(Hebrew: salim, peace) Ancient city in Palestine, the religious and political center of the Israelites, situated 15 miles west of the Jordan on the crest of a chain of mountains which traverses Palestine from north to south. It was originally called Salem, and was the capital of King Melchisedech (Genesis 14) in 2100 B.C. First mentioned in the Bible in Josue, chapters 10,15, the inhabitants are called Jebusites. In the division of the Promised Land, Jerusalem was assigned to the tribe of Benjamin. Its most famous rulers were David, who brought the Ark of the Covenant into the city, and his son Solomon, who built the Temple, and during whose reign Jerusalem attained the height of its glory and grandeur. Its downfall came (10 AD) after a siege of 143 days, in which it is said 600,000 Jews perished, when it was conquered and destroyed by the Romans under Titus. The house which was the scene of Pentecost and the Last Supper was spared, and became the first Christian church, the Cenacle. Jerusalem, because it was the scene of the Passion and Death of Our Lord, is the destination of pilrims from allover the world.

Comprises Palestine and Cyprus; established, 451.

Confessor, Doctor of the Church, Bishop of Jerusalem. Born 315, died 386. Ordained c.345,he was made Bishop of Jerusalem, 350. Deposed and exiled in 358,360 by Arian synods, he was again exiled by the Emperor Valens, 367. He assisted at the Council of Constantinople, 381, and formally accepted the full Nicene doctrine. His writings consist of valuable catechetical lectures. Emblems: a purse, book. Feast, March 18,.

Eigth century hymn-writer, born probably Damascus; died probably Maiuma, port of Gaza, southern Phenicia. He was foster-brother of Saint John of Damascus and entered with him the monastery of Saint Sabas, near Jerusalem. In 743 he was appointed Bishop of Maiuma. Among the best representatives of later Greek classical hymnology, especially of the liturgical chants known as "Canons," his hymns are in general use in the Orthodox Greek Church, which commemorates him, October 14,.

Fourth Sunday in Lent named from the first words of the Introit; also called Golden Rose, Mediana, Mothering, and Rose Sunday. Celebrated in joyful spirit because the observance of Lent is half over, rose-colored vestments are worn instead of purple, and flowers are allowed on the altar. See also the Catholic Encyclopedia article.

Hymn ascribed to Father Lawrence Anderton, 11th century.

Military order originating in the leper hospital of Jerusalem, founded in the 12th century; when it became military is uncertain. Sanctioned by successive popes, in 1490 Innocent VIII suppressed it. Frequent efforts toward reestablishment were made until the French Revolution permanently abolished it.

Military order originating in the leper hospital of Jerusalem, founded in the 12th century; when it became military is uncertain. Sanctioned by successive popes, in 1490 Innocent VIII suppressed it. Frequent efforts toward reestablishment were made until the French Revolution permanently abolished it.

The name given to the meeting described in Acts 15:6-22 . The purpose of the council was to determine the terms on which Gentile converts to Christianity would be received into the church. The occasion of the meeting was a significant turning of Gentiles to Christ as a result of missionary activity by Barnabas and Paul. Some maintained that all Gentile converts must submit to circumcision and observe the whole of the Mosaic law. Paul and Barnabas, however, contended that imposing such requirements on Gentiles was unreasonable. The solution proposed by the Jerusalem council was that Gentile believers would not be required first to become Jewish proselytes, but that they would be asked to refrain from idolatry, from sexual misconduct, and from eating blood. See Acts ; Paul .

Founded by the Dominicans, 1891, under the direction of Father M. J. Lagrange, and approved by Leo XIII, 1892. The purpose of its institution was to form a progressive center of Catholic biblical study, which would aid in offsetting current rationalistic-modernistic attacks upon the Holy Bible. The school is particularly interested in oriental languages, and biblical geography and topography. Among its important contributions to biblical science is the discovery of the famous mosaic map of Madaba, a map which has shed considerable light on the history and geography of that part of ancient Palestine which lay between Samaria and the Nile delta. It also publishes the well known "Revue Biblique." The Biblical Institute of Jerusalem still remains an active and progressive school of thoroughly sound scientific biblical research.

(jih ryoo' ssuh lehm) Place name meaning, “founded by (god) Shalem” and also known as Beth-Shalem or “House of Shalem.” Chief city of Palestine, some 2500 feet above sea level and eighteen miles west of the northern end of the Dead Sea. The name “Jerusalem” has a long and interesting history. The earliest recorded name of Jerusalem is Urushalim and means “foundation of Shalem,” a Canaanite god of twilight. The Amarna letters in Palestine refer to Beth-Shalem about 1400 B.C. It is first mentioned in the Bible as Salem ( Genesis 14:18 ). Later the author of Hebrews (Genesis 7:2 ) interpreted “Salem” to mean “peace” because of its similarity to shalom . Jerusalem is also called Zion, Jebus, Mount Moriah, and the city of David. Sometimes “city of David” refers to the whole city, and sometimes, to the part that David built. The physical characteristics of Jerusalem include mountains, springs, and valleys. Jerusalem is built on a mountain plateau and is surrounded by mountains. Its main water source was the Gihon Spring at the foot of the hill of Zion. The plateau is related to three valleys—the Kidron on the east, the Hinnom on west and south, and the Tyropoeon which cuts into the lower part of the city dividing it into two unequal parts. The lower portion of the eastern part was the original fortress, built by prehistoric inhabitants. All evidence indicates an early existence of the city. Jerusalem seems to have been inhabited by 3500 B.C., judging from pottery remains found on the hill of Zion. Written mention of Jerusalem may occur in the Ebla tablets (about 2500 B.C.), and certainly, in Egyptian sources (Execration Texts about 1900 B.C. and Amarna Letters). Archaeologists have discovered walls, a sanctuary, a royal palace, and a cemetery dated about 1750 B.C. About this time Abraham, returning from a victory, met Melchizedek, the king of Salem, received gifts from him, and blessed him (Genesis 14:1 ). Later Abraham was commanded to offer Isaac on one of the mountains in the land of Moriah (Genesis 22:2 ). 2 Chronicles 3:1 understood Moriah to be where Solomon built the temple ( 2 Chronicles 3:1 ) on the former threshingfloor of Araunah that David had purchased for an altar to God (2 Samuel 24:18 ). The Muslim mosque, the Dome of the Rock, stands in this area today. Jerusalem became a Hebrew city under David. After the Hebrews entered Canaan under Joshua, the king of Jerusalem, Adoni-zedek fought them. He was defeated (Joshua 10:1 ), but Jerusalem was not taken. Later the men of Judah took Jerusalem and torched it (Judges 1:8 ; compare Judges 1:21 ). Apparently the Jebusites reclaimed it, since it had to be conquered by David almost two centuries later. The occupation of the city by the Jebusites accounts for its being referred to as Jebus (Judges 19:10 ; 1 Chronicles 11:4 ). See Jebusites . Soon after being crowned king over all the tribes of Israel, David led his private forces in the capture of Jerusalem (2 Samuel 5:1-10 ) and made it his capital, a happy choice since it lay on the border between the northern and southern tribes. Zion, the name of the original fortress, now became synonymous with the city of David. The moving of the ark (2 Samuel 6:1 ) made Jerusalem the religious center of the nation. The city began to gather to itself those sacred associations which have made it so important. Here God made an everlasting covenant with the house of David (2 Samuel 7:16 ). Here Solomon built the Temple that David had wanted to build. It was understood to be a dwelling place for God (1 Kings 8:13 ), and the sacred ark, symbolizing His presence, was placed in the holy of holies. Other extensive building projects made Jerusalem a magnificent city. To the Temple in Jerusalem the tribes came three times a year, so that “every one of them in Zion appeareth before God” (Galatians 4:24-311 ). The name “Zion” was often used to emphasize the religious significance of the city. One group of Psalms came to be known as “Psalms of Zion” (Psalm 46:1 ; Psalm 48:1 ; Psalm 76:1 ; Psalm 84:1 ; Psalm 87:1 ; Psalm 122:1 ; Psalm 132:1 ). The physical beauty of the city was extolled (Psalm 48:1 ), and its glorious buildings and walls were described (Psalm 87:1 ). To be a part of the festival processions there (Psalm 68:24-27 ) was a source of great joy (Psalm 149:3 ). Jerusalem, the dwelling place of both the earthly (Psalm 132:1 ) and the divine king (Psalm 5:2 ; Psalm 24:7 ), was where Israel came to appreciate and celebrate the kingship of God (Psalm 47:1 ; Psalm 93:1 ; Psalm 96-99 ), one of the central ideas of the entire Bible. Jerusalem was threatened during the period of the divided kingdom. When the kingdom of Israel split at the death of Solomon, Jerusalem continued to be the capital of the Southern Kingdom. Egypt attacked it (1 Kings 14:25-26 ), as did Syria (2 Kings 12:17 ), and northern Israel (2 Kings 15:29 ; Isaiah 7:1 ). Hezekiah (715-686 B.C.) had a 1750 foot tunnel dug out of solid rock to provide water from the Gihon Spring in time of seige (Tobit 13:16-17 ). In 701 B.C. the Assyrian general Sennacherib destroyed most of the cities of Judah and shut up King Hezekiah “like a bird in a cage.” The Assyrians would have destroyed Jerusalem had it not been miraculously spared (2 Kings 19:35 ). This deliverance, coupled with the covenant with the house of David, led some to the mistaken belief that Jerusalem could never be destroyed (Jeremiah 7:1-15 ). The true prophets of the Lord knew better. Both Micah (Jeremiah 3:12 ) and Jeremiah (Jeremiah 7:14 ) prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem for her unfaithfulness to God's covenant. The prophets also spoke of Jerusalem's exaltation in the “latter days” (Isaiah 2:2-4 ). They said it would become the center to which all nations would come to learn of the true knowledge of God. This would lead them to “beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruninghooks.” Isaiah 60:19 speaks of the time when the Lord will be for Jerusalem an everlasting light. The walls will be called salvation, and its gates praise. The Lord Himself will reign there ( Isaiah 24:23 ). The Babylonians conquered Jerusalem in 598 B.C. taking 10,000 of the leading people into captivity. A further uprising led to the destruction of the city in 587 B.C. The loss was a painful blow to the exiles, but they kept memory of Zion alive deep in their hearts (Psalm 137:1-6 ). Actually, the Exile served to enhance the theological significance of Jerusalem. Its value was no longer dependent on its physical splendor. It became a religious symbol for the elect people of God, who centered hopes for the future upon it. When Cyrus the Persian overran the Babylonians (539 B.C.), he encouraged the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple (Ezra 1:1-4 ). The initial enthusiasm lagged, but Haggai and Zechariah finally motivated the people. The Temple was completed in 516 B.C. (Ezra 6:15 ). The city itself, however, stood unprotected until Nehemiah came to rebuild the walls. Under the influence of Ezra and Nehemiah, Jerusalem again became the living center of the Jewish faith. Worship in the restored Temple became more elaborate. Continued participation in the sacred traditions deepened the people's appreciation for Jerusalem, the “city of our God” (Psalm 48:1 ). The restoration of Jerusalem spoken of by the preexilic prophets had taken place (Jeremiah 29:10 ; Jeremiah 33:7-11 ), but only in part. The glorious vision of the exaltation of Zion (Micah 4:1-8 ) and the transformation of Jerusalem (Ezekiel 40-48 ) had not yet been fulfilled. This vision, along with the belief in the kingship of God and the coming of a Davidic messiah, continued to be cherished in the hearts of the faithful. Prophets like Zechariah painted new images concerning the future of Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:1 ). Jerusalem played an important role in apocalyptic circles of the intertestamental period. We read of a preexistent heavenly Jerusalem (Syriac Baruch 4:2 ) that will descend to earth at the end of the age (2 Esdras 10:27,2 Esdras 10:27,10:54 ; 2 Esdras 13:4-6 ), or, according to another conception, is the place in heaven where the righteous will eventually dwell (Slahyvonic Enoch 55:2). The new Jerusalem/Zion will be a place of great beauty (2 Kings 20:20 ), ruled over by God Himself (Sibylline Oracles 3:787). The focus of the city is the new Temple (Tobit 13:10 ). While Jewish writers pointed to future hope, Persians continued to rule Jerusalem until Alexander the Great took over in 333 B.C. The Jews finally won their freedom through the Maccabean Revolt (167-164 B.C.), but after a century of independence Jerusalem and the Jewish nation were annexed to the Roman Empire. See Intertestamental History and Literature. Herod the Great remodeled Jerusalem. The various conquests of Jerusalem had caused much damage. After Rome gained control, the client-king Herod the Great (37-4 B.C.) rebuilt the city extensively. This energetic ruler constructed a theater, amphitheater, hippodrome, a new palace, fortified towers, and an aqueduct to bring water from the Bethlehem area. His outstanding building project was the Temple. Doubling the Temple area, Herod constructed a magnificent building of huge white stones, richly ornamented. Here Jews from all the world came for religious festivals, and here Jesus from Nazareth came to bring His message to the leaders of the Jewish nation. See Temple. This Jerusalem in which Jesus walked was destroyed by the Roman general Titus in A.D. 70 after zealous Jews revolted against Rome. Not one stone of the Temple building remained standing on another, and widespread destruction engulfed the city. A second revolt in A.D. 135 (the Bar-Kochba Rebellion) resulted in Jews being excluded from the city. From that time until the founding of the modern state of Israel in 1948, the major role of Jerusalem in the Hebrew-Christian religion has been one of symbol, hope, and prophecy. Jerusalem has great theological significance. All four Gospels relate that the central event of the Christian faith—the crucifixion-resurrection of Jesus—took place in Jerusalem. The most recent archaeological investigations indicate that the area now occupied by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is almost certainly the place where these events occurred. The prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem (Matthew 24:1 ; Mark 13:1 ; Luke 21:1 ), is mixed with prophecies concerning the coming of the Son of man at the end of the age when forsaken and desolated Jerusalem will welcome the returning Messiah (Matthew 23:39 ). Several New Testament writers emphasize Jerusalem. John told us more than any other Gospel writer about Jesus' visits to Jerusalem during His public ministry, but it was Luke who emphasized Jerusalem most. Luke's opening announcement of the birth of John took place in Jerusalem. Jesus visited at age twelve. On the mount of transfiguration He spoke with Moses and Elijah of His departure (exodus) which He was to accomplish at Jerusalem. All of Luke's resurrection appearances took place in or near Jerusalem, and the disciples were instructed to stay there until the Day of Pentecost. Then the Spirit would come upon them and inaugurate the new age, beginning to undo the damage of Babel. Jerusalem is the center of the missionary activity of the church, which must extend to the end of the earth (Acts 1:8 ). Paul, though sent out from Antioch, looked to Jerusalem as the center of the earthly church. He kept in contact with the Jerusalem church and brought them a significant offering towards the close of his ministry. He envisioned the “man of sin” who comes before the Day of the Lord as appearing in Jerusalem (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 ). “Out of Zion” would come the deliverer who would enable “all Israel” to be saved after the full number of Gentiles had come in (Romans 11:25-27 ). The present Jerusalem, however, still serves as the “mother” of those Jews in bondage to the law as contrasted to the “Jerusalem above” which is the mother of those persons who are set free in Christ (1618101887_29 ). The author of Hebrews described the heavenly Jerusalem on Mount Zion as the goal of the Christian pilgrimage (Hebrews 11:10 ; Hebrews 12:22 ). Jerusalem figures in the final vision of Revelation. In Revelation the earthly Jerusalem appears for the last time after the thousand-year reign of Christ when the deceived nations, led by the temporarily loosed Satan, come against the beloved city and are destroyed by fire from heaven (Revelation 20:7-9 ). Finally, John saw the new Jerusalem descending from heaven to the new earth. This incomparably beautiful city is described in such a way that it is clear that the goal of the whole sweep of biblical revelation (the glory of the nations, the tree of life, a river of life, eternal vision of and communion with God) is fulfilled, and God reigns with His people forever and ever (Revelation 21-22:5 ). See Revelation. Joe R. Baskin

Jeru- , "the foundation" (implying its divinely given stability, Psalms 87:1; Isaiah 14:32; so spiritually, Hebrews 11:10); -shalem , "of peace". The absence of the doubled "sh" forbids Ewald's derivation, jerush- "possession". Salem is the oldest form (Psalms 76:2; Hebrews 7:2; Genesis 14:18). Jebusi "the Jebusite" (Joshua 15:8; Joshua 18:16; Joshua 18:28; Judges 19:10-11) and the city itself. Jebus, the next form, Jerusalem the more modern name. Melchi-zedek ("king of righteousness") corresponds to Adoni-zedek," lord of righteousness," king of Jerusalem (Joshua 10:1), the name being a hereditary title of the kings of Jerusalem which is "the city of righteousness" (Isaiah 1:21-26). Psalm 110 connects Melchizedek with Zion, as other passages do with Salem. The king of Salem met Abram after his return from the slaughter of the kings, therefore near home (Hebron, to which Jerusalem was near). "The valley of Shaveh, the king's dale" (Genesis 14:17; 2 Samuel 18:18), was the valley of Kedron, and the king of Sodom had no improbable distance to go from Sodom in meeting him here (two furlongs from Jersalem: Josephus, Ant. 7:10, section 3). Ariel, "lion of God," is another designation (Isaiah 29:1-2; Isaiah 29:7). (See ARIEL.) Also "the holy city" (Psalms 50:1-2; Matthew 27:53; Isaiah 22:1-5). AElius Hadrianus, the Roman emperor, built it (A.D. 135), whence it was named AElia Capitolina, inscribed still on the well known stone in the S. wall of the Aksa. Jerusalem did not become the nation's capital or even possession until David's time, the seat of government and of the religious worship having been previously in the N. at Shethem and Shiloh, then Gibeah and Nob (whence the tabernacle and altar were moved to Gibeon). (See DAVID.) The boundary between Judah and Benjamin ran S. of the city hill, so that the city was in Benjamin, and Judah enclosed on two sides the tongue or promontory of land on which it stood, the valley of Hinnom bounding it W. and S., the valley of Jehoshaphat on the E. The temple situated at the connecting point of Judah and northern Israel admirably united both in holiest bonds. Jerusalem lies on the ridge of the backbone of hills stretching from the plain of Jezreel to the desert. Jewish tradition placed the altars and sanctuary in Benjamin, the courts of the temple in Judah. The two royal tribes met in Jerusalem David showed his sense of the importance of the alliance with Saul of Benjamin by making Michal's restoration the condition of his league with Abner (2 Samuel 3:13). Its table land also lies almost central on the middle route from N. to S., and is the watershed of the torrents passing eastward to Jordan and westward to the Mediterranean (Ezekiel 5:5; Ezekiel 38:12; Psalms 48:2). It lay midway between the oldest civilized states; Egypt and Ethiopia on one hand, Babylon, Nineveh, India, Persia, Greece, and Rome on the other; thus holding the best vantage ground whence to act on heathendom. At the same time it lay out of the great highway between Egypt and Syria and Assyria, so often traversed by armies of these mutually hostile world powers, the low sea coast plain from Pelusium to Tyre; hence it generally enjoyed immunity from wars. It is 32 miles from the sea, 18 from Jordan, 20 from Hebron, 36 from Samaria; on the edge of one of the highest table lands, 3700 ft. above the Dead Sea; the N.W. part of the city is 2,581 ft. above the Mediterranean sea level; Mount Olivet is more than 100 ft. higher, namely, 2,700 ft. The descent is extraordinary; Jericho, 13 miles off, is 3,624 ft. lower than Olivet, i.e. 900 ft. below the Mediterranean. Bethel to the N., 11 miles off, is 419 ft. below Jerusalem. Ramleh to the W., 25 miles off, is 2,274 ft. lower. To the S. however the hills at Bethlehem are a little higher, 2,704; Hebron, 3,029. To the S.W. the view is more open, the plain of Rephaim beginning at the S. edge of the valley of Hinnom and stretching towards the western sea. To the N.W. also the view reaches along the upper part of the valley of Jehoshaphat. The city is called "the valley of vision" (Revelation 11:3), for the lower parts of the city, the Tyro-peon (the cheesemakers), form a valley between the heights. The hills outside too are "round about" it (Psalms 125:2). On the E. Olivet; on the S. the hill of evil counsel, rising from the vale of Hinnom; on the W. the ground rises to the borders of the great wady, an hour and a half from the city; on the N. a prolongation of mount Olivet bounds the prospect a mile from the City. Jeremiah 21:13,"inhabiters of the valley, rock of the plain" (i.e. Zion). "Jerusalem the defensed" (Ezekiel 21:20), yet doomed to be "the city of confusion," a second Babel (confusion), by apostasy losing the order of truth and holiness, so doomed to the disorder of destruction like Babylon, its prototype in evil (Isaiah 24:10; Jeremiah 4:23). Seventeen times desolated by conquerors, as having become a "Sodom" (Isaiah 1:10). "The gates of the people," i.e. the central mart for the inland commerce (Ezekiel 26:2; Ezekiel 27:17; 1 Kings 5:9). "The perfection of beauty" (Lamentations 2:15, the enemy in scorn quoting the Jews' own words), "beautiful for situation" (Psalms 48:2; Matthew 4:5). The ranges of Lebanon and Antilebanon pass on southwards in two lower parallel ranges separated by the Ghor or Jordan valley, and ending in the gulf of Akabah. The eastern range distributes itself through Gilead, Mesh, and Petra, reaching the Arabian border of the Red Sea. The western range is the backbone of western Palestine, including the hills of Galilee, Samaria, Ephraim, Benjamin, and Judah, and passing on into the Sinaitic range ending at Ras Mohammed in the tongue of land between the two arms of the Red Sea. The Jerusalem range is part of the steep western wall of the valley of the Jordan and the Dead Sea. W. of this wall the hills sink into a lower range between it and the Mediterranean coast plain. The eastern ravine, the valley of Kedron or Jehoshaphat running from N. to S., meets at the S.E. grainer of the city table land promontory the valley of Hinnom, which on the W. of the precipitous promontory first runs S., then bends eastward (S. of the promontory) until it meets the valley of Jehoshaphat at Bir Ayub; thence as one they descend steeply toward the Dead Sea. The promontory itself is divided into two unequal parts by a ravine running from S. to N. The western part or "upper city" is the larger and higher. The eastern part, mount Moriah and the Acra or "lower city" (Josephus), constitute the lower and smaller; on its southern portion is now the mosque of Omar. The central ravine half way up sends a lateral valley running up to the general level at the Jaffa or Bethlehem gate. The central ravine or depression, running toward the Damascus gate, is the Tyropeon. N. of Moriah the valley of the Asmonaeans running transversely (marked still by the reservoir with two arches, "the pool of Bethesda" so-called, near St. Stephen's gate) separates it from the suburb Bezetha or new town. Thus the city was impregnably entrenched by ravines W., S., and E., while on the N. and N.W. it had ample room for expansion. The western half is: fairly level from N. to S., remembering however the lateral valley spoken of above. The eastern hill is more than 100 ft. lower; the descent thence to the valley, the Bir Ayub, is 450 ft. The N. and S. outlying hills of Olivet, namely, Viri Galilaei, Scopus, and mount of Offence, bend somewhat toward the city, as if "standing round about Jerusalem." The neighbouring hills though not very high are a shelter to the city, and the distant hills of Moab look like a rampart on the E. The route from the N. and E. was from the Jordan plain by Jericho and mount Olivet (Luke 17:11; Luke 18:35; Luke 19:1-29; Luke 19:45; Luke 19:2 Samuel 15-16; 2 Chronicles 28:15). The route from Philistia and Sharon was by Joppa and Lydda, up the two Bethherons to the high ground at Gibeon, whence it turned S. and by Ramah and Gibeah passed over the N. ridge to Jerusalem. This was the road which armies took in approaching the city, and it is still the one for heavy baggage, though a shorter and steeper road through Amwas and the great wady is generally taken by travelers from Jaffa to Jerusalem. The gates were: (1) that of Ephraim (2 Chronicles 25:23), the same probably as that (2) of Benjamin (Jeremiah 20:2), 400 cubits from (3) "the corner gate" (2 Chronicles 25:23). (4) Of Joshua, governor of the city (2 Kings 23:8). (5) That between the two walls (2 Kings 25:4). (6) Horse gate (Nehemiah 3:28). (7) The valley gate (2 Chronicles 26:9). (8) Fish gate (2 Chronicles 33:14). (9) Dung gate (Nehemiah 2:13). (10) Sheep gate (Nehemiah 3:1). (11) E. gate (Nehemiah 3:29). (12) Miphkad (Nehemiah 3:31). (13) Fountain gate (Nehemiah 12:37). (14) Water gate. (15) Old gate (Nehemiah 12:39). (16) Prison gate. (17) The E. gate (margin 2 Kings 16:5-6 "sun gate"), Harsith; Jerome takes it from heres, "a potter's vessel," the way out to Hinnom valley where the potters formed vessels for the use of the temple (Jeremiah 19:10-11). (18) First gate (Zechariah 14:10), perhaps "the old gate" of Nehemiah 3:6. The gates of the temple were Sur (2 Kings 11:6), named "the gate of foundation" (2 Chronicles 23:5); "the gate of the guard" (2 Kings 11:6; 2 Kings 11:19); "high gate" (2 Chronicles 23:20); Shallecheth (1 Chronicles 26:16). The sides of the valleys of Kedron and Hinnom were and are the chief burial places (2 Kings 23:6); tombs still abound on the slopes. Impurities of every kind were cast there (1 Kings 15:13; 2 Chronicles 29:5; 2 Chronicles 29:16). The kings were buried in mount Zion. "David was buried in the city of David (here used in a vague sense (see Birch's remark quoted at the close of this article) of the Ophel S. of the temple mount), between Siloah and the house of the mighty men," i.e. the guard house (Nehemiah 3:16). It became the general burial place of the kings of Judah. Its site was known down to Titus' destruction of the city, which confused the knowledge of the sacred sites. "The king's garden," of David and Solomon, was at the point of union of Kedron and Hinnom (Nehemiah 3:15). The garden of Gethsemane was at the foot of Olivet. Beyond the Damascus or northern gate the wall crosses the royal caverns. Jerusalem is honeycombed with natural and excavated caverns and cisterns for water, for burial, and for quarries. The royal quarries extend under the city according to the first measurement 200 yds. southeastwards, and are 100 yds. wide. The cuttings are four or five inches wide, with a little hollow at the left corner of each, into which a wick and oil might be placed. Mr. Schick adds considerably to these measurements by his recent discoveries. The entrance is so low that one must stoop, but the height speedily increases in advancing. N. of the city an abundant waterspring existed, the outflow of which was stopped probably by Hezekiah, and the water conducted underground to reservoirs within the city. From these the overflow passed to "the fount of the Virgin," thence to Siloam, and perhaps to Bir Ayub, the "well of Nehemiah." Besides this spring, private and public cisterns abounded. Outside on the W. are the upper and lower reservoirs of Gihon (Birket Momilla and Birket es Sultan). On the S.E. outside is the pool of Siloam. The Birket Hammam Sitti Maryam is close to St. Stephen's gate, which is on the eastern side of the city, just above the Haram area. The pool of Hezekiah is within, near the Jaffa gate, which receives the overflow of Birket Mamilla. The pool of Bethesda is inside, near St. Stephen's gate. Barclay discovered a reservoir in the Tyropoeon, W. of the Haram (the temple erect, the slopes S. of which are Ophel), supplied from Bethlehem and Solomon's pools. Four great towers stood at the N.W. part of the wall. The castle of Antonia, in our Lord's time, rose above all other buildings in the city, and was protected by the keep in its S.E. corner. History: The first mention of Jerusalem is as the Salem of Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18). Herodotus gives it the name Cadytis, which reappears in the modern El Kuds, or this may come from Kodesh, "the holy city." Next in Joshua 10:1, etc., as the capital of Adonizedek. Then Joshua allotted it to Benjamin (1 Kings 14:22-289; Joshua 18:16; Joshua 18:28). Neither Judah, whose land environed the stronghold, nor Benjamin could drive the Jebusites out of it (Joshua 15:62; Judges 1:21). The first destruction of tide lower city is recorded Judges 1:3-8; Judah, with Simeon, "smote it with the sword, and set it on fire" as being unable to retain possession of it (for the Jebusites or Canaanites held the fortress), so that, as Josephus says (Ant. 5:2, section 23), they moved to Hebron. This was the first of the 17 sieges ending with the Roman (Luke 21:20; Matthew 24:15). Twice in these sieges it was destroyed; on two other occasions its walls were overthrown. We find it in the hands of the stranger, the Jebusite, in Judges 19:10-12. David at last took the hitherto impregnable stronghold, which was therefore called "the city of David" (Joab being the first in the assault, 1 Chronicles 11:6), and built his palace there. (See DAVID.) He enclosed the city and citadel together with a wall, and strengthened Zion "inwards" by a wall upon the N. side where the lower town joined it; and brought up the ark, making it thus the political and religious center of the nation (2 Samuel 5:6-9; 2 Samuel 5:2 Samuel 6-7). This choice was under the direction of Jehovah (Deuteronomy 12:5-21; 1 Kings 11:36); henceforth it was "the city of the Great King" (Matthew 5:35), "the holy city" (Nehemiah 11:18), the spiritual as well as civil capital. For this its situation admirably adapted it, bordering between Judah, his own tribe, and the valiant small tribe of Benjamin, which formed the connecting link with the northern tribes, especially with Ephraim the house of Joseph. This event he, and his enemies the Philistines too, regarded as a pledge that his kingdom was established. Here in Zion was the sepulchre of David, where also most of his successors were buried. In 1 Samuel 17:54 it is said David brought Goliath's head to Jerusalem; either to the lower city, which was already in the Israelites' hands, or finally, as a trophy, to the city of David when it fell into his hands. The altar too was transferred in Solomon's reign from the tabernacle of Gibeon to the permanent temple. The preparation for this transference was made by David's sacrificing in the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, where he saw the Angel of Jehovah after the plague, and where he was directed by God to rear an altar (2 Samuel 24:16-25; 1 Chronicles 21; 1 Chronicles 22:1; 2 Chronicles 3:1; Psalms 76:1-2; Psalms 132:13-18). Asaph wrote Psalms 78:67-71 to soothe Ephraim's jealous feeling by showing that the transference of the sanctuary from Shiloh to Zion was God's appointment; henceforth Zion is "the mountain of the Lord's house" (Isaiah 2:2). At the meeting of the valleys Kedron and Hinnom David had his royal gardens, S.E. of the city, watered by Ain Ayub (the well of Joab). Solomon, besides the Temple and Palace, enlarged and strengthened the wall with towers (Jos. Ant. 8:6, section 1), taking in the outlying suburbs (1 Kings 3:1; 1 Kings 9:15; 1 Kings 9:24). (See TEMPLE; PALACE.) He built also a palace for his Egyptian queen, not in the city of David (in the New Testament this phrase means Bethlehem): 1 Kings 7:8; 1 Kings 9:24; 2 Chronicles 8:11. On the hill S.E. of Jerusalem, a southern part of Olivet, he built shrines for his foreign wives' idols; it is hence called "the mount of offence," 1 Kings 11:7; 2 Kings 23:13, "the mount of corruption." Josephus (Ant. 8:7, section 4) praises the roads which Solomon paved with black stone, probably the durable basalt from Argob. "Solomon made silver in Jerusalem (common) as stones, and cedars as sycamore trees" (1 Kings 10:27; 2 Chronicles 9:27; Ecclesiastes 2:9). At the disruption under Rehoboam the priests, Levites, and better disposed of the people flocked from the northern kingdom to Judah and Jerusalem which the king fortified (2 Chronicles 11:5-17). But fortifications avail nothing without God's favor. He and his people forfeited this by idolatries (1618101887_39; 1 Kings 14:2 Chronicles 12). So Shishak, Jeroboam's ally, came up against Jerusalem. Rehoboam at once surrendered all the treasures of Jehovah's house, and of the palace, including Solomon's 300 golden shields (three pounds in each) in the house of the forest of Lebanon (1 Kings 10:17), for which Rehoboam substituted brazen shields. Asa, after overthrowing the Ethiopian Zerah who thought to spoil Jerusalem as Shishak did, brought in the sacred offerings which his father Abijah had dedicated from the war with Jeroboam (2 Chronicles 13:16-20), and which he himself had dedicated from the Ethiopian spoil, into the house of the Lord, silver, gold, and vessels (1 Kings 15:15; 2 Chronicles 14:12-13). So he replaced the vessels taken by Shishak. Asa also rebuilt Jehovah's altar before the porch (2 Chronicles 15:8). Jehoshaphat, Asa's son, probably added "the new court" to the temple (2 Chronicles 20:5). The fourth siege of Jerusalem was in the reign of Jehoram, Jehoshaphat's son. In punishment for his walking in the Israelite Ahab's idolatries instead of the ways of his father, and for his slaying his brothers, Jehovah smote him with a great stroke, stirring up the spirit of the Philistines and the Arabians near the Ethiopians to break into Judah, slay all his sons except the youngest (in retributive justice both to himself and his sons: 2 Chronicles 21:4; 2 Chronicles 21:10-20; 2 Chronicles 22:1; 2 Chronicles 24:7), and carry away all the substance in the king's house, and his wives; he himself also died of sore disease by Jehovah's visitation, and was excluded from "the sepulchres of the kings," though buried in the city of David. Keil denies the certainty of Jerusalem having been taken this time, as "Judah" does not necessarily include Jerusalem which is generally distinctly mentioned; "the king's house" is not necessarily the palace, what may be meant is all whatever substance of the king's house (family) was found. But it is hard to see how they could carry away his sons and wives without taking the capital. Next Joash (and Jehoiada in his 23rd year of reign (2 Kings 12:6-16; 2 Chronicles 24:4-14) repaired the temple after its being injured by the Baal worshippers of Athaliah's rein. (See JOASH; JEHOIADA.) Joash apostatized at Jehoiada's death. Then Hazael (by God's appointment) set his face to go up to Jerusalem, and Joash bought him off only at the sacrifice of all the treasures in the temple and palace. Two of his servants slew him. Like Jehoram he was excluded from the royal sepulchres, whereas Jehoiada, his subject, was honoured with burial there. Amaziah, intoxicated with his success against Edom whose idols, in spite of a prophet's warning, he adopted, challenged Joust of Israel. (See AMAZIAH.) The latter conquered at Bethshemesh at the opening of the hills 12 miles W. of Jerusalem. Taking Amaziah prisoner he brought him to Jerusalem and there broke down the wall from the Ephraim or Benjamin gate to the corner gate (N.W. of the city) 400 cubits (the first time the walls were injured, probably at the N.W. corner), and took all the silver and gold and vessels in God's house under charge of the Obed Edom family, and the treasures of the palace, and hostages. Josephus (9:9, section 9) says that he compelled the inhabitants to open the gates by threatening to kill Amaziah otherwise. Uzziah repaired the walls, building towers at the corner gate (the N.W. corner of the city: 2 Chronicles 26:9; Nehemiah 3:19-24), at the turning of the wall (E. of Zion, so that the tower at this turning defended both Zion and the temple from attacks from the S.E. valley), and at the valley gate (on the W. of the city, where now is the Jaffa gate) opening to Hinnom. Also he made engines to be on the towers and bulwarks, to shoot arrows and great stones with. The great earthquake in his reign (Amos 1:1) was a physical premonition of the social revolutions about to visit the guilty nation as a judgment from God (Matthew 24:7-8). Jotham "built the high gate of the house of the Lord" connecting the palace and the temple (2 Chronicles 23:20; 2 Chronicles 27:3); and built much at the wall of Ophel, the S. slope of Moriah, the wall that connected Zion with the temple mount. Under Ahaz Jerusalem was besieged by Rezin of Syria and Pekah of Israel (Jeremiah 19:2,). Josephus (Ant. 9:12, section 1) says it withstood them" for a long time," doubtless owing to the fortifications of the two previous kings. Rezin during it made an expedition to Elath, which he transferred from the Jews to Edom. On his return, finding Jerusalem still not taken, he ravaged Judea, and leaving Pekah at Jerusalem he carried a number of captives to Damascus. Ahaz then ventured to meet Pekah in open battle and was utterly defeated, losing 120,000 slain, besides numerous captives, all of whom however by the prophet Oded's counsel were sent back. Jerusalem was uninjured. (See AHAZ as to his mutilation of the temple, in vassalage to Tiglath Pileser.) Hezekiah "in the first year of his reign" "suddenly," i.e. with a promptness that took men by surprise, restored all that his father had desecrated (2 Chronicles 29:3; 2 Chronicles 29:36). (See HEZEKIAH on this and Sennacherib's invasion.) Hezekiah stopped the outflow of the source of the Kedron N.E. of the city, to which nachal is applied as distinguished from the Hinnom valley S. and W., which is called ge , and brought it within, underground, to the W. side of the city of David, which must therefore have been on the E. (2 Kings 20:20; 2 Chronicles 32:4; 2 Chronicles 32:30; Isaiah 22:9-11), i.e., to the valley Tyropeon between the E. and W. divisions of the city, where traces of the channel still exist. He made strong or fortified the ΜΙLLΟ (the article marks it as a well known place), probably a large tower at one particular part of the wall (Judges 9:6; Judges 9:46; Judges 9:49, where Μille is interchanged with Μigdol "a tower".) (See MILLO.) The name, which means "the filling," originated probably in the fact that this castle filled or completed the fortification of the city of David. It was situated (1 Chronicles 11:8) at the N.W. corner of the wall, on the slope of the Tyropeon valley, where Zion had least height and therefore needed most strengthening (1 Kings 11:27). Manasseh

