds.

3) Thus: while someone in the world who never eats any unclean meats, simply because they are not available in his part of the world, will reap the benefit of not experiencing any adverse physical reactions that the ingesting of such unclean meats produces, his coincidental compliance with this particular set of laws has no effect on his mind and on the development of his character. However, when you, who know God's instructions, refrain from eating unclean meats, you too are protected from adverse physical reactions to such "foods." But, in addition, your compliance with these laws affects the development of your mind and your character! And knowingly eating unclean meats would not only affect your body in a physical way; it would also affect your mind and your character in an adverse way.

4) "Progressive revelation" is one powerful way God has used throughout human history to prevent the people He has been working with from obeying Him simply out of habit and without actually thinking about their actions of obedience. Constantly adding new applications for God's laws (e.g. in our century today grasping that the principles of God's laws in effect tell us: "don't smoke!") and constantly giving new or greater understanding prevents us from obeying God in a rote mechanical way. Every new bit of understanding challenges what we have until then believed and practiced; our response to it exposes how our minds work; it exposes the thoughts and the intents of our hearts. Our response tells God a great deal about us--our integrity, our honesty, our priorities, our commitment, etc..

5) The fact that doing "the right things" in themselves is of no value before God can perhaps be most clearly seen in the matter of fasting. Fasting is a very powerful tool for establishing and benefitting from a closer contact with God. But fasting with the wrong motivation is utterly worthless, as explained in Isaiah 58:3-11 (e.g. fasting for strife and debate and to smite with the fist of wickedness, etc.). Similarly, praying to God with a wrong motivation is equally worthless, as explained by Jesus Christ in Matthew chapter 6. It is only when we pray to God with the right attitude and the right motivation that the fervent prayer of a righteous man will avail much (see James 5:16).

6) So likewise with the calendar…

the right calendar accepted and applied by someone with a wrong motivation is utterly worthless before God!

7) As is sometimes the case with fasting, we need to recognize that unfortunately there are sometimes people who will use the calendar (even if they happen to have it right!) "…for strife and for debate," to cause further divisions amongst God's people.

In such a situation the right calendar is utterly worthless before God!

8) Seeking to rectify and to resolve genuine problems with the present calendar is only acceptable in the sight of God when it is done with the right motivation!

Frankly, the "this is the only way to organize the calendar, and anyone who disagrees can go and hang by his thumbs" approach and attitude is wrong and is simply not acceptable before God. There is no blessing from God for those who set about causing strife and division. No, rather, "blessed are the peacemakers." A refusal to honestly face up to the very real problems with the present Jewish calendar is equally unacceptable before God.

9) While we can say that God is "allowing" the present scattering of His people, we should not mistake that with being God's "d