Daniel 9:27 is about The Cross

I've already talked about how I now believe the 70th Week of Daniel is Nisan of 30 AD to Adar of 37 AD.

But I've been putting a lot of thought into specifically Daniel 9:27 and am starting to think it's about The Passion in even more ways.

First of all what is the Abomination?  

This ties in with how I have come to view John 5:43 as fulfilled by John 19:15 when the Chief Priest says "We have no King but Caesar".  I've already talked about how Israel demanding a Human King was them rejecting YHWH as their King, and Caesar was being worshiped as a living God in the Eastern Provinces.  The High Priest committed this idolatrous Abomination the same day he later had to offer the Passover Sacrifice in The Temple.

And as I've pointed out before the "he" associated with the Abomination isn't in the Hebrew, it's not identifying any person as setting it up.

The Hebrew word for "Desolation" or "Desolate" is a word that can also be translated "Abandoned" Jeremiah's Desolation of Jerusalem is about Jerusalem being depopulated after it was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar, but it can also be connected to YHWH's Divine presence leaving The Temple at that same time.  Whatever Divine presence the Second Temple had (in John 4) left it at or before Pentecost to indwell in The Church which is why it's gone in Acts 7.

This word is used twice in Daniel 9:27 however.  In the KJV the verse ends with "upon the desolate" in some translations the last word is "desolator" but in the Young's Literal Translation it's "Desolate one".  On the Cross I think the "abandoned one" is Jesus "my God, my God, why has thou Forsaken me".  

The Consummation and that which was determined or "the decreed end" was poured out onto Jesus on The Cross and then He said "it is finished".

I'm considering a very unique hunch on The Temple's Location

[This theory I'm abandoning for now Update October 2020]

The Great City where our Lord was Crucified

So I'm changing my position on the Great City issue slightly.  Jerusalem is only unambiguously called the "Great City" in Revelation 21 where it's New Jerusalem (and in some ancient manuscripts it's not used there, but I'm a Textus Receptus proponent so I'm not gonna place any eggs in that basket).  I am currently for now going to take the position that in Revelation 6-20 the only Great City is the same city called Babylon.

Preterism has been associated with both Babylon=Rome and Babylon=Jerusalem, but for both Full and Partial the Jerusalem theory has become the far more common standard, because Rome wasn't destroyed in 70 AD, it had a fire in 64 but even tradtions claim they didn't start Persecuting Christians till after that so it being a judgment for being drunk on the blood of the martyrs doesn't make sense.

The face value issue with making Jerusalem as Babylon work in a 66-70 AD context is "how can Jerusalem be said to ride the beast" since they still believe the beast is the Roman Empire and in particular Nero.  Well what you could do is take what Josephus tells us about Poppaea Sabina, how she was practically a proselyte and so under her influence Nero was favorable to the Jews and it was months after her death the Jewish revolt begins to break out.  I haven't seen any Preterist use Poppaea this way yet, it's a suggestion I'm giving them out of my magnanimous generosity.

The problem is the Symbolism of Revelation clearly only works with Babylon being Rome in a First Century context.  There is no Biblical support for calling Jerusalem a City on Seven Hills but Rome had that concept as part of it's self identity from the beginning.

I am a Futurist in my basic understanding of Revelation (technically I've come to a historicist understanding of the Seals and am open to that for the first four Trumpets, but Chapter 9 is definitely yet future).  But I do think we need to begin decoding Revelation by understanding what these symbols and imagery would have meant to the initial audience, which were mostly Greek speaking Christians in Asia Minor between 40 and 140 AD.

So while I do believe the final eschatological Babylon is not Rome in the sense of being geographically on the Tiber River of the Italian Peninsula.  If things were going to play out within the lifetime of the original readers, then Babylon=Rome is what the symbolism of the Book was pointing them towards, as I talked about in the post on the Roma Cult.

Among both Preterists and Futurists it's assumed Revelation 11:8 can only be Jerusalem, and so that's the smoking gun that terrestrial Jerusalem is the Great City at least sometimes.

"And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified."

As I've said a few times before, no view on Revelation is free from some level of picking and choosing when to interpret symbolically and when to interpret literally.  In this case however it's within one statement.  We're specifically told the these are things it's called Spiritually but interpreters keep applying that only to the "Sodom and Egypt" part while "where also out Lord was crucified" is taken as a literal geographic indicator.

Number 1, strictly speaking the literal location of the Crucifixion was not in a city at all, John 19 says "near to the city" and Hebrews 13 says "without the gate".  That is semantics you can object, it's definitely associated with Jerusalem, but that still makes it less then strictly literal.

Number 2, what city is actually responsible for the Crucifixion?  

Legally speaking it was Rome, right in the Apostles' Creed we say "Crucified under Pontius Pilate" and Rome was pretending to still be a Republic at this time, so Pilate was theoretically representing the people of Rome.  And even the "Jews" calling for His Crucifixion said "we have no King but Caesar" they pledged their loyalty to Rome.  It was Roman Soldiers who mocked him and placed a Crown of Thrones on His head, Crucifixion was a standard Roman form of Execution. In ancient mindsets a City was more then just a location, it was also it's people.  Fortunately for everyone involved Jesus said "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

But neither of those is my main argument.  Because I know everyone is going to list off Old Testament prophets who called Jerusalem both Sodom and Egypt as further proof this verse can only mean Jerusalem.  But Jerusalem was spiritually called Sodom and Egypt for a reason, there was a specific sin in mind which plenty of other cities/nations have been guilty of.

When YHWH was telling the Israelites to not be cruel to the strangers(immigrants and refugees) living among them, He reminded them "because you were once strangers in the land of Egypt".  Ezekiel 16, Jesus himself, and if you add them to your Canon both Jubilees and Jasher all clarify Sodom's Sin was their cruelty to strangers, an issue I talk about more on my other blog.  Ezekiel 16 is the main basis for Jerusalem being spiritually Sodom because there YHWH says Jerusalem has become worse then Sodom.

And that basic moral sin is also a factor in why the Pharisees wanted Jesus killed, because he taught that many Gentiles will enter the Kingdom before some of the Children of The Kingdom.

Rome had this Sin in it's own way, a refusal to properly allow full citizenship to "Barbarians" who'd proven their loyalty was a repeated issue, just watch this YouTube video.  And this way of thinking effected even the believers in Rome which is partly what Paul's epistle to the Romans is addressing.

This of course is among the Roman traits that makes America the most Roman nation of the modern world.  But perhaps it can also apply pretty well to Putin's Russia, even Soviet Russia had it's xenophobic tendencies.

There is a third city involved in Ezekiel 16, Samaria representing Ephraim. I have a post on this blog arguing for Rome being Ephraim in a sense, I'm not longer as interested in arguing for that literally genealogically as I was when I first wrote it, but thematically it can still be interesting because of the role Paul's Epistle to Rome plays in it.  

Rome also tied themselves to Egypt when Octavian took over the Pharaonic Worship in Egypt, and a Temple to Isis in Rome played a role in Titus's Triumph celebrating his capture of Jerusalem.  So Egyptian Spirituality was present in Rome when Jesus was Crucified not in Jerusalem.

I think I might be prepared to support Bob Cornuke's location for The Temple.

And perhaps also his corresponding site for Golgotha, even though I had been hostile to it at first.  But aspects of how he makes the argument are still wrong.

First because Zion the City of David was not Jerusalem at all but Bethlehem.  But what that means is verses saying the Ark was taken out of the City of David when placed in the Temple are no longer against Cornuke's site.  I do believe what we today call the Old City was Jebus, and perhaps remained the entirety of Jerusalem until the return from Captivity.  Perhaps Nob and Gibeon were what we now call The Temple Mount?