See Apostolic Council .

A place of worship, especially the Temple of Solomon built in Jerusalem for national worship of Yahweh. Sacred or holy space is the meaning of our word temple , very like the two Greek words, hieron (temple area) and naos (sanctuary itself) which are translated “temple” in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, the language is usually beth Yahweh or beth Elohim , “house of the Yahweh” or “house of God” because He is said to have dwelt there. The other Hebrew expression for temple is hekal , “palace, great house” deriving from the Sumerian word for “great house,” whether meant for God or the earthly king. So David, when he had built for himself a cedar palace, thought it only proper he should build one for Yahweh, too (2 Samuel 7:1-2 ). Nathan at first approved his plan, but the Lord Himself said He had been used to living in a tent since the Exodus from Egypt. He would allow David's son to build Him a house (Temple), but He would build for David a house (dynasty, 2 Samuel 7:3-16 ). This covenant promise became exceedingly significant to the messianic hope fulfilled in the coming of the ideal king of the line of David. See Tabernacle, Tent of Meeting. Chronicles makes it clear that David planned the Temple and accumulated great wealth and gifts for it, though Solomon was the one who actually built it. Solomon's Temple may not have actually been the first temple which housed the ark of the covenant, since there was a house of Yahweh, also called a temple, at Shiloh (1Samuel 1:7,1Samuel 1:9,1 Samuel 1:24 ; 1 Samuel 3:3 ) but in Exodus 25:21-22 (NIV) it is called “tent of meeting,” whether the wilderness tabernacle or not. Jeremiah in his great Temple sermon warned all who came into the Lord's house in Jerusalem that if they trusted primarily in the Temple, instead of the Lord, He could destroy Solomon's Temple just as He had the previous one at Shiloh ( Jeremiah 7:1-15 ; Jeremiah 26:1-6 ). Israel knew other worship places with history far older than the Jerusalem Temple. Former patriarchal holy places near Shechem or Bethel (Genesis 12:6-8 ; Genesis 28:10-22 ; compare Deuteronomy 11:29-30 ; Deuteronomy 27:1-26 ; Joshua 8:30-35 ; Joshua 24:1-28 ; Judges 20:26-27 ), these are not called temples in Scripture though local inhabitants may have called them temples. It cannot be determined what kind of sanctuaries were at Ophrah, Gilgal, Nob, Mizpah, Ramah, or other “high places” where Yahweh was worshiped, but “the Temple” is the one at Jerusalem from Solomon's time. Solomon's Temple There were three historical Temples in succession, those of Solomon, Zerubbabel, and Herod in the preexilic, postexilic, and New Testament periods. Herod's Temple was really a massive rebuilding of the Zerubbabel Temple, so both are called the “second Temple” by Judaism. All three were located on a prominent hill north of David's capital city, which he conquered from the Jebusites (2 Samuel 5:6-7 ). David had acquired the Temple hill from Araunah the Jebusite at the advice of the prophet Gad to stay a pestilence from the Lord by building an altar and offering sacrifices on the threshing floor (2 Samuel 24:18-25 ). Chronicles identifies this hill with Mount Moriah, where Abraham had been willing to offer Isaac (2 Chronicles 3:1 ; Genesis 22:1-14 ). So the Temple mount today in Jerusalem is called Mount Moriah, and the threshing floor of Araunah is undoubtedly the large rock enshrined within the Dome of the Rock, center of the Muslim enclosure called Haram es-Sharif (the third holiest place in Islam, after Mecca and Medina). This enclosure is basically what is left of Herod's enlarged Temple platform, the masonry of which may best be seen in its Western Wall, the holiest place within Judaism since the Roman destruction of Herod's Temple. No stone is left that archaeologists can confidently say belonged to the Solomonic Temple. We do have the detailed literary account of its building preserved in Kings (1 Kings 5:1-9:10 ) and Chronicles (2 Chronicles 2-7 ). Ezekiel's vision of the new Jerusalem Temple after the Exile (Ezekiel 40-43 ) is idealistic and was perhaps never realized in Zerubbabel's rebuilding of the Temple, but many of its details would have reflected Solomon's Temple in which Ezekiel probably ministered as a priest before being deported to Babylon in 597 B.C. The treaty with Hiram, the king of Tyre, and the employment of the metalworker Hiram (or Huram-abi, a different person from the king) whom he provided show that considerable Phoenician influence, expertise, craftmanship, and artistic design went into the building of the Temple. The primary meaning of the Temple was the same as that of the ark it was constructed to enshrine: a symbol of God's presence in the midst of His people (1 Samuel 2:22 ). Because it was God's house, the worshipers could not enter the holy place, reserved only for priests and other worship leaders, much less the holiest place (holy of holies) to be entered by the high priest only once a year (Leviticus 16:1 ). The worshipers could gather for prayer and sacrifice in the Temple courtyard(s) where they could sing psalms as they saw their offerings presented to Yahweh on His great altar. The spirit of Israel's prayer and praise is to be found in the Psalms and in the worship experiences such as that of Isaiah when he surrendered to his prophetic call experience in the forecourt of the Temple (Isaiah 6:1-8 ). The account of Isaiah's experience makes it clear that the earthly Temple was viewed as a microcosm of the heavenly Temple where the King of the universe really dwelt. The quaking and smoke of the Lord's presence at Sinai were now manifested in Zion (Isaiah 6:4 ). Israel understood that it was only by God's grace that He consented to dwell with His people; and so Deuteronomy understood the central sanctuary as the place where Yahweh caused His name to dwell (Deuteronomy 12:5 ; compare 1 Kings 8:13 ), and priestly thinkers viewed it as filled with His glory (compares the tabernacle, Exodus 40:34 ). Obviously, no one can house God: “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Even heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; much less this house that I have built!” (1 Kings 8:27 NRSV). Solomon's Temple was shaped as a “long house” of three successive rooms from east to west, a vestibule of only 15-feet depth, a nave (the holy place) of 60 feet and an inner sanctuary (the most holy place) of 30 feet (1 Kings 6:2-3 ; 1 Kings 16-17 ). It was approximately 30-feet wide and 45-feet high by its interior measurements for the “house” proper, not counting the porch, which was sort of an open entryway. This is similar to, though not precisely the same as, the shape of several Syrian and Canaanite temples excavated in the past few decades (at Hazor, Lachish, tell Tainat). There is even one Israelite “temple” at the southeast border of Judah in the iron age fortress of Arad which some have compared with Solomon's Temple. None was so symmetrical or ornately decorated, nor even as large as the Jerusalem Temple, even though Solomon's palace complex of which the Temple was only a part (1 Kings 7:1-12 ) was much larger and took longer to build (tell Tainat, in northern Syria, is the closest analogy). Around the outside of the house proper was constructed three stories of side chambers for Temple storehouses, above which were recessed windows in the walls of the holy place (1Kings 6:4-6,1 Kings 6:8-10 ). The inside of the house proper was paneled with cedar, floored with cypress, and inlaid with gold throughout. It was decorated with well-known Phoenician artistic ornamentation, floral designs with cherubim, flowers, and palm trees. The most holy place, a windowless cube of about 30 feet, housed the ark of the covenant and was dominated by two guardian cherubim 15-feet tall with outstretched wings spanning fifteen feet to touch in the middle and at each side wall (1 Kings 6:15-28 ). One of the interesting results of archaeological research is the recovery of the form of these ancient cherubim. They are Egyptian-type sphinxes (human-headed winged lions) such as are pictured as the arms of a throne chair of a Canaanite king on one of the Megiddo ivories. The ark, the mercy-seat lid of which had its own guardian cherubim (Exodus 25:18-20 ), was Yahweh's “footstool.” Beneath these awesome cherubim, God was invisibly enthroned. The double doors of the inner sanctuary and the nave were similarly carved and inlaid of finest wood and gold (1 Kings 6:31-35 ). The arrangement prescribed for the wall of the inner court, “three courses of hewn stone and one course of cedar beams” was followed in Solomonic buildings excavated at Megiddo (1 Kings 6:36 ; 1 Kings 7:12 ). This arrangement is also known from the tell Tainat temple. This exquisite sanctuary took seven years to build (about 960 B.C.; 1 Kings 6:37-38 ). The marvelous furnishings of the holy place and the courtyard require another chapter to describe (1 Kings 7:9-51 ). The most mysterious creations were two huge free-standing bronze pillars about thirty-five-feet tall, including their beautifully ornamented capitals of lily-work netting and rows of pomegranates (1 Kings 7:15-20 ). They were nearly six feet in diameter, hollow, with a thickness of bronze about three inches. The pillars were named Jachin (“He shall establish”) and Boaz (“In the strength of”), perhaps to signify the visible symbolism of the Temple as a testimony to the stability of the Davidic dynasty to which it was intimately related. The reader at this point expects an account of the bronze altar, included in Chronicles (2 Chronicles 4:1 ), but only presumed in Kings (1Kings 8:22,1Kings 8:54,1 Kings 8:64 ; 1 Kings 9:25 ). This altar is large, thirty-feet square and fifteen-feet tall, presumably with steps. The molten sea, which may have had some kind of cosmic symbolism, stood in the south-central quadrant of the inner courtyard opposite the bronze altar. It was round with a cup-shaped brim, fifteen feet in diameter, seven-and-a-half-feet tall, with a circumference of forty-five feet. It was cast of heavy bronze, ornately decorated, and resting on the back of twelve bronze oxen in four sets of three facing each point of the compass. Since it held about 10,000 gallons of water, it must have been for supplying water to the lavers by some sort of syphon mechanism. The third great engineering feat was the crafting of ten ornate, rolling stands for ten lavers, five on either side of the courtyard. These were six-feet square and four-and-a-half-feet tall, each containing some 200 gallons of water, quite heavy objects to be rolled about on chariot wheels. Chronicles says they were used to wash the utensils for sacrificial worship (2 Chronicles 4:6 ). At the Feast of Tabernacles, Solomon conducted an elaborate dedication festival for the Temple (1 Kings 8:1-9:9 ). The story begins with a procession of the ark containing the two tables of the decalogue, God's glory in the shining cloud of His presence filled the sanctuary (1 Kings 8:1-11 ). Then the king blessed the assembly, praised God for His covenant mercies in fulfilling Nathan's promise to David, and gave a long, fervent prayer on behalf of seven different situations in which the prayers of his people should arise to the heavenly throne of God from His earthly temple, closing with a benediction. Solomon provided myriads of sacrifices for the seven days of the great dedication festival. God had consecrated this house of prayer, but He required covenant obedience of Solomon and each of his successors, lest He have to destroy this magnificent sanctuary because of the apostasy of His people (1 Kings 9:1-9 ). The consistent emphasis of Solomon's prayer and God's answer is the awareness of sin and the necessity for wholehearted repentance to keep the Temple ceremonial a meaningful symbol of worship and devotion (2 Chronicles 7:13-14 ). The great prophets preached that, in their Temple worship, Israel was not able to avoid syncretism with pagan religious impulses or the hypocritical irrelevance of meaningless overemphasis upon ritual without righteous obedience to their sovereign Overlord (Isaiah 1:10-17 ; Micah 6:6-8 ; Jeremiah 7:1-26 ). The history of Solomon's Temple has many ups and downs through its almost four hundred years of existence. Its treasures of gold were often plundered by foreign invaders like Shishak of Egypt (1 Kings 14:25-26 ). At the division of the kingdoms, Jeroboam set up rival sanctuaries at Bethel and Dan which drew worshipers away from Jerusalem for two hundred years. King Asa plundered his own Temple treasuries to buy a military ally, Ben-Hadad of Syria against Baasha, king of North Israel (1 Kings 15:18-19 ), though he had previously repaired the Temple altar and carried out limited worship reforms (2 Chronicles 15:8-18 ). Temple repairs were carried out by Jehoash (Joash) of Judah after the murder of wicked Queen Athaliah, but even he had to strip the Temple treasuries to buy off Hazael, king of Syria (2 Kings 12:1 ). Jehoash (Joash), king of Israel, when foolishly challenged to battle by Amaziah, king of Judah, not only defeated him, but came to Jerusalem and plundered the Temple (1 Kings 14:12-14 ). King Ahaz plundered his own Temple for tribute to Assyria during the Syro-Ephraimitic war of 735 B.C., even stripping some of the bronze furnishings in the courtyard (2Kings 16:8-9,2 Kings 16:17 ). Good King Hezekiah raised a hugh tribute for Sennacherib, king of Assyria, in his 701 B.C. invasion, even stripping gold off the Temple doors (2 Kings 18:13-16 ). During the long and disastrous reign of King Manasseh many abominable idols and pagan cult objects were placed in the Temple which good King Josiah had to remove during his reform (2Kings 23:4-6,2 Kings 23:11-12 ). Both Hezekiah and Josiah were able to centralize worship in the Jerusalem Temple during their reforms and even recover some worshipers from the north for the Jerusalem sanctuary, but Josiah's successor, Jehoiakim, reversed all of Josiah's reforms and filled up the Temple with pagan abominations (Ezekiel 8:1 ). Despite the warnings of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the people refused to repent of their political and religious folly, and their Temple and holy city were first plundered by Nebuchadnezzer in 597 B.C., then burned by Nebuzaradan, his general, in 587/586 B.C. For both groups of Judah, those in Babylon, and those still in Jerusalem, the loss of the Temple and city were a grievous blow (Psalm 137:1 ; Lamentations 1-5 ). But Jeremiah and Ezekiel had prepared a remnant in their prophecies of hope beyond the catastrophe for a return and rebuilding. Zerubbabel's Temple The decree of Cyrus in 538 B.C. permitted the Jews to return from the Babylonian Exile with the Temple vessels which had been taken. It charged them to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem with Persian financial aid and free-will offerings from Jews who remained in Babylon (Ezra 1:1-4 ). Sheshbazzar, the governor, laid the foundation. The project was halted when the people of the land discouraged the builders (Ezra 1:8 ,Ezra 1:8,1:11 ; Ezra 4:1-5 ). Then in the second year of Darius, 520 B.C., the work was renewed by the new governor Zerubbabel and Jeshua the high priest at the urging of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah (Ezra 5:1-2 ). When local Persian officials tried to stop the rebuilding, Darius found a record of Cyrus' decree which included the overall dimensions (Ezra 6:1-6 ).The size seems to have been approximately that of Solomon's Temple. Ezekiel's temple vision had considerable influence on the new Temple (Ezekiel 40-42 ), so that Zerubbabel's Temple perhaps was mounted on a platform and measured about 100 feet by 100 feet with the interior dimensions being virtually the same as those of Solomon's Temple. It was probably not as ornately decorated (Ezra 3:12-13 ; Haggai 2:3 ). The differences between the two sanctuaries have to do with furniture and courtyard arrangements or gates. As Jeremiah had foreseen, the ark of the covenant was never replaced (Jeremiah 3:16 ). Jospehus said the holy of holies was empty. It was now separated from the holy place by a veil instead of a door. There was only one seven-branched lampstand, as had been true of the tabernacle, probably the one pictured by Titus in his triumphal arch at Rome as having been carried off when Herod's Temple was plundered. The importance of the new Temple was that it became a symbol of the Lord's holiness and the religious center of life for the new community. It was completed in 515 B.C. and dedicated with great joy (Ezra 6:14-16 ). Priesthood had replaced kingship as the authority of the postexilic community. The Maccabean revolt changed this, and Judas Maccabeus rededicated the Temple in 167 B.C. after Antiochus had profaned it in December, 164 B.C. This joyous event is still remembered in the Jewish celebration of Hannukah. Judas' successors appointed themselves as high priests, and the Temple became more a political institution. Pompey captured the Temple in 63 B.C. but did not plunder it. See Intertestamental History. Herod's Temple Herod the Great came to power in 37 B.C. and determined that he would please his Jewish subjects and show off his style of kingship to the Romans by making the Jerusalem Temple bigger and better than it had ever been. His most notable contribution was the magnificent stonework of the Temple platform which was greatly enlarged. The descriptions in Josephus and the Mishnah have been fleshed out by recent archaeological discoveries. Herod surrounded the whole enclosure with magnificent porches, particularly the royal stoa along the southern wall. Through the Huldah gates, double and triple arches of which can still be seen, worshipers went up through enclosed passageways into the court of the Gentiles. Greek inscriptions separating this court from the court of the women and the holier inner courts of Israel (men) and the priests have been found. The steps south of the Temple, where Jesus may have taught on several occasions, have been excavated and reconstructed. An inscription: “To the place of trumpeting” was found below the southwest corner where there was a monumental staircase ascending into the Temple from the main street below. Perhaps this was the “Temple pinnacle” from which Satan tempted Jesus to throw Himself. The Jerusalem Temple is the focus of many New Testament events. The birth of John the Baptist was announced there (Luke 1:11-20 ). The offering by Joseph and Mary at the circumcision of baby Jesus was brought there. Simeon and Anna greeted Jesus there (Luke 2:22-38 ). Jesus came there as a boy of twelve (Luke 2:42-51 ) and later taught there during His ministry (John 7:14 ). His cleansing of the Temple was instrumental in precipitating His death. He knew no earthly temple was necessary to the worship of God (John 4:21-24 ). He predicted the Temple's destruction by the Romans, and His warnings to His followers to flee when this happened actually saved many Christians' lives (Mark 13:2 ,Mark 13:2,13:14-23 ). Early Christians continued to worship there, and Paul was arrested there (Acts 3:1 ; Acts 21:27-33 ). After the Jewish revolt in 66 A.D., Vespasian and then his son Titus crushed all resistance. The Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. Stephen's preaching tended to liberate Christian thinking from the necessity of a temple (Acts 7:46-50 ), and Paul thought of the church and Christians as the new temple (1 Corinthians 3:16-17 ; 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 ). For John, the ideal which the temple represented will ultimately be realized in a “new Jerusalem” (Revelation 21:2 ). See Ark of the Covenant ; Herods; Holy of Holies ; Moriah ; Shiloh ; Solomon ; Tabernacle, Tent of Meeting; Zerubbabel . M. Pierce Matheney

Jerusalem's many gates have varied in number and location with the changing size and orientation of its walls throughout its long history. Persons could enter through an important city gate on the west from Jaffa (Tel Aviv) Road, as they do today. On the east, entrance from the Kidron Valley was signed principally through the Sheep Gate (modern Stephen or Lion Gate) in New Testament times and by a recently found gate (Spring, 1986) south of the modern city walls in Old Testament times. This latter gate may date to the reign of Solomon, being similar to Solomonic gates found at Megiddo, Gezer, and Hazor. Entrance to the Temple itself was on its eastern side through the Beautiful gate (Acts 3:10 ), near the Golden Gate recently found beneath the city eastern wall. On the north, the principal gateway (Damascus Gate) opened onto the Damascus Road. Seven gates now allow entrance to the old city of Jerusalem. John McRay

See SWEDENBORGIANS.

Military order founded by one Gerald (Gerard), probably c.1113,to care for the poor and strangers in the Holy Land; known as Knights of Rhodes, 1309-1522; Knights of Malta since 1530. Infirmaries were established under Raymond of Provence (1120-1160); their military character grew out of the armed escorts provided to pilgrims. The fall of Jerusalem, 1187, and Acre, 1291, greatly depleted their possessions and they took refuge in the Island of Rhodes until vanquished by Solyman II, 1522, when they were offered Malta. Grave abuses crept in and the religious vows were frequently ignored. Protestantism caused their suppression in many countries, and from 1805 they were without a grand master, until Leo XIII filled the office, 1879. Admission now rests upon strict conditions. There are four great priories in Bohemia and Italy.

See Jerusalem ; Eschatology .

The eternal climax of redemptive history is previewed in John's description of the new Jerusalem in Revelation 21-22 . The new Jerusalem is the focus for activity on the new earth. The new Jerusalem motif provides an elaboration of the nature of the new heavens and new earth introduced in Revelation 21:1 . The first explicit reference to the new Jerusalem is in the message to the Philadelphia church in Revelation 3:12 , where it is promised as a reward to those who overcome (a synonym for believers, cf. 1 John 5:4-5 ). Jerusalem provides an image of continuity that brings together earth and eschatological history in regard to where God and his people dwell together. The general image of a future Jerusalem symbolizes the fulfillment of many of God's promises to his people (cf. Isaiah 2:1-5 ; 49:14-18 ; 52 ; 54 ; 60-62 ; 65:17-25 ; Jeremiah 31:38-40 ; Micah 4:1-4 ; Zechariah 14 ). The idea of an idealized and/or eschatological Jerusalem is referred to in other ways than the phrase "new Jerusalem." Although the Old Testament contains no explicit reference to a new Jerusalem, Isaiah includes Jerusalem in his new heavens and new earth statements (65:17-19; 66:22). Paul's allegory of the "above Jerusalem" in Galatians 4:25-26 , provides an idealized imagery for Jerusalem. Hebrews 12:22 speaks of the "heavenly Jerusalem." Revelation 21:2,10 refer to the new Jerusalem as the "Holy City" (cf. Matthew 4:5 ; 27:53 ). Revelation 2:7 , "paradise of God, " may anticipate the new Jerusalem of Revelation 21-22 . The concentration on a restored Jerusalem as a symbol of the fulfillment of God's promises to the Jewish people is also present in noncanonical literature. These occurrences highlight the Jewish hope for a new world where their ideals would be fulfilled. First Enoch 90:28-29 relates a vision of a transformation of the "old house" into a new one, representing a transformed Jerusalem. Sibylline Oracles 5:414-29 record God's provision of a new city (a temple is included in contrast to Revelation 21-22 , which may reflect a more earth-oriented perspective). Second Baruch 32:1-4 speaks of the new city that will be rebuilt after the old is shaken and uprooted as being "perfected into eternity" (cf. 2 Esdras 7:26 ; 10:25-28 ; 13:36 ; Tobit 13:8-18 ; T Daniel 5:12-13 ). Second Baruch 4 compares the new city to the original "paradise, " an interesting comparison in light of Revelation 2:7 . God's creative work begins and ends with paradise. The contextual setting of the new Jerusalem in Revelation 21-22 is closely related to the evil city, Babylon, of the Great Harlot in Revelation 17-19 . The linguistic comparisons of the possible terminal points of each vision are most striking (cf. 17:1-3 with 21:9-10; 19:9b-10 with 22:6-9). Both cities are also viewed as women, the harlot and the bride. God's answer to the evil structures of this world is the paradise regained in the new Jerusalem. The meaning of the imagery of Revelation 21:9-22:5 is reasonably well established in biblical and extrabiblical patterns. The use of the bride metaphor (21:2) does not restrict the reference to the church of the new Testament, but should be viewed in its wider biblical usage as a reference to the people of God who are married to the Lord (cf. Isaiah 61:10 ; Hosea 1-3 ; John 3:29 ; Ephesians 5:25-33 ). Revelation 21:9 equates the images of bride and wife. The inclusion of both Israel and the church is required by the description of the city (cf. Hebrews 11:10,16 ). Israel's twelve tribes and the church's twelve apostles are both included. The stones (21:19-21) solicit remembrance of the high priest's breastplate (Exodus 28:17-21 ; 39:10-14 ) and Ezekiel's garden of God (28:13), although the lists are not the same and John applies the stones to the twelve apostles. The fountain of life (Revelation 21:6 ) and the river (22:1-2) remind one of Ezekiel 47 , but in Ezekiel the river proceeds from the temple and in Revelation 22 from the throne. The new city, however, is essentially a new temple since it is God's dwelling place and the center of religious activity. The new Jerusalem is a cube of enormous proportions (12,000 furlongs is about 1,500 miles), although the use of the number 12 could be symbolic. The Holy of Holies in the temple of the Old Testament was also a cube (cf. 1 Kings 6:20 ). The tree of life (Revelation 22:2 ) hearkens back to the prefall Eden. It is noteworthy that the new Jerusalem has no sun or moon but is illuminated by the effulgence of God's glory. How is the reality of the new Jerusalem on the new earth of Revelation 21-22 to be understood? Is it merely an allegorical description of the final state of the church with no real future new earth locality in view? Is it a literal city that may hover over the millennial earth and house the glorified church-age saints during that period and then be transferred for expanded purposes into the eternal state after the renovation of the earth (some dispensationalists; but, some nondispensationalists also apply it to the millennial period)? Is it a literal city distinctly designed as a center focus for all the redeemed in the eternal state? Is the vision of John, given in apocalyptic motifs, merely a statement in sophisticated symbolism that God will be victor in the climax of history? These and other proposals appear in the literature that addresses this interpretive aspect of the new Jerusalem. Many commentaries prefer to focus on an explanation of the larger meaning of the symbolism without addressing this question. Apocalyptic genre neither demands nor excludes a literal future city. It does, however, expect the interpreter to concentrate on the message of the symbolic motifs rather than endeavor to draw a blueprint of the structure. Gary T. Meadors See also New Heavens and a New Earth Bibliography . R. Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy ; G. R. Beasley-Murray, Revelation ; M. E. Boring, Revelation ; J. M. Ford, Revelation ; W. J. Harrington, Revelation ; G. E. Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John ; J. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ .

