You Must Submit to Rabbinic Authority

Section 1 — Rabbinic Authority, the Calendar, and the Weaponizing of Deuteronomy 17

This subject comes up constantly in Torah-observant circles. The claim is simple: unity requires submission to rabbinic authority, especially when it comes to the calendar. Anyone who wants to return to an observational calendar—using the visible crescent moon to begin months and using barley in the land to confirm the month of Aviv—is often accused of rebellion, division, or unleashing chaos.

Before we begin, something must be said plainly. This examination is not an attack on rabbis. Rabbinic Judaism has preserved the Hebrew language, guarded the Scriptures through centuries of persecution, maintained Jewish identity against enormous pressure, and passed down many valuable teachings. None of that is being dismissed. What is being tested here is one specific claim: that believers must yield to rabbinic authority in calendar matters, and that challenging the fixed Hillel calendar is rebellion or hypocrisy.

The real issue is not simply how dates are calculated. The real issue is authority: who has the right to define obedience to the Torah of Yehovah. Once that authority question is addressed, the calendar question becomes clear, because the calendar governs the appointed times, and the appointed times reveal Messiah in Torah. If authority is misplaced at the calendar level, it distorts obedience, doctrine, and even prophecy.

1. The Appeal to Deuteronomy 17

Defenders of the fixed calendar regularly appeal to Deuteronomy 17. They warn that rejecting rabbinic rulings leads to chaos, and they often add a second verse as a threat: “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” These two passages are frequently used as a rhetorical weapon. The implication is that an observational calendar is lawlessness, and that only the rabbinic system can prevent disorder.

But Deuteronomy 17 must be read in its actual context. It applies under very specific conditions, and the text itself defines those conditions. Here is the passage in the Modern King James Version:

Deuteronomy 17:8–13 (MKJV)
“If a matter is too hard for you in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, matters of strife within your gates, then you shall arise and go up to the place which Jehovah your God shall choose. And you shall come to the priests of the Levites, and to the judge that shall be in those days, and inquire. And they shall declare to you the sentence of judgment. And you shall do according to the sentence which they declare to you from that place which Jehovah shall choose. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they tell you. According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach you, and according to the judgment which they shall tell you, you shall do. You shall not turn aside from the sentence which they shall show you, to the right hand or to the left. And the man who acts proudly and will not listen to the priest who stands to minister there before Jehovah your God, or to the judge, even that man shall die. And you shall put away the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear and fear, and not be presumptuous any more.”

Notice what the passage does and does not say. It does not say, “Whatever later authorities decide is binding forever.” It describes how Israel handled difficult legal matters inside a functioning covenant structure. It assumes “the place which Jehovah your God shall choose.” It assumes “the priests of the Levites.” It assumes judges operating in that Temple-centered system. So if someone wants to apply Deuteronomy 17 today as a blanket statement of rabbinic authority over the calendar, they must first explain how that passage is functioning without the Temple and priestly framework it presumes.

2. Deuteronomy 17 Is Conditional, Not Absolute

Deuteronomy 17 describes authority operating within an active national system: Temple, Levitical priesthood, and judges at the chosen place. None of those exist today. This is not a Christian criticism of Judaism; rabbinic Judaism itself acknowledges this reality by suspending Temple-centered Torah commands. Sacrificial worship is suspended. Capital punishments are suspended. Jubilee enforcement is suspended. The reason is not mysterious. The covenant system described in Torah is not presently operating in the same way because the Temple is not standing.

This is the inconsistency being exposed. People claim Deuteronomy 17 binds believers to rabbinic authority for the calendar, but those same people acknowledge that Deuteronomy 17 cannot currently function in the full judicial and priestly way the Torah describes. You cannot suspend the Temple structure and still claim the authority framework as if nothing changed. That proves the authority claim is being applied selectively.

When Deuteronomy 17 is paired with Judges 21:25, it is often used to intimidate rather than interpret. Here is the verse:

Judges 21:25 (MKJV)
“In those days there was no king in Israel. Every man did what was right in his own eyes.”

That verse is describing national collapse and lawlessness during a period without centralized civil leadership. It is not a proof text to say, “If you obey the moon and barley, you are lawless.” It is being used as a fear mechanism: “If you do not follow the fixed calendar, you are like the chaos of Judges.” But Torah-obedience is not chaos. Torah is order. And if Torah itself commands observation, then obeying Torah cannot be equated with rebellion.

3. Deuteronomy 17 Requires Rulings to Align With Torah

Even when Deuteronomy 17 was operating as written, it did not authorize judges to override Torah. The passage limits authority to decisions “according to the sentence of the law.” Judges apply Torah; they do not invent rulings that nullify Torah.

