Misdating Herod's Death

Assumptions of the 4 BC Theory

The reader should read Tiberius' 15th Year first, and Messiah's birth second. These articles will show that Messiah was born in 2 BC, on Tishri 1, and that consequently Herod the Great died shortly afterward in 1 BC. This current essay will dismantle the standard view of Herod's death (4 BC) and establish a wholly new chronology around his death in 1 BC compatible with the 2 BC birth of Messiah. Everything is laid out in the chronological charts. This essay will help process the information in the charts, which is extensive.

The putative traditional 4 BC theory only dates back to the 19th century. It seems to explain some things in Josephus, but the reality is that it turns the chronology of the period into chaos. Before the 4 BC theory came along, the early church history favored 1 BC, as may be shown from statements by the church fathers.

The road to the 4 BC death of Herod begins with the assumption that his 37 years of reign begin counting when he was anointed to be king by the Romans in 40 BC. Besides the 37 years, Josephus gives a figure of 34 years. It is assumed by this theory that the 37 years counts from his appointment in Rome, and the 34 years from his taking of Jerusalem.

The standard view finds confirmation in counting Herod Philip's years backwards to 4 BC, Herod Antipas's years backwards to 4 BC, and Archelaus' years back to 4 BC. Finally, the standard view claims confirmation by finding Josephus' eclipse in March of 4 BC.

Finally, a word about the motivation for the 4 BC theory. The 4 BC theory is founded directly on a commitment to Friday, April 7, AD 30 as the date of the crucifixion.

Anointing and Appointing

The first assumption is that the 37 years dates from Herod's appointment in Rome (Ant. 17.191; War 1.665). Josephus states that "[Herod] ends, having reigned after which he had Antigonus killed, 34 years, after which he was appointed by Rome, 37 years." The key word here is βασιλεύσας, having reigned. We need to ask whether Josephus means reigning on paper or reigning in fact. In those times only reigning in fact counted, and this is what he means. Men seeking a kingdom would go to Rome, and get appointed king of some client kingdom, and then would have to first conquer it before reigning over it. In at least a dozen different cases, Rome handed an important person the title of king, and then told them to go raise an army, with monetary and military backing from Rome, and to use it to start or finish a civil war. Until the other side was defeated, there was no reign.

The same verb βασιλεύσας is used to explain both reigns. If one reign starts on paper and finishes in fact, and the other reign does not start until a milestone in the civil war is reached, the execution of Antigonus, then the double standard is evident. Reigning in at least one case exludes the time he was only appointed king. Since one verb controls both parts of the sentence, it (in at least one case) excludes the time from appointment to an execution. May it not in both cases exclude the reign on paper? Even more disturbingly, Josephus dates the shorter reign from the execution of Antigonus, which was some time after Herod took Jerusalem. Why does this "having reigned" exclude the time from the conquest of the city to the execution?

The matter is resolved by considering that from a Jewish point of view, what Herod received in Rome was no more than an anointing to be king. King David was anointed to be king a long time before he reigned as king, having reigned 40 years over Judea. Properly speaking, even if one has to fight a civil war, one does not reign until the subjects of the kingdom bend the knee. Even if they do not literally bend the knee, it is when they start paying taxes. So the appointing to be king is the same as an anointing to be king. David's reign is not calculated from his anointing, and Herod's reign is not calculated from his appointing. Even is an anointed king has to fight a war to become king, the time of the fighting is not counted. David fought a civil war with the house of Israel. He only reigned over the house of Israel 33 years. But David reigned over Judah 40 years. The reason the reign is less over the house of Israel is that for 7 years, he was fighting a civil war. So Herod's fighting of a war with Antigonus does not count as his reigning. The time from his appointment on paper does not count.