The Name . The name "Jerusalem" occurs 806 times in the Bible, 660 times in the Old Testament and 146 times in the New Testament; additional references to the city occur as synonyms. Jerusalem was established as a Canaanite city by the Chalcolithic period (ca. 4000-3100 b.c.), occupying the southeast hill that currently bears the name "City of David." Steep slopes on each side of the hill provided a defensible site, and a spring at the foot of the hill provided necessary water. The earliest probable occurrence of the name appears in the Execration Texts of Egypt (nineteenth to eighteenth centuries b.c.) as Rusalimum . The Amarna Letters from Late Bronze Age Egypt (fourteenth century b.c.), written in the Akkadian language, include the name Urusalim . In Assyrian and Babylonian texts relating to the kingdom of Judah, Ursalimmu or a similar form appears. The archaeological investigation of Jerusalem is hampered by continued occupation; thus, even though no evidence exists for the sanctity of the site in Canaanite thought, human nature supports the assumption that the city had a religious center. The name consists of two elements: yrw and salem ^[1]. yrw may signify "foundation" or "city, " while salem ^[1] is the name of a deity. The name means either "the foundation of (the god ) Shalem, " the patron-god of the city, or "the city of Shalem." Thus, a certain sanctity adhered to the city long before David acquired it. Jerusalem in the Old Testament. Salem . The first occurrence of Jerusalem is in Joshua 10:1 , but an allusion to Jerusalem appears in Genesis 14:18 with the reference to Melchizedek, king of Salem. Poetic parallel construction in Psalm 76:2 ( Hebrews 76:3 ) equates Salem with Zion. Theologically, the Canaanite city of Shalem has become the biblical city of Shalom, Peace. Prophetically, Isaiah spoke of the Prince of Peace (Shalom) who would reign on David's throne (in Jerusalem), a reference full of messianic portent (Isaiah 9:6 ). Jebus . At the time of the Israelite occupation of Canaan, Jerusalem was known as Jebus, a shortened expression for "City of the Jebusites." References in Joshua, Judges, and 1Chronicles note that Jebus is another name for Jerusalem. The Romans also renamed the city Aelia Capitolina, but in both cases the older name revived. City of David . Second Samuel recounts David's conquest of Jebus, exploiting the secret watershaft from the spring Gihon outside the city wall to its exit within the city. From that time on David "took up residence in the fortress, and called it the City of David" (5:9). His subsequent construction of a palace made Jerusalem a royal city. His decision to rule from Jerusalem elevated a city, poorly situated for either trade or military activity, to capital status. The politically neutral city, belonging to neither the northern nor southern tribes, also became his personal property. David transformed Jerusalem into the religious center of his kingdom by bringing into it the ark of the covenant (2 Samuel 6:1-19 ). Although David was not allowed to construct a temple, the arrival of the ark forever linked Jerusalem with the cult of Yahweh. Solomon, David's son, enhanced the religious dimension of the city by constructing the temple of the Lord, symbolizing the presence of Yahweh in Jerusalem and Israel. David began the process of establishing the royal and religious nature of Jerusalem, but it was Solomon who transformed the former Jebusite stronghold into a truly capital and national cultic center. The royal and covenantal functions of Jerusalem are linked in Psalm 2:6 , where God announces that "I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill." Jerusalem is imbued with an eternal nature in several passages in the Old Testament. As Yahweh's spokesman, Nathan promised David a dynasty that would rule in perpetuity (2 Samuel 7:15 ). This promise was extended to Jerusalem because of its function as the royal city. In addition, Solomon described the temple as the place for God to "dwell forever" (1 Kings 8:13 ). While both kingship and covenant were to be centered in Jerusalem forever (cf. Psalm 132 ), the promise was conditional (1 Kings 9:6-9 ). The Bible is full of references to the tension confronting the prophets and people of Jerusalem over the "eternal" nature of the city and the conditions. Isaiah, for example, understood that the Lord would shield Jerusalem (31:5), but he was also aware that certain conditions did apply (1:19-20; 7:9b). Although painfully aware of the transgressions of the city (1:21-23), he nevertheless retained a hopeful vision for its future (2:3). Micah, Isaiah's contemporary, held similar views (3:12; 5:1-4). The prophets knew that the destruction of the city was imminent, for the cult had become corrupt and Jerusalem, the home of the covenant, would have to pay the price. The people's belief in the mere presence of the cult as a talisman against harm was not enough to save them from the discipline of destruction. The idea that Jerusalem was inviolable persisted, however, no doubt strengthened in part by the deliverance of the city from the siege of Sennacherib (2 Kings 19:20-36 ). Nearly a century later, following the apostasy of Manasseh and the reforms of Josiah, Jehoiakim ascended the throne of David in Jerusalem. The prophet Jeremiah, his contemporary, early on dismissed Jehoiakim as a despot worthy of the "burial of a donkey" (Jeremiah 22:19 ). Jeremiah had supported the reforms of Josiah, but in the end the people were too hardened to change. They were convinced that the indestructible city and temple of the Lord would protect them in spite of their depravity (Jeremiah 7:4 ). When Jeremiah denied this and predicted the destruction of the temple, a century-old echo of Micah, it nearly cost him his life. Jerusalem did not change and the doom of exile was the result. The Babylonian exile provided the environment for the transformation of Jerusalem, which lay desolate in ruins, into a spiritual symbol for the Jews. As important as Jerusalem had been as a royal center for the kingdom of Israel and, after Solomon's death, for the kingdom of Judah, through the ages its importance has been as "the city of the Great King, " the Lord (Psalm 48:2 ; Matthew 5:35 ). The demise of the kingdom of Judah brought the political rule of the Davidic dynasty to a close; thereafter the rule of the Davidic house was perceived in messianic and eschatological terms. Upon the return of the Jews from the exile to the ruins of Jerusalem, they rebuilt the temple but not the palace. The true sovereignty of God was spiritual rather than political. Zion . "Zion" is likely derived from a Semitic root related to a fortified tower atop a mountain. Its earliest appearance in the Bible equates the stronghold of Zion with the City of David (2 Samuel 5:7 ). Zion, then, was the fortified hill of Jebus conquered by David. Zion was originally a geographic term for the City of David, but with the extension of the city northward to incorporate the Temple Mount, Zion came also to signify the dwelling place of Yahweh (Psalm 9:11 ; ^[3]). The move of the ark of the covenant from the tent in the city to the temple proper may have prompted the shift of name. The name "Zion" is seldom used in historical passages, but it occurs frequently in poetic and prophetic compositions as a synonym for all Jerusalem. In time Zion took on figurative as well as geographical connotations. Jerusalem is called the "Daughter of Zion (Isaiah 1:8 ) and the "Virgin Daughter of Zion" (2 Kings 19:21 ). Jerusalem's inhabitants are called "sons of Zion" (Lamentations 4:2 ), the "women of Zion" (Isaiah 3:16 ), and the "elders of the Daughter of Zion" (Lamentations 2:10 ). In these expressions the city has been personified. The extension of a place name to refer to its inhabitants recognizes that the character of a city is determined more by the traits of its population than by its buildings. A visitor to modern Jerusalem will be shown the western hill rather than the City of David as Mount Zion. Through changing usage over the centuries the name has migrated to the west, but archaeology has shown that the original site was identical with the City of David. No matter where the name rests geographically, Zion's true significance is in the heavens where God's dwelling will be with his people (Revelation 21:3-4 ). Moriah . Moriah occurs only twice in the Bible (Genesis 22:2 ; 2 Chronicles 3:1 ). The rare use of the name, however, belies its theological significance. Abraham was instructed by God to take his son to the land of Moriah and there to offer him as a sacrifice. The place was three days' journey from Beersheba. The Chronicler, writing in the postexilic period, has connected the place of the offering of Isaac with not only Jerusalem but specifically with the Temple Mount. This is the earliest evidence for this connection which is also attested in Josephus (Ant. 1.13.1f ^[4]; 7.13.4 ^[5]), Bk. Jub. 18:13, rabbinic literature, and Islamic thought (although with Ishmael as Abraham's son). This connection enhanced the sanctity of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount and contributed to the basis for the Islamic name for the city, El-Quds, "The Holy (City)." After Abraham was prevented from slaying Isaac, and the ram was provided as a substitutionary sacrificial victim, Abraham called the name of the place Yahweh-jireh , "The Lord sees." Even so, the name never attained common usage. The connection of Jerusalem with the sacred mountain of Yahweh is implicit in many of the references to mountain (Heb. har) in the Old Testament. The concept of a sacred mountain as the abode of deities was common in the ancient Near East. At Ugarit on the North Syrian coast, Mount Zaphon to the north was the sacred mountain. The most active of the gods of Ugarit was called Baal-Zaphon. Psalm 48:3 ( Hebrews 48:2 ), refers to Jerusalem as "the utmost heights of Zaphon is Mount Zion, the city of the Great King." The poet has drawn on Canaanite imagery to enhance praise of the Lord. Isaiah saw that ultimately the mountain of the Lord would be the goal of nations. In the last days "Many peoples will come and say, ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord'" (2:3). The word of the Lord will go out from Jerusalem; nations will convert weapons into agricultural implements and men will not learn war anymore. Then Jerusalem shall become the city of peace indeed. Ariel . "Ariel" occurs five times as the name of David's city only in Isaiah 29 . The meaning of the name is obscure. Perhaps it means "the hearth of God, " compared to Ezekiel 43:15 , or the "lion of God, " or, by a slight emendation, "the city of God." Another emendation would yield "the mountain of God, " congruent with similar references noted above. Postexilic Jerusalem . The restoration of the Jewish people to Jerusalem was decreed by the Persian ruler Cyrus following his conquest of Babylon in 539 b.c. Sheshbazzar, a prince of Davidic descent, led the first group of exiles back in 538 b.c., but there is no hint of the renewal of the monarchy. Persian political policy dominated the returnees. During this time a meager attempt at rebuilding the temple was undertaken. A second group of returnees arrived with Zerubbabel around 520 b.c. and work on the temple was accelerated through the prodding of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah; the structure was completed and dedicated in 516 b.c. The city's walls were rebuilt under Nehemiah's leadership (ca. 445 b.c.). Ezra instituted religious reforms based on the "Book of the Law of Moses, " probably the Pentateuch, which he brought back with him from Babylon (Nehemiah 8:1 ). With this, the cult of Yahweh was fully reestablished in Jerusalem. Jerusalem in the New Testament . New Testament Jerusalem is Herodian Jerusalem, a city four centuries beyond the time of Ezra-Nehemiah. In those four hundred years, Jerusalem witnessed the demise of the Persian Empire and the domination of the Greeks. Under the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt, the attractive influence of Greek culture affected Jerusalem and its people, weakening religious devotion and practices particularly among the priestly ruling elite (cf. 1 Maccabees 1:14 ). The Syrian Seleucid dynasty wrested control of Jerusalem from the Egyptians in 198 b.c. Finally, after Antiochus IV desecrated the temple by sacrificing a hog on the altar, devout Jews led by the Hasmonean family (Maccabees) rose in rebellion to reclaim Jerusalem in 164 b.c. The Hasmoneans attained political independence and became a dynasty of priest-kings who ruled until Herod the Great became king of Judea. The Romans ended independent Jewish rule in 63 b.c. They place Herod on the throne in 37 b.c., and he began the greatest building program Jerusalem had known. He constructed a new city wall, a theater and amphitheater, athletic fields, and a new palace. His reconstruction of the temple and the expansion of its platform made it the crown jewel of Jerusalem. At the same time, the Dead Sea Scroll community who deemed the Jerusalem temple despised by God, contemplated a New Jerusalem, completely rebuilt as a Holy City and with a new temple as its centerpiece (Temple Scroll). Herodian Jerusalem survived until the war with Rome in 66-70 a.d.; the city then suffered siege and destruction. It is in the context of Jerusalem before the destruction occurred that New Testament references are set. Jesus and Jerusalem . In the Synoptic Gospels Jerusalem is first mentioned in connection with the birth stories of Jesus: Zechariah's vision in the temple (Luke 1:5-23 ), the visit of the Magi (Matthew 2:1-12 ), and the presentation of the infant Jesus (Luke 2:22-38 ). Luke records the visit of Jesus to the temple at age twelve (2:41-50), and in fact New Testament references to Jerusalem are predominantly in Luke-Acts. Jesus is tempted by Satan at the highest point of the temple just prior to the start of his ministry in Galilee (4:9-13). Further, Luke records the "travel account" (9:51-19:27) in which Jesus sets his face toward Jerusalem and the inevitable events that were to take place there for, as Jesus observed, "surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!" (13:33). Jerusalem and the temple symbolized the covenant between God and his people, but the covenant relationship was askew. Luke records Jesus' tears and sorrow over Jerusalem and his prophecy of its destruction (19:41-44). Jewish messianism had long anticipated the return of a Davidic king to the city. The arrival of Jesus in Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, described in Luke 19 , was perceived as a royal procession by followers and adversaries alike. Jesus saw that the temple had become a commercial establishment rather than a center of spirituality. By "cleansing" the temple he reaffirmed its place of honor. Jesus' role was to put humanity back in line with the will of God. Although the fulfillment of this role through his death upon the cross was to take place outside the city, Jerusalem provided the backdrop for his Passion. Luke records many of the activities of that last week: the Last Supper, the arraignment before the high priest, Peter's denial, the trial before Pilate all took place within Jerusalem. And some postresurrection appearances of Jesus took place in Jerusalem (24:33-49) where his disciples were to await the coming of the Holy Spirit (24:49). Luke's Gospel closes with the call of Jesus to preach in his name to all nations "beginning at Jerusalem" (24:49). Matthew recalls the sanctity of Jerusalem as the "holy city" (4:5), and Jesus refers to it as "the city of the Great King" (5:35). The name "Zion" in Matthew refers to fulfilled prophecy (21:5; cf. Romans 11:26 ). New Testament references to Zion mainly recall Old Testament passages; however, the heavenly Jerusalem is identified as Zion in Hebrews 12:22 and Revelation 14:1 . Mark's references to Jerusalem are set mainly in the Passion narrative; however, he notes the "massive stones" of the temple (13:1). All three Synoptic Gospels record the splitting of the curtain in the Jerusalem temple during the crucifixion. The Holy of Holies, the former center of covenant, was opened by this event to the new covenant with Christ. The Synoptics are largely silent concerning any visits by Jesus to Jerusalem between childhood and his last week, but the Gospel of John supplements the record in this respect. According to John, Jesus cleansed the temple early in his ministry, following the "first sign" at Cana (John 2:13-16 ). Jesus also attended the Feast of Tabernacles and taught in the temple (7:14). And he healed the blind man at the pool of Siloam (chap. 9). The healing of the lame man at the pool of Bethsaida is also recorded in John (chap. 5). Paul and Jerusalem . Acts 1:4 notes that the apostles were to wait for the promised gift of the Father in Jerusalem, and the gospel began to be preached there (chap. 2). In Jerusalem Stephen delineated the differences between Christianity and mainstream Judaism. The city was central to the early Christian community, and its leaders frequented the temple as a place of prayer. In Jerusalem Paul received his commission to preach to the Gentiles (22:17-21). Paul remained in contact with the temple, praying (22:17) and seeking purification there (24:18). Paul expected Gentile Christians to identify with Jerusalem and to develop a sense of kinship with the Jerusalem church. He actively encouraged outlying churches to send support to the "poor among the saints at Jerusalem" ( Romans 15:26 ). The Heavenly Jerusalem . New Testament Christians held the view that there was a city with foundations whose architect and builder was God (Hebrews 11:10 ). Further, this was a heavenly Jerusalem "Mount Zion, … the city of the living God" (12:22). The population would consist of those whose names are written in heaven. The eschatological view of Jerusalem that developed among Christians, aside from that of Judaism (cf. Isaiah 60:14 ), looked forward to the fulfillment of the promise of the kingdom in the establishment of a New Jerusalem that would come "down out of heaven from God" (Revelation 21:2 ). This city is described in contrast to the city allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, that is, the earthly Jerusalem, "where also their Lord was crucified" (Revelation 11:8 ). The Bible begins with a bucolic setting in the Garden of Eden; it closes on an urban scene, and that city is the New Jerusalem. For Christians, the identification of earthly Jerusalem as the dwelling place of God, which figures so frequently in the Old Testament, has been transformed into a heavenly Jerusalem, the true sanctuary of the Lord (cf. Galatians 4:26 ; Hebrews 12:22-29 ). Nevertheless, Christians have always been drawn to the earthly Jerusalem, as have Jews and Muslims, for it has retained through the centuries its role as the center of the three monotheistic religions. Keith N. Schoville See also New Jerusalem Bibliography . M. Barker, The Gate of Heaven: The History and Symbolism of the Temple in Jerusalem ; G. A. Barrois, IDB, 4:959-60; M. Burrows, IDB, 2:843-66; R. E. Clements, Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem ; P. J. King, ABD, 4:747-66; W. H. Mare, ABD, 6:1096-97; idem, The Archaeology of the Jerusalem Area ; B. C. Ollenburger, Zion the City of the Great King ; J. Simons, Jerusalem in the Old Testament ; P. W. L. Walker, Jerusalem: Past and Present in the Purposes of God .

1. The name.-Two forms occur in the NT: (a) Ιερουσαλήμ, the ‘genuinely national form,’ ‘hieratic and Hebraising,’ used ‘where a certain sacred significance is intended, or in solemn appeals’; it occurs forty times in Acts, and is also found in the letters of St. Paul, in Hebrews, and in the Apocalypse; it is indeclinable, and without the article except when accompanied by an adjective; (b) Ιεροσόλυμα, the hellenized form, favoured by Josephus, and occurring over twenty times in Acts, and in the narrative section of Galatians. As a rule it is a neuter plural, with or without the article. In each case the aspirate is doubtful. For a discussion of the forms see G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, i. 259ff.; W. M. Ramsay, Luke the Physician, London, 1908, p. 51ff.; and T. Zahn, Introduction to the NT, Eng. translation , Edinburgh, 1909, ii, 592ff. 2. Topography.-The chief authority for Jerusalem in the 1st cent. a.d.-its topography no less than its history-is the Jewish writer Josephus. His historical works cover the period with which we have here to deal, and it is to the details there furnished that we owe most of our knowledge of the fortunes and aspect of the city in the Apostolic Age. Any account of the topography of Jerusalem at this time must necessarily follow the descriptions of Josephus, as interpreted by the majority of modern scholars. It has always to be kept in mind, however, that there is considerable difference of opinion on many points, and that the views of the minority, or even of an individual, although we may not be able to accept them, are to be regarded with respect. i. The City Walls, as they existed at the time of the siege in a.d. 70, first claim attention. (a) First Wall.-In historical order, but not according to the standpoint of the besiegers, for whom the first wall was the third, the walls of Jerusalem on the north side proceed from the interior to the exterior of the city. At all times the south side of the city had only one encompassing wall, but during most of our period there were three walls-the third only in part-upon the north side. The first of these northern walls commenced on the W. of Jerusalem near the modern Jaffa Gate, and ran in an easterly direction along the northern face of the so-called S. W. Hill, crossing the Tyropœon Valley, which then markedly divided the city from N. to S., and joining the W. wall of the Temple enclosure. At its W. extremity it was marked by the three towers of Herod the Great-Hippicus, Phasaël, and Mariamne (or Mariamme); and at the Temple end it ran near to the bridge which gave access from the S. W. Hill to the outer court of the Temple. This point is now marked by the modern Bab es-Silsileh, and Wilson’s Arch found here stands over the remains of an older bridge which is doubtless the viaduct of Josephus’s time. From the Tower of Hippicus the wall ran southwards and followed approximately the line of the modern W. wall, but it extended further south, turning S. E. along Maudslay’s Scarp and proceeding in a straight course to the Pool of Siloam, at the mouth of the Tyropaeon Valley. At this time the pool possibly lay outside the wali (F. J. Bliss and A. C. Dickie, Excavations at Jerusalem, 1894-1897, pp. 304, 325), although G. A. Smith places it inside (Jerusalem, i. 224). After crossing the Tyropaeon, at some point or other, the wall was continued in a N.E. direction, running along the slope of Ophel to join the Temple enclosure at its S.E. angle. A considerable part of this wall upon the S. side of the city has been excavated by Warren, Guthe, Bliss, and Dickie. The last two explorers found remains of two walls with a layer of debris between. Bliss is of opinion that the under wall is the one destroyed by Titus, and he says further: ‘There is no evidence, nor is it probable, that the south line was altered between the time of Nehemiah and that of Titus’ (Excav. at Jerus., p. 319). We are here concerned with the subsequent history of the wall upon the S. side only in so far as after the destruction by Titus it appears to have been rebuilt on a new line to form the S. side of the Roman camp upon the S.W. Hill, this being the line of the modern city wall on the S. The part upon the W., together with Herod’s three towers, was spared by Titus and utilized by him for the ‘Camp.’ So also, we may infer, was the wall skirting the W. side of the Tyropaeon, running N. and S. from the neighbourhood of the bridge to the region of the Pool of Siloam to form the E. boundary of the S.W. Hill. This wall is not mentioned by Josephus, but its presence may be concluded from the fact that Titus had to commence siege operations anew against that division of the city which stood on the S.W. Hill (‘the Upper City’). According to C. W. Wilson, the ground enclosed by the walls of the Upper City extended to 74½ acres. The new wall drawn on the S. side over the summit of the hill reduced the area to about 48½ acres, only a little short of the normal dimensions of a ‘Camp’ (Golgotha and the Holy Sepulchre, p. 143f. (b) Second Wall.-According to Josephus, this commenced at the Gate Genath (or Gennath) in the First Wall, and circled round the N. quarter of the city, running up to Antonia, the castle situated at the N.W. corner of the Temple area. It had fourteen* ^[1] towers, compared with sixty on the First Wall and ninety on the Third. Its extent was therefore limited in comparison with the others. There is much discussion as to its actual line in view of the importance of this for the determination of the site of Golgotha and the Holy Sepulchre. This is a question that falls to be treated under the Gospel Age, although we have an interest in the projection of the wall towards the N., since upon this depends the view taken of the line of the Third Wall. With the majority of modern investigators we decide for a limited compass, no part being further N. than the extremity which went up from the Tyropaeon to Antonia. The Gate Genath has not been located, but it must have been in the neighbourhood of the three great towers, and perhaps lay inside of all three. C. M. Watson concludes from a study of the records and from personal investigation of the site that the Second Wall was most probably built by Antipater, father of Herod the Great. He interprets Josephus as speaking of ‘a new construction necessitated by the growth of the new suburb on the northwestern hill’ (The Story of Jerusalem, p. 85). The Second Wall is usually identified with the North Wall of Nehemiah (Smith, Jerusalem, i. 204). In the opinion of Smith ‘we do not know how the Second Wall ran from the First to the Tyropaeon; we do not know whether it ran inside or outside the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre’ (ib. p. 249). Wilson also leaves the question open (Golgotha, p. 137).   (c) Third Wall.-As already noted, the line of the Third Wall is bound up with the question of the line of the Second Wall. Following Robinson, both Merrill (Ancient Jerusalem, ch. xxiv.) and Paton (Jerusalem in Bible Times, pp. 111-115) place it a considerable distance N. of the modern city wall. Most other students of the subject are content to accept the present North Wall as marking the site of the Third or Agrippa’s Wall. Conder (The City of Jerusalem, pp. 162-166) occupies an intermediate position, giving a northerly extension beyond the present limits only on the side W. of the Damascus Gate. The wall was commenced about a.d. 41 on a colossal plan; but, suspicion having been aroused, operations had to be suspended by order of Claudius. The wall was hurriedly completed before the days of the siege. The main purpose of the Third Wall was to enclose within the fortified area of the city the new suburb of Bezetha, which had grown up since Herod the Great’s time on the ridge N. of the Temple and Antonia. The most conspicuous feature on the wall was the Tower of Psephinus at the N.W. corner, which is named in conjunction with the three great towers of Herod, and may have existed at an earlier time (Smith, Jerusalem, ii. 487), being also the work of Herod (Encyclopaedia Biblica ii. 2428). The W. extremity of the wall was at Hippicus; the N.W. point at Psephinus; the N.E. point, according to Josephus, at the Tower of the Corner, opposite the ‘Monument of the Fuller’; and the E. extremity at the old wall in the Kidron Valley, i.e. the N.E. point of the Temple enclosure. Merrill’s view (Anc. Jerus., pp. 44, 51) is that the line of this wall in its southerly trend would cut the line of the present wall a little E. of Herod’s Gate; in other words, the present N.E. corner of the city was not within the walls of Jerusalem before its destruction by Titus. This view has much to commend it, although it is not admitted by those who advocate that the Third Wall followed the line of the present wall in its entire course (Smith, Jerusalem, i. 245ff.). ii. Temple Walls.-The remainder of the perimeter of the outer wall of Jerusalem was made up by the E. wall of the Temple, which in Herod’s time coincided with the city wall (Smith, Jerusalem, i. 234f.). The enclosure of the sanctuary did not, however, extend so far N. as it does to-day. Warren’s Scarp, as it is called, marks the N. limit of the outer court of Herod’s temple (Expository Times xx. ^[2] 66). This would cut the E. wall only slightly N. of the present Golden Gate. An extension to the N. was perhaps made by Agrippa I. (Smith, Jerusalem, i. 237f.), but even then the N. boundary must have fallen considerably short of the present wall. The fore-court of Antonia must therefore have projected some distance into the present Ḥaram area, and the rock on which the castle stood, while scarped on the other three sides, must on the S. have formed part of the same ridge as that on which the Temple lay. The N. Temple area wall presumably joined this rock, while the W. Temple area wall started from the S.W. point of the fore-court of Antonia and ran S. to meet the S. wall lower down the Tyropaeon Valley. Examination of the rock levels has proved that the S.W. corner of the Temple area is upon the far side of the valley, i.e. upon the S.W. Hill. A proper understanding of this complex of walls is essential to an appreciation of Josephus’s narrative of the siege of a.d. 70, which in turn gives the key to the whole situation within Jerusalem in the time of the apostles. The city was fortified in virtue of its complete circuit of walls. When the most northerly wall was breached it still was fortified by the second N. wall and all that remained. When the second wall was taken, access was given to the commercial suburb (προάστειον) in the Upper Tyropaeon Valley. Antonia formed a fortress by itself, likewise the Temple both in its outer court and in the inner sanctuary. After the Temple was taken the way was open to the ‘Lower City’ and the Akra, which is almost synonymous with the ‘Lower City,’ i.e. the Lower Tyropaeon Valley from the First Wall to the Pool of Siloam together with the S.E. Hill, of which Ophlas formed a part. Lastly, the S.W. Hill, on which stood the ‘Upper City’ with the ‘Upper Agora,’ was completely fortified, and doubtless the Palace of Herod at the N.W. corner of the ‘Upper City’ also was a strong place within four walls, with the three great towers upon the N. side. iii. Changes in the City during the Apostolic Age.-While there was nothing to equal the great building achievements of Herod the Great, activity was by no means stayed during the interval between the Death of Christ and the Destruction of Jerusalem (circa, about a.d. 30-70). This we judge from the fact that it was not until c. ^[3] a.d. 64 that operations in the courts of the Temple were at an end. Even then the cessation of work involved about 18,000 men. To prevent disaffection and privation, they were transferred with the sanction of Agrippa II. to the work of paving the streets of the city (Jos. Ant. XX. ix. 7). Reference has already been made to the building of the Third Wall during the reign of Agrippa I., and this was necessitated by the growth of the suburb Bezetha, or New Town, lying north of Antonia and the Temple on the N.E. ridge. The Lower Aqueduct, which brought water to the Temple enclosure from a distance of 200 stadia, is ascribed to Pontius Pilate during the years preceding his recall and was in a way responsible for his demission of office (a.d. 36). Several palaces were built at this time-all overlooking the Tyropaeon: that of Bernice, near the Palace of the Hasmonaeans (see below); of Helena, Queen of Adiabene, who was resident in Jerusalem during the great famine (Acts 11:28); of Monobazus, her son; and of Grapte, a near relative. Agrippa II. enlarged the Hasmonaean Palace, which was situated on the S.W. Hill near the bridge over the Tyropaeon, and when finished overlooked the sanctuary. This was a cause of friction, and led to the building of a screen within the sacred area (Ant. XX. viii. 11). Most of these notable buildings were destroyed or plundered during the faction fights on the eve of the siege (Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) ii. xvii. 6, IV. ix. 11) and during its course (vi. vii. 1). While stone was freely used in construction, it ought to be realized that timber also played a large part-much more so than at the present day (Merrill, Anc. Jerus., pp. 136, 150, 152). The Timber Market was in Bezetha, the new suburb. For ordinary building purposes wood was brought from a distance, but during the siege the Romans availed themselves of the trees growing in the environs, totally altering the external aspect of the city. Still more fatal to its beauty was the havoc wrought by fire within the Temple area, and in the various quarters of the city after the victory of the Romans, and most of all in the execution of Titus’s order to raze the city to the ground. In spite of Josephus’s testimony, all writers are not of one mind regarding the extent of the ruin. Thus Wilson says of the ‘Upper City’ at least: ‘Many houses must have remained intact. The military requirements of the Roman garrison necessitated some demolition; but there is no evidence that a plough was passed over the ruins, or that Titus ever intended that the city should never be rebuilt’ (Golgotha, p. 52; cf. Merrill, Anc. Jerus., p. 179). iv. Sacred sites pertaining to the Apostolic Age.-For this department of our subject we must call in the aid of tradition, in so far as this appears to be in any measure worthy of credence. The sites to be dealt with are mostly suggested by the narrative of the Book of Acts. (a) The Caenaculum.-Outside the present S. city wall on the S.W. Hill lies a complex of buildings, which since the 16th cent. have been in Moslem possession and are termed en-Nebi Dâ’ûd. Underground is supposed to be the Tomb of David, but this part is not open to the inspection of Christians. Immediately above this is a vaulted room (showing 14th cent. architecture), which is now identified with the ‘large upper room’ in which the Last Supper was held, where Christ appeared to His disciples, in which the early Christians assembled, and where the Holy Ghost was given. It is supposed to be the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark. According to a later tradition-which probably arose from a confusion of this Mary with the Mother of Jesus-this is also the scene of the death of the Virgin. Here also Stephen was thought to be martyred (still later). The earliest tradition with which we are here concerned dates from the 4th cent, a.d., being preserved by Epiphanius (de Mens. et Pond. xiv. ^[4]; cf. Wilson, Golgotha, p. 173): ‘He ^[5] found the whole city razed to the ground, and the Temple of the Lord trodden under foot, there being only a few houses standing, and the Church of God, a small building, on the place where the disciples on their return from the Mount of Olives, after the Saviour’s Ascension, assembled in the upper chamber. This was built in the part of Sion which had escaped destruction, together with some buildings round about Sion, and seven synagogues that stood alone in Sion like cottages.’ Since then there have been many changes in the buildings themselves and in their owners, but the tradition has been constant. What it is worth still awaits the test, but, as Stanley says: ‘there is one circumstance which, if proved, would greatly endanger the claims of the “Caenaculum.” It stands above the vault of the traditional Tomb of David, and we can hardly suppose that any residence, at the time of the Christian era, could have stood within the precincts of the Royal Sepulchre’ (Sinai and Palestine, new ed., London, 1877, p. 456). It may be noted that the Tomb of David is now sought, although it has not been found, on the S.E. Hill, where, in the opinion of most, the ‘City of David,’ or Zion, lay (Paton, Jerusalem, p. 74f.). From the language of Acts 2:29 the tomb was evidently in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem (cf. Ant. XIII. viii. 4, XVI. vii. 1, Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) I. ii. 5). Sanday is prepared to give the tradition about the Caenaculum ‘an unqualified adhesion’ (Sacred Sites of the Gospels, p. 78), and proceeds to argue the matter at length (pp. 78-88). His argument is contested by G. A. Smith (Jerusalem, ii. 567ff.), whose opinion is that ‘while the facts alleged (by Dr. Sanday) are within the bounds of possibility, they are not very probable’ (p. 568). Wilson is more favourable, and thinks that here ‘amidst soldiers and civilians drawn from all parts of the known world, the Christians may have settled down on their return from Pella, making many converts and worshipping in a small building ^[6] which in happier times was to become the “Mother Church of Sion,” the “mother of all the churches” ’ (Golgotha, p. 54; cf. T. Zahn, Introduction to the NT, ii. 447f.). (b) The Temple and its precincts.-Although tradition has fixed on one spot as being the special meeting-place of the first Christians, there can be no doubt they still continued to frequent the Temple. While they had indeed become Christians they did not cease to be Jews, at least not that section which remained in Jerusalem during the years preceding the Fall of the city. Accordingly we find in the Book of Acts a considerable body of evidence regarding the presence of Christians in and about the Temple. A detailed notice of all these references properly belongs to another article (Temple), but a brief mention of those concerning the environs may here be made. (α) ‘Peter and John were going up into the temple at the hour of prayer’ (Acts 3:1). This is topographically exact, whether we take the outer court or the sanctuary proper, which only Jews could enter (Acts 21:28 ff.). There were ramps and stairs and steps at many points. An exception would have to be made if we accepted Conder’s identification of the Beautiful Door or Gate (Acts 3:2; Acts 3:10) as being the main entrance on the W., ‘probably at the end of the bridge leading to the Royal Cloister’ (The City of Jerusalem, p. 129). But for several reasons this cannot be entertained. A. R. S. Kennedy has shown (Expository Times xx. 270ff.; cf. Schürer, History of the Jewish People (Eng. tr. of GJV).] ii i. ^[7] 280) that the Beautiful Door is to be sought in the inner courts, and preferably on the E. side of the Court of the Women. Little value can be attached to the tradition that the Golden Gate above the Kidron Valley is the gate referred to in Acts 3:2. (β) The porch or portico along the E. side of the Temple area is the Solomon’s Porch of Acts 3:11; Acts 5:12. Its appearance may be realized from the frontispiece (by P. Waterhouse) of Sacred Sites of the Gospels, where a full view is given of the so-called Royal Porch on the S. side. This is generally supposed to have had an exit on the W. by a bridge crossing the Tyropaeon (see Conder, above) at Robinson’s Arch, but Kennedy has shown that nearly all moderns are in error about this (Expository Times xx. 67; cf. Jos. Ant. XV. xi. 5). On the W. and N. sides there were also porches or cloisters which met at the entrance to Antonia. (c) Antonia.-This fortress is about the most certainly defined spot within the walls of Jerusalem. To-day it is occupied in part by the Turkish barracks, on the N.W. of the Ḥaram area. In Herod the Great’s time the castle was re-built on a grand scale and strongly fortified. Later it was occupied as a barracks (παρεμβολή, Acts 21:34; Acts 21:37, etc.) by the Romans, who here maintained a legion (τάγμα ^[8], understood by Schürer ^[9] I. ii. (1890) 55] as = ‘cohort’; this is not accepted by Merrill ^[10]). As shown above, it is probable that some slight re-adjustment of the forecourt of Antonia and of the N. side of the Temple area had taken place in the interval following Herod the Great’s reign. From the vivid narrative of Acts 21:27 ff. it is evident that the Temple area was at a lower level than the Castle, for stairs led down to the court. According to Josephus (Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) v. v. 8), on the corner where Antonia joined the N. and W. cloisters of the Temple it had gangways down to them both for the passage of the guard at the Jewish festivals. While the exact plan of the ground can hardly be determined, there seems to be no justification for ‘a valley’ and ‘a double bridge,’ as supposed by Sunday and Water-house (Sacred Sites, p. 108 and plan ^[11]; cf. Smith, Jerusalem, ii. 499 n. ^[12] ). By cutting down the cloisters a barricade could be erected to prevent entrance to the Temple courts from the Castle, as was done by the Jews in the time of Florus (a.d. 66 ^[13]). Opinion is divided as to whether the Roman procurator made his headquarters in Antonia or in Herod’s Palace on the S.W. Hill, but the evidence seems to be in favour of the latter. This appears most clearly from the proceedings in the time of Florus (Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) II. xiv. 8, 9; see Wilson, Golgotha, p. 41f.; Smith, Jerusalem, ii. 573ff.). Antonia was certainly used as a place of detention, as is plain from Acts 22:30. This leads us to remark on the position of- (d) The Council House.-The meeting-place of the Sanhedrin in apostolic times is of some importance in view of the experience of St. Peter, St. John, and St. Paul. From data provided by Josephus we judge that it lay between the Xystus and the W. porch of the Temple, i.e. near the point where the bridge crossed the Tyropaeon. From Josephus (Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) VI. vi. 3) we also infer that it was in the ‘Lower City,’ for it perished together with Akra and the place called Ophlas. It is reasonable to seek in proximity to the Council House the prison of Acts 4:3; Acts 5:18; that of Acts 12:4 was probably in connexion with the Palace of Herod, where presumably Agrippa I. lived and maintained his own guard (see Ant. XIX. vii. 3). The traditional spot was shown in the 12th cent. E. of where this palace stood, in the heart of the ‘Upper City,’ while the present Zion Gate upon the S. was taken to be the iron gate of Acts 12:10 (Conder, The City of Jerusalem, p. 16). (e) Sites associated with the proto-martyrs.-(1) St. Stephen.-The association of St. Stephen with the Caenaculum dates from the 8th cent., and with the modern Bâb Sitti Maryam (St. Stephen’s Gate) from the 15th century. These traditions may be ignored, and attention fixed on the site N. of the city, where Eudocia’s Church was built as early as the 5th century. Its site was recovered in 1881. It must be recalled that when St. Stephen perished (between a.d. 33 and 37) the Third wall was not in existence, and the total irregularity of the proceedings at his stoning leads us to think that he was killed at the readiest point outside the city. If on the N. side, as the tradition bound up with Eudocia’s Church seems to imply, it would probably be outside the gate of the Second Wall. (2) James the Great, the brother of John, is supposed to have been beheaded in a prison now marked by the W. aisle of the Church of St. James in the Armenian Quarter-a tradition of no value. It is worthy of note, however, that, as in the case of St. Peter, the spot is not remote from the Palace of Herod. (3) James the Just, ‘the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ’ (Ant. XX. ix. 1), according to Hegesippus (preserved in Eusebius, HE ^[14] ii. xxiii. 4ff.) also suffered a violent death (circa, about a.d. 62) after a mode which is very improbable (see Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) , article ‘James,’ § 3), the stoning excepted, to which Josephus testifies. The Grotto of St. James near the S.E. corner of the Temple area, on the E. side of Kidron, is supposed to be his tomb (15th cent. tradition), or preferably his hiding-place (6th cent. tradition). While the tomb is as old as the days of the Apostle, or even older, the inscription above its entrance bears reference to the Benê Ḥezir (S. R. Driver, Notes on Heb. Text of Books of Samuel2, 1913, p. xxi). (f) The tree (with the bridge) where Judas hanged himself, and Akeldama, the field of blood (Acts 1:19), are shown, but there are rival sites for the latter, and the former has often changed (Conder, The City of Jerusalem, p. 18f.). (g) Sites associated with the Virgin.-Besides the tradition of the Dormitio Sanctae Mariae, the scene of the Virgin’s death, in proximity to the Caenaculum, the Tomb of the Virgin is marked by a church, originating in the 5th cent., in the valley of the Kidron, outside St. Stephen’s Gate (Sanday, Sacred Sites, p. 85). (h) The scene of the Ascension.-Discarding Luke 24:50, Christian tradition early laid hold upon the summit of the Mount of Olives (cf. Acts 1:12) as the scene of the Ascension. The motive for this will he understood from what has been written by Eusebius (Demons. Evang. vi. 18 ^[15]; cf. Wilson, Golgotha, p. 172): ‘All believers in Christ flock together from all quarters of the earth, not as of old to behold the beauty of Jerusalem, or that they may worship in the former Temple which stood in Jerusalem, but that they may abide there, and both hear the story of Jerusalem, and also worship in the Mount of Olives over against Jerusalem, whither the glory or the Lord removed itself, leaving the earlier city. There, also, according to the published record, the feet of our Lord and Saviour, who was Himself the Word, and, through it, took upon Himself human form, stood upon thy Mourn of Olives near the cave which is now pointed out there.’ Constantine erected a basilica on the summit, where the Chapel of the Ascension now stands. His mother, the Empress Helena, built a church at the same point, and another, called the Eleona, to mark the cave where Christ taught His disciples (Watson, Jerusalem, p. 124). The latter has recently been discovered and excavated (Revue Biblique , 1911, pp. 219-265). 3. History i. Jerusalem under Roman Procurators; Agrippa i and Agrippa ii. (a.d. 30-70).-The writings of Josephus afford evidence that it is possible to narrate the history of events in Jerusalem during the Apostolic Age without reference to the Christians. From our poi

ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM.—This was one of the acted parables of Jesus, in which some immortal lesson is concealed. The washing of the feet, the entry, and the cleansing of the Temple, stand together as dramatic representations of the principles and ideas of the Kingdom of God; of the humility and self-denial required in the life of the Christian; of the mixture of condescension and majesty in the manner of the King’s coming; and of the peace He gives and of the judgment that follows in His steps. Of the Synoptic accounts Mk. seems the original. Mt. describes the entry in keeping with his representation of Jesus as the Malkâ Mĕshihâ of the Jews, and in consonance with the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9. The Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 rendering of Matthew 21:4 τοῦτο δὲ γἐγονεν, ‘Now this is come to pass,’ seems to put the reference to the fulfilment of that prophecy into the mouth of Jesus. But the inference from John 12:15-16 is that the prophecy is an afterthought of the disciples, in the light of the Ascension; and the ten texts of ‘fulfilment’ in Mt. are always comments of the writer. Mt. seems to represent Jesus as riding on the she-ass and the colt (ἑπάνω αὐτῶν). In Zechariah 9:9 the Heb. ו, as Rosenmüller points out, is exegetical not copulative, and as ‘ass’ (חֲמוֹר) is male, the proper rendering is ‘sitting on an ass, even a colt, the foal of she-asses.’ There is thus only one ass in Zechariah. The apparent duplication is due to Hebrew parallelismus. Mt. is accused of embroidering the historical statement by adding a second ass in order to show the exact literal fulfilment of prophecy (Kirsopp Lake, at Liverpool Church Congress). Robertson’s attempt (Christianity and Mythology, p. 368) to explain the two asses mythologically as signifying that the ‘Sun-god is at his highest pitch of glory and is coming to his doom,’ is not to be taken seriously. Mt.’s penchant for ‘doubles’ being well known (cf. Matthew 8:28; Matthew 9:27; Matthew 20:30-34), the passage must not be pressed. Bengel’s comment is ‘pullo vectus est, asinâ item usus, pulli comite.’ Farrar suggested rendering ἑπάνω αὐτῶν = ‘on one of them’; cf. Acts 23:24. Justin Martyr (Apol. i. 32) speaks only of a colt, but, connecting the incident with Genesis 49:11, describes it as ‘tied to a vine.’ The prophecy Matthew 21:5, a compound of Isaiah 62:11 and Zechariah 9:9, is taken partly from Heb., partly from LXX Septuagint. LXX Septuagint suppresses ὌΝΟΝ, which is recovered from Hebrew. Mt. suppresses δικαιος καὶ σώζων ^[1], emphasizing ΤΡΑΐ, ‘meek’ (צנִי). In Mt. there is a description of the commotion (ἐσείσθη) in the whole city; the question, ‘Who is this?’; the answer, ‘This is the prophet Jesus, he who is from Nazareth of Galilee,’ and the greeting, ‘Hosanna to the Son of David.’ Mark 11:1-10 adds some vivid details. The colt, never before used (so Lk.), was tied ‘at the door without in the open street’ (ἐπὶ τοῦ ἁμφόδου ^[2], Just. Mart, ἔν τινι εἰσόδῳ κώμης (l.c.); ἄμφοδα, αἱ ῥύμαι (Hesych.). The woven branches (στοιβάδες) cut from the gardens (ἁγρῶν, v.l. for δένδρων) are different from the κλάδοι (olive branches in classical Greek) cut from the trees, in Matthew 21:8. The cry of the people is ‘Hosanna; Blessed in the name of the Lord (acc. to Hebrew accents and idiom, e.g. Deuteronomy 21:5), Blessed be the kingdom that cometh, even that of our father David.’ Mk. treats the visit as one of inspection. Jesus retires, ‘having looked round on all things, for the hour was late,’ whereas Mt. and Lk. give it as prelude to the cleansing of the Temple. Luke 19:29-45 gives additional touches. They placed Jesus on the colt ἐπεβίβασαν (ἐπεκάθισαν of Matthew 21:7 being doubtful); the exact place of the exhibition of popular enthusiasm is given, ‘even now at the descent of the Mt. of Olives’ (ἤδη πρὸς τῇ καταβάσει), from which, Dean Stanley states, the first view is caught of the south-eastern corner of the city as the road from Bethany begins to descend. The lament over the city, the retort to the Pharisees’ objection, ‘If these should hold their peace,’ etc., are peculiar to Luke. The song is, ‘Peace in heaven and glory in the highest,’ a seeming adaptation of the ‘Hosanna,’ etc., to suit Greek taste, perhaps through the influence of the angels’ song (Luke 2:14). John 12:12-19 describes the scene from the stand-point of the people in the city who went out to meet Him (εἰς ὑπάντησιν): the blending of the two streams of people, the οἱ προάγοντες, ‘those going before’ of the Synoptics being those who had gone out to meet Him and had turned back when they met Him at the head of the procession, and thus preceded Him to the city; the testimony of the people who were with Him to the new-comers that (reading ὅτι for ὅτε) He had summoned Lazarus from the tomb; and the fact that the people from the city took branches of palm trees (τὰ βαΐα τῶν φοινίκων ^[1]9. The prophecy is given in a shorter form. Jesus is hailed ‘King of Israel,’ and the Pharisees comment on their own powerlessness and His popularity (John 12:19). This entry was connected with Jesus’ consciousness of His Messianic mission, gradually developing as His work assumed definite direction and His doctrine definite form; was conceived after the prophecies of the OT, and planned in order to satisfy the expectations of many who were waiting for the coming of the Kingdom of God, ‘the consolation of Israel,’ ‘the redemption of Jerusalem’ (Luke 2:25; Luke 2:35). After the feeding of the 5000 (John 6:14) the multitude recognized Jesus as the prophet that should come into the world, and would have seized Him and made Him a king, but He defeated their purpose; for He could not allow an emotional peasantry, ever ready to flock to the standard of a deliverer, to identify His Kingdom with this world, or His cause with that of a Judas of Galilee. Here He devises the entry on the lines of Jewish prophecy, which, though free from any hostile intention, was equivalent to a declaration that He was the Messiah, and implied that He was more. It was not directly urged against Him at His trial; but it supplied Pilate with his question, ‘Art thou the King of the Jews?’ and, accordingly, with the legal basis for his sentence. This and the cleansing were His two first and last actions as Messiah. They were followed by the Cross. We may infer in some measure from the song, the prophecy quoted, and His mode of entry, how far Jesus fulfilled and how far He transcended the Messianic expectations of His day. 1. The Kingdom of our father David.—The Kingdom of God or of heaven in the sense of the rule or Herrschaft of God, ‘the power of God in its present or future manifestation,’ the spiritual sway and ‘sovereignty of God’ (Dalman. Words of Jesus, p. 94), not in the sense of Home Rule for the Jews, had always been the text of Jesus’ public addresses (Matthew 4:17). Shortly before this the Pharisees had asked when the Kingdom of God should come (Luke 17:20). And His answer was in keeping with His object of purifying the Messianic ideas and exalting the Messianic ideals of His age. It was the Kingdom of His Father (Matthew 26:29) and of the Father of the righteous (Matthew 13:43) that He proclaimed; it was the kingdom of their father David of which the people thought. And His question, ‘What think ye of Christ?’ (Matthew 22:42), shows that He did not consider Davidic origin sufficient status in itself for the Messiah. ‘The kingdom of our father David’ recalls the grand ideal of the theocratic ruler, the representative of J" ^[1]3 , the ideal son to whose descendants that throne was ensured (2 Samuel 7:16), upon which the prophets of the OT continued to build their hopes—hopes which had become greatly modified and materialized during the struggle with Antiochus and Rome, and by contact with Grecian thought, and which made the ordinary Jew dream of a deliverer with all the heroic qualities of a Judas Maceabaeus, and the more philosophic think of an earthly empire, cosmopolitan and world-ruling like the Roman. It was the idea in the prophets, chiefly in Daniel 7:13-14; Daniel 7:17, of a kingdom, holy, supernatural, universal and eternal, that Jesus sought to recover from the lumber-room of tradition; and in this He was assisted by the gradual revival of more spiritual Messianic hopes among thoughtful and devout Jews like Simeon and Anna (cf. also the angelic prediction of Luke 1:32 ‘And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David’). The Gospels give an account of the general Messianic expectations. The Messiah was not to come from Galilee but from Bethlehem (Psalms 118:25-26,4), was king of the Jews (Matthew 2:2), was to perform miracles (John 7:31), to be a prophet (John 4:29), to appear mysteriously (John 7:27), to be a descendant of David (Matthew 9:27), and to restore again the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6). 2. The address ‘Son of David.’—The Messiah is first designated υἱὸς Δαυίδ in Ps-Sol 17:23—a title founded on Scripture expressions such as ‘son’ (Isaiah 9:6), ‘seed’ (Targ. ^[5] 2 Samuel 7:12), ‘branch’ (Jeremiah 23:5 and Zechariah 6:13, where the Aram. ^[6] paraphrase for ‘branch’ is ‘Messiah’). The Davidic descent of Jesus, never refuted by His opponents, was accepted by St. Paul (Romans 1:3). But Jesus based His authority on something higher than this (Matthew 22:45). 3. The song ‘Hosanna … highest’ (cf. 1618101887_29 the festal cry amidst which the altar of burnt-offering was solemnly compassed on the first six days of the Feast of Tabernacles, and on the last day seven times).—‘Hosanna,’ which may be a contraction for Hôshî ‘âh nâ (σῶσον δή, LXX Septuagint), or shorter Hiph. imper. with enclitic, הוֹשַׁעצָא, is evidently a salutation = ‘greeting to (cf. Lat. Io triumphe) the Son of David,’ not supplication as in Ps.; cf. Didache, x. 6, ὡσαννὰ τῷ θἐῳ Δαβίδ (‘hail’). ὡσαννὰ ἐν τοῖς ὑψίστοις (Mt.) = δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις (Lk.). In Psalms 72:4; Psalms 116:6 the Heb. לְ (= dat.) is found after Hiph. of יָשַׁע; but the fact that the branches at the Feast of Tabernacles were called ‘hosannas’ and Mt.’s remarkable omission from Zechariah 9:9 of נוֹשָׁע (σώζων, LXX Septuagint), which would have thrown a new light on this cry, seem to denude the expression of any special significance. See Hosanna. Dalman suggests that the original cry of the people was ‘Hosanna, Blessed in the name of J" ^[1]3 be he that cometh’ (op. cit. p. 222). It is also to be remembered that in the OT, J" ^[1]3 Himself is generally represented as Saviour, while the Messiah was the prince of the redeemed people; the idea that the Messiah was the Redeemer being more recent. An interesting connexion between Psalms 118:27 ‘Bind the sacrifice with cords or woven branches’ (עכֹתים = στοιβαδες, Mark 11:8) and the entry of Jesus is brought out in Symm. ^[9] συνδήσατε ἑν τανηγύρει πυκάσματκ. It is possible to make too much of the ceremonies of the Feast of Tabernacles in connexion with this entry, which took place just before the Feast of Passover in spring. But it is equally possible that the song, etc., may have been due to reminiscences of the preceding Feast of Tabernacles, when Jesus was pronounced the prophet and the Messiah (John 7:41), and that the whole passage was sung, that which used to be supplication now passing into greeting. Our conclusion is, then, that though the song ‘Hosanna,’ etc., was used in salutation, it contains an allusion to the preceding Feast of Tabernacles, expresses the convictions of many of the people, and offers a remarkable parallel to Psalms 118:25-27. 4. The mode of entry.—Some of the same Galilaean folk who wished to make Jesus a king before the time of John 6:15 have now, in their progress to the city, gathered around Him and escort Him, their national Prophet, with song. Others come from the city to meet Him, and receive Him with acts of homage which show that they regarded Him at the time as the prospective deliverer of the nation. In 2 Maccabees 10:6-7 Judas Maccabaeus is welcomed with similar acclamations and ‘branches and fair boughs and palms,’ and in 1 Maccabees 13:51 Simon. In 2 Kings 9:13 the followers of Jehu, the newly proclaimed king, threw down their cloaks (ἱμάτια, as here) before him. Stanley also (SP ^[10] 191) mentions that in recent times the people of Bethlehem cast their cloaks before the horse of the consul of Damascus. Dalman agrees with Wellhausen that the procession did not acquire its Messianic colour until a later period, and that few at the time thought of the prophecy in Zec. (opcit. p. 222). In the light of after events, Jesus entered the city as Messianic king, priest, and prophet. (1) The ‘prince’ had to provide the sacrifices ‘to make reconciliation for or to atone for ^[11] the house of Israel’ (Ezekiel 45:15; cf. Ezekiel 46:4-6 and 2 Chronicles 30:14). So does ‘the Lord’s Anointed’ here. (2) The priest presents the offering. So does ‘the priest after the order of Melchizedek’ (Psalms 110:4) proceed, metaphorically speaking, to ‘bind the sacrifice with cords unto the horns of the altar’ (Psalms 118:27). The harmony between the two offices of the Messiah as king and priest is well described in Zechariah 6:13 ‘and the counsel of peace shall be between the two’ (so Rosenm.). The growing predominance of the priestly office of the Messiah is also expressed in the choice of the colt ‘whereon never man sat’ (Mk. and Lk.), cf. Numbers 19:3 ‘a red heifer … upon which never came yoke.’ (3) The prophetic character of the Messiah as the ‘messenger of the covenant’ (Malachi 3:1), coming to His temple, J" ^[1]3 ’s prophet to the world and a light to the Gentiles (Isaiah 49:6), was suitably expressed by the proclamation of the people, ‘This is Jesus the prophet,’ etc., and by their testimony to His miracles, generally connected with a prophet. (4) There was another ideal of the OT realized in Jesus on this occasion. The meek and afflicted ^[1]0 saint of Psalms 22:24, the Psalm appropriated by Jesus on the cross, was represented by Him who wept over the city and entered it ‘meek ^[14], and sitting upon an ass.’ Other significations of this Heb. adj., such as ‘poor,’ ‘oppressed,’ and ‘persecuted’ (in Isaiah), were also realized in Jesus. But it is His meekness that Mt. emphasizes, doubtless because of His riding on an ass. At one time the ass was not a despised animal. Judges rode on white asses (Judges 5:10). But through contact with Gentiles the ass had fallen into contempt. For ὄνος Josephus substitutes κτῆνος and ἵππος. LXX Septuagint in Zechariah 9:9 preferred ὑποζύγιον and πῶλος to the despised word. It was, however, the tradition that the Messiah should come riding on an ass (Sepp, § vi. c. 6). (5) The conception of Messiah as the suffering Servant of Deut.-Isaiah was, however, most of all exemplified by Him who on this occasion humbled Himself ^[15] in a voluntary manner in His progress to a death for His people. Matthew describes Jesus as armed with authority (ἐξουσία, cf. Matthew 8:9), and on this occasion depicts Him as the Malkâ Mĕshìhâ of the Jews. His authority is over all flesh, to make them feel their want of God and Him. The sense of power was derived from the sense of His mission and the consciousness that He was the Son of God, which made Him soar beyond the Messianic rôle and see Himself the Lord of the whole earth, holding sway by peace, spiritual peace, and by power, spiritual power. ‘He claimed for Himself.’ as Dalman remarks (op. cit. p. 313), ‘an exalted position such as had not been assigned even to the Messiah,’ and, as Harnack (What is Christianity? p. 141) observes, ‘He leaves the idea of the Messiah far behind Him, because He filled it with a content that burst it.’ It was in the same spirit that He affirmed His Kingship before Pilate (Matthew 27:11). The object of this entry was the inauguration of Jesus’ last mission to His people. The attraction of the provincial crowds, the Jerusalem populace, the Greeks and proselytes, if not the impressing of the Jewish hierarchy, this was the end desired, and in a great measure attained. He never seems to move in solitary state in the Temple; crowds are always around Him; He is the topic of the people’s conversation and the subject of the priests’ conspiracy. This was a suitable prelude to a great missionary enterprise all too brief, but crowded perhaps with more real work and witness for the King and His Kingdom than the preceding portion of His ministry. It led to the cleansing of the Temple on the same or the following day, and these together culminated in the Cross. Literature.—Dalman, Words of Jesus; Harnack, What is Christianity?; Stanley, SP ^[10] ; Farrar, Life of Christ; Edersheim, Life and Times; Hitchcock, Mystery of the Cross; artt. ‘Hosanna,’ ‘Messiah,’ ‘Prophets’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible. F. R. Montgomery Hitchcock.

