By Nathan Lawrence

This is a lengthy, deep dive into the so-called Zadok Priestly/Enoch/Qumran/Dead Seas Scrolls Calendar as opposed to the traditional visible crescent new moon/abib barley calendar that was extant in the second temple era and during the time of Yeshua and his followers. This is a detailed, technical and somewhat tedious read. If you are not inclined to slog your way through this, I suggest that you scroll down to the end and read my concluding overview comments.

Division and Strife Within the Messianic, Hebraic Roots Movement

New winds of doctrine and ear tickling teachings are perpetually blowing through the Hebraic roots movement. I refer to it as “The Flavor of the Month Club. A few examples of this include: the lunar Sabbath, following rabbinic Judaism, the flat earth, new calendars, plural marriage or polygamy, unorthodox Bible translations, sacred names cults to name a few.

It seems that many people including some Bible teachers are ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth (2 Tim 3:7). One minute they are championing this new doctrine (and peddling their merchandise to promote it and gaining a following), then the next minute they are promoting some new doctrine and their money grubbing gig repeats itself.

Sadly, the Hebraic roots movement lacks true scholars or those who have learned critical thinking skills, the rules of biblical interpretation or hermeneutics and exegesis which are based on the science of logic. Thus, the movement is full of many unskilled teachers who teach errant doctrines and proffer false information. Buyers beware!

Add to the unskilled teacher the many self-appointed Bible “experts” and “teachers” who have neither been mentored by or are accountable to anyone including spiritual elders, who are more likely to possess knowledge, wisdom and understanding and can help mentor and raise up the aspiring Bible teachers who are new in the faith or their understanding of Torah roots of biblical Christianity.

On top of all of this, enter the internet where anyone can get up and say anything no matter how inaccurate, whacky or off-the-wall ridiculous and gain a following especially if what they are saying is well-packaged and marketed. A good package can make even nonkosher treif look appealing, tantalizing and palatable.

In Matthew 24, Yeshua warned us against false teachers, prophets and those who claim to be anointed (little messiahs, if you will). Even the very elect could be deceived (Matt 24:24 cp. 2 Pet 2:1–3)!

How to Examine New Information

I went into this study open-minded. What can I learn? Honestly, I knew very little about the so-called Zadok priesthood, the Qumran community, the Essenes and my understanding of the teachings of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) was rudimentary at best. When examining new knowledge, we must be careful to guard against bias confirmation—that is, looking only to information that confirms our preconceived notions or our current deeply held beliefs about something. Maintaining objectivity and keeping an open mind is essential if one is searching for truth. We must let the facts speak for themselves (in hermeneutics referred to as exegesis) as opposed to reading into the facts our own interpretations and biases (eisegesis).

A Picture Quickly Began to Form Regarding Zadok Priestly or Enoch Calendar 

The more I listened to the proponents of the so-called Zadok calendar, the more I realized that their arguments are fundamentally flawed. A house may look beautiful, but if it is built on a foundation of sand or straw, no matter how wonderful the superstructure may look, it will fall down. I soon discovered, and it is easy to see, that the arguments for the Zadok calendar are built on a foundation of sand or straw. The advocates of the Zadok calendar make many gross and misleading assumptions at the outset and then build their case from that point onward. That is like saying that 2 + 2 = 5, and then building a system of mathematics on that premise. No matter how elaborate and sophisticated that system may look, it is still predicated upon a false premise and is thus erroneous and irrelevant. This is the case with the Zadok calendar.

Don’t Be So Open Minded That Your Brains Fall Out!

There is no doubt that many people who are teaching, promoting and following the Zadok calendar are well meaning and zealous truth seekers. Their heart is intent on serving YHVH Elohim and rediscovering biblical truths that have been lost over time or purposely hidden by Christian and Jewish religious systems. But as we search for truth, we must make certain to get our facts straight before moving into a new belief system, so that we do not repeat the errors of the past. Stay open minded in the search for truth, but keep your wits about you. We can’t be so open minded that our brains fall out and we end up unwittingly following a false teaching.

