JW Insider

(2 Corinthians 10:9, 10) 9 For I do not want to seem as though I were trying to terrify you by my letters. 10 For they say: “His letters are weighty and forceful, but his presence in person is weak and his speech contemptible.” I understand that Don Adams saw the correspondence between Brother Rutherford and authorities and among colleagues for the first time when the Proclaimer's book was being prepared. He had hoped to have a large section on how strong and uncompromising Brother Rutherford had been in 1917 and 1918. Instead he had to scrap the idea because the correspondence and evidence showed that he was practically begging the authorities, and ready to make any possible compromise to stay out of jail. These two sides to Brother Rutherford, must have reminded Brother Adams of what Paul said about such a difference in 2 Cor 10:9,10 quoted above.

It's a very good question. I'll try to give the longest answer I can think of. The simplest answer is that they watched the phases of the moon. We don't watch the moon all that closely these days, but it made for a very good calendar because every full moon to the next full moon was 29.5 days apart. So if you just started the month when the moon was "empty" and waited for that first tiny sliver of moon after that, you would call that the new month, or new moon. That was the first day of the month, and they knew that the month was going to have either 29 or 30 days, and they would typically have to alternate it, because the actual length was 29.5. So if the previous month was given 29 days, then the next month would have 30, and vice versa. The full moon happens 14.75 days after the "empty" new moon (which is half of 29.5). So, on average the 15th day of the month was a full moon. Passover was designated for the 14th or 15th of the month called Nisan, the first month of "springtime." So the simplest answer is that they waited for the first full moon after the new moon (new month) called Nisan. And I'm sure you know it gets a little more complicated than that. Here's why: A LITTLE PROBLEM They didn't actually start the new month exactly when the moon became "empty" but started it when they saw that first sliver. Well, sometimes you can't always see that first sliver on the first day, even when it's there. That's because the moon might still look completely "empty" around sunset, andbut it's hard to see, it's a difficult time to look for that first sliver, due to the typical position of the moon around sunset when there is still a lot of brightness from the sun outshining that tiny sliver. That's not too serious, however, because that sliver will definitely be there on the very next day, and if the previous month had the maximum number of days, 30, then you don't even have to look to know it's going to be there. Over time, you just learn that you can alternate the days of all twelve months 30,29,30,29,30,29,30,29,30,29,30,29 and you will be almost perfect so that every new year starts out with a 30 day month (Nisan) and ends with a 29 day month (Adar). Depending on exactly when you started counting that "new moon" sliver, you could be 24 to 36 hours past the astronomical new moon, and therefore could see a full moon anywhere from 13 to 14 days after the sliver is seen, or 14 to 15 days after the potential earliest calling of the first day of the month where a new moon was assumed. In any case, if you were off by a day one month, you'd be forced to be back on track the next month, by rotating the 29 or 30 day months, or by physically sighting the new moon phase. A BIGGER PROBLEM So the lunar calendar is hardly ever more than one day off just by keeping it in sync with the phases of the moon. But if you multiply 29.5 average days times 12 months you only get 354 days, and we know that a solar year is 365.25 days. 12 lunar months was 10+ days shy of a solar year. And the seasons will only work from a solar calendar, not a lunar calendar. And they planted by the seasons, so by the time the last winter month of Adar came around, they would see some good winter rains, moisture in the air, even some extra water in the streams fed from the higher grounds and mountainous regions to the north. So they would have already planted when the temperature and moisture conditions were best, and they almost always reap a barley harvest by the middle of the first spring month of Nisan. People in Biblical times planted by a solar calendar. If they didn't, they would start planting 10 days earlier every year, and pretty soon their crops would not get enough moisture and do terribly. By the time three years rolled around they would be an entire 30+ days (an extra month) early, and the crops would not grow correctly. In 6 years, they would be about two lunar months behind. Make no mistake, they would notice the difference in the efficiency of the crops right away: (Exodus 9:31, 32) 31 Now the flax and the barley had been struck down, because the barley was in the ear and the flax had flower buds. 32 But the wheat and the spelt had not been struck down, because they were later crops. (Ruth 1:22) . . .They came to Bethʹle·hem at the beginning of the barley harvest. (Ruth 2:23) 23 So she stayed close to the young women of Boʹaz and gleaned until the barley harvest and the wheat harvest came to an end. And she kept dwelling with her mother-in-law. At the time it was written, a Jewish person could read Ruth 1:22 through 2:23 and know almost exactly how long Ruth stayed in Bethlehem. THE SOLUTION They could come up with a system that added one extra lunar month, a thirteenth month (a "leap" month) every three years. But it turns out that even this wasn't perfect, and over time they would notice. It was really over 11 days off every year or more than 34 days and adding a 29 or 30 day month, would still leave them 4 or 5 days off every three years. Those days would add up, it wouldn't be bad after adding 1 month in 3 years, or even 2 months in 6, but by the time they had added 6 months in 18 years, they'd be nearly a month off again. The solution which works out almost perfectly turns out to be adding, an extra month again. So it's not 6 lunar months every 18 years, but 7 every 19. 7 every 19 is almost perfect. 19 years of 365.25 days is 6,939.75 days. 19 years of 354 days + 7 more months of 29.5 days is 6,932.5 days. That was rounding off, it turns out that a "lunation" is not exactly 29.5 days, but about 44+ minutes longer than 29.5 days, or three-fourths of an hour longer, each month. (And, of course, a solar year is not exactly 365.25, either, it's 365.2422.) All considered, it turns out that this extra 3/4 of an hour every month, aligns the 7 extra lunar months even much closer to a perfect 19 solar years. WHEN DID THEY ADD THE EXTRA MONTHS? Without a perfect calculator, the 7 additional months every 19 years, would have to be learned over time. 1 month every three years would have been simple, and thus 6 months every 18 would have resulted. It would have been better to throw that 7th extra month somewhere in the middle of the range of 18 or 19 years to keep the average number of days as close to the solar calendar as they could. Also, they wouldn't want to throw in the extra month back to back with a year that just had a leap month because that would obviously just put them an extra number of days off, when the differences could be smoothed out by spacing that 7th month into the mix by moving a couple of the previous 3 year intervals to 2 year intervals (for the leap month). A specific pattern would invariably develop over time. In truth, however, we don't have the records of exactly in which years the Hebrew calendar added the extra months. But we do know that, by necessity, all lunar calendars added an extra month, on average, exactly 7 times every 19 years. We have evidence from stone tablets of the nations around them to know that they were doing the same thing, and we can get a better idea of the practice of how they smoothed out those 7 extra months as evenly as possible over the 19 year cycles. It turns out, that there is a very likely explanation for how it was done in those other nations who kept a larger number of dated chronicles. (Or at least where a larger number have survived.) Even without precision astronomical instruments, it turns out to be pretty easy to figure out the exact solstices of the solar year. From this information, and in other ways too, you can also figure out, very nearly, the exact equinoxes, too. In Israel, as with almost anywhere on earth (within a wide range of latitudes), you can just watch where the sun comes up relative to your eastern-facing windows of your house, or the place where it's shadow is cast from that window to a wall on the other side. Let's say a person in the days before artificial light was easy, performed a certain chore and need maximum sun in the morning, or wanted to keep the first rays of morning sun out of their eyes, or wanted a potted plant to get maximum light all year, or wanted a certain glass ornament to shine from the morning sunlight as many days of the year as possible. All of these circumstances, would have resulted in movements of objects, chairs, tables, beds, curtains, etc. Every year those movements would follow the same patterns, and the farthest points of those necessary movements to maximize (or minimize) sunlight resulted in the marking of the solstices, and the midpoints were often the equinoxes. The northernmost or southernmost positions of the sun on the horizon, also exactly marked the solar-calculated seasons every year. How accurate could those markings be? We can get a hint by reading the book of Enoch. Many copies of the book survive, and it was written as early as 300 B.C. Writers projected astronomical knowledge onto Enoch because of the coincidence that he lived for 365 years. The same number of days in a solar year. The book of Enoch proposes a calendar that starts out at the idealized 360 days but with an extra day added to one month every quarter, or season, for a total of 364 days a year. Because this was with full knowledge of the need for "leap" days, we can also be sure that "Enoch" understood the need for an adjustment of an extra day or so every couple of years, in addition. Here's a quote: "The moon brings on all the years exactly, that their stations may come neither too forwards nor too backwards a single day; but that the years may be changed with correct precision in 364 days. In three years the days are 1,092; . . . To the moon alone belong in three years 1,062 days . . . So that the moon has thirty days less than the sun and stars. . . . The year then becomes truly complete according to the station of the moons and the station of the sun . . ." (Enoch 74:11-17 {73:13-14, 12, 16}) Enoch 74:2-6 And these serve four days, which are not calculated in the calculation of the year. 3 Respecting them, men greatly err, for these luminaries truly serve, in the dwelling place of the world, one day in the first gate, one in the third gate, one in the fourth gate, and one in the sixth gate. And the harmony of the world becomes complete every three hundred and sixty-fourth state of it. For the signs, The seasons, The years, Whenever a "leap" day is needed, it is merely not counted in the calculation of the year. This way he keeps his idealized 360 and just keeps adding the leap day every season as needed, to keep the sun's seasons aligned. The main purpose was evidently to keep the "week" more inviolable. His method had the advantage of having exactly 52 weeks in a year, and then probably only needing a "leap" week now and then instead of a leap month.