JERUSALEM 1.Name. 2.Natural site. 3.Climate and Diseases. 4.Water supply. 5.Topography. 6.History of the city during period of the Gospels. 7.Jerusalem in the Gospels. Literature. 1. Name.—This appears in the Gospels as Ἱεροσόλυμα and Ἱερουσαλήμ. The former of these names, and the more used, appears to have come into common vogue a century or so before the commencement of the Christian era. It occurs in 2 Maccabees (2 Maccabees 3:9), in the Letter of Aristeas, and in Strabo, and it is the form always employed by Josephus. In Latin Pagan writers, e.g. Cicero, Pliny, Tacitus, it is employed transliterated as Hierosolyma. Ἱερουσαλήμ unquestionably is much nearer to the Hebrew ידושׁלם, however this was vocalized, and is therefore the more primitive. St. Luke specially employs this both in his Gospel and in the Acts. It is noticeable that it is the form put into the mouth of Jesus when His words are professedly reported verbatim (Matthew 23:37, Luke 13:34; Luke 23:8). The name , as used throughout the Western world, and the Arabic form used in Palestine to-day, , are both derived from this Greek form. In Matthew 4:5; Matthew 27:53 we have the expression, used previously too in the OT, ‘the holy city.’ This is familiar to us in Western lands, but it is also, for other reasons, the name for Jerusalem throughout the Moslem world. Kuds, or, more classically, Mukaddas, ‘the sanctuary’ or ‘holy place,’ is the common name for this city in the East. 2. Natural site.—Modern Jerusalem occupies a situation which is defined geographically as 31° 46′ 45″ N. lat. by 35° 13′ 25″ long. E. of Greenwich, and lies at levels between 2300 and 2500 feet above the Mediterranean. It is overlooked by somewhat higher ground to the N., to the E., and the South. On the West the outlook is somewhat more open, but even here the view is not very extensive; only along a narrow line to the S.E. a gap in the mountains exposes to view a long strip of the beautiful mountains of Moab across the Dead Sea, itself invisible in its deep basin. Although the exact situation of the city has varied considerably during historical times, yet the main natural features which gave Jerusalem its strength—and its weakness—both as a fortress and as a sanctuary, may be easily recognized to-day. Built, as it has been, in a peculiarly bare and ill-watered region, off the natural lines of communication, it could never have enjoyed its long and famous history but for certain compensating advantages. The city’s site lies slightly to the east of the great mountainous backbone of Palestine, upon a tongue-shaped ridge running from N.W. to S.E. This ‘tongue’ is the central of three branches given off at this point. The N.E. one terminates opposite the city as the Mount of Olives, while a southern branch, given off near the highest point before the modern Jaffa road commences to descend to the city, runs almost due south, and terminates near the commencement of the Wady el-Wurd, at a point on which is situated to-day the summer residence of the Greek Patriarch, known as Katamûn. The whole mountain group is isolated from its neighbours on the N.W. and W. by the deep Wady beit Hanîna, to the S.W. by the roots of the Wady es-Surâr, and to the E. and S.E. by the Wady en-Nâr and other steep valleys running down towards the Jordan and the Dead Sea. To the north and south, where the ancient caravan road from Hebron and the Negeb runs towards Samaria and Galilee, it is separated from the main backbone by only shallow and open valleys. The special ridge of land on which Jerusalem stands is roughly quadrilateral in shape, but merges itself into higher ground towards the N. and N.W. The surface direction is generally downwards from N. to S., with a slight tilt towards the E.; this is due to the dip of the strata, which run E.S.E. Like all this part of the country, the rocky formation is grey chalky limestone, deposited in beds of varying hardness. The least durable, which still lies on the surface of the Mount of Olives, having been denuded here, the top layer over the city’s site, is a hard limestone with flinty bands, known locally as the Mezzeh. This is the formation most suitable for building-stone, though the hardest to work upon. Under this are thick strata of a soft white stone of uniform consistence, known locally as Meleki. These softer layers have been of the greatest importance in the history of the city, as in them have been excavated the countless caves, cisterns, and tombs which cover the whole district, and from them in ancient times most of the building-stones were taken. In many places this Meleki rock when first excavated is quite soft and easily worked with the most primitive tools, but on exposure to the air it rapidly hardens. The stones from this soft layer, however, never have the durability of those from the Mezzeh; and doubtless it is because of the poor material used that so few relies of real antiquity have survived till to-day. Under the Meleki is a layer of dolomite limestone which comes to the surface in the valley to the south of the city, and is of importance, because along its non-porous surface the water, which percolates through the other layers, is conducted upwards to the one spring—the Virgin’s Fountain. The enormous accumulation of débris over the ancient site renders it difficult to picture to-day its primitive condition. The extensive investigations made here during the past fifty years, as well as the examination of many kindred sites in other parts of Palestine, lead to the conclusion that the whole area before human habitation consisted of an irregular, rocky surface, broken up by a number of small shallow valleys in which alone there was sufficient soil for vegetation. To-day the rock is everywhere covered with debris of a depth varying from 40 to 70 or more feet. Only those who understand how much this vast accumulation has blotted out the ancient natural landmarks can realize how very difficult are even the essential and elementary questions of Jerusalem topography. Of the broad natural features that survive, most manifest are the two great valleys which demark the before mentioned tongue of land. The Eastern Valley commences a mile north of the city wall in a shallow depression near the watershed, a little to the N. of the highest point on the Jaffa road. It at first runs S.E., and is shallow and open: it is here known as the Wady el-Jôz. It then turns due south, and soon becomes a ravine with steep sides, called by the Moslems the Wady Sitti Miriam, and by Christians since the 4th cent. the Valley of Jehoshaphat* ^[1] (a name very probably connected originally with the neighbouring village of Shʻafat, and corrupted to Jehoshaphat because of Joel 3:2; Joel 3:12). This ravine, on reaching the northern extremity of the village of Silwan, turns S.W. and joins the Western Valley near the well now called Bir Eyyûb. In ancient times this part of the valley with its steep and, in places, precipitous sides, must have formed a most efficient protection to the whole E. and S.E. sides of the city. It is mentioned in the NT as the ‘brook’ (χείμαρρος) Kidron (John 18:1). The valley is almost all the year quite dry, but after a sudden heavy storm quite a considerable torrent may pour down its centre. The present writer has traversed the road along the lower parts of the valley immediately after such rain, with the water half-way to his knees. The Western Valley—known to-day as the Wady er-Rabâbi—is shorter and more crooked than that on the East. It commences to the S. of the modern Jaffa road close to the Birket Mamilla, its head being now occupied by a large Moslem burying-ground. After running E. towards the Jaffa Gate—near which it has been extensively filled up with rubbish during recent years—it curves south, and some 300 yards down is crossed by the arched, though now half-buried, ‘low-level aqueduct.’ A little further on it is transformed by the erection of a barrier across its breadth into a great pool—the Birket es-Sultân. Below the barrier it rapidly deepens and curves S.E., until at Bir Eyyûb it joins the Kidron Valley; the new valley formed by their union runs, under the name of the Wady en-Nâr (the Valley of Fire), down to the Bead Sea. The Wady er-Rabâbi is very generally considered to be the Valley of Hinnom. Several good authorities are against this identification, but for the present purpose there is no need to enter into this discussion, and here it may be provisionally accepted. Although not so steep a valley as the Eastern one, the Wady er-Rabâbi presented a much more effective protection to the walls in ancient days than present conditions suggest. In NT times it must have made attack along the whole W. and S.W. sides almost impracticable. Only to the N. and N.W. was the city without natural defence, and it was from these points that she always proved vulnerable. The quadrilateral plateau enclosed by these valleys, about half a mile in breadth and some 1000 acres in extent, was subdivided by several shallow natural valleys. Of these the most important, and the only one which to-day is clearly seen, is a valley known as el-Wad. This, commencing near the present Damascus Gate, runs S. in a somewhat curved direction, dividing the modern city into two unequal halves, and after passing out near the Dung Gate joins the Kidron Valley at the Pool of Siloam. Although extensively filled up in places, the outline of the valley may still be clearly seen from any high point in the city near the Damascus Gate, and its bed is to-day traversed by one of the two carriage roads in the city. Though crossed near the Bab es-Silsileh by an artificial causeway in which was discovered ‘Wilson’s Arch,’ it again appears near the Jews’ Wailing-place, much of its bed being even to-day waste ground. At this point the W. hill still preserves something of its precipitous face,* ^[2] but on its E. side it is largely encroached upon by the S.W. corner of the Haram. This valley is evidently that described as the Tyropœon or Cheesemongers’ Valley, and by it the whole natural site of Jerusalem is divided into Western and Eastern hills. The broader and loftier Western hill is without doubt that called by Josephus the Upper Market-place and the Upper City, and it is the one which since the 4th cent. has been known as Zion. Josephus (BJ v. iv. 1) mentions that in his day it was called the Citadel of David, and this tradition survives in the name the ‘Tower of David,’ given to the fortress at the Jaffa Gate. This is not the place to discuss the position of Zion, but it is now fairly generally admitted that the tradition which placed the Citadel of David and Zion on this Western spur was wrong, and that these sites lay on the Eastern hill south of the Temple. Josephus (BJ v. iv. 1) describes the Western hill as ‘much higher’ and ‘in length more direct’ than the other hill opposite to it. The buildings on it extended southward to the Valley of Hinnom, but to the north it is bounded by a valley which runs eastward from near the modern Jaffa Gate to join the Tyropœon Valley opposite the Western wall of the Temple area. It is to-day largely filled up, but its direction is preserved by David Street. The first wall ran along the S. edge of this valley, and the suburbs which grew up to its north were enclosed by the second wall. Regarding the Eastern hill, or, rather, regarding the name for part of this Eastern hill, there is much more dispute. Josephus (BJ v. iv. 1) wrote of the ‘other hill, which was called Akra, and sustains the lower city’: it ‘is the shape of a moon when she is horned; over against this there was a third hill’—evidently, from the description, that covered by the Temple—‘but naturally lower than Akra, and parted formerly from the other by a deep valley.’ He narrates how Simon Maccabaeus, after capturing the fortress which stood there, set his followers to work night and day for three years levelling the mountain, so that it should no longer be able to support a fortress which could overlook the Temple. As a result of this work, the valley between this hill and the Temple was filled up. The conclusion is therefore that this hill, which we learn was the ‘City of David’ at the time of the Maccabees, formed in the days of Josephus one hill with the Temple hill, and further that it was separated from the Western hill, whereon was the Upper City, by the valley which ‘extended as far as Siloam.’ All this points to the Eastern hill south of the Temple as the site of Akra* ^[3] and of the Lower City. Akra cannot have lain north of the Temple, for here lay the Antonia (Ant. xv. xi. 4; BJ v. v. 8), the ancient Baris or tower, a fortress distinct from the Akra, indeed largely its successor; and north of this again was Bezetha, the New City. There is much to confirm this view of the position of the Akra. The Akra was built on the ‘City of David,’ and this is identical with the Jebusite Zion. On quite other grounds Zion has been placed on this hill by many modern authorities. Then Akra is associated, in the description of the taking of Jerusalem, with ‘the fountain,’ i.e. the Virgin’s Fountain, and Siloam (BJ v. vi. 1).† ^[2]6 The appropriateness of the name ‘Lower City’ for the part of Jerusalem which sloped down south from the Temple is as evident as ‘Upper City’ is for that which actually overlooked the Temple on the west. If this, the most ancient part of Jerusalem, is not that described by Josephus as Akra and Lower City, what name did it have? It must have contained a very large share of the ordinary dwellings of the people. Ophlas (the Ophel of the OT) seems in Josephus’ (BJ v. iv. 2) time, at any rate, to have been only a particular knoll near the S.E. corner of the Temple. The topographical difficulties are not insurmountable if the history is borne in mind. It is highly probable that a valley does exist either south of the present Temple area or even on a line between the present Temple platform and the el-Aksa mosque. The name may have remained associated with the highest parts of the hill, even though the wall of the Temple at the time of Josephus may have encroached on the hill, and even have covered part of the site of the ancient fortress. The Lower City seems to have extended up the Tyropœon Valley at least to the first wall, and hence the descent by steps from one of the W. gates of the Temple described by Josephus presents no real difficulty to the view of the position of Akra here maintained. The older view of Robinson, Warren, Conder, and others, that Akra was the hill now sustaining the Muristan and the Church of the Sepulchre, north of the W. branch of the Tyropœon Valley, presents many difficulties. This was the area enclosed by the second wall, and Josephus calls it not the Lower City, but ‘the northern quarter of the city.’ Then the condition of neither the hill nor the valley tallies with the description of Josephus, and in his day the valley between this and the Temple must have been very much deeper than it is to-day. Josephus is more likely to be wrong in stating that the hill had once been higher than the Temple and was separated from it by a deep valley—a statement which depended on tradition—than in describing the hill as lower in his time and the valley as filled up—facts which he must have seen with his own eyes. 3. Climate and Diseases.—The climate of Jerusalem, while bearing the broad characteristics common to the land, presents in some respects marked features of contrast to that of the Jordan Valley and other low-lying places which were the scenes of the ministry of Jesus. There is every reason for believing that the general climatic features are the same to-day as then. On the whole, Jerusalem must be considered healthy, and what disease there is, is largely due to preventable causes. The marked changes of season, the clear pure atmosphere, with frequent winds, and the cool nights even in midsummer, combine to give Jerusalem a climate superior to the lower parts of Palestine. In winter the cold is considerable but never extreme, the lowest temperature recorded in 20 years being only 25° F. As a rule, a frost occurs on some half a dozen nights in each year. January, February, and December are, in this order, the three coldest and wettest months, though the minimum temperature has occurred several times in March, and a night temperature as low as 40° at the end of May (cf. John 18:18). Snow falls heavily at times, but only in exceptionally severe winters. The average rainfall is about 26 inches, a lower mean than at Hebron, but higher than in the plains and the Jordan Valley. The maximum fall recorded (1847) was 41.62 inches, the minimum (1870) was 13.39. So low a fall as this, especially if preceded by a scanty fall, means considerable distress in the succeeding dry season. During the summer no rain falls, and the mean temperature steadily rises till August, when it reaches 73.6, though the days of maximum heat (near or even over 100°) are often in September. It is not, however, the seasons of extreme heat or cold that are most trying to the health, but the intermediate spring and autumn, especially the months of May and October. This is largely due to the winds. Of all the winds the most characteristic is the S.E.—the sirocco—which in midwinter blows piercingly cold, and in the spring and autumn (but not at all in the summer) hot, stifling, and often laden with fine dust from the deserts whence it comes. On such days all Nature suffers, the vegetation droops, and man not only feels debilitated and depressed, but is actually more liable to illness, especially ‘fever’ and ophthalmia. The N.W. is the cold refreshing wind which, almost every summer afternoon and evening, mitigates the heat. The S.W. wind blows moist off the sea, and in the later summer brings the welcome copious clouds and, in consequence, the refreshing ‘dews.’ In the early mornings of September and October thick mists often fill the valleys till dispersed by the rising sun. The onset of the rains, in late October, is not uncommonly signalized by heavy thunderstorms and sudden downpours of rain, which fill with raging and destructive floods the valleys still parched by seven months’ drought. As much as 4 inches of rain has fallen in one day. The diseases of Jerusalem are preventable to a large extent under proper sanitary conditions. Malarial fevers, ophthalmia, and smallpox (in epidemics) are the greatest scourges. Enteric fever, typhus, measles, scarlet fever, and cholera (rarely) occur in epidemics. Tubercular diseases, rheumatism, erysipelas, intestinal worms, and various skin diseases are all common. 4. Water supply.—The water supply of Jerusalem has in all its history been of such importance and, on account of the altitude of the city, has involved so many elaborate works, which remain to-day as archaeological problems, that it will be well to consider it separately. The city never appears to have seriously suffered from want of water in sieges, but probably at no period was Jerusalem more lavishly supplied with water than it was during the Roman predominance, and most of the arrangements were complete before the time of Christ. Of springs we know of only one to-day, and there is no reason to believe there were ever any more. This spring is that known to the Christians as ‘Ain Sitti Miriam—the spring of the Lady Mary—or the Virgin’s Fountain (from a tradition that the Virgin washed the clothes of the infant Jesus there), to the Moslem fellahin as ‘Ain umm ed-deraj—‘the spring of the mother of the steps,’ and to the eastern Jews as ‘Aaron’s (or “the priests”) bath.’ The water arises in a small cave reached by 30 steps, some 25 feet underground, in the Kidron Valley, due south of the Temple area. Though to-day lying so deep, there are ample evidences that originally the mouth of the cave opened out on the side of the valley, and that the water flowed out thence. It has become buried through the accumulated debris in the valley bed. At the back of the cave—some 30 feet from the entrance—is a tunnel mouth, the beginning of the famous Siloam aqueduct (see Siloam). The flow is intermittent, about two or three times a day on an average. This fact is recorded by Jerome, and is by many authorities considered a reason for locating here the Pool of Bethesda (see Bethesda). The water is brackish to the taste, and chemical examination shows that, to-day at any rate, it is contaminated with sewage. It is undoubtedly unfit for drinking purposes: it is used chiefly by the people of the village of Silwan, especially at the Siloam-pool end of the aqueduct, for watering their gardens. Further down the valley, at its junction with the Valley of Hinnom, there is a well, 125 feet deep, known as Bir Eyyûb, or Job’s Well. This, though rediscovered by the Crusaders, is almost certainly ancient and may have been the En-rogel of the OT. From here great quantities of water are drawn all the year round, much of which is carried in skins and sold in Jerusalem, but it is in no way of better quality than that from the Virgin’s Fountain. After a spell of heavy rain the water rises up like a genuine spring, and overflowing underground a little below the actual well mouth, it bursts forth in a little stream and runs down the Wady en-Nâr. Such an outflow may last several days, and is a great source of attraction to the people of Jerusalem, who, on the cessation of the rain, hasten out to sit by the ‘flowing Kidron’ and refresh themselves beside its running waters. During the unusually heavy rains of the winter 1904–5 the ‘Kidron’ ran thus four times. A little farther down the valley there occurs, at the same time and under the same circumstances, another apparent ‘spring’—the ‘Ain el-Lôz—due to the water of Bir Eyyûb finding its way along an ancient rock-cut aqueduct and bursting up through the ground where the conduit is blocked. The Hammâm esh-Shefa (bath of healing) under the W. wall of the Haram area has by many been considered an ancient spring. To-day the water collects in an extensive underground rocky chamber at the bottom of a well 86 feet deep. Quite possibly before the area to the north was so thickly inhabited, when, for example, this well was outside the walls, a certain amount of good water may have been obtainable here, but now what collects is a foul and smelling liquid which percolates to the valley bottom from the neighbouring inhabited area, and it is unfit for even its present use—in a Turkish bath. More important than springs or wells are the innumerable cisterns with which, from the earliest times, the hill of Jerusalem has been honeycombed. It has already been pointed out that the rainfall of this region is considerable, and rain-water collected on a clean roof and stored in a well-kept cistern is good for all domestic purposes. There are private cisterns under practically every house, but there are in addition a number of larger reservoirs for public use. In the Haram—the ancient Temple area—there are 37 known excavations, of which one, the ‘great sea,’ it is calculated, can hold about 2,000,000 gallons. In other parts the more important cisterns are—the Birket Mamilla, Hammâm el-Batrak, Birket Israël, Birket es-Sultân, ‘The Twin Pools,’ the so-called ‘Pool of Bethesda,’ and the two Siloam pools—Birket Silwan and Birket el-Hamra. The last three are dealt with in the special articles Bethesda and Siloam respectively. The Birket es-Sultân, the misnamed ‘Lower Pool of Gihon’ in the Valley of Hinnom, was probably first constructed by German knights in the 12th cent., and was repaired by the Sultan Suleiman ibn Selîm in the 16th cent., while the Twin Pools near the ‘Sisters of Zion’ were made in the moat of the Antonia fortress after the destruction of the city in a.d. 70; so neither of these needs description here. The other three require longer notice. The Birket Mamilla, incorrectly called the ‘Upper Pool of Gihon,’ lies at the head of the Valley of Hinnom, about 700 yards W. N. W. of the Jaffa Gate, and used to collect all the surface water from the higher ground around; in recent years the Moslem cemetery in which it lies has been surrounded by a wall, which has largely cut off the supplies. After a spell of heavy rain it often used to fill to overflowing. It is 97 yards long, 64 yards wide, and 19 feet deep. It appears to be ‘the Serpents’ Pool’ of Josephus (BJ v. iii. 2). The outlet on the E. side leads to a conduit which enters the city near the Jaffa Gate and empties itself into the great rock-cut pool—Birket Hammâm el-Batrak (the pool or bath of the Patriarch), commonly known as the Pool of Hezekiah. The pool, 80 yards long by 48 yards wide, is largely rock-cut, and lies across the W. arm of the Tyropœon Valley; there are indications that it extended at one time further north than it does at present. Josephus apparently refers to this as the Pool Amygdalon (κολυμβήθρα Ἀμύγδαλον), a name perhaps derived from Berekat ha-migdalim (Pool of the Towers) on account of the near proximity of some of the great fortresses on the neighbouring walls. As the pool is not mentioned in Josephus until after the second wall had been captured, it may be presumed that it was within that wall (BJ v. xi. 4). The Birket Israël is built across the width of a natural valley which runs from N.W. to S.E., and passes under the N.E. course of the Haram at this point. It is supposed by some authorities that the pool itself did not exist at the period of Christ’s ministry, but as a defence to the Temple enclosure and to the neighbouring Castle of Antonia (wh. see) it may well have been the Pool Struthius mentioned by Josephus (ib.). He says the fifth legion raised a bank at the tower of Antonia ‘over against the middle of the pool that is called Struthius.’ It must, however, be stated that M. Ganneau and others propose to identify the ‘Twin Pools’ with Struthius. Constructed for Jerusalem, though seven miles from the city, are the three great reservoirs known as ‘Solomon’s Pools,’ or el-Buruk. They lie one below the other down a valley; their floors are made of the valley bed, deepened in places, and they are naturally deepest at their lower or eastern ends; they increase in size from above downward. The largest and lowest is nearly 200 yards long, 60 yards wide, and 50 feet deep. To-day they are useless, but when kept in repair and clean were no doubt valuable as storeplaces of surplus supplies of surface water from the surrounding hills and of water from the springs. Regarding the question when these pools were made there are most contrary opinions. It is highly improbable that they go back anything like as far as Solomon’s time, and the association of his name with any great and wise work is so common in the East that the name ‘Solomon’s Pools’ means nothing. On the whole, it is likely the work was not later than Roman times. The system of aqueducts which centre round these pools has a special interest. Two were constructed to carry water from the four springs in the Valley of the pools to Jerusalem, and two others to supplement this supply. The first two are the well-known high- and low-level aqueducts. The former appears to have reached the city somewhere about the level of the Jaffa Gate, and may also have supplied the Birket Mamilla. It is specially remarkable for the way it crossed a valley on the Bethlehem road by means of an inverted syphon. Large fragments of this great stone tube have been found, and from inscriptions carved on the limestone blocks the date of its construction or repair must have been in Roman times and, according to some authorities, as late as about a.d. 195. Unless, however, the account given of the royal palace gardens of Herod is greatly exaggerated, the aqueduct must have been in use in Herod’s days, as it is the only conduit by which running water could have readied the city at a level high enough to have supplied these gardens. The low-level aqueduct, still in use along a good part of its course, may easily be followed to-day along its whole length of 11½ miles. It brought water from the springs into the Temple area. It is very probably the source of the ‘spring’ which is said by Tacitus (Hist. v. 2) to have run perpetually in the Temple. Of the two supplementary aqueducts, one, of exactly the same construction as the last mentioned, brought water from the copious springs at Wady Arrûb—two-thirds of the way from Jerusalem to Hebron—along an extraordinarily winding conduit 28 miles long. The other, built on an altogether different principle, is a four-mile channel which gathers water from a long chain of wells in the Wady Biâr on the plan of a Persian kharîz, such as is extensively used in Northern Syria. This, pronounced by Sir C. Wilson ‘one of the most remarkable works in Palestine,’ is probably comparatively late. It seems to have been used to supplement the water of the springs in the Valley of the Pools.   The special interest of the great ‘low-level aqueduct’ described above, with its total length of 40 miles, lies in the historical fact tha

