Aaron and Moses

"For he shall be called John"

    The high priest’s most significant task was entering the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur to attain atonement for all of Israel. At this time, the holiest elements of creation converge: the holiest day; the Holy of Holies, the holiest location; and the high priest, the holiest individual. From this it is clear that the high priesthood wasn’t merely a technical position, but one of great holiness.

The High Priests were all of the bloodline of Moses's brother Aaron (Orion). Aaron entering into the Holy of Holies = Orion entering into the Well of the Abyss at Virgo's feet... entering the Virgin: immaculate conception.

Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) falls on the Autumn Equinox, at the cusp between Virgo and Libra - between the Eves... in Egyptian tradition, this equates to Isis and Nephthys.

Who in the Bible is "immaculately conceived" at the Autumn Equinox?

Atonement for all of Israel

    The first criterion any high priest must meet is that he must be of priestly descent—i.e., a direct descendant (following the male line) of Aaron, the brother of Moses. As long as the sitting high priest meets this key requirement, he is officially valid, and the service he renders is 100% kosher, regardless of whether he possesses any other qualities.

A direct descendant of Aaron (Orion)

The brother of Moses

According to tradition, if the high priest was not perfectly righteous, he would pass away upon entering the Holy of Holies—a place that tolerated no imperfection. In fact, during the Second Temple period the high priest would enter with a rope tied around his foot, in the event that his corpse would need to be pulled out.

A place that tolerated no imperfection... the Well of Souls (Lake of Fire)

A rope tied around his foot... an umbilical cord or drag line for a barque. This is similar to the Egyptian tradition regarding the leg of Taurus, as well as the destruction of the idols to Baal (Baal denoting the Age of Taurus).

Who presided over the temple at the Autumn Equinox (when his son was conceived)?

The high priests wore special garments made of gold, purple, blue, and scarlet. These garments consisted of a breast piece, an ephod, a robe, a coat, a turban, and a sash. One particular part of their special garments were the Urim and the Thummim. These were precious stones inscribed with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel that the high priest was to wear on his breast piece and his shoulders: "So Aaron shall bear the names of the sons of Israel in the breast piece of judgment on his heart, when he goes into the Holy Place, to bring them to regular remembrance before the LORD. And in the breast piece of judgment you shall put the Urim and the Thummim, and they shall be on Aaron's heart, when he goes in before the Lord. Thus Aaron shall bear the judgment of the people of Israel on his heart before the Lord regularly" (Exodus 28:29–30).

Aaron (Orion) carries the names of the twelve tribes of Israel on his heart
When Aaron goes into the Holy Place
Remembrance = Zeker

The mercy seat was an object that rested on top of the Ark of the Covenant and was associated with the Day of Atonement in the Old Testament. 

The Mercy seat... a throne. Grace and Mercy... Charis and Mary

The seat rested atop (upon) the Ark (Barque) of the Covenant

The Mercy Seat is associated with the Day of Atonement (Judgement): the cusp between Virgo and Libra: the equinox, or evening (between the Eves). A sacrifice between the Eves, which is precisely where the sacrifice was offered to God within the Holy of Holies - between the Eves (Cherubim) denoting Isis and Nephthys. 

    Mentioned more than 20 times in the Bible, the mercy seat is first described in Exodus 25:17-22:
     "You shall make a mercy seat of pure gold. Two cubits and a half (app 45 inches) shall be its length, and a cubit and a half (app 27 inches) its breadth (app 10 square feet). And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end. Of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be. And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give you. There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you about all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel.

The two Cherubim of gold are Isis and Nephthys: Virgo and Libra.

Two cherubim and a Mercy Seat hammered from one piece of gold, denoting one devine origin

The Cherubim overshadow (hide) the Mercy Seat with their wings

The Ark (Henu Barque)

The testimony (records: Zeker), synonymous with the Covenant, is to be kept inside the Ark (Henu Barque)

God will meet with, and speak to, Moses from the Mercy Seat between, and overshadowed by, the Cherubim. This was said to Moses when he met with God atop Mount Zion (Mon Cyon: the Great Pyramid, or Temple of the Dog), where God spoke to Moses stating "and this is to be my Zeker unto all generations"... in an allusion to Aaron and his descendants?

Commandments for the people of IsRaEl

    The Ark and its mercy seat (a type of lid or covering) represented the presence of the holy God. The Ark was kept behind a veil in the tabernacle (and later the temple) in a room known as the Holy of Holies, and could only be visited once per year, on the Day of Atonement, and only by the high priest. The high priest was required to follow specific rules in order to enter; if he broke any of these rules, thereby disrespecting the holiness of God, he would be struck dead.

The Barque represented the presence of God.

The Ark was kept hidden behind a veil, and also protected by the overshadowing wings of the Cherubim

The Ark was kept in the Holy of Holies

The Ark could only be visited once a year on the Day of Atonement (Autumn Equinox/ Virgo Libra cusp.

The Ark could only be visited once per year by the High Priest. John the Baptist's father presided over the Holy of Holies at the Autumn Equinox when John was conceived, meaning that he was the last true Kohen Gadol. The New Testament even states that he was of the lineage of Aaron through his father.

John's father was struck speechless until his birth for being in disbelief. The New Testament also states that it was not God who proclaimed John's conception, but rather an Angel.

    Because the mercy seat was made of pure gold, it was highly valuable financially. More importantly, its connection with the Ark as well as serving as a cover over the Ten Commandments, gave this object the highest level of importance by the Jewish people.

It was also very heavy. Note the pictograph: at the base, the Ten Commandments (Records) - the root of all the rest, enclosed by the Ark, which in turn is surmounted by the Mercy Seat and two Cherubim.

    Who built the mercy seat? Exodus 35 says that the gold came from the people of Israel. The mercy seat was one of many articles of the temple built by artists, metal-workers, and carpenters: "Let every skillful craftsman among you come and make all that the LORD has commanded: the tabernacle, its tent and its covering, its hooks and its frames, its bars, its pillars, and its bases; the ark with its poles, the mercy seat, and the veil of the screen28" (Exodus 35:10-12). These craftsmen worked under the leadership of Bezalel and Oholiab (Exodus 35:30, 34; 36:1-2) and constructed the items as God dictated to Moses upon Mount Sinai.

  The concept of an initially nomadic peoples creating such a heavy, cumbersome Mercy Seat with Cherubim of solid gold to place upon an Ark is perposterous, as such would have weighed upwards of, if not over, a thousand pounds- much too cumbersome for an initially nomadic people to lug around. The practicality of such a creation would have necessitated that the gold be forged within the room where it was to be placed, such as the upper chamber of the great pyramid. In such a location, it would have resided above the Ark of the Covenant (the Henu Barque), just as is notated in the heiroglyphs of Seker, whose name, in turn, assimilates with the Hebrew word for Records (a reference to the Ten Commandments). 

    The mercy seat is also mentioned in the New Testament. Hebrews 9 discusses the Holy Place that included the Ark and the mercy seat, saying in verse 5, "Above [the Ark] were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat." Verses 11-12 say, "But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption." The mercy seat is no longer an essential part of atonement. Instead, Jesus Christ Himself has become the One who atones for sin.

Christ was not a High Priest: the last High Priest of Israel was Zechariah, or alternately, Zechariah's son John the Baptist.

The allusion to not saving by means of the blood of "goats" and "calves" is a reference to Aries and Taurus. Jesus represents the Age of Pisces - the fish, which followed the Ages of Aries and Taurus.

Jesus as Pisces assumes the responsibility that was first assumed by Taurus, then by Aries.
    What is significant about the Ark of the Covenant? What is it?

In Genesis, God had Noah create an ark—a sanctuary for some of those things God had placed man in charge of, namely animals. In Exodus, God gave Moses instructions for a different type of ark. An ornate box that was to hold some of the law God had given the Israelites to be in charge of: the Ten Commandments. It was also a marker for where the presence of God would rest and where God would talk to His people.

 The Ark of the Covenant was a different kind of religious symbol than the Israelites were used to. It was not a statue meant to represent the physical manifestation of a god. It was not a container for God—it was to be respected but not worshiped. Instead, it was a place where God and man could meet. Both literally, as God would hover over the Ark when the priests approached it, and figuratively through the law that was kept inside. That law was the stone tablets on which the Ten Commandments were written (Deuteronomy 10:2). These commandments were key in the covenant for which the Ark was named. If Israel followed the Ten Commandments and, as they represented, the rest of the Law God gave to Moses, God would always be in their presence.