Another argument against Cornuke's site is saying a threshing floor wouldn't be near a Spring because of contamination risks.  But I have also argued that The Temple wasn't on the threshing floor, the threshing floor must be east of Jerusalem since Yahuah stopped there approaching Jerusalem.  Maybe 1 Chronicles 3:1 is just saying aspects of the Construction began there, perhaps materials were built and ritually purified there before being moved into the city.  Genesis 22 tells me that Moriah is the site of the Crucifixion not The Temple.

Stephen in Acts 7:44-50 says Solomon didn't follow David's intent for The Temple.  I think the Eschatological Tabernacle will be Zion.

As far as if what we today call the Gihon Spring is the Biblical Gihon, well what the name Gihon refers to is the most confusing subject of all, since it's a River in Genesis 2.  And if you don't think that's the same Gihon then you can't prove the Gihon associated with Solomon's coronation is the same one associated with Hezekiah either.

I still think it's possible the first and second Temples weren't on the same spot. If Cornuke's site is only one of them it's probably Solomon's.  The thing is so much debate about The Temple focuses on what Mountain or Hill it was built on when I suspect Solomon's Temple wasn't on a mountain at all, I think when he was at the High Place at Gideon Yahuah made him realize the Tabernacle shouldn't be on a High Place.

I spent over a year being very interested in the theory that The Temple was were Justinian built the Nea Eklessia of the Theotokos, where now stands the Armenian Church of the Archangels and the Garden of the Resurrection.  And I still think Justinian might have believed he was rebuilding The Temple.  But there are some issues with this argument.

They use quotes from Medieval Rabbis saying the Gentiles never built on the site of The Temple, maybe the Nea had been forgotten by the Jews by that time, but it's also possible the "Market of the Jews" actually refereed to the Old City not what we now call the Jewish Quarter.

And the thing about the orientation of that first century synagogue is, I don't think the idea of needing to Pray in the direction of The Temple existed yet in the first century, neither Testament of The Bible alludes to such an idea. I think it's a post 70 AD Rabbinic custom that influenced the development of Islam.

I think maybe the next archeological mystery Cornuke should tackle is The Nativity, I don't think Jesus was born at the traditional site of the Nativity which was an Adonis Cave. I've talked about how the Church of St David by King David's Wells claims to be where David was buried, well right by it is a Church of St Joseph.  I believe Jesus was born in a House Joseph owned.  And Conruke could also look for the Migdol Eder while he's at it.

I don't agree with the traditional site of Kiriath-Jearim either, since it's too far north.  As a city that like Jebus marked the border between Benjamin and Judah I think it was probably on close to the same latitude as the Old City.  But since it's ultimately on Judah's side unlike Jebus which was on Benjamin's side, that makes it if anything a little south of the Old City.

If it was west of Jebus, then I think it may have been on what we today know as the Western hill, primarily south of the modern Zion Gate of Suiliman's Wall.  But if it was East of Jebus, then perhaps the Ark once rested where Jesus was buried,.  A possibility I consider symbolically interesting since one of the few times that Hebrew word for Ark is used in reference to something other then The Ark is also the first time it's used, in the last verse of Genesis where the KJV translates it "Coffin" referring to the burial of Joseph who was a type of Christ.

Did Pilate's Governorship actually begin in 17 or 18 AD?

Here is an article on the subject arguing it could be the case based mostly on Roman Coinage.
http://www.academia.edu/8296217/The_Chronology_and_Tenure_of_Pontius_Pilate_New_Evidence_for_Re-dating_the_Period_of_Office._Judaea_and_Rome_in_Coins_65_BCE_-_135_CE._The_Numismatic_Circular_pp._1-7._Kenneth_L%C3%B6nnqvist

There is a potential argument for this model from Josephus I have noticed that I don't think that article included.  Which is notable because something Josephus said is also basically the sole reason for the more common AD 26 date.

In Antiquities of The Jews Book 18. the last thing Josephus talks about at the end of chapter 2 before introducing Pilate in chapter 3 is the Death of Antiochus III of Commagene who died in 17 AD.  The first three sections of chapter 3 are stories about affairs when Pilate was Governor, one of them being the Crucifixion of Jesus.

Then section 4 begins a long account of calamities that befell the Jews and Egyptians in Rome.  Tacitus Annals II records those same events, his Annals are explicitly year by year and he places them in AD 19 (the Year of the Consulship of Silanus and Balbus), the same year as the death of Germanicus.

Now the above article stresses how this need not change assumptions about the chronology of The Gospels, they're expanding Pilate's administration not moving it, he was still governor during the Passovers of 27-36, with myself long favoring the Passion being in AD 30.

However I have been flirting with the possibility of moving it down.  It would make my arguments for sooner Nativity Dates (Like 12 BC or 25-22 BC) even more plausible.

Apparently Tertullian had said there were 52 years between the first Advent and the fall of Jerusalem to Titus.  Which points us to AD 18.

What about the 15th Year of Tiberius?  Well I've already said more then once that Jesus Baptism could have actually happened before that, it's simply when John was arrested that happened then, which I do view as possibly merely months or even weeks before the Passover of the Crucifixion.  And it could be Luke was using a source counting from when Tiberius truly became Augustus's Heir and given the Tribunician power in AD 4 which can give us a 15th Year that begins in 18 and ends in 19.

As far as the 70 Weeks goes.  The same chronology for Artaxerxes that has 483 years from his 20th year be the Nisan of 30 AD, could bring us to 17 or 18 if we used the Decree of Ezra 7 which was his 7th year.  However I still strongly feel only the Nehemiah Decree can fit the requirements of Daniel 9, so I shall remain favoring an AD 30 Crucifixion.

But regardless of my Crucifixion model, I am interested in this theory about Pilate.

Update March 2024: The Article is behind a Paywall now and it's older versions wasn't properly archived.  

Was Jesus Crucified in Gehenna?

So my last post on the Mount of Olives Crucifixion model was Bethany and the Mount of Olives, a follow up to my first post on the subject.

I've since learned that there is technically more then one Mount of Olives or East of Jerusalem model.  The person who runs the website Golgotha.eu supports a hill way up north, just outside what we now know as the Lion Gate.  This person is obsessed with arguing that Baptism is necessary for Salvation, which I strongly disagree with, and it's annoying he can't leave that out of even an article that's just supposed to be about figuring out where the Crucifixion happened.  But my Soterology will be subtly alluded to in this post so I guess I can't judge, but it has much more of a direct relevance.

Bob Cornuke however seems to be proposing a location much further south, east of the Old City, what we today incorrectly call the City of David, where he believes The Temple was.  The implications of what I shall propose here favor a more southern location, though maybe not exactly where Cornuke has proposed, I haven't looked into his specifics enough yet.

First off, in my view what we today call the City of David was the Jebus that David captured (but the Biblical City of David is Bethlehem) and was all of Jerusalem until the Babylonian captivity.  So I do think that's where Solomon's Temple was, but probably not Zerubabel or Herod's Temple.  I lean towards the second Temple being where Justinian built the Nea Ekklesia of the Theotokos.

The Valley of Hinnom in the Hebrew Bible, which is commonly rendered Gehenna in Greek Texts and misleadingly translated Hell in some English and Latin Bibles.  Is traditionally identified with the valley located south and west of the Old City.  But Jeremiah 19:2-6 says the Valley of Hinnom is by the entry of the East Gate.  Which would then place it at the foot of the Mount of Olives, perhaps synonymous with the Kidron valley.

Joshua 15:8 and 18:16 seem to be the source of thinking it would be west and south of Jebus/Jerusalem, but there are a number of ways the intended geography of those verses could be misunderstood.

Hinnom's unique reputation began with Ahaz building the Tophet there as a part of a cult of worship to Moloch/Milcom that included child sacrifice in II Chronicles 28, II Chronicles 33 tells us Manasseh also used this same Tophet.  Isaiah mentions the Tophet in chapter 30 verse 33, Jeremiah mentions it in chapters 7, 19 and 32.

