Priests and Rabbis

THE PRIESTLY ORDER OF COHANIM

When the Israelites were in the wilderness, God told Moses to have his brother Aaron, and Aaron’s four sons brought before him so they may serve as priests to the people. God anointed Aaron and his sons so that the priests could only come from Aaron’s lineage. According to Jewish tradition, Aaron’s family name was HaCohen and the high priest was named the Cohen Gadol5. And God said, “Appoint Aaron and his sons to serve as priest; anyone else who approaches the sanctuary must be put to death.” (Numbers 3:10, KJV)

There were thirteen Cohen Gadol’s from the time of Aaron’s anointing in the wilderness to the completion of David’s temple by King Solomon6. Zadok was the first Cohen Gadol in David’s temple7. All future priests (eighteen in all) were from the direct line of Zadok up to the destruction of Solomon’s temple and the Jewish exile in Babylon. The high priest at the time of this exile was Josadek8.

Notice the Zadok-Sadek interchange.

After 70 years of Jewish exile in Babylon, Cyrus, King of Persia, gave a decree to allow the Jews to go back to their land and rebuild their temple. Joshua the son of Josadek was chosen to serve as high priest in the new temple. Summarily, Jewish history accounts for 83 Cohen Gadols from the time of Aaron’s anointing to the destruction of Herod’s temple by Titus in 70 AD9.

The Jewish Torah states that there is no way to be promoted into the priesthood. The Jewish priesthood is only passed down from father to son10. Jewish tradition also says this priesthood will be everlasting. Exodus 29:9 (KJV) speaks of the “Priesthood as a statute forever.” Exodus 40:15 (KJV) says, ” it shall be for them an appointment to an everlasting Priesthood throughout their generations.”

So then, was Jesus attempting to usurp John the Baptist? A battle of succession? Was Salome a cohort of Jesus? A Salome was present when Jesus raised Lazarus. The line in Exodus sounds very similar to "...and this shall be my Zeker unto all generations."

Numbers 25:13 (KJV) says “it shall be to him and to his descendants after him a covenant of everlasting Priesthood.” The priesthood of Cohanim is one of many everlasting covenants made to the Jewish people by God. This idea is one of the foundational premises behind the Jewish belief that a future temple must be built. Is covenant synoymous with Zeker? The Ark of the Covenant being the Henu Barque of Zeker. Again, "...and this shall be my Zeker (Covenant) unto all generations."

What was the conflict between Jesus and Pharisees?

Under the direct governance of the Romans, the Jews of the First Century were economically exploited, experienced many religious impositions, and were subjected to Pagan views and practices. The political reality of the day was of an unfriendly dominant power overseeing life on a day-to-day basis. The Semitic Jews were and are not the true Jews: all they know is Pagan to them - they only use it for attempted political and material gain. They can't even give straight answers when asked about details regarding it.

The Hebrew people of this era generally fell into one of three camps in their views of how to cope with this sometimes oppressive oversight: one group wanted to appease the Romans, one group wanted to fight them, and one group just wanted to keep their heads down and go unnoticed.

WHo ARE THE PLAYERS IN THIS CONFLICT?

The Pharisees generally fell into the group of appeasers. They believed that if they could keep the law perfectly that YHWH would return to His people and get rid of the hated Romans for them. Perfect law keeping would bring this about. The Pharisees were the spiritual guides who thought of themselves as superior to those who did not keep the law as perfectly as they did.

Land owners had taken over most of the land of Galilee, the richest region in Palestine, so the poor could not freely grow food; the poor had nothing to eat. But the Pharisees did not help the poor, or those in need, they simply advised them to do better at keeping the law and YHWH would come. Many poor ran away into the mountains and joined bands of thieves in hope of finding food. Many of these became zealots who wanted to fight back at the Romans.

