and the Crucifixion¹

If you have an appetite for something "meaty," ² I believe you will enjoy the following study, which investigates the Red Heifer sacrifice – a relatively "obscure" feature of the Mosaic Law – and its astounding significance for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ nearly two millennia ago. In some respects this could be considered an "advanced" study. But then solid food is for the mature. As the writer of Hebrews stated,

What exactly is this "solid food"? What sorts of topics does the writer tantalize us with, before deciding to stick to a simpler agenda? ⁴ The writer touches on such topics as angels, the elusive Melchizedek, Old Testament typology and fulfillment, the nature of sacrifice – and especially, for our purposes, the Red Heifer.

Now unless we have steeped ourselves in the Old Testament, we may be struck by the unfamiliarity of many items in this paper, which weaves together Torah, Mishnah, history, linguistics, the New Testament, and early Christian testimony to support its thesis. Please bear this in mind as you patiently consider the following pages. So let’s dig in!

Sacrifice is found in nearly every book of the Bible, and this theme binds together all the other themes and plots in Scripture. The place of sacrifice par excellence is Moriah. Often we hear mention of "Mount Moriah." In a sense, there is more than one "Mount Moriah." Just as the Ark came to rest on "one of the mountains of Ararat," rather than on the Mount Ararat (Genesis 8:4), so Abraham was bidden by God to sacrifice his son on one of the mountains in the land of Moriah (Genesis 22:2):

There are conceivably a number of "Moriahs." Jesus too was sacrificed in the land of Moriah. Is there any need to remind the reader that there are at least ten amazing parallels, by way of foreshadowing, between the sacrifice of Isaac and the sacrifice of Jesus? It would come as no surprise if they were "sacrificed" and "received back" on the same mountain. The sacrifice of Christ takes on new meaning when we understand the Old Testament foreshadowing – in this case, with startling coincidence of detail. ⁵

The site of Jesus’ execution, like that of Isaac’s "sacrifice," is never identified with the Temple Mount, unlike the threshing floor of Araunah:

There are, in effect, two theologically significant places of sacrifice in the land of Moriah. The Mount of Olives is located on Moriah, and it is probable that here both Isaac and Jesus were offered. The threshing floor at which David stemmed the plague, indeed the very site at which Solomon erected his magnificent Temple, were not on the Mount of Olives, but on Moriah. The Mount of Olives we could call "Upper" Mt. Moriah, the Temple Mount, "Lower" Mt. Moriah.

You may be caught off guard by the thought that the Mount of Olives was a place of worship or sacrifice in the Bible. After all, wasn’t this a serene place of prayer? Was blood actually shed on this mountain?

According to 2 Samuel 15:32, there was already a significant place of worship on the Mount of Olives – some thousand years before Jesus was crucified:

Yes, the elevated location was already a place of worship and sacrifice. At any rate, the threshing floor of Araunah (2 Samuel 24, 1 Chronicles 21), located on the other side of the Kidron on what would soon become the site of the First Temple, ⁷ was not the only place where reconciliation between man and God took place. The place of the Head, on the Mount of Olives, near the road into the city, was also a "holy place", as 2 Samuel 15 reveals to us.

II. THE RED HEIFER⁸

The sacrifice of the Red Heifer is commanded in Numbers 19. If you are like me, you are probably unfamiliar with this sacrifice commanded by God through Moses:

Why the extended citation of Numbers 19? Because the Red Heifer sacrifice corresponds to the sacrifice of the Messiah.⁹ A sanctifying paste was manufactured from the ashes of the heifer, to purify the people (pilgrims as well as those on normal sacrificial errands) so that they could approach the House of God.

