There Is a New “Biblical” Calendar in Town
For those of us returning to the pro-Torah, Hebraic roots of our Christian faith, the Sabbath and biblical feasts are fundamental our faith—they outline the Creator’s plan of redemption for sinful man. Recovering these lost biblical truth treasures, that the early church fathers quickly abandoned after the death of the last apostles, is vital to our spiritual growth and development. To keep YHVH’s feast as the Bible instructs, we need to know how and when to celebrate them. The when part necessitates a calendar, but which one? Hopefully the study below will help the reader to navigate these troubled waters.
When I came into the Torah faith more than six decades ago, we knew of only one biblical calendar—the Hillel 2 or rabbinic calendar from ca. AD 360. Then forty years later, a second calendar appeared on the scene—the abib (green in the ear) barley, visible new moon calendar, which was much closer to biblical truth than the previous one. Now, in the last 25 years, numerous other calendars have spontaneously combusted all claiming to be the “true biblical calendar” dividing the body of believers into numerous factions opposed to each other. Many of these calendars rely on extra-Bible sources to substantiate their validity. This is a problem for those of us who look to the Bible as the final word on how to obey YHVH. The latest calendar to emerge center stage is Enoch-Zadok calendar. Is this finally, the truth once and for all delivered and we need to look no further, or is this another sleight of hand on the part of Bible peddlers who have something to sell or a following to build?
How to Examine New Information
I went into the study of the Zadok calendar open-minded. What could 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 information, we must be careful to guard against bias confirmation—that is, looking only to information that confirms our preconceived notions or our deeply held beliefs. 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). I have been a truth seeker all of my life. Were I not so, I would still be in the church I was born into—12 churches ago! Thus I dove into a study of the Zadok calendar.
Does the Bible or Do Non-biblical Sources Determine Truth?
A big question each person has to ask themselves when determining spiritual truth is whether they are going to rely primarily on the Bible or on non-biblical, secular sources. No one is averse to conducting research using reputable, secular or extra-biblical sources for background information that supports the Bible. 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 Christianity has been doing for the better part of 2,000 years does when denying the more pro-Torah, Hebraic truths of the Scriptures. We have inherited many lies, and in our search for Truth, many of us have exited the mainstream church system. This chicanery started with 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, good and evil where the word of Elohim is made of none effect by men’s traditions and philosophical theologies as Yeshua warned us against (Mark 7:9–13).
With these words of caution ringing in our spirits, let’s now move on to examining the pro-Zadok calendar arguments and see if they line up with sola Scriptura, or are they merely another example of men’s philosophical theologies.
Addressing Pro-Zadok Calendar Arguments—Answered and Refuted
The Enoch-Zadok Calendar Explained
The Enoch calendar is based on a 364-day year (not 3651/4 days) and is first mentioned in the ancient pseudepigraphal Book of First Enoch. This calendar purportedly originated with Enoch, the great grandfather of Noah. This is in spite of the fact First Enoch was written in the third or second century BC, some 2,000 years after the time of the biblical Enoch, who died prior to Noah’s flood. This calendar is appealing to a growing number of pro-Torah Christians who are digging into the Hebraic roots of their faith and endeavoring to keep YHVH’s sabbaths, including the weekly Sabbath and biblical feasts, in accordance with the Creator’s Torah-instructions. Since the Enoch calendar purports to be of ancient derivation, some people assume that it may well be the Bible’s original calendar, hence, the one we should use today to determine when to celebrate the feasts.
But how did we get from Enoch until today? And is there a biblical basis for the Enoch calendar? These are excellent questions that will be discussed and hopefully answered below. In the mean time, let’s give an overview of a few of the claims that the advocates of this calendar make.
The claim is made that, since the Enoch calendar supposedly dates to the time of Enoch, it must be the calendar that Moses and the Israelites used back in the Book of Exodus. Whereas the Levitical priests were the keepers and teachers of YHVH’s Torah-law, it is correctly assumed that they would have known when to observe the biblical feasts and thus should have the final say in this matter. At the end of the Israelites wandering in the wilderness, YHVH made an everlasting covenant with Phinehas (or Pinchas), the grandson of Aaron the high priest (the brother of Moses), that to his descendants would be given the priesthood forever (Num 25:12–13), and with that charge came, presumably, the knowledge of the correct biblical calendar.
Moving forward several hundred years to the time of King David, Zadok, a descendent of Phinehas, was the high priest whose progeny carried the mantle of the covenantal promise YHVH made to Phinehas along with again, presumably, the knowledge of the true biblical calendar.