Ahaz was not the first King of the House of David to build an Idol of Moloch/Milcom, Solomon built Idols for that deity and Chemosh on the Mount of Olives that is east of Jerusalem in 1 Kings 11.  Some scholars think Chemosh and Moloch were different names for the same deity, Moloch is just a variant form of the Hebrew word for King.  So perhaps when Ahaz set up his Tophet he was merely expanding on the site Solomon set up.  Solomon's Idol was on the Mount overlooking the Valley where the Tophet was the site of the Sacrifices.

II Kings 23:10-14 tells us that Josiah tore down the Tophet and the Idols Solomon set up.  These events could be the origin of Hinnom being associated with a site of Yahuah's Judgment.  But it was not Solomon and Ahaz immortal Souls that were destroyed in the Valley of Hinnom, it was their Sins.  Paul tells us in II Corinthians 5 that Jesus was Made Sin for us.

The Mount of Olives Crucifixion model involves a lot of talking about how what was done "Without the Camp" in the Torah equates to the Mount of Olives when The Camp is Jerusalem.  It's where the Red Heifer was Sacrificed in Numbers 19, and where the bodies of Sacrificed Animals were to be burned.  It was where Executions happened according to Leviticus 24:14, Numbers 15:35-36 and 31:13-19.  But in Joshua 6:23 it is where Rahab the Harlot and her family were brought to safety.

But without the camp is also where lepers and other unclean people are to stay until they are made clean in places like Numbers 5.  And Jesus will make all things clean.  The purpose of the Ashes of the Red Heifer are are purification.  And Perhaps that's also relevant to understanding being outside New Jerusalem in Revelation 21-22.

Also in Rabbinic Traditon Dudael, the location the Azazel Goat was taken to, was said to be East of Jerusalem and was also associated with Gehenna.

This place where in Sin Israelites sacrificed their Children to false idols, could be the same place where God gave His Only Begotten Son for the Whole World.

And my researching into proposed locations for The Temple has revealed that at leas tin Byzantine times everyone identified the Kidron Valley with Gehenna.

Here is a short film I don't 100% Agree with (I don't identify the Outer Darkness with Hades for example) but is interesting thematically.  It's creators do assume the traditional site of Gehenna, and don't share my Futurist/PreMillennial view of Revelation, so it's relevance here is kind of a coincidence.

Bethany and The Mount of Olives

The Gospel texts use the phrase "nigh to Jerusalem" (or "the city") to describe both the location of the Crucifixion (John 19:20) and Bethany.  The Hebrew terminology that likely equates to implies approaching the East Gate.  And we're also told Bethany is by or on the Mount of Olives in Mark 11:1 and Luke 11:29, and Matthew 21:1.   Zechariah 14:4 is an important verse to remember here.  Also Luke 19:37.

My initial post on the Mount of Olives Crucifixion model has become kind of incoherent as I added updates to it because of my abandoning the theory and then coming back to it.  I now just made a post on another blog that mentions why I'm abandoning the Crucifixion at the site of Solomon's Temple view.  So I decided to make a new post on it.  But I won't really be retreading too much, and want to also talk about other subjects related to Bethany.

What's interesting about how this connection of Hebrews 12:11-13 to Numbers 19 is how it specifically makes the Red Heifer a type of Christ.  Most references to "without the camp" in the Torah are just as where the bodies of sacrificed animals were burned, only the Red Heifer was actually killed "without the camp".  And it's now been archeologically confirmed that the Mount of Olives is where the Red Heifer was killed during the Second Temple period.

What's interesting is The Red Heifer is female, so it's another example I can add of The Hebrew Bible using a female as a type of Christ.

The seven days for purification of Numbers 19:18-19 and 31:19 could correlate here to the seven days of Unleavened Bread, on the third of which I believe was The Resurrection, the 17th of Nisan.  I'm unsure what Resurrection narrative event to place on the 7th day of Unleavened Bread, a possible option is the Doubting Thomas story with a different interpretation of when John 20 was counting 8 days from.  Or maybe that day is when the other dead were resurrected fulfilling Matthew 27:50-53.

But speaking of the timeline, Bethany is relevant to an issue of it.  When did Mary of Bethany anoint Jesus?

As much as on other issues I view John's Gospel as the least chronological, in this case John 12 clearly tells us how many days this was from the Passover and the Triumphal Entry, placing it on the 9th of Nisan in my chronology, and probably a Sabbath, the last Sabbath before the Crucifixion.  Matthew 26 and Mark 14 flash back to this event right before Judas goes to see the Priests because it's largely the reason for his betrayal, Luke 22 does not record this event.

Some might try to argue this is a separate similar event, and I do believe Luke 7's anointing incident was a very different event.  But I'm pretty sure this argument with Judas happened only once.  Some might object citing how the woman is unnamed in Matthew and Mark's accounts, but Matthew and Mark don't mention Martha or Mary of Bethany by name at all.  Luke never records this event but introduces us to sisters named Martha and Mary in Luke 10.

But on the subject of identifying different women.  I don't think Mary Magdalene can be identified with Mary of Bethany for two main reasons.  One, Magdalene is defined as part of the Galilean ministry in both of Luke's references to her while the Bethany sisters stayed in Bethany.  Second, Mary of Bethany wouldn't have come to anoint Jesus body on Sunday morning since she knew that was taken care of, Jesus defined this anointing as for His burial.

Lazarus whom Jesus resurrected was a brother of Martha and Mary of Bethany.

I don't think he's Simon the Leper because I don't think he had any major diseases right after being risen.  If Simon the Leper was a relative he was probably their father or an uncle or maybe grandfather. 

I'm interested in the theory that Lazarus was the same as the Beloved Disciple, but I have reason to suspect that Disciple was named John whether or not he's the same as the John of the 12.  Maybe Lazarus would have taken on a new name after being made effectively an adopted son of Mary. Or it could be Lazarus is a nick name based on how it's used in a parable in Luke 16. 

But let's return to the Torah.  "Without the Camp" isn't just the location of where the Red Heifer was killed and dead animals were burned, and sometimes sinners were stoned (maybe Stephen was martyred here too).  Exodus 33:7 also placed a Tabernacle of Meeting here, something many people are uncomfortable with is that there were two Tabernacles.  When I theorized that there were two Ark of the Covenants I suggest this other Tabernacle was where the other Ark of Deuteronomy was kept.  This other Tabernacle was primarily where YHWH met with Moses.

So maybe Jesus lodging in Bethany in the house of Martha and Mary also fulfilled that typology. 

And I could revive an observation from my abandoned theory about the Crucifixion being where Solomon's Temple was.  That the Hebrew word that almost always refers exclusively to The Ark, is used of Joseph's Coffin in the last verse of Genesis. So maybe Jesus Tomb equates to where the second Ark would be in relation to the Second Temple.

I wonder now if the traditional location of the Valley of Hinnom/Gehenna could be wrong and it was on or at the foot of the Mount of Olives?  We know the Mount of Olives is where Solomon set up his Idols to Chemosh and Moloch/Milcom, so it makes sense that would be where later Kings were sacrificing to Moloch in 2 Kings 23:10, 2 Chronicles 28:3 and 33:6 as well as Jeremiah 7:31-32 and 32:35.  Jeremiah 19:2-6 says that the valley of Hinnom is by the entry of the East Gate.

So that being where the bodies of sacrificed Animals were burned adds new meaning to it becoming an idiom of Hell.  And Tophet, a name linked to Hinnom in many of the above passages, is used interestingly in Isaiah 30:30-33.

The notion that Gehenna could be identified with the very site of the Crucifixion, has an interesting Universalist symbolism to it.

The Crucifixion at the site of Solomon's Temple?

This is a follow up both to my post about Solomon’s Temple and the Second Temple possibly not being on the same location, and my post about The Vail of The Temple.