@Γιαννης Διαμαντιδης, I do not know any specifics of your particular situation or the situation in your congregation. No matter what the case, Jehovah knows your heart, and no humans or organization actually holds the final word of judgment. What I can say is that I'm aware of why there was a time when we once announced the reasons for disfellowshipping or disassociation. Then it turned into "conduct unbecoming a Christian" or "so-and-so no longer wishes to be associated . . . " often with a related talk given within a week or so, designed to remind the congregation of the need to remain morally clean, and the specific worldly or immoral elements the congregation had shown vulnerability to were usually emphasized. It should be obvious why this has changed. We do not wish to embarrass the person over a specific wrong or reason that they may later wish the congregation had no specific knowledge about. Most persons disfellowshipped are somewhere in a process of repentance. The elders do not believe the process is ever perfect, but they especially do not want to create a situation where a person might regret having everyone else know what weaknesses they overcame. There are issues of fairness and justice to consider when a congregation may know all about one party in a wrongdoing but nothing about a second party to the same wrongdoing. I don't think I need to spell out all the ways that one person may be hurt more deeply due to the unfairness of allowing a different level of information for two different persons where the wrongdoing may have been equal. The other side of that coin, is the case where two persons were involved in the same wrongdoing, but one person was much guiltier than the other, yet the announcement sounds pretty much the same for both. The best solution has appeared to be the minimization of all announcements, allowing persons to keep more privacy and dignity. Perhaps in your case, you wish to "give a witness" about why you are choosing to disassociate. Because you have been a Witness, your motivation is understandable, but you are asking for an opportunity to explain yourself in ways that might be considered detrimental to the spiritual well-being of the congregation. The elders are there to take care of the spiritual interests of the whole congregation. Most persons do not join a Christian congregation to get a sermon from someone who disagrees with the teachings that they joined to hear more about. You don't go to a meeting to have your belief system torn down, but to be built up. If you feel you have important points to make, why not write a book, or write to elders, or branch personnel, or go on the Internet, so that the congregation in general will have a choice as to what kind of information they risk exposing themselves to.

I should add that I first heard the above theory about the Sirhan connection from my Bethel "table head." I remember the Pasadena assembly very well myself even though I was fairly young. The theory is only about why the story gained traction around Pasadena, even after it was supposedly debunked. This was our "territory" in service and my parents tell me that it came up now and then. This is not where the story started, however. The Watch Tower's letter is correct that the initial reports came out of Israel/Jordan (and only about Sirhan Sirhan's father). But the sources might have been ignored if local Pasadena & LA stations hadn't played it up. Even if his father was one of the many Greek Orthodox Arabs in the area, the story might have come from neighbors who misunderstood a religious sign he had painted at his home that had the name "Jehovah Most High" in it, or something like that.

I looked at several of your posts and some of them appear to take outdated issues, or overblown issues, and treat them as if they are currently having a direct effect on people. I think Melinda Mills pointed out that you were making an issue out of a prior incorrect view on the exact definition of porneia. But this issue would usually only have been of a practical concern for a few months before the wrong idea was corrected. (Edited to add: the issue arising from an improper understanding had been there for many years, but I'm told that it was rarely invoked, and a big issue was only being made out this for a few months, and that it was the very raising of the issue that also helped raise concerns about changing the practice.) Similar issue with being disfellowshipped over transplanted organs. I had specifically asked a person who would have known about all the decisions about disfellowshipping over that issue, and he told me it only happened a couple of times. (There is a tendency to be lenient when a person is suffering and might die from a rejection anyway. Also there was a strong belief in those days that even if a blood transfusion was not necessary for an organ transplant, that you had to agree to the possibility of accepting one, which is still a serious offense.) At any rate, what is the rush to disassociate? Can you not find love in the brotherhood? Do you personally have to think of humans as your "mediators"? I believe there is room for a lot more diversity of thought, as long as you can keep a clean conscience, and avoid causing divisions by insisting on a view that others find unacceptable. Over time, many of the views that opposers have held, have finally been accepted. We are not here strictly for a set of doctrines, we are here to find opportunities to love and care for our friends, relatives, family, and extend that same love to those related to us in the faith (our spiritual brothers and sisters).

When it was announced that the Sirhans had been sponsored by the Nazarene Church of Pasadena, we were probably confused with the Nazarene Church, because JW's were the largest "church" in Pasadena in the view of many. It's because of the famous 1963 International Convention held at the Rose Bowl. (We held other assemblies there in those years but this was by far the biggest.) For California, this was about as huge as the 1950 and 1958 New York City international conventions. I lived next to Pasadena at the time, and we attended that convention. The news all around Los Angeles gave it a lot of attention. My father claims that a sister died of heat stroke there, and a couple of newspaper reporters covered the continuous stream of stretchers that brought suffering people into the first aid office. (8 day assembly with no shade in 100 degree heat.) My brother fell into one of those famous rose bush hedges planted there and had to wait for first aid with a shirt covered in blood. The first aid office was just completely overwhelmed, and my brother had what he called "tiger claw scars" whenever someone asked in later years. (Don't know if anyone made a subliminal connection, but our largest Pasadena meeting was the same year that RFK's brother was assassinated). I found something else quite interesting in the linked materials from the Bethel headquarters (branch). It's also found elsewhere, but this is one of the clearest statements that we had considered the "governing body" to be the equivalent of "The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania." It says: "This is bringing letters to . . . branch offices of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (governing body for Jehovah's Witnesses) throughout the world."

Don't worry, I won't be attaching any additional controversial questions or discussions to these great versions of the daily text that you have been posting. I like what you are doing and I don't want to distract from it. I happen to enjoy discussions that can easily get bogged down in the kinds of objections we might hear from someone who has looked at our doctrines very closely, compared them with other beliefs about those same teachings, and turned them inside-out with a thorough look at all the Scriptures that might influence our beliefs -- or the way we defend those beliefs. (1 Pet 3:15). But this type of discussion might appear argumentative to some, and others actually believe it's wrong to study something too deeply because it can sometimes raise questions we won't be able to answer. Most of the time it will strengthen and reinforce our teachings. In the future, I'll make sure I don't start any of those kinds of conversations from these daily text posts.

@The Librarian Just noticed these places on the site for such discussions. The "Kingdoms" we usually distinguish are just as you listed them in the link: What are the Kingdoms that Jesus Christ Rules Over? That is: Messianic Kingdom Kingdom of Our God and of His Son Kingdom of the Son of His Love In actuality there is no expression "Messianic Kingdom" in the Bible, but it's understood, and there are several other variations of expressions about God and Christ's Kingdom(s). As you probably noticed there was a new attempt to consistently capitalize the word "Kingdom" in the NWT, 2013 Edition. I don't know if you had one of the advance PDF's of the Revised NWT 2013, prior to October 2013, but it was slightly less consistent than it is now, so I assume that the current capitalization is complete and final. I can't tell for sure if it might change again, because due to the speed at which the proofreading groups were completing their assignments, there are still dozens of minor inconsistencies that I'm sure will change on the next printing. I caught about 140 to 145 changes related to capitalization inconsistencies that I think will still be updated, but none of these is directly related to Kingdom. They are not significant, of course. One of these areas of inconsistencies might also shed some light on this question about the Kingdom. In this case, it's related to the words: "Ark," the "ark of the Testimony," the "ark of the covenant," the "Ark of Jehovah," and the "ark of Jehovah's covenant," etc., etc., etc. Look carefully at some of the times "ark" is capitalized as "Ark" (Exodus 25:10) 10 “They are to make an ark of acacia wood, two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide and a cubit and a half high. (Exodus 37:1) 37 Bezʹal·el then made the Ark of acacia wood. It was two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide and a cubit and a half high. (Exodus 25:16-22) 16 You will place in the Ark the Testimony that I will give you. . . . 21 You will put the cover on the Ark, and in the Ark you will place the Testimony that I will give you. 22 I will present myself to you there and speak with you from above the cover. From between the two cherubs that are on the ark of the Testimony, I will make known to you all that I will command you for the Israelites. (Numbers 10:33-35) 33 So they began marching from the mountain of Jehovah for a journey of three days, and the ark of Jehovah’s covenant traveled before them . . . 35 Whenever the Ark was moved. (Deuteronomy 10:2) 2 And I will write on the tablets the words that appeared on the first tablets, which you shattered, and you should place them in the ark.’ (Deuteronomy 31:26) 26 “Take this book of the Law and place it at the side of the ark of the covenant of Jehovah your God. . . (Joshua 3:11-15) 11 Look! The ark of the covenant of the Lord of the whole earth is passing ahead of you into the Jordan. . . . the priests carrying the Ark of Jehovah, the Lord of the whole earth, . . . the priests carrying the ark of the covenant went ahead of the people. 15 As soon as the carriers of the Ark reached the Jordan . . . (1 Samuel 3:3) 3 The lamp of God had not yet been extinguished, and Samuel was lying in the temple of Jehovah, where the Ark of God was. This particular "ark" (not Noah's) is found over 200 times, and capitalized about half the time. But if you search on it, you'll see a certain consistency to the patterns, with a few exceptions. But the real point is that if you go through all of them, you will find no less than 15 different phrases with the word "ark" in them where someone might wish to look for a minor distinction between their meanings. So it's clear that the choice of capitalization was fairly arbitrary and not based on something in the original Hebrew: The Ark The ark of the Testimony ark of Jehovah’s covenant the ark of the covenant of Jehovah your God The ark of the covenant of the Lord of the whole earth the Ark of Jehovah, the Lord of the whole earth the Ark of Jehovah your God the ark of Jehovah’s covenant the ark of the covenant of the true God the Ark of God the ark of the covenant of Jehovah of armies the Ark of the true God. the Ark of the God of Israel the ark of the covenant of Jehovah the God of Israel the Ark of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah Are any of these "arks" really any different from the others? There was a time when we might have expected a Gilead talk by Frederick W Franz that highlighted half-a-dozen different "ark types" and the significance of the type(s) of wood, too, just like those articles we would get on the two, then the three different "keys of the kingdom." But I think it's safe to say, we will not get such an article about all these different types of "arks" unless Noah's ark is being distinguished. So why did I belabor that point? Because, now the NWT capitalizes all but one of the various references to the Kingdom (or Kingdoms) of either Jehovah or Jesus: the Kingdom of God the Kingdom of the heavens the Kingdom the Kingdom of the Father (Mt 13:43) the Kingdom of Jesus' Father (Mt 26:29) the Kingdom of our father David (Mk 11:10) Jesus' Kingdom [my Kingdom] the Kingdom of the Christ and of God (Eph 5:5) the everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Pet 1:9) the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ (Rev 11:15) Currently there is only the following exception when referring to Christ's kingdom: the kingdom of his beloved Son (Col 1:13) There is actually another exception, too, which is apparently because it refers to the anointed spirit beings who make up that kingdom: (Revelation 1:6) 6 and he made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father. . . (Revelation 5:10) . . .and you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as kings over the earth.. . . So, the most curious of these exceptions is therefore Colossians 1:13. We have always used this particular kingdom, with its very distinctive name as a way to describe a kingdom very different from God's Kingdom, or the Messianic Kingdom. (It's Jesus' "lordship" as the head of the Christian congregation.) The distinctive name made it more believable that it was an exception to all the other Kingdoms, and this was produced through a translation choice that (awkwardly) called it: "The kingdom of the Son of his love." I was actually surprised at the NWT 2013 when it used a less distinctive title for this kingdom and changed it to simply, "The kingdom of his beloved Son." Now, it no longer has such a special, distinctive ring to it. We can now see that it was never intended as a unique way to refer to a totally different kingdom. We know that Jehovah's beloved Son is Jesus. Therefore it just means "The kingdom of Jesus" or "Jesus' kingdom." And, of course, it was only an arbitrary choice to begin capitalizing all the other uses of "Kingdom." There is no linguistic reason, just as was also true of the word "Ark." So now we have to wonder why it's "the kingdom of Jesus" in Colossians, but "the Kingdom of Jesus" in 2 Peter. It seems that the only reason for the choice is due to the belief that it's not the same kingdom. Of course, if Jesus was already King of Kings, then he was King over the congregation as well as having been given all authority over every other power and dominion and lordship, too. The verses about Jesus' kingship already listed in previous posts give evidence that there never was a reason to break up all these different Kingdoms into three or four Kingdoms, any more than there would have been a reason to break up the meanings of all those different expressions referring to the "ark of the covenant."

