Jerusalem’s Western Wall was built well after Herod

“Historians say these coins suggest that Herod was not responsible for the construction of the wall Jews view as the most holy site for prayer in Jerusalem”. Jerusalem’s Temple Mount Not Completed by King Herod - Biblical Archaeology Society Jerusalem’s Temple Mount Not Completed by King Herod Bible and archaeology news Biblical Archaeology Society Staff November 28, 2011 …. Coins discovered beneath the foundations of Jerusalem’s Western Wall prove that Herod the Great did not even come close to completing construction on the Temple Mount compound. The coins, stamped around 17 C.E. with the name of the Roman proconsul Valerius Gratus, were found inside an earlier ritual bath (mikveh) that had been filled in to support the construction of the Temple Mount’s western wall—some two decades after Herod’s death. The finds tend to confirm the account of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus who records that the entire complex was only completed during the reign of Herod’s great-grandson, Agrippa II, probably around 50 C.E. “The find changes the way we see the construction,” said Israel Antiquities Authority archaeologist Eli Shukron. “[The coins] show [the Temple Mount’s construction] lasted for longer than we originally thought.” Coin Discovery Sheds new Light on Sacred Jerusalems Western Wall | Actforlibraries.org Coin Discovery Sheds new Light on Sacred Jerusalems Western Wall …. A discovery of ancient coins under the Western Wall of Jerusalem shed new light on how the Temple Mount was built. King Herod has largely been credited for leading the construction of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem about two thousand years ago. His temple was built on the site of the original temple built by Solomon in Old Testament days. The coins discovered under the Western Wall are significant because they are dated twenty years after Herod’s death in 4 B.C. Historians say these coins suggest that Herod was not responsible for the construction of the wall Jews view as the most holy site for prayer in Jerusalem. …. Valerius Gratus, a Roman governor in the region, stamped the coins in 17 A.D., suggesting that construction of the temple was not completed until at least that year. Incidentally, Gratus preceded Pontius Pilate, the governor famous for his role in the execution of Jesus Christ. Archaeologists excavating an area under the wall discovered the coins in a drainage tunnel that temple builders filled in as part of the construction effort. According to their opinions, the Western Wall was not built until after Herod’s death ….

Haram was site of god Mars

“In biblical times the Haram was not a sacred place. Instead it was the place that Orthodox Jews considered defiled and the most despised place in the world. Within these walls were found no remnants of any of the earlier temples but rather an image of Mars, the Roman god of war”. George Wesley Buchanan In August, 2011, professor George Wesley Buchanan wrote this extraordinary piece, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Pages 16, 64: Misunderstandings About Jerusalem's Temple Mount Misunderstandings About Jerusalem’s Temple Mount While it has not been widely published, it assuredly has been known for more than 40 years that the 45-acre, well-fortified place that has been mistakenly called the “Temple Mount” was really the Roman fortress—the Antonia—that Herod built. The Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque are contained within these walls. The area is called the Haram Al-Sharif in Arabic. The discovery that this area had once been the great Roman fortress came as a shock to the scholarly community, which had believed for many years that this ancient fortress was the place where the temple had been. This news was preceded by another shock, when the English archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon discovered in 1962 that the entire City of David in the past had been only that little rock ridge on the western bank of the Kidron Valley. Less than 10 years later the historian Benjamin Mazar learned that the Haram had undoubtedly been the Roman fortress. In biblical times the Haram was not a sacred place. Instead it was the place that Orthodox Jews considered defiled and the most despised place in the world. Within these walls were found no remnants of any of the earlier temples but rather an image of Mars, the Roman god of war. The 1st century Jewish Roman historian Titus Flavius Josephus said the Romans always kept a whole legion of soldiers (5,000-6,000) there, and that there were stones in its walls that were 30 feet long, 15 feet