 In Exodus 16:32-33, Moses told his brother Aaron to take a jar of manna and place it before the Ark as a remembrance of how God provided for the Israelites. In Numbers 17:1-11, as a way of validating the choice of Aaron for High Priest, God made Aaron's staff grow buds, flowers, and almonds. God then told Moses to put Aaron's rod "before the testimony." Hebrews 9:4 is a bit confusing. It appears to say that the manna and the rod were inside the Ark. Looking more closely, however, the passage says the manna and the rod were inside the Holy of Holies (verse 3), which 1 Kings 8:9 confirms.

The House of Bread (Bethlehem): Virgo: Virgo - Bergo - Barque (Consonants VRG = BRQ: Barque / Barge / Ba Ark)
 

The Ark of the Covenant was basically a box with an ornate top. It was made of acacia wood, overlaid with gold. Four cast gold rings were fastened to the feet. Long poles fit through the rings so the priests could carry the box—the only method of transport authorized (1 Chronicles 13:7-10). (Of course, pure gold could not have held the weight of the ark, but if refining techniques were more primitive, the gold would not have been as pure.)

 The lid was called the "mercy seat." On the lid were two gold cherubim, facing each other, with wings spread upward and covering the seat. God's presence hovered above the seat, between the cherubim, when He talked to the priest. It's possible that God used the wings to protect the priest from seeing His glory (see Ezekiel 1).
Moses had the Ark of the Covenant built while the Israelites were still wandering the desert. When the priests weren't carrying it, it was held in the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle. After Solomon built the Temple, it was moved there. Save for occasional visits to the Philistines (1 Samuel 4:3-11), the home of Obed-edom the Gittite (2 Samuel 6:1-11), and the Israelite army (2 Samuel 11:11), the Ark usually stayed in the Temple. At some point it disappeared, and by the time the Babylonians took the Jews into captivity, the record of its location was lost. The Apostle John recorded in Revelation 11:19 that he saw the Ark in the temple in heaven.

 We still do not know where the Ark is to this day, although there are rumors. Second Maccabees 2:4-10 says that Jeremiah hid the Ark in a cave. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church claims to have the Ark in a treasury that they keep behind locked doors. There are also legends that the Knights Templar or Freemasons have it, but none of these stories are likely. Not even that Indiana Jones found it in Tanis, Egypt, and brought it to America where the government stored it in a warehouse.
Jeremiah 3:15-18 talks about a time when the Ark will no longer be needed or missed. At that time, the Jews will freely and completely follow God. Jerusalem, itself, will be God's throne. We will no longer have to hide from God's presence behind angels' wings, real or gold.

High priest, Hebrew kohen gadol, in Judaism, the chief religious functionary in the Temple of Jerusalem, whose unique privilege was to enter the Holy of Holies (inner sanctum) once a year on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, to burn incense and sprinkle sacrificial animal blood to expiate his own sins and those of the people of Israel. On this occasion he wore only white linen garments, forgoing the elaborate priestly vestments worn during the year whenever he chose to officiate at services. The high priest had overall charge of Temple finances and administration, and in the early period of the Second Temple he collected taxes and maintained order as the recognized political head of the nation. The high priest could not mourn the dead, had to avoid defilement incurred by proximity to the dead, and could marry only a virgin. The office, first conferred on Aaron by his brother Moses, was normally hereditary and for life. In the 2nd century bc, however, bribery led to several reappointments, and the last of the high priests were appointed by government officials or chosen by lot. According to tradition, 18 high priests served in Solomon’s Temple (c. 960–586 bc) and 60 in the Second Temple (516 bc–ad 70). Since that time, there has been no Jewish high priest, for national sacrifice was permanently interrupted with the destruction of the Second Temple.

High priest (Hebrew: כהן גדול kohen gadol; with definite article הַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל ha'kohen ha'gadol, the high priest; Aramaic kahana rabba) was the title of the chief religious official of Judaism from the early post-Exilic times until the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE. Previously, in the Israelite religion including the time of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, other terms were used to designate the leading priests; however, as long as a king was in place, the supreme ecclesiastical authority lay with him. The official introduction of the term "high priest" went hand in hand with a greatly enhanced ritual and political significance bestowed upon the chief priest in the post-Exilic period, certainly from 411 BCE onward, after the religious transformations brought about by the Babylonian captivity and due to the lack of a Jewish king and kingdom. 

The high priests belonged to the Jewish priestly families that trace their paternal line back to Aaron, the first high priest of Israel in the Hebrew Bible and elder brother of Moses, through Zadok, a leading priest at the time of David and Solomon. This tradition came to an end in the 2nd century BCE during the rule of the Hasmoneans, when the position was occupied by other priestly families unrelated to Zadok.

Predecessors of Aaron​

Even though Aaron was the first high priest mentioned in the Book of Exodus, Louis Ginzberg in Legends of the Jews noted that in legends the first man that assumed the title of high priest of God is Enoch, who was succeeded by Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac and Levi.
Aaron, though he is but rarely called "the great priest", being generally simply designated as "ha-kohen" (the priest), was the first incumbent of the office, to which he was appointed by God (Book of Exodus 28:1–2; 29:4–5).

The succession was to be through one of his sons, and was to remain in his own family (Leviticus 6:15). If he had no son, the office devolved upon the brother next of age: such appears to have been the practise in the Hasmonean period. In the time of Eli, however (1 Samuel 2:23), the office passed to the collateral branch of Ithamar (see Eleazar). But King Solomon is reported to have deposed the high priest Abiathar, and to have appointed Zadok, a descendant of Eleazar, in his stead (1 Kings 2:35; 1 Chronicles 24:2–3). After the Exile, the succession seems to have been, at first, in a direct line from father to son; but later the civil authorities arrogated to themselves the right of appointment. Antiochus IV Epiphanes for instance, deposed Onias III in favor of Jason, who was followed by Menelaus. 
Herod the Great nominated no less than six high priests; Archelaus, two. The Roman legate Quirinius and his successors exercised the right of appointment, as did Agrippa I, Herod of Chalcis, and Agrippa II. Even the people occasionally elected candidates to the office. The high priests before the Exile were, it seems, appointed for life; in fact, from Aaron to the Captivity the number of the high priests was not greater than during the sixty years preceding the fall of the Second Temple. 

Age and qualifications​

The age of eligibility for the office is not fixed in the Law; but according to rabbinical tradition it was twenty. Aristobulus, however, was only seventeen when appointed by Herod; but the son of Onias III was too young (νηπιος) to succeed his father. The age a Levite entered the priesthood was 30 years of age (Numbers 4:3,30). 

Legitimacy of birth was essential; hence the care in the keeping of the genealogical records and the distrust of one whose mother had been captured in war. The high priest had to abstain from ritual defilement. He may marry only an Israelite virgin (21:13–14). In Ezekiel 44:22 this restriction is extended to all kohanim (priests), an exception being made in favor of the widow of a priest (see Levirate marriage). According to Leviticus 21:11 he was not permitted to come in contact with the bodies of the dead, not even for his parents (regular priests could become unclean for the death of an immediate relative) Leviticus 21:1-3 ; and he was not permitted, as a sign of mourning, to leave his hair disheveled, to expose it, or to rend his garments (Leviticus 21:10 et seq.). According to Josephus, birth on foreign soil was not a disqualification; but the disqualifications of Leviticus 21:17 et seq. applied to the high priest as well as to other priests.

The Torah provides for specific vestments to be worn by the priests when they are ministering in the Tabernacle: "And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for dignity and for beauty" (Exodus 28:2). These garments are described in detail in Exodus 28, Exodus 39 and Leviticus 8. The high priest wore eight holy garments (bigdei kodesh). Of these, four were of the same type worn by all priests and four were unique to the Kohen Gadol. 
Those vestments which were common to all priests, were: 

Priestly undergarments (Hebrew michnasayim) (breeches): linen pants reaching from the waist to the knees "to cover their nakedness" (Exodus 28:42)
Priestly tunic (Hebrew ketonet) (tunic): made of pure linen, covering the entire body from the neck to the feet, with sleeves reaching to the wrists. That of the high priest was embroidered (Exodus 28:39); those of the priests were plain (Exodus 28:40).

Priestly sash (Hebrew avnet) (sash): that of the high priest was of fine linen with "embroidered work" in blue and purple and scarlet (Exodus 28:39, 39:29); those worn by the priests were of white, twined linen.

Priestly turban (Hebrew mitznefet): that of the high priest was much larger than that of the priests and wound so that it formed a broad, flat-topped turban; that for priests was wound so that it formed a cone-shaped turban, called a migbahat.

The vestments that were unique to the high priest were: 
Priestly robe (me'il) ("robe of the ephod"): a sleeveless, blue robe, the lower hem of which was fringed with small golden bells alternating with pomegranate-shaped tassels in blue, purple, and scarlet—tekhelet,[13] argaman, tolaat shani.