The Hopeful Year 3 Tetrarchy Coin

There is a Year 3 coin (LΓ) that was minted at the Samaria Mint during Herod's war against the Galileans, but this coin does not date a supposed Roman reign. According to Yaakov Meshorer, the coin was minted in Samaria in year 3 of Herod's Tetrarchy. The timeline flows as follows: Herod and his brother Phasael were appointed joint Tetrarchs of Galilee and Samaria in 41 BC by Mark Antony. Tetrarch is the title given to an official appointed to be a governor, which is less than a king. Subsequently, the Parthians invaded and captured Phasael in 40 BC, and Herod fled to Masada and then to Rome. Phasael committed suicide in captivity leaving Herod as the sole Tetrarch (Governor) of Galilee and Samaria. So when Herod arrived at Rome, they knew his brother was dead. Herod returned from Rome with his new title in the late autumn of 40 BC, and was able in a swift operation to subdue Galilee. Samaria then volunteered to come over to his side. And this was now the 3rd year of his Tetrarchy. The Samaria Mint issued the year 3 coin with Herod's new title on it, dating between Tishri 40 BC and Tishri 39 BC. The letters Tau and Rho were combined on the coin to make a monogram, which abbreviated the word Tetrarch. So the year 3 on the coin pertains to the number of years Herod was Tetrarch of Galilee and Samaria. Meshorer points out that the "same monogram" (pg. 62, A Treasury of Jewish Coins) was used on coins of Ptolemy of Chalcis in Lebanon, who also held the title of Tetrarch. Meshorer reduces the year to "40 BC", which would have to mean Tishri 40 BC was the start of the 3rd year of the Tetrarchy.

The coin was minted 40.T/39.T. The coinage was needed to pay his Roman and mercenary troops then, and not later as some other theories suppose. The various denominations of this year 3 coin, all minted in Samaria show that Herod did not at this time have access to the Jerusalem Mint. Meshorer's theory is on its own merits the most parsimonious, since it perfectly explains the timing of the coin as well as the Symbol on it.

The Necessity of Detailed Charts

Other theories do not make detailed charts like I do. It is in the process of making scientifically exacting charts at the seasonal level that inconsistencies are discovered, and then considerations can be made for resolving them, and then update the charts. If others would make exactingly detailed charts of their own theories, they would soon discover their own contradictions of the evidence. More importantly, if they published detailed charts, then others could easily find the problems with the charts. And this is the problem. The standard theories and variations thereof are hard to pin down and peer review because charts are not made. And this is probably the reason they are not made, because to do so would expose them to immediate refutation.

The main reason that I cannot, or will not go into anything more than the most glaring contradictions created by other theories is that the theory is shared by numerous scholars in slightly different variations. None of them have a unified theory to critique. Without a chart, even their own views on pieces of key evidence is a fluid matter. In Chronology, if one is going to point out the problems of another proposal, then one first has to pin down the advocate of that proposal to a definitive timing. Without charts, and with all the competing theories and variations, it is impossible to pin them down, and whenever it is possible, one is only pinning down one specific scholar. But the consensus is formed by many scholars with many different variants or inconsistent ways of defending the same dogma!

I would indeed weary my reader by trying to go into detail to show where the conclusions of scholars fail when cascade logic is applied, i.e. figuring out the consequences of the consequences of the initial errors, which can be shown to come back on them at the third level down and show that the initial hypothesis contradicts the evidence. The very impossibility of getting them to commit to where the details go in a chart makes it pointless, because they are trying to win a propaganda war. If one exposes just one point against them, then they can easily move the goal post and make the problem vanish in chartless prose, and that is only if they view their challenger as a threat to their instututional authority.

For this reason, I am stuck with explaining how the evidence actually does fit all the facts with my charts. But I do not engage in more than obvious disproof of their positions, when those positions are moving targets on the timeline. An analysis of the consensus shows numerous contradictions on how those holding the consensus wish to defend the details, which is by prose arguments and not accurate charting. Due to this chaos, the dogmatic consensus should be dismissed until they can agree with themselves and put up detailed charts so we can see how well they explain the evidence. But that will never happen unless they all agree and copy my charts!