This is exactly the kind of abuse Yeshua confronted: tradition being elevated above commandment. Yeshua’s rebuke is not a rejection of all tradition. It is a rejection of tradition that makes the Word of God of no effect.

Mark 7:7–13 (MKJV)
“However, they worship Me in vain, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots and cups. And many other such things you do. And He said to them, Well do you reject the commandment of God, so that you may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honor your father and your mother; and, He who curses father or mother, let him die the death. But you say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, Corban (that is, a gift), whatever you may profit by me; then you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or mother, making the Word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have delivered. And you do many such things.”

The point is not whether rabbis teach many valuable things. Many do. The question is whether an authority claim can override Torah’s written commands. Yeshua says that when tradition makes the Word of God of no effect, that tradition must be rejected. That principle applies to every category, including calendar claims.

4. The Sanhedrin Never “Created” the Calendar

A common assertion is that without rabbinic authority, there is no calendar. Historically, this is false. The Sanhedrin did not create months. The moon appeared. Barley ripened. Witnesses testified. The court recognized what Yehovah revealed in creation.

Authority was declarative, not creative. The moon does not wait for permission to appear, and barley does not ripen by decree. The function of leadership was to verify and announce what was already evident, not to replace creation’s signs with a later abstract system.

5. Torah Anchors the Calendar to Observable Signs

Torah itself anchors time to the signs Yehovah appointed. Scripture does not present the calendar as an abstract mathematical construct. It presents creation as the foundation.

Genesis 1:14 (MKJV)
“And God said, Let lights be in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years.”

Psalm 104:19 (MKJV)
“He appointed the moon for seasons. The sun knows its going down.”

Exodus 12:2 (MKJV)
“This month shall be to you the beginning of months. It shall be the first month of the year to you.”

These passages do not describe a hidden system known only to a ruling class. They describe visible signs in creation. Scripture ties seasons and appointed times to the lights Yehovah placed in the heavens.

Torah also anchors the beginning of the year to a visible agricultural reality. The Exodus occurred when barley was in a specific state—Aviv, “in the ear.”

Exodus 9:31–32 (MKJV)
“And the flax and the barley were struck, for the barley was in the ear; and the flax was bolled. But the wheat and the spelt were not struck, for they were not grown up.”

Torah then commands that the month of Aviv must be observed.

Deuteronomy 16:1 (MKJV)
“Observe the month of Abib, and keep the Passover to Jehovah your God. For in the month of Abib Jehovah your God brought you forth out of Egypt by night.”

The verb “observe” is not passive. It means you are watching something real. You are not merely computing an abstract schedule. And Leviticus ties that observation directly to the harvest and the firstfruits offering.

Leviticus 23:10–11 (MKJV)
“Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, When you come into the land which I give to you, and shall reap its harvest, then you shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest to the priest. And he shall wave the sheaf before Jehovah to be accepted for you. On the next day after the sabbath the priest shall wave it.”

This cannot function as written without barley being in a state fit for firstfruits. Barley is not an optional tradition; it is Torah’s built-in calibration.

6. The Hillel Calendar and the Hypocrisy Claim

The fixed calendar did not originate in these Torah commands. It arose in later history under Roman persecution as a survival tool. That context explains why a calculated framework was introduced, but it does not transform that framework into a permanent Torah command. And here is where the hypocrisy becomes visible.

Many people demand submission to the Hillel calendar because they claim it is unchangeable rabbinic authority. Yet the historical record shows it was never static and never universally adopted all at once. It was continually developed, refined, and amended—often for practical reasons.

The Metonic cycle, the nineteen-year intercalation pattern used to place leap months, was incorporated into the Hebrew calendar during the fourth century as part of the shift from observation to calculation. Postponement rules, the deḥiyyot, also developed over time. These rules did not arrive fully finalized in a single moment and remain untouched. They evolved and were standardized later, especially during the Gaonic period, commonly dated about 589 CE to 1038 CE, when the great academies in Sura and Pumbedita became central authorities shaping halachic development. By the time Rambam codified the calendar in detail in 1177–1180 CE, he was codifying a mature system shaped by centuries of refinement, not merely repeating a fourth-century “final revelation.”

7. The Zoar Tombstones and the Timeline of Adoption

Archaeology provides a striking witness that the adoption of fixed-calendar features was not immediate or universal. The Zoar tombstones matter because they are tangible evidence from a Jewish community showing continued variability long after the fourth century.

The inscriptions show that even centuries after 358–359 CE, the community was not uniformly operating as though a single final reform had permanently settled the calendar. Up through 444 CE, the tombstone evidence shows continued crescent usage. After 455 CE, Hillel usage appears more clearly, yet even later, crescent usage shows up again. This alone demonstrates that the transition was gradual, contested, uneven, and regionally variable, not a single universal switch.