Ephod: a richly embroidered vest or apron with two onyx engraved gemstones on the shoulders, on which were engraved the names of the tribes of Israel
Priestly breastplate (Hebrew hoshen): with twelve gems, each engraved with the name of one of the tribes; a pouch in which he probably carried the Urim and Thummim. It was fastened to the Ephod.

On the front of the turban was a golden plate inscribed with the words: "Holiness unto YHWH" attached to the mitznefet.

The high priest, like all priests, would minister barefoot when he was serving in the Temple. Like all of the priests, he had to immerse himself in the ritual bath before vesting and wash his hands and his feet before performing any sacred act. The Talmud teaches that neither the kohanim nor the Kohen Gadol were fit to minister unless they wore their priestly vestments: "While they are clothed in the priestly garments, they are clothed in the priesthood; but when they are not wearing the garments, the priesthood is not upon them" (B.Zevachim 17:B). It is further taught that just as the sacrifices facilitate an atonement for sin, so do the priestly garments (B.Zevachim 88b). The high priest had two sets of holy garments: the "golden garments" detailed above, and a set of white "linen garments" (bigdei ha-bad) which he wore only on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) (Leviticus 16:4). On that day, he would change his holy garments four times, beginning in the golden garments but changing into the Linen Garments for the two moments when he would enter the Holy of Holies (the first time to offer the blood of atonement and the incense, and the second time to retrieve the censer), and then change back again into the golden garments after each time. He would immerse in the ritual bath before each change of garments, washing his hands and his feet after removing the garments and again before putting the other set on. The linen garments were only four in number, those corresponding to the garments worn by all priests (undergarments, tunic, sash and turban), but made only of white linen, with no embroidery. They could be worn only once, new sets being made each year. 

Consecration​

The ceremonial of consecration, extending through an entire week (Exodus 28-29; Leviticus 8), included certain rites which all priests were required to undergo: purification; the sacrifices; the "filling" of the hands; the smearing with blood. But Aaron the high priest was anointed with sacred oil, hence the title of the "anointed priest"; other passages have it that all priests were anointed (Exodus 28:41, 30:30; Leviticus 7:36, 10:7; Numbers 3:3). 

The first consecration was performed by Moses; the Torah does not state who consecrated subsequent high priests. Leviticus 21:10 states emphatically that every new high priest shall be anointed; and Exodus 29:29 et seq. commands that the official garments worn by his predecessor shall be worn by the new incumbent while he is anointed and during the seven days of his consecration (comp. Numbers 20:28; Psalm 133:2). 

Sanctity and functions​

The distinguished rank of the high priest is apparent from the fact that his sins are regarded as belonging also to the people (Lev. iv. 3, 22). He was entrusted with the stewardship of the Urim and Thummim (Num. xxvii. 20 et seq.). On Yom Kippur he alone entered the Holy of Holies, to make atonement for his house and for the people (Leviticus 16). He alone could offer the sacrifices for the sins of the priests, or of the people, or of himself (Leviticus 4); and only he could officiate at the sacrifices following his own or another priest's consecration (Leviticus 9). He also offered a meal-offering every morning and evening for himself and the whole body of the priesthood (Leviticus 6:14-15, though the wording of the law is not altogether definite). Other information concerning his functions is not given. Though other priests would serve only when it was their week on rotation and on feast days (and even then their function was decided by lot), he was privileged to take part at his own pleasure in any of the priestly rites at any time. Josephus contends that the high priest almost invariably participated in the ceremonies on Shabbat, the New Moon, and the festivals. This may also be inferred from the glowing description given in the Wisdom of Sirach i. of the high priest's appearance at the altar. 

In rabbinical literature

The high priest is the chief of all the priests; he should be anointed and invested with the pontifical garments; but if the sacred oil were not obtainable, investiture with the additional garments (see Biblical Data, above) is regarded as sufficient. A high priest so invested is known as merubbeh begadim. This investiture consists of arraying him in the eight pieces of dress and in removing them again on eight successive days, though (the anointing and) the investiture on the first day suffices to qualify him for the functions of the office. The only distinction between the "anointed" and the "invested" high priest is that the former offers the bull for an unintentional transgression.

Powers

The Great Sanhedrin alone had the right to appoint, or confirm the appointment of, the high priest. His consecration might take place only in the day-time. Two high priests must not be appointed together. Every high priest had a "mishneh" (a second) called the Segan, or "memunneh", to stand at his right; another assistant was the "Catholicos" ("Yad", l.c. 16–17). The right of succession was in the direct, or, the direct failing, the collateral, line, provided the conditions concerning physical fitness were fulfilled (ib. 20; Ket. 103b; Sifra, Ḳedoshim). 

For offenses which entailed flagellation, the high priest could be sentenced by a court of three; after submitting to the penalty he could resume his office ("Yad", l.c. 22). The high priest was expected to be superior to all other priests in physique, in wisdom, in dignity, and in material wealth; if he was poor his brother priests contributed to make him rich (Yoma 18a; "Yad", l.c. v. 1); but none of these conditions was indispensable. 

The high priest was required to be mindful of his honor. He might not mingle with the common people, nor permit himself to be seen disrobed, or in a public bath, etc.; but he might invite others to bathe with him (Tosef., Sanh. iv.; "Yad", l.c. v. 3). He might not participate in a public banquet, but he might pay a visit of consolation to mourners, though even then his dignity was guarded by prescribed etiquette (Sanh. 18–19; "Yad", l.c. v. 4). 

Restrictions​

The high priest might not follow the bier of one in his own family who had died, nor leave the Temple or his house during the time of mourning. The people visited him to offer consolation; in receiving them, the Segan was at his right, the next in rank and the people at his left. The people said: "We are thy atonement." He answered: "Be ye blessed from heaven" ("Yad", l.c. v. 5; and Mishneh Kesef, ad loc.). During the offering of consolation he sat on a stool, the people on the floor; he rent his garments, not from above, but from below, near the feet, the penalty for rending them from above being flagellation (Semag, Lawin, 61-62). He could not permit his hair to be disheveled, nor could he cut it ("Yad", l.c. v. 6). He had one house attached to the Temple (Mid. 71b), and another in the city of Jerusalem. His honor required that he should spend most of his time in the Sanctuary ("Yad", l.c. v. 7). The high priest was subject to the jurisdiction of the courts, but if accused of a crime entailing capital punishment he was tried by the Great Sanhedrin; he could, however, refuse to give testimony (Sanh. 18). 

The high priest must be married, and "should only marry a virgin"; to guard against contingencies it was proposed to hold a second wife in readiness immediately before the Day of Atonement (Yoma i. 1); but polygamy on his part was not encouraged ( = "one wife"; Yoma 13a; "Yad", l.c. v. 10). He could give the "halizah", and it could be given to his widow, as she also was subject to the Levirate; his divorced wife could marry again (l.c.; Sanh. 18). When entering the Temple ("Hekal") he was supported to the curtain by three men (Tamid 67a; this may perhaps have reference to his entering the Holy of Holies; but see "Yad", l.c. v. 11, and the Mishneh Kesef ad loc.). He could take part in the service whenever he desired ("Yad", l.c. v. 12; Yoma i. 2; Tamid 67b; see Rashi ad loc.). On the Day of Atonement only he wore white garments, while on other occasions he wore his golden vestments (Yoma 60a; comp. 68b, ). The seven days preceding the Day of Atonement were devoted to preparing for his high function, precautions being taken to prevent any accident that might render him Levitically impure (Yoma i. 1 et seq.). The ceremonial for that day is described in detail in Mishnah Yoma (see also Haneberg, "Die Religiösen Alterthümer der Bibel", pp. 659–671, Munich, 1869). For other regulations concerning the high priest see "Yad", Biat ha-Miḳdash, ii. 1, 8; for details in regard to the vestments see "Yad", Kele ha-Miḳdash, viii. 2-4, 5 (in reference to soiled vestments: the white could be worn only once); l.c. vii. 1 ("ẓiẓ"), vii. 3 ("me'il"), vii. 6 ("ḥoshen"), vii. 9 (ephod), ix. 