I can't make this point too strongly, so I let the AI in this case distill the point a new way: "For this reason, I am leaving the moving targets of the timeline behind and focusing on the ultimate point that counts: demonstrating exactly how the historical evidence fits all the facts within my seasonal charts. I refuse to exhaust my readers by chasing the phantom contradictions of an amorphous consensus that relies on fluid prose rather than rigid architecture. An analysis of the standard position reveals a chaotic array of internal contradictions, as its defenders squabble over the details of how to protect their dogma. Because of this systemic instability, the consensus date should be dismissed outright until its proponents can align with one another and produce an auditable, detailed chart of their own. Yet, we know that will never happen—unless, of course, they finally agree to copy mine. ." So to cap off this point. My words to the false consensus are: put up or shut up. The words of Messiah are true, "He felt compassion for them, because they had been losing their hides, and had been getting cast off, as sheep having no shepherd" (Matthew 9:36, GNM). The real collective guilt is profit. Caesar Tiberius once said that he needed to train his governors to shear the sheep and not to skin them.

Documenting the 37 Year Reign

I will now pick up again with the 37 year reign of Herod. It does not date from his anointing by Rome, but from his actual reign when he took Jerusalem. And this happened in 38 BC. The pro-Herodian historian, Nicolaus of Damascus dated with year one from Tishri 1, 38 BC to Tishri 1, 37 BC. The proof is quite simple. Nicolaus is Josephus' source here, because he was Herod's court historian. He puts down the decisive naval battle fought in the Ionian Sea near the promontory of Actium, Greece, on September 2, 31 BCE. He dates this to Herod's 7th year, falling between Tishri 1, 32 BC and Tishri 1, 31 BC (Ant. 15.121; Ant. 15:109.)

Josephus mentions that there was a famine in Judea in the 13th year of Herod. This date cross references to 25 BC, because a newly appointed Praefect of Egypt, Petronius, was able to supply grain to Herod for famine relief. Again, the 13th year counts from a starting point with year 1 between Tishri 38 BC and Tishri 37 BC.

Josephus then references the 15th year of Herod, from which an 8 year construction project of the temple began, but since he is counting Tishri years, and the construction project was counting equinoctal years, the count begins and ends with a part year. This arrives exactly where the 46 years in John 2:20 begin counting. The terminal year of Herod's 37 years comes to Tishri 1 2 BC to around Feb. 1, 1 BC, when Herod died.

Josephus mentions the 17th year of Herod, when Augustus came to Syria in 21 BC, the year of Lollius and Lepidus. This cross reference also counts from the 38 BC conquest of Jerusalem.

Next, the 37-year reign is referenced in the 28th year of Herod (Ant. 16.136) upon the completion of the port of Caesarea Sebaste, which was completed in 10 years, ending on Tishri 1 in 11 BC. The completion of this port is linked to Roman historical sources. So again, this reign date does not go back to 40 BC.

Finally, a total of 37 years brings us to Tishri 1, 2 BC to Tishri 1, 1 BC. And Herod died in this year. The most important point to keep in mind vs. the 4 BC theory for Herod's death is that there are zero examples of actual use of a reign that counts regnal years from 40 BC! The 4 BC theorists would have us believe the 37 year reign is counted from Rome. But there is no evidence for this, knowing that an appointing and an anointed does not equal a reign. Every narrative example stating a year dates from the fall of Jerusalem in 38 BC. And this is how the pro-Herodian faction reckoned it.

The 34 year reign

Now the 34 year reign was reckoned by the anti-Herodian faction, or at least scribal sources associated with the priesthood at Jerusalem. When Herod took Jerusalem, the Hasmonean king, Mattathias Antigonus, was captured and handed over to Mark Antony, who kept him alive. Antony kept him alive because whenever Rome felt insecure, it would keep a potential rival alive as a threat against a king they wanted to control. If the client king did not behave they could release the rival to start a civil war. Parthia would also play the same political game.