Observations also point to another important fact: when the tombstones allow determination, they do not show the equinox being used as the start-of-year controller. That feature appears later, along with later refinements and postponements. In other words, the fixed calendar did not descend from Hillel fully formed as “what we now have.” It developed.

8. Calendar Changes Never Stopped

Historical disputes and reforms did not end with Hillel. In 921 CE, Aaron ben Meir attempted calendar reform that shook the Jewish world. In the tenth century, Saadia Gaon defended against that reform, and the very fact that such a defense was necessary proves the system was debated at the highest rabbinic levels.

Later, in 1177–1180 CE, Rambam codified the system with mathematical detail, helping to standardize what people now assume was “always settled.” Yet proposals and discussions did not stop even then. Suggestions and debates continued through later centuries and into modern times, including calls for correction in the modern era. The fixed calendar has required repeated refinement, defense, and controversy.

This leads to a conclusion that must be stated plainly. When people accuse the observational calendar of being unstable, the truth is the opposite. The fixed calendar is the one that required repeated adjustments and debates over centuries. Meanwhile, Torah never presents barley and the visible moon as a system that needs tweaking. They self-adjust by observation. The moon renews. The barley ripens. Yehovah’s signs remain consistent.

Conclusion of Section 1

This is the core conclusion of Section 1. We are not condemning rabbis or denying the good they preserved. But we must be honest about this claim: the statement, “You must submit to rabbinic authority to keep the fixed calendar and you must not question it,” is hypocritical on its face, because the calendar itself has been repeatedly refined, amended, standardized, and debated through history, and archaeology shows it was adopted gradually and unevenly.

Meanwhile, Torah anchors the appointed times to Yehovah’s signs in creation. Those signs have never needed revision. They are visible, testable, and stable. Therefore, Deuteronomy 17 cannot be weaponized to override Torah, and the historical record does not support the claim that the fixed calendar is a timeless, unchangeable authority. This section establishes the foundation: before we argue about dates, we must answer the authority question—and Scripture places that authority in Yehovah’s written Torah and His created signs, not in later systems that have continually been revised.

The Noahide Laws

Section 2 — Rabbinic Authority and the Noahide Laws

The Cost of Submission

Section 1, You Must Submit to Rabbinic Authority, established the foundation: Deuteronomy 17 cannot be weaponized as a blanket claim of permanent rabbinic authority over the calendar, especially when the Temple-based covenant structure described in that passage is not presently operating. It also established a second point that is often ignored: the fixed calendar system itself has never been static. It was developed, refined, standardized, and debated across centuries.

Now Section 2 moves from the calendar question to a more personal and unavoidable issue: what does “submit to rabbinic authority” actually require if a person takes that claim seriously and applies it consistently?

This matters because authority is never selective. Once a person says, “I must submit to rabbinic authority,” that submission cannot be limited to one topic, such as calendar calculation. If submission is real, then it must include what rabbinic authority says about Gentiles, Torah obedience, Sabbath keeping, and festival participation. And the moment those teachings are examined, a direct collision with Torah becomes unmistakable.

This section is not written to insult or condemn rabbis. It is written to test a claim. Many rabbis have preserved invaluable teachings. However, if an authority claim produces conclusions that contradict Torah’s own instructions, then the authority claim must be rejected where it conflicts with Scripture.

1. Rabbinic Teaching Restricts Gentiles to Noahide Laws

Rabbinic tradition teaches that Gentiles are obligated to keep a limited set of universal moral laws commonly called the Noahide laws. These are derived from Genesis 9 and later rabbinic interpretation. In classical rabbinic thought, these laws function not merely as a starting point but as a boundary. Gentiles are told that they are not permitted to take on Israel’s covenantal commandments beyond these seven.

Over time, this position became more than a theoretical idea. It became a system of restrictions. The rabbinic world did not only say, “Gentiles are not required to keep Sabbath.” It often goes further and says, “Gentiles are not permitted to keep Sabbath,” and in some texts, the prohibition is stated with severe consequences.

This is a crucial point for anyone who says, “We must submit to rabbinic authority.” If rabbinic authority must be obeyed on the calendar, then rabbinic authority must also be obeyed when it defines what Gentiles may or may not obey.

2. Rabbinic Sources Forbid Gentile Sabbath Observance

Classical rabbinic sources state explicitly that Sabbath observance is a covenant sign reserved for Israel and that Gentiles must not imitate it as a full religious practice. This teaching appears in the Babylonian Talmud and is reinforced in later codifications.