The perfect daily text. Excellent summary in the Watchtower, too. Probably a good one to repeat 366 times a year!

The Librarian I just noticed the new addition to your first response, beginning with the point about Melchizedek and the notes on Psalm 110, that will provide a couple more counterpoints to the initial proposition. (Now we are getting somewhere!) I'll try to flesh out what your arguments might be, based on the words you highlighted in bold text, and the events marked in the margin, and your final question. You also quoted Psalm 110 in its entirety, with some commentary, applying different verses to different points and events. Before discussing the commentary and question, below, let's point out something that is "admitted" in your opening comments above about Jesus being the high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek. The book of Hebrews discusses the point that Jesus would not have been a priest according to the Law of Moses, yet there was a precedent prior to Moses under which Jesus would qualify to bless the nation promised to Abraham, and all the nations of the earth. Melchizedek, was not just a priest, but a king and priest simultaneously. Will Jesus become such a priest who is king and priest simultaneously? Or could it be said that we already had such a priest who is king and priest simultaneoulsy? Obviously, Hebrews, written between 33 C.E. and 70 C.E. says we already have such a priest. Hebrews is our best commentary on the meaning of Psalm 110. Recall, too, that the book was written to the Hebrews, and therefore they could not hear the name Melchizedek without hearing "KING of righteousness." M-L-CH unambiguously meant "king" and Z-D-K unambiguously meant "righteousness." ("Salem" like "shalom" means "peace") I already quoted portions of the first two chapters of Hebrews which presents a powerful image of royalty, where Jesus is sitting on the throne of Majesty, with the scepter of his Kingdom. He already has angels as servants and ministers. The very words of the kingly appointment have already been stated on his behalf from Jehovah himself. In no particular order, I'll highlight some of these verses: (Hebrews 8:1) 8 Now this is the main point of what we are saying: We have such a high priest as this, and he has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, (Hebrews 7:26) 26 For it is fitting for us to have such a high priest who is loyal, innocent, undefiled, separated from the sinners, and exalted above the heavens. (Hebrews 7:14-17) 14 For it is clear that our Lord has descended from Judah [tribe of the KINGLY line], yet Moses said nothing about priests coming from that tribe. 15 And this becomes even clearer when another priest arises who is like Mel·chizʹe·dek [KING of righteousness], 16 who has become such, not by the legal requirement that depends on fleshly descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is said in witness of him: “You are a priest forever in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek [KING of righteousness].” (Hebrews 6:20-7:2) . . .Jesus, who has become a high priest in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek forever. 7 For this Mel·chizʹe·dek, king of Saʹlem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham . . . First, his name is translated “King of Righteousness,” and then also king of Saʹlem, that is, “King of Peace.” (Hebrews 5:5) 5 So, too, the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but was glorified by the One who said to him: “You are my son; today I have become your father.” [This was the "formula" for anointing kings in the Bible. see: (Psalm 2:6, 7) 6 Saying: “I myself have installed my king On Zion, my holy mountain.” 7 Let me proclaim the decree of Jehovah; He said to me: “You are my son; Today I have become your father. (Hebrews 1:8) 8 But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. Then you asked if it would be proposed that the events of vss. 1-4 happen at the same time. Yes. Absolutely. All of these events must have happened just when the Bible says they happened. Jesus was appointed at the beginning of his ministry around 29 C.E., and was made a high priest and king according to the manner of Melchizedek, when he was raised to God's right hand. "Sit at my right hand" was unquestionably when he was raised to heaven. You may have placed this closer to Pentecost, although the Watchtower usually has placed this at the time of Jesus' ascension. "Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet" has been understood as if Jesus was sitting and waiting inactively until 1914. Paul understood it differently, and the context of Hebrews and many other scriptures indicates this. Remember, of course, that a king can actually "sit" on a throne and be king, he doesn't have to "stand up" to be king. It is highly disrespectful to claim that someone who Jehovah has raised up to sit upon the throne of Majesty is not fully a king, or even to claim that he had waited inactively for 1,881 years. It is just as disrespectful to say that the time when he ended the times of the nations started only in 1914, at a time when more nations and more national groups, and more national rulers became more powerful than ever before. How does that reflect on Jesus as a "newly installed King" in 1914? How does it show respect for the same person who told us that the final judgment on the nations would come without warning, if we insert a doctrine that indiscreetly claims that there is now a specific generation of warning that started in 1914? Remember that Jesus, in this context, said not to follow anyone who says "the due time has approached," yet this is still a primary focus of our ministry. But I digress: The Biblical way to understand the expression "Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet" was already given by Paul when he says that this means that Jesus must "rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet." (1 Corinthians 15:25) That's the same as saying that Jesus must "rule as king" in the midst of his enemies until all these enemies are subdued. In other words, Jesus has been ruling in the midst of his enemies since 33 C.E., while Satan is still the "god of this system of things," while death still rules, while famine and war and pestilence have continued through the centuries, and Jesus, in effect, rides on a white horse conquering right alongside them. The evidence that this is the Biblical understanding is given in several verses that indicate that Jesus was already given all authority in heaven and on earth. So he can't really get more authority. Gaining a kingship 1,881 years later is therefore nonsensical. All things were made subject in terms of his authority. The fact that a long time period is involved is part of Jehovah's purpose to maximize the salvation offered, yet display his power and kingship for all time through his Son. All things were made subject, but from a human standpoint, we won't yet see all things in subjection until final action is taken. We see this my combining the ideas in a few different passages: (1 Cor. 15:24) Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. (1 Corinthians 15:26-28) 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing. 27 For God “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone. (Ephesians 1:20-23) 20 which he exercised toward Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name that is named, not only in this system of things but also in that to come. 22 He also subjected all things under his feet and made him head over all things with regard to the congregation, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills up all things in all. (Hebrews 2:7, 8) . . .you crowned him with glory and honor, and appointed him over the works of your hands. 8 All things you subjected under his feet.” By subjecting all things to him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Now, though, we do not yet see all things in subjection to him. (Hebrews 2:14, 15) . . .so that through his death he might bring to nothing the one having the means to cause death, that is, the Devil, 15 and that he might set free all those who were held in slavery all their lives by their fear of death. Jehovah will extend the scepter of your power out of Zion, saying: “Go subduing in the midst of your enemies.” This was marked as an event tied to 1914. As already shown, the Bible indicates that the the scepter of his power had already been extended out of Zion. That Christians have gone on conquering under the scepter of Christ's power is a theme of dozens of Scriptures: (Hebrews 1:8) ". . .and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness." (Hebrews 12:22, 23) 22 But you have approached a Mount Zion and a city of the living God, heavenly Jerusalem, and myriads of angels 23 in general assembly, and the congregation of the firstborn who have been enrolled in the heavens, and God the Judge of all, and the spiritual lives of righteous ones who have been made perfect, (1 Peter 2:6-9) 6 For it says in Scripture: “Look! I am laying in Zion a chosen stone, a precious foundation cornerstone, and no one exercising faith in it will ever be disappointed.” 7 It is to you, therefore, that he is precious, because you are believers;. . . 9 But you are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession. 3 "Your people will offer themselves willingly on the day of your military force. In splendid holiness, from the womb of the dawn, You have your company of young men just like dewdrops." This verse was tied to 1914 and the "birth of a nation" which has been tied more closely to 1919. However, the verses already quoted from 1 Peter 2, above, show that the "holy nation" already existed. Paul says the same in identifying Jerusalem "today" where that "today" was less than 20 years from 33 C.E. The idea in Matthew 28 is that Jesus is already a king with full authority who can "command" a company, a military force. And Jesus sets that time period from the time of this statement, in 33 C.E. when he was given "all authority" right up until the conclusion. (Technically this would mean only until 1914, per the Watchtower's definition of "until the synteleia," but the Watchtower makes an exception here, and considers the bulk of this work to start after the conclusion has begun.) (Galatians 4:25, 26) . . .Siʹnai, a mountain in Arabia, and she corresponds with the Jerusalem today, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. (Matthew 28:17-20) 17 When they saw him, they did obeisance, but some doubted. 18 Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.” 4 Jehovah has sworn an oath, and he will not change his mind: “You are a priest forever in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek!” You tied this to 29 B.C.E. By that, I assume that you mean Jesus baptism in 29 C.E. This appears to be Scriptural, so I have no additional response on this point. This is the "anointing" of a special kind of King and "High Priest" simultaneously. The actual words used at the baptismal anointing, were the same as the words used to anoint a King. Taking the office of King or Priest, just as with David, was not simultaneous with the appointment that designated him. During Jesus ministry it was important that his disciples, at least, began to understand both these roles: the forgiveness of sins, and the Kingdom's power. It was a glimpse of things to come. The Kingdom was already in their midst, if they had faith to see it: (Matthew 8:7-11) 7 He said to him: “When I get there, I will cure him.” 8 The army officer replied: “Sir, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but just say the word and my servant will be healed. 9 For I too am a man under authority, having soldiers under me, and I say to this one, ‘Go!’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come!’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this!’ and he does it.” 10 When Jesus heard that, he was amazed and said to those following him: “I tell you the truth, with no one in Israel have I found so great a faith. 11 But I tell you that many from east and west will come and recline at the table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of the heavens; (Matthew 3:1, 2) . . .In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Ju·deʹa, 2 saying: “Repent, for the Kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.” [And many more...] Of course, we already saw from Hebrews that we already have a king-priest like Melchizedek since 33 C.E., so we don't need to repeat all that. The rest of the verses are not part of the current question, and I see no Biblical issues with those comments.