The scribes (Hebrew “sopherim”) were experts in the Law of Moses (Torah); they copied it and they explained it. At Jesus’ time, they were very influential and powerful in Jerusalem. They had three distinctive functions: 1) Preserve the Law of Moses (Torah) and its right interpretation; 2) Gather students and teach them; and 3) administer the law as judges in the Sanhedrin (Mt 22:35; Mk 14:43; Lk 22:66; Acts 4:5). The scribes were called “lawyers or teachers of the law.” They also wanted to appease the Romans.

The Sadducees had most of the real political and economic power. This party was formed from members of rich families. They were not terribly interested in the kingdom of God or in the coming of the Messiah. They were pragmatists. Their main concern was keeping their social status and the respect of the Romans. Therefore, societal change was dangerous in their eyes, and they did not shrink from using violent means against their countrymen if these countrymen provoked rebellions, or revolts, or disturbed the peace. In their view, there was no other option but appeasing the Romans.

The members of the Great Sanhedrin were rich and powerful men from the aristocratic families in Israel. This council had 71 members, including the High Priest, president of the assembly of Pharisees and Sadducees, and some influential scribes. They often did not agree on much, but they all did pretty much agree on appeasing the Romans.

They were the domestic government of Judea and had authority to deal with matters regarding religion, justice, and the economy. However, the final decision in all the matters depended on the Roman prefect, Pilate.

The High Priests were the highest religious authority in Israel. They belonged to the tribe of Levi and inherited their position. Their responsibility was to take care of the Temple of Jerusalem and organize the system of the sacrifices.

HOW DID THEY SEE THINGS?

Maintaining the status quo was primary for all these groups.

The religious authorities believed they were chosen by God, so they also believed their teachings about the Law and the traditions were true and must be obeyed. After the Babylonian captivity, the people’s ability to read Hebrew was mostly gone and they were dependent on their leadership to tell them what God’s will was. The leaders taught the people that acting against them is acting against God—and implicitly it was also acting against Rome. Challenging their teachings and authority, then in their view, was basically urging Israel to abandon God’s authority. Plus it could cause problems with Rome and upset their apple cart.

For these reasons, Jesus is a great threat to them all. He calls into question their authority; he questions their moral fitness; he questions their motives. From this perspective, the conflict between Jesus and the religious leaders is inevitable.

But Jesus’ teachings have a divine authority all their own, while the scribes’ teachings are human traditions. Jesus is always right because he “thinks the way God does” while the leaders are always wrong because they “think the way humans do”.

For example, the healing of a paralytic (Mark 2:1-12): “Now some scribes were sitting there, and they thought to themselves, how can this man talk like that? He is being blasphemous. Who but God can forgive sins?”

By forgiving the man’s sins, Jesus is trying to heal the whole person (his body and his soul) and not just his body. But the scribes think Jesus is guilty of blasphemy because only God can forgive sins. They think Jesus is pretending to be God and have God’s authority. What your enemies think is sometimes very revealing.

This is one of my favorite scenes in scripture: Jesus demonstrates the error in their thinking by healing the man’s paralysis! We think healing the body is the miracle, while Jesus knew that the man could go out the next day and be hurt again. Physical healing was temporary. Jesus knew forgiving his sins was forever, and therefore it was a much greater gift. This also foreshadows Jesus knowing what forgiveness was going to cost him.

Another example is found in Mark 2:15-17: “When the scribes and the Pharisees saw him eating with sinners and tax collectors, they said to his disciples, why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners? When Jesus heard this he said to them: It is not the healthy who need the doctor, but the sick. I came to call not the upright, but sinners”.

According to Jewish tradition, whoever eats with sinners becomes an unclean or impure person. Jesus is saying it doesn’t help the needy to avoid associating with them. The two completely different focuses are readily apparent here.

“John’s disciples and the Pharisees were keeping a fast, when some people came and said: Why is it that John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not?” (Mark 2:18-20)

The Jews were originally required to fast once a year during the Day of Atonement; then it became four times a year, and by the time of Jesus, the spiritual leaders were fasting twice a week. They considered this evidence of their superior holiness, and Jesus and his disciples did not fast at all.