The Talmud in Sanhedrin 58b is often cited for the statement that a Gentile who keeps the Sabbath is liable to death. The point here is not to litigate every detail of interpretation or every manuscript tradition. The point is that this idea exists in the authoritative rabbinic tradition and is commonly presented as the normative view of rabbinic law: Gentiles must not keep the Sabbath in the way Israel is commanded to keep it.

Later, Maimonides (Rambam), one of the most influential rabbinic authorities in history, codified the idea that Gentiles are not permitted to “innovate a religion” or adopt commandments not commanded to them. In Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings and Wars 10:9, he teaches that Gentiles should remain within the Noahide framework and should not establish Sabbath or festivals as religious observances.

If a person accepts the claim “We must submit to rabbinic authority,” they must face this implication honestly: rabbinic authority places limits on Gentile obedience and treats Sabbath and festival observance as forbidden territory for non-Jews.

That leads to the most important question in this section: does Torah itself agree with that restriction?

3. Torah Commands Sabbath Rest for the Stranger

Torah does not treat Sabbath as a command only for ethnic Israel while forbidding Gentiles to participate. Torah explicitly includes the stranger within Israel’s gates.

Exodus 20:8–11 (MKJV)
“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of Jehovah your God. In it you shall not do any work—you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger within your gates. For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore Jehovah blessed the Sabbath day and sanctified it.”

This is not ambiguous language. Torah places the stranger inside the Sabbath command. It does not say the stranger may not rest. It says the stranger must rest.

Many people misunderstand what this means. They imagine that because Sabbath is a sign “between Yehovah and Israel,” that must mean Gentiles are excluded from obedience. But that is not what the text says. The sign identifies who sanctifies Israel. It does not function as a command forbidding others from honoring Yehovah.

Exodus 31:13–17 (MKJV)
“Speak also to the sons of Israel, saying, Truly you shall keep My sabbaths. For it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, to know that I am Jehovah who sanctifies you. You shall keep the Sabbath therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone that defiles it shall surely be put to death. For whoever does any work in it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done, but on the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to Jehovah. Whoever does any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Therefore the sons of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant. It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever. For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.”

This passage tells Israel that the Sabbath is a sign of Yehovah’s sanctifying relationship with them. It does not say the stranger is forbidden to honor the Sabbath. In fact, Exodus 20 already stated the stranger is included in the command to rest.

4. The Prophets Invite the Foreigner into Covenant Obedience

The prophets go even further than Torah’s legal statements. They describe foreigners joining themselves to Yehovah, loving His name, and keeping Sabbath as an act of covenant faithfulness. Isaiah is explicit.

Isaiah 56:6–8 (MKJV)
“Also the sons of the stranger who join themselves to Jehovah, to serve Him, and to love the name of Jehovah, to be His servants, everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath and takes hold of My covenant—even them I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted on My altar; for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all people. The Lord Jehovah who gathers the outcasts of Israel says, Yet I will gather others to him besides those gathered to him.”

This passage does not describe Gentiles being forbidden from Sabbath. It describes Gentiles being blessed for Sabbath faithfulness. It does not describe Gentiles being told to remain outside covenant obedience. It describes Gentiles taking hold of Yehovah’s covenant and being welcomed.

If rabbinic authority forbids what Isaiah praises, then the authority claim collapses at the level of Scripture.

5. Acts 15 Does Not Impose a Noahide Ceiling

Some will argue that Acts 15 proves Gentiles were given only a small list of requirements, and therefore Gentiles should remain within that list. But Acts 15 does not teach that the four requirements are the full extent of Gentile obedience. The council’s ruling addressed immediate fellowship problems between new Gentile believers and Jewish communities. It removed unnecessary obstacles so Gentiles could begin walking with the God of Israel.

Then Acts 15 gives the reason Gentiles would continue to learn.

Acts 15:21 (MKJV)
“For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those proclaiming him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.”

The logic is plain. Gentiles were not being placed under a permanent Noahide ceiling. They were being brought in with essential starting boundaries, and then they would hear Moses read every Sabbath. Acts assumes ongoing Torah teaching, not Torah restriction.

6. The Irreconcilable Conflict

This produces a conflict that cannot be solved by wordplay.

Rabbinic authority says, in its classical sources and later codifications, that Gentiles must not keep the Sabbath or establish festivals as covenantal obedience beyond Noahide laws.

Torah says the stranger within the gates rests on Sabbath.

The prophets say foreigners who join themselves to Yehovah keep Sabbath and are welcomed.

The apostles assume Gentiles will hear Moses read every Sabbath.