If I were the householder with this proposal as an objection and you were the Witness, then I guess you just offered the initial line of defense. Maybe two lines of defense. COUNTERPOINT #1: I think the first line of defense is that "to secure a kingdom" implies a process. COUNTERPOINT #2: The second line of defense is in the wording of the version of the "royal procession" found in Luke 19:38 says: “Blessed is the One coming as the King in Jehovah’s name!" Response to COUNTERPOINT #1: So let's take them one at a time. Does "to secure a kingdom" imply a process? Maybe. It doesn't say. If you secure your house it might be locking the door. If you secure a title or office, and you were already someone of royal lineage, then it may be because it was now time, and you merely accepted the title offered. So yes, it may be a process. But how long does that process take? 3 days? 10 seconds? 40 days? The Watchtower says that it took 1881 years. (That's 1,881 years from 33 C.E. to 1914 C.E.) At a minimum, it was the amount of time it took from the time Jesus died, was resurrected, and possibly counted only from his ascension 40 days after his resurrection. At any rate, according to the Scriptures quoted in the first post and several others, it was when he was raised to sit at the right hand of God. Paul says "sit at the right hand of God" is the equivalent of "rule as king." This is obvious, not just from the verses quoted but from the contexts of entire paragraphs in the Scriptures: I'm thinking of the speeches in Acts 2, the discussion in Hebrews 5-8 about Melchizedek "King of Righteousness" and "King of Peace," etc. Even the opening of Hebrews offers a view of the current royal power of Jesus Christ. Let's go ahead and add that to the list of passages to overcome. A close look at the context shows that it already answers the question about when Jesus "secured" the kingdom. It's the equivalent of being "appointed heir of all things" using similar language to that which Jesus used in the parable: (Hebrews 1:2-2:14) 2 Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things. 3 He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power. And after he had made a purification for our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. 4 So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs. 5 For example, to which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father”? And again: “I will become his father, and he will become my son”? 6 But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him.” 7 Also, he says about the angels: “He makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.” 8 But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. . . . 13 But about which of the angels has he ever said: “Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet”? 14 Are they not all spirits for holy service, sent out to minister for those who are going to inherit salvation? . . . 5 For it is not to angels that he has subjected the inhabited earth to come, about which we are speaking. . . . 8 All things you subjected under his feet.” By subjecting all things to him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Now, though, we do not yet see all things in subjection to him. 9 But we do see Jesus, who was made a little lower than angels, now crowned with glory and honor for having suffered death, so that by God’s undeserved kindness he might taste death for everyone. . . . 14 Therefore, since the “young children” are sharers of blood and flesh, he also similarly shared in the same things, so that through his death he might bring to nothing the one having the means to cause death, that is, the Devil. So, even if we accept that "securing" is a process -- and we have no real Scriptural or linguistic reason to do so -- then we still have to attempt to overcome the many Scriptures that state that Jesus was already the King, king of kings, sitting on a throne of royal power, with a kingly scepter, with all things already subjected to him, where all authority had already been granted to him in heaven and on earth, where Jehovah left nothing that is not subject to him. But we have a bigger problem if we claim that when Jesus returns with royal power that this is a long period of time. In fact, the long passage that you quoted from Luke gives us the Scriptural view that Jesus returns to judge and appoint his slaves over his belongings. Even the parable of the "faithful and unfaithful slaves" in Matthew 24:45 which is actually quite similar, is no longer considered to be a viable parable about appointing the faithful slave in 1919 as the Watchtower once did. That appointment over all his belongings is still future, right? Response to COUNTERPOINT #2 It's not very useful to point out that Luke's version uses the term "as the King" instead of "as King." I assume that the argument intended to compare the phrase "as the King" instead of saying "the King" so that the word "as" implies someone who is not yet fully King. This particular scene was repeated in all four of the gospel accounts, and I'd say each one of them actually points to something that's potentially a bit future. So the term King-designate is just fine for describing the situation during the processions to Jerusalem. But pay special attention to the final one in John, where the point was made specifically that it didn't fully make sense until Jesus was glorified. Luke 19:37, 38) . . ., 38 saying: “Blessed is the one coming as the King in Jehovah’s name!. . . (Mark 11:9, 10) . . .Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name! 10 Blessed is the coming Kingdom of our father David!. . . (Matthew 21:5-9) . . .‘Look! Your king is coming to you, . . . Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name! . . . (John 12:13-16) . . .“Save, we pray you! Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name, the King of Israel!” . . . Look! Your king is coming, seated on a donkey’s colt.” 16 These things his disciples did not understand at first, but when Jesus was glorified, they recalled that these things were written about him and that they did these things to him. It should be pretty clear, even from this set of Scriptures, that Jesus actually was the King-designate, until his glorification in 33 C.E. So now we have the timing that makes sense in all of the other verses mentioned in the first post. Thanks for engaging. Good practice! (1 Peter 3:15) 15 But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect.

In the next room, I can hear that political news from CNN is on the television, and various presidential candidates are bragging about their propositions and their positions on various issues. Even though they try to sound "seasoned with salt" during these speeches, they are still trying to dig at opponents, aggrandize themselves, brag about their resumes, and spin their failures as if they were accomplishments. There is a big difference between speaking words "seasoned with salt" and those who try to get under each others' skin and then rub salt in the wounds. It's times like this when we especially love the up-building speech of our brothers and sisters, and enjoy the preview of paradise. I like the NWT cross references that show that the real context of the verse is about how we respond to others. Something to always improve in, especially in contexts such as these kinds of forums: (Colossians 4:6) 6 Let your words always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should answer each person. (1 Peter 3:15) 15 But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect. (2 Timothy 2:23-25) 23 Further, reject foolish and ignorant debates, knowing that they produce fights. 24 For a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, showing restraint when wronged, 25 instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed.. . .