Please notice that there was "a ceremonially clean place," outside the Temple precincts, yet which was, in a sense, an extension of the holy Temple. The Red Heifer sacrifice, unlike those offered on the altar of burnt offering, was carried out outside the camp. According to Jewish tradition, nine red heifers had been sacrificed since the time of Moses (Parah 3:5).¹⁰ The Hebrew writer alludes to this remarkable correspondence between the Red Heifer sacrifice and the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ:

The Red Heifer sacrifice is alluded to in Hebrews 13. (What other sacrifice could it be?) This was the sacrifice by whose ashes all Jews entering the Temple had to be purified. Many early Christians realized the deep symbolism of this sacrifice. Consider the Epistle of Barnabas, written around 100 AD:

Let us continue to trace the thought of the Hebrew writer:

The implications for our evangelism of going to Jesus "outside the camp" are worth many sermons. We leave traditional religion (Temple) behind, forging out of the "comfort zone" into the dark world we are called to serve. We are called not to sit at home, quietly idling away our evenings, but to pour our time into building relationships with those who do not know Christ. However, our special concern at this point is the altar at which the sacrificial bodies were disposed of, the so-called "Miphkad Altar."

There is substantial evidence in the Old Testament for a location "outside the camp" devoted to the incineration of the bodies of sacrificial animals, the Miphkad Altar¹¹ (Leviticus 4:12, 6:11).¹²

In Hebrews 13 the writer contrasts the holocausts at the Temple with those outside – namely, at the Miphkad Altar, mentioned in Numbers, Ezekiel¹³ and the Mishnah. Jesus’ death is symbolically connected with this altar¹⁴ outside the Temple. (Not to say that the crucifixion necessarily took place at this altar.) Where were the bodies of the sacrificial victims totally incinerated?

The Miphkad Altar stood 2000 cubits from the Temple on the Mount of Olives,¹⁵ and although few Christians today – or Jews, for that matter – realize its true significance, this is arguably the most important of the three altars of the Temple. The three are (1) the altar of burnt offering, (2) the incense altar, and (3) the Miphkad Altar (technically a pit, according to Parah 4:2).¹⁶

It is certainly not difficult to see how much richer the symbolism and typology of death of Jesus is if our "red heifer sacrifice" was "slaughtered" on the Mount of Olives, in roughly the same location as the original Red Heifer sacrifice.

One final comment on the third altar of the Temple. The Mishnah says clearly that the priests offering the sacrifice of the Red Heifer needed to be able to see the altar of burnt offering from their vantage point on the Mount of Olives:

Since the Mount of Olives (Upper Mount Moriah) is taller than the Temple Mount (Lower Mount Moriah), the priests sacrificing at the third altar were able to look down on the Temple Mount and see (over the intentionally lowered wall) the altar of burnt offering. If Jesus’ sacrificial death fulfills the sacrifice of the Red Heifer, as the Hebrew writer and early Christian tradition affirm, then the Son of God was almost certainly crucified on the Mount of Olives.

Isn’t the heifer illustration inaccurate? Is Jesus not our paschal lamb? Yes, Christ is a "lamb," insofar as his blood, like that of the Passover animal,¹⁷ "covers" us. The parallel is noted in 1 Corinthians 5:7. Yet the Passover Lamb was not technically a sin offering. Although the people of God were saved by virtue of its blood, the lamb did not in any sense "bear sin".

There were four historic sacrifices in the region of Moriah, the fourth being the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, paralleling the "sacrifice" of Isaac. These two both took place on a mountain in the land of Moriah. On "Lower" Mount Moriah David sacrificed to stop the plague which claimed 70,000 lives, and at this exact location Solomon translated the Mosaic Tabernacle service into the Temple, along with its sacrificial institutions. The Red Heifer sacrifice, which mirrors the atoning sacrifice of Jesus,¹⁸ was performed on the Mount of Olives, the approximate site of Jesus’ death and burial.

Somewhere on the Mount of Olives is the spot where Jesus Christ was unjustly executed. That the Mount of Olives is the authentic location is probable for three reasons: (1) This is the site of the Miphkad Altar and the Red Heifer sacrifice. (2) There are strong political reasons why Jesus would have been publicly slain on the Mount of Olives, along the Roman road into the city. (3) This site provides the visual vantage point which best facilitates the centurion’s observations, according to the gospel accounts.

As we have seen, both Torah and Mishnah clearly declare that the "third" altar of the Temple was located on the Mount of Olives, and it was here that the Red Heifer was slain. Moreover, as we have seen, there was already a significant site halfway up the Mount of Olives a thousand years before Jesus was crucified (2 Samuel 15:32). Since the Red Heifer sacrifice represents the sacrifice of the Son of God, it is certainly a good possibility that his death took place on "Upper" Mount Moriah.