thick, and 71/2 feet high. While excavating the area, Mazar found these very stones there in the Haram—not in the temple. He and the local Muslims also discovered there three inscriptions, honoring the Roman leaders in the war of A.D. 66-72—Vespasian, Titus, and Silva—and Hadrian in the war of A.D. 132-135 [sic], for their success in defeating the Jews in the wars. Mackey’s comment: But see my proposed identifications and time location of Hadrian: Time to consider Hadrian, that ‘mirror-image’ of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus (3) Time to consider Hadrian, that 'mirror-image' of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus George Wesley Buchanan continues: Appropriate inscriptions for a Roman fortress, but impossible for a temple that had been destroyed in A.D. 70—65 years before the inscriptions had been made. Mazar shared these insights freely with other participants in the excavation, such as … Ernest Martin. Mazar also knew at once that the temple instead was stationed 600 feet farther south and 200 feet lower in altitude, on Mount Ophel, where the Spring of Siloam poured tons of water under the threshold of the temple every minute (Ezek 47:1), after which the water was distributed wherever it was needed. This marvelous little City of David was unique in having running water 3,000 years ago. Aristeas, Tacitus and 1 Enoch tell of the inexhaustible spring water system that was indescribably well developed, gushing tons of water into the temple area for sacrifices. Hezekiah's tunnel directed water under Mount Ophel to the Pool of Siloam. Herod’s fortress, on the other hand, was unequipped for sacrifices, because it had only 37 cisterns to provide water in the Haram. After two violent wars with Rome, the City of David was so completely destroyed that it could not be recognized as a city. … people forgot what a marvelous little city this had once been. They simply guessed where strategic locations in the City of David must have been in the Upper City. Of course, this was a normal mistake. Now, 50 years after Kenyon's discovery, scholars like Leen Ritmeyer, Eilat Mazar and Hershel Shanks have recently written books as if no one knew that the Haram was the Roman Fortress and that Solomon's, Zechariah's … temples all were located near the Spring of Siloam. Tourists are still mistakenly told that the Haram is the Temple Mount, that David’s citadel is near the Jaffa Gate, and that Mount Zion and the place where the Last Supper was held are all in the Upper City. Israel’s antiquities authority has been digging a tunnel from under homes in the Arab East Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan to the Western Wall Plaza. According to a recent “60 Minutes” interview, Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat wants to create King’s Garden, a Bible-themed tourist park “adjacent to the City of David,” which requires demolishing 22 Arab homes in Silwan. The purpose of archeology is to provide archeological insights, of course, but excavations between the City of David and the old Roman fortress (the Haram) also have an anti-Arab political agenda. It is not likely that a fourth [sic?] temple will ever be constructed, either in the City of David or in the Haram. Israel already has diverted the water formerly used for sacrifices away from the former temple area and is making the City of David into a park. Orthodox Jews would oppose having a temple in Herod’s hated fortress. Jews had no interest in the Haram until after the Crusades, when they misunderstood that it was the Temple Mount. If the temple were ever built, it would have to be placed somewhere in the Upper City or a suburb of Jerusalem—not in its former site or in the old Roman Fortress. Because innocent Evangelical Christians in America, under the guidance of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and John Hagee, have not been informed of these facts, they have thought there was some biblical or religious reason why it was necessary to destroy Islam’s third most sacred building in the world, together with the al-Aqsa mosque. It is my hope that, once Christians learn of this mistake, they will stop following Mars and Phineas (Num 25; Ps 106:30-31) and work as zealously for peace, following the teachings of Abraham, the 8th century prophets (Mica 6:8), Jesus, and Paul, as they once worked to promote war in the Middle East. This would make a tremendous difference to Jerusalem—and to the world. ________________________________________ George Wesley Buchanan has been a United Methodist minister since 1944 and a professor at a theological seminary since 1960, emeritus since he retired in 1991.