Conversation started from this daily text: ------ Let me take a big risk here and propose a "debate" position for anyone who might wish to play either Devil's advocate, Watchtower's advocate or Bible's advocate. I am suggesting that the Bible disagrees with the Watchtower on this particular point. So I'll play "Bible's advocate." Any takers? Point 1: The Bible never actually says that Jesus did not immediately secure full Kingdom power when he got back to heaven. Just because a king doesn't accomplish everything he finally plans to accomplish by the end of his very first year doesn't mean that he wasn't already a king in that first year. Point 2: In fact, the Apostle Paul disagreed wholeheartedly with this idea, too. When Paul paraphrases Psalm 110 in 1 Corinthians 15:25, he doesn't say that Jesus sat down at the right hand of God waiting until he became king. Paul replaces the words of Psalm 110:1 as follows: (Psalm 110:1) “Sit at my right hand Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.” (1 Cor. 15:25) "For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet." So we know that Paul believed that "sitting at God's right hand" was the equivalent of "ruling as king." Therefore, Jesus did not wait until he secured full Kingdom power at a later date, he secured it immediately. Point 3: The rest of the Bible provides evidence that Jesus received full kingly power at the time of his resurrection, not at some future time: (Matthew 28:17, 18) 17 When they saw him, they did obeisance, but some doubted. 18 Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. (Philippians 2:9, 10) 9 For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground. . . (1 Timothy 6:14, 15) . . .our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which the happy and only Potentate will show in its own appointed times. He is the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords, (Revelation 17:14) 14 These will battle with the Lamb, but because he is Lord of lords and King of kings,. . . (Revelation 1:5) 5 and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “the firstborn from the dead,” and “the Ruler of the kings of the earth.”. . . (Colossians 1:13) 13 He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, (Colossians 1:15, 16) 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. . . . (Ephesians 1:19-22) . . .. It is according to the operation of the mightiness of his strength, 20 which he exercised toward Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name that is named, not only in this system of things but also in that to come. 22 He also subjected all things under his feet. . . (Philippians 2:8-10) . . .death on a torture stake. 9 For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— (2 Timothy 4:1) . . .I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his manifestation and his Kingdom: (Acts 17:7) . . .All these men act in opposition to the decrees of Caesar, saying there is another king, Jesus.” (Acts 7:55, 56) 55 But he, being full of holy spirit, gazed into heaven and caught sight of God’s glory and of Jesus standing at God’s right hand, 56 and he said: “Look! I see the heavens opened up and the Son of man standing at God’s right hand.”

Here is a final part ("part three") of the comments mostly taken from the site I cited in the previous post. That site isn't the most organized, but I chose it due to the way it presents an interesting parallel that so many Christian denominations have faced when they consider whether they should follow the Jewish customs that informed the Memorial or follow the traditions that won out over the next two hundred years. In fact, here is something the Watchtower mentioned when they accidentally announced an "Easter" season date instead of the "Passover" season date in the April 1913 Watchtower: MEMORIAL CELEBRATION APRIL 20th In our issue of February 1st the Memorial Celebration was noted for March 20th, after 6 P.M. This was an error. It should have been April 20th. The March date would have been right according to the Episcopalian and Catholic reckonings of the first full moon after the Spring Equinox marking the Passover. However, it has been our custom to follow the Jewish reckoning, which makes it, this year, Sunday evening, April 20th, after 6 P.M. If any thereby memorialized a month in advance they will have a good opportunity to celebrate a second time, if they choose. In an article on this same subject in the 1908 Watchtower, Smith's Bible Dictionary was quoted where it gave one of the historical reasons not to follow the Jewish reckoning: "Although the Gregorian calculations have been made with great nicety they are still imperfect, and other alterations must take place in future ages. As a proof the Council of Nice ordered that Easter should not be kept on the same day as the first day of Passover, in order that there might be no appearance of Judaism in it; 'Ne videantur Judaizare,' to prevent which they ordered its observance on the Sunday after the full moon, Passover being always kept on the day of the full moon; and yet in 1825 both were kept on the same day." Yet in this same article, Brother Russell, voted for changing it to always land on the Thursday closest to the Passover date, for similar reasons: (Watchtower, February 1908, p.37): The writer and many others would incline to celebrate the Memorial Supper annually on the Thursday night most closely corresponding to the original celebration, for several reasons. (1) That would bring the celebration into its proper relationship to Sunday, which is the remembrancer of our Lord's resurrection. (2) At that season Easter Sunday is quite generally celebrated as a special memorial of our Lord's resurrection. (3) The celebration of the Memorial Supper on the evening of what is by many styled "Holy Thursday" would of itself be a powerful lesson to many of our dear Christian friends who now think us "odd," or "followers of a Jewish custom," because, without study, which they will not give, they cannot understand our position For this reason it is curious that up until 1925 when Brother Rutherford wrote the book "Comfort for the Jews" he still believed in the Jewish restoration of Palestine, and was therefore a Zionist, although not as strongly and actively as Russell had been. Yet in 1927, the Watchtower publications first started printing anti-Semitic statements, and by 1930 Rutherford abolished the Zionists views of Russell. He replaced them officially with a series of books in 1931. Here is one of those quotes from the 2/23/1927 Golden Age:. "Be it known once and for all that those profiteering, conscienceless, selfish men who call themselves Jews, and who control the greater portion of the finances of the world and the business of the world, will never be the rulers in this new earth. God would not risk such selfish men with such an important position" p.343 - [1927] Here's one from 1932 (Vindication, Book 2): "The Jews were evicted from Palestine and ‘their house left unto them desolate’ because they rejected Christ Jesus, the beloved and anointed King of Jehovah. To this day the Jews have not repented of this wrongful act committed by their forefathers. … In 1917 the Balfour Declaration, sponsored by the heathen governments of Satan's organization, came forth, recognized the Jews, and bestowed upon them great favors. ... The Jews have received more attention at their hands than they really deserved." p.257-8 [1932] Those types of quotes became more frequent and more and more anti-Semitic through the 1930's, so I don't think it was an accident therefore that we began choosing the "Easter" season calculation over the Jewish "Passover" season calculation in 1929, and have never gone back to the Jewish "Passover" season calculation since. This makes an interesting comparison to the following points from the page I quoted from earlier. Again most of the capitalization and highlighting was on the original page although I will highlight some points in yellow and with underlining, here and there: Anti-Semitism in the Roman Empire The first non-observer of the 14th Nisan Passover, Irenaeus indicates, was actually bishop Sixtus of Rome (ca. 116-125 A.D.). But the 14th Nisan Passover was even observed in Rome by some churches prior to Pope Victor's time. Apparently it was under bishop Sotus, the successor to Anicetus, that relations became "more tense" between the advocates of Easter-Sunday versus the Jewish Quartodeciman Passover. Says Bacchiocchi of this issue: "The conflict and tension between Judaism and the Empire, which became particularly acute under Hadrian, may well have induced Bishop Sixtus to take steps to SUBSTITUTE those distinctive JEWISH FESTIVITIES AS THE PASSOVER AND THE SABBATH with new dates and theologican motivations IN ORDER TO AVOID ANY SEMBLANCE OF JUDAISM" (p.203). Rome and Alexandria, after having "eliminated the Judaizing Quartodeciinan tradition, REPUDIATED EVEN THE JEWISH COMPUTATIONS, MAKING THEIR OWN TIME CALCULATIONS, since such a dependence on the Jews must have appeared humiliating" (M. Righetti, quoted by Bacchiocchi in From Sabbath to Sunday, p.206). By the time of the Nicaean Council, in 325 A.D., during the reign of Emperor Constantine, the hatred of everything "Jewish" had reached a peak in the Roman Empire. Constantine, desiring that Christianity be completely free from any and all Jewish influence, wrote: "It appears an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul . . . Let us then have NOTHING IN COMMON with the detestable Jewish crowd. . . . All should UNITE in desiring that which sound reason appears to demand, and in AVOIDING ALL PARTICI- PATION IN THE PERJURED CONDUCT OF THE JEWS" (Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 3,18-19; NPNF 2nd, 1, pp.524-525, quoted in Bacchiocchi, p.206). This same anti-Jewish resentment and hostility is revealed in an even earlier document, dated to circa A.D. 243, where a certain Pseudo-Cyprian in De Pascha computus says: "we desire to show . . . that Christians need at no time . . . to walk in blindness and stupidity behind the Jews as though they did not know what was the day of Passover . . . " (quoted by Bacchiocchi, p.206).. . . The Nicean Council At the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325, during the reign of Emperor Constantine, the bishops of the Catholic Church decreed concerning the Passover that: "All the brethren in the East who formerly celebrated Easter WITH THE JEWS, will henceforth keep it at the SAME TIME AS THE ROMANS, with us and with all those who from ancient times have celebrated the feast at the same time with us.". . The long struggle between Passover and Easter was finally decided -- by the power of Rome -- in favor of Easter! Passover observance, by Christians, was halted, ended, by the force and power of Imperial edict and decree of the brother Church. By 364 A.D., at the Council of Laodicea, both the Passover and the Sabbath were completely abolished by the Roman state. The new state religion, a bizarre blending and amalgamation of paganism and Christianity, devoid of any remaining "Jewish" influences, became the dominant religious power in Europe for over one thousand years.