Had Pilate crucified Jesus on a major pilgrim route, a road into the city, this would have made a statement – and quite a loud one – to future would-be "kings". In fact, according to the Roman writer Quintillian, "Whenever we crucify the guilty, the most crowded roads are chosen, where the most people can see and be moved by this fear. For penalties relate not so much to retribution as to their exemplary effect."¹⁹

The Roman road to Jericho followed approximately the same track as the road at the time of David, and would have been the perfect location for any public execution making a political statement.

Yes, the strategic location of the Mount of Olives, especially in the middle of a major religious holiday, would have maximized the impact of Jesus’ execution. Note also that Jesus began his "triumphal entry" at "Bethphage on the Mount of Olives" (Matthew 21:1). Of course Pilate could have arranged Jesus’ execution anywhere he liked – he showed himself capable of considerable political ineptitude during his ten-year tenure as governor of Judea²⁰ – but the strategic location of the eastern site must be taken into account.

Apart from the Temple Courts themselves, only from the Mount of Olives – across the Kidron Valley from the Temple Mount – would anyone have a clear view of the Temple curtain, which tore at Jesus’ death, and which the Gospels say the centurion saw. In one sense the site of the crucifixion depends on the sight of the Temple! In Matthew 27 we read

The East-West dispute will be further addressed in the following section. Suffice it to say that there are more difficulties reconciling the gospel descriptions²¹ of the unusual events attending Jesus’ death with the "western" view than with the "eastern."

The significance of the Mount of Olives vis-à-vis Jesus Christ’s (1) Triumphal Entry, (2) Gethsemane prayer, (3) Arrest, (4) Crucifixion, (5) Burial, (6) Resurrection and (7) Ascension certainly must not be underestimated.

All seven of these events took place east of the city,²² on the Mount of Olives. Moreover, the Via Dolorosa, or the Sad Road, in Latin, led not westward from the Temple Mount, but eastward.

The traditional location of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, just outside the Second Wall of old Jerusalem. I maintain, however, that the correct site is on the Mount of Olives – in exactly the opposite direction from the Temple Mount.

The western site is unlikely to be authentic, or even lie in the vicinity of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, for three reasons: lack of attestation, prevailing winds, and an optical difficulty.

If the western Calvary is authentic, why is there no mention of it in records or Christian writings before the 4^th century? In fact, the only site holy to Christians before the 4^th century seems to have been the Mount of Olives.²³ The lack of attestation presents another difficulty in accepting the traditional location.

Are we really to believe, as Eusebius relates the story of Helena, the mother of Constantine, that this woman found both the true site of the crucifixion and the "three crosses" upon her visit to Jerusalem in 326 AD? Remember, the early fourth century, after the legalization of Christianity (313), was an age of superstition, relics, sainthood, and increasing inaccuracy in both the gospel story and the claims of adherents to Christendom. 4^th century Christians freely adopted and subsequently adapted many pagan holidays and sites, bringing them, under a thin sacral veneer, into the mainstream faith.

The site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, visited annually by hundreds of thousands of tourists, was actually the location of the pagan Temple of Venus, the goddess of love. This edifice was erected by the Emperor Hadrian in the late 130s. So the site was "sacred" – but not sacred as the place of Jesus’ execution, but rather sacred to the spirit of paganism! This is another reason it seems nothing more than superstition to accept the early Catholic legend of the "Holy Sepulchre." ²⁴

In short, it would be naïve to accept the traditional site on the word of Constantine’s mother, or by virtue of the many "miracles" performed at the site.

The prevailing winds in Jerusalem blow from west to east. That means that the execution of criminals, for hygienic and olfactory reasons, is more likely to have taken place east of the city. Although the traditional Golgotha lay outside the second wall of the city,²⁵ it is still very close to the city. And, as we have seen, it does not in any way make sense of the Red Heifer sacrifice or the mysterious Miphkad Altar.