Saint Luke Evangelist - thaumaturgist healer

by Damien F. Mackey Ananias and Luke share these commonalities: healing; holiness; disciple; follower of the risen Jesus Christ; friend of Paul; (likely) from Syria. Michael M. Canaris writes this of the poorly known “Ananias of Damascus, a saintly, unsung hero” (2019): https://catholicstarherald.org/ananias-of-damascus-a-saintly-unsung-hero .... On the day the church celebrates the Conversion of Saint Paul (Jan. 25) — this year the 60th anniversary of the calling of Vatican II — in contemplating the daily readings in such a way, it struck me for the first time that Ananias is at least as much a profile in courage in that narrative as is Saul, “who is also called Paul” (Acts 13:9). But this latter poor servant of the church has received infinitely less praise than his more famous counterpart. Let’s begin with the narrative in Acts of the Apostles 9, where Saul is on his way to Damascus to continue wreaking havoc upon the Christian community he loathes, and is knocked to the ground by a blinding light (the biblical narrative doesn’t tell us whether he was on foot or on a horse, though we often see him flung from the latter in artworks, like those by Caravaggio and Veronese). Saul encounters Christ, is struck blind, and needs to be led to the city by hand. All this is quite familiar to the majority of us. But most of us pay little attention to the parallel scene. Separately, Jesus also appears to Ananias in a vision. He is already in Damascus and already a “disciple.” The Lord calls him and he responds immediately, “Yes, Lord.” Jesus directs him to go to the Street called Straight (in Latin, the Via Recta), which still exists amidst the bombs raining down on modern-day Syria, and to restore sight to Saul. Ananias’ response is understandably hesitant: “Lord, I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your holy people in Jerusalem. And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.” (“…um, of which I am one, Your Divine Majesty,” we could creatively add!). But Christ emphatically says “Go!” — making clear that it is through this unworthy instrument that he plans to offer the message of redemption to the nations outside of Israel. And so Ananias confidently approaches his sworn enemy, to whom incredible power has been given to decimate those with whom he disagrees, and the first words out of his mouth are ones not too often repeated today in our discourse with those who hate or vilify us: “Brother Saul.” He goes on to say “the Lord — Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here — has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” It is he who likely baptizes the greatest missionary in the history of the church, and causes the scales to fall from his eyes. It’s not necessarily Paul’s faith, but Ananias’ that brings about the transformation. And while Ananias is mostly lost to the sands of history after this encounter, his co-believers with all the litanies praising them and basilicas named for them initially do not help or welcome Paul, “for they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was really a disciple.” It’s only Ananias, and eventually Barnabas, who are moved with compassion at the Pharisaical former tentmaker, and offer an olive branch of trust, at great personal peril. Beyond this snippet, we know very little about Ananias. His name, which was not a terribly uncommon one in the ancient world, literally means “Favored by God”. …. [End of quotes] Who was Ananias? I would like to venture the suggestion here that Ananias of Damascus may be a potential candidate for the famous St. Luke himself. If so, then Ananias will no longer have to suffer being, as in the words (above) of Michael Canaris, “lost to the sands of history”. In various articles now I have attempted to fill out other New Testament [NT] characters using alter egos, in most cases allowing for a character to have two names - both a Hebrew and a Greek name - which, however, can also be a cause of duplication. For instance: • John the Baptist as Gamaliel’s Theudas: Gamaliel's ‘Theudas’ as John the Baptist https://www.academia.edu/36424851/Gamaliels_Theudas_as_John_the_Baptist • Nathanael of Cana as Stephen Protomartyr: St. Stephen a true Israelite https://www.academia.edu/30843387/St_Stephen_a_true_Israelite {Also Gamaliel, again, his “Judas the Galilean” as Judas Maccabeus - same name, “Judas”, in this case} • And then there is the un-named: Was Apostle Barnabas the Gospels’ “rich young man”? https://www.academia.edu/36824565/Was_Apostle_Barnabas_the_Gospels_rich_young_man Paul (Greco-Roman name) is otherwise called Saul (Hebrew name) in the Book of Acts (cf. 9:1 and 23:1). Connecting Ananias and Luke My main point of connection between Ananias and Luke would be the healing of Paul’s blindness, due to the intervention of Ananias, with the fact that the converted Paul will refer to his friend Luke as a “healer” (various “physician”). Thus Colossians 4:14: “Luke the beloved physician greets