Jerusalem (je-ru'sa-lĕm). The religious and political capital of Israel; called also "the Holy City," Nehemiah 11:1; "City of the Great King," Psalms 48:2 : "City of David" and "Zion." 1 Kings 8:1; 2 Kings 14:20. Jewish writers held that it was the same as Salem. Genesis 14:18; Psalms 76:2. The first notice of it as Jerusalem is in Joshua 10:1. It was a boundary mark between Benjamin and Judah. Joshua 15:8; Joshua 18:16; Joshua 18:28, where it is called Ha-jebusi, that is, the Jebusite—In A. V. Jebusi—and in Judges 19:10-11, "Jebus, which is Jerusalem," because it was then a city inhabited by Jebusites. Jerusalem is in latitude 31° 47' north, and in longitude 35° 18' east from Greenwich, or about the latitude of Savannah, Ga. It is 35 miles east from the Mediterranean sea, and 18 miles west of the north end of the Dead sea. It stands on four peaks of the mountain ridge of Western Palestine, at a general elevation of about 2600 feet above the sea, the English survey placing the height of Moriah at 2440 feet, Mount Zion 2550 feet, Mount of Olives 2665 feet. The hill on which the temple stood is 2440 feet high, "dropping abruptly," Bays Selah Merrill, "at the northeast corner 100 feet, at the southeast corner 250 feet, at the southwest corner 140 feet, and on the west side about 100 feet, while toward the north, beyond what afterward became the temple area, the ridge rose gradually about 100 feet, its highest point being at the spot now known as Jeremiah's Grotto. Excluding the extension of the ridge to Jeremiah's Grotto, the horizontal area thus bounded is the same as the present Haram Area. Zion was 100 feet higher than the temple mount, and the distance across from summit to summit was less than one-third of a mile; but the descent to the bottom of the ravine separating the two was 100 feet on the side of the temple mount, and 200 feet on the side of Zion. Olivet is 90 feet higher than the highest point of Jerusalem, 143 feet higher than Mount Zion, and 243 feet higher than the temple mount. But the distance from the highest point of Jerusalem to the top of Olivet is scarcely more than a mile. Thus Olivet overlooks Jerusalem, and from its summit the best view of the city is obtained." "In several respects," says Dean Stanley, "its situation is singular among the cities of Palestine. Its elevation is remarkable; occasioned, not from its being on the summit of one of the numerous hills of Judæa, like most of the towns and villages, but because it is on the edge of one of the highest table-lands of the country. Hebron, indeed, is higher still by some hundred feet, and from the south, accordingly (even from Bethlehem), the approach to Jerusalem is by a slight descent. But from any other side the ascent is perpetual; and to the traveller approaching the city from the east or west it must always have presented the appearance, beyond any other capital of the then known world—we may say beyond any important city that has ever existed on the earth—of a mountain city; breathing, as compared with the sultry plains of Jordan, a mountain air; enthroned, as compared with Jericho or Damascus, Gaza, or Tyre, on a mountain fastness." Sinai and Palestine, 170, 1. The elevation of Jerusalem is a subject of constant reference and exultation by the Jewish writers. Their fervid poetry abounds with allusions to its height, to the ascent thither of the tribes from all parts of the country. It was the habitation of Jehovah, from which "He looked upon all the inhabitants of the world," Psalms 33:14; its kings were "higher than the kings of the earth." Psalms 89:27. Jerusalem, if not actually in the centre of Palestine, was yet virtually so. This central position as expressed in the words of Ezekiel 5:5, "I nave set Jerusalem in the midst of the nations and countries round about her," led in later ages to a definite belief that the city was actually in the centre of the earth. Roads.—There were 3 main approaches to the city: 1. From the Jordan valley by Jericho and the Mount of Olives. This was the route commonly taken from the north and east of the country—as from Galilee by our Lord, Luke 17:11; Luke 18:35; Luke 19:1; Luke 19:29; Luke 19:37, etc., from Damascus by Pompey, to Mahanaim by David. 2 Samuel 15:1-37; 2 Samuel 16:1-23. It was also the route from places in the central districts of the country, as Samaria. 2 Chronicles 28:15. The latter part of the approach, over the Mount of Olives, as generally followed at the present day, is identical with what it was, at least in one memorable instance, in the time of Christ. 2. From the great maritime plain of Philistia and Sharon. This road led by the two Bethhorons up to the high ground at Gibeon, whence it turned south, and came to Jerusalem by Ramah and Gibeah, and over the ridge north of the city. 3. There was also the route from Hebron, Bethlehem, and Solomon's pools on the south. To the four hills, Zion, Ophel, Acra, and Moriah, in the ancient city may be added the hill of Goath, and Bezetha, the new town. The precise topography of the city has long been in dispute, and while recent explorations have added much to our knowledge of the city, many points are yet unsettled. The western hill was called Mount Zion, and it is also clear that Zion and the city of David were identical. "David took the castle of Zion, which is the city of David." "And David dwelt in the castle, therefore they called it the city of David. And he built the city round about, even from Millo round about, and Joab repaired the rest of the city." 2 Samuel 5:7-9; 1 Chronicles 11:5-8. Mount Moriah was the eastern hill, 2 Chronicles 3:1, and the site of the temple. It was situated in the southwest angle of the area, now known as the Haram area, and was, Josephus tells us, an exact square of a stadium, or 600 Greek feet, on each side. At the northwest angle of the temple was the Antonia, a tower or fortress. North of the side of the temple is the building now known to Christians as the Mosque of Omar, but by Moslems it is called the Dome of the Rock. Ophel was the southern continuation of the eastern bill, which gradually came to a point at the junction of the valleys Tyropœon and Jehoshaphat. Bezetha, "the New City," noticed by Josephus, was separated from Moriah by an artificial ditch, and overlooked the valley of Kidron on the east; this hill was enclosed within the walls of Herod Agrippa. Lastly, Acra lay westward of Moriah and northward of Zion, and formed the "Lower City" in the time of Josephus. Gates.— The following list of gates, named In the Bible and Josephus, are given by Smith: 1. Gate of Ephraim. 2 Chronicles 25:23; Nehemiah 8:16; Nehemiah 12:39. This is probably the same as the 2. Gate of Benjamin. Isaiah 37:33-35; Jeremiah 37:13; Zechariah 14:10. If so, it was 400 cubits distant from the 3. Corner gate. 2 Chronicles 25:23; 2 Chronicles 26:9; Jeremiah 31:38; Zechariah 14:10. 4 Gate of Joshua, governor of the city. 2 Kings 23:8. 5. Gate between the two walls. 2 Kings 25:4; Jeremiah 39:4. 6. Horse gate. Matthew 24:1-51; 2 Chronicles 23:15; Jeremiah 31:40. 7. Ravine gate, R. V., valley gate, i.e., opening on ravine of Hinnom. 2 Chronicles 26:9; Nehemiah 2:13; Nehemiah 2:15; Nehemiah 3:13. 8. Fish gate. 2 Chronicles 33:14; Nehemiah 12:39. 9. Dung gate. Nehemiah 2:13; Nehemiah 3:1-32; Nehemiah 13:10. Sheep gate. Jeremiah 20:20; Nehemiah 3:32; Nehemiah 12:39. 11. East gate. Nehemiah 3:29. 12. Miphkad. R. V., "Hammiplikod." Nehemiah 3:31. 13. Fountain gate (Siloam?). Nehemiah 12:37. 14. Water gate. Nehemiah 12:37. 15. Old gate. Nehemiah 12:39. 16. Prison gate. Nehemiah 12:39. 17. Gate Harsith (perhaps the Sun), A. V., East gate. Jeremiah 19:2. 18. First gate. Zechariah 14:10. 19. Gate Gennath (gardens). Joseph. B. J. v. 4, 34. 20. Essenes' gate. Joseph. B. J. 4, § 2. To these should be added the following gates of the temple: Gate Sur. 2 Kings 11:6. Called also Gate of foundation. 2 Chronicles 23:5. Gate of the guard, or behind the guard. 2 Kings 11:6; 2 Kings 11:19; called the High gate, R. V., "upper gate." 2 Chronicles 23:20; 2 Chronicles 27:3; 2 Kings 15:35. Gate Shallecheth. 1 Chronicles 26:16. It is impossible to say which or how many of these names designate different gates. The chief gates of Jerusalem, now are four: the Damascus gate on the north, the Jaffa gate on the west, David or Zion gate on the south, and St. Stephen's gate on the east. The Mohammedans have other names for these gates. Only during the past six centuries have traditions connected the martyr Stephen with the present St. Stephen's gate; before that they were located to the north about the Damascus gate. The small door in the gate, to admit persons to enter after the gate was locked at night, is in the Jaffa sate, but it was built only 30 years ago. There is no evidence that there was such a door in our Lord's time, and to use it, as illustrating "the needle's eye," Luke 8:25, is without warrant from ancient history. Walls.— According to Josephus, the first or old wall began on the north at the tower called Hippicus, the ruins now called Kasi-Jalud at the northwest angle of the present city, and, extending to the Xystus, joined the council house, and ended at the west cloister of the temple. The second wall began at the gate Gennath, in the old wall, probably near the Hippicus, and passed round the northern quarter of the city, enclosing the great valley of the Tyropœon, which leads up to the Damascus gate; and then, proceeding southward, joined the fortress Antonia. The points described by Josephus in the course of this wall have not been identified, and have given rise to sharp disputes, as the course of this wall goes far towards deciding the true site of Calvary. John 19:20; Luke 23:33. The third wall was built by King Herod Agrippa; and was intended to enclose the suburbs on the northern sides of the city, which before this had been left exposed. Extent.—After describing the walls, Josephus adds that the whole circumference of the city was 33 stadia, or nearly four English miles, which is as near as may be the extent indicated by the localities. He then adds that the number of towers in the old wall was 60, the middle wall 40, and the new wall 99. Jerusalem of today as walled in would require about an hour to walk around it. The walls, measuring straight from point to point, are about 12,000 feet in length; the north wall being 3930 feet, the east wall 2754 feet, the south wall 3245 feet, and the west wall 2086 feet. The area in the present city is about 210 acres. The ancient city included the southern slopes of Zion and Ophel, which in modern times have been under cultivation, thus fulfilling the prediction, "Zion shall be ploughed like a field." Jeremiah 26:18. The Pools of Gihon, Siloam, Hezekiah, Bethesda, En-rogel, etc., will be noticed under their proper titles. The king's garden, Nehemiah 3:15, was probably outside the city at the south, as Gethsemane, Matthew 26:36, was eastward at the foot of the Mount of Olives. Of the various so-called streets, as the "east street," R.V., "the broad place on the east," 2 Chronicles 29:4; the "street of the city," i.e., the city of David, R. V., "broad place at the gate of the city," 2 Chronicles 32:6; the "street," R. V., "broad place facing the water gate," Nehemiah 8:1; Nehemiah 8:3, or, according to the parallel account in 1 Esdras 9:38, the "broad place of the temple towards the east;" the "street of the house of God," Ezra 10:9, R. V., "broad place;" the "street," R. V., "broad place of the gate of Ephraim," Nehemiah 8:16; and the "open place of the first gate toward the east" could not have been "streets," in our sense of the word, but rather open spaces found in eastern towns near the inside of the gates. Streets, properly so called, there were, however, Jeremiah 5:1; Jeremiah 11:13, etc.; but the name of only one, "the bakers' street," Jeremiah 37:21, is preserved to us. History.—Only a brief notice of its history can be given. We catch our earliest glimpse of Jerusalem in Joshua 10:1, and in Judges 1:1-36. which describes how the "children of Judah smote it with the edge of the sword, and set the city on fire;" and almost the latest mention of it in the New Testament is contained in the solemn warnings in which Christ foretold how Jerusalem should be "compassed with armies," Luke 21:20, and the "abomination of desolation" be seen standing in the Holy Place, Matthew 24:15. In the 15 centuries which elapsed between those two periods, the city was besieged no fewer than 17 times; twice it was razed to the ground; and on two other occasions its walls were levelled. In this respect it stands without a parallel in any city, ancient or modern. David captured the city, b.c. 1046, and made it his capital, fortified and enlarged it. 2 Samuel 5:7; 2 Samuel 6:2-16; 1 Kings 11:36. Solomon adorned the city with beautiful buildings, including the temple, but made no additions to its walls. 1 Kings 7:2-7; 1 Kings 8:1-66; 1 Kings 10:7; 2 Chronicles 9:1-12. The city was taken by the Philistines and Arabians in the reign of Jehoram, b.c. 886, and by the Israelites in the reign of Amaziah, b.c. 826. The books of Kings and of Chronicles give the history of Jerusalem under the monarchy. It was thrice taken by Nebuchadnezzar, in the years b.c. 607, 597, and 586, in the last of which it was utterly destroyed. Its restoration commenced under Cyrus, b.c. 536, and was completed under Artaxerxes I., who issued commissions for this purpose to Ezra, b.c. 457, and Nehemiah, b.c. 445. Nehemiah 4:7-22; Nehemiah 6:1-16. In b.c. 332 it was captured by Alexander the Great, and again under Antiochus Epiphanes, b.c. 170. Under the Maccabees Jerusalem became independent and retained its position until its capture by the Romans under Pompey, b.c. 63. The temple was subsequently plundered by Crassus, b.c. 54, and the city by the Parthians, b.c. 40. Herod took up his residence there, and restored the temple with great magnificence. It was taken and destroyed by the Romans under Titus, when it had held out nearly five months, a.d. 70, fulfilling Christ's prophecy, Nehemiah 3:28. Hadrian restored it as a Roman colony, a.d. 135. The emperor Constantine erected a church on the supposed site of the holy sepulchre, a.d. 336, and Justinian added several churches and hospitals, about a.d. 532. It was taken by the Persians under Chosroes II. in a.d. 614. In a.d. 637 the patriarch Sophronius surrendered to the khalif Omar, and the Holy City passed into the hands of the Fatimite dynasty. About 1084 it was bestowed upon Ortok, whose severity to the Christians became the proximate cause of the Crusades. It was taken by the Crusaders in 1099, and for 88 years Jerusalem remained in the hands of the Christians. In 1187 it was retaken by Saladin after a siege of several weeks. In 1277 Jerusalem was nominally annexed to the kingdom of Sicily. In 1517 it passed under the sway of the Ottoman sultan Selim I., whose successor, Suliman, built the present walls of the city in 1542. Mohammed Ali, the pasha of Egypt, took possession of it in 1832; and in 1840, after the bombardment of Acre, it was again restored to the sultan and has since remained in the hands of the Turks. A steam railway was opened from Jaffa (Joppa) to Jerusalem in October, 1892. Population.— It is estimated that modern Jerusalem has from 50,000 to 75,000 inhabitants, of whom 12,000 are Mohammedans, 8000 Christians, and 25,000 to 30,000 (Conder says 40,000) Jews, nearly 30,000 depending largely for their living upon benevolent gifts from religious brethren elsewhere. The population of Jerusalem in ancient times probably did not exceed 75,000 at any period of Bible history. Recent Explorations.— Besieged 17 times, twice destroyed, ancient Jerusalem is now buried under 80 feet of earth and rubbish. Of the explorations and present condition of the city, Selah Merrill, United States consul at Jerusalem (in Jackson's concise Dictionary), says: "One would suppose that in a place like Jerusalem, which has always teen a centre of special interest, there would be many remains of antiquity and a large number of historical sites whose genuineness no person would question. The truth is just the contrary of this. Very many things are doubtless buried which will, from time to time, be brought to light, as has been the case during the past 25 years. Thanks to recent excavations, certain points and objects have been recovered which "may be accepted as authentic beyond dispute. Thus we have the actual site of the Herodian temple, together with portions of the wall which supported its area, also the remains of a bridge of the same period which led from the temple to Mount Zion. We have the point of the native rock over which the altar was built, and from this are able to determine the site of the Holy of Holies. We can point to the spot where the castle of Antonia stood, and thus fix the eastern terminus of the 'second wall.'" Near the Jaffa gate Dr. Merrill "discovered, in 1885, a section of this wall, whose position has been so long in dispute. One hundred and twenty feet of it were exposed, consisting of one, two, and in a single place of three layers of massive stones, and from this the position of the Gennath Gate can be determined within a few yards. The lower portion of the so-called 'Castle of David' belongs to the time of Herod, if not to an earlier period. In the northwest corner of the city the foundations of one of the great towers of ancient Jerusalem have been uncovered, and massive work of the same age is found at the Damascus Gate. Under the mosque El Aksa are the columns of the Double Gate and the Porch belonging to it, through which our Lord must have often entered the temple. There is no question about the valleys Hinnom, Jehoshaphat, and the Tyropœan, or the pool of Siloam. The rock-cut conduit, leading for 1700 feet under Ophel, connecting the Pool of Siloam with the Virgin's Fountain, in which the Siloam inscription was discovered in 1880, dates from the time of the Hebrew kings. North of the city we have the tomb of Helena, the mother of Izates, built in the last century before Christ; and there are a few other objects, as the Tomb of Absalom and that of Jehoshaphat, which certainly belong to ancient times, but whose exact date cannot be determined." The old Pool of Bethesda was lately discovered by Conrad Schick, under the Church of St. Anne. Beyond these, our knowledge of the various places in ancient Jerusalem, noticed in the Bible and Josephus, is indefinite if not chaotic. Jerusalem is not a centre of trade, and it has few manufactures or business by which wealth can be acquired. Moneychangers are numerous because people from many other countries are found there, most of whom bring with them coin that is not current in the city. Shopkeepers are seldom able to make change themselves, and it is understood that the purchaser must come prepared to pay the exact amount of his purchase. Upward of 40 different languages and dialects are spoken in Jerusalem. Society is of a low order. The people are slow to adapt themselves to new conditions. There is, however, reason to hope for improvement under better religious and educational influences, and under a wise and helpful government. In Scripture and Prophecy. Jerusalem is named 799 times in the Bible, and many times alluded to in sacred history and prophecy. Its strength and beauty are noticed, Psalms 48:2; Psalms 48:11-13; Psalms 122:2-5; its peace is prayed for, Psalms 51:18; Psalms 122:6-8; its glory noticed, Psalms 87:1-6. The siege and desolation of the city for sins were predicted, Isaiah 29:1-3; Isaiah 27:10; Jeremiah 4:11; Jeremiah 19:8; Jeremiah 21:10; especially its destruction by the Chaldeans, Jeremiah 13:9; Jeremiah 13:18; Jeremiah 34:22; Ezekiel 24:2; Amos 2:5. These predictions were literally fulfilled. See 1 Kings 14:25-26; Jeremiah 51:50-51; Lamentations 2:13; Lamentations 5:11-22. Its preservation and restoration at times promised and performed, 2 Kings 19:10; 2 Chronicles 32:9-20; Isaiah 37:17; Isaiah 37:20; 1618101887_56; Psalms 69:35, where it is called Zion: compare Isaiah 11:9-10; Jeremiah 31:1; Jeremiah 31:4; Jeremiah 31:38-40; Zechariah 8:3-5. Again its destruction by the Romans was predicted, Zechariah 14:2; Luke 19:41-44; and Luke 21:9-10; Luke 21:20; Luke 21:24; and Josephus' description of the siege and destruction of the city under Titus (Wars, Bk. vi.) shows how terrible was the fulfillment of this prophecy of Christ. It is still the "Sacred City," however, to the Jew, the Christian, and the Moslem, hallowed by the footsteps and sufferings of the Son of God.

The altar of holocaust was located in front of the Temple proper and the altar of incense stood in the Holy Place before the veil covering the door to the Holy of Holies. The ordinances regarding the former are contained in Exodus 20, and Deuteronomy 17. Solomon's altar was similar in form to that of the Tabernacle, but larger, measuring 20 cubits in length and width and 10 in height, and constructed of unhewn stone and earth covered with plates of brass, hence called "brazen altar." Destroyed with the Temple by Nabuchodonosor, 586 B.C., it was the first thing rebuilt by the returned exiles, 537. Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated this second altar, 168, and on that account it was completely removed by Judas Machabeus, 165, and a new one was erected which apparently remained until the destruction of Herod's Temple by the Romans 70 A.D. The altar of incense in Solomon's Temple was of the same dimensions as that of the Tabernacle and made of cedar wood overlaid with gold, hence called "golden altar." Its history repeats that of the altar of holocaust. Near this altar took place the annunciation to Zachary of the birth of John the Baptist (Luke 1).

Great interest naturally attaches to this city because of its O.T. and N.T. histories, and its future glory. The signification of the name is somewhat uncertain: some give it as 'the foundation of peace;' others 'the possession of peace.' Its history has, alas, been anything but that of peace; but Haggai 2:9 remains to be fulfilled: "in this place will I give peace," doubtless referring to the meaning of 'Jerusalem.' The name is first recorded in Joshua 10:1 when Adoni-zedec was its king, before Israel had anything to do with it, and four hundred years before David obtained full possession of the city. 2 Samuel 5:6-9 . This name may therefore have been given it by the Canaanites, though it was also called JEBUS.Judges 19:10 . It is apparently symbolically called SALEM,'peace,' in Psalm 76:2 ;* and ARIEL, 'the lion of God,' in Isaiah 29:1,2,7 ; in Isaiah 52:1 'the holy city,' as it is also in Matthew 4:5 ; Matthew 27:53 . The temple being built there, and Mount Zion forming a part of the city, made Jerusalem typical of the place of blessing on earth, as it certainly will be in a future day, when Israel is restored. * On the TELLAMARNA TABLETS(see THE TELL AMARNA TABLETS under 'Egypt') Jerusalem occurs several times as u-ru-sa-lim , the probable signification of which is 'city of peace.' Jerusalem was taken from the Jebusites and the city burnt, Judges 1:8 ; but the Jebusites were not all driven out, for some were found dwelling in a part of Jerusalem called the fort, when David began to reign over the whole of the tribes. This stronghold was taken, and Jerusalem became the royal city; but the great interest that attaches to it arises from its being the city of Jehovah's election on the one hand, and the place of Jehovah's temple, where mercy rejoiced over judgement. See ZIONand MORIAH.In Solomon's reign it was greatly enriched, and the temple built. At the division of the kingdom it was the chief city of Judah. It was plundered several times, and in B.C. 588 the temple and city were destroyed by the king of Babylon. In B.C. 536, after 70 years (from B.C. 606, when the first captivity took place, Jeremiah 25:11,12 ; Jeremiah 29:10 ), Cyrus made a declaration that God had charged him to build Him a house at Jerusalem, and the captives were allowed to return for the purpose. In B.C. 455 the commission to build the city was given to Nehemiah. It existed, under many vicissitudes, until the time of the Lord, when it was part of the Roman empire. Owing to the rebellion of the Jews it was destroyed by the Romans, A.D. 70. Its ruins had a long rest, but in A.D. 136 the city was rebuilt by Hadrian and called Ælia Capitolina. A temple to the Capitoline Jupiter was erected on the site of the temple. Jews were forbidden, on pain of death, to enter the city, but in the fourth century they were admitted once a year. Constantine after his conversion destroyed the heathen temples in the city. In A.D. 614Jerusalem was taken and pillaged by the Persians. In 628 it was re-taken by Heraclius. Afterwards it fell into the hands of the Turks. In 1099 it was captured by the Crusaders, but was re-taken by Saladin. In 1219 it was ceded to the Christians, but was subsequently captured by Kharezmian hordes. In 1277 it was nominally annexed to the kingdom of Sicily. In 1517 it passed under the sway of the Ottoman Sultan, and became a part of the Turkish empire. It has already sustained about thirty sieges, and although in the hands of the Jews now its desolations are not yet over! The beautiful situation of Jerusalem is noticed in scripture; it stands about 2593 feet above the sea, and the mountains round about it are spoken of as its security. Psalm 125:2 ; Lamentations 2:15 . Between the mountains and the city there are valleys on three sides: on the east the valley of the Kidron, or Jehoshaphat; on the west the valley of Gihon; and on the south the valley of Hinnom. The Mount of Olives is on the east, from whence the best view of Jerusalem is to be had. On the S.W. lies the Mount of Offence, so called because it is supposed that Solomon practised idolatry there. On the south is the Hill of Evil Counsel; the origin of which name is said to be that Caiaphas had a villa there, in which a council was held to put the Lord to death. But these and many other names commonly placed on maps, have no other authority than that of tradition. To the north the land is comparatively level, so that the attacks on the city were made on that side. The city, as it now stands surrounded by walls, contains only about one-third of a square mile. Its north wall running S.W. extends from angle to angle, without noticing irregularities, about 3930 feet; the east 2754 feet; the south 3425 feet; and the west 2086 feet; the circumference being about two and a third English miles. Any one accustomed to the area of modern cities is struck with the small size of Jerusalem. Josephus says that its circumference in his day was 33 stadia, which is more than three and three-quarters English miles. It is clear that on the south a portion was included which is now outside the city. Also on the north an additional wall enclosed a large portion, now called BEZETHA; but this latter enclosure was made by Herod Agrippa some ten or twelve years after the time of the Lord. Traces of these additional walls have been discovered and extensive excavations on the south have determined the true position of the wall. Several gates are mentioned in the O.T. which cannot be traced; it is indeed most probable they do not now exist. On the north is the Damascus gate, and one called Herod's gate walled up; on the east an open gate called St. Stephen's, and a closed one called the Golden gate; on the south Zion gate, and a small one called Dung gate; on the west Jaffa gate. A street runs nearly north from Zion gate to Damascus gate; and a street from the Jaffa gate runs eastward to the Mosque enclosure These two streets divide the city into four quarters of unequal size. Since the formation of the State of Israel a large modern city has built up to the North West of the Old City. There is a fifth portion on the extreme S.E. called MORIAH, agreeing, as is supposed, with the Mount Moriah of the O.T., on some portion of which the temple was most probably built. It is now called 'the Mosque enclosure,' because on it are built two mosques. It is a plateau of about 35 acres, all level except where a portion of the rock projects near the centre, over which the Mosque of Omar is built. To obtain this large plain, walls had to be built up at the sides of the sloping rock, forming with arches many chambers, tier above tier. Some chambers are devoted to cisterns, and others are called Solomon's stables. That horses have been kept there at some time appears evident from rings being found attached to the walls, to which the horses were tethered. Josephus speaks of Jerusalem being built upon two hills with a valley between, called the TYROPOEON VALLEY. This lies on the west of the Mosque enclosure and runs nearly north and south. Over this valley the remains of two bridges have been discovered: the one on the south is called the 'Robinson arch,' because that traveller discovered it. He judged that some stones which jutted out from the west wall of the enclosure must have been part of a large arch. This was proved to have been the case by corresponding parts of the arch being discovered on the opposite side of the valley. Another arch was found complete, farther north, by Captain Wilson, and is called the 'Wilson arch.' Below these arches were others, and aqueducts. Nearly the whole of this valley is filled with rubbish. There may have been another valley running across the above, as some suppose; but if so, that also is choked with debris, indeed the modern city appears to have been built upon the ruins of former ones, as is implied in the prophecy of Jeremiah 9:11 ; Jeremiah 30:18 . The above-named bridges would unite the Mosque enclosure, or Temple area, with the S.W. portion of the city, which is supposed to have included ZION. The Jews are not allowed in the Temple area, therefore they assemble on a spot near Robinson's arch, called the JEWS' WAILING PLACE, where they can approach the walls of the area which are built of very large and ancient stones. On Fridays and feast days they assemble in numbers; they kiss the stones and weep, and pray for the restoration of their city and temple, being, alas, still blind to the only true way of blessing through the Lord Jesus whom they crucified. The Christian population gave names to the streets, and point out traditional sites of many events recorded in scripture, but of course without the slightest authority. Of these arbitrary identifications the one that appears the most improbable is that of the CHURCH OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE, said to cover the spots where the Lord was crucified and where He was buried, which is within the city. See CALVARY. About a hundred yards east of the Damascus gate is the entrance to a quarry, which extends a long way under the city, and from which a quantity of stone must have been extracted. There are heaps of small chips showing that the stones were dressed there; perhaps the 'great and costly' stones for the temple, built by Solomon were made ready there. 1 Kings 5:17 ; 1 Kings 6:7 . There are blackened nooks where apparently lamps were placed to give the workmen light; marks of the tools are easily discernible, and some blocks are there which have been only partially separated; everything has the appearance of workmen having but recently left their work, except that there are no tools lying about. As to the future of Jerusalem, scripture teaches that a portion of the Jews will return in unbelief (and indeed many have now returned), occupy Jerusalem, rebuild the temple, and have a political existence. Isaiah 6:13 ; Isaiah 17:10,11 ; Isaiah 18 ; Isaiah 66:1-3 . After being under the protection of the future Roman Empire, and having received Antichrist, they will be brought through great tribulation. The city will be taken and the temple destroyed. Isaiah 10:5,6 ; Zechariah 14:1,2 . But this will not be the final destiny of Jerusalem. We read "it shall not be plucked up nor thrown down any more for ever." Jeremiah 31:38-40 . "Thus saith the Lord of hosts: There shall yet old men and old women dwell in the streets of Jerusalem, and every man with his staff in his hand for very age. And the streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in the streets thereof.' Zechariah 8:4 . 5 . The temple will also be rebuilt, the particulars of which are given in the prophet Ezekiel. See TEMPLE. The sides of the square space allotted to the future city measure 5000 enlarged cubits (of probably 24-1/2 inches), a little less than 2 miles: the city itself to occupy a square of 4500 cubits each way, with a margin all round of 250 cubits, with large suburbs east and west. The 4500 cubits equal about 1.8 mile, and give about three and a quarter square miles, which, by the dimensions given above, will be seen to be very much larger than the present Old City. Ezekiel 48:15-20 . The formation of the hills and valleys were thought to be a difficulty, but the New City is already built outside the walls, and there will be physical changes in the country: living waters will flow from the city, half of them running into the western sea and half of them into the eastern sea: cf. Zechariah 14:8-10 . The new city will have twelve gates, three on each of its sides. "The name of the city from that day shall be THE LORD IS THERE." Ezekiel 48:30-35 .

BUT yourself back into Paul's place. Suppose yourself born in Tarsus, brought up at Gamaliel's feet in Jerusalem, and keeping the clothes of Stephen's executioners. Think of yourself as a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious. And-then imagine yourself apprehended of Christ Jesus, driven of the Spirit into the wilderness of Arabia, and coming back with all your bones burning within you to preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified. But, all the time, you have never once seen your Master in the flesh, as His twelve disciples had seen Him. He had been for thirty years with His mother and His sisters and His brethren in Galilee. And then He had been for three years with the twelve and the seventy. But Paul had been born out of due time. And thus it was that Paul went up to Jerusalem to see Peter about all that. Paul had a great desire to see Peter about all that before he began his ministry. And you would have had that same great desire, and so would I. At the same time, even with the prospect of seeing Peter, it must have taken no little courage on Paul's part to face Judea and Jerusalem again. To face the widows and the orphans of the men he had put to death in the days of his ignorance and unbelief. To Paid the very streets of Jerusalem were still wet with that innocent blood. Led in by Peter Paul sat at the same Lord's table, and ate the same bread, and drank the same wine, with both old and young communicants, who had not yet put off their garments of mourning because of Paul. Deliver me from blood-guiltiness, O God, Thou God of my salvation. Then will I teach transgressors Thy ways. Do good in Thy good pleasure unto Zion; build Thou the walls of Jerusalem. And thus it was that, to the end of his days, Paul was always making collections for those same poor saints that were in Jerusalem. Paul would have pensioned every one of them out of his own pocket, had he been able. But how could he do that off a needle and a pair of shears? And thus it was that he begged so incessantly for the fatherless families that he had made fatherless in Judea and in Jerusalem. Now, if any of you have ever made any woman a widow, or any child an orphan, or done anything of that remorseful kind, do not flee the country. You cannot do it, and you need not try. Remain where you are. Go back to the place. Go back often in imagination, if not in your bodily presence. Do the very utmost that in you lies, to repair the irreparable wrong that you did long ago. And, when you cannot redeem that dreadful damage, commit it to Him who can redeem both it and you. And say to Him continually:-Count me a partner with Thee. And put that also down to my account. "To see Peter," our Authorised Version is made to say. "To visit Peter," the Revised Version is made to say. And, still, to help out all that acknowledged lameness, the revised margin is made to say, "to become acquainted with Peter." But Paul would not have gone so far, at that time at any rate, to see Peter or any one else. Any one else, but Peter's Master. But to see Him even once, as He was in the flesh, Paul would have gone from Damascus to Jerusalem on his hands and his knees, "I went up to Jerusalem to history Peter," is what Paul really says. Only, that is not good English. But far better bad English, than an utterly meaningless translation of such a text. "To interview Peter," is not good English either, but it conveys Paul's meaning exactly. The great Greek historians employ Paul's very identical word when they tell their readers the pains they took to get first-hand information before they began to write their books. "I went up to interrogate and to cross-question Peter all about our Lord," that would be rough English indeed, but it would be far better than so feebly to say, "to see Peter," which positively hides from his readers what was Paul's real errand to Jerusalem, and to Peter. Had Landor been led to turn his fine dramatic genius and his ripe scholarship to Scriptural subjects, he would, to a certainty, have given us the conversations that took place for fifteen days between Peter and Paul. Landor's Epictetus and Seneca, his Diogenes and Plato, his Melanchthon and Calvin, his Galileo and Milton and a Dominican, and his Dante and Beatrice, are all among his masterpieces. But his Paul and Peter, and his Paul and James the brother of our Lord, and especially his Paul and the mother of our Lord, would have eclipsed clean out of sight his most classical compositions. For, on no possible subject, was Peter so ready always to speak, to all comers, as just about his Master. And never before nor since had Peter such a hungry hearer as just his present visitor and interrogator from Arabia and Damascus. Peter began by telling Paul all about that day when his brother Andrew so burst in upon him about the Messiah. And then that day only second to it, on the Lake of Gennesaret. And then Matthew the publican's feast, and so on, till Peter soon saw what it was that Paul had come so far to hear. And then he went on with the good Samaritan, and the lost piece of silver, and the lost sheep, and the lost son. For fifteen days and fifteen nights this went on till the two prostrate men took their shoes off their feet when they entered the Garden of Gethsemane. And both at the cock-crowing, and at Calvary, Peter and Paul wept so sore that Mary herself, and Mary Magdalene, did not weep like it. Now, just trust me and tell me what you would have asked at Peter about his Master. Would you have asked anything? How far would you go tonight to have an interview with Peter? Honestly, have you any curiosity at all about Jesus Christ, either as He is in heaven now, or as He was on earth then? Really and truly, do you ever think about Him, and imagine Him, and what He is saying and doing? Or are you like John Bunyan, who never thought whether there was a Christ or no? If you would tell me two or three of the questions you would have put to Peter, I would tell you in return just who and what you are; just how you stand tonight to Jesus Christ, and how He stands to you: and what He thinks and says about you, and intends toward you. And then if Mary, the mother of our Lord, was still in this world, it is certain to me that Paul both saw her in James's house, and kissed her hand, and called her Blessed. You may depend upon it that Mary did not remain very long away from James's house after his conversion. It was all very good to have a lodging with the disciple whom Jesus loved, till her own slow-hearted son believed. But I put it to you who are mothers in Israel, to put yourselves in Mary's place in those days, and to say if you would have been to be found anywhere, by that time, but in the house of your own believing son. And what more sure and certain than that God, here again, revealed His Son to Paul out of Mary's long hidden heart. 'I have the most perfect, and at first-hand, assurance of all these things from them that were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word,' says Paul's physician and private secretary. Nowhere, at any rate, in the whole world, could that miraculous and mystery-laden woman have found such another heart as Paul's into which to pour out all that had been for so long sealed up in her hidden heart. 'Whether we were in the body, or out of the body, as she told me about Nazareth, and as I told her about Damascus and Arabia, I cannot tell: God knoweth.' "From the Old Testament point of view," says Bengel in his own striking and suggestive way, "the progress is made from the knowledge of Christ to the knowledge of Jesus. From the New Testament point of view, the progress is made from the knowledge of Jesus to the knowledge of Christ." And have we not ourselves already seen how Paul's progress was made? Paul's progress was made from the knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth risen from the dead, to the knowledge of the Son of God; and then from the knowledge of both back to the knowledge of the Holy Child Jesus, and the Holy Man Jesus, as He was known to His mother, to James His brother, and to Peter His so intimate disciple. Paul went "back to Jesus," as the saying sometimes is; but when he went back he took back with him all the knowledge of the Son of God that he has put into his Epistles, ay, and much more than the readers of his Epistles were able to receive. And God's way with Paul is His best way with us also. You will never read the four Gospels with true intellectual understanding, and with true spiritual appreciation, till you have first read and understood and appreciated Paul's Epistles. But after you have had God's Son revealed in you by means of Paul's Epistles, you will then be prepared for all that Matthew and Mark and Luke and John have to tell you about the Word made flesh in their day. Paul's hand holds the true key to all the mysteries that are hid in the Prophets and in the Psalms and in the Gospels. Take back Paul with you, and all the prophecies and all the types of the Old Testament, and all the wonderful works of God in the New Testament,-His Son's sinless conception, His miracles, His teaching and preaching, His agony in the garden, His death on the Cross, and His resurrection and ascension,-will all fall into their natural and necessary places. It is in the very same order in which the great things of God were revealed to Paul, and apprehended by Paul, that they will best be revealed to us, and best apprehended by us. First our conversion; and then the Pauline, Patristic, and Puritan doctrine of the Son of God; and then all that taken back by us to the earthly life of our Blessed Lord as it is told to us by the four Evangelists. Damascus, Arabia, Jerusalem,-this, in our day also, is the God-guided progress, in which the true successors of the Apostle Paul are still travelling, in their spiritual experience, and in their evangelical scholarship.