So here's a kind of "part two" on the choice of an annual Memorial. I'm not going to try to write up something completely fresh and new on this. I believe the Watchtower publications have done an excellent job researching this particular issue. I have a feeling that you would prefer to see non-Watchtower sources, so I'll pick and choose from some sources as I have found them through Internet searches. Normally, I'd try to do a more thorough job of explaining and defending. Making use of extra-Biblical quotations is a tricky business. Some give Eusebius a lot of credit, but he is evidently not credible in everything he says, and is three centuries removed. Yet, some of the early "second century" "Church Fathers" get a lot more credit than they deserve, too. Some of the later ones had more credibility in terms of scholarship and collected libraries for comparison. I tend to give more credit when two writers who are on opposite sides of an issue both admit to the same fact even where it doesn't help their argument. I can ignore their argument but accept the facts they agree on. If multiple early writers agree on something, and only later writers tend to disagree, this is important. But even here we have to be careful. So I'm not saying I agree completely with any of the non-Biblical sources I will quote. I'm only saying that they can add or subtract from supportive evidence to the proposal that the Memorial was more often done annually. Some of the practices of the early Christian congregation were the direct result of the fact that most of the first Christians were Jewish Christians, including the apostles. Also, the initial "headquarters" of the first congregation was at Jerusalem. So we can't always tell from the Bible accounts whether we are looking at a reference to a practice of Christians in general, Jewish Christians, or the Jewish nation around them. That's why it's interesting to see how matter-of-factly the Passover season was mentioned in Acts, for example, but we can't know if these festivals were expected to die out or not based on this alone: (Acts 12:1-4) 12 About that time Herod the king began mistreating some of those of the congregation. 2 He put James the brother of John to death by the sword. 3 When he saw that it was pleasing to the Jews, he also went on to arrest Peter. (This was during the days of the Unleavened Bread.) 4 He seized him and put him in prison, turning him over to four shifts of four soldiers each to guard him, intending to bring him out before the people after the Passover. (Acts 20:5-7) 5 These men went on ahead and were waiting for us in Troʹas; 6 but we put out to sea from Phi·lipʹpi after the days of the Unleavened Bread, and within five days we came to them in Troʹas, and there we spent seven days. 7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to have a meal, Paul began addressing them, as he was going to depart the next day; and he prolonged his speech until midnight. . . . 16 Paul had decided to sail past Ephʹe·sus so as not to spend any time in the province of Asia, for he was hurrying to get to Jerusalem on the day of the Festival of Pentecost if he possibly could. Compare: (1 Corinthians 16:7, 8) . . .. 8 But I am remaining in Ephʹe·sus until the Festival of Pentecost, The second example above (Acts 20:6) indicates a strong possibility that Paul himself observed the entire seven-day festival of the Passover season. But this could have been due to his Jewish background not his Christianity: (1 Corinthians 9:20, 21) 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew in order to gain Jews; to those under law I became as under law, though I myself am not under law, in order to gain those under law. 21 To those without law I became as without law,. . . So we need to move to the history of the early Christian congregations, especially after Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 C.E. to get a better sense of what the Christians thought was proper after most of the Jewish references could have been considered obsolete. If you look up QUARTODECIMAN in the Oxford English Dictionary, you find the following: A.A n. One of those early Christians who celebrated Easter on the day of the Jewish Passover (the 14th of Nisan), whether this was a Sunday or not. The practice (chiefly observed in Proconsular Asia) was condemned by the Council of Nice, a.d. 325. The word means "FOURTEENTH" in Latin, and the same dictionary (OED unabridged volumes) shows that the Latin form of the word has been carried over into more recent English discussions of the same problem discussed in A.D. 325. 1624 Darcie Birth of Heresies viii. 31 The Phrygian Montanists condemne the Quartodecumans. 1642 Hales Schism 7 Why might not it be lawful‥to celebrate Easter with the Quartodeciman. 1709 J. Johnson Clergym. Vade M. ii. p. cxv, When Austin came first to this island, the Christians he found here were Quartodecimans. 1883 P. Schaff Hist. Church II. xii. lxxxiii. 706 There is no evidence at all that the apostle John celebrated Easter with the Quarto-decimans. The very fact that there could have been such an important long-standing discussion of the issue of an annual date related to Easter/Passover tells us that the original season for "Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday" was annual. Here is one of many sites that discusses this: http://www.triumphpro.com/pas-early-church.htm I assume it's from an Adventist perspective. The problems about the date in the early congregations included whether to have Passover on Nisan 15 or Nisan 14, and whether they make sure that Easter would fall a certain number of days after Nisan 14, or if it should fall on the SUNDAY after Nisan 14. This was an issue that would have been resolved in 70 A.D. if it were purely from the Jewish-Christian perspective. Copying from the site I mentioned I will also be copying some of the emphasis and highlighting (and mistakes) from that same site, but the main points will get through: Bacchiocchi asserts: "Moreover we know from the Quartodeciman's sources (i.e. those who kept Passover on Nisan 14 according to the Jewish reckoning), which APPARENTLY REPRESENT A DIRECT CONTINUATION OF THE CUSTOM OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH, that the PASCHAL FE4ST WAS INDEED OBSERVED BY CHRISTIANS. Its celebration, however, did not take place on Sunday . . . but rather, as well stated by J. Jeremias, 'at the SAME TIME AS THE JEWISH PASSOVER, that is, on the night of the 15th of Nisan, and by the date rather than the day'" (From Sabbath to Sunday, p.81). Notice these incredible words! The Christians observed Passover at the very same night as the Jewish people -- that is, on the night of the 15th of Nisan! This is the record of scholarly research. This constitutes a powerful answer to those who attempt to observe Passover on the previous evening of the 14th of Nisan, that is, at the beginning of the 14th! Bacchiocchi adds to this statement, by J. Jeremias: "In a passage we shall later examine, Epiphanius (ca. A.D. 315-403) suggests that until A.D. 135 CHRISTIANS EVERYWHERE OBSERVED PASSOVER ON THE JEWISH DATE, NAMELY, ON NISAN 15, irrespective of the day of the week" (ibid). Three pages later in his book, Samuele Bacchiocchi asserts, "The . . . Passover . . . initially celebrated Christ's passion and was observed by the FIXED DATE OF NISAN 15 rather than on Sunday . . ." (p.84). The book is referring to Epiphanius who wrote the following in his book Against Heresies. He spoke of these "Nazarenes" who had outlived Jerusalem's destruction and, although he calls them heretics, it shows what some Christians believed was required of them: “The Nazarenes do not differ in any essential thing from them (meaning the Orthodox Jews), since they practice the customs and doctrines prescribed by Jewish Law; except that they believe in Christ. They believe in the resurrection of the dead, and that the universe was created by God. They preach that God is One, and that Jesus Christ is His Son. They are very learned in the Hebrew language. They read the Law (meaning the Law of Moses)…. Therefore they differ…from the true Christians because they fulfill until now [such] Jewish rites as the circumcision, Sabbath and others.” [Epiphanius, “Against Heresies,” Panarion 29, 7, pp. 41, 402] The site quoted makes more of this by merging something that Eusebius said to indicate that these Nazarenes had followed an unbroken version of their Jewish-Christian faith that had been based at Jerusalem up until 135 A.D.: The early Church historian Eusebius writes of this period: "And thus, when the city had been emptied of the Jewish nation and had suffered the total destruction of its ancient inhabitants, it was colonized by a different race, and the Roman city which subsequently arose changed its name and was called Aelia, in honor of the emperor Aelius Adrian. And as the Church there was now composed of Gentiles, the first one to assume the government of it after the bishops of the circumcision was Marcus" (NPNF 2nd, I, pp.177-178). It was at this time, says Epiphanius, that the controversy over the correct date of the Passover, first arose. He wrote, "The controversy arose [literally, "was stirred up"] after the exodus of the bishops of the circumcision [A.D. 135] and it has continued until our time." According to Epiphanius, the fifteen Judaeo-Christian bishops who had administered the Church in Jerusalem up to 135 A.D. had, up to that time, practiced the Quartodeciman Passover -- the Jewisb Passover. They based this observance on a document known as the "Apostolic Constitutions." According to that document, the following commandment is given: "You shall not change the calculation of time, but you shall CELEBRATE IT AT THE SAME TIME AS YOUR BRETHREN who came out from the circumcision. WITH THEM OBSERVE THE PASSOVER." The author of the page seems to forget that it was possible to remain TOO attached to Judaism during this period where the destruction of Jerusalem was an "end of a system of things" a "judgment" against that system, according to Jesus in Matthew 23 and 24. Read the counsel to the 7 congregations in Revelation 2 and 3 very carefully, and you can see that we shouldn't just accept this particular group of "Nazarenes" as the purest form of Christianity. The site also makes too much of traditions that have passed through the writings of the early "church fathers" although the following several paragraphs do cite some relevant information about the Passover/Easter controversy. Eusebius relates that Polycarp, a disciple of John, who had known several of the original apostles, strongly resisted the introduction of Easter in the place of Passover. He visited Rome in 154 A.D. to discuss the growing heated controversy with Anicetus, the Roman bishop. Polycarp was bishop of the Church of God at Smyrna. He was baptized by John, the brother of James. He held to the Passover as an institution handed down by John, the last living original apostle of Christ. At the meeting nothing was resolved. Eusebius records: "For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe it [the Passover] because he had always observed it with John the disciple of our Lord, and the rest of the apostles, with whom he associated; and neither did Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it who said that he was bound to follow the customs of the presbyters before him." Eusebius relates that Polycarp was later taken and executed "on a great sabbath day." T'he marginal note explains that the 'GREAT SABBATH DAY" was the Feast of Unleavened Bread! Controversy Explodes Again The controversy flared up again toward the end of the second century. The two major protagonists of the controversy were Victor of Rome (A.D. 189-199) who championed the Easter-Sunday tradition, on one side, and Polycrates, the disciple of Polycarp, who was the bishop of Ephesus and representative of the Asian Churches, who strongly advocated the traditional Passover date of Nisan 14. Victor attempted to "cut off whole cburches of God, who observed the tradition of an ancient custom," the true Passover, says Eusebius. According to Eusebius (ca. 260-340 A.D.), Polycrates, claiming to possess the genuine apostolic tradition transmitted to him by the apostles Philip and John, refused to be frightened into submission by Victor's threats. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon from about 176 A.D., tried to intervene as peacemaker in the controversy. He warned Pope Victor not to break the unity with "the many bishops of Asia and the East, who WITH THE JEWS CELEBRATED THE PASSOVER on the fourteenth day of the new moon" (NPNF, 2nd, III, p.370). In addition, Apollinarius, bishop of Hierapolis (ca. A.D. 170), declared: "The 14th Nisan is the TRUE PASSOVER OF OUR LORD, the great Sacrifice; instead of the lamb, we have the Lamb of God" (Bacchiocchi, p.199, footnote). However, around 400 A.D. those Christians who maintained the Jewish Passover ritual were strongly attacked by Severian, bishop of Gabala. Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis (ca. A.D. 315-403) declares that the "heresy," as he called it, of the Quartodeciman Passover was still rising up in the world in his own time. Notice the words of Eusebius in his Church history: "A question of no small importance arose at that time [the close of the second century]. For the parishes of Asia, as from an OLDER TRADITION, held that the FOURTEENTH DAY OF THE MOON, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, SHOULD BE OBSERVED AS THE FEAST OF THE SAVIOUR'S PASSOVER . . . the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to HOLD TO THE OLD CUSTOM handed down to them. He himself in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the Church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him. 'We observe the FXACT DA Y, neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise on the day of the Lord's coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out,all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles . . . and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined on the bosom of the Lord . . . and Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr . . . Those observed the fourteenth day of the Passover according to the gospel, DEVIATING IN NO RESPECT,' but following the rule of faith" (Ante-Nicean Fathers, vol. 8, pp.773-774). Notice! They observed scrupulously the EXACT DAY of the PASSOVER. This means they observed it at the end of the 14th of Nisan, as all the Jews had for centuries. They did not "add" to it by observing it a night early, or take away from it In fact, they deviated from the Jewish Passover time, calculation and date "in NO respect"! There were probably better places to get all this information. Someday, I'll try to sort through it myself a little better. But the main point is that there were hundreds of years when even the totally Gentile congregations continued to try to sort through the controversy over the proper choice of ANNUAL dates for the observance of the Passover (Paschal) season.