These cannot all be true under one authority system. If someone claims, “We must submit to rabbinic authority,” then they must accept conclusions that contradict Torah and the prophets. If someone submits to Torah and Messiah, then they must reject any authority that forbids what Yehovah invites.

Conclusion of Section 2

Section 2 exposes the real cost of the authority claim. If “submit to rabbinic authority” is treated as binding, it does not end at the calendar. It extends into defining what Gentiles are permitted to obey. Classical rabbinic rulings restrict Gentiles to Noahide laws and often treat Sabbath and festival observance as forbidden. Torah itself commands Sabbath rest for the stranger. The prophets bless foreigners who keep Sabbath. Acts assumes Gentiles will continue learning Moses.

Therefore, the claim that believers must yield to rabbinic authority as a governing authority over Torah obedience cannot stand as a blanket principle. Wherever rabbinic rulings forbid what Torah commands or praises, Torah must remain the final authority. That is not rebellion. That is fidelity to Scripture.

The Two Witnesses and the Restoration of All Things

Section 3 — The Two Witnesses and the Restoration of All Things

Why Rabbinic Stasis Contradicts Scripture

Section 1,You Must Submit to Rabbinic Authority, established that Deuteronomy 17 cannot be used as a perpetual override of Torah and that the fixed calendar itself has never been static or final. Section 2 exposed the unavoidable consequences of submitting to rabbinic authority in defining obedience, particularly for Gentiles. Section 3 now addresses one of the most common objections raised in response to these conclusions: “Even if the calendar is flawed, nothing can change until Messiah returns.”

That argument sounds pious, but it is not biblical. Scripture does not teach passive waiting while known deviations continue. Scripture teaches that restoration precedes the Messianic reign, not follows it. And that teaching comes directly from Yeshua Himself.

1. Yeshua Explicitly Declared Restoration Before His Reign

Yeshua was asked directly about Elijah and the end times. His response leaves no room for the idea that everything remains fixed and untouched until Messiah rules openly.

Matthew 17:11 (MKJV)
“And Jesus answered and said to them, Elijah truly shall come first and restore all things.”

This statement is decisive. Yeshua did not say Elijah would preserve existing religious systems. He did not say Elijah would protect inherited traditions. He said Elijah would restore all things. The Greek word translated “restore” means to return something to its original state. Restoration is only necessary when something has been lost, altered, or corrupted.

If nothing had been lost, nothing would need restoring. Therefore, any claim that the current religious system is complete, correct, and unchangeable is already contradicted by Yeshua’s own words.

2. Elijah’s Role Was Never Institutional or Passive

Elijah’s prophetic role has always been confrontational, not institutional. His mission was never to submit to corrupted authority structures or to preserve consensus for the sake of unity. His mission was to restore covenant faithfulness when leadership had gone astray.

Malachi describes Elijah’s return in unmistakable terms:

Malachi 4:5–6 (MKJV)
“Behold, I am sending you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of Jehovah. And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the sons, and the heart of the sons to their fathers, lest I come and strike the earth with utter destruction.”

Elijah’s historical ministry confirms this pattern. He confronted corrupt priests. He challenged state-sponsored religion. He exposed false worship. He restored true obedience in direct opposition to the religious majority. To claim that Elijah returns to preserve rabbinic tradition or to freeze existing systems in place reverses both his historical mission and his prophetic purpose.

3. The Two Witnesses Operate in Moses–Elijah Authority

Revelation 11 identifies the same restoration authority operating again at the end of the age. The two witnesses are not symbolic reformers working inside an approved religious structure. They are covenant enforcers empowered directly by Yehovah.

Revelation 11:3–6 (MKJV)
“And I will give power to My two witnesses, and they shall prophesy one thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth. These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands standing before the God of the earth. And if anyone desires to hurt them, fire proceeds out of their mouth and devours their enemies. And if anyone desires to hurt them, he must be killed in this manner. These have authority to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy. And they have authority over waters to turn them to blood, and to strike the earth with all plagues, as often as they desire.”

The imagery is unmistakable. No rain corresponds to Elijah. Water turned to blood corresponds to Moses. These witnesses do not come to affirm compromised systems. They come to enforce covenant obedience in the face of widespread deviation. And they do this before the Day of Yehovah, not after it.

4. What “All Things” Must Include

When Yeshua said Elijah would restore all things, that restoration cannot be limited to internal attitudes or social reconciliation alone. Scripture consistently treats covenant structures as part of what was lost or corrupted after the destruction of the Temple and the dispersion of Israel.

Restoration necessarily includes the calendar, because the calendar governs the appointed times. It includes the appointed times themselves, because they reveal Yehovah’s redemptive plan. It includes Sabbatical and Jubilee cycles that were abandoned after exile. It includes the Name of Yehovah, which was replaced by substitutes. And it includes Torah obedience freed from tradition-based overrides.

