Comments on Joseph Dumond’s Chronology

Joseph Dumond claims to know the year of the world, when the Sabbatical year is, when the Jubilee year is, and many other things. So do I. The only problem is that his determinations completely disagree with mine.

As I frequently explain, key truths in Scripture are explained by parable or cipher imbedded in ordinary stories. It is very easy for a teacher to be misled if he does not compare Scripture with Scripture and solve the apparent difficulties that present themselves.

This year (starting Tishri 1), Sept. 11th, 2018 is the 5th year of the 5th sabbatical cycle in the year 6157 of creation. Dumond says it is the 2nd year of the 4th cycle in the year 5854 of creation of Adam. So you see, our disagreement could not be more complete.

According to the Jewish Chronology, Seder Olam, the second Temple was destroyed in AD 69, in the first year of the sabbatical cycle, on the first day (a Sunday), when the first division of priests was on duty, on the 9th of Av. Everything in this historical tradition is correct, except which of 2 Roman years the data apply to (AD 69 or AD 70). It is well known that the year was AD 70 when the second Temple was destroyed. And, in fact, the 9th of Av comes on the first day in AD 70 and not in AD 69. This may clearly be shown by astronomical calculation.

The Jewish year of the destruction is stated as the year 3829 (making the current year 5779). Later more knowlegeable Jewish scholars corrected the date to 3830 and AD 70. This is to simplify matters. It does not change what year the Jewish calendar currently states as the year of creation. Actually the computation is a bit more complicated. In the Talmud, the date is given as 380 in the Seleucide era, which corresponds to AD 69 (see pg. 261, Seder Olam: The Rabbinical View of Biblical Chronology, Heinrich W. Guggenheimer).

Now the Seder Olam mistake on the year was not a mistake in the Sabbatical year. AD 69, when the Temple supposedly fell, was the first year of the cycle. We can parse out the mistake as folows: AD 70 (3830) is correct for the first day of the week, the 9th of Av, and the first division, and the destruction of the Temple. AD 69 (3829) is correct for the first year of the Sabbatical cycle. This explains how the Jews arrived at the wrong year. Rabbi Halaphta (ca. AD 150) either assumed the year was AD 69 (3829) or deceived his Jewish contemporaries that the year was AD 69 in order to place the destruction in year one of the sabbatical cycle because he wanted an interpretation of Daniel 9 that could not be applied to Messiah Yeshua. By AD 150 no one could double check by astronomical calculation to see if Av 9 was the first day of the week in AD 69. So the mistake (or deception) stuck for many centuries after that, and is believed by many Jews to the present day.

When Jewish scholars began to recover from the mistake, they at first corrected the date of the destruction to correspond to AD 70. But some wanted to keep the destruction in the first year of the sabbatical cycle. So the first year of the cycle got “moved” to AD 70.

In the 19th century, a scholar named Benedict Zuckermann determined that the sabbatical year was in AD 68/69. But in his book, he also admitted the sabbatical year could be AD 67/69, right where Seder Olam had it, starting and ending on Tishri 1.

In the 20th century a scholar named Ben Zion Wacholder argued that the destruction of the Temple was in the Sabbatical year itself, and not the first year of the cycle. By this means the sabbatical year got moved again so that the first year of the cycle was in AD 71, and the sabbatical year in AD 69/70.

Amazingly, a large number of Messianic Christians, or former World Wide Church of God members, have bought into this last determination by Ben Zion Wacholder, including the late Ernest L. Martin. Wacholder’s theory suffers from several fatal errors. The first of these is the telephone game on other historical sabbatical years, which I will not detail here. The second is that he interpreted “going out of the seventh” (motszei shev'it) to mean “in” the sabbatical year, rather than at the end of it, despite the fact that the same word is used in Seder Olam to mean after the end of the weekly Sabbath (motszei Shabbat)! A third error is that his innovation makes the sabbatical years from the first destruction in Seder Olam to the second destruction add up to 71. Rabbi Halaphta clearly did not intend his theory of Daniel 9 to come out to 71 sabbatical years, as may be shown by an assumed Jubilee date in Ezekiel 40:1, dated 14 years after the Temple was destroyed. The 50th year minus 14 years is the 36th year, which is 5 cycles (5 x 7) plus one year. So by Halaphta’s reasoning, the first temple was destroyed in the first year of the cycle.