Hesychius (25), presbyter of Jerusalem in the first half of 5th cent., a copious and learned writer whose comments on Holy Scripture and other works gained a great reputation. Considerable confusion exists as to the authorship of several of the treatises ascribed to him—a confusion which it is hopeless entirely to remove. It is possible that some were written by the bp. of Salona. ^[1] It is altogether a mistake to speak of Hesychius as bp. of Jerusalem. According to the Greek Menology, Mar 28, he was born and educated at Jerusalem, where "by meditating on the Scriptures he obtained a deep acquaintance with divine things." On reaching manhood he left home and devoted himself to a solitary life in the desert, where he "with bee-like industry gathered the flowers of virtue from the holy Fathers there." He was ordained presbyter against his will by the patriarch of Jerusalem, and spent the rest of his life there or at other sacred places. Hesychius the presbyter is mentioned by Theophanes, who, in 412, speaks of him as "the presbyter of Jerusalem," and in 413 records his celebrity for theological learning. He is mentioned in the Life of St. Euthymius by Cyril of Scythopolis (Coteler. Eccl. Graec. Monism. t. ii. p. 233, § 42), as accompanying Juvenal, patriarch of Jerusalem, to the consecration of the church of the "laura" of St. Euthymius, a.d. 428 or 429, and as received with much honour by the abbat. He is said by Allatius ( Diatriba de Simeonibus, p. 100) to have been Chartophylax or Keeper of the Records of the church of the Anastasis at Jerusalem. His death can only be placed approximately c. 438. He is twice mentioned by Photius, who shares to some extent in the confusion as to the Hesychii, and assigns him no date. In Cod. 275 Photius quotes a rhetorical passage from a sermon on James the Lord's brother and David ( θεοπάτωρ ), evidently delivered at Jerusalem. Hesychius compares Bethlehem and Sion, to the great advantage of the latter, and, in a manner very natural in a presbyter of Jerusalem, elevates St. James's authority above that of St. Peter in the council of Jerusalem. Of several of the numerous works attributed to this author, all we can say is that they bear the name of Hesychius in one of its forms, but whether actually the composition of the presbyter of Jerusalem or of some other Hesychius it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine. Tillemont feels no insuperable difficulty in assigning them all to the same author, but confesses that fuller light might lead to a different conclusion. (1) In Leviticum Libri VII. Explanationum Allegoricarum sive Commentarius, dedicated to the deacon Eutychianus, is the most extensive work extant under the name of Hesychius. It has frequently been printed. The earliest editions are those of Basle (1527, fol.) and Paris (1581, 8vo). It is in the various Bibliothecae Patrum, as that of Lyons, t. xii. p. 52, and the Vet. Patr. Bibl. of Galland, t. xi. (2) Commentaries on the Psalms .—Harles and Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. vol. vii. p. 549, speak of many portions of this work existing in MS., especially one in the University Library of Cambridge containing Pss. lxxvii.–cvii. The only portions printed are the Fragmenta in Psalmos, extracted from the Greek Catena in Psalmos, with a Latin trans. by Balthazar Corderius. These are very sensible and useful, and lead us to wish for the publication of the whole. See Faulhaber, Hesych. Hierosol. Interpr. Is. Proph. 1900 sqq.; att. to Faulhaber in Theol. Quartalschr. 1901. The Commentary on the Psalms att. to Athanasius (Migne, Patr. Gk. xxvii.) is by Hesychius. (3) Στιχηρὸν sive κεφάλαια in XII. Prophetas et Esaiam, an epitome of the 12 Minor Prophets and Isaiah, section by section. (4) Fragments of Commentaries on Ezk., Dan., Acts, James, I. Peter, and Jude. (5) Difficultatum et Solutionum Collectio .—A harmonizing of 61 discrepant passages in the Gospel history, generally characterized by sound common sense and a reluctance to force an unreal agreement. (6) Eight Sermons, or Fragments of Sermons. (7) Ἀντιρρητικὰ καὶ Εὐτικά . Two Centuries of Moral Maxims on Temperance and Virtue and Instructions on Prayer, addressed to one Theodotus. (8) The Martyrdom of Longinus the Centurion .—The author, according to Fabricius, belonged to a much later period than the one who wrote the works previously enumerated. (9) An Ecclesiastical History, of which a fragment is given in the Acts of the council of Constantinople, a.d. 353, Collat. Quinta, condemnatory of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Cave, Hist. Lit. t. i. p. 570; Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. ed. Harles, t. vii. pp. 548–551; Galland, Vet. Patr. Bibl. t. xi.; Migne, Patr. Gk, vol. xciii. pp. 781–1560. ^[2]

JERUSALEM I. Situation. Jerusalem is the chief town of Palestine, situated in 31° 46′ 45″ N. lat. and 35° 13′ 25″ E. long. It stands on the summit of the ridge of the Judæan mountains, at an elevation of 2500 feet above the sea-level. The elevated plateau on which the city is built is intersected by deep valleys, defining and subdividing it. 1 . The defining valleys are: (1) the Wady en-Nâr , the Biblical Valley of the Kidron or of Jehoshaphat , which, starting some distance north of the city, runs at first (under the name of Wady el-Jôz ) in a S. E.direction; it then turns southward and deepens rapidly, separating the Jerusalem plateau from the ridge of the Mount of Olives on the east; finally, it meanders through the wild mountains of the Judæan desert, and finds its exit on the W. side of the Dead Sea. (2) A deep cleft now known as the Wady er-Rabâbi , and popularly identified with the Valley of the son of Hinnom , which commences on the west side of the city and runs down to and joins the Wady en-Nâr about half a mile south of the wall of the present city. In the fork of the great irregular Y which these two valleys form, the city is built. 2 . The chief intersecting valley is one identified with the Tyropœon of Josephus, which commences in some olive gardens north of the city (between the forks of the Y ), runs, ever deepening, right through the modern city, and finally enters the Wady en-Nâr , about 1 / 8 mils above the mouth of the Wady er-Rabâbi . There is also a smaller depression running axially across the city from West to East, intersecting the Tyropœon at right angles. These intersecting valleys are now almost completely filled up with the accumulated rubbish of about four thousand years, and betray themselves only by slight depressions in the surface of the ground. 3 . By these valleys the site of Jerusalem is divided into four quarters, each on its own hill. These hills are traditionally named Acra, Bezetha, Zion , and Ophel , in the N. W., N. E., S. W., and S. E.respectively; and Ophel is further subdivided (but without any natural line of division) into Ophel proper and Moriah , the latter being the northern and higher end. But it must be noticed carefully at the outset that around these names the fiercest discussions have raged, many of which are as yet not within sight of settlement. 4 . The site of Jerusalem is not well provided with water . The only natural source is an intermittent spring in the Kidron Valley, which is insufficient to supply the city’s needs. Cisterns have been excavated for rain-storage from the earliest times, and water has been led to the city by conduits from external sources, some of them far distant. Probably the oldest known conduit is a channel hewn in the rock, entering Jerusalem from the north. Another (the ‘low-level aqueduct’) is traditionally ascribed to Solomon: it brings water from reservoirs beyond Bethlehem; and a third (the ‘high-level aqueduct’) is of Roman date. Several conduits are mentioned in the OT: the ‘conduit of the upper pool, in the highway of the fuller’s field ’ ( Isaiah 7:3 ), which has not been identified; the conduit whereby Hezekiah ‘brought the waters of Gihon straight down on the west side of the city of David,’ also referred to as the ‘conduit’ whereby he ‘brought water into the city’ ( 2 Kings 20:20 , 2 Chronicles 32:30 ), is probably to be identified with the Siloam tunnel, famous for its (unfortunately undated) Old Hebrew inscription. II. History 1. Primitive period . The origin of the city of Jerusalem is lost in obscurity, and probably, owing to the difficulties in the way of excavation, must continue to be matter of speculation. The first reference that may possibly be connected with the city is the incident of the mysterious ‘Melchizedek, king of Salem’ ( Genesis 14:18 ), who has been the centre of much futile speculation, due to a large extent to misunderstanding of the symbolic use of his name by the authors of Psalms 110:1-7 ( Psalms 110:4 ) and Hebrews (chs. 5 7). It is not even certain that the ‘ Salem ’ over which this contemporary of Hammurabi ruled is to be identified with Jerusalem (see Salem); there is no other ancient authority for this name being applied to the city. We do not touch solid ground till some eight or nine hundred years later, when, about 1450, we find ‘Abd-khiba, king of Urusalim , sending letters to his Egyptian over-lord, which were discovered with the Tell el-Amarna correspondence. The contents of these letters are the usual meagre record of mutual squabbles between the different village communities of Palestine, and to some extent they raise questions rather than answer them. Some theories that have been based on expressions used by ‘Abd-khiba, and supposed to illuminate the Melchizedek problem, are now regarded as of no value for that desirable end. The chief importance of the Tell el-Amarna correspondence, so far as Jerusalem is concerned, is the demonstration of the true antiquity of the name ‘Jerusalem.’ Where was the Jerusalem of ‘Abd-khiba situated? This question, which is bound up with the authenticity or otherwise of the traditional Zion , and affects such important topographical and archæological questions as the site of David’s tomb, is one of the most hotly contested of all the many problems of the kind which have to be considered by students of Jerusalem. In an article like the present it is impossible to enter into the details of the controversy and to discuss at length the arguments on both sides. But the majority of modern scholars are now coming to an agreement that the pre-Davidic Jerusalem was situated on the hill known as Ophel , the south-eastern of the four hills above enumerated, in the space intercepted between the Tyropœon and Kidron valleys. This is the hill under which is the only natural source of water in the whole area of Jerusalem the ‘ Virgin’s Fountain ,’ an intermittent spring of brackish water in the Kidron Valley and upon which is the principal accumulation of ancient débris , with ancient pottery fragments strewn over the surface. This hill was open for excavation till three or four years ago, though cumbered with vegetable gardens which would make digging expensive; but lately houses have commenced to be built on its surface. At the upper part of the hill, on this theory, we cannot doubt that the high place of the subjects of ‘Abd-khiba would be situated; and the tradition of the sanctity of this section of the city has lasted unchanged through all the varying occupations of the city Hebrew, Jewish, Byzantine, Arab, Crusader, and modern Mohammedan. Whether his be the ‘land of Moriah ’ of Genesis 22:2 is doubtful: it has been suggested that the name is here a copyist’s error for ‘land of Midian,’ which would be a more natural place for Jahweh worship in the days of Abraham than would the high place of the guardian numen of Jerusalem. In certain Biblical passages (Joshua 18:28 ^[1] ], Judges 19:10 , 1 Chronicles 11:4 ) an alternative name, Jebus , is given for the city; and its inhabitants are named Jebusites , mentioned in many enumerations with the rest of the Amorites ( Genesis 10:16 , Exodus 23:23 , Joshua 3:10 etc.), and specially assigned to this city in Judges 1:21 . Until the discovery of the Tell el-Amarna correspondence it was supposed that Jebus was the primitive name of the city, changed on the Israelite conquest to Jerusalem; but this has been rendered untenable, and it now seems probable that the name of Jebus is a mere derivative, of no authority, from the ethnic Jebusites , the meaning and etymology of which are still to seek. Cf. art. Jebus. At the Israelite immigration the king of Jerusalem was Adoni-zedek, who headed a coalition against Gibeon for having made terms with Joshua. This king is generally equated with the otherwise unknown Adoni-bezek, whose capture and mutilation are narrated in Judges 1:5-7 (see Moore’s Judges, ad loc .). The statement that Judah burnt Jerusalem ( Judges 1:8 ) is generally rejected as an interpolation; it remained a Jebusite city ( Judges 1:21 ; Judges 19:11 ) until its conquest by David. According to the cadastre of Joshua, it was theoretically just within the south border of the tribe of Benjamin ( Joshua 15:8 ; Joshua 18:16 ; Joshua 18:28 ). 2. David and Solomon . The city remained foreign to the Israelites ( Judges 19:11 ) until the end of the period of 7 1 /2 years which David reigned in Hebron, when he felt himself powerful enough to attack the Jebusite stronghold. The passage describing his capture of the city is 2 Samuel 5:4-10 , and few passages in the historical books of the Old Testament are more obscure, owing partly to textual corruption and partly to topographical allusions clear to the writer, but veiled in darkness for us. It appears that the Jebusites, trusting in the strength of their gates, threw taunts to the Israelite king that ‘the blind and the lame would be enough to keep him out’; and that David retorted by applying the term to the defenders of the city: ‘Go up the drain,’ he said to his followers, ‘and smite those blind and lame ones.’ He evidently recognized the impregnability of the defences themselves; but discovered and utilized a convenient drain, which led underground into the middle of the city. A similar drain was found in the excavation at Gezer, with a device in the middle to prevent its being used for this purpose. During the revolt of the fellahîn against Ibrahim Pasha in 1834, Jerusalem, once more besieged, was entered through a drain in the same way. It need hardly be said that David’s, ‘ gutter ’ has not yet been identified with certainty. If the identification of the Jebusite city with Ophel be admitted, we cannot fail to identify it also with the ‘ city of David ,’ in which he dwelt ( 2 Samuel 5:9 ). But when we read further that David ‘built round about from Millo and inward’ we are perplexed by our total ignorance as to what Millo may have been, and where it may have been situated. The word is by the LXX ^[2] rendered Acra, and the same word is used by Josephus. The position of the Acra is a question as much disputed as the position of the Jebusite city, and it is one for which far less light can be obtained from an examination of the ground than in the case of the other problem mentioned. As soon as David had established himself in his new surroundings, his first care was to bring the ark of Jahweh into the city ( 2 Samuel 6:1-23 ), but his desire to erect a permanent building for its reception was frustrated by Nathan the prophet ( 2 Samuel 7:1-29 ). The site of the Temple was chosen, namely, the threshing-floor of Araunah ( 2 Samuel 24:16 ) or Ornan ( 1 Chronicles 21:15 ), one of the original Jebusite inhabitants, and preparations were made for its erection. As soon as Solomon had come to the throne and quelled the abortive attempts of rivals, he commenced the work of building the Temple in the second month of the fourth year of his reign, and finished it in the eighth month of his eleventh year (1 Kings 6:1-38 ). His royal palace occupied thirteen years ( 1 Kings 7:1 ). These erections were not in the ‘city of David’ ( 1 Kings 9:24 ), which occupied the lower slopes of Ophel to the south, but on the summit of the same hill, where their place is now taken by the Mohammedan ‘Noble Sanctuary.’ Besides these works, whereby Jerusalem received a glory it had never possessed before, Solomon built Millo, whatever that may have been ( 1 Kings 9:24 ), and the wall of Jerusalem ( 1 Kings 9:15 ), and ‘closed up the breach of the city of David’ ( 1 Kings 11:27 ), the latter probably referring to an extension of the area of the city which involved the pulling down and rebuilding elsewhere of a section of the city walls. 3. The Kings of Judah . In the fifth year of Rehoboam, Jerusalem sustained the first siege it had suffered after David’s conquest, being beleaguered by Shishak, king of Egypt ( 1 Kings 14:25 ), who took away the treasures of the Temple and of the royal house. Rehoboam provided copper substitutes for the gold thus lost. The royal house was again pillaged by a coalition of Philistines and Arabs ( 2 Chronicles 21:16 ) in the time of Jehoram. Shortly afterwards took place the stirring events of the usurpation of Athaliah and her subsequent execution ( 2 Kings 11:1-21 ). Her successor Joash or Jehoash distinguished himself by his repair of the Temple ( 2 Kings 12:1-21 ); but he was obliged to buy off Hazael, king of Syria, and persuaded him to abandon his projected attack on the capital by a gift of the gold of the Temple ( 2 Kings 12:18 ). Soon afterwards, however, Jehoash of Israel came down upon Jerusalem, breached the wall, and looted the royal and sacred treasuries ( 2 Kings 14:14 ). This event taught the lesson of the weakness of the city, by which the powerful king Uzziah profited. In 2 Chronicles 26:9 ; 2 Chronicles 26:15 is the record of his fortifying the city with additional towers and ballistas; the work of strengthening the fortifications was continued by Jotham ( 2 Kings 15:35 , 2 Chronicles 27:3 ). Thanks probably to these precautions, an attack on Jerusalem by the kings of Syria and of Israel, in the next reign (Ahaz’s), proved abortive ( 2 Kings 16:5 ). Hezekiah still further prepared Jerusalem for the struggle which he foresaw from the advancing power of Assyria, and to him, as is generally believed, is due the engineering work now famous as the Siloam Tunnel , whereby water was conducted from the spring in the Kidron Valley outside the walls to the reservoir at the bottom of the Tyropœon inside them. By another gift from the apparently inexhaustible royal and sacred treasures, Hezekiah endeavoured to keep Sennacherib from an attack on the capital ( 2 Kings 18:13 ); but the attack, threatened by insulting words from the emissaries of Sennacherib, was finally averted by a mysterious calamity that befell the Assyrian army ( 2 Kings 19:35 ). By alliances with Egypt ( Isaiah 36:6 ) and Babylon (ch. 39) Hezekiah attempted to strengthen his position. Manasseh built an outer wall to the ‘city of David,’ and made other fortifications ( 2 Chronicles 33:14 ). In the reign of Josiah the Book of the Law was discovered, and the king devoted himself to the repairs of the Temple and the moral reformation which that discovery involved ( 2 Kings 22:1-20 ). The death of Josiah at Megiddo was disastrous for the kingdom of Judah, and he was succeeded by a series of petty kinglings, all of them puppets in the hands of the Egyptian or Babylonian monarchs. The fall of Jerusalem could not be long delayed. Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon captured and looted it, and carried away captive first Jehoiachin ( 2 Kings 24:12 ), and finally Zedekiah, the last king of Judah (ch. 25). The aspect and area of the Jerusalem captured by Nebuchadnezzar must have been very different from that conquered about 420 years before by David. There is no direct evidence that David found houses at all on the hill now known as Zion; but the city must rapidly have grown under him and his wealthy successor; and in the time of the later Hebrew kings included no doubt the so-called Zion hill as well. That it also included the modern Acra is problematical, as we have no information as to the position of the north wall in preexilic times; and it is certain that the quite modern quarter commonly called Bezetha was not occupied. To the south a much larger area was built on than is included in modern Jerusalem: the ancient wall has been traced to the verge of the Wady er-Rabâbi . The destruction by Nebuchadnezzar and the deportation of the people were complete: the city was left in ruins, and only the poorest of the people were left to carry on the work of agriculture. 4. The Return . When the last Semitic king of Babylon, Nabonidus, yielded to Cyrus, the representatives of the ancient kingdom of Judah were, through the favour of Cyrus, permitted to re-establish themselves in their old home and to rebuild the Temple. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah are the record of the works then undertaken, the former being specially concerned with the restoration of the Temple and the religious observances, the latter with the reconstruction of the fortifications of the city. The Book of Nehemiah contains the fullest account that we have of the fortifications of Jerusalem , and it has been the most carefully studied of any source of information on the subject. A paper by Prof. H. G. Mitchell on the ‘Wall of Jerusalem according to Nehemiah’ (in the JBL ^[3] for 1903, p. 85) is a model of exhaustive treatment. Careful comparison is made therein between the statements of Nehemiah and the results of excavation. We cannot here go into all the arguments brought forward for the identifications, but they seem conclusive. Starting at the head of the Wady er-Rabâbi (Valley of Hinnom so-called), we find at the S. W. corner of the wall a rock-scarp which seems to have been prepared for a strong tower, identified with the tower of the furnaces ( Nehemiah 3:11 ). Then comes the Valley-gate , which has been found half-way down the valley ( Nehemiah 3:13 ). At the bottom of the valley, where it joined the Kidron, was the Dung-gate ( Nehemiah 3:15 ), outside of which was found what appears to have been a cess-pit. Turning northward, we find the Fountain-gate ( Nehemiah 3:13 ) in close proximity to the ‘made pool,’ i.e. the pool of Siloam at the foot of the Tyropœon Valley; and the Water-gate on Ophel, over the ‘Virgin’s Fountain.’ The gates on the north-east and north sides of the wall cannot be identified, as the course of that part has not been definitely determined. They seem to have been, in order, the Horse-gate the East-gate , the gate Hammiphkad (‘the appointed’?), after which came the corner of the wall. Then on the north side followed the Sheep-gate , the Fish-gate , and, somewhere on the north or north-west side, the Old-gate . Probably the Ephraim- and Corner-gates ( 2 Kings 14:13 ) were somewhere in this neighbourhood. Besides these gates, the Temple was provided with entrances, some of whose names are preserved; but their identification is an even more complex problem than that of the city-gates. Such were the gate Sur and the Gate of the guard ( 2 Kings 11:6 ), the Shallecheth-gate at the west ( 1 Chronicles 26:16 ), Parbar (26:18), and the East-gate ( Ezekiel 11:1 ). The Beautiful-gate , of Acts 3:10 was probably the same as the Nicanor-gate, between the Women’s and the Priests’ Court: it is alluded to in the epitaph of the donor, Nicanor, recently-discovered at Jerusalem. 5. From Alexander the Great to the Maccabees . By the battle of Issus (b.c. 333) Alexander the Great became master of Palestine; and the Persian suzerainty, under which the Jews had enjoyed protection and freedom to follow their own rites, came to an end. Alexander’s death was the signal for the long and complicated struggle between the Seleucids and the Ptolemys, between whom Jerusalem passed more than once. One result of the foreign influences thus brought to bear on the city was the establishment of institutions hitherto unknown, such as a gymnasium. This leaven of Greek customs, and, we cannot doubt, of Greek religion also, was disquieting to those concerned for the maintenance of Deuteronomic purity, and the unrest was fanned into revolt in 168, when Antiochus Epiphanes set himself to destroy the Jewish religion. The desecration of the Temple, and the attempt to force the Jews to sacrifice to pagan deities ( 1M Malachi 1:2 ), led to the rebellion headed by the Maccabæan family, wherein, after many vicissitudes, the short-lived Hasmonæan dynasty was established at Jerusalem. Internal dissensions wrecked the family. To settle a squabble as to the successor of Alexander Jannæus, the Roman power was called in. Pompey besieged Jerusalem, and profaned the Temple, which was later pillaged by Crassus; and in b.c. 47 the Hasmonæans were superseded by the Idumæan dynasty of the Herods, their founder Antipater being established as ruler of Palestine in recognition of his services to Julius Cæsar. 6. Herod the Great . Herod the Great and his brother Phasael succeeded their father in b.c. 43, and in 40 Herod became governor of Judæa. After a brief exile, owing to the usurpation of the Hasmonæan Antigonus, he returned, and commenced to rebuild Jerusalem on a scale of grandeur such as had never been known since Solomon. Among his works, which we can only catalogue here, were the royal palace; the three towers Hippicus, Phasaelus (named after his brother), and Antonia; a theatre; and, above all, the Temple. Of these structures nothing remains, so far as is known, of the palace or the theatre, or the Hippicus tower: the base of Phasaelus, commonly called David’s tower, is incorporated with the citadel; large fragments of the tower Antonia remain incorporated in the barracks and other buildings of the so-called Via Dolorosa, the street which leads through the city from the St. Stephen’s gate, north of the Temple enclosure: while of the Temple itself much remains in the substructures, and probably much more would be found were excavation possible. See Temple. 7. From the time of Christ to the destruction of Jerusalem . The events in the life of Christ, in so far as they affect Jerusalem, are the only details of interest known to us for the years succeeding the death of Herod in b.c. 4. These we need not dwell upon here, but a word may fitly be spoken regarding the central problem of Jerusalem topography, the site of the Holy Sepulchre . The authenticity of the traditional site falls at once, if it lie inside the north wall of Jerusalem as it was in Christ’s time, for Christ suffered and was buried without the walls. But this is precisely what cannot be determined, as the line of the wall, wherever it may have been, is densely covered with houses; and it is very doubtful whether such fragments of wall as have from time to time been found in digging foundations have anything to do with each other, or with the city rampart. A priori it does not seem probable that the traditional site of the Holy Sepulchre should have been without the walls, for it assumes that these made a deep re-entrant angle for which the nature of the ground offers no justification, and which would be singularly foolish strategically. The identification of the site cannot with certainty be traced back earlier than Helena; and, though she visited Jerusalem as early as 326, yet it must not be forgotten that in endeavouring then to find the tomb of Christ, without documents to guide her, she was in as hopeless a position as a man who under similiar circumstances should at the present year endeavour to find the tomb of Shakespeare, if that happened to be unknown. Indeed, Helena was even worse off than the hypothetical investigator, for the population, and presumably the tradition, have been continuous in Stratford-on-Avon, which certainly was not the case with Jerusalem from a.d. 30 to 326. A fortiori these remarks apply to the rival sites that in more recent years have been suggested. The so-called ‘Gordon’s Calvary’ and similar fantastic identifications we can dismiss at once with the remark that the arguments in their favour are fatuous; that powerful arguments can be adduced against them; that they cannot even claim the minor distinction of having been hallowed by the devotion of sixteen centuries; and that, in short, they are entirely unworthy of the smallest consideration. The only documents nearly contemporary with the crucifixion and entombment are the Gospels, which supply no data sufficient for the identification of the scenes of these events. Except in the highly improbable event of an inscription being at some time found which shall identify them, we may rest in the certainty that the exact sites never have been, and never will be, identified. In a.d. 35, Pontius Pilate was recalled; Agrippa (41 44 a.d.) built an outer wall, the line of which is not known with certainty, on the north side of the city, and under his rule Jerusalem grew and prospered. His son Agrippa built a palace, and in a.d. 64 finished the Temple courts. In 66 the Jews endeavoured to revolt against the Roman yoke, and brought on themselves the final destruction which was involved in the great siege and fall of Jerusalem in a.d. 70. 8. From the destruction of Jerusalem to the Arab conquest . The events following must be more briefly enumerated. In 134 the rebellion of the Jews under Bar Cochba was crushed by Hadrian, and the last traces of Judaism extinguished from the city, which was rebuilt as a pagan Roman town under the name of Ælia Capitolina. By 333 the Jews had acquired the right of visiting annually and lamenting over the pierced stone on which their altar had been erected. Under Constantine, Christianity was established, and the great flood of pilgrimage began. Julian in 362 attempted to rebuild the Temple; some natural phenomenon ingeniously explained as the explosion of a forgotten store of naphtha, such as was found some years ago in another part of the city prevented him. In 450 the Empress Eudocia retired to Jerusalem and repaired the walls; she built a church over the Pool of Siloam, which was discovered by excavation some years ago. In 532 Justinian erected important buildings, fragments of which remain incorporated with the mosque; but these and other Christian buildings were ruined in 614 by the destroying king Chosroës ii. A short breathing space was allowed the Christians after this storm, and then the young strength of Islam swept over them. In 637 Omar conquered Jerusalem after a four months’ siege. 9. From the Arab conquest to the present day . Under the comparatively easy rule of the Omeyyad Califs, Christians did not suffer severely; though excluded from the Temple area (where ‘Abd el-Melek built his beautiful dome in 688), they were free to use the Basilica of the Holy Sepulchre. This, however, could not last under the fanatical Fatimites, or the Seljuks who succeeded them; and the sufferings of the Christians led to that extraordinary series of piratical invasions, commonly called the Crusades, by which Palestine was harried for about a hundred years, and the undying tradition of which will retard indefinitely the final triumph of Christianity over the Arab race. The country was happily rid of the degraded and degrading Latin kingdom in 1187, when Jerusalem fell to Saladin. For a brief interval, from 1229 to 1244, the German Christians held the city by treaty; but in 1244 the Kharezmian massacre swallowed up the last relics of Christian occupation. In 1517 it was conquered by Sultan Selim i., and since then it has been a Turkish city. The present walls were erected by Suleiman the Magnificent (1542). In recent years the population has enormously increased, owing to the establishment of Jewish refugee colonies and various communities of European settlers; there has also been an extraordinary development of monastic life within and around the city. R. A. S. Macalister.

Vision of peace

Galatians 4:26 (a) This is a type of the true faith of GOD. Also a type of the free life by the Son through His Truth. Hebrews 12:22 (a) The name given to our eternal home in glory and also to the present church. Revelation 21:2 (a) A description of the place in which we shall live and dwell in happy fellowship with GOD and His Son through eternity.

holiest city; capital of Israel; site of the Holy Temple

the edition of the Talmud compiled in the Land of Israel at the end of the fourth century

Tzaddik of Jerusalem, The: Rabbi Aryeh Levine, one of the foremost rabbinic leaders in Israel from the 1930�s to the 1960�s.

Alexander , bp. of Jerusalem, was an early friend and fellow scholar of Origen at Alexandria, where they studied together under Pantaenus and Clemens Alex. (Eus. H. E. vi. 14). He was bishop of a city in Cappadocia ( ib. vi. 11); or, according to Valesius ( Not. ad Euseb. ) and Tillemont (Mém. eccl. iii. p. 183), of Flaviopolis in Cilicia. He became a confessor in the persecution of Severus, A.D. 204, and was thrown into prison, where he continued some years. He was still a prisoner at the commencement of Caracalla's reign, A.D. 211, when he sent a letter by the hand of Clemens to congratulate the church of Antioch on the appointment of Asclepiades as their bishop in the room of Serapion (Eus. vi. 11). The next year he was released from prison, and, in fulfilment of a vow, visited Jerusalem, where he was chosen coadjutor to the aged bp. Narcissus. This being the first occasion of the translation of a bishop, as well as of the appointment of a coadjutor bishop, and in apparent violation of the canons of the church, it was deemed essential to obtain the sanction of the whole episcopate of Palestine. A synod was summoned at Jerusalem, and the assembled bishops gave their unanimous consent to the step, A.D. 213 (Hieron. de Script. Eccl. ; Vales. Not. in Euseb. vi. 11; Socr. vii. 36; Bingham, Origines , bk. ii. § 4). On the death of Narcissus, Alexander succeeded as sole bishop. His chief claim to celebrity rests on the library he formed at Jerusalem, and on the boldness with which he supported Origen against his bishop, Demetrius of Alexandria. ^[1] The friendship of Alexander and Origen was warm and lasting; and the latter bears testimony to the remarkable gentleness and sweetness of character manifested in all Alexander's public instructions (Orig. Homil. I. in Lib. Reg. No. 1). Alexander was again thrown into prison at Caesarea in the Decian persecution, where he died A.D. 251 (Eus. H. E. vi. 46; Hieron. Script. Eccl. ). Eusebius has preserved some fragments of Alexander's letters: to the Antinoites, H. E. vi. 11, to the church of Antioch, ib. ; to Origen, H. E. vi. 14, and to Demetrius, H. E. vi. 19. These have been published by Galland, Biblioth. Vet. Patrum , vol. ii. pp. 201 seq. Clemens Alex. dedicated his Canon Ecclesiasticus to him (Eus. vi. 13). ^[2]

(251) Martyr, bishop in Cappadocia. He was later coadjutor Bishop of Jerusalem; ordained Origen to the priesthood; and built a library at Jerusalem. After cruel torments he died in chains. Feast, March 18,.