There are apparently only one scriptural and one traditional reason that many hold it weekly, but there are about ten reasons why others would choose annually instead. Some of these points were noted in the very earliest Watchtower magazines. Here's an example from 1894 (reprints, page 1624-5): Some dear Christian people have even fallen into the error of commemorating this feast every first day of the week; because they have not noticed what the supper means in connection with the type which it displaces; and because they erroneously think that they find a precedent for their course in the expression of the New Testament, "On the first day of the week, when the disciples were come together to break bread." This does indeed show that breaking of bread every first day was the custom of the early disciples; but it does not prove that the Memorial Supper is meant. Another reason is the confusion that had spread to other early forms of Christianity caused by the overlapping use of the bread and wine symbols into the weekly and additional ad hoc times for Mass in early Roman Catholic tradition. There are no "solid" proofs that it was held annually, and some religions do this weekly or even quarterly. But there is more evidence that favors annually in early Christian tradition. Before I quote evidence from outside the Bible (in another post) there are some relevant Biblical references. I'll take some time here because I think it's relevant to why Paul would use the expression, "as often as you eat" with reference to the Memorial in Corinthians. (1 Corinthians 5:7, 8) 7 Clear away the old leaven so that you may be a new batch, inasmuch as you are free from ferment. For, indeed, Christ our Passover lamb has been sacrificed. 8 So, then, let us keep the festival, not with old leaven, nor with leaven of badness and wickedness, but with unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. This is one of those passages that might use the idea to "keep the festival" in a completely allegorical sense. The seven-day festival of unleavened bread immediately followed Passover and the idea is apparently that: now that Jesus is sacrificed "once for all time" as Hebrews says, we keep the festival "once for all time" too. (Hebrews 7:27) 27 Unlike those high priests, he does not need to offer up sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, because he did this once for all time when he offered himself up. This is completely in line with Pau's words about the meaning of that sacrifice in our lives. Here, Paul speaks not of Jesus in particular but of a kind of spiritual death of his followers. (Romans 6:6-10) 6 For we know that our old personality was nailed to the stake along with him in order for our sinful body to be made powerless, so that we should no longer go on being slaves to sin. 7 For the one who has died has been acquitted from his sin. 8 Moreover, if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that Christ, now that he has been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death is no longer master over him. 10 For the death that he died, he died with reference to sin once for all time, but the life that he lives, he lives with reference to God. So, someone could get the idea that Paul was only concerned about how we lived our life why all these scriptures that make it look like Paul didn't care so much for the out (Romans 14:5) 5 One man judges one day as above another; another judges one day the same as all others; let each one be fully convinced in his own mind. (Galatians 4:4-11) 4 But when the full limit of the time arrived, God sent his Son, who was born of a woman and who was under law, 5 that he might release by purchase those under law, so that we might receive the adoption as sons. 6 Now because you are sons, God has sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, and it cries out: “Abba, Father!” 7 . . . . 9 But now that you have come to know God or, rather, have come to be known by God, how is it that you are turning back again to the weak and beggarly elementary things and want to slave for them over again? 10 You are scrupulously observing days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you. Yet, although Paul often referred to walking by faith not by sight, and how our actions, conduct and life were much more important than symbols, he still supported the symbols. He supported the symbol of baptism right there in the same context as 1 Cor 5 quoted above, and we all know Paul promoted the repetition of the symbols of the Memorial. Jesus didn't just say "do this," he said "keep doing this." Likewise, Paul didn't just say "do this," he said "as often as you do it." Baptism was not a symbol we would keep repeating; we'd do it once for all time. Memorial would be repeated often. (1 Corinthians 11:26) 26 For as often as YOU eat this loaf and drink this cup, YOU keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he arrives. Changed in the NWT, 2013: (1 Corinthians 11:26) 26 For whenever you eat this loaf and drink this cup, you keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he comes. So it doesn't say annually, it doesn't even hint at it. Perhaps Paul didn't care how scrupulously it was observed, and only wanted it done orderly, or else he could have easily given more instructions. One of the arguments against using the scripture that where Paul said they broke bread weekly, is that there is no mention of wine in that passage: (Acts 20:7) 7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to have a meal, Paul began addressing them, as he was going to depart the next day; and he prolonged his speech until midnight. . . . 11 He then went upstairs and began the meal and ate. He continued conversing for quite a while, until daybreak, and then he departed. In addition it showed that Paul ate his meal that same night after he finished with the speech, after midnight, so it wasn't part of a formal ceremony. It was just a common practice for Christians to combine a meal with their meetings. So much, in fact that some were confusing the Lord's Evening Meal commemoration with meals that they should be having at home on that particular day. (Acts 2:42) 42 And they continued devoting themselves to the teaching of the apostles, to associating together, to the taking of meals, and to prayers. (1 Corinthians 11:20-34) 20 When you come together in one place, it is not really to eat the Lord’s Evening Meal. 21 For when you eat it, each one takes his own evening meal beforehand, so that one is hungry but another is intoxicated. 22 Do you not have houses for eating and drinking?. . . 33 Consequently, my brothers, when you come together to eat it, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that when you come together it is not for judgment.. . .

Just thought I'd weigh in. I read through the entire exchange on Saturnalia with Ann as it was happening, before and after various edits and deletions and commentary about those edits and deletions. I believe that Ann is being very accurate in the way she described it when she says: You rehashed Hislopian misconceptions, tried to pass off fiction and fable as historical fact, and copy-pasted any old bits of nonsense off the internet in a vain attempt to add weight to sensationalist, unverified claims about ancient Christmas practice. In fact, she might be being just a bit too generous and kind with that characterization. Other than that, I agree that the date is not as important as the Memorial itself. The scriptures speak about passing and partaking of the bread and wine, but they are quite vague even about how often. The evidence shows that many early Christians preferred yearly, and this makes the most sense. Even the original Passover could be celebrated a month late according to the Mosaic Law.

Yes. I'm pretty sure the point I was making can still come out in 2016. It's related to another member of the Governing Body, not Leo Greenlees, or Ewart Chitty. If not publicly, it still can affect WTS lawyers.