Christians have long wanted to view Genesis 22:14 as saying the place where Isaac was offered is the same spot as where Jesus was Crucified.  The problem has been Mt Moriah being clearly identified as where Solomon's Temple was (The name Moriah appears in The Bible only twice, Genesis 22:2 and 2 Chronicles 3:1), and we know Jesus wasn't Crucified inside The Temple.

The Garden Tomb theory is based in part on saying that location is also on the same mountain as the Temple Mount, and was originally it's peak.  But the Garden Tomb in question is too old, and I have long felt that location for The Crucifixion was least likely to be true.

However now that I've opened the door to the possibility that the Second Temple wasn't where the First Temple was.  Where was Solomon’s Temple site in the time of Christ?  Could it be where the Passover was fulfilled in 30 AD?

What if Jesus was Crucified where Animals would have been killed in Solomon's Temple?   And maybe the Tomb where he was buried and rose from the dead was beneath the Holy Place or Holy of Holies, his Body laid beneath where The Ark once rested?

Now needless to say if this is true it rules out the Mount of Olives model that I had favored at one point, since that's to the East and probably where Solomon placed his Idols.

Placing Solomon's Temple to the West would happen to fit The Church of The Holy Sepulcher.  In my post about Venus maybe being the Star of Bethlehem, I was interested in the implications of Hadrian building a Temple to Venus on that site.  In the apocryphal Prophecy attributed to the Tiburtine Sybil, The Church of the Holy Sepulcher seems to play the role modern Futurist Christians tend to give The Temple in Bible Prophecy.  The actual presumed Tomb of Jesus there is directly under its largest Dome, which is interesting.  

That would place the Brazen Altar in the Katholikon, perhaps about where the Omphalos is.  I recall seeing in a documentary I watched years ago, a woman saying she thinks the Crucifixion site was within The Church of the Holy Sepulcher, but not at the traditional spot.  This part I may be remembering wrong, but I think she placed it in the Katholikon.

However I have seen models of the Tabernacle and Temple that interpret the Brazen Altar as being as being not directly east of the entrance to the Holy Place, but a little further south.

Also it could be that if the Tomb is the Holy of Holies and the Brazen Altar to the East of it.  That the traditional Rock of Golgotha could equate to where the Red Heifer was killed, to the east of the Gate of the Tabernacle. Fitting the desire to connect Numbers 19 to Hebrews 13:11-13.

But I'm not quite willing to support The Church of The Holy Sepulcher being the site of either  Solomon's Temple or Calvary just yet.  It may be too far West (and North) given where I think Jebus proper was.

What if the real site of Jesus Crucifixion and Resurrection was where the Nea Ekklesia was built?  Which in my main post on thinking Solomon’s Temple wasn’t where the second Temple was I came to favor for it’s location.

The Garden that exists by that site now happens to by sheer coincidence be called The Garden of The Resurrection, the intent being to refer to Israel's modern Resurrection as a nation.  And that Armenian Church is called The Church of the Archangels, I have suggested before that Michael's actions in Daniel 12 could be tied to the events of the Crucifixion and Resurrection.

Some people have theorized Jesus was Crucified on a still standing Tree, with only part of the Cross being what he carried.  Which makes me curious about the Olive Tree believed to mark the Holy of Holies in that model.

However I have come to realize that if that Armenian Church is where Ananias lived as it’s actual tradition claims, then it was within the City at Christ’s time and thus not where the Crucifixion would have been.  

The people who before me argued it was the site of The Temple were basing most of their arguments on it being the Second Temple.

One more compelling argument for the possibility of Jesus burial being where the Holy of Holies was where the Ark of The Covenant rested,  is in the word for Ark itself.

The Hebrew word translated Ark when referring to the Ark of the Covenant is not the same Hebrew word used for Noah’s Ark or the basket the carried Moses.  It’s ‘arown Strong Number 727.  This word is used almost exclusively in direct reference to the Ark of the Covenant, including I think every time the KJV translates it Ark.  Of course I lean towards the theory that there were two Ark of the Covenants and this word is used of both.  But still it’s almost always of an Ark containing Tablets of The Law.

Six of the exceptions to this are places where the KJV translated it “chest”, in two accounts of the same events.  2 Kings 12:9-10 and 2 Chronicles 24:8-11.  This chest was also placed in The Temple, it was a chest for depositing funds for The Temple.

Coincidentally the name given to Ornan who originally owned the Threshing Floor the Temple was built on in 2 Samuel 24 is Araunah, basically this word with a Heh added at the end.  Interesting but still not the exact same word, but the most similar any other word in Scripture is.

But the exact word in question does appear one other time in Scripture, in the very last verse of the Book of Genesis.  Where the KJV translates it “coffin” because it describes where Joseph’s body was laid to rest.  Joseph is viewed as a type of Christ, and the Tomb Jesus was buried in was originally built for another man named Joseph.

The references to Jacob and Joseph being “embalmed” in Genesis 50:2-3 and 26 are often assumed to refer to Mummification because of who/where people assume Mizraim was.  But the actual etymology of the word just means to spice or anoint a body, exactly as was done with Jesus.

So perhaps the last verse of the first book of The Bible is providing us a type picture of the Burial of Jesus while at the same time providing the first usage in Scripture of a word used almost exclusively of The Ark of The Covenant?

And for further connection between Genesis 50 and this subject.  Genesis 50:10-11 says the children of Jacob stopped to mourn at the Thresshingfloor of Atad on the way to burying Jacob. Now this is often assumed to be east of the Jordan, but if Mizraim was in Arabia rather then Africa, then Beyond Jordan in this context could mean west of the Jordan.  Canaanites being there could be a reason to see this as west of the Jordan, as well as that they aren't described as crossing the Jordan to get from here to Hebron/Mamre.  Atad isn't used as a place name anywhere else, it means "thorn", so could it be a reference to the same thorns that the Crown of Thorns was made from?  And could this Thresshingfloor have later become the Thresshinglfoor of Ornan the Jebusite?

And then there is John 20:12 where after the Tomb is found empty Mary Magdalene sees two angels standing where the body of Jesus had laid, one at the Head and the other at the Feet.  Could they correspond to the two Cherubim on the Atonement Covering?

Update March 20th 2018: I've abandoned this view as explained here.

The Mount of Olives Crucifixion model

I became aware of this model last month, and I'm becoming increasingly convinced of it, but still holding some reservations.  I don't want to rehash how others make the argument, I'll provide some links for that.  But a warning, such links may allude to other views of their authors I don't agree with.

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/stunning.html

https://www.vision.org/visionmedia/Bible.history/Golgotha.where.is.it/31293.aspx

http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-84-christ-in-the-holy-of-holies-the-meaning-of-the-mount-of-olives/

It appears a key innovator in this theory was Dr. Ernest L. Martin's 280-page book entitled Secrets of Golgotha. It can be found on Amazon, but not currently for a reasonable price. 

Bob Cornuke wants to argue for it as if it specifically proves or is dependent on his model for The Temple's location.  It's not, the issue of the traditional sites being north rather then East of the Temple is the same with all four proposed locations for The Temple.  And the Mount of Olives is actually far enough north to arguably fit a Temple Mount location better then Cornuke's.  I still favor the Al-Kas Fountain view.

John 19:21 tells us the place where Jesus was buried was right by the place He was Crucified.  We also know this Tomb was originally the tomb Joseph of Arimathea had prepared for himself.  Arimathea is probably a Rama or Ramath of the Hebrew Bible.  Joshua 18:25 and Nehemiah 11:33 places one in the territory of Benjamin, and Judges 19:13 and Isaiah 10:29 seems to place it near Gibea.  Though Judges 4:5 places one near Bethel.  Why would he have a Tomb near Jerusalem?  Well let's get into that.

Zechariah 14:4-5 has lead many Jews to conclude that The Resurrection of The Dead will begin at the Mount of Olives.  I'm not sure why that is, I don't see the Resurrection in that verse.  But because of this many Jews have wanted to be buried on the Mount of Olives.  (Mount of Olives description, from www.goisrael.com, retrieved January 4, 2012.)  And it seems this tendency dates back to before the Time of Christ.  So that makes the Mount of Olives the most likely place for someone like Joseph of Arimathea to have a Tomb built.