you, as does Demas”. The Greek word used here to describe Luke is ἰατρὸς, which can mean - apart from “physician” or “doctor” – “healer” (the sense in which I am taking it). “[Greek] ἰατρός (iatros), [Latin] medicus: physician, healer, one who provides healing services; Mt.9:12, Mk.2:17, Mk.5:26, Lk.4:23, Lk.5:31, Lk.8:43, Col.4:14”: https://resoundingthefaith.com/2018/04/%E2%80%8Egreek-%E1%BC%B0%CE%B1%CF%84%CF%81%CF%8C%CF%82-iatros-latin-medicus/ As Ananias (if that is who Luke was), the Evangelist was also a healer, thaumaturgist, even a mystic-visionary (cf. Acts 9:12). Note, too, the close bond between Paul and Luke, as we would expect if Luke were Paul’s healer, Ananias. Paul calls Luke “beloved”, ἀγαπητὸς. In 2 Timothy 4:11, Luke is found to have remained steadfastly loyal to Paul (not always easy): “Luke alone is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is very useful to me for ministry”. That closeness is reinforced in Philemon 1:24: “... Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers”. I have previously quoted Fr. Jean Carmignac (who has persuasively argued for an early dating of the NT books), in my article: Fr Jean Carmignac dates Gospels early https://www.academia.edu/30807628/Fr_Jean_Carmignac_dates_Gospels_early as stating that: “... It is sufficiently probable that our second Gospel [that is, Mark], was composed in a Semitic language by St. Peter the Apostle” (with Mark being his secretary perhaps). And Fr. Carmignac has this to say about what he considers to be Paul’s praise of Luke (p. 52): St. Paul speaks in [2 Corinthians] 8:18 of a person whom he describes thus: That brother whom all the Churches praise for his preaching of the gospel. …. If it is a question of the preaching of the Gospels, this would not be a distinctive designation, for it would apply to all the collaborators of St. Paul. In order that the Gospel be a motive for special recognition throughout all the Churches and characterize one brother from all the others, isn’t it because this brother, alone of all the others, is the author of a Gospel? Thus it would be a question of Luke, whose Gospel would then have been spread throughout all the Churches. Many commentators have understood this allusion of St. Paul, in this way, beginning with Origen (cited by Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, bk. 6, chap. 25, no. 6). [End of quote] Ananias is referred to as a “disciple” (Acts 9:10), a word that is frequently used by commentators to describe Luke as well. Finally, Luke is considered likely to have been a native of Syrian Antioch - though that is not definite. Ananias himself resided in Syrian Damascus. Ananias and Luke share these commonalities: healing; holiness; disciple; follower of the risen Jesus Christ; friend of Paul; (likely) from Syria. * * * A reader, commenting on my recent article: A more appropriate location for the Temple in Jerusalem (5) A more appropriate location for the Temple in Jerusalem | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu has written: Thank you, Mr. Mackey. I have long thought the traditional temple mount was the wrong location and was curious about the city of David's location. I look forward to reading your paper. then adding to this: I have a question about whether Luke, the writer of the Gospel is Lucius of Cyrene, and also whether Theophilus to whom he wrote was the same Theophilus that was High Priest? …. While the reader may, perhaps, be right on both counts, I personally would favour Ananias, first, for Luke. {I have wondered might the historian, Nicolaus of Damascus, be a garbled version of Luke} On Theophilus, my own preference would be for he as Luke’s disciple, Paul: Luke’s Theophilos (3) Luke's Theophilos | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Paul (Saul) may just possibly have been a descendant of King Saul, Israel’s first king: history - Is there any evidence that Paul was a descendant of Jonathan? - Christianity Stack Exchange Is there any evidence that Paul was a descendant of Jonathan? …. Paul being a descendant of Jonathan would have some appeal from a devotional perspective since Jesus' more direct saving of Paul could be viewed as fulfilling the covenant of friendship between David and Jonathan and their descendants (1 Samuel 20:42). From Philippians 3:5 we know that he was from the tribe of Benjamin (like Jonathan) and Paul's other name, Saul, might be more common among descendants of King Saul than among Benjaminites generally. On the other hand, with the purging of the house of Saul (2 Samuel 9:3 indicates that Mephibosheth might be the bottleneck as a sole survivor) there might have been few if any descendants of Jonathan in the first century A.D. Is there any other evidence supporting or falsifying this possibility or is this merely a wild speculation where even tradition is silent? Optional bonus question: Has this speculation been written about earlier in Church history? (Allegory and other somewhat fanciful conceits seem to have been more popular