So we see that the time of the Sabbatical year has been revised two times by Jewish scholars, yielding three choices:

			ca AD 150: Seder Olam:    AD 67/68 = 7th year (Tishri 1 to Tishri 1)
			19th century: Zuckermann: AD 68/69 = 7th year (Tishri 1 to Tishri 1)
			20th century: Wacholder:  AD 69/70 = 7th year (Tishri 1 to Tishri 1)
			

Now in Tishri for this year (AD 2018) what would be the year of the cycle we are in according to each of these three choices?

			Seder Olam:   5
			Zuckerman:    4
			Wacholder:    3
			

So we see that the timing of Seder Olam for the Sabbath year agrees with what I say it is, and that NONE of the choices agree with Dumond, who is saying it is year 2 of the cycle.

It is quite likely that the Jewish people remembered in AD 150 when the Sabbath year was supposed to be. Certainly during the second Jewish revolt they remembered it (AD 131-135). The Scroll of Biblical Chronology shows the details to the right.

The revolt began after the fall of AD 131 but before the summer of AD 132 by all accounts. The earliest letter of the revolt is dated to Iyyar 1, AD 132. This letter is dated “year 1 of the Redemption of Israel.” Also the Bar Kochba government issued a series of coins for the revolt with Sukkot themes on them (including the lulav and etrog).

The cause of the war was Hadrian’s visit to Jerusalem in AD 130, where he renamed the city “Aelia Capitolina” and founded a pagan temple to Jupiter on the ruined site of the second Jewish Temple. According to Cassius Dio the Jews kept quiet while Hadrian was still in the region. But they plotted a revolt and gathered weapons. Then when Hadrian left, the revolt broke out in AD 132. Since the first coins date from this period, it is clear that year one of the redemption of Israel dates between Tishri 1, AD 131 and Tishri 1, AD 132.

Wadi Murabat 24E is a rental contract dated to the second year of the revolt and on Shevat 20 (15 Jan, AD 133). In the contract, it is specified that there are 5 growing years until the Sabbatical year. And we see that indeed, there are five years left until the Sabbatical year. It should also be pointed out that one of the original Dead Sea Scroll scholars, J.T. Milik concluded the sabbatical year just before the revolt was the year 130/131 on the basis of Wadi Murabat 24E.

So we see that following the lead of Seder Olam, and assigning AD 69 to the first year of the sabbatical cycle is correct. This is in fact confirmed by the contracts, coins, and letters from the Bar Kochba revolt.

Other Mistakes by Joseph Dumond

No. 1: Dumond states, “When you do the chronology in the book of Genesis the flood took place in the year of 1656 after the creation of Adam.” This may be tradition, and a lot of chronologists assume it, but it is not so. The year 1656 results when one counts Adam as age 1 year old in the 1st year of the world. But this is incorrect. Adam lives 12 months first, and then he is one year old. Therefore, in years, Adam is age 0 during the first year of the world, and age 1 year old in the second year of the world. As a result the correct dating of the Deluge is 1657.

All the synchronisms in the Genesis chronology require a 0 year until each man in the link is age 1. In fact, if the 0 year is not included, then Methuselah’s life lasts till after Noah got off the ark. Those who put the deluge in 1656 allow for a 0 year in every case except for Adam, which is inconsistent.

No. 2: Dumond appears to imply that certain recent natural disasters in the United States somehow are a fulfilment of Jeremiah 4:5-22. But he is taking the passage out of context. For example, Jer. 4:6b says the destruction is coming from the north, and this refers to the Babylonians who destroyed the first Temple in 587 BC, and not to hurricane Florence. I would not speculate on specific natural disasters being the judgment of the Almighty unless he says so. The passage also defines the nature of the disaster as war. Neither the fires in CA nor the hurricane are a war. So citing Jer. 4:5-22 in relation to these events is simply false teaching. It is also a pretense to prophetical knowledge. But Dumond falls short.