I've also been exploring on this blog the idea that most of Zechariah 12-14 was fulfilled from 30-70 AD.  What if the Earthquake caused by The Messiah standing on the Mont of Olives is either the Earthquake associated with the Death of Jesus, or the one that rolled the Stone away at His Resurrection?

That would mean the Resurrection did begin there, first with Jesus but then also as Matthew 27:51-53 says many others who's tombs were split open by that Earthquake soon after.  Which I feel ties into Daniel 12, the only other passage on the Resurrection that says "many" rather then all.

The Biblical designation "Mount of Corruption", or in Hebrew Har HaMashchit (I Kings 11:7–8), derives from the idol worship there, begun by King Solomon building altars to the gods of his Moabite and Ammonite wives on the southern peak, "on the mountain which is before (east of) Jerusalem" (1 Kings 11:7), just outside the limits of the holy city. This site was known for idol worship throughout the First Temple period, until king of Judah, Josiah, finally destroyed "the high places that were before Jerusalem, to the right of Har HaMashchit..."(II Kings 23:13)

Ezekiel 11:23 says "And the glory of Yahuah went up from the midst of the city, and stood upon the mountain which is on the east side of the city.".  That would be the Mount of Olives.

Zechariah compares this Earthquake to the Earthquake in the days of Uzziah.  That Earthquake according to Josephus Antiquities IX 10:4 ( about 2 Chronicles 26) also involved the Temple being rent. Meanwhile, there is archeological evidence Uzziah's body might have wound up among those buried on the Mount of Olives, the Uzziah Tablet.

In 1931 an archeological find, now known as the Uzziah Tablet, was discovered by Professor E.L. Sukenik of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He came across the artifact in a Russian convent collection from the Mount of Olives. The origin of the tablet previous to this remains unknown and was not documented by the convent. The inscription on the tablet is written in an Aramaic dialect very similar to Biblical Aramaic. According to its script, it is dated to around AD 30-70, around 700 years after the supposed death of Uzziah of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. Nevertheless, the inscription is translated, "Hither were brought the bones of Uzziah, king of Judah. Not to be opened." It is open to debate whether this tablet really was part of the tomb of King Uzziah or simply a later creation. It may be that there was a later reburial of Uzziah here during the Second Temple Period.

And if you think Uzziah's action sounds like a good type of the Antichrist or the False Prophet.  Well Daniel 12 implies this Resurrection will include some who wind up in the Lake of Fire also.

Update October 22nd 2017:  I may abandon this.

Mark 15:37-39 is the key to the Mount of Olives view.  I get why it seems to many to say the Centurion (who's probably not the same soldier who pierced him in John 19) must have seen the Veil being torn, putting them to the East of The Temple.  However verse 39 is pretty specific that Jesus crying out and giving up the Ghost is what the Centurion saw to cause this reaction.  The fact that he died at that exact moment by his own will is what impressed this Roman Solider, who was probably raised to value controlling one's own death.  He wouldn't have cared about a decoration in the Jewish Temple.

And with that smoking gun weakened, and my dependence on extra-Biblical sources here.  And that the NT does clearly refer to the Mount of Olives in other places when something happens there.  Has caused me to come to doubt this view now.

As far as Hebrews 13:11-12 and it's comparison to Jesus Crucifixion as where the "Without the camp" reference.  They are forgetting Exodus 33:7 says the Tabernacle as without the Camp.  I don't think the intent of this verse is to be a clue to the geography of Jesus Crucifixion.

Update: March 16th 2018: Red Heifer

I've been looking into the Red Heifer issue lately.  I had went past me before that Number 19 which Hebrews 13:12-13 is assumed to be quoting is the Red Heifer passage.  I still don't think Hebrews says enough to make us certain that's what's referring to.  But we do now know archeologically that the Mount of Olives is where the Red Heifer sacrifice was performed during the Second Temple period.

My theory that Jesus was Crucified where Solomon's Temple was, is perhaps weakened by my observation that the New Testament never particularly approves of Solomon.  But not entirely.  I"m still uncertain about much of this.

Actually I can now argue that Hebrews 13:11-13 being a clue to the location of the Crucifixion can fit other models.  Because regardless of where the Second Temple traditions said to do it.  The "Without the Camp" of Numbers 19 isn't that far without, because it also says to sprinkle blood at the entrance to the Tabernacle.

Plus no matter what Jesus was outside what the city limits of Jerusalem were at the time.

So I've still come to reject this theory.

Further Update March 19th 2018: Bethany

BTW, Bethany is on the Mount of Olives (Luke 19:29), so Lazarus Resurrection could be said to fulfill an expectation that the Resurrection begins there.

But that reminds me that my post trying to argue that maybe Jesus was crucified much further from Jerusalem then often assumed discussed how "nigh to Jerusalem" is used of both the Crucifixion location and Bethany.  So that becomes an interesting connection.

Actually my reasoning for the Crucifixion where Solmon's Temple was theory is deteriorating.

Update December 2018:  Even though this sin't my main post on the Mt of Olives model anymore, I want to copy/paste this here which I decided to remove from the Bethlehem is Zion post.

Some kings are assumed to not be buried with the others in the City of David however.  Manasseh and Amon were buried in the Garden of Uzza or Uzzah, in 2 Kings 21. Manasseh is still said to have "slept with his fathers", however that terminology is arguably more vague being sometimes just used of death in general.  But, Uzzah was also the name of the person who died from touching the Ark as it was transported to the City of David, and David named a location after this Uzzah, Perezuzzah.  And another Uzza is listed in 1 Chronicles 6:29 as a Levite who was appointed a Musician in the Tabernacle of David.  So the name of Uzza can be linked to the City of David.

Jehoram was buried in the City of David but not with the other kings because of the condition he died in according to 2 Chronicles 21:20.  2 Chronicles 24:25 has a similar situation with Joash.  Jehoiada, a priest who married Jehosheba, a daughter of Jehoram, is refereed to as being buried among the Kings in the City of David in 2 Chronicles 24:16.  So that adds more context to the Asahel situation.

Another King explicitly said not to be Buried with the others was Ahaz in 2 Chronicles 28:27, and this time it doesn't mention the City of David but says he was buried in Jerusalem.  Maybe where he was buried could be a clue to Manesseh and Amon's Garden of Uzza.

The name of Uzza/Uzzah here could be a variation of Uzziah, another name of King Azariah.  This king was originally buried "in the field of the burial which belonged to the kings" (2 Kings 15:7; 2 Chr. 26:23), but... that leads us to the Uzziah Tablet.

In 1931 an archeological find, now known as the Uzziah Tablet, was discovered by Professor E.L. Sukenik of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He came across the artifact in a Russian convent collection from the Mount of Olives. The origin of the tablet previous to this remains unknown and was not documented by the convent. The inscription on the tablet is written in an Aramaic dialect very similar to Biblical Aramaic. According to its script, it is dated to around AD 30-70, around 700 years after the supposed death of Uzziah of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. Nevertheless, the inscription is translated, "Hither were brought the bones of Uzziah, king of Judah. Not to be opened." It is open to debate whether this tablet really was part of the tomb of King Uzziah or simply a later creation. It may be that there was a later reburial of Uzziah here during the Second Temple Period.

Being buried on the Mount of Olives, is pretty interesting.

Is it possible Jesus was Crucified further from Jerusalem then we assume?

[Update January 25th 2016: This is now an Abandoned theory as explained at the end of this post.  March 8th Update: and now elaborated on here.

Update again, October 22nd 2017, perhaps it's not so abandoned anymore, I've become less impressed with the Mont of Olives view.]