earlier in Church history, so I would not be surprised if someone had considered this possibility given its devotional attractiveness.) …. Saint Luke kept returning to Damascus incident “St. Luke considered this [Damascus] event so pivotal that he recounted it three times, at critical moments in his book [Acts]”. Carsten Peter Thiede A possible further indication that I may be on the right track in identifying the evangelist Luke with Ananias, the healer of St. Paul at Damascus, is the fact that Luke when writing the book of Acts recalls the incident on several occasions. We read about this in Carsten Peter Thiede’s highly significant book, The Jesus Papyrus: The Most Sensational Evidence on the Origins of the Gospels Since the Discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2000, pp. 118-119): St. Luke considered this event so pivotal that he recounted it three times, at critical moments in his book. The first version is his own (Acts 9:1-9) a straightforward narrative account told at the chronologically appropriate moment. The second version is St Paul’s; in Acts 22:5-21, he addresses the Jews in Jerusalem …. St. Paul’s version of the Damascus experience is geared towards a Jewish audience, its idiom and the explanation he employs founded on ‘the Law of our ancestors’ (22:3). In Acts 26:12-23 St. Paul tells the story a second time. The setting is a court appearance before the authorities at Caesarea Maritima … King Herod Agrippa II [sic] and … procurator Festus …. St. Paul … addresses them in Greek. He also tailors his story to his audience, making no allusion on this occasion to ‘the Law of our ancestors’. …. Benedictus “… redacted in a Semitic language” ‘… to show mercy to our ancestors and to remember his holy covenant, the oath he swore to our father Abraham …’. Luke 1:72-73 “The Benedictus, reproduced in Luke 1:68-79, is composed of three strophes each having seven stichs”, wrote Fr Jean Carmignac (The Birth of the Synoptics, Franciscan Herald Press, 1984, p. 27). Strophe, in poetry, a group of verses that form a distinct unit within a poem. The term is sometimes used as a synonym for stanza …. https://www.britannica.com/art/strophe stich (Noun). A verse, of whatever measure or number of feet, especially a verse of the Scriptures. https://www.definitions.net/definition/stich Fr. Carmignac continues (pp. 27-28): The first begins with the biblical and Qumranic formula: Blessed (be) the Lord the God of Israel; the third begins, as frequently is the case at Qumran, with the personal pronoun: And you, child. The second strophe has in its first stich: to show mercy to our fathers, in which the expression to show mercy translates the verb hânan, which is the root of Yôhânân (= John); then follows the second stich: and he remembers his holy covenant, in which he remembers translates the verb zâkar, which is the root of Zâkâryâh (= Zachary); then the third stich: the oath which he swore to our father Abraham, uses, in two different forms, the root shâba‘ (to swear, or to take an oath), which is the root of Elîshâba’ at (= Elizabeth). Is it by chance that the second strophe of this poem begins by a triple allusion to the names of the three protagonists: John, Zachary, Elizabeth? But this allusion only exists in Hebrew: the Greek or English translation does not preserve it …. This piece falls under Fr. Carmignac’s section: “The Semitisms of Composition”. Let us examine … cases in which the composition itself is based on Semitic … that is, cases in which the text itself would not exist in its present form if it had not been composed in a Semitic language …. .… redacted in a Semitic language. …. Luke’s Theophilos “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught”. Luke 1:1-4 Who was Luke 1:3’s “Most Excellent Theophilos”? In Greek, kratiste Theophile (Κράτιστε Θεόφιλε). Now if Luke the Evangelist, whom Paul calls “beloved healer [physician]” (Colossians 4:14), ὁ ἰατρὸς ὁ ἀγαπητὸς, was Ananias of Damascus, who healed Paul of his blindness, then he might have returned Paul’s generous description of him with the phrase he uses in Luke 1:3, Excellent, or noble, Friend of God. In other words, Luke was addressing Paul himself, a new convert to Christianity, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. There must have been a strong bond between the pair, Luke (Ananias) being Paul’s catechist. Later, in Acts 1:1, Luke the Evangelist will superscript the book more simply: “In my former book [Gospel], Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach”. Various famous and important people have been suggested as candidates for Luke’s enigmatic Theophilos. One of these is the philosopher, Philo Judaeus. And I think that, in his name, there is a meeting with Luke’s Theo-Philos. Thus it may be time to connect, all as one, Paul, Theophilos, and the Philo who was apparently both known to, and contemporaneous with, Saint Peter. Further on Philo, though, see my article: Apollonius of Tyana, like Philo, a fiction (5) Apollonius of Tyana, like