Josephus enumerates only fifty-two pontificates under the Second Temple, omitting the second appointments of Hyrcanus II, Hananeel, and Joazar.
After the Babylonian Exile, Joshua appears vested with the prominence that the Priestly source (P) ascribes to the high priest (Zech. iii.; Hag. vi. 13). The post-exilic high priests traced their pedigree back to Zadok, appointed as chief priest at Jerusalem by Solomon (I Kings ii. 35), and Zadok was held to be a descendant of Eleazar, the son of Aaron (II Chron. v. 34). Immediately after the return from the Captivity, as is clearly to be inferred from Zechariah and Haggai, political authority was not vested in the high priest. Political (Messianic) sovereignty was represented by, or attributed to, a member of the royal house, while religious affairs were reserved to the high-priesthood, represented in the Book of Zechariah by Joshua. But in the course of time, as the Messianic hope, or even the hope of autonomy under foreign (Persian, Greek, Egyptian, or Syrian) suzerainty became weaker, the high priest also became a political chief of the congregation, as much, perhaps, through the consideration shown him by the suzerain powers and their viceroys as through the effect of the increasingly thorough acceptance of the Levitical code by pious Judeans. The rigorists received Alcimus, the high priest, with confidence because he was "a priest of the seed of Aaron." (I Macc. vii. 14) 

Political Aspects

The assumption of the princely authority by the Maccabean high priests (the Hasmoneans) was merely the final link in this development, which, beginning with the death of Zerubbabel, was to combine the two ideals, the politico-Messianic and the religio-Levitical, in one office. But after the brief heyday of national independence had come to an inglorious close, the high-priesthood changed again in character, insofar as it ceased to be a hereditary and a life office. High priests were appointed and removed with great frequency (see above). This may account for the otherwise strange use of the title in the plural (ἀρχιερεῖς) in the New Testament and in Josephus ("Vita", § 38; "B. J." ii. 12, § 6; iv. 3, §§ 7, 9; iv. 4, § 3). The deposed high priests seem to have retained the title, and to have continued to exercise certain functions; the ministration on the Day of Atonement, however, may have been reserved for the actual incumbent. This, however, is not clear; Hor. iii. 1–4 mentions as distinctive the exclusive sacrifice of a bull by the high priest on the Day of Atonement and the tenth of the ephah (that is, the twelve "ḥallot"; comp. Meg. i. 9; Macc. ii. 6). But even in the latest periods the office was restricted to a few families of great distinction (probably the bene kohanim gedolim, "[members of] high-priestly families"; Ket. xiii. 1-2; Oh. xvii. 5; comp. Josephus, "B. J." vi. 2, § 2; see Schürer, "Gesch." 3d ed., ii. 222). 001 

Connection with Sanhedrin​

The high priest was the presiding officer of the Sanhedrin. This view conflicts with the later Jewish tradition according to which the Pharisee tannaim (the Zugot) at the head of the yeshivot presided over the great Sanhedrin also (Ḥag. ii. 2). However, a careful reading of the sources ("Ant." xx. 10; "Contra Ap." ii., § 22; comp. "Ant." iv. 8, § 14; xiv. 9, §§ 3–5 [Hyrcanus II. as president]; xx. 9, § 1 [Ananus]), as well as the fact that in the post-Maccabean period the high priest was looked upon as exercising in all things, political, legal, and sacerdotal, the supreme authority, shows it to be almost certain that the presidency of the Sanhedrin was vested in the high priest (see Isidore Loeb in "R. E. J." 1889, xix. 188–201; Jelski, "Die Innere Einrichtung des Grossen Synhedrions", pp. 22–28, according to whom the Nasi was the high priest, while the Av Beth Din was a Pharisaic tanna). 

In Christianity​

Melchizedek priesthood § In Christianity

In Christian tradition, Jesus is symbolically consecrated as eternal high priest "after the order of Melchizedek" (Hebrews 6:20) in light of his eternal intercession with God. The position of high priest of Israel was abolished with the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, so attribution of the title of high priest to Jesus served as a symbolic continuation of the priesthood. Melchizedek is never identified explicitly as a "high priest" (כהן גדול) in the Hebrew Bible, but a "priest of the most high God" (כהן לאל עליון, Genesis 14:18); the Aaronic high priesthood had not yet been established (Aaron is also never explicitly identified as "high priest"). Jesus is nevertheless identified in Hebrews as a "high priest (ἀρχιερεύς) after the order of Melchizedek." The use of Melchizedek as a type of Christ is significant because Melchizedek was ordained a priest despite not being related to Aaron. As Jesus was not a descendant of Aaron, he would not normally have been eligible to serve as high priest; the "order of Melchizedek" emphasizes the precedent for his claim to priesthood.

Line of the High Priests of Israel​

The High Priests, like all Levitical priests, belonged to the Aaronic line. The Bible mentions the majority of high priests before the captivity, but does not give a complete list of office holders. Lists would be based on various historical sources. In several periods of gentile rule, high priests were appointed and removed by kings. Still, most high priests came from the Aaronic line. One exception is Menelaus, who may not have been from the Tribe of Levi at all, but from the Tribe of Benjamin. 

From the Exodus to Solomon's Temple

The following section is based on information found in the various books of the Bible, including the genealogies given in First Book of Chronicles and the Book of Ezra, the works of Josephus and the early-medieval Seder Olam Zutta. 

An account in Genesis explains the name of Benjamin as a result of the birth of the tribe's founder, Benjamin. According to Genesis, Benjamin was the result of a painful birth in which his mother died, naming him Ben-Oni, "son of my pain," immediately before her death. Instead, Jacob, his father, preferred to call him Benjamin, which can be read in Hebrew as meaning, "son of my right [hand]" (Genesis 35:16-18). In geographical terms, the term Benjamin can be read as "son of the south" from the perspective of the northern Kingdom of Israel, as the Benjamite territory was at the southern edge of the northern kingdom. 
Biblical narrative​

From after the conquest of the promised land by Joshua until the formation of the first Kingdom of Israel, the Tribe of Benjamin was a part of a loose confederation of Israelite tribes. No central government existed, and in times of crisis the people were led by ad hoc leaders known as Judges (see the Book of Judges). 
Map of the territory of Benjamin. Note the area around the cities allotted to the Tribe of Levi, per Numbers 35:4–5

Battle of Gibeah​

Main article: Battle at Gibeah

The Book of Judges recounts that the rape of the concubine of a member of the tribe of Levi, by a gang from the tribe of Benjamin resulted in a battle at Gibeah, in which the other tribes of Israel sought vengeance, and after which members of Benjamin were killed including women and children. Almost the entire tribe of Benjamin was wiped out by the other Israelite tribes. Six hundred of the men from the tribe of Benjamin survived by hiding in a cave for four months. The text refers several times to the Benjaminite warriors as "men of valour" despite their defeat. 

Benjaminites seize wives from Shiloh in this 1860 woodcut by Julius Schnorr von Karolsfeld

The other Israelite tribes were grieved at the near loss of the tribe of Benjamin. They decided to allow these 600 men to carry on the tribe of Benjamin but no one was willing to give their daughter in marriage to them because they had vowed not to. To get around this, they provided wives for the men by killing the men from the tribe of Machir who had not shown concern for the almost lost tribe of Benjamin as they did not come to grieve with the rest of Israel. 400 virgin women from the tribe of Machir were found and given in marriage to the Benjaminite men. There were still 200 men remaining who were without a wife so it was agreed that they could go to an Israelite festival and hide in the vineyards, and wait for the young unmarried women to come out and dance. They then grabbed a wife each and took her back to their land and rebuilt their houses

United Kingdom of Israel​

Responding to a growing threat from Philistine incursions, the Israelite tribes formed a strong, centralised monarchy during the eleventh century BC. The first king of this new entity was Saul, from the tribe of Benjamin (1 Samuel 9:1-2), which at the time was the smallest of the tribes. He reigned from Gibeah for 38 years (1 Samuel 8:31). 

After Saul died, all the tribes other than Judah remained loyal to the House of Saul and to Ish-bosheth, Saul's son and successor to the throne of Israel, but war ensued between the House of Saul and the House of David. The account in 2 Samuel 3 stresses that Israel's military commander Abner, negotiating with the tribes to secure a peace treaty with David, then king of Judah, held talks specifically with the house of Benjamin to secure their support. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges suggests that the tribe of Benjamin "was the most likely to offer opposition [to Abner] through fear of losing dignity and advantage by the transference of the royal house to the tribe of Judah.

Later history​

After the death of Ish-bosheth, the tribe of Benjamin joined the northern Israelite tribes in making David king of the united Kingdom of Israel and Judah. On the accession of Rehoboam, David's grandson, in c. 930 BCE the northern tribes split from the House of David to constitute the northern Kingdom of Israel. The tribe of Benjamin remained a part of the Kingdom of Judah until Judah was conquered by Babylon in c. 586 BCE and the population deported. 

After the dissolution of the united Kingdom of Israel in c. 930 BCE, the Tribe of Benjamin joined the Tribe of Judah as a junior partner in the Kingdom of Judah, or Southern Kingdom. The Davidic dynasty, which had roots in Judah, continued to reign in Judah. As part of the kingdom of Judah, Benjamin survived the destruction of Israel by the Assyrians, but instead was subjected to the Babylonian captivity; when the captivity ended, the distinction between Benjamin and Judah was lost in favour of a common identity as Israel, though in the biblical book of Esther, Mordecai is referred to as being of the tribe of Benjamin, and as late as the time of Jesus of Nazareth some (notably Paul the Apostle) still identified their Benjamite ancestry: 

If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: circumcised on the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.”