No. 3: Dumond claims to know that the “rod” in Ezekiel 20:37 is “Germany.” But this also is taking the passage out of context. The passage says he will enter into judgment as he did when he brought Israel out of the land of Egypt into the wilderness (vs. 36). This judgment was direct and personal from the hand of Yahweh. They were not dwelling in the midst of any other nation when this happened. Furthermore, vs. 34 says he would bring Israel out of the nations where they were scattered before this judgment. If you ask my opinion, the time when Israel flees into the wilderness in Rev. 12 is a more likely time for Ezekiel 20 to be fulfilled. So again Dumond’s interpretation is simply false teaching.

No. 4: Dumond speaks of the Almighty’s name as “Yehovah.” Hebrew scholars, however, know that this form is a result of conflating a perpetual reading for “Adonai” with the consonants of the text. I will not elaborate further since the name is not the subject of his newsletter.

No. 5: In response to a letter Dumond says, “I am as a filthy menstrual rag.” This is a poplular interpretation of our righteousness from Isaiah 64:6, but it is in fact incorrect and is based on faulty church theology. Righteousness is not unclean. But the Church wishes Torah observance to be “unclean righteousness.” That much should be obvious. Isaiah is speaking about the nation, because he uses a collective “we” in the passage refering to Israel. The Hebrew says, “we are as unclean all of us, and as a menstral garment is all of our righteousness; and we fade as a leaf, all of us; and our iniquities like the wind carry us away.” Every garment starts out clean when put on. A leaf is green and living before it fades. And there is a time when good is mixed with iniquity, before the people are carried away. So what is righteous and good is not being called unclean. Rather it is being observed that what was clean and pure, is falling away, and becoming corrupt. The prophet is identifying himself with the people. He is not speaking about any individual who repents and turns to righteousness.

No. 6: “It is the position of sightedmoon.com that these ten Days of Awe are going to be ten years of complete destruction. Let me explain.” I think this is just another false prediction by Dumond. How does he justify it? It is true that a day of sin when the spies were spying out the land was converted to a total of 40 years in the wilderness, when it could have been just 2. It is also true that 390 years of sin and 40 years of sin were symbolically assigned to Ezekiel to lie on his left and right sides. But it is a great mistake to think that these two specific applications are some sort of generalization or a license to assign days for years anywhere else. Dumond clearly does not know how to calculate the 390 or 40 years in Ezekiel 4. In the Scroll of Biblical Chronology and Prophecy, the calculation of these years is clearly shown.

No. 7: Satan might be locked away on Yom Kippur, as Dumond thinks, but Dumond’s sabbatical and jubilee speculations are founded on his errant chronology which does not correspond to historical reality.

No. 8: Dumond makes a completely confusing statement, “After the 69th week, after the year 1996, the anointed which is now speaking of the Saints will be cut off and the city and the Saints, not the sanctuary would be cut off and trampled underfoot. And in the middle of this week, the middle of this Jubilee cycle shall sacrifice and oblation cease. The dead can’t pray.” The passage he is trying to interpret is Daniel 9:24-27. All I can do is state the correct interpretation. Seven sevens were the number of sabbatical years between Nehemiah’s building of the walls of Jerusalem (445 BC), and the coming of the anointed priest Ezra (397-396 BC). Sixty two more sevens are the number of sabbatical years until the Anointed Messiah (Yeshua). Adding the 7 and 62 = 69. Immediately after the 69th sabbatical year Messiah Yeshua was cut off in AD 34. This is all detailed in the Scroll of Biblical Chronology and Ancient Near Eastern History. The 70th sabbatical year is delayed to the end of the age. We do not know when this is, and this is not the place to state my speculations. At the very least I explain why there are two anointed in Daniel 9, and why the prophecy is cut into seven sevens, sixty two sevens, and one seven. The city and sanctuary were destroyed after the 69th seven (in AD 70) and before the 70th (still future). By the 70th seven the Temple will be rebuilt (still future), and in the middle of it, it will be desolated, and this is not in the middle of a Jubilee cycle, but rather just 3 1/2 years before the Jubilee in the middle of the last “shavua” (seven years), and we do not know yet which Jubilee cycle this will take place on. Not only is Dumond a false teacher here, but he has failed to understand and deploy a most important apologetic concerning Messiah’s first coming, which is desperately needed in these times.