Philo, a fiction Dugan King, contributing to the Bible Hermeneutics site, has written the following intriguing piece, hopefully arguing for Philo Judaeus as the biblical “Theophilus” (no doubt needing modifications): https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/4058/is-lukes-theophilus-an-actual-person-or-an-allegorical-person I have been doing research in theological history and philosophy of the first century and stumbled across another strong theory as to whom Luke may have been addressing as Theophilus. I believe it could have been the full name of Philo Judaeus of Alexandria also known as Jedidiah HaCohen. Jedidiah was Philo's Hebrew name ... meaning friend or beloved of God ... and this hints at the possibility that Philo was a shortened version of Theophilus ... having the same meaning. Combine this with the fact that Philo was the greatest religious philosopher of the first century ... perhaps the Great Teacher mentioned in the writings of the Essenes ... for it was clearly the eclectic teaching and exegesis of Philo and his "Logos" that laid the spiritual foundation upon which Christianity, Gnosticism, Rabbinical Judaism, Islam, Theosophy and Hermeticism are outgrowths. Philo's teachings created the various streams of religious philosophy that have rained down upon civilization with such force as to replace pagan polytheism with Abraham's monotheism all across the world. Jesus taught the Logos ... the Word of God ... and declared it to be "The First Begotten Son of God" ... an idea originating with Philo [sic] and stated with such eloquent force that the Roman Emperors had to quit fighting it and embrace it in order to get their grip on it and change it from within ... so as to make it more conducive to Roman Imperial designs. I have also discovered hundreds of allegorical clues hidden in the works of Philo that suggest he had a very close relationship with Jesus or Yeshua of the Nazarenes ... who very likely grew up in Alexandria during his flight from Herod. Because Philo was a Roman magistrate ... he was not able to come forward with what he knew about the early life of the historical Jesus without drawing Imperial attention to himself ... but the Life of Jesus is mirrored and traced throughout Philo's writings ... especially in his theology and focus on the Essenes. It appears to me very likely that … Philo [was] descended from the last Hasmonean Princess of Judea ... King Herod's captive bride ... Queen Mary or Mariamne I. It appears that Philo and his brother Alexander the Alabarch were not only high ranking Princes of the Hasmonean/Herodian dynasty ... but Roman magistrates working as Alexandrian customs agents and ambassadors to the Judeo/Claudian Imperial Family of Rome ... and intermarried with the family of King Herod Agrippa ... also a descendent of Queen Mary/Mariamne I ... the captive bride murdered by Herod. We can see Philo's teachings in the Book of Hebrews ... in the writings of Luke, in the first paragraph of John's Gospel and in Macabbees IV. If Luke was addressing Philo Judaeus as Theophilus ... or perhaps Jedidiah ... then it means that Luke was writing prior to the time of Philo's death ... possibly around 50 A.D. The works of Philo Judaeus and Flavius Josephus are important supplements to the New Testament .... …. Combine this knowledge with the archeological discoveries of the past 300 years ... and artifacts such as the shroud of Turin ... it leaves no doubt that Jesus ... Yeshua the Nazarene ... was and is a historical figure who impacted the world in many ways ... a spiritual/intellectual/philosophical tour de force with the One God of Abraham at the summit. Exactly what Philo intended. ….

A Jewish Voice reflection upon Yeshua/Jesus and Yom Kippur

“The book of Hebrews explains that Jesus sits in Heaven at the right hand of the Father’s [throne] as a minister of the “true tabernacle,” erected by God, not man (Hebrews 8:2).” Jewish Voice Taken from: Yeshua, Our High Priest | Jewish Voice Yeshua, Our High Priest October 02, 2019 It is amazing how much depth we can see when we understand the Jewish foundation upon which the New Covenant is built. God is One; He is cohesive and intentional. He communicates it throughout the Scriptures as He ties Old and New Covenants together with His single purpose: the redemption of Israel and all of humanity. When God instituted the Jewish Feast of Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), He knew that thousands of years later, His Messiah, Yeshua (Jesus), would perform the duties of a High Priest to perfection and completion. Just like Yeshua did not abolish the Law, but fulfilled it – filled it full – for us, so too He did not abolish the Day of Atonement. He makes its meaning and imagery full. In Yom Kippur, God placed prophetic pictures of events He would bring to pass with Yeshua’s first and second comings. Yeshua's sacrificial death filled full the first of these parallels. The writer of Hebrews wanted the Jewish people to know that Yeshua is