Character​

Several passages in the Bible describe tribe of Benjamin as being pugnacious, for example in the Song of Deborah, and in descriptions where they are described as being taught to fight left handed, so as to be able to wrong foot their enemies (Judges 3:15-21, 20:16, 1 Chronicles 12:2) and where they are portrayed as being brave and skilled archers (1 Chronicles 8:40, 2 Chronicles 14:8). 

In the Blessing of Jacob, Benjamin is referred to as "a ravenous wolf"; traditional interpretations often considered this to refer to the might of a specific member of the tribe, either the champion Ehud, king Saul, or Mordecai of the Esther narrative, or in Christian circles, the apostle Paul. The Temple in Jerusalem was traditionally said to be partly in the territory of the tribe of Benjamin (but mostly in that of Judah), and some traditional interpretations of the Blessing consider the ravenous wolf to refer to the Temple's altar which devoured biblical sacrifices. 

Territory​

According to the Hebrew Torah, following the completion of the conquest of Canaan by the Israelite tribes, Joshua allocated the land among the twelve tribes. Kenneth Kitchen dates this conquest to just after 1200 BCE. However, according to the consensus of modern scholars, the conquest as described in the book of Joshua did not occur.

The Bible recounts that Joshua assigned to Benjamin the territory between that of Ephraim to the north and Judah to the south, with the Jordan River as the eastern border, and included many historically important cities, such as Bethel, Gibeah, and encroached on the northern hills of Jerusalem. (Joshua 18:11-28) 
According to rabbinical sources, only those towns and villages on the northern-most and southern-most territorial boundary lines, or purlieu, are named in the land allocation, although, in actuality, all unnamed towns and villages in between these boundaries would still belong to the tribe of Benjamin. The Babylonian Talmud names three of these cities, all of which were formerly enclosed by a wall, and belonged to the tribe of Benjamin: Lydda (Lod), Ono (Kafr 'Ana), and Gei Ha-ḥarashim. Marking what is now one of the southern-most butts and bounds of Benjamin's territory is "the spring of the waters of Nephtoah" (Josh. 18:15), a place identified as Kefar Lifta (كفر لفتا), and situated on the left-hand side of the road as one enters Jerusalem. It is now an abandoned Arab village. The word Lifta is merely a corruption of the Hebrew name Nephtoah, and where a natural spring by that name still abounds.

Although Jerusalem was in the territory allocated to the tribe of Benjamin (Joshua 18:28), it remained under the independent control of the Jebusites. Judges 1:21 points to the city being within the territory of Benjamin, while Joshua 15:63 implies that the city was within the territory of Judah. In any event, Jerusalem remained an independent Jebusite city until it was finally conquered by David in c. 11th century BC and made into the capital of the united Kingdom of Israel. After the breakup of the United Monarchy, Jerusalem continued as the capital of the southern Kingdom of Judah. 

The ownership of Bethel is also ambiguous. Though Joshua allocated Bethel to Benjamin, by the time of the prophetess Deborah, Bethel is described as being in the land of the Tribe of Ephraim (Judges 4:5). Then, some twenty years after the breakup of the United Monarchy, Abijah, the second king of Kingdom of Judah, defeated Jeroboam of Israel and took back the towns of Bethel, Jeshanah and Ephron, with their surrounding villages. Ephron is believed to be the Ophrah that was also allocated to the Tribe of Benjamin by Joshua.

The Blessing of Moses, portrayed in the Bible as a prophecy by Moses about the future situation of the twelve tribes, describes Benjamin as "dwelling between YHWH's shoulders," in reference to its location between the leading tribe of the Kingdom of Israel (Ephraim), and the leading tribe (Judah) of Kingdom of Judah.

He’s the father of John the Baptist, and although he never shows up in your Nativity scenes, Zechariah is an important figure in the story of Christ’s birth. So important, in fact, that when Luke writes down the account of Christ’s life on earth, he begins with Zechariah.

Let’s get a closer look at this often-overlooked character.

1. Zechariah is a priest

A priest is someone whose responsibilities included offering sacrifices and taking care of the Temple of the Lord, and blessing the Lord’s name (1 Chr 23:13). One of their duties was to make sure that incense was burning before the Lord at all times. Zechariah is offering incense when we meet him in the book of Luke (Lk 1:9).
The priests were descendants of Aaron, the first high priest of Israel. Aaron was the brother of Moses—the same Moses who led Israel out of Egypt.

2. Zechariah is from the tribe of Levi

In Bible times, the Jews traced their ancestry back to one of Jacob’s twelve sons. Zechariah is from the tribe of Levi, the same tribes that Moses, Aaron, Ezra, and Asaph hail from.

3. Zechariah followed the law of Moses

Luke tells us that both Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth were “blameless” when it came to the Torah: they observed all the Lord’s decrees and commands (Lk 1:6).
Now, this doesn’t mean they were sinless—we’ll see in just a minute that Zechariah is not perfect. It means that they followed the commands thoroughly: especially the commands that involved cleansing themselves of sin (making sacrifices).

4. Zechariah is the first person in the NT to speak with an angel (chronologically)

Most of our stories of Jesus’ birth start with an angel speaking to either Mary or Joseph, right? Well, when Luke kicks off his story of Jesus, he begins with an angel speaking to Jesus’ relative, Zechariah.

Zechariah is ministering in the temple when an angel appears. The angel tells Zechariah that his wife will bear a son: one who will go before the Lord (Jesus).
This conversation would have taken place before Mary’s or Joseph’s visit from angels announcing the coming birth of Christ.

5. Zechariah is old and (at first) childless

Luke fills his first chapter with callbacks and allusions to the miraculous of significant figures in Israel’s history. Zechariah and Elizabeth are old and have no children: similar to how Abraham and Sarah were before the birth of Isaac.

It was a sad thing in those days to have no children. In their culture, having no children meant that your family line ended—Old Testament characters (like Job and Jacob) were blessed with many children. But being childless was a shameful thing.

6. Zechariah prayed for a child

Luke doesn’t record Zechariah’s prayer. But the angel who visits him does mention that he had prayed to have a son (Lk 1:13).

7. Zechariah doesn’t believe the angel’s message (at first)

When God told Abraham that his wife Sarah would bear a son, Sarah laughed at the idea (Gn 18:11–15). In similar fashion, when the angel tells Zechariah that his wife will bear a son in her old age, Zechariah does not believe it. Zechariah asks how he can be sure that such an outlandish promise will come to pass.

The angel replies, “I am Gabriel” (a name Zechariah may have recognized from the book of Daniel), and then tells Zechariah that he will be mute until the message comes to pass.

“In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.” Luke 1:5 NASB

If Elizabeth is from the priestly line, the tribe of Levi, how can she be related to Mary, the mother of Jesus, who is from the line of David, the tribe of Judah?

 ⭕”And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month.” Luke 1:36 NASB and the king James says cousin. ⭕”And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.” Luke 1:36 KJV

Because Zechariah was from the tribe of Levi. I don’t know if it states exactly which line Elizabeth was born from.

It says she was a daughter of Aaron.(Luke 1:5) who was a Levite.

Luke 1:5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.

Was Zechariah, the Father of John the Baptist, a High Priest?

According to the entire tradition of the Church, Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, was the High Priest who entered the Temple in Jerusalem on the Day of Atonement in September and received a revelation from an Angel of the Lord. St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite informs us that it is for this reason that the Church celebrates the conception of John the Baptist on September 23rd and his birth on June 24th, nine months after the conception. Since the Gospel of Luke tells us that Jesus was conceived six months after John was conceived, the Church celebrates the Annunciation to the Virgin Mary on March 25th and the Birth of Christ nine months later on December 25th. Forty days later, on February 2nd, Jesus was presented to the Temple. Hence, according to St. Nikodemos, the immovable liturgical calendar of Despotic Feasts of the Orthodox Church revolves around the fact that Zechariah was the High Priest who entered the Temple on the Day of Atonement in September and received a revelation from an Angel of the Lord.