The holy city: and so generally known was Jerusalem by this name, that the eastern part of the world never called it by any other name than the Elkuds, the holy. Not that this would have made it so, but it proves the general consent of nations to the title: no doubt, the thing was from the Lord. That the Lord Jesus distinguished it in a very peculiar manner with his love, his lamentation over it proves. (Matthew 23:37) And Matthew twice calls it by this name. (Matthew 4:5; Mat 27:53.) Jerusalem was anciently Jehus. Some called it Solyma, or Jerosolyma; but the general name by the Hebrews was Jeruschalem, meaning, the vision of peace; from Rahe, to see; and Shalom, peace. Joshua first conquered it, (see Joshua 18:28) but the Jebusites were not totally drawn out of it until the days of David, (See 2 Samuel 5:5) The history of Jerusalem is truly interesting; but it would form more the subject of a volume than a short notice in a work of this kind, to enter into particulars. If we were to go back to the first account of it in Scripture, we must being with Genesis 14where we find Melchisedeck king of it, and then called Salem. The church, perhaps on this account, speaks of it as the Lord's tabernacle, (Psalms 76:2) and when we consider, that all the great events of the church were carried on here, no doubt, it riseth in importance to every believer's view. Here it was the Lord Jesus made his public appearance, when he came into our world for the salvation of his people; here he finished redemption-work; here he made that one offering of himself once offered, by which he perfected for ever them that are sanctified; and here all the great events of salvation were wrought. No wonder, therefore, that Jerusalem hath been called the holy city, and is rendered so dear to all his redeemed. Hence Jerusalem, now in the present moment, means the church on earth, and is prayed for under that name. (Isaiah 62:1; Psalms 137:5-6) And hence the church in heaven is called the New Jerusalem. (Revelation 3:12; Rev 21:2.) Jerusalem is said to be the centre of the earth; and the prophet Ezekiel, (Ezekiel 38:11-12) describing the insolent threats of Gog concerning his proposed destruction of Jerusalem, calls the people of it, those who dwell in the midst of the land, or as the margin of the Bible renders it, in the navel of the earth. The tears of Jesus over Jerusalem having been misconstrued, and as such made use of to support an opinion foreign to the general scope of the gospel, I cannot dismiss the article without offering a short observation upon it. We are told by the Evangelists, that "when Jesus was come near to Jerusalem, he beheld the city, and wept over it, saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace: but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another, because thou knowest not the time of thy visitation." Whoever attends with any degree of diligence to those several expressions of our Lord, will plainly discover that all that is here spoken refers to the destruction of Jerusalem as a city and nation, and wholly in temporal things. It hath nothing to do with grace, as some have improperly concluded, as if Jerusalem had outlived her day of grace, and, therefore, could find no mercy from the Lord; and all sinners, in like manner, might outlive their day also. There is not a word of the kind in it. Jesus, in that tenderness of heart which distinguished his character, wept over the beautiful and beloved city, in contemplating the overthrow of it by the Roman power, that he knew would sack and destroy it. And knowing that their rejection of him as the Lord of life and glory was the cause; he expresseth himself in tears with this compassionate apostrophe. But what have those expressions to do with the doctrine that some men raise out of it, as if Jesus had limited a day of grace to individuals, and that men might outlive that day, and then the saving means of grace would be hidden from their eyes! Surely, there is not a syllable in the whole passage to justify or give countenance to such a doctrine. The Lord is speaking wholly of Jerusalem in temporal things. Hadst thou known (said Jesus), in this thy day the things which belong to thy peace. It is Jerusalem's day, not the Lord's day of grace. It is thy peace, not God's peace. The promise to all the Lord's people is absolute—"Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power." (Psalms 110:3) And this secures the day of grace to all whom the Father hath given to the Son; for Jesus saith, "of all thou hast given me I have lost none." (John 17:12) So that this holds good respecting the gift of grace to all generations of the church; but in temporals, like Jerusalem, the Lord's judgments may, and the Lord's judgments will follow and overthrow nations, where the gospel is preached and rejected. And while the Lord knoweth them that are his, and will save them by his grace, the nations who reject Christ, nationally considered, must perish.

Elias (1) I. , bp. of Jerusalem, A.D. 494-513; an Arab by birth who was educated with Martyrius, in one of the Nitrian monasteries. Driven from Egypt by Timothy Aelurus, the two friends took refuge, a.d. 457, in the laura of St. Euthymius, who received them with great favour, and predicted that they would both be bishops of Jerusalem. After a time they quitted the laura, and Elias constructed a cell at Jericho. In 478 Martyrius succeeded Anastasius as bp. of Jerusalem, and was followed by Sallustius in 486, and in 494 by Elias. Moschus records that Elias practised total abstinence from wine both as monk and bishop (Prat. Spiritual. c. 25). His residence became the nucleus of a collection of cells of ascetics, which developed into a monastery adjacent to the church of the Anastasis (Cyril. Scythop. Vit. S. Sabae , c. 31). When Elias succeeded to the patriarchate, the Christian world exhibited a melancholy spectacle of discord. There were at least four great parties anathematizing one another. When the Monophysites (Acephali) in Syria, under the leadership of Xenaias of Hierapolis, broke into open insurrection, treating as heretics all who acknowledged the two natures, Elias was one of the chief objects of their attack. In 509 they demanded a confession of his faith, and Anastasius required him to convene a council to repudiate the decrees of Chalcedon. Elias declined, but drew up a letter to the emperor, containing a statement of his belief, accompanied by anathemas of Nestorius, Eutyches, Diodorus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia. This was entrusted to members of the Acephali to convey to Constantinople. When opened, it was found to contain an anathema against the two natures. Elias reproached the bearers with having falsified the document and thus laid him open to the charge, which he found it very hard to refute, of having condemned the council of Chalcedon (Evagr. H. E. iii. 31; Theod. Lect. p. 561; Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 129, 130). Macedonius having been deposed a.d. 511, and Timotheus, an unscrupulous Monophysite monk, appointed to the see of Constantinople, Elias, whose principle appears to have been to accept the inevitable and to go the utmost possible length in obedience to the ruling powers, seized on the fact that he had abstained at first from anathematizing the council of Chalcedon, as a warrant for joining communion with him and receiving his synodical letter. Elias could not contend against his many unscrupulous enemies, and in 513 was driven from his see, dying in 518 in banishment Aila on the Red Sea shore, aet. 88. Tillem. Mém. Eccl. xvi.; Cyril. Scythop. Vita S. Euthymii ; and other authorities cited above. ^[1]

Eustochius (6) , patriarch of Jerusalem, in succession to Peter, and, according to Papebroch, from a.d. 544 to 556. On the death of Peter, Eustochius, oeconomus of the church of Alexandria but residing at Constantinople, was favoured by the emperor Justinian in preference to Macarius, an Origenist, who had been first elected. At the synod of Constantinople, 553 Eustochius was represented by three legates, Stephanus bp. of Raphia, Georgius bp. of Tiberias, Damasus bp. of Sozusa or Sozytana (Mansi, ix. 173 c.); and when the acts m condemnation of Origenism were sent by the emperor to Jerusalem, all the bishops of Palestine except Alexander of Abila confirmed them. But in the monasteries of that province, and especially in that named the New Laura, the partisans of the proscribed opinions grew daily more powerful, notwithstanding the resolute efforts of the patriarch against them. In 555, after eight months of persistent admonition, Eustochius went in person, with the dux Anastasius, to the New Laura, and forcibly expelled the whole body, replacing them by 60 monks from the principal laura and 60 from other orthodox monasteries of the desert, under the prior Joannes. Origenism was thus rooted out of Palestine. According to Victor Tununensis, Eustochius was removed from the patriarchate, and Macarius restored. Cyrillus Scythopol. in Coteler. Monum. Eccles. Graec. iii. 373; Evagr. H. E. iv. 37, 38; Victor Tunun. in Patr. Lat. lxviii. 962 A; Theoph. Chronog. A.M. 6060; Papebroch, Patriarch. Hierosol. in Boll. Acta SS. Intro. to vol. iii. of May, p. xxvii.; Le Quien, Or. Chr. iii. 210. Pagi (ann. 561 iii.) discusses the chronology. See also Clinton, F. R. 537, 557. ^[1]

(n.) The chief city of Palestine, intimately associated with the glory of the Jewish nation, and the life and death of Jesus Christ.

formerly called Jebus, or Salem, Joshua 18:28 ; Hebrews 7:2 , the capital of Judea, situated partly in the tribe of Benjamin, and partly in that of Judah. It was not completely reduced by the Israelites till the reign of David, 2 Samuel 5:6-9 . As Jerusalem was the centre of the true worship, Lamentations 2:1-97 , and the place where God did in a peculiar manner dwell, first in the tabernacle, 2 Samuel 6:7 ; 2 Samuel 6:12 ; 1 Chronicles 15:1 ; 1 Chronicles 16:1 ; Psalms 132:13 ; Psalms 135:2 , and afterward in the temple, 1 Kings 6:13 ; so it is used figuratively to denote the church, or the celestial society, to which all that believe, both Jews and Gentiles, are come, and in which they are initiated, Galatians 4:26 ; Hebrews 12:22 ; Revelation 3:12 ; Revelation 21:2 ; Revelation 21:10 . Jerusalem was situated in a stony and barren soil, and was about sixty furlongs in length, according to Strabo. The territory and places adjacent were well watered, having the fountains of Gihon and Siloam, and the brook Kidron, at the foot of its walls; and, beside these, there were the waters of Ethan, which Pilate had conveyed through aqueducts into the city. The ancient city of Jerusalem, or Jebus, which David took from the Jebusites, was not very large. It was seated upon a mountain southward of the temple. The opposite mountain, situated to the north, is Sion, where David built a new city, which he called the city of David, whereto was the royal palace, and the temple of the Lord. The temple was built upon Mount Moriah, which was one of the little hills belonging to Mount Sion. Through the reigns of David and Solomon, Jerusalem was the metropolis of the whole Jewish kingdom, and continued to increase in wealth and splendour. It was resorted to at the festivals by the whole population of the country; and the power and commercial spirit of Solomon, improving the advantages acquired by his father David, centred in it most of the eastern trade, both by sea, through the ports of Elath and Ezion-Geber, and over land, by the way of Tadmor or Palmyra. Or, at least, though Jerusalem might not have been made a depot of merchandise, the quantity of precious metals flowing into it by direct importation, and by duties imposed on goods passing to the ports of the Mediterranean, and in other directions, was unbounded. Some idea of the prodigious wealth of Jerusalem at this time may be formed by stating, that the quantity of gold left by David for the use of the temple amounted to £21,600,000 sterling, beside £3,150,000 in silver; and Solomon obtained £3,240,000 in gold by one voyage to Ophir, while silver was so abundant, "that it was not any thing accounted of." These were the days of Jerusalem's glory. Universal peace, unmeasured wealth, the wisdom and clemency of the prince, and the worship of the true God, marked Jerusalem, above every city, as enjoying the presence and the especial favour of the Almighty. But these days were not to last long: intestine divisions and foreign wars, wicked and tyrannical princes, and, last of all, the crime most offensive to Heaven, and the one least to be expected among so favoured a people, led to a series of calamities, through the long period of nine hundred years, with which no other city or nation can furnish a parallel. After the death of Solomon, ten of the twelve tribes revolted from his successor Rehoboam, and, under Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, established a separate kingdom: so that Jerusalem, no longer the capital of the whole empire, and its temple frequented only by the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, must have experienced a mournful declension. Four years after this, the city and temple were taken and plundered by Shishak, king of Egypt, 1 Kings 14:26-27 ; 2 Chronicles 12:2-9 . One hundred and forty-five years after, under Amaziah, they sustained the same fate from Joash, king of Israel, 2 Kings 14; 2 Chronicles 25. One hundred and sixty years from this period, the city was again taken, by Esar-haddon, king of Assyria; and Manasseh, the king, carried a prisoner to Babylon, 2 Chronicles 33. Within the space of sixty-six years more it was taken by Pharaoh-Necho, king of Egypt, whom Josiah, king of Judah, had opposed in his expedition to Carchemish; and who, in consequence, was killed at the battle of Megiddo, and his son Eliakim placed on the throne in his stead by Necho, who changed his name to Jehoiakim, and imposed a heavy tribute upon him, having sent his elder brother, Jehoahaz, who had been proclaimed king at Jerusalem, a prisoner to Egypt, where he died, 2 Kings 23; 2 Chronicles 35. Jerusalem was three times besieged and taken by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon within a very few years. The first, in the reign of the last mentioned king, Jehoiakim, who was sent a prisoner to Babylon, and the vessels of the temple transported to the same city, 2 Chronicles 36. The second, in that of his son Jehoiachin; when all the treasures of the palace and the temple, and the remainder of the vessels of the latter which had been hidden or spared in the first capture, were carried away or destroyed, and the best of the inhabitants, with the king, led into captivity, 2 Kings 24; 2 Chronicles 36. And the third, in the reign of Zedekiah, the successor of Jehoiachin; in whose ninth year the most formidable siege which this ill fated city ever sustained, except that of Titus, was commenced. It continued two years; during a great part of which the inhabitants suffered all the horrors of famine: when, on the ninth day of the fourth month, in the eleventh year of Zedekiah, which answers to July in the year B.C. 588, the garrison, with the king, endeavoured to make their escape from the city, but were pursued and defeated by the Chaldeans in the plains of Jericho; Zedekiah taken prisoner; his sons killed before his face at Riblah, whither he was taken to the king of Babylon; and he himself, after his eyes were put out, was bound with fetters of brass, and carried prisoner to Babylon, where he died: thus fulfilling the prophecy of Ezekiel, which declared that he should be carried to Babylon, but should not see the place, though he should die there, Ezekiel 12:13 . In the following month, the Chaldean army, under their general, Nebuzaradan, entered the city, took away every thing that was valuable, and then burned and utterly destroyed it, with its temple and walls, and left the whole razed to the ground. The entire population of the city and country, with the exception of a few husbandmen, were then carried captive to Babylon. During seventy years, the city and temple lay in ruins: when those Jews who chose to take immediate advantage of the proclamation of Cyrus, under the conduct of Zerubbabel, returned to Jerusalem, and began to build the temple; all the vessels of gold and silver belonging to which, that had been taken away by Nebuchadnezzar, being restored by Cyrus. Their work, however, did not proceed far without opposition; for in the reign of Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, who in Scripture is called Ahasuerus, the Samaritans presented a petition to that monarch to put a stop to the building, Ezra 4:6 . Cambyses appears to have been too busily engaged in his Egyptian expedition to pay any attention to this malicious request. His successor, Smerdis, the Magian, however, who in Scripture is called Artaxerxes, to whom a similar petition was sent, representing the Jews as a factious and dangerous people, listened to it, and, in the true spirit of a usurper, issued a decree putting a stop to the farther building of the temple, Ezra 4:7 , &c; which, in consequence, remained in an unfinished state till the second year, according to the Jewish, and third, according to the Babylonian and Persian account, of Darius Hystaspes, who is called simply Darius in Scripture. To him also a representation hostile to the Jews was made by their inveterate enemies, the Samaritans; but this noble prince refused to listen to it, and having searched the rolls of the kingdom, and found in the palace at Acmetha the decree of Cyrus, issued a similar one, which reached Jerusalem in the subsequent year, and even ordered these very Samaritans to assist the Jews in their work; so that it was completed in the sixth year of the same reign, Ezra 4:24 ; Ezra 5; Ezra 6:1-15 . But the city and walls remained in a ruinous condition until the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, the Artaxerxes Longimanus of profane history; by whom Nehemiah was sent to Jerusalem, with a power granted to him to rebuild them. Accordingly, under the direction of this zealous servant of God, the walls were speedily raised, but not without the accustomed opposition on the part of the Samaritans; who, despairing of the success of an application to the court of Persia, openly attacked the Jews with arms. But the building, notwithstanding, went steadily on; the men working with an implement of work in one hand, and a weapon of war in the other; and the wall, with incredible labour, was finished in fifty-two days, in the year B.C. 445; after which, the city itself was gradually rebuilt, Nehemiah 2, 4, 6. From this time Jerusalem remained attached to the Persian empire, but under the local jurisdiction of the high priests, until the subversion of that empire by Alexander, fourteen years after. See ALEXANDER . At the death of Alexander, and the partition of his empire by his generals, Jerusalem, with Judea, fell to the kings of Syria. But in the frequent wars which followed between the kings of Syria and those of Egypt, called by Daniel, the kings of the north and south, it belonged sometimes to one and sometimes to the other,—an unsettled and unhappy state, highly favourable to disorder and corruption,—the high priesthood was openly sold to the highest bidder; and numbers of the Jews deserted their religion for the idolatries of the Greeks. At length, in the year B.C. 170, Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, enraged at hearing that the Jews had rejoiced at a false report of his death, plundered Jerusalem, and killed eighty thousand men. Not more than two years afterward, this cruel tyrant, who had seized every opportunity to exercise his barbarity on the Jews, sent Apollonius with an army to Jerusalem; who pulled down the walls, grievously oppressed the people, and built a citadel on a rock adjoining the temple, which commanded that building, and had the effect of completely overawing the seditious. Having thus reduced this unfortunate city into entire submission, and rendered resistance useless, the next step of Antiochus was to abolish the Jewish religion altogether, by publishing an edict which commanded all the people of his dominions to conform to the religion of the Greeks: in consequence of which, the service of the temple ceased, and a statue of Jupiter Olympus was set up on the altar. But this extremity of ignominy and oppression led, as might have been expected, to rebellion; and those Jews who still held their insulted religion in reverence, fled to the mountains, with Mattathias and Judas Maccabeus; the latter of whom, after the death of Mattathias, who with his followers and successors, are known by the name of Maccabees, waged successful war with the Syrians; defeated Apollonius, Nicanor, and Lysias, generals of Antiochus; obtained possession of Jerusalem, purified the temple, and restored the service, after three years' defilement by the Gentile idolatries. From this time, during several succeeding Maccabean rulers, who were at once high priests and sovereigns of the Jews, but without the title of king, Jerusalem was able to preserve itself from Syrian violence. It was, however, twice besieged, first by Antiochus Eupator, in the year 163, and afterward by Antiochus Sidetes, in the year B.C. 134. But the Jews had caused themselves to be sufficiently respected to obtain conditions of peace on both occasions, and to save their city; till, at length, Hyrcanus, in the year 130 B.C., shook off the Syrian yoke, and reigned, after this event, twenty-one years in independence and prosperity. His successor, Judas, made an important change in the Jewish government, by taking the title of king which dignity was enjoyed by his successors forty-seven years, when a dispute having arisen between Hyrcanus II, and his brother Aristobulus, and the latter having overcome the former, and made himself king, was, in his turn, conquered by the Romans under Pompey, by whom the city and temple were taken, Aristobulus made prisoner, and Hyrcanus created high priest and prince of the Jews, but without the title of king. By this event Judea was reduced to the condition of a Roman province, in the year 63 B.C. Nor did Jerusalem long after enjoy the dignity of a metropolis, that honour being transferred to Caesarea. Julius Caesar, having defeated Pompey, continued Hyrcanus in the high priesthood, but bestowed the government of Judea upon Antipater, an Idumaean by birth, but a Jewish proselyte, and father of Herod the Great. For the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, See JEWS . Jerusalem lay in ruins about forty-seven years, when the Emperor AElius Adrian began to build it anew, and erected a Heathen temple, which he dedicated to Jupiter Capitolinus. The city was finished in the twentieth year of his reign, and called, after its founder, AElia, or AElia Capitolina, from the Heathen deity who presided over it. In this state Jerusalem continued, under the name of AElia, and inhabited more by Christians and Pagans than by Jews, till the time of the Emperor Constantine, styled the Great; who, about the year 323, having made Christianity the religion of the empire, began to improve it, adorned it with many new edifices and churches, and restored its ancient name. About thirty-five years afterward, Julian, named the Apostate, not from any love he bore the Jews, but out of hatred to the Christians, whose faith he had abjured, and with the avowed design of defeating the prophecies, which had declared that the temple should not be rebuilt, wrote to the Jews, inviting them to their city, and promising to restore their temple and nation. He accordingly employed great numbers of workmen to clear the foundations; but balls of fire bursting from the earth, soon put a stop to their proceeding. This miraculous interposition of Providence is attested by many credible witnesses and historians; and, in particular, by Ammianus Marcellinus, a Heathen, and friend of Julian; Zemuch David, a Jew; Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Ambrose Ruffinus, Theodoret, Sozomen, and Socrates, who wrote his account within fifty years after the transaction, and while many eye-witnesses of it were still living. So stubborn, indeed, is the proof of this miracle, that even Gibbon, who strives to invalidate it, is obliged to acknowledge the general fact. Jerusalem continued in nearly the same condition till the beginning of the seventh century, when it was taken and plundered by the celebrated Chosroes, king of Persia, by whom many thousands of the Christian inhabitants were killed, or sold for slaves. The Persians, however, did not hold it long, as they were soon after entirely defeated by the Emperor Heraclius, who rescued Jerusalem, and restored it, not to the unhappy Jews, who were forbidden to come within three miles of it, but to the Christians. A worse calamity was, however, speedily to befall this ill fated city. The Mohammedan imposture arose about this time; and the fanatics who had adopted its creed carried their arms and their religion with unprecedented rapidity over the greater part of the east. The Caliph Omar, the third from Mohammed, invested the city, which, after once more suffering the horrors of a protracted siege, surrendered on terms of capitulation in the year 637; and has ever since, with the exception of the short period that it was occupied by the crusaders, been trodden under foot by the followers of the false prophet. 2. The accounts of modern Jerusalem by travellers are very numerous. Mr. Gender, in his "Palestine," has abridged them with judgment; and we give the following extract: The approach to Jerusalem from Jaffa is not the direction in which to see the city to the best effect. Dr. E. D. Clarke entered it by the Damascus gate: and he describes the view of Jerusalem, when first descried from the summit of a hill, at about an hour's distance, as most impressive. He confesses, at the same time, that there is no other point of view in which it is seen to so much advantage. In the celebrated prospect from the Mount of Olives, the city lies too low, is too near the eye, and has too much the character of a bird's eye view, with the formality of a topographical plan. "We had not been prepared," says this lively traveller, "for the grandeur of the spectacle which the city alone exhibited. Instead of a wretched and ruined town, by some described as the desolated remnant of Jerusalem, we beheld, as it were, a flourishing and stately metropolis, presenting a magnificent assemblage of domes, towers, palaces, churches, and monasteries; all of which, glittering in the sun's rays, shone with inconceivable splendour. As we drew nearer, our whole attention was engrossed by its noble and interesting appearance. The lofty hills surrounding it give the city itself an appearance of elevation less than it really has." Dr. Clarke was fortunate in catching this first view of Jerusalem under the illusion of a brilliant evening sunshine; but his description is decidedly overcharged. M. Chateaubriand, Mr. Buckingham, Mr. Brown, Mr. Jolliffe, Sir F. Henniker, and almost every other modern traveller, confirm the representation of Dr. Richardson. Mr. Buckingham says, "The appearance of this celebrated city, independent of the feelings and recollections which the approach to it cannot fail to awaken, was greatly inferior to my expectations, and had certainly nothing of grandeur or beauty, of stateliness or magnificence, about it. It appeared like a walled town of the third or fourth class, having neither towers, nor domes, nor minarets within it, in sufficient numbers to give even a character to its impressions on the beholder; but showing chiefly large flat-roofed buildings of the most unornamented kind, seated amid rugged hills, on a stony and forbidding soil, with scarcely a picturesque object in the whole compass of the surrounding view." Chateaubriand's description is very striking and graphical. After citing the language of the Prophet Jeremiah, in his lamentations on the desolation of the ancient city, as accurately portraying its present state, Lamentations 1:1-6 ; 1618101887_18 ; Lamentations 2:15 , he thus proceeds: "When seen from the Mount of Olives, on the other side of the Valley of Jehoshaphat, Jerusalem presents an inclined plane, descending from west to east. An embattled wall, fortified with towers, and a Gothic castle, encompasses the city all round; excluding, however, part of Mount Zion, which it formerly enclosed. In the western quarter, and in the centre of the city, the houses stand very close; but, in the eastern part, along the brook Kedron, you perceive vacant spaces; among the rest, that which surrounds the mosque erected on the ruins of the temple, and the nearly deserted spot where once stood the castle of Antonia and the second palace of Herod. The houses of Jerusalem are heavy square masses, very low, without chimneys or windows: they have flat terraces or domes on the top, and look like prisons or sepulchres. The whole would appear to the eye one uninterrupted level, did not the steeples of the churches, the minarets of the mosques, the summits of a few cypresses, and the clumps of nopals, break the uniformity of the plan. On beholding these stone buildings, encompassed by a stony country, you are ready to inquire if they are not the confused monuments of a cemetery in the midst of a desert. Enter the city, but nothing will you there find to make amends for the dulness of its exterior. You lose yourself among narrow, unpaved streets, here going up hill, there down, from the inequality of the ground; and you walk among clouds of dust or loose stones. Canvas stretched from house to house increases the gloom of this labyrinth. Bazaars, roofed over, and fraught with infection, completely exclude the light from the desolate city. A few paltry shops expose nothing but wretchedness to view; and even these are frequently shut, from apprehension of the passage of a cadi. Not a creature is to be seen in the streets, not a creature at the gates extent now and then a peasant gliding through the gloom, concealing under his garments the fruits of his labour, lest he should be robbed of his hard earnings by the rapacious soldier. Aside, in a corner, the Arab butcher is slaughtering some animal, suspended by the legs from a wall in ruins: from his haggard and ferocious look, and his bloody hands, you would suppose that he had been cutting the throat of a fellow creature, rather than killing a lamb. The only noise heard from time to time in the city is the galloping of the steed of the desert: it is the janissary who brings the head of the Bedouin, or who returns from plundering the unhappy Fellah. Amid this extraordinary desolation, you must pause a moment to contemplate two circumstances still more extraordinary. Among the ruins of Jerusalem, two classes of independent people find in their religion sufficient fortitude to enable them to surmount such complicated horrors and wretchedness. Here reside communities of Christian monks, whom nothing can compel to forsake the tomb of Christ; neither plunder, nor personal ill treatment, nor menaces of death itself. Night and day they chant their hymns around the holy sepulchre. Driven by the cudgel and the sabre, women, children, flocks, and herds, seek refuge in the cloisters of these recluses. What prevents the armed oppressor from pursuing his prey, and overthrowing such feeble ramparts? The charity of the monks: they deprive themselves of the last resources of life to ransom their suppliants. Cast your eyes between the temple and Mount Zion; behold another petty tribe cut off from the rest of the inhabitants of this city. The particular objects of every species of degradation, these people bow their heads without murmuring; they endure every kind of insult without demanding justice; they sink beneath repeated blows without sighing; if their head be required, they present it to the scimitar. On the death of any member of this proscribed community, his companion goes at night, and inters him by stealth in the Valley of Jehoshaphat, in the shadow of Solomon's temple. Enter the abodes of these people, you will find them, amid the most abject wretchedness, instructing their children to read a mysterious book, which they in their turn will teach their offspring to read. What they did five thousand years ago, these people still continue to do. Seventeen times have they witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem, yet nothing can discourage them, nothing can prevent them from turning their faces toward Sion. To see the Jews scattered over the whole world, according to the word of God, must doubtless excite surprise. But to be struck with supernatural astonishment, you must view them at Jerusalem; you must behold these rightful masters of Judea living as slaves and strangers in their own country; you must behold them expecting, under all oppressions, a king who is to deliver them. Crushed by the cross that condemns them, skulking near the temple, of which not one stone is left upon another, they continue in their deplorable infatuation. The Persians the Greeks, the Romans, are swept from the earth; and a petty tribe, whose origin preceded that of those great nations, still exists unmixed among the ruins of its native land." To the same effect are the remarks of Dr. Richardson: "In passing up to the synagogue, I was particularly struck with the mean and wretched appearance of the houses on both sides of the streets, as well as with the poverty of their inhabitants. The sight of a poor Jew in Jerusalem has in it something peculiarly affecting. The heart of this wonderful people, in whatever clime they roam, still turns to it as the city of their promised rest. They take pleasure in her ruins, and would kiss the very dust for her sake. Jerusalem is the centre around which the exiled sons of Judah build, in imagination, the mansions of their future greatness. In whatever part of the world he may live, the heart's desire of a Jew is to be buried in Jerusalem. Thither they return from Spain and Portugal, from Egypt and Barbary, and other countries among which they have been scattered: and when, after all their longings, and all their struggles up the steeps of life, we see them poor, and blind, and naked, in the streets of their once happy Zion, he must have a cold heart that can remain untouched by their sufferings. without uttering a prayer that God would have mercy on the darkness of Judah; and that the Day Star of Bethlehem might arise in their hearts." "Jerusalem," remarks Sir Frederick Henhiker, "is called, even by Mohammedans, the Blessed City ( El Gootz, El Koudes. ) The streets of it are narrow and deserted, the houses dirty and ragged, the shops few and forsaken; and throughout the whole there is not one symptom of either commerce, comfort, or happiness. The best view of it is from the Mount of Olives: it commands the exact shape and nearly every particular; namely, the church of the holy sepulchre, the Armenian convent, the mosque of Omar, St. Stephen's gate, the round-topped houses, and the barren vacancies of the city. Without the walls are a Turkish burial ground, the tomb of David, a small grove near the tombs of the kings, and all the rest is a surface of rock, on which are a few numbered trees. The mosque of Omar is the St. Peter's of Turkey, and the respective saints are held respectively by their own faithful in equal veneration. The building itself has a light pagoda appearance; the garden in which it stands occupies a considerable part of the city, and, contrasted with the surrounding desert, is beautiful. The burial place of the Jews is over the valley of Kedron, and the fees for breaking the soil afford a considerable revenue to the governor. The burial place of the Turks is under the walls, near St. Stephen's gate. From the opposite side of the valley, I was witness to the ceremony of parading a corpse round the mosque of Omar, and then bringing it forth for burial. I hastened to the grave, but was soon driven away: as far as my on dit tells me, it would have been worth seeing. The grave is strown with red earth, supposed to be of the Ager Damascenes of which Adam was made; by the side of the corpse is placed a stick, and the priest tells him that the devil will tempt him to become a Christian, but that he must make good use of his stick; that his trial will last three days, and that he will then find himself in a mansion of glory," &c. The Jerusalem of sacred history is, in fact, no more. Not a vestige remains of the capital of David and Solomon; not a monument of Jewish times is standing. The very course of the walls is changed, and the boundaries of the ancient city are become doubtful. The monks pretend to show the sites of the sacred places; but neither Calvary, nor the holy sepulchre, much less the Dolorous Way, the house of Caiaphas, &c, have the slightest pretensions to even a probable identity with the real places to which the tradition refers. Dr. E. D. Clarke has the merit of being the first modern traveller who ventured to speak of the preposterous legends and clumsy forgeries of the priests with the contempt which they merit. "To men interested in tracing, within its walls, antiquities referred to by the documents of sacred history, no spectacle," remarks the learned traveller, "can be more mortifying than the city in its present state. The mistaken piety of the early Christians, in attempting to preserve, has either confused or annihilated the memorials it was anxious to render conspicuous. Viewing the havoc thus made, it may now be regretted that the Holy Land was ever rescued from the dominion of Saracens, who were far less barbarous than their conquerors. The absurdity, for example, of hewing the rocks of Judea into shrines and chapels, and of disguising the face of nature with painted domes and gilded marble coverings, by way of commemorating the scenes of our Saviour's life and death, is so evident and so lamentable, that even Sandys, with all his credulity, could not avoid a happy application of the reproof conveyed by the Roman satirist against a similar violation of the Egerian fountain." Dr. Richardson remarks, "It is a tantalizing circumstance for the traveller who wishes to recognize in his walks the site of particular buildings, or the scenes of memorable events, that the greater part of the objects mentioned in the description both of the inspired and the Jewish historian, are entirely removed, and razed from their foundation, without leaving a single trace or name behind to point out where they stood. Not an ancient tower, or gate, or wall, or hardly even a stone, remains. The foundations are not only broken up, but every fragment of which they were composed is swept away, and the spectator looks upon the bare rock with hardly a sprinkling of earth to point out her gardens of pleasure, or groves of idolatrous devotion. And when we consider the places, and towers, and walls about Jerusalem, and that the stones of which some of them were