Once again, Jesus attempts to correct their thinking. Jesus explains it with the parable of the wedding, the new cloth on the old cloak, and the new wine in the old wineskins. The old covenant cannot be repaired, therefore it must give way to the New Covenant, which is Jesus himself and the kingdom of God.

These other conflicts barely hold a candle to Jesus and his disciples actually breaking the Law though! In Mark 2:23-28, “It happened that one Sabbath day he was taking a walk through the grain fields, and his disciples began to make a path by plucking ears of grain. And the Pharisees said to him: Look, why are they doing something on the Sabbath day that is forbidden?”

And Jesus’ response is to assert his authority even over the Sabbath itself!

First he points out that in some circumstances human needs (hunger) are more important than law; people are more important than rules! This was completely opposite of the foundation and focus of their entire lives!

Then he says, the Sabbath was made for men, not men for the Sabbath; they have everything upside down and backwards! Furthermore, Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath: he has the authority to change the rules! He is claiming an authority the Pharisees and the scribes don’t have and could never have.

When Jesus heals a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath day in Mark 3:1-6: “They were watching him to see if he would cure him on the Sabbath day, hoping for something to charge him with… The Pharisees went out and began at once to plot with the Herodians against him, discussing how to destroy him.”

Jesus challenges the Pharisees’ interpretation of the Law because it lacked love and compassion. It made rules more important than people. It not only is not founded upon love, it does not even incorporate the law of love. Jesus instead does what is good and kind and loving: he meets that man’s need and heals him.

We still have this problem today. We also struggle with letting rules be more important than loving people. We want to be good and do what is right but we forget the bottom line.

Mark 3:22-30 is particularly interesting because it is one of the texts that prove Jesus’ various healings. “The scribes who had come down from Jerusalem were saying: Beelzebul is in him, and, it is through the prince of devils that he drives devils out…” The fact the scribes were making the effort to come up with some other explanation shows they were really happening.

Jesus responds with logic. I love that! A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand—but this comment is not simply about Satan’s kingdom—this is about Israel and the kingdom of God.

Insulting the Holy Spirit produced a firm reprimand!

In Mark 7:1-13, Jesus gets really confrontational when he confronts the difference between God’s actual intents and purposes and human traditions.

“The Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered round him and they noticed that some of his disciples were eating with unclean hands, that is, without washing them… Why do your disciples not respect the tradition of the elders but eat their food with unclean hands?”

Jesus is not against washing hands. Using the prophecy of Isaiah 29:13, Jesus response here is really tough! He accuses the Pharisees and the scribes of being hypocrites: “You put aside the commandment of God to observe human traditions.” He goes on and proves his point. His “proofs” are unanswerable. He is right. He has completely exposed them for what they really are.

THE PRIMARY CONFLICT

All of these conflicts lead up to the primary one at the Temple. When Jesus throws out the moneychangers, he explains later—in a cryptic manner—that he is asserting his authority over the Temple itself. HE is the new Temple.

They ask him, “What authority have you for acting like this? Or who gave you authority to act like this?” And his answer can be summed up in asserting He is the new eschatological Temple and He will be replacing the existing Temple with Himself. He is David’s Lord. He is the priest forever like Melchizadeck. His authority is his own as the fulfillment of all that God had prophesied.

He tried to explain their understanding of Messiah was inadequate. He tried to explain their expectations were false. But God doesn’t argue with hard-hearted stubborn human beings, and he told them these things couched in puzzles they did not understand.

They didn’t understand resurrection. They didn’t understand the power of God. Their concept of God was too small—just like ours tends to be. In their minds, God was going to do what they wanted because they deserved it for being good. That put them in control of God. Humans all have these issues with control! But God has a way of completely shattering that.

When Jesus was hanging on the cross, the religious leaders made fun of him; he saved other people, but he cannot save himself (15:31-32). This is the last time the leaders appear in the gospel of Mark. In their view, the crucifixion shows that Jesus’ authority did not come from God and that they are the winners of the conflict.