Meanwhile, Herod was begging Antony to execute Antigonus. He kept sending money and presents to Antony to induce Antony to carry out the execution. And Antony was in need of a large amount of money. He was planning an invasion of Parthia, which was launched at the beginning of summer in 36 BC in the year of Gellius and Nerva, Roman consuls for 36 BC. At this time Octavian and Antony were in the business of extorting, plundering, and extracting as much money as they could from wherever and whomever into order to fund their legions, which technically were Rome's legions dispatched by the Senate, but in reality were the private legions of Antony and Octavian! And both Octavian and Antony wanted total power. So one was bound to eliminate the other.

In the third month of 36 BC (Sivan) Antony finally executed Antigonus. It was a brutal execution. He was bound to a stake, scourged, and beheaded. Josephus reports, "When Antony had taken Antigonus prisoner, he decided to keep him for his triumph, but when he heard how the nation was still rebellious and in their hatred for Herod, still favoured Antigonus, he decided to behead him in Antioch, for in no other way could the Jews be pacified. Strabo of Cappadocia supports me in this, when he says: "Antony had Antigonus the Jew brought to Antioch and beheaded there. I believe he was the first Roman to behead a king, thinking there was no other way to change the mind of the Jews to receive Herod, whom he had set in his place, for even tortures could not force them to acknowledge him as king. With their great fondness for their former king, he felt that this disgrace would diminish his memory and also lessen their hatred of Herod." Such is Strabo's account. (Ant. 15.8-10). So we see here that the Jews would not acknowledge any reign for Herod because Antigonus was still alive until this point. Counting years for Herod would be to acknowledge him as king, so it is clear that the Jewish reign omits 3 years from when Herod actually took Jersualem to when Antigonus was excecuted.

Josephus reports that John Hyrcanus was removed from power by the Parthians shortly after Shavuot in 40 BC, and that he ruled 24 years. But Josephus' source for the reign of Mattathias Antigonus evidently adopted the Parthian Nisan epoch for the reign, perhaps because he was a paying vassal to the Parthians who conducted their administrative year on a Nisan basis, but also because the source of his reign data is anti-Herodian. Thus, the incentive is to shorten Herod's reign as much as possible. We will further see that the Jewish reign of Herod, for 34 years, is actually computed upon a Nisan basis. The Hasmonean kings generally computed on a Tishri basis. But there is precedent for computing on a Nisan basis with Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, because they were Babylonian vassals. If the Herodian faction wanted to count Tishri years, then the anti-Herodian factions wanted to count Nisan years, viewing Herod as a proxy of Rome, or perhaps regarding Nisan as suitable for the reign of a foreigner, i.e. an Edomite, which Herod was.

Josephus supplies 3 years and 3 months for Antigonus. This is just perfect when John Hyrcanus II is replaced just after Shavuot 40 BC. Antigonus has a long accession year until Nisan 1, 39 BC. This puts the accounting on a Nisan basis. Then he reigns 3 complete years until Nisan 1, 36 BC, which is the beginning of a 4th year, but he reigns 3 months of this year. And then Antony has him executed, and the Jews who still regarded him as king, now cannot do so any more.

As soon as Antigonus is executed, the Jews are forced to accept Herod, but now they count the remainder of the year as Herod's accession year! And his year one begins with Nisan 1, 35 BC. And the 34th year comes between Nisan 1, 2 BC and Nisan 1, 1 BC.

Confirmation of this reckoning. Josephus' priestly anti-Herodian source reports that the Temple was begun in the 18th year of Herod, aligning with Nisan 1, 18 BC. The project takes 1.5 years as reported by Josephus. He means the construction of the inner temple, for which they got all materials ready in advance. The temple is finished half way through the 19th year of the anti-Herodian reign. This is just where the 8 years for the total duration of the project come to an end at Tishri 1, 17 BC. This is in the charts.