Both popular favorites for the Crucifixion site today are within the city limits of modern Jerusalem but were outside New Testament era Jerusalem.  The accounts all agree He was taken outside the City.

But given how much emphasis is placed on travel time in the accounts of his Burial and the women later coming to anoint him afterwards.  I can't help but wonder if it was further then we think.

First I want to say that as far as Revelation 11 calling where the Two Witnesses bodies will lay the place where Jesus was Crucified.  That city being where His execution was ordered still fits spiritually, as it is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt.  But, at the same time this location being called where Jesus was crucified was my main argument against Jack Kelly saying the Revelation 11 Temple will be at the same place as Ezekiel's Temple (he believes that is Shiloh, I believe it's Bethel) so perhaps this is significant.

John 19:20 says he was Crucified "nigh to the city".  But looking at other uses of the Greek word for Nigh, it's usually an idiom of time not distance.  And in Luke 19:11 Jesus is refereed to as nigh to Jerusalem when he was at Jericho.  And in John 11:18 Bethany is called "Nigh to Jerusalem".  In some contexts it seems like it could mean "facing" or "on the way to".  On the 14th of Nisan some people might have still been on the way to Jerusalem since the Pilgrimage command only required them to be there on the 15th.  And the point of that detail of John is to explain why word of what was written on Jesus Cross spread quickly in Jerusalem.

Where do I think it was?  Well I don't know for certain at all, this is just me throwing out that we should think about it.

But since my belief that Bethel is the site of Ezekiel's Temple has been relevant already, perhaps I should start there.

In Joshua 8:29 the King of Ai is hung on a Tree.  Something I already talked about having possible typological relevance to the Crucifixion of Jesus.  His body was taken down at sunset "even tide" which I recently pointed out being a relevant detail of Jesus Burial.  The text can also be taken as implying he was hung west of Ai.  Also west of Ai is Bethel, and I talked about how Abraham's altar was East of Bethel between it and Ai, and that Abraham's altar might be the site of Ezekiel's Brazen Altar.  Putting all that together, this as the site of Jesus Crucifixion becomes compelling.

But the key word used in the text to identify where Jesus was crucified is Golgotha, The Place of the Skull.  Garden Tomb proponents say this proves their site since it kind of looks like a Skull, but I don't think the Holy Spirit was going to make an identifier based on a Rorshach test.

The Hebrew word this name comes from is Gulgoleth, Strong number 1538.  It's not used too often which can make it easy to research, but the majority of the time the KJV doesn't translate it Skull, though in my opinion not once is it a context where it would totally lack grammatical sense to do so.

Only three places it's used could work to explain a location coming to carry that name, one involves tie ins with other passages to figure out how the Skull in question got to it's final resting place.

The least likely of these three to be relevant is Judges 9:53, where Abimelech's skull is crushed.  I don't see that location coming to have that name.

But 2 Kings 9:34-37 is interesting.  It refers to the fate of Jezebel, and her Skull and a few bones of her's being all that's left of her, and them being left there in the valley of Jezreel, which is also the valley overlooked by Meggido.

Now suggesting Jesus was Crucified there seems too far even for the logic I've argued already.  And yet on the subject of Zechariah 12-14 and my considering it's relevance to the First Advent of Jesus.  I talked about Chapter 12 verse 11 possibly being about the Mourning of Jesus, and it refers to the valley of Megiddon.

Third is Chronicles 10:10 which says the Skull of Saul was placed in the Temple to Dagon.  The KJV translates this Head but a prior verse had used a different word for Head when describing his post-Morten decapitation.  So I think this clearly tells us they removed the skin and meat from Saul's skull before placing it in there.

Then the men of Jabeshgiliead reclaimed the bodies of Saul and Johnathon and buried them in the Transjordan.

In 2 Samuel 21, seven descendants of Saul are Hung on Trees to appease the Gibeonites.  In or near Gibea, Saul's former capital, in land allotted to Benjamin, his tribe.  And this is dated to the beginning of the Barley Harvest, meaning near or at the time of Passover.

Later in verses 12-14 David had the bones of Saul and Johnathon moved from where they were buried to be reburied with these descendants of Saul in Zelah in the Sepulcher of Kish their father.

Jerusalem is also in Benjamite territory, but pretty close to the southern edge of it.  Given that Jericho which wasn't Benjamite territory was called nigh to Jerusalem, I think it's safe to say any place in Benjamin could be.

John 19:21 tells us the place where he was buried was right by the place he was Crucified.  Yet we also know this Tomb was originally the tomb Joseph of Arimathea had prepared for himself.  Arimathea is probably a Rama or Ramath of the Hebrew Bible.  Joshua 18:25 and Nehemiah 11:33 places one in the territory of Benjamin, and Judges 19:13 and Isaiah 10:29 seems to place it near Gibea.  Though Judges 4:5 places one near Bethel.  That makes the place known as The Tombs of the Children of Israel an interesting place to look.

The Toldoth Yeshu drawing on various conflicting Talmud passages often speculated to be about Jesus, places the Crucifixion at a place called Lod/Lud/Lydda.  In the Talmud this isn't said of a Yeshu at all but of Ben-Stada, I don't think Ben-Stada was Jesus, in fact I agree with the speculation that he may have been "That Egyptian" of Acts and Josephus.  What is interesting here is that it seems he was likewise sentenced in Jerusalem then taken to Lud, which could perhaps imply this was a standard procedure.

The few references to Lod in the Hebrew Bible associate it with Benjamin (1 Chronicles 8:12; Ezra 2:33; Nehemiah 7:37; 11:35).  Acts 9:32-38 has Peter perform miracles there, and calls it Nigh to Joppa but that is using the same word for Nigh again.  So I saved this for last because it begins with something not only outside The Bible but ultimately hostile to it.  However it can be seen as possible further evidence for it being in Benjamite land north of Jerusalem.

I'm going to add at the end here a bone for Preterists that they might find interesting.  In the Talmud the "Slain of Lydda" refers to people killed in Lod by Rome during the Kitos War.  The two notable ones were Jullian and Pappos.  The Talmud also refers to a Pappos ben Yehuda, in one context implying a possible family connection to Yeshu and Mariam.  Church history tells us unnamed grandsons of Jude the half brother of Jesus survived a persecution during the reign of Domitian, Eusebius adds however they were Martyred under Trajan, the Kitos War was under Trajan.  Then a great grandson of Jude was the last Bishop of Jerusalem.  Especially given a recent theory of mine, could Julian and Pappos be the grandsons of Jude?  Which could then open up for preterists to consider that these two Martyrs of Lydda were the Two Witnesses Martyred where Jesus was Crucified in Revelation 11.

Interestingly an Islamic Hadith refers to Lod as being where the Dajjal will be slain.  Many Islamic Antichrist proponents fixated on the Mahdi like to speculate that the Dajjal will be the Two Witnesses, independent of any of this.

Update October 22nd 2017:  Moreh and Gilgal.

Genesis 22:14 is often taken by Christians as saying where Isaac was offered is where Jesus will be Crucified.  And since Genesis 22:2 says that is Mt Moriah, that's taken as proof it must be some location that cna qualify as the same mountain as The Temple Mount.

But the Samaritan Pentatuch version of Genesis 22:2 says Moreh rather then Moriah, and the Latin Vulgate supposedly translated from the Torah used by Jews in Jerome's time, seems to be based on that reading.  I've been a strong Masoretic Text over anything else proponent for years.  But certain factors have recently caused me to consider the Samaritan version to possibly be right in some areas.  In this case the difference in just a Yot between the R and the H.

The Masoretic text does mention Moreh in three places, Genesis 12:6, Deuteronomy 11:30 and Judges 7:1.  The Samaritan tradition on where exactly Moreh refers to I think could be off.  It's not a synonym for Shechem.  Genesis 12:6 says Abraham went through the land of Shechem to the plain of Moreh.