But the resurrection shows God—and all mankind—are the true winners. Jesus, through his death and resurrection, becomes the way to salvation (there is no need for the Temple anymore) and the founder of the eschatological people of God. He establishes the new covenant that does away with the need for the old. And so in the end the Pharisees have undone themselves and all their power. Within a generation, it is all gone.

IN CONCLUSION

The conflict between Jesus and the religious leaders is one of the key themes of Mark’s gospel—of all the gospels. It is present from beginning to end. This conflict is a conflict of authority. It is a conflict of self-awareness—of God-awareness. It is a conflict of priorities and values. It is a conflict of thinking and life goals and even of worldview.

The passion narrative shows that the leaders believed the “ends justified the means” and in their minds they rationalize that any means they can use to get rid of Jesus is alright: using people like Judas without regard for what it would do to him, bribing, telling lies, giving false accusations, manipulating the crowd, and deceiving Pilate—it was all “necessary” to accomplish their ends. Human beings can rationalize anything.

The only other option was admit the truth of error and repent.

And that applies to us as well. That remains every human being’s bottom line choice.

How Does A Rabbi Differ From A Priest?

A rabbi has no actual powers in the written Torah, although the Talmud does provide the Rabbi with the authority to make interpretations of Torah (which, in Orthodoxy, provides authority). Rabbis are, however, ordained (a term used in the progressive communities) or given semichah. This is a recognition of a certain level of training or education as defined as appropriate for the community in which the Rabbi has studied.

Priests are male descendants from Aaron, the brother of Moses. They are usually called cohanim [cohen singular]. The cohanim perform Birkat Cohanim (blessing the congregation using the Hebrew text found in Bamidbar [Numbers] 6:23-25) on (some)occasions.

Cohanim are traditionally granted priority in numerous details. They are also traditionally forbidden to attend funerals other than their closest relatives and may not marry divorcees or converts. When the Temple is standing, the cohanim run most of the Temple service.

The Pharisee/Sadduccee conflict was a sectarian division in the period of the Second Temple, although some view it as a rabbi/priest conflict. When the Second Temple was destroyed, the priests lost most of their power.

Eusebius, in his 4th-century Ecclesiastical History, wrote:

When Herod was appointed king by the Romans, he no longer nominated the chief priests from the ancient lineage, but conferred the honour upon certain obscure individuals. . . . Herod was the first that locked up the sacred vesture of the high priest, and having secured it under his own private seal, no longer permitted the high priests to have it at their disposal. (p. 31, ch. VI, pop. ed.)

This broke the custom of the high priesthood being attached to a particular family.  Herod also abolished the practice of the high priest holding the position for life.  According to Josephus, in the 107 years from the beginning of Herod's reign to the fall of Jerusalem, there were 28 high priests.  The Talmud records that by the time of Messiah, the high priest bought the office from the government and the position was changed every year. But even after he was out of office, the ex-high priest kept his rights to the dignity of the office. These policies resulted in a group of wealthy Sadducean priestly families (primarily the Boethus, Anan, and Phiabi families) being appointed to the office on a regular basis.

Herod's decision to appoint the high priest had a major impact on the operation of the Temple.  British historian Paul Johnson writes:

By downgrading the importance of the high-priest, a hated Sadducee, Herod automatically raised in importance his deputy, the segan, a Pharisee, who got control over all the regular Temple functions and ensured that even the Sadducee high-priests performed the liturgy in a Pharisaical manner. (pp. 117-118, A History Of The Jews)

While most of the priests in the service of the Temple belonged to the party of the Sadducees, there were some who were Pharisees.  The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states:

The difference between the Sadducees and the Pharisees was not a simple one of priests versus laymen (many Pharisees were also priests - mostly of the lower ranks, but probably some even in the upper levels) . . . (p. 279 vol. 4, "Sadducees")

There is some dispute among scholars about who actually controlled the Temple sacrifices and rituals before and during the time of Messiah.  While many accept the witness of Josephus and the rabbinical writings, some scholars have taken the position that these Jewish historical sources cannot be trusted because they were written after 70 CE.  They have rejected the claims made in post-destruction rabbinic literature that the Pharisees were the dominant religious group in the affairs of the Temple as early as the Maccabean period.  However, new evidence found among the Dead Sea Scrolls tends to discredit this skeptical view.