A calendar that ignores the moon and the barley cannot be part of restoration, because it represents a departure from the original design established in creation and Torah. Restoration, by definition, returns to what Yehovah appointed, not to what later systems replaced.

5. Daniel’s Warning About Changing Times and Laws

Daniel was shown a vision of a power that would oppose Yehovah’s authority not only through persecution but also through alteration of covenant structure.

Daniel 7:25 (MKJV)
“And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws.”

The word translated “times” refers directly to appointed times—the moedim. Changing how the times are determined is functionally the same as changing the times themselves. This warning does not depend on malicious intent. Even well-intentioned changes can fulfill prophetic patterns if they alter what Yehovah established.

Scripture treats calendar alteration as prophetically serious because time governs worship, obedience, and prophetic fulfillment.

6. Isaiah Describes Restored, Universal Worship

Isaiah describes the outcome of restoration, and the language is precise.

Isaiah 66:23 (MKJV)
“And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, all flesh shall come to worship before Me, says Jehovah.”

This passage confirms several things at once. New moons are observed. Sabbaths are observed. And all flesh participates. This is not a rabbinically restricted system. It is creation-based worship restored for all who come before Yehovah.

7. Peter Confirms the Timing of Restoration

The apostles confirm that restoration is not postponed until after Messiah’s return. It is part of the prophetic process leading up to it.

Acts 3:21 (MKJV)
“Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.”

Restoration is prophesied. Restoration is progressive. And restoration is already in motion before Messiah’s public reign. Waiting passively while preserving known deviations contradicts apostolic teaching.

8. Why the World Hates Restoration

Revelation explains why the world rejoices when the witnesses are killed. Restoration exposes false authority. It removes centralized control. It forces accountability. And it returns obedience directly to Yehovah. Systems built on delegated authority rather than covenant obedience always resist restoration.

Conclusion of Section 3

Scripture does not teach stasis in the face of known deviation. It teaches restoration. Yeshua Himself declared that Elijah would restore all things. Daniel warned about changing times. Isaiah described restored new moons and Sabbaths for all flesh. Peter confirmed that restoration precedes Messiah’s public reign.

Therefore, any system that resists restoration, forbids correction, or insists that obedience must wait for institutional approval is already standing on the wrong side of prophecy. Restoration is not rebellion. It is obedience returning to its source.

Rabbinic Rejection of Yeshua

Section 4 — Rabbinic Rejection of Yeshua

The Final Question of Authority

Sections 1–3 established three critical truths. First, Deuteronomy 17 cannot be used as a timeless override of Torah or creation’s signs. Second, submitting to rabbinic authority carries consequences that directly contradict Torah, especially for Gentile obedience. Third, Scripture teaches restoration before Messiah’s reign, not institutional stasis.

Section 4 now brings the discussion to its unavoidable climax. Once authority is examined honestly, one final question must be faced: What does full submission to rabbinic authority require a believer to do with Yeshua Himself?

This is not a theoretical question. It is not a secondary issue. It is the dividing line.

1. Rabbinic Authority Explicitly Rejects Yeshua

Rabbinic authority does not merely disagree with Yeshua’s claims. It does not treat Him as a mistaken teacher or an unresolved question. The foundational texts of rabbinic Judaism record explicit judgments against Him.

The Babylonian Talmud preserves these judgments in multiple places:

In Sanhedrin 43a, Yeshua is accused of practicing sorcery and leading Israel into apostasy, and His execution is presented as justified.

In Sanhedrin 107b, He is portrayed as having gone astray and misleading others.

In Gittin 57a, Yeshua is described as being punished in the afterlife in a humiliating and condemnatory manner.

These passages are not marginal glosses or isolated polemics. They are part of the preserved rabbinic record and are treated as authoritative within rabbinic tradition. This is not an accusation; it is a documented reality.

Therefore, the claim “we must submit to rabbinic authority” cannot be limited to calendar mechanics. Authority is holistic. If rabbinic authority is binding, then its judgments concerning Yeshua must also be accepted.

2. This Rejection Began During Yeshua’s Ministry

Some attempt to avoid this conclusion by arguing that hostility toward Yeshua belongs only to “later rabbinic Judaism.” Scripture does not support that claim. The rejection of Yeshua began during His earthly ministry and continued after His resurrection.

The Pharisees accused Him of sorcery while He was alive:

Matthew 12:24 (MKJV)
“But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons.”

The Sanhedrin condemned Him as a blasphemer and declared Him worthy of death:

Matthew 26:65–66 (MKJV)
“Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, now you have heard His blasphemy. What do you think? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.”