That Zechariah was a High Priest is testified to us not only by the early Protoevangelium of James, but also by many Church Fathers and writers, such as Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Ambrose, Theodoret, Dionysius the Areopagite, Venerable Bede and Theophylact among others, not to mention the hymnography, iconography and entire tradition of the Church. What took place annually on the Day of Atonement is described in Leviticus 16, while the Gospel of Luke only describes the parts mentioned in Leviticus 16:12, 13, and 17. According to Chrysostom, the fact that December 25th was chosen as the day for the Lord's Nativity to be celebrated was an ancient custom even for his time in the West and received by the East around the year 376, at which time it spread rapidly throughout the Church. Chrysostom says this date could be observed in the Roman archives from the time of the census of Emperor Augustus, which survived up until that time. If this is true, and Chrysostom is convinced it is, then it gives more reasons to believe that the conception of John occurred in late September during the time of Atonement. Also, Chrysostom states that Zechariah was High Priest based on the fact that he was in the Temple alone burning incense while the people were praying outside, which only took place on the Day of Atonement, as testified in Hebrews 9:1-7.

The objection arises that Luke merely says Zechariah was a "Priest" and not a High Priest. Yet it was common for the High Priest to only be referred to as a Priest. For example, Aaron who was High Priest is referred to as being a Priest numerous times in Numbers and also in Leviticus: "...they must be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons who is a priest" (Lev. 13:2). David prophecies of Christ the High Priest: "You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek" (Ps. 110:4). Even St. Paul calls Christ a Priest: "And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears" (Heb. 7:15). A few verses later Paul refers to Christ as "High Priest", indicating the interchangeability of the title. This is even carried down through the tradition of the Church, as we see in Gregory the Theologian's and John Chrysostom's writings on the Priesthood, where Priest is used in fact to describe the High Priest, or Bishop. Lastly, it is assumed by many that the Gospel of Luke was written to the High Priest Theophilus (37-41 A.D). If this is the case, that Luke refers to Zechariah as a Priest could merely mean a familiarity on the part of Theophilus as to who Zechariah truly was as well as his duties.

It is also argued that if the Archangel Gabriel appeared to the right of the Altar of Incense from where he proclaimed the good news to Zechariah, and this Altar was outside the Holy of Holies in the Holy Place, then Zechariah never entered the Holy of Holies as was customarily done on the Day of Atonement. However, both are true. It was part of the ritual for the Day of Atonement for the High Priest to cense within the Holy of Holies with a golden censer, and the vision of the Archangel Gabriel could very well have taken place after this censing was completed and he returned to the Holy Place where the Altar of Incense was located.
Another objection is that the Hebrew and Roman records do not mention Zechariah as being High Priest at this time, therefore there is no support to the assumption that Zechariah was High Priest. However, when we examine the list of High Priests under the Romans, when they were chosen annually according to Roman law, and perhaps by lot according to Jewish tradition, we know there is a gap between the High Priests from 3 B.C. to 6 A.D. when we cannot say for sure who served as High Priest during that time and for how long, keeping in mind also that Herod had killed High Priests and appointed his own. Similarly, we know Herod murdered thousands of innocent people, as Josephus mentions, and even though it is not mentioned that he killed the innocent children at the time of the birth of Jesus or Zechariah in the Temple for not divulging the whereabouts of his infant son John (Matt. 23:35), it is a safe assumption that he at least could have. Also, Josephus even mentions that during the High Priesthood of Matthias another High Priest was appointed for a day to celebrate the Day of Atonement, though his name is given as Joseph. This could indicate however the lack of information about the records of High Priests at this time and how they changed so frequently in the time of Herod. Besides, as St. Nikodemos mentions, under Emperor Titus the records of the Temple were destroyed, so any information we have from this time is scant or missing completely.

What about the fact that Zechariah was said to be a Priest in the division of Abijah (a descendent of Eleazar, the son of Aaron) and chosen by lot to burn incense in his appointed order, which according to II Chronicles was usually a service performed twice a year by Priests for a week at a time? This can be clarified by the fact that all this is indeed true, that Zechariah was indeed a Priest of the division of Abijah, but that he was chosen by lot could very well indicate that he was chosen by lot to be High Priest at some point in time, and that he was to burn incense is one of the primary duties for the Day of Atonement, which at this time could have been during his appointed order as a Priest, thus indicating the contextual reason as to why Zechariah is called a Priest by Luke.

It is important to note that Luke says that after performing his service and receiving the vision of the Angel, Zechariah exited the Holy Place to find the multitudes worried (1:21-23).

Consider one detail pertinent but lacking in this story: When the High Priest would offer incense in the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement, he would say a brief prayer before exiting. If the High Priest was to die inside, the other Priests on duty would have to retrieve his body without entering the Holy of Holies. Therefore, the prayer of the Priest needed to be brief, lest the people grow concerned about his predicament, since his body could not be retrieved from the Holy of Holies (unless they pulled him out by a rope attached to him) nor could they enter the Holy Place when the incense was offered. Two Jewish texts illustrate this:
Mishnah, Yoma 5.1: "He did not make the prayer long so as to frighten Israel."

Jerusalem Talmud, Yoma 42c (regarding an incident that happened to a High Priest, Shim'on the Righteous who served as High Priest around 200 B.C.): "Once a certain high priest made a long prayer and [his fellow priests] decided to go in after him - they say this high priest was Shim'on the Righteous. They said to him: 'Why did you pray so long?' He said to them: 'I was praying that the temple of your God would not be destroyed.' They said to him: 'Even so, you should not have prayed so long.'"

So, when Zechariah exited the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place in late fashion, the people waiting outside would have naturally been worried. When the Angel of God appeared before Zechariah while he was offering the incense, he “was troubled when [Zechariah] saw [Gabriel], and fear fell upon [Zechariah]” (1:12). This was a natural reaction from Zechariah, as any activity out of the ordinary in the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place may have spelled death for the High Priest. But the Angel assured him to not be afraid, and that his prayer [according to Chrysostom, this prayer was for the remission of the sins of the people] had been answered (1:13) [it was answered with the birth of John who would be the prophet of the Messiah]. Luke does not say that Zechariah prayed. It is assumed by Luke that his reader, Theophilus, who was probably a High Priest, would have understood the procedure.

Lastly, there are three ancient accounts of divine visions that took place in the Temple of Jerusalem, and a close reading of all three show a common narrative (Ant. 11:326-328, Ant. 13:282-283, and Luke 1:5-23). The first two were written by Josephus in his Antiquities that refer to Jaddus the High Priest and Hyrcanus the High Priest, while the last refers to the story of Zechariah by Luke the Evangelist. There are sufficient differences between these three narratives to conclude that Luke is not directly dependent upon Josephus or vice-versa. Yet there are haunting similarities which suggest the possibility that both Josephus and the author of Luke-Acts may have known and used a common High Priestly narrative tradition. Among the similarities is that all three took place in the Temple after a sacrifice of some sort and bore a message of salvation for the people. In his excellent work on Hellenistic apologetic historiography Gregory Sterling observes the common intellectual heritage shared by Josephus and the author of Luke-Acts as Hellenistic Jewish apologists for their respective communities, Jewish and Christian. Now if this is true, then it would be safe to assume that since the other visions in the Temple were given to High Priests, why should not Zechariah be a High Priest as well.

John 13 shows that the "last supper" took place on the same night Judas Iscariot betrayed Yeshua (John 13:21-30).  The first verse plainly states that this was "before the feast of the Passover," which lasts for seven days (from Nisan 15 through Nisan 21).  John is obviously referring to the same night described by the other three Gospel writers (Matt. 26; Mark 14; Luke 22).  John goes on to reiterate several times that these events took place before Passover.  Clearly, the Passover meal traditionally eaten on the evening of Nisan 15 had not yet been observed.

First, let's note the timing of these events.  Matthew says it was "the first of Unleavened Bread."  On the surface, this appears to contradict John's account, which plainly states that the "last supper" occurred before the Feast of Passover.  However, Mark and Luke add an additional detail that helps clarify the time.  Mark says it was "the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they killed the Passover"; Luke states it was "the day of Unleavened Bread when the Passover must be killed."
The Bible tells us in Exodus 12:6 that the Passover lambs were to be killed "between the evenings" on Nisan 14.  The Jews have traditionally interpreted "between the evenings" to mean "in the afternoon."  For an in-depth discussion of this phrase, refer to "What Does 'Between the Evenings' Mean?" and "Exodus 12-When Was the First Passover?"

The Jews at the time of Yeshua killed the Passover lambs on the afternoon of Nisan 14.  In The Wars of the Jews, Josephus records that in the 1st century, the Passover lambs were slaughtered "from the ninth hour till the eleventh" (Wars 6.9.3), which corresponds to our 3:00-5:00 p.m.