In reference to this dispute, Lawrence H. Schiffman, professor of Hebrew and Judaic studies at New York University, writes:

. . . Any light that might be cast on the history of the Pharisees and their teachings in the pre-destruction period would be critically important.  With new evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls it is now possible to demonstrate that for much of the Hasmonean period Pharisaic views were indeed dominant in the Jerusalem Temple . . . (pp. 30-31, Bible Review, June 1992, "New Light on the Pharisees: Insight from the Dead Sea Scrolls")

One of the Dead Sea Scrolls, known as MMT, sheds light on the prestige the Pharisees enjoyed prior to the ministry of Yeshua.  According to Schiffman:

MMT is a foundation text of the Qumran sect.  It was written in the early Hasmonean period when the Temple was managed and its rituals conducted in accord with Pharisaic views.  The Hasmoneans made common cause with the Pharisees in order to cleanse the Temple of the excessive hellenization that they blamed to a great extent on the Sadducean priests who had become, in their view, too hellenized.  Various elements in MMT and in the Temple Scroll [another Dead Sea document] represent the polemic of those who continued piously to hold fast to Sadducean views against the Hasmoneans and their Pharisaic allies. . . .  It can no longer be claimed that there is no evidence for the Pharisees earlier than the tannaitic materials and the first-century Jewish historian Josephus, who wrote after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem.  In fact, the scrolls provide extensive and wide-ranging testimony about the pre-destruction history of the Pharisees and their ideology.  MMT and the Temple Scroll provide evidence of Pharisaic dominance over the Temple ritual in the early days of the Hasmonean period. (Ibid., p. 54)

Regarding later Pharisaic control of the Temple, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary says:

By the time of Jesus they [the Sadducees] included the families who supplied the high priests, as well as other wealthy aristocrats of Jerusalem.  Most members of the Sanhedrin, the central judicial authority of Jewish people, were Sadducees.  Thus, the Sadducees were the party of those with political power, those allied with the Herodian and Roman rulers, but they were not a group with influence among the people themselves.  The views of the Pharisees prevailed among the common people, so that even though the two groups differed with regard to items in the laws of purity and details of temple procedure during the feasts, the Sadducean priests were compelled to operate according to the Pharisees' views. (p. 902, "Sadducees")

Emil Schürer, in his extensive history of the Jews during this period, wrote:

The Pharisees maintained their leadership in spiritual matters, especially in urban circles.  It is true that the Sadducean high priests stood at the head of Sanhedrin.  But in fact it was the Pharisees, and not the Sadducees, who made the greatest impact on the ordinary people . . .  The Pharisees had the masses for their allies, the women being especially devoted to them.  They held the greatest authority over the congregations, so that everything to do with worship, prayers, and sacrifice took place according to their instructions.  Their popularity is said to have been so high that they were listened to even when they criticized the king or the high priest.  They were in consequence able to restrain the king.  For the same reason, also, the Sadducees in their official functions complied with the pharisaic requirements because otherwise the people would not have tolerated them (p. 402, vol. II, rev. ed., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Christ (175 B.C. - A.D. 135))

Addressing the differences between the Pharisees and Sadducees regarding religious observances, Alfred Edersheim, a noted 19th-century Jewish scholar, wrote:

Even greater importance attached to differences on ritual questions, although the controversy here was purely theoretical.  For, the Sadducees, when in office, always conformed to the prevailing Pharisaic practices (p. 320, Ch. II, Bk. III, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah)

Because of their fear of the people, this Sadducean adaptation to Pharisaic views extended to all official duties the Sadducees performed.  Josephus verifies this fact; of the Sadducees, he states:

They are able to do almost nothing of themselves; for when they become magistrates, as they are unwillingly and by force sometimes obliged to be, they addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees, because the multitudes would not otherwise bear them." (Bk. 18, Ch. 1, Sec. 4, The Antiquities of the Jews)

The New Unger's Bible Dictionary confirms this severe restriction on the power of the Sadducees during the time of Yeshua:

Although the spiritual power of the Pharisees had increased greatly, the Sadducean aristocracy was able to keep at the helm in politics.  The price at which the Sadducees had to secure themselves power at this later period was indeed a high one, for they were in their official actions to accommodate themselves to Pharisaic views.(p. 1112, "Sadducee")

Even though the high priest was a Sadducee, history shows that the Sadducees were compelled to follow Pharisaic customs in the Temple rituals because of their fear of the people.  This gave the Pharisees effective control of Temple observances, which was probably most noticeable during the annual feasts.

Alfred Edersheim recorded the practical effects of the Pharisees' control of Temple:

When a Sadducean high-priest, on the Feast of Tabernacles, poured out the water on the ground instead of into the silver funnel of the altar, Maccabean king though he was, he scarce escaped with his life, and ever afterwards the shout resounded from all parts of the Temple, "Hold up thy hand," as the priest yearly performed this part of the service.  The Sadducees held, that on the Day of Atonement the high-priest should light the incense before he actually entered the Most Holy Place.  As this was contrary to the views of the Pharisees, they took care to bind him by an oath to observe their ritual customs before allowing him to officiate at all.  It was in vain that the Sadducees argued, that the daily sacrifices should not be defrayed from the public treasury, but from special contributions.  They had to submit, and besides to join in the kind of half-holiday which the jubilant majority inscribed on their calendar to perpetuate the memory of the decision.  The Pharisees held, that the time between Easter [Passover] and Pentecost should be counted from the second day of the feast; the Sadducees insisted that it should commence with the literal "Sabbath" after the festive day.  But despite argument, the Sadducees had to join when the solemn procession went on the afternoon of the feast to cut down the "first sheaf," and to reckon Pentecost as did their opponents. (p. 220, Sketches of Jewish Social Life)

Zechariah oversaw the completion of the Second Temple

Following the conquest of Judea by Alexander the Great, it became part of the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt until 200 BCE, when the Seleucid king Antiochus III the Great of Syria defeated Pharaoh Ptolemy V Epiphanes at the Battle of Paneion.[19] Judea became at that moment part of the Seleucid Empire. When the Second Temple in Jerusalem was looted and its religious services stopped, Judaism was effectively outlawed.

In 167 BCE, Antiochus IV Epiphanes ordered an altar to Zeus erected in the Temple. He also banned circumcision and ordered pigs to be sacrificed at the altar of the Temple.[20]

Following the Maccabean Revolt against the Seleucid empire, the Second Temple was rededicated and became the religious pillar of the Jewish Hasmonean Kingdom, as well as culturally associated with the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah.

There is some evidence from archaeology that further changes to the structure of the Temple and its surroundings were made during the Hasmonean rule. Salome Alexandra, the queen of Hasmonean Kingdom appointed her elder son Hyrcanus II as the high priest of Judaea. Her younger son Aristobulus II was determined to have the throne, and as soon as she died he seized the throne. Hyrcanus, who was in line to be the king, agreed to be contented with being the high priest. Antipater, the governor of Idumæa, encouraged Hyrcanus not to give up his throne. Eventually Hyrcanus fled to Aretas III, king of the Nabateans, and returned with an army to take back the throne. He defeated Aristobulus and besieged Jerusalem. The Roman general Pompey, who was in Syria fighting against the Armenians in the Third Mithridatic War, sent his lieutenant to investigate the conflict in Judaea. Both Hyrcanus and Aristobulus appealed to him for support. Pompey was not diligent in making a decision about this which caused Aristobulus to march off. He was pursued by Pompey and surrendered but his followers closed Jerusalem to Pompey's forces. The Romans besieged and took the city in 63 BCE. The priests continued with the religious practices inside the Temple during the siege. The temple was not looted or harmed by the Romans. Pompey himself, perhaps inadvertently, went into the Holy of Holies and the next day ordered the priests to repurify the Temple and resume the religious practices.[21]