After His resurrection, belief in Yeshua resulted in expulsion from synagogues:

John 9:22 (MKJV)
“For the Jews had already agreed that if anyone confessed that He was Christ, he would be put out of the synagogue.”

The Talmud does not invent hostility toward Yeshua centuries later. It records and preserves the same opposition that Scripture already documents in the first century.

3. Deuteronomy 13 Turned Back on Tradition

Rabbinic authorities frequently appeal to Deuteronomy 13 to argue that Yeshua must be rejected as a false prophet. But Deuteronomy 13 does not condemn Yeshua when applied honestly.

Deuteronomy 13 condemns teachers who lead people away from Yehovah and away from obedience to His commandments. Yeshua did the opposite. He upheld Torah. He kept the commandments. He restored their intent. And He rebuked traditions that nullified the Word of God.

By contrast, rabbinic rulings forbid Gentiles from keeping the Sabbath, replace Yehovah’s calendar signs with human calculation, add prohibitions not found in Torah, and elevate tradition above commandment.

When Deuteronomy 13 is applied consistently, it condemns tradition that overturns Torah, not Messiah who fulfills it.

4. Yeshua Defined the True Authority Line

Yeshua addressed the authority question directly, and His words are decisive.

John 5:46–47 (MKJV)
“For if you had believed Moses, you would have believed Me; for he wrote of Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how shall you believe My words?”

This establishes the true authority structure. Moses points to Messiah. Belief in Moses leads to belief in Yeshua. Rejection of Yeshua reveals a misuse of Moses, not faithfulness to him. Tradition becomes a barrier rather than a guide.

5. Messiah Is the Goal of Torah

The apostle Paul confirms the same hierarchy.

Romans 10:4 (MKJV)
“For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.”

The word translated “end” means goal or culmination. Torah leads to Messiah. Torah does not lead to sages, councils, or traditions as final authority. Any authority system that requires denial of Messiah has already disqualified itself.

6. The Inescapable Choice

At this point, neutrality is impossible.

Full submission to rabbinic authority requires accepting the rejection of Yeshua, the prohibition of Gentile Sabbath obedience, the replacement of Yehovah’s calendar signs, and the elevation of tradition over Torah.

Submission to Yehovah and His Messiah requires rejecting any authority that nullifies commandments or demands denial of Messiah.

Yeshua Himself warned about this conflict:

Matthew 15:3–9 (MKJV)
“Why do you also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? … Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, This people draws near to Me with their mouth and honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. But in vain they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”

Conclusion of Section 4

This issue is no longer academic. It is not merely calendrical. It is about authority. Any authority that condemns Yeshua, forbids what Torah commands, and replaces Yehovah’s signs with human systems cannot claim covenant legitimacy. The question that remains is not complicated, but it is decisive:

Do we submit authority to rabbis, or do we submit authority to Yehovah and His Messiah and obey the Torah as written?

What Everyone Is Missing

Section 5 — What Is Missed Without Torah, and What Is Missed Without the Barley

How the Appointed Times Reveal Yehshua

Sections 1–4 addressed authority, history, prophecy, and the unavoidable collision between rabbinic authority and Messiah. This final section turns the focus to what is actually lost when Torah is dismissed by Christianity on the one hand, and when the barley is ignored by followers of the fixed Hillel calendar on the other.

The tragedy is that both sides miss Yehshua, but in different ways.

Christians who abandon Torah miss how the appointed times reveal Messiah’s work in precise detail.
Hillel followers who abandon the barley miss how the resurrection, firstfruits, and prophetic timing are embedded in Torah’s agricultural reality.

This section shows why neither Torah nor the barley can be optional without obscuring the gospel itself.

1. If Torah Is Removed, Yehshua Becomes Unknowable

Yehshua did not present Himself as a figure detached from the Hebrew Scriptures. He explicitly stated that the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings testify of Him.

Luke 24:44–45 (MKJV)
“And He said to them, These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and in the Prophets and in the Psalms about Me. And He opened their mind to understand the Scriptures.”

Yehshua does not say, “The Scriptures are optional now.” He says understanding Him requires understanding them.

John 5:46–47 (MKJV)
“For if you had believed Moses, you would have believed Me; for he wrote of Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how shall you believe My words?”

This is devastating to any theology that claims the Old Testament is irrelevant. If Moses is not believed, Yehshua cannot be rightly known. If Torah is discarded, Messiah is reduced to abstraction.

Yehshua Himself confirms this principle again in one of His most sobering parables.

Luke 16:29–31 (MKJV)
“Abraham said to him, They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them. And he said, No, father Abraham, but if one went to them from the dead, they would repent. And he said to him, If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded, even though one rose from the dead.”