Obviously, the day Matthew and Mark call the "first day of Unleavened Bread" is the same day that John calls the "the Preparation Day of the Passover."  The New Unger's Bible Dictionary says that the 14th of Nisan was "called until the evening the preparation for the Passover" (p. 411).  As shown below, all three Synoptic Gospels confirm that Yeshua was crucified on the "Preparation Day," Nisan 14:

MATTHEW 27:62 On the next day [Nisan 15], which followed the Day of Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees gathered together to Pilate. (NKJV) 

MARK 15:42 Now when evening had come, because it was the Preparation Day, that is, the day before the [high] Sabbath, 15 Joseph of Arimathea . . . went in to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. (NKJV) 

LUKE 23:54 That day was the Preparation, and the [high] Sabbath drew near. (NKJV) 
Going back to the Synoptic accounts of the meal, Matthew and Mark show that the disciples came to Yeshua just as the Preparation Day (Nisan 14) was beginning, which would have been at sunset.  They asked him where he wanted them to prepare to eat the Passover meal, which would occur the next night (see John 18:28 above).  Luke records that in response to their question, Yeshua instructed Peter and John how to find the place where they should prepare to eat the Passover on the night of Nisan 15.  He told them the owner of the house would show them a large furnished upper room.  Mark and Luke both state that it was there, in that room, that they were to prepare for the Passover (Mark 14:15; Luke 22:12).

As you can see from all three accounts (Matt. 26:17; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7-9), the disciples waited until the beginning of Nisan 14 to ask Christ where to prepare the Passover.  If the time between sunset and dark on the 14th was the correct time to slay the Passover lambs, as some erroneously teach, why would they have waited so very late to question Christ about preparing for the meal?  Or if the Passover meal would not take place for at least another 24 hours, why would they prepare for it that evening?

In Jacob Neusner's translation of the Jewish Mishnah, we can see why the disciples would have been concerned with preparing for the Passover that evening, even though it wouldn't be eaten until the next night:

PESAHIM 1:3 A. R. Judah says, "They seek out [leaven] (1) on the night of the fourteenth, (2) on the fourteenth in the morning, and (3) at the time of removal."  B. And sages say, "[If] one did not seek out [leaven] on the night of the fourteenth, he may seek it out (1) on the fourteenth.  C. "If he did not seek it out on the fourteenth, let him seek it out (2) at the appointed time [11 a.m. to 12 noon on the fourteenth].  D. "[If] he did not seek it out at the appointed time, let him seek it out (3) after the appointed time [to nightfall]." (p. 230, The Mishnah: A New Translation)

The New Unger's Bible Dictionary confirms how the Jews prepared for the observance of the Passover:

On the evening of the 13th Nisan [as that day ended and Nisan 14 began], which, until that of the 14th, was called the "preparation for the Passover" (John 19:14), every head of a family searched for and collected by the light of a candle all the leaven.  Before beginning the search he pronounced the following benediction:  "Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast sanctified us with thy commandments, and hast enjoined us to remove the leaven.'  After the search he said, 'Whatever leaven remains in my possession which I cannot see, behold, it is null, and accounted as the dust of the earth'." (p. 411, "Festivals,") 
The phrase "prepare the Passover" found in Matthew 26:19, Mark 14:16, and Luke 22:13 comes from the Greek phrase hetoimasan to pascha.  According to Strong's Concordance, the Greek verb root hetoimazo means:  "1) to make ready, prepare 1a) to make the necessary preparations, get everything ready . . . drawn from the oriental custom of sending on before kings on their journeys persons to level the roads and make them passable."  Clearly, the reason the disciples questioned Yeshua about where they were going to eat the Passover meal was because Jewish custom required that the location be prepared by removing the leaven from it on the night of Nisan 14.

As mentioned earlier, the Jews ate the Passover meal on the night of Nisan 15, which was the beginning of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.  Exodus 12:15 commands the Israelites to remove all leaven from their dwellings and prescribes the penalty for eating leavened bread during this feast:

EXODUS 12:15 "For a seven-day period shall you eat matzos [unleavened bread], but on the previous day [the Preparation Day] you shall nullify the leaven from your homes; for anyone who eats leavened food - that soul shall be cut off from Israel, from the first day [Nisan 15] to the seventh day [Nisan 21]." (Stone Edition Tanach) 

When the disciples questioned Yeshua about where they were going to eat the Passover meal the next night, they still did not fully understand that he would be dead then!  The Messiah would not be able to eat the Passover lamb because he was destined to be sacrificed as our Passover (I Cor. 5:7).  But instead of explaining to them then that he would be in the grave when the time came to eat the Passover lamb, he simply told his disciples where to prepare to eat the Passover meal.  After Peter and John had deleavened the room and made ready for the upcoming feast, Yeshua used their final meal together on the night of the 14th to instruct his disciples one last time before his death.

Luke 22:15 has been used to support the assertion that the Messiah and his disciples ate the Passover meal.  In this Scripture, Yeshua says:  "With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer."  The Greek phrase translated "with fervent desire I have desired" is epithumia epethumesa.  It literally means "with desire I desired."

The first word of this phrase, epithumia, is a noun.  According to the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, usually this word "has the ambivalent sense, desire, strive for, long to have / do / be something."  It can also be "used for (forbidden) desire " (p. 27, vol. 2).  Yeshua uses epithumia in this sense in Luke 22:15.
In the article "The Lord's Supper," the New Bible Dictionary says that ". . . Lk. 22:15 may be read as an unfulfilled wish" (p. 707).  Christ truly longed to eat that coming Passover with his disciples, but his desire could not be realized!  It was forbidden because it would have destroyed the plan of God, since Christ was destined to be sacrificed as our Passover lamb on the afternoon before the Passover meal.

In his Bible translation, Ferrar Fenton accurately captures the meaning of Yeshua's words in these verses:

LUKE 22:15 "And he said to them:  'I have longingly desired [epithumia epethumesa] to eat this Passover with you before my suffering; 16 however, I tell you that I shall not eat of it, until it can be administered in the Kingdom of God.'" (The Holy Bible in Modern English) 

The last meal that Yeshua and the disciples ate together was obviously some type of preparatory meal, not the Passover meal itself.  Jewish scholar David H. Stern writes of this meal:

The Last Supper is considered by most scholars to have been a Passover meal or Seder.  Many Pesach themes are deepened, reinforced and given new levels of meaning by events in the life of Yeshua the Messiah and by his words on this night.  However, Joseph Shulam has suggested that it may not have been the Seder but a se'udat-mitzvah, the celebratory banquet accompanying performance of a commandment such as a wedding or b'rit-milah. 

 Here is the background for his argument.  When a rabbi and his students finish studying a tractate of the Talmud, they celebrate with a se'udat-mitzvah (also called a se'udat-siyum, 'banquet of completion,' i.e., graduation).  The Fast of the Firstborn, expressing gratitude for the saving of Israel's firstborn sons from the tenth plague, has been prescribed for the day before Pesach, Nisan 14, at least since Mishnaic times.  When it is necessary to eat a se'udat-mitzvah, this takes precedence over a fast.  With a modicum of foresight a rabbi can plan to complete a tractate on Nisan 14 and thus avoid having to fast; doing so is not construed as cheating, and in fact it has become the custom. 

 The tradition of the Fast of the Firstborn dates at least from Mishnaic times.  But, Shulam reasons, if it goes back a couple of centuries more to the time of Yeshua, and if the si'udat-siyum custom applied in the first century to the completing of any course of study, then Yeshua might have arranged to have himself and his talmidim finish reading a book of the Tanakh on Nisan 14.  Or, since Yeshua knew he was going to die, he may have regarded it as appropriate to complete his disciples' earthly "course of study" with a banquet.  This solution would also resolve the perceived conflict between Yochanan [John] and the Synoptic Gospels over the timing of the Last Supper. (p. 77, Jewish New Testament Commentary) 

In The Companion Bible comment on Luke 22:15, Bullinger states that the last supper Yeshua and his disciples ate was "not the eating of the Lamb, but the Chagigah or feast which preceded it . . ." (p. 1500).  He goes on to explain that "it follows, therefore, that the Lord being crucified on 'the preparation day' could not have eaten of the Passover lamb, which was not slain until the evening of the 14th of Nisan (i.e. afternoon). . . . Thus it is clear, that . . . no 'Passover lamb' could have been eaten at the 'last supper' on the previous evening" (p. 180, Appendix 156).

None of the four Gospels mentions a lamb being eaten at the "last supper."  The time had not yet come to slay the Passover when the Messiah and his disciples ate their last meal together.

In addition, Deuteronomy 16:2, 5-6 shows that the disciples would have also had a problem with where to slay a Passover lamb, had they desired to kill one:
DEUTERONOMY 16:2 Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the Passover unto the LORD thy God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which the LORD shall choose to place His name there. . . .  5 Thou mayest not sacrifice the Passover within any of thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee:  6 But at the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to place His name in, there thou shalt sacrifice the Passover at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season [Aviv, see Deu. 16:1] that thou camest forth out of Egypt. (KJV) 

God, through Moses, gives instructions regarding the proper place to sacrifice the Passover in this Scripture.  As shown above, God did not allow that the Israelites to sacrifice the Passover anywhere they wanted, but only at the place where He chose to put His name.  During Yeshua's life, the Temple in Jerusalem was the place where God had placed His name, and that's where the Jews killed the Passover lambs in accordance with this command.