Reconstruction of the temple under Herod began with a massive expansion of the Temple Mount. Herod's work on the Temple is generally dated from 20/19 BCE until 12/11 or 10 BCE. Writer Bieke Mahieu dates the work on the Temple enclosures from 25 BCE and that on the Temple building in 19 BCE, and situates the dedication of both in November 18 BCE.[22] Religious worship and temple rituals continued during the construction process.[23] When the Roman emperor Caligula planned to place his own statue inside the temple, Herod's grandson Agrippa I was able to intervene and convince him against this.

Between the entrance of the building and the curtain veiling the Holy of Holies were the famous vessels of the temple: the menorah, the incense-burning altar, and various other implements.

In 66 CE the Jewish population rebelled against the Roman Empire. Four years later, on 4 August 70 CE[41] (Tisha B'Av – 9th Day of Av) or 30 August 70 CE,[42] Roman legions under Titus retook and destroyed much of Jerusalem and the Second Temple. The Arch of Titus, in Rome and built to commemorate Titus's victory in Judea, depicts a Roman victory procession with soldiers carrying spoils from the Temple, including the Menorah. According to an inscription on the Colosseum, Emperor Vespasian built the Colosseum with war spoils in 79 CE—possibly from the spoils of the Second Temple.[43]

The sects of Judaism that had their base in the Temple dwindled in importance, including the priesthood and the Sadducees.[44]

The destruction date according to the Hebrew calendar was the 9th of Av, also known as Tisha B'Av.[45] The Temple was on the site of what today is the Dome of the Rock. The gates let out close to Al-Aqsa Mosque (which came much later).[23] Although Jews continued to inhabit the destroyed city, Emperor Hadrian established a new city called Aelia Capitolina. At the end of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 CE, many of the Jewish communities were massacred and Jews were banned from living inside Jerusalem. A pagan Roman temple was set up on the former site of Herod's Temple.[21]

Hasmonean Kingdom, 143 BCE

Tombs of the Maccabees, Modi'in, Israel198 BCE: Armies of the Seleucid King Antiochus III (Antiochus the Great) oust Ptolemy V from Judea and Samaria.[29]

175 BCE: Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) ascends the Seleucid throne.[49]

168 BCE: Under the reign of Antiochus IV, the second Temple is looted, Jews are massacred, and Judaism is outlawed.[50]

167 BCE: Antiochus orders an altar to Zeus erected in the Temple. Mattathias and his five sons John, Simon, Eleazar, Jonathan, and Judah lead a rebellion against Antiochus. Judah becomes known as Judah Maccabee ("Judah the Hammer").

166 BCE: Mattathias dies, and Judah takes his place as leader. The Hasmonean Jewish Kingdom begins; It lasts until 63 BCE.

165 BCE: The Jewish revolt against the Seleucid monarchy is successful in recapturing the Temple, which is liberated and rededicated (Hanukkah).

142 BCE: Re-establishment of the Second Jewish Commonwealth. The Seleucids recognize Jewish autonomy. The Seleucid kings have a formal overlordship, which the Hasmoneans acknowledge. This inaugurates a period of population growth and religious, cultural and social development. This includes the conquest of the areas now covered by Transjordan, Samaria, Galilee, and Idumea (also known as Edom), and the forced conversion of Idumeans to the Jewish religion, including circumcision.[51]

139 BCE: The Roman Senate recognizes Jewish autonomy.[52]

134 BCE: Antiochus VII Sidetes besieges Jerusalem. The Jews under John Hyrcanus become Seleucid vassals but retain religious autonomy.[53]

129 BCE: Antiochus VII dies.[54] The Hasmonean Jewish Kingdom throws off Syrian rule completely.

96 BCE: Beginning of an eight-year civil war between Sadducee king Alexander Yanai and the Pharisees.[55]

85–82 BCE: Consolidation of the Kingdom in territory east of the Jordan River.[56]