In recent times, past erroneous belief systems have fallen away as our understanding of Bible truth has been ungraded as we return to the truths of our biblical and Hebraic roots. The problem is that some people are ever learning and never coming to the truth. As soon as a new “truth” comes on the scene, too many people jump on the band wagon of that new doctrine. It was a problem in the first century, and it is a problem now. Sadly, there is always a bevy of well-meaning but misguided teachers, as well as just plain false and greedy peddlers who are all too willing to take people’s money as they promote their new teachings. The Bible warns us against these folks. Therefore and ultimately, it is the duty and responsibility of each Bible student to roll up his or her sleeves and to prove who is right or wrong based on what the Bible says. When you buy an automobile or house, do you just blindly take the seller’s word for it that all is good, or do you investigate, ask questions, and even seek the help of impartial experts to determine if what you are about to purchase is in good condition and is all that it is represented to be? To wit, the Bible instructs us to rightly divide the word of Elohim, to be good Bereans and see if what we are being told lines up with the Scriptures or not, and to prove all things and to hold fast to that which is good. There are no short cuts in this process. It requires hard work and much effort.

Does the Bible or Nonbiblical Sources Determine Truth?

A big question each person has to ask themselves when determining spiritual truth is whether they are going to rely primarily or foundationally on the Bible or primarily on secular sources. I have no problem with looking to reputable, secular or extra-biblical sources for background information that supports what the Bible says. However, there is a problem when we look to extra-biblical sources as our primary source of truth, and then reach back into the Bible and cherry pick verses therefrom to confirm what the secular sources are saying. This is exactly what mainstream Christian theologians and Bible teachers have been doing since the time of the early church fathers in their efforts to disprove the seventh day Sabbath, the biblical feasts, the biblical dietary laws and YHVH’s Torah-law in general. Let’s not repeat their mistakes and end up with a tangled web of truth and error that characterizes much of current Christian theology.

Beware of Sectarianism and Exclusivism Which Can Lead to Cultism

Everyone wants to feel special and unique. This is affirming to our human need for self-esteem and self-worth. Often this leads people to feel the need to be special and better than others because they have something that no one else possesses. Religious people are often prone to this tendency in their search for meaning and truth. To believe that one has an inside track on the truth resulting in membership in an exclusive group that has secret knowledge can be psycho-emotionally empowering. Because of this, some people can be led to believe that they a special relationship with Elohim that no one else has. But being part of an exclusive group is dangerous when what we believe is not based on Bible truth, especially if we are following a personality who is promoting this hidden truth or secret knowledge. This is often the basis for secret societies, clubs, fraternal organizations, political parties and even many religious organizations. This can even become a form of neo-gnosticism. This is how religious cults are formed.

Addressing Pro-Zadok Calendar Arguments

In response to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCXV76e8dgE&list=PLdoqNkN5ekbjKOCFdQTL7o7hIahXOsLiC&index=6 (a teaching by two of Eddie Chumney’s disciples speaking in their local congregation):

• The claim is made that the term rosh chodesh is found only three times in the Bible and is not proof that the new month begins at the sighting of the new moon. This is a specious argument and is proof of nothing. The Torah says that a matter must be confirmed in the mouth of two or three witnesses. The Hebrew word chodesh meaning “new moon” is found 279 times in the OT.
• The claim is made that Exodus 12:2 does not specifically state this will be the first day of the month or new year. However, it is implied that this is the case since in verse two we read that on the tenth of the month the lamb is separated out for Passover. Day ten makes no sense, unless we are counting from day one of this month, which is implied in verse two. The Scriptures imply many things that are not explicitly spelled out or stated in black and white but the context clearly indicates a fact (e.g., Nadab and Abihu were drunk, do not light a fire on Shabbat if it is a work related fire). Interestingly, of these three verses, the Dead Seas Scrolls Bible reads the same as the Masoretic Text.
• Their claim is correct that the Zadok priesthood is the true priestly lineage with YHVH’s authority to judge in controversial matters regarding Torah (Ezek 44:24 cp. Deut 17:8–13), but this does not imply that all of the Essenes were Zadokites (i.e., descendants from Zadaok the high priest), that everything that the Essenes taught was exactly true to Scripture, or that everything that the Pharisees and Sadducees taught was unscriptural. That is like saying that everything that mainstream Christianity teaches is unscriptural. It is not. To say it is would be an ignorant lie.
• The assumption is made that many of Yeshua’s disciples were Nazarenes (and thus members of the Qumran community or Essenes including Mary and Martha). There is zero biblical proof of this. For example, if Zechariah, the father of John, was a Nazarene, then how could he continue to officiate as a priest in the temple under the Sadducean system?
• It is assumed, without biblical proof, that John was a Nazarene and an Essene.
• Supposedly, Yeshua was an Essene based on the etymology of the word Nazarene, which goes back to the Hebrew word branch, which is one of the terms the Qumran community applied to themselves. Isn’t that like saying that because the word law appears in my last name Lawrence, that must mean that I am a law-yer? Also, the Book of Acts refers to the early believers as being of The Way, which was also an Essene term. That’s like saying that because I call myself a Christian, that is proof that I am a Roman Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant or some other type of Christian you want to name. This may or may not be true.

