The record is definitive: the defilement of the house was a calculated strike by Gentile nations to erase the designated identity of the covenant people. This desecration did not arise from an external force alone, but through the treachery of internal rebels who sought to mingle Greek customs with the land of the southern kingdom. Under the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the snare of Hellenization was driven by systemic violence. He issued decrees outlawing the Sabbath, the Law, and the covenant sign of circumcision, demanding that the people abandon the ways of 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄 under penalty of death.

The peak of this lawlessness occurred in approximately 167 BC when the Gentiles entered the sanctuary and stripped it of its dedicated vessels. According to the record in First Maccabees 1:54–59, they set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar and built idol altars throughout the cities of Yahudah on every side. To further desecrate the house, they offered sacrifice upon the idol altar, which was upon the altar of 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄. They ordered the sacrifice of swine, an animal designated as unclean by the Law, and forced the priests into Gentile rituals.

In the wake of this absolute ruin, the restoration of the sanctuary was attempted, but the historical setting reveals a critical lack of divine authority. During this era, there was no Dawidic king on the throne and, most significantly, no active prophet delivering instruction from 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄. This absence of a prophetic voice defines the emptiness in which the Maccabees operated. When Yahudah and his brothers decided to cleanse the sanctuary, the initiative came solely from them. First Maccabees 4:36 records their words plainly: they said among themselves to go up, cleanse the sanctuary, and dedicate it. No inquiry is made. No word from 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄 is recorded. No prophet spoke.

This silence is vital. Unlike the clear "Thus says 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄" that accompanies the Appointed Times in Leviticus 23, the written record here shows only human determination. Dawid repeatedly inquired of 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄 before battle (First Samu'AL 23:2–4), yet the Maccabean account contains no such inquiry. The leaders of that time even openly admitted their lack of direction; in First Maccabees 4:46, they stored the stones of the defiled altar specifically "until there should come a prophet to show what should be done with them."

The victory was celebrated, but covenant practice does not equal covenant command. The physical state of the Second Temple itself testified to an incomplete restoration. Unlike the Tabernacle (Leviticus 9:24) or Shalamah’s Temple (Second Chronicles 7:1), where divine fire fell from heaven to consume the sacrifice, no such supernatural fire appeared during the Maccabean dedication. The priests had to strike stones together to produce a man-made fire for the altar. This reliance on human effort underscores that the dedication was a restoration of service without the supernatural witness of a divinely ordained beginning.

Furthermore, the Ark of the Covenant and the mercy seat were not present. YarmiYAHU (Jeremiah) 3:16 had already foretold a time when the Ark would no longer be remembered or made. Second Maccabees 2:4–8 confirms that the Ark had been hidden and not returned. Without the Ark and the Urim and Thummim, the Appointed Temple Leader lacked the direct means of communication with 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄. This absence of divine confirmation aligns with the scriptural warnings against "strange fire" offered without a command (Leviticus 10:1), demonstrating that human alteration cannot fulfill the requirements of the Law.

The presence of 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤔𐤏 (Yahusha)—the Righteous Right Arm of 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄—in the Temple during His time has often been misused to justify the observance. However, Yahuchanan (John) 10:22–23 states only that the feast was occurring and that 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤔𐤏 was walking in the porch of Shalamah (Solomon). The text never says He observed it, kept it, or commanded it. Instead, He uses the occasion to confront unbelief and expose false authority. In Yahuchanan (John) 10:1, He identifies those who "enter not by the door" as "thieves and robbers," a sharp indictment of unauthorized leadership that prioritizes their traditions over the voice of the Shepherd.

Scripture consistently shows that when 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤔𐤏 keeps commanded appointments, the record says so plainly. He keeps Passover (Luke 22:15), the Feast of Booths (Yahuchanan (John) 7:10–14), and the Sabbath (Luke 4:16). With the “Feast of Dedication,” Scripture remains silent on practice. His presence did not equate to obedience, and the time of His arrival did not solidify its practice as a command. 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄 had not designate this time as distinctive; it remained a human work within a season of religious tension.

The attempt to elevate this historical memorial to a sacred mandate directly violates the foundational warnings of the Law. We are warned by the example of those who devised appointed days out of their own hearts (1 Kings 12:32-33; 13), an act that led the people into scriptural error. To treat a man-appointed day as an obligation of the covenant is to add to the Law, which is strictly forbidden (Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32).

While historical accounts like Purim may seem to carry a specific authorized context (Esther 9:27-32), it is still excluded from the Moadim of Leviticus 23. The Feast of Dedication, lacking even that prophetic witness, remains entirely the work of man. One may acknowledge the historical victory, but none can recognize it as a divine appointment or instruct others to do so without crossing the boundary of obedience.

This time must only be seen as a historical account in the time of the second temple by the southern kingdom. Anything else would be deemed unlawful. 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄 allows human action and may even grant a degree of success in national preservation, but allowance is not instruction, and success is not authorization. Scripture exposes this clearly so that truth remains distinguishable from tradition, and command from custom.