Raymond F. McNair of the Global Church of God writes in his article "When Should the True Passover Be Observed?" that Christ's disciples "certainly could not have gone into the Temple at the beginning of the 14th of Abib to have the priests and Levites assist them in the sacrifice of their Passover lambs.  Why not?  Simply because the Jews (who then controlled the Temple ritual) would not have permitted anyone to kill their Passover lambs approximately 21 hours before they allowed, and supervised, the killing of Passover lambs in the court of the Temple!" (p. 11, Global Church News, March-April 1996).

Yeshua and his disciples obviously could not have eaten a Passover lamb with their meal that night.  The Scriptures clearly state that Messiah was our Passover (I Cor. 5:7).  Matthew, Mark, and Luke all record that Yeshua died at the ninth hour (3:00 p.m.).   This is the same time Josephus records that the slaughter of the Passover lambs commenced.  Christ fulfilled the symbolism of the Passover lambs exactly by giving his life just as the unblemished Passover lambs began to be slain on the 14th of Nisan!

CONCLUSION

We can see that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) do not conflict with John's account of the "last supper" when understood correctly.  A careful study of all four Gospels shows that Yeshua and the disciples did not eat the Passover meal.  There was no way they could have, since the time had not yet come to sacrifice the Passover lambs.  They simply prepared for the Passover by deleavening the location they planned to use for the Feast.  Afterward they ate some type of celebratory or preparatory meal on the evening of Nisan 14.  At this supper, Yeshua instituted the New Covenant symbols of the bread and wine.  After the meal, Judas Iscariot rose and left to betray Yeshua to the Jewish authorities.  When approached with an open mind and the belief that the Scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35), we can reconcile all these accounts.

The ancient Egyptian god Osiris was not only associated with the eye (inner eye) as his name Aus-ir implies, but in his depictions as the Djed Column, evidence suggests that he was also associated with the human spinal column associated with the internal processes of the enlightenment experience (Kundalini) which centre on the spine and the seven chakras relating to the seven endocrine glands.

He was also known as the 'God of the Staircase' - a staircase having seven steps.  

‘Among the many titles ascribed to Osiris, one frequently used is “the god of the staircase”. 

In Chapter XXII of the Ritual the deceased prays that he may “have a portion with him who is on the top of the staircase,” and there are any number of illustrations of a stairway of seven steps’. 

Ancient Landmarks XIX Osiris, Isis, Horus, and Set. Theosophy, Vol. 15, No. 10, August, 1927.

These symbolic attributes given to Osiris are evident in the ancient Egyptian depiction of Osiris below, which I had already presented in the presentation about the god Sokar - who could be considered to be a pre-incarnation of the god Osiris.

Figure 1: The seven-stepped mound or pyramid, surmounted by the god Osiris with Sokar laying prone inside it.

The seven-levelled staircase is a reference to the chakra levels of the spine as also symbolised by the Djed Pillar of Osiris.

The seventh crown chakra - its access also associated with the Third Eye which incorporates the pineal, the pituitary and the central thalamus – the inner sun of rebirth, and in the image above we see the Solar symbol (circumpunct) positioned at the seventh level just inside the 'primordial mound' or pyramid - also symbolically referred to as a staircase.  

I would say that this “throne” – sometimes attributed to the pineal gland and also known as the “Throne of God” is also associated with the thalamus. 

In the symbolic context of the Ark of the Covenant that was housed in the Holy of Holies inside the Temple of Solomon, the "Throne of God" is the centralised "Mercy Seat" positioned between the two cheRUbim angels on the lid of the Ark. Indeed the Holy of Holies inside the Temple (symbolising the human body) would have also represented the brain, and possibly even the Thalamus in the brain.

The Atef Crown

The Atef Crown worn by Osiris and other gods in various ways has been described as a tall, white, conical shaped crown called the Hedjet (looking like a skittle) with a plumed feather on each side and sometimes with ram’s horns at its base. 

Here we have another link with ‘Aries the Ram’ corresponding with the head, and Osiris has also been depicted as a ram-headed sphinx. The ram is an aspect of Osiris possibly symbolising his incarnation at the beginning of the Age of Aries. 

Osiris was also depicted as the Apis Bull.  Greek writers make the Apis an incarnation of Osiris, possibly symbolising his incarnation during the Age of Taurus.
 The feathers are said to be ostrich feathers.

The god Osiris as the Djed Pillar (symbolising his backbone, also doubling as the shamanic 'World Tree' or axis mundi - the Earth's celestial axis and Giza-Nile Meridian). Note the three orbs above his head and above the spinal column. Like the three golden apples of the 'World Tree', these represent the glands and thalamus in the brain, and so these are really inside his head and depict the opened up brain at the location of the thalamus. The left and right orbs are struck by serpents like the snakes on the Caduceus. Note the straightened-out rams horns underneath. Compare with Figure 4 below.

Right: Another version of the Djed Pillar. This time the body of the Djed (backbone of Osiris) is depicted as a seven-levelled ladder or staircase. 

Also, this time we see the Ankh, with the RU (thalamus) gateway – the Void being held above it by the arms of the Ka hieroglyph, as if representing the bindu point above the head connected with the third-eye activation of the thalamus.

The Royal Cartouche that surrounds the names of Egyptian Pharaohs is an adaptation of the Shen Ring. 

But it has been said that the ‘oval cartouche’ is also an “egg” – which means that all Egyptian cartouches with the names of their Pharoahs are really names etched inside the “cosmic egg” of rebirth – the “cosmic egg” also represented by the thalamus in the brain of every individual.

Furthermore, in esoteric symbolism, the “cosmic egg” is seeded by the phallic, benben seed-stone and therefore it is also the Grail cup - the head being the "womb" of rebirth because it contains the seed of rebirth - i.e., the spiritual seed-soul that is carried over from one lifetime to another. 

The symbolism relating to this ancient understanding of spiritual rebirth is evident in the photo of the Obelisk shown below, which is symbolic not only of the spinal column with the pyramidion capstone symbolising the thalamic centre of the brain, but also the male phallus with the benben capstone actually symbolising the sperm seed-drop of the god Atum.

Here we see an added feature, of a globe (female womb or egg) being pierced by the benben as if seeding it. 

What is being expressed here is really the  fusion of the male and female related binaries - an expression of the Triad . . . I + O = Φ .

Obelisk of Montecitorio. 

The point of the male, phallic pillar (Hadit) pierces the feminine womb egg (Nuit) at its centre.

This Obelisk is an ancient Egyptian, red granite obelisk originally belonging to Pharaoh Psammetichus II (595-589 BCE). It was brought from Heliopolis to Rome in 10 BCE by the Roman Emperor Augustus.

The bronze globe was set on top of the obelisk by Pius VI Braschi.

 "Besides its function as a solar clock, the obelisk was oriented in such manner so as to cast its shadow on the nearby Ara Pacis on 23 September, Augustus's birthday, which coincided with the autumnal equinox"

The phallic shadow on the womb does not imply date of birth, but rather the date of conception. 

Now all this is interesting, as according to the Grail romances, those of the ‘Company of the Grail’ – being those who were left to guard it –  (possibly the head of a 'Shining One' like Osiris for example, or a relic that represents or represented the head of such a person who had become enlightened) - were each called individually as children by God – their names and family appearing miraculously on the Grail itself. 

Perhaps the concept of ‘kingship’ that was set-up by the NeteRU or ‘neutral angels’ who brought the Grail ‘Stone’ to Earth and guarded its knowledge, became the ‘Company of the Grail’ – the tradition passing into dynastic Egypt with the Pharaohs having their names carved inside the “egg” or “cups” – i.e., cartouches. 
However, although interesting, this connection is mere conjecture at this stage and requires more evidence - suffice to say that this has not stopped the initiates who understand these connections from symbolically encoding them together in many different ways and in numerous sources throughout history - prompting others who possess the 'one eye' to see them to make the same connections.

If nothing else this is a fact as the obvious symbolism presented to us in figure 3 above attests to this fact. 

The connections that can lead one to the same conclusions are everywhere.

The following too is merely conjectural at this stage, but if we now look at the opened-up brain as shown below we can see a remarkable resemblance between the opened up Corpus Callosum, the pituitary and pineal glands, the central thalamus, and most, if not all of the symbolic features of the ancient Egyptian Atef Crown, as worn by the god Osiris and other deities, like Thoth and the creator god Khnum.