The message is unmistakable: resurrection alone does not persuade those who reject Moses and the Prophets. Without Torah, Yehshua remains misunderstood—even risen.

2. If the Barley Is Removed, the Resurrection Pattern Is Lost

While Christians often remove Torah entirely, followers of the Hillel calendar keep parts of Torah but remove the barley. And by doing so, they miss something just as critical: the timing and meaning of the resurrection.

The Torah requires that before any harvest may begin, the wave sheaf of barley firstfruits must be offered.

Leviticus 23:9–14 (MKJV)
“And Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying, Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, When you come into the land which I give to you, and shall reap its harvest, then you shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest to the priest. And he shall wave the sheaf before Jehovah to be accepted for you. On the next day after the sabbath the priest shall wave it. And you shall offer that day a male lamb without blemish, a year old, for a burnt offering to Jehovah… And you shall eat neither bread nor parched grain nor green ears until the same day that you have brought an offering to your God. It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.”

No barley. No firstfruits.
No firstfruits. No lawful harvest.

This ceremony is not symbolic filler. It is a prophetic blueprint.

3. Matthew 27 Reveals the Barley Resurrection Pattern

Matthew records something extraordinary at the moment of Yehshua’s death—something that only makes sense when understood through the barley firstfruits.

Matthew 27:50–53 (MKJV)
“And crying again with a loud voice, Jesus released His spirit. And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from the top to the bottom. And the earth quaked, and the rocks were split. And the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep arose, and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.”

This is not random. This is barley language.

Barley is the first crop to ripen. It is struck early. It is waved first. It represents the first resurrection harvest.

Paul makes this explicit.

1 Corinthians 15:20–23 (MKJV)
“But now Christ has risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruit of those who slept. For since death came by man, the resurrection of the dead came also by man. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruit, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.”

Yehshua is not just a resurrection. He is the firstfruits resurrection. And firstfruits are barley.

4. Why Mary Could Not Touch Yehshua

John’s gospel includes a detail that makes no sense without the wave sheaf.

John 20:15–17 (MKJV)
“Jesus said to her, Woman, why do you weep? Whom do you seek? Supposing Him to be the gardener, she said to Him, Sir, if You have carried Him away from here, tell me where You have laid Him, and I will take Him away. Jesus said to her, Mary! She turned herself and said to Him, Rabboni! (which is to say, Master!) Jesus said to her, Do not touch Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father. But go to My brothers and say to them, I ascend to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.”

Why could Mary not touch Him?

Because the firstfruits could not be touched before being waved before Yehshua.

The barley sheaf was cut after the Sabbath, stood overnight, prepared, and then waved before Yehshua at the altar in the morning. Only after that offering could the harvest proceed.

Yehshua fulfilled this pattern exactly.

5. The Mishnah and the Temple Institute Confirm the Barley Process

The Mishnah records the wave sheaf ceremony in detail (Menachot), describing how the barley was cut after sunset, prepared overnight, roasted, ground, mixed with oil and frankincense, sifted, and waved before Yehshua in the morning.

Maimonides later codified these same procedures in the Mishneh Torah in the twelfth century.

The modern Temple Institute teaches the same process today.

Yet here is the irony: those who follow the Hillel calendar do not practice or even account for the barley, even though their own rabbinic sources preserve its central role.

Christians miss it because they discard Torah.
Hillel followers miss it because they discard observation.

Both lose the prophetic clarity of the resurrection.

6. What This Reveals About the Timing Ahead

The barley firstfruits reveal not only the resurrection of Messiah, but the order of resurrection. There is a firstfruits harvest, followed by a greater harvest later. This is why Paul says, “each one in his own order.”

Those who ignore Torah miss the pattern entirely.
Those who ignore the barley miss the timing.

This is why the appointed times matter. This is why the calendar matters. This is why authority matters.

Closing Summary 

This issue has never been about calendars alone; it is about authority. Scripture anchors the appointed times to Yehshua’s signs in creation—the moon and the barley—not to inherited systems that override them. Deuteronomy 17 does not authorize tradition to replace Torah, nor does it function without the Temple it requires. Rabbinic rulings that forbid Gentiles from Sabbath obedience and condemn Yehshua stand in direct conflict with both Torah and Messiah. Yehshua Himself declared that Elijah would restore all things, and restoration assumes deviation, not perfection. A calendar that ignores the signs Yehshua appointed cannot be part of that restoration. In the end, every believer must choose where authority truly rests: in traditions that have changed times and laws, or in Yehshua and His Messiah, who call all who join themselves to Him to obey the Torah as written.