No. 9: Dumond supposes that the 2300 figure in Daniel 8:14 pertains to 2300 days, and that Sanctuary means “Saints.” He is wrong on both counts, both his claim that sanctuary means saints and the time span. The Hebrew reads, “Then he says unto me, unto evening daybreak, two thousands and three hundreds. Then will be righted [the] holy.” This statement was given in answer to the question in vs. 13, “Until how long is the vision of the continual offering and the desolating transgression, to give even the holy and the host treading?” Verse 11 further specified “the place of His Sanctuary.”

First, I answer which words pertain to some Saints, and which to the sanctuary. The “host” is the levitical priesthood, and the “prince of the host” is the high priest or anointed one. So it is the priesthood that is trodden down. And the place of the sanctuary (the Temple) which is trodden down. Both are included. So, the holy place is not the Saints. The Saints involved will be those priests who are faithful to Messiah, or who will be. “Holy” at the end of vs. 14 refers to the holy place in vs. 11. “Host” refers to the priestly saints. I believe the Saints in general who live in Israel will flee to the wilderness before this happens (see Rev. 12).

Second, I answer to the duration of the time period. The Hebrew reads, “Then he says unto me, unto evening daybreak, two thousands and three hundreds. Then will be righted [the] holy.” The figure 2300 counts the number of daily offerings, and not a number of days. Each day there is a daybreak offering to begin the day, and a second afternoon offering. There are 2300 daily offerings during 1150 days, and each day begins with the daybreak offering (morning offering), has an afternoon offering (evening), and both offerings burn on the altar until the next daybreak according to Lev. 6:9-10. The day for an offering is daybreak to daybreak. “Evening daybreak” in the passage pertains to the evening, with a night between, and daybreak at the END of the day. It is during this night that the two offerings made during the daylight hours continue to burn. See Lev. 6:9-10.

Finally, the duration of this time period is limited elsewhere to a time, times, and half a time. As 2300 days exceeds this, it is not the correct interpretation. The word “days” does not stand in the text. What does stand in the text of the continual offering, and it is these which the figure 2300 are counting. To understand “evening morning” we have to first understand the timing for the offerings. It also helps to understand that an Genesis 1, the evening and the morning are the end points of the night that follows each creation day, and I have spoken about this in previous posts.

No. 10: Dumond thinks that the white horse represents Islam. I do not think this. Islam is the 7th kingdom. The white horse represents the 8th kingdom which will rule over the other 7. John wrote that five were fallen, one was, and the seventh was about to come and would remain a “little while” (actually a long time). Then there would be an 8th kingdom. Islam, therefore, will be defeated. After it will rise up an 8th kingdom, which I believe will be the evolution of the current social progressivism, i.e. secular leftists. They seek political world domination. They favor Islam, but only because they hate Christinaity. The Almighty will put it into their minds to destroy false Christianity. Islam, therefore, will only be a tool of the 8th kingdom. In the end even the doctrines of Isalm will be rejected by the 8th kingdom, as the devil will require the making of images to himself, a little detail that no Muslims will cooperate with unless they reject their own religion.

No. 11: “Damascus now is a ruinous heap. the whole nation of Syria is in ruins. Can the leanness of Jacob be far off” No it is not now a ruinous heap. Dumond it appears is trying to make some symbolical sense out of the “ruinous heap.” I believe the Scripture means “ruinous heap.” The judgment of this city is still in the future.

No. 12: “All of this I believe is about to begin over 1/4 of the earth starting Shavuot 2020.” So says Dumond. Notice that I have not stated what I believe about any dates in the future. This is because we really do not know. It really does not make sense to share speculations with a general audience that does not understand the historical times and seasons of Israel. Dumond certainly does not.

No. 13: Dumond thinks the two witnesses will avenge the murder of the Saints. This is incorrect. The beast that rises out of the pit will kill the two witnesses, and then he will rule for 42 months (just under 3.5 years). It is during the 42 months that the Saints who stayed behind in the nations will be killed. The murder of the saints will not be avenged until the last year before Messiah’s coming. See Isaiah 34:8. On the 4th seal, the murdered saints are told to wait. The seventh seal begins the judgments which will avenge the saints, and the bowl judgments finish it.