The following is from my own Bible commentary notes on Matthew 2:23 and explains the etymological origins of the words Nazareth and Nazarene:

Nazareth…Nazarene. (Cp. Acts 24:5). Nazareth means “the guarded one”. The name Nazareth is not found in the OT. The closest word similar to it is naziyr (or nazarite) meaning “one who is consecrated, devoted.” Naziyr derives from nazar meaning “to dedicate, consecrate, separate, to keep sacredly separate.” The appellation “the sect of the Nazarenes” was applied to the early redeemed Israelite believers in Acts 24:5 by their enemies.

There is debate among some Bible students about whether the word Nazarene derives from Nazareth. The fact that Matthew juxtaposes the two words in a form of literary parallelism indicates that he saw some etymological, spiritual or prophetic connection between them. 

There is no Old Testament prophecy declaring that the Messiah will come from Nazareth or will be called a Nazarene, nor does any known apocryphal or pseudepigraphal text include such a statement. So to what prophecy is Matthew referring? He may be making a wordplay on the similarities between the Hebrew words Nazarene and netzer meaning “branch” as it relates to the Messianic title in Isaiah (Isa 11:1 cp. Isa 53:2) (Commentary on the NT on the OT, p. 11 by Beale and Carson). Keener mentions other Old Testament prophets that likened Messiah to a tree branch (or scion from Judah), although they do not use the Hebrew word netzer in their prophecies(Jer 23:5; Zech 3:8; 6:12) (The IVP Bible Background Commentary—New Testament, p. 51, by Craig S. Keener).