Moreh is a plain or plains in the Torah references but a Hill in Judges 7.   In Genesis 12 Abraham leaves his Altar in the Plain of Moreh to make one on a hill between Bethel and Ai.  Could that hill have become the Hill of Moreh? And so for the offering to Isaac God brought Abraham back to the place where he earlier called upon the name of Yahuah?

Gilgal is a name that I'm not sure every place it appears refers to the same location.  And if it does I doubt the traditional place is it.  Deuteronomy 11:30 has a Gilgal right by the Plain of Moreh.  The first Gilgal of Joshua seems to be east of Jericho.  But then in Joshua 9 that's still the name of their Camp after taking Ai.  Which I talked about above.

1st Samuel 7:16 has a Gilgal in Samuel's circuit with Bethel.  Lots of later references to Gilgal in Samuel treat it possibly as almost synonymous with Bethel.  Hosea 4:15 pairs Gilgal with Bethaven, a name used as a derogatory synonym for Bethel while Jeroboam's Idol was there. A number of places seem to refer to sacrifices being made at Gilgal.  Amos also links Gilgal to Bethel.

In the Strongs, Gilgal is right next to Gulgoleth, the latter is arguably Gilgal with a TH added at the end.  Is it possible that Golgotha is Gilgal?

Update November 27th 2017: Retracting the Moreh instead of Moriah part.

First of all since I, unlike Torah only people, consider Chronicles canon, I think the only reason it names Moriah is to identify that location with Genesis 22, like how it in the same verse mentions the threshing floor.

There is also the fact that Moria is just a shorter way of saying the meaning of Jehovah-Jirah, that's why it's Yah theophoric.  And the Samaritan Pentateuch still agrees with saying Jehovah-Jirah in 22:14.

Also Moriah too carries the meaning of seeing or vision in it, so the argument for the Vulgate agreeing with the Samaritan here is flawed.

Also Abraham was living in Mamre/Hebron both before and after this narrative.  So I'm not sure it works to say he traveled that far north.

Since some use the existence of Salem against this being Moriah, I will remind people of my view that the Salem of Genesis is Shiloh.

Jesus wasn't Buried the same day He was Crucified.

Matthew 27:57-58 after Jesus had died says.

"When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple: He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered."

That is in the Hebrew reckoning the beginning of the next day, when the Evening had come.  Mark's account of the same event in 15:42-44 also says this.  It's lacking from Luke and John's accounts but isn't contradicted, maybe because they were writing for more gentile audiences.

All the ongoing debates on what day to place the Crucifixion seem to not be aware of this detail.  Typologically it can also fit Numbers 33:4 which says the 15th of Nisan was the day the Egyptians buried their First Born.  Jesus is the Firstborn of Creation.

John 19 (verse 14) calls when Jesus was on The Cross the Preparation Day of the Passover, which was the 14th of Nisan, unambiguously.  Later in John 19 (31 and 42), and in the Synoptic accounts, Jesus burial is described as being on the Preparation Day of the Sabbath.  It seems people have assumed they must be the same Preparation, but they are not, if the Sabbath fell on the 16th of Nisan, then the first day of Unleavened Bread would also be the Preparation day for the weekly Sabbath.

The strongest argument the Friday Crucifixion people have is their insistence we're torturing the text in insisting the 15th of Nisan would be called a Sabbath regardless of the day it fell on.  While Leviticus 23 does say not to do servile work that day, those restrictions have been interpreted as not as strict as the weekly Sabbath.  The Tishri Holy Days use the word Sabbath to describe these days, but it's not used of the first day of Unleavened Bread, though you could argue it is of the seventh day of Unleavened Bread in that the word Seventh is essentially the same word.

The basis for defining Friday as preparation for the Sabbath goes back to the Manna account in Exodus 16.

The Friday Crucifixion people are also right that you don't need a full 72 hours to get to the Third Day.   The desire of Wednesday proponents like Chuck Missler to mock that is unwittingly also mocking how the day for Circumcision and the Eight day of Tabernacles are counted.  I personally see every reference to Jesus Rising on the Third Day as the Third Day of Unleavened Bread, the 17th of Nisan.  The 17th of Nisan is also important in Esther and possibly in The Flood account.

However Friday proponents can't get three days AND three nights.  They can only get two nights (Friday/Saturday and Saturday/Sunday).  And it's similar with this new argument that every "First day of The Week" in the New Testament is really the Sabbath, I don't see how that model can get three nights either, because the third night has always been in Hebrew reckoning Sunday night.

Debating what day Jesus was Crucified I've seen rarely looks at the arguments typologically in Genesis 1.

Wednesday model supporters are also often people paranoid about doing anything on Sunday being Sun worship.  Well in the Biblical Week the Sun and Moon were created on Woden's day.

I place the Crucifixion on Thursday, now with a different argument then I used to.  That's the day God first Created Life, because Biblically plants aren't Life.

I now place Jesus burial on the Sixth day.  The same day the First Adam was formed out of The Earth is the day the Last Adam was placed in it.

Then Jesus Rested on The Sabbath, and rose again on the Eight Day, a New Beginning.  But also the Third Day of Unleavened Bread.  It's also First Fruits and the day God made Light.  It was also on a Sunday that the Manna first fell from Heaven.

The 69th Week ended in 30 AD

Now for the Seventy Weeks Prophecy as a separate study.  I studied when Jesus died here.

Daniel 9:24-27

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.  Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.  And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Why the 7 and 62 weeks are distinct I don't know, I'm sure there is a reason, but distinct or not they're consecutive, the only gap is between the 69th and the 70th weeks, a gap that included the Destruction of the Temple is 70 AD. One possible theory I'm considering is that Nisan of 405 B.C. is when Malachi's book was published, closing the canon of the Hebrew Bible (what we often call The Old Testament).

Interpreting this as referring to 490 years is NOT the Day=Year theory because neither Day or Year is used. The Hebrew word translated "week" here simply means seven and can refer to seven of anything. Leviticus 25 refers to Sabbaths of years. The context of this prophecy was Daniel praying at the end of the 70 year captivity, so the context is years. 2 Chronicles 36:21 cites one of the reasons for a 70 years captivity is that for 490 years they'd failed to keep the sabbatical year.

Ezra and Nehemiah record about 4 different Decrees issued by Persian Kings. Cyrus's decree is the most famous and the first, but the text of the 70 weeks prophecy specifies the entire City including Wall be rebuilt. But the Biblical references make clear that is the 4th and final one at the beginning of Nehemiah. The text in Daniel 9 doesn't refer to The Temple's rebuilding at all.

People have tried to argue from Extra Biblical conjectures that the wall was included in Cyrus's decree anyway, but the texts of the Decree at the end of II Chronicles and the beginning of Ezra talk only about The Temple. Isaiah 44 and 45 do speak of the City, but NO mention is made of the Wall. In a poetic sense the rebuilding of The Temple begins the rebuilding of the City, but to ignore the significance that the Wall was not rebuilt until the time of Nehemiah is to miss the entire point of the narrative of Ezra, that the lack of the Wall kept hindering their attempts to rebuild the City.

The decree recorded in Nehemiah 2:1-8 was given in Nisan, the same month as Passover. One argument against the Nehemiah decree is we don't know the exact day, only the month. All the text of Daniel 9 deals with is years however and Nisan is Biblically the first Month of the Year, so I never word my interpretation of Daniel 9 as saying it was fulfilled to the exact day, only the year. The day the Messiah arrives as well as the day he is cut off is determined by understanding the Spring Feasts. Nehemiah also prayed the same Prayer Daniel prayed in Daniel 9, he's clearly linked to this prophecy.

So clearly the Nisan exactly 483 years latter must be when The Messiah was to be Cut Off. This decree is often erroneously dated to 445 or 444 B.C. Because Nehemiah dates it to the Nisan of the Twentieth year of Artaxerxes, and the beginning of Artaxerxes' reign and the death of Xerxes is dated to 465 B.C. because of Ptolemys' chronicle of Babylonian kings which ignores co-regencies.