Ann, That's a very powerful combination of points. I remember when Brother Schroeder at Bethel was getting himself involved in the "generation" debate. He needed to look at all uses of "generation" in contexts that implied a time-frame. He was willing to go to Josephus, Philo, the Pseudepigrapha. He was not really satisfied with any of the solutions that went beyond 40 years. He was willing to go with either the solution that it meant the "wicked" generation or the "anointed" generation but, either way,he still wanted it to be within 40 years. So it shouldn't have been surprising that he came up with the idea that, because of Sputnik, October 4, 1957 was the new, updated start of the generation that saw the full sign, because it had to include the "signs in the 'heavens'" including the idea that men would become 'faint out of fear.' It's also interesting that even though we have never claimed that Jerusalem fell in October, or that Zedekiah was removed from his throne in October, we still love the idea of October as the start of the Gentile Times. Not just October, but October 4th. *** w79 9/15 p. 24 par. 11 The “Cup” That All Nations Must Drink at God’s Hand *** [1979] But the reason simply is that about October 4/5, 1914, or 2,520 years from the desolating of Judah and Jerusalem after the Babylonian conquest, the Gentile Times of uninterrupted world domination ended. Note the wording of the very first line on http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/ "History changed on October 4, 1957, when the Soviet Union successfully launched Sputnik I.". 1957 + 40 = 1997, and he was also sure that the end would come before the end of the 20th century. The proposal was in 1980, and therefore he was sure that we had less than 17 years left in this old system. *** w80 7/1 p. 3 Keep Watching! *** [1980] Truly, the possibility that the “unthinkable” could happen provides good reason for thinking about the world situation. And many people are thinking. A special report in the February 11, 1980, issue of U.S. News & World Report analyzed the military might of the leading nations on earth, with these opening words: “To a fearfully watching world, the Soviet Union today looks like a military juggernaut, driving relentlessly toward global domination.” This is indeed a fearfully watching world, for the kind of holocaust that would accompany a nuclear war simply beggars the imagination. And there is no question that global domination has in fact become a major issue of our times. Is there any solution to this doomsday situation? Many persons watch in despair. They see the nations ‘beefing it up’ in terms of rockets, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, long-range bombers, nuclear warheads and the like. As they watch, they become painfully aware that fearful dangers now threaten from the heavens and the sea, even as the Master, Jesus, foretold for the final days of the wicked system of things on this earth. Jesus said: “There will be fearful sights and from heaven great signs. Also, there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth anguish of nations, not knowing the way out because of the roaring of the sea and its agitation, while men become faint out of fear and expectation of the things coming upon the inhabited earth; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.”—Luke 21:11, 25, 26. In this context, it's easier to understand why Brother Schroeder was able to propose the following, with the approval of two other members of the Governing Body and propose it to the entire Governing Body.on March 5 of the same year, 1980:

Brother Greenlees and Brother Chitty are not mentioned in the Proclaimer's book. Interesting that Percy Chapman (included in the picture above) is still mentioned now and then, often in the same context with Brother Greenlees. He was more "openly homosexual" to the dismay of Brother Knorr who continued to work with him anyway. I never knew that Brother Ewart Chitty was homosexual and assumed it was a rumor although I was told it was a fact by several. People also told me that Brother Greenlees was homosexual. In his case, there was good reason to believe them. But I never heard any facts for sure about the molestation charges, although it was a well-known rumor. I should add, however, that there may be nothing wrong with trusting a homosexual brother to handle high levels of responsibility. The predisposition of someone should not disqualify them from responsibility as long as they can handle the responsibility without bringing reproach on Jehovah, on themselves, or others, and/or scandal upon the congregation. If a brother has already proven himself faithful and morally clean for many years, even if he struggles with sinful thoughts, then he is probably not so different from anyone else who was on the Governing Body at the time, even if these particular sins seem much more unexpected. Paul spoke of struggling with sin even as an apostle.

The above, from near the end of my last post should have started out, "From the time of the first Watchtower in 1879 until 1929, the only possible exceptions . . . . " (The other possible exceptions from 1929 until now had already been mentioned just above that.) Just one more point to add is the fact that either method "Passover" or "Easter/Memorial" is consistent enough that you can always get the right date (within a day) by remembering that both methods "align" again every 19 years (Due to those 7 intercalary leap-months added every 19 years.) It's really amazing just how closely lunar 19 "lunar years" made up of 19 time 12 lunar months + 7 extra lunar months is almost exactly the same as 19 solar years. You can check this by taking any year that we have had the memorial and dividing it by 19. If it divides evenly and the remainder is zero, then you can test every one of those years with the zero remainder and we will have the Memorial on that same day for each of those years. In fact it works for every possible remainder after dividing the year by 19. For example, 2016 divided by 19 will have a remainder of 2. 19 years prior to that (1997 / 19) also has a remainder of 2, as does 1978 divided by 19, etc, etc. Look at the Memorial dates as announced in the Watchtower for each of these years: 1940: 3/23 1959 3/23 1978 3/23 1997 3/23 2016 3/23 You can almost always tell exactly what day the Memorial will be on by looking at what day it was on 19 years ago.

I agree. I still suspect there had to be a leap day adjustment especially since the "empty" moon was astronomically tied to March 28, 2017 in Jerusalem, so there is no way the first crescent would not be seen by March 29th. The full moon is on April 11th. Note the article on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Days_of_week_on_Hebrew_calendar Finally, in a regular year the month of Adar has 29 days, while in a leap year Adar I of 30 days is added before the regular Adar, which becomes Adar II of 29 days. The result is that the period from 1 Tevet to 29 Cheshvan is fixed, except that in a leap year Adar one of 30 days is added; and all adjustments are made using 30 Cheshvan and/or 30 Kislev. The period from 1 Adar (or Adar II, in leap years) to 29 Cheshvan contains all of the festivals specified in the Bible - Purim(14 Adar), Pesach (15 Nisan), Shavuot (6 Sivan), Rosh Hashanah (1 Tishrei), Yom Kippur (10 Tishrei), Sukkot (15 Tishrei), and Shemini Atzeret (22 Tishrei). This period is fixed, during which no adjustments are made. The result is that all dates from 1 Nisan through 29 (or 30) Cheshvan can each fall on one of four days of the week. Dates during Kislev can fall on any of six days of the week; during Tevet and Shevat, five days; and dates during Adar (or Adar I and II, in leap years) can each fall on one of four days of the week.

I see it now. They are listing the first full day, not starting from the evening before which would make our date on the equivalent of the start of Nisan 13. Probably the difference is because of the leap day adjustment so that Passover doesn't start on one of the three "forbidden" days of the week.

The 2017 Memorial is on April 11 not 10th. This is another year when our Nisan 14 is the Jewish Nisan 15. See http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/?year=2017&country=34 Don't know why chabad.org appears to be off by a day, perhaps it's not set for the time in Israel/Jerusalem.

There are lots of better places to get the full explanation, but here goes another attempt. Here's our typical expectation of the range of dates involved. *** km 12/76 p. 3 Announcements *** For future reference, you may wish to keep a record of local sunset times for the period of March 22 through April 19, 1977, since Memorial always falls within this period. It's actually possible for this range to be expanded from March 21 through April 21 (although the one time we celebrated on March 20, 1932 we were not using our own criteria correctly). The Watchtower has determined dates outside of the range (1976 km) on five different occasions. In 1948, the Watchtower said: "1948 Memorial Date - The date for celebrating the annual Memorial of Christ's death . . . is Nisan 14. . . . The Watch Tower Society calculates this according to the first new moon that falls nearest to the spring equinox, whether before it or after it. We do not follow strictly the fixed Jewish schedule of 7 intercalary months for every 19 year period." In reality, this is about the same thing as saying the first FULL moon AFTER the vernal equinox, because the closest new moon to March 20/21 will result in a full moon observed about 13 to 15 days later. Therefore, we use the following method: *** w76 2/1 p. 73 “Keep Doing This in Remembrance of Me” *** According to our present method of calculation, the Memorial date approximates the nearest full moon after the spring equinox. For easy calculation, let's say the equinox is always on 3/20 or 3/21, and you are looking for the nearest NEW moon before or after. You could get a new moon on 3/7 it could be slightly closer to 3/20 (13 days) than if the new moon was on 4/3 (14 days) after the equinox. Therefore, adding about 14 days to 3/7 gives us the earliest possible Memorial 3/21. For the latest possible Memorial, let's assume the equinox is on 3/21 that year, and the nearest new moon was determined to be 4/5. Adding 15 days to 4/5 could result in about the latest Memorial on 4/20. Although our range for Nisan 14 is therefore 3/21 to 4/20, the Jewish Passover (Nisan 15) is celebrated between 3/26 and 4/30. Adjusting the Jewish calendar's range to Nisan 14 would mean 3/25 to 4/29. But that is still a range of about 35 days instead of 30 days. The reason is the timing of the leap-month, Adar II, (second Adar or Ve-Adar). The 1948 Watchtower said that we do not strictly follow the fixed Jewish schedule of 7 intercalary months for every 19 year period. Of course, we actually do add 7 intercalary months for every 19 year period, but we don't do it on the same schedule the Jewish calendar uses. We did this until 1929, not necessarily by calculating it ourselves, but by watching what they used and subtracting a day or two for Nisan 14. But since 1929, we follow the same schedule that is used for determining the Easter season. Easter Sunday generally falls on the Sunday following the Paschal Full Moon (i.e., the first full moon of Spring in the northern hemisphere, or the first full moon occurring after the date of the vernal equinox). In 1929, 1932, 1948, 1951, 1959, 1967, 1970, 1978, 1986, 1989, 1997, 2002, 2005, 2008, 2010, and 2016 this method would result in being about 30 days ahead of the Jewish Passover season in each of those years. That's because the Jewish calendar added the leap-month in that very year, but we, in effect, followed a calendar that added it in the next year. This means that each of the years mentioned were the only years in that period where Easter and Passover were not aligned. Nisan 14 was 30 days earlier using the "Easter" calendar. In every case, we followed the "Easter" calendar. (Not because it was "Easter" but because we use the same method.) From the time of the first Watchtower in 1879, the only possible exceptions between Easter season and Passover season were in 1883, 1894, 1902, 1910, 1913, and 1921. (Easter and Passover were also about 30 days apart in those years.) In every one of those cases we did exactly the opposite. We always chose to follow the Jewish calendar for Passover. In other words, in every year from 1880 to 1928 we always held Memorial within 3 days of the Jewish Passover. In every year from 1929 until now, including 2016 we have always held Memorial within the 8 day period prior to Easter.