We hear nothing more about Zadok or his descendants until Ezekiel mentions the descendants of Zadok in regards to his famous but enigmatic temple prophecy (Ezekiel chapters 40–48). In this prophecy, YHVH makes the sons of Zadok the officiants in the temple because of their faithfulness to him and his commandments (Ezek 40:46; 43:19ff; 44:15f; 48:11), and it is their role to interpret the Torah-law in matters of controversy including calendrical issues (q.v., Deut 17:8–11). Because Ezekiel states that the Zadokites had been faithful to YHVH’s law, they were given this glorious charge. However, there is much debate among Bible scholars concerning whether Ezekiel’s temple is literal or allegorical. Moreover, was it fulfilled in the building of the Second Temple, or is it an allegory referring to Yeshua and the church, or is it a literal temple yet to be built? The prevailing view is that this is a millennial temple—called the Fourth Temple—that is yet to be built. One thing is certain. The Second Temple that was built in the fifth century BC and was destroyed in AD 70 never fit the description of Ezekiel’s temple, and thus Ezekiel’s prophecy concerning the sons of Zadok is for a future time.
Despite the fact that Ezekiel’s temple is yet to be built, and the Zadokite priesthood as officiants in that temple is for a future era, the proponents of the Zadok calendar still cite Ezekiel 44:15 and 23–24 as proof for their calendar. Ezekiel states that the sons of Zadok will teach YHVH’s people the difference between the holy and unholy, between the unclean and the clean. They will also act as judges in controversies regarding YHVH’s appointed times and Sabbaths (q.v., Deut 17:8–11). This, the claim is made, was fulfilled by the Zadokite priests of the monastery at Khirbet Qumran on the shores of the Dead Sea in Israel beginning in the late second century BC and lasting for about 175 years afterwards. After that, the inhabitants of Qumran disappear from the pages of history until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947.
Additionally, not letting facts and historical realities stand in their way, the proponents of the Enoch calendar, now referred to as “the Enoch-Zadok calendar” (or simply “the Zadok calendar”), have somehow parlayed the faithful priests mentioned in Ezekiel’s future temple prophecy into the priests living at the time of the Maccabees in the second century BC. This is where the Dead Sea Scrolls (or DSS) and the Qumran community enter the picture. The DSS were discovered in 1947. The original group of DSS scholars from that era who, based on the evidence available to them at that time, firmly believed that a group of righteous priests had been excommunicated, if you will, from the Jerusalem temple when a group of supposedly illegitimate Maccabean priests took charge thereof in the second century BC. The legitimate (Zadokite) priests fled Jerusalem and established a monastery at Qumran near where the DSS were discovered. It is believed that they were largely the writers of the DSS of which the Book of 1 Enoch is a part of this larger corpus. Since the The Book of Enoch promotes the Enoch calendar, and since, it is believed, that these scrolls dictated the lifestyle practices and theology of the Qumran sectaries, and since, it is assumed, these priests were the literal, biological descendants of Zadok and Phinehas the high priests, and since YHVH said through Ezekiel that the sons of Zadok had been faithful to guard and obey his laws, it is assumed that the Zadok calendar is the true biblical calendar for us to follow today in order accurately keep YHVH’s feasts. Hopefully you followed that line of reasoning, since it is essential to understanding the pro-Zadok calendar argument.
There is more, but this is the essence of the pro-Zadok calendar argument. The proponents rely solely on extra-biblical books including those of the DSS to prove the validity of the Zadok calendar. Then, almost as an after thought, they reach back into the Bible, which contains not even the slightest allusion to the Zadok calendar, and attempt to “prove” their point by twisting Scriptures, a technique that the anti-Torah and “the law is nailed to the cross” and “done away with” mainstream Christian church has mastered over the centuries to the detriment of Bible truth resulting in the deception of myriads of people who now longer believe in the validity of YHVH’s Torah-law. Old habits die hard!
In what follows, we will critically analyze several of the key elements undergirding the Zadok calendar theory to see if these square with the empirical evidence, and then we will leave it up to you to decide where the truth lies.
One more word of warning. My comments and notes below are mind-numbing in detail and neither intended for the faint of heart of for those looking for a quick overview of this subject. This is a deep dive and is angled for only the most knowledgable and detail-oriented Bible students. Please do not feel bad if this material is difficult to wrap your mind around. Most of my other writings and video presentations on the Zadok calendar, are much less detailed, more digestible, yet still cover the main points. If you get bogged down in what follows, I humbly invite you to check out some of my other material. Or better yet, skip to the end of this article for section entitled “Summary and Conclusion”, which is a short summary and of the following study and my conclusions.
Onward…!
What Proponents of the Zadok Are Saying and My Responses
In what follows, we will critically analyze several of the key elements undergirding the Zadok calendar theory to see if these square with the Bible, and then it will be up to you to decide where the truth lies or whether lies are being peddled for truth. The following are my personal responses and notes after watching several video presentations by several pro-Zadok calendar teachers.