• Chumney then quotes Dr. Robert Shriner from his book,Yeshua—He Will Be Called a Nazarene, who says that Matthew (Matt 2:23) is not linking Yeshua to the town of Nazareth (based on linguistics) but is connecting him rather to the sect of the Nazarenes or Essenes. This is further confirmed in Acts 24:5 where Paul is linked with the sect of the Nazarenes (or Essenes). This apparently is positive proof that Yeshua and Paul were connected spiritually to the Essenes. The same scholar asserts that some verses in the NT where the word Nazarene is found associates Yeshua with the town of Nazareth, while others associate him with the Essenes. Both the words Nazarene and of Nazareth are the Greek words (G3480, found 18 times in the NT), while the word Nazareth (G3478) is different, though related. Shriner maintains that the phrase of Nazereth is referring to the Essenes, since if it were referring to being an inhabitant of Nazareth, it would be a different Greek word. Chumney then relates Yeshua being an Essene back to Isaiah 11:1 who is prophetically called “The Branch.” This prophecy is stating, among other things, that Yeshua (and his disciples) would have been connected to the Essene community, which the NT seems to indicate. Chumney then quotes Yair Davidy (a non-scholar and a sloppy historian who makes many unsubstantiated statements in his books) to further substantiate his belief. 
• The non-biblical book of Jubilees 2:9 (found in the DSS and written ca. 100 to 25 BC) is another supposed proof of the solar-based not lunar-based Zadok calendar for determining Sabbaths, feasts, etc.
• Jubilees 6:23 mentions four special days of remembrance that are the first days of certain months each season. This is based on the dates listed during Noah’s flood and were supposedly ordained by Noah.
• The claim is made that the Zadok/Enoch calendar year is 364 days long and that the Hillel II calendar is 354 days long. This is false when you intercalate a thirteenth month seven times every 19 years. This makes the abib barley, visible new moon calendar a lunar-solar calendar that now syncs with the solar year of 365.25 days unlike the Enoch calendar of 364 days (1 Enoch Ethiopic Version 73:11; 81:7 cp. 72:4–5).
• The Zadok/Enoch calendar is 360 days plus four “special days of remembrance” at the beginning of each season (Jubilees 6:23), which equates to a 364 day year. Proponents of the Zadok calendar claim that Noah (not YHVH) ordained them forever, and therefore, we are mandated to do the same. Where is this in the Bible??? These special days of remembrance are based on the spring equinox. That is how you know when to observe them. This is an unbiblical reckoning since there is neither any mention of the equinox in Scripture nor any command to reckon the biblical calendar thereto.
• Proponents of the Zadok calendar claim that because the sun is the greater light and the moon is the lesser light (Gen 1:16), the sun, therefore must regulate the calendar, not the moon which is the lesser light. The claim is also made that all of the ancient calendars (e.g., Babylonian, Egyptian, etc.) were lunar based including the Hebrew calendar, which, it is also claimed came from the Babylon influence while the Jews were in exile. However, it is incorrect to say that the Hebrew calendar is a lunar calendar. It is a lunar-solar calendar.
• The claim is made that the new year begins on either the eve of the tenth of the first month at Passover. Therefore, if day 14 is four days after the first day of the month, then day 14 is not really day fourteen as the Bible calls it, but, in reality, is day four on the biblical calendar. This assertion, however, contradicts Scripture—specifically, Exodus 12:2–3, which, if this claim is true, makes no sense when the Torah says to separate the lamb on the tenth day of the month and keep it until the fourteenth day of the month (four days after the tenth of the month), which is actually the first day of the month. This kind of illogical reasoning and twisting of the Scriptures is mind-boggling if not mind-numbing, to say the least!
• It is claimed, as supposed proof of the Zadok calendar, that the Bible mentions 12 months in a year two times (Est 2:12; Dan 4:29) and by implication two more times (1 Kgs 4:7; Rev 22:2), but never a thirteenth month as occurs every two to four years on the abib barley, visible new moon calendar. Therefore, the claim is made that the abib barley, visible new moon calendar is not in line with Scripture. On the other hand, the counterclaim can also be made that nowhere does Scripture mention or even make allusions to a vernal equinox, which is critical to and a central component of the Zadok calendar. So where does that leave us? Simply this. Absence of evidence is not validation of a thing one way or the other.
• The Zadokites claim that while the Gospel of John gives the Passover on the Pharisee/Sadducee calendar (which Zadokites conflate with the Hillel 2 calendar of A.D. 360), which, according to them, is why John calls this Passover “the feast of the Jews”, while the other Gospel writers supposedly give the timing of the Passover on the Zadok calendar. This apparently clarifies in their minds the confusion between Yeshua’s celebrating an early Passover on the Jewish calendar but actually on the fourteenth day of the first month on the Zadok calendar. The Jews celebrated Passover at the end of the fourteenth going into the fifteenth, which John refers to as the “Jews’ Passover” (John 2:13; 6:4; 11:55). The claim is made that Yeshua actually died when the Passover lambs on the Pharisees’ calendar were being killed. Supposedly, Yeshua and his disciples killed their Passover lamb earlier in accordance with the “true” biblical or Torah/Zadok calendar. This is, supposedly, because “John was a Nazarene” (sic, here Chumney confuses John the Baptist with John the disciple and writer of the Gospel that bears his name), and was thus part of the Qumran community, who referred to themselves as “Nazarenes.” Thus John was signaling that Yeshua as a Nazarene held the true Passover with his disciples earlier, while he actually died on the Pharisees’ calendar (although it was not actually the Passover according to the Zadok calendar). According to the proponents of the Zadok calendar, why did Yeshua die on the Jew’s Passover and not on the “true” Passover according to the Zadok calendar? He did so, they claim, to prove the point that he was the Jews’ Passover Lamb. A major problem with this argument is that John, the Gospel writer was not John the Baptist, and thus a Nazarite or member of the Qumran community as John the Baptist is alleged to have been. John the Revelator and John the Baptist were two different people! So the year that Yeshua died on the Zadok calendar was one day ahead of the Jewish calendar. Thus Joseph and Nicodemus wanted to get Yeshua off the cross before the Sabbath going into the Jews’ first high holy day of Unleavened Bread on their calendar, not on the Zadok calendar for that year. Are you confused yet by this interpretation? It’s a bit mind numbing to say the least!