This passage, like its parallels in the other gospels, implies²⁶ that the Roman soldier had a view of the Temple. The western site, however, is improperly situated for this; it is located on the wrong side of the Temple (which faced east)! The curtain, between 82 x 24 feet in size²⁷ and facing eastward, would not have been visible (despite its enormous dimensions) from the traditional Calvary. It should be noted that the curtain in question was not that separating the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies, but an outer curtain. (Hebrews 9:3, referring to the Tabernacle, describes the inner curtain between Sanctuary and Holy of Holies as "the second curtain".)

In addition, the tombs are on the eastern side of the Temple Mount, not on the west. From the traditional Calvary there would have been nothing to see! Indeed, the western orientation of the traditional site does create a visual problem – unless, of course, the centurion had X-ray vision! So much for the visual aspect.²⁸

One last reason it is unlikely that the 4^th century church structure marks the site of Jesus’ crucifixion is that, in the 1^st century, this area of the city was rather built up, and hence less likely to have been used as a place of execution.

In short, there are serious difficulties with the traditional identification of Golgotha. For a number of reasons, it seems more probable the Crucifixion took place east of the Temple, on the Mount of Olives.²⁹

Some favoring the western site are quick to point out that there is a hillside in Jerusalem which (somewhat) resembles a skull. General Charles Gordon was apparently the first to recognize this, in the 19^th century. The site has been dubbed "Gordon’s Calvary." No similar, "skull-like" location has been suggested for any location on the Mount of Olives. The problem with this is that, what Gordon saw in the 19^th century, no one before him ever reported. Fairly detailed sketches of Jerusalem have survived from, for example, the 17^th century; none knows of any skull-like hill. Apparently Gordon’s skull is the result of fairly recent weathering.

Now the image of a skull certainly preaches better than that of a head, just as the Jolly Roger is more likely to strike terror into the crew of a galleon than a "happy face". Yet the translation of the Hebrew gulgoleth and the Greek kranion ought not to be influenced by our church traditions!

The Greek word kranion (Matthew 27:33, Mark 15:22, Luke 22:33, John 19:17), meaning skull or head, comes from the Homeric Greek kara, meaning head, top, or summit. Often kranion translates the Hebrew gulgoleth, while kephale translates the Hebrew ro’sh – but not always! Ro’sh is Hebrew for head, as in Ro’sh hashanah, or Head of the Year. (Not "skull" of the year!) The point is that Golgotha can just as well signify Head as Skull. Once again, while skull is (usually) a perfectly good translation of kranion in the N.T. and in the LXX,³⁰ the word can equally well be rendered head. This makes the identification of Golgotha with the Summit or Head of 2 Samuel 15:32³¹ much more convincing.

At any rate, the real questions have nothing to do with whether the hill on which Jesus was crucified resembled a skull or not. They are (1) What is the theological significance of Jesus’ death? (2) What is God trying to teach us? (3) Where was this hill located? (4) How do these facts inform our understanding of Jesus’ crucifixion?

Well, we have gone deeper into the Word of God! We have not skirted the sorts of issues suggested by the Hebrew writer, and hopefully we have been fed with some solid food!

As we have seen, in the New Testament the crucifixion of Jesus is clearly identified with the sacrifice of the Red Heifer, which took place on the Mount of Olives. This is exciting, for several reasons:

The Old Testament truly opens up, as we grasp the typological significance of the crucifixion and all the surrounding details. This is precisely the "solid food" of which Hebrews speaks. This also helps us to appreciate the lines of reasoning available to great minds like Paul and Apollos, which they could have used to win the Jews to the faith. This kind of study is faith building and beneficial for all Christians as they mature in the faith.

Simply stated, traditional Christianity is mistaken in its identification of the western site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre as the location of Jesus’ death and resurrection. The site of the Temple of Venus should be recognized for what it is. When visiting Jerusalem, by all means do see this ancient building; yet understand that no amount of sincere devotion or veneration can transform the truth.

In addition, there will be little need to "compete" with the "tour groups" down the traditional Via Dolorosa and inside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, since we recognize that they are well over a kilometer from the true site of the crucifixion, on the Mount of Olives.

Is it surprising that "traditional" Christianity has misconstrued the meaning – and even the circumstances of – the cross? So much has been lost; so much must be restored! It is my hope that this paper has called us back to the cross: the real location of Calvary and, more vitally, its position in our hearts as men and women of God.