Further confirmation of the alignment of Herod's Herodian reign and his anti-Herodian reign, "And the Yehudim said, 'Forty and six years has been built this Temple, and you within three days will raise it?' John 2:20. The Jewish leaders made this statement in AD 30 at the Passover. Josephus informs us that Herod celebrated a great feast upon the completion of the Temple, which was on the same day that he was made king at Rome in 40 BC. Edward Greswell computes the inauguration of Herod as king of Judea at Rome between Sept 14 and the beginning of the 185th Olympiad at Rome on Oct. 1, 40 BC (cf. Dissertations, V. I.). In 17 BC, the first day of Sukkot fell on Sept. 30, so accordingly, he was made king at Rome on Sept 28, 40 BC (proleptic). The matching civic dates fall on Sept. 29 in both years (per Chris Bennett). So the Sukkot celebration also became in the year 17 BC, the celebration of the completion of the Temple and also of Herod's celebration of his Senate Confirmation. If we check 18 BC for such an alignment, we find that all the days that could be his inauguration date fall before Sukkot. There is no point in checking any other year because the 46th year must have fallen with the 15th of Tiberius or after it. See Jos. Ant. 15:421-423. See also the essay on the 15th year of Tiberius and the charts.

It should be noted that the 4 BC theory depends and there being zero difference between a reign reckoned from the death of Antigonus, and one reckoned from the conquest of Jerusalem. This is because the 4 BC theory forces itself into regarding all the incrementing 37 year reign references in Josephus (year 7, year 13, year 15, year 28, year 37) as belonging to the anti-Herodian 34 year reign. The 37 year reign is then assigned to 40 BC from Rome, for which there are no valid references. Not even the year 15 year 18 confusion over the Temple can rescue them here. They are compelled to say that Josephus' sources are mistaken. Their theory requires an inversion of the 37 and 34 year reigns. It also requires Nicolaus of Damascus to become anti-Herodian in his reckoning.

Herod's Sons

Now I turn to the appointments of Herod's sons. In the spring of 4 BC, Herod got permission from Rome to murder his two sons, Alexander and Aristobulus. Right after this he elevated Antipater to become the co-regent king. Also he appointed two other brothers to governorships in his kingdom. Antipas became Tetrarch of Galilee, and was named crown prince. And Achelaus became Tetrarch of Judea. After altering his will several times, in the final will, Archelaus is named crown prince, Antipas remains tetrarch, and Philip is appointed tetrarch of Ituraea. Before Herod died, none of the Tetrarchs counted their years, and probably Antipater did not either. Antipater was executed just before Herod died in 1 BC. Then the three Tetrarch's went to Rome to see if they could get Augustus to elevate them to the kingship.

But Augustus was disgusted with the behavior of Herod and his sons, and the hatreds between them. He famously quipped, "It is better to be Herod's pig than his son." (Saturnalia, 2.4.11). He refused to confirm any of them as kings. He only slightly elevated Archelaus, giving him the title "Ethnarch of Judea." Philip and Antipas continued as Tetrarchs (Governors) of Galilee and Ituraea, but now since there was no king of Herod the Great's Kingdom, they answered directly to Rome for ruling their governorships. It should be noted, that to the people on the streets, they were all kings. But it was not so in the eyes of Rome. Rome would not appoint another king until Herod Agrippa was made king.

Tetrarchs in the Roman Empire had the right to coin bronze or copper coins. They could date them with the Seleucid Era, or the relative year number of their office, or choose not to date them at all. Since the Tetrarch had the position of governor in the eyes of Rome, the fact that Tetrarchs minted coins was not an argument for kingship.

In 4 BC Herod appointed his son Antipater as Corex, as joint king with himself. He also appointed Antipas as the Tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and he appointed Archelaus as the Tetrarch of Judea. But King Herod still retained the right over coinage and the mints. So his Tetrarchs did not mint any coins. Neither did king Antipater. Antipater's poison plot was discovered in the spring of 2 BC in the 3rd year while he was away at Rome. He remained corex in the eyes of the people and Rome until he returned from Rome in the 4th year, where upon he was prosecuted and thrown in prison, and executed. Herod then made his final will.

Just before his final will Antipas had been named crown prince. But Herod changed his mind in the final will. He appointed Archelaus as crown prince, and confirmed Antipas as Tetrarch. This confirmation was just a nice way of saying that this would be his final position, and that he could not rise to the kingship because Archelaus was appointed crown prince. At the same time Herod created a new position for Philip, appointing him Tetrarch of Ituraea. Herod was not angry with Antipas, but he also considered him less competent.