63 BCE: The Hasmonean Jewish Kingdom comes to an end because of a rivalry between the brothers Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II, both of whom appeal to the Roman Republic to intervene and settle the power struggle on their behalf. The Roman general Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey the Great) is dispatched to the area. 12 thousand Jews are massacred in the Roman Siege of Jerusalem. The Priests of the Temple are struck down at the Altar. Rome annexes Judea.[57]

The priesthood underwent profound changes with the Second Temple.[31] Under the First Temple the priesthood had been subordinate to the kings, but in the Second Temple, with the monarchy and even the state no longer available, they became independent.[32] The priesthood under the High Priest (a position largely unknown in earlier times) became the governing authority, making the province of Yehud in a sense a theocracy, although it seems unlikely that it had any more autonomy than was typical of the empire as a whole.[31] In the Hellenistic period the High Priest continued to play a vital role with both cultic and civic obligations, and the office reached its height under the Hasmoneans, who made themselves priest-kings.[33] Both Herod and the Romans severely reduced the importance of the office, appointing and deposing High Priests to suit their purposes

There was a sharp break between ancient Israelite religion and the Judaism of the Second Temple.[35] Pre-exilic Israel was polytheistic;[36] Asherah was probably worshiped as Yahweh's consort, within his temples in Jerusalem, Bethel, and Samaria, and a goddess called the Queen of Heaven, probably a fusion of Astarte and the Mesopotamian goddess Ishtar, was also worshiped.[37] Baal and Yahweh coexisted in the early period, but were considered irreconcilable after the 9th century.[38] The worship of Yahweh alone, the concern of a small party in the monarchic period, only gained ascendancy in the exilic and early post-exilic period,[36] and it was only then that the very existence of other gods was denied.[39]

The Persian period saw the development of expectation in a future human king who would rule purified Israel as God's representative at the end of time – that is, a messiah. The first to mention this were Haggai and Zechariah, both prophets of the early Persian period. They saw the messiah in Zerubbabel, a descendant of the House of David who seemed, briefly, to be about to re-establish the ancient royal line, or in Zerubbabel and the first High Priest, Joshua (Zechariah writes of two messiahs, one royal and the other priestly). These early hopes were dashed (Zerubabbel disappeared from the historical record, although the High Priests continued to be descended from Joshua), and thereafter there are merely general references to a Messiah of (meaning descended from) David

Christianity emerged within Judaism, the key difference being the Christian belief that Jesus was the resurrected Messiah.[42] Judaism is known to allow for multiple messiahs, the two most relevant being Messiah ben Joseph and the Messiah ben David. The idea of two messiahs — one suffering and the second fulfilling the traditional messianic role— was normal in ancient Judaism, and in fact predated Jesus.[43][44][45][46] Alan Segal has written that "one can speak of a 'twin birth' of two new Judaisms, both markedly different from the religious systems that preceded them. Not only were rabbinic Judaism and Christianity religious twins, but, like Jacob and Esau, the twin sons of Isaac and Rebecca, they fought in the womb, setting the stage for life after the womb."[47]

Special duties of the Aaronites:

i.      A special place for the sons of Aaron: The Tabernacle began at Mt. Sinai in 1446 BC and it was at that time that special duties were given to each of the three lines of priests.

ii.      It is important to notice that only the Aaronic priests (Aaron and his sons) were permitted to offer animal sacrifices in the Tabernacle or offer the incense. Only they had access to the Holy and Most holy place of the tabernacle in service.

d.      The rebellion of Korah at Sinai in Numbers was a challenge of the other two priest lines against this exclusive right that Aaronites had over them and it cost them their lives: “So Eleazar the priest took the bronze censers which the men who were burned had offered, and they hammered them out as a plating for the altar, as a reminder to the sons of Israel that no layman who is not of the descendants of Aaron should come near to burn incense before the LORD; so that he will not become like Korah and his company—just as the LORD had spoken to him through Moses.” (Numbers 16:39–40)