the Messiah and our High Priest forever. Yeshua is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek Jesus is not from the tribe of Levi, the family of Israel’s priests. He is not a priest according to the line of Aaron. There was another priest who was outside the expected lineage: Melchizedek. This King of Salem seems to have come from nowhere, yet Abraham gave him a tenth of all that he had, indicating he was the greater of the two. Psalm 110:4 proclaims that the Messiah would be a priest according to the order of Melchizedek. The book of Hebrews compares Yeshua to Melchizedek who had “no beginning of days nor end of life, but, made like Ben-Elohim [the Son of God], he remains a kohen [priest] for all time” (Hebrews 7:3). Because Yeshua lives eternally, His priesthood never ends; He is a priest forever. (See Genesis 14:18–20, Hebrews chapter 7.) Yeshua was appointed High Priest The High Priests of Israel did not take upon themselves the mantel of this important position. They were appointed from their father; Aaron was appointed by the Lord Himself through Moses. Yeshua was appointed by God through the Messianic prophetic words of the Psalms and are quoted in Hebrews as the author begins to reveal Jesus’ role as our High Priest. (See Psalm 2:7, Psalm 110:4 and Hebrews 5:5.) Yeshua is our mediator The priest was a mediator, one who goes before God representing the people. He made the sacrifices and prayed for Israel. First Timothy 2:5 proclaims that there is one mediator between God and man: Yeshua. The book of Hebrews explains that Jesus sits in Heaven at the right hand of the Father’s [throne] as a minister of the “true tabernacle,” erected by God, not man (Hebrews 8:2). He mediates for us and has become the guarantee of a “better covenant,” and He lives eternally to intercede for us. (See Hebrews 7:22, 25b, 8:1–6.) Yeshua entered the Holy of Holies One day each year – on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement – the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies in the tabernacle or Temple. It was the most sacred place of the Temple; it was where God’s presence dwelled. The priest had to ceremonially bathe and offer sacrifices for his own sins before he was considered pure enough to enter behind the thick curtain into this holy, inner chamber. Yeshua was perfectly pure, undefiled and separate from sinners. He did not need to make sacrifices for Himself before offering His blood for our sins. As our High Priest, He entered into the heavenly Holy of Holies once to make atonement for all. (See Hebrews 7:26–28, 9:11–12.) Yeshua brought the blood of a sacrifice On the Day of Atonement, the High Priest brought the blood of bulls and goats into the Temple, sprinkling it on the Mercy Seat in the Holy of Holies to cover Israel’s sin. Yeshua brought His own blood. Through His sacrifice, offering Himself without blemish, He obtained eternal redemption for us. He did this once and for all. (See Hebrews 7:27, 9:12–13, 26-28, 10:2, 10.) Yeshua is our sympathetic High Priest The High Priest could sympathize with Israel because he too sinned. Yeshua is a fitting High Priest because, though He was without sin, He was tempted in every way like we are. Therefore, He understands our weaknesses and offers His compassion. Those who have placed their trust in Him may approach His holiness and receive grace and mercy in times of need. (See Hebrews 4:15–16 and 7:26–28.) Yeshua’s sacrifice made complete atonement for our sin Yom Kippur sacrifices covered sin, but they did not remove it. Scripture tells us that the blood of bulls and goats can atone for sins, but Yeshua’s blood utterly “puts away sin.” As our High Priest, Yeshua does not need to bring His blood year after year the way the priests of old brought sacrifices. He offered His blood once, for all, and “He is able to save completely those who draw near to God through Him (Hebrews 7:25).” We have been made holy through the offering of the Messiah’s blood. (See Hebrews 9:26–10:11.) Yeshua inaugurated the new covenant When He entered into the heavenly Holy of Holies with His own blood, Yeshua brought about the new covenant prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31–33. He enabled God’s Law to be placed in our hearts and His Holy Spirit to dwell inside us. God dwells in those who have placed their faith in Yeshua, and we have been made in the likeness of the Temple of God. We can enter His presence boldly without fear of condemnation. (See Hebrews 8:7–12, Ephesians 1:13, 1 Corinthians 6:19–20, Hebrews 4:16, Romans 8:1, 15.) As you spend time with God on Yom Kippur, reflect on His holiness and the redemption Jesus bought for you with His blood. Which aspect of Yeshua’s High Priesthood touches your heart the most? Why? Thank Him for it, and worship Him for all He has done for you. On Yom Kippur, may you be filled with awe at God’s glory and holiness as well as the complete assurance that He invites you to come boldly into His presence because of His great love for you.