Thucydides mentions that the accession of Artaxerxes had taken place before the flight of Themistocles. This places the start of his reign 473 or 474 B.C. And give the date of 454-455 B.C. as his twentieth year and the date of the decree.

Themistocles Seeks Protection from Artaxerxes.
This famous Greek grand-admiral, war hero of the Battle of Salamis, suffered a radical change of fortune. At the time of the betrayal of the Spartan hero, Pausanias, Themistocles, rightly or wrongly, was also implicated of treason toward the very nation-state that he protected. And, having learned of the death penalty meted out to Pausanius - he was actually walled in in the very temple where he sought refuge! - Themistocles decided to not wait for a similar fate. He journeyed to Persia for refuge. Having fought valiantly against the father, Xerxes, he sought protection of the son, Artaxerxes.

Themistocles Meets Artaxerxes, not Xerxes.
First, the passage from Thucydides. Themistocles escaped across the Aegean to Ephesus. The history continues...

"He then travelled inland with one of the Persians living on the coast and sent a letter Artaxerxes, the son of Xerxes, who had recently come to the throne."

An Eclipse helps to fix the date.
Although this relatively late period of Greek history (in which we have Themistocles's flight) is fairly accurately settled in history (that is, there is no serious controversy as to the dates), one more event transpires that is absolutely ironclad: a near-total eclipse of the sun on August 3rd, 431 BC, at the very beginning of the Peloponnesian War.

Why is this ironclad? There is no slop factor involved. Eclipses can be both predicted as future certainties and corroborated as historical events. Such is the case with the eclipse of 431 BC that Thucydides describes. The NASA website describes this account of Thucydides as the "[o]ldest European record of a verifiable solar eclipse (annular)"

How does this relate to the first event, the flight of Themistocles? They are both reported in the famous History of the Peloponnesian War of Thucydides, a carefully calibrated account that relates all events described (except the very early history of the first chapters) according to a unified chronological frame of reference.

To know the date of the solar eclipse, 431 BC (modernly verified by NASA, for those who require such proof) is to know, by reading the History, the date of the flight of Themistocles, 473 BC. To know that date is to know also the beginning of the reign of Artaxerxes, which happened just a short while before this, 474 or 473 BC.

Numerous Egyptian records also corroborate that Artaxerxes co-ruled with Xerxes during the last decade of Xerxes reign.

So the Decree was in fact issued in the Nisan of 454 BC. 483 years latter takes us to the Nisan of 30 AD.

Ussher agreed with this date for Artaxerxes 20th year, but still insisted on a 33 A.D. Crucifixion, so he insisted the date pointed to the Baptism.

Those trying to make this point to 32 or 33 AD (starting from the incorrect 444 or 445 B.C. date for the Decree) by talking about "God's calendar is 360 days" are just torturing the data. The Jews always synchronized their Lunar calendar to the Solar cycle.

There is a trend of even some Christians, even Futurist/Premillennial ones, arguing that "Messiah the Prince" does not refer to Jesus, or The Messiah at all. First they argue that the definite article "ha" isn't used before Messiah here. The text does use in place of the usual definite article the Hebrew letters Ayin and Res, this is usually left untranslated. Ayin-Resh is the Hebrew word for city. It's foretelling the arrival in Jerusalem of that City's Anointed One and Prince.

The word Messiah is used of individuals who aren't Jesus often, I know. But this is actually the most unique of ALL uses of the word Messiah, only here is it so uniquely paired with the word Nagiyd, not the more common and mundane Sar.   I've seen it erroneously claimed Nagyid is a Persian word not Hebrew. If it were Persian in origin the only Biblical texts it could appear in are Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther and perhaps the very end of II Chronicles. But it's used by Ezekiel in 28:2 (the "Prince" of Tyre here is distinct from The King), many times in Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, in Jeremiah and in the Psalms, and Proverbs. And even in Job, which is possibly older then the completion of the Torah in the days of Moses.

It's a far more important and precise occurrence then just using an equivalent of "The". To me No usage of the word is more indisputably about The Messiah Ben-David promised in II Samuel 7. The Triumphal entry wasn't the only time Jesus entered Jerusalem, but it is the only time he did so in a way that matched Zachariah 9:9's prophecy of the coming of the Messiah, with the people singing Psalm 118.

A claim exists that in verse 25 a period should be after the Seven Weeks and before the 62, and that it's only after the 7 weeks that "Messiah the Prince" appears. This is not justified by the Greens inter-lineal Bible I have at all.  Messiah is "cut off" AFTER the 62 weeks have ended.

I've seen some argue the translation "Messiah" as "Anointed One" in verse 26 is inaccurate. This shows complete ignorance of Hebrew, the letter Yot being used in the word the way it is here makes it always a noun, a separate word, messah, is used to simply mean anointing or to anoint. This argument uses the Septuagint version to back itself up. I need to do a whole study on just the Septuagint someday, the Septuagint is very problematic for many reasons and in my view Christians need to stop using it like they do.

This interpretation tries to get the 62 weeks to end in 70 A.D. by citing the same nonsense about the Persian Empire's history being wrong to support the Sedar Olam's dating system on which the modern Jewish calendar is based. This won't hold up under scrutiny because it is well known the Sedar Olam's dates were deliberately fudged to try and make the 70 weeks prophecy point to Bar Kochba, who lived roughly a century too late.  We also have Greek kings-lists backing p the Length of this period, due to Alexander I of Macedon being involved in the first two Persian wars.

The core of this argument is that the focus of the 70 weeks prophecy is about The Temple and Jerusalem, and nothing significant happened there when Jesus died. Their forgetting something important. Matthew 27:51, Mark 15:38 and Luke 23:45 all record then when Jesus died on The Cross "And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom;". The Temple physically stood for another 40 years, but it's Mosaic anointing ended when Jesus finally became the true Sacrificial offering all the others were only rehearsals for.  I'll again quote the Talmud Yoma 39b

Our Rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot [‘For the Lord’] did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-coloured strap become white; nor did the westernmost light shine; and the doors of the Hekal would open by themselves, until R. Johanan b. Zakkai rebuked them, saying: Hekal, Hekal, why wilt thou be the alarmer thyself? I know about thee that thou wilt be destroyed, for Zechariah ben Ido has already prophesied concerning thee: Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars.

So actually even what this wrong interpretation says the 62 weeks points to happened in 30 A.D. So I've come to interpret "Messiah be cut off" as having a double meaning, both referring to Jesus' death on the Cross, and the removing of divine presence from The Temple when the veil was torn.

Jerome records in his Letter to Hedibia 120.8 that some early altered versions of Matthew's Gospels added to Matthew 27:51 that the lintel of the Temple collapsed.

After the Triumphal Entry Luke 19:41 records that Jesus.

And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.

And goes on to foretell Jerusalem's coming destruction. The people were judged for failing to recognize prophecy had been fulfilled. And not just because what he did matched what Zachariah 9:9 described, a false Messiah could attempt such a thing. The phrase "in this thy day", clearly tells us timing was the key. The context of the coming destruction of Jerusalem clearly tells us to look to Daniel 9, no where else does the Hebrew Bible speak of Jerusalem being destroyed again in addition to the destruction in 588 BC. And then in verse 44 the matter is made more clear "because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation."

So using Scripture to interpret Scripture, that settles the matter for me.

All I'll say here on the 70th Week, is that based on the Interpretation I've laid out of the first 69, the 70th Week must begin with the consecration of the Third Temple. The view of some that it'll not be finished being built till the halfway point I feel is erroneous and potentially sets the stage of part of the End Time deception.  My understanding of Revelation 11 being the first half of the 70th Week backs that up.

Update March 2024: A Huge Section of this was Copy/Pasted form somewhere else without credit and now I don't even remember what the source.  I'm Sorry about that.