Consequently, when Herod died, the three sons went to Rome to contest the will or get it confirmed. Augustus decided not to make Archelaus king, but he upgraded his former position of Tetrarch, just slightly, to Ethnarch. This was Caesar's technical way of giving Archelaus a higher status without making him king. Since there was no king appointed, the Ethnarch and Tetrarchs were directly answerable to Rome. The title Ethnarch was meant to keep open the possiblity that Archelaus might be confirmed as king at a later date if he governed well.

Antipas contested the will, wanting the former will to be enforced, where he was appointed crown prince. But Caesar refused this, and simply confirmed the Tetrarchy he already had. Finally, Philip was given a brand-new Tetrarchy in Ituraea. When the three returned with their new positions, they gained control of the coin mints in their domains. Antipas began with minting his year 4 coins, going back to the start of his Tetrarchy. Archelaus minted coins, but he did not date them. One might reason that he did not because he was more politically astute and did not want to make it seem like he was a king. Philip minted coins, but his first coin was a year 5 coin dating from 1 BC, since he died in the 22nd year of Tiberius, which was his 37th year. This confirms that Philip's Tetrarchy was newly created in 1 BC.

So far the 4 BC theory is dismantled by the following facts. The most used reign of Herod the Great is counted from the conquest of Jerusalem, with year 1 = 38.T/39.T BC. This reign is the longer 37-year reign. The appointing at Rome is no better than an anointing at Rome. A reign does not begin until the people are made to submit, bend the knee, or pay taxes, or are defeated. The 34 year reign dates from the slaying of Antigonus, which was done by Mark Antony in the 3rd month of 36 BC, some time after Herod took Jerusalem. Both the 37 and 34-year reigns end in 1 BC.

The dating of the Tetrarchies of Antipas and Archelaus go back to 4 BC, but they minted no coins because Herod the Great controlled the mints. These two were indeed in office, the office of a govenorship starting in 4 BC alongside the coregent Antipater, who ruled the whole kingdom, and over his two tetrarch brothers as well. Finally, when Antipater was executed, Herod's final will granted Philip a new Tetrarchy, a part of his kingdom that was not already under Antipas or Archelaus.

The birth of Messiah on September 1, 2 BC, which is based on Luke's careful chronology, and Revelation 12:1-2, is the final nail in the coffin of the 4 BC theory. Since Herod died after Messiah was born, his death was in 1 BC. The 4 BC theory is also constrained to backdate the 15th year of Tiberius (Because Messiah was almost 30 in this year), which we have seen, is a complete impossibility from the contemporary evidence.

The Lunar Eclipse

The 4 BC theory is supposed to be confirmed by a lunar eclipse on March 13th of that year matching Josephus' mention of an eclipse. But this eclipse is not a confirmation so long as a competing eclipse exists for the night of January 9/10 in 1 BC. The timing of the 1 BC eclipse is much more parsimonious to the multitude of events unfolding before the following Passover in Josephus. The eclipse itself is also a much greater magnitude eclipse than the March one in 4 BC (36%). The January 9/10 eclipse was a total eclipse, clearly visible in Jerusalem. The timing allows the necessary time before the following passover for Jospehus' multi-event timeline to play out.

Summary

The pro-Herodian 37 year reign dates from Tishri 1, 38 BC. This corresponds to the actual synchronisms with Roman history for years 7 (Actium), year 13 (Petronius), year 15 (Temple), year (17 Caesar's vist), and year 28 (opening of the Port of Caesarea Sebaste). The anti-Herodain, 34-year Priestly Hasmonean regin begins with an accession year from Sivan, 36 BC, and year 1 begins on Nisan 1, 35 BC. The reigns of Herod's sons only appear to be backdated. They were actually governors (Tetrarchs), and not kings. The coin dates date their respective offices under Herod the great starting in 4 BC for Archelaus and Antipas, and 1 BC for Philip. Josephus' eclipse is the total one on January 9/10, 1 BC.

The 4 BC theory is Nazi Germany's Panther-Wotan Line in the sand defending an AD 30 crucifixion. This theory is the shell game, where they want our attention diverted. They wish us to overlook the mess they made of the 15th year of Tiberius. They wish to lock in Friday, April 7, AD 30 as the date of the crucifixion.

Mainstream Messianic Judaism's Heretical Position

Mainstream Messianic Judaism has fallen into the trap of defending AD 30, and its Friday Crucifixion date. The root reason for this position is reactionary opposition toward the Wednesday Crucifixion and Sabbath resurrection correctly taught by a long legacy of non-Jewish seventh day Sabbath observers. These are the faithful that pagan Rome pushed out of the empire, and then who the Roman Church tried to pursue wherever it could reach with its civil persecuations. But because Messianic Judaism will not abide a non-Jewish body of people from the nations taking on the obligation of the covenant, which they reserve exclusively for themselves, they have compromised with Rome, picking up the very arguments and apolgetics forged by Rome.

I should address several arguments adduced to support AD 30. The first concerns the allegation that a later date for the convesion of Paul compacts the timeline after AD 34 too much. Paul was converted in AD 36 in the spring. The answer to this arugment is that the 3 years and 14 years in Galatians are counted from the same conversion point, concurrently, and not sequentially.

The Talmud (Yoma 39a) says there were strange signs or omens in the temple 40 years before AD 70. This points to AD 30. But it does not point to Messiah's crucifixion. It points to the leadership's rejection of Messiah at the first Passover of his ministry in AD 30. Pegging this to his crucifixion is based on an anti-Levitical interpretation of Messiah's death. In this interpretation, the cross is framed as a rejection of the Levitical Priesthood and the Temple offerings. If the signs mentioned in the Talmud are examined, it will be found that they show divine displeasure. But it is open to interpretation as to what God was displeased with! The signs affected items that were not part of the scripturally required structure of the temple.

While Messianic Judaism defends the validity of the Torah and the Levitical code, and the Temple, even teaching that the Apostles continued to offer sacrifices, they contradict this by teaching that Yoma 39a aligns with the crucifixion. This is a classic bending of the knee to "Replacement Theology" (Supersessionism). It implicitly claims the cross made the Temple obsolete.

Furthermore, Messianic Judiam has resurrected a form of the old argument of the Roman Church. This argument says that the book of Acts records a tolerated transitionary move from Jews being allowed to follow Torah to the Gentile Church, in which such Jewish distinctives are prohibited. Even later Jews were forced to abandon Sabbath, feast days, and purity laws. They were required to violate the Torah in order to be Christian by the Roman Church. And now Messianic Judaism is trying to resurrect this so called transitionary period in order to protect themselves from Roman Christianity (which includes Protestants), while meanwhile saying non-Jewish Christian have no obligation to Torah. But this is just a recapitulation of the old Roman lie.

This leads to a startling conclusion! Non-Christian Judaism during the height of persecution by pagan Rome, and the height of persecution by Catholic Rome, allied itself with Rome as a junior party in an abusive relationship in order to preserve itself at the expense of the torah observant faithful non-Jews, and the Jews among them who held to Messiah Yeshua and wished keep Torah also. Messianic Judaism is attempting to cozy up to Rabbinic Judaism and to gain acceptance by it. This acceptance will never come. But, if they keep down this track, Messianic Judaism is in great danger of becoming a New Roman Catholic Church (because the old one is failing), with a wing of customs with a pagan architecture for non-Jewish Christians, and a wing with Torah observance for Jewish Christians.

New Rome might just get what it wishes. A small minority of Jews keeping Torah and confessing Christ, as an enclave of a large majority of non-Jews keeping the pagan derived customs of the Chruch rebaptized in Christian theology. This is the result to look forward to when Messianic Judaism coddle up to the doctrines of Rome and pushes the house of Israel into the wilderness. And believe me, the devil is willing to allow a few Jews to believe in Messiah Yeshua in order to kill the house of Israel. But as always happens, when they are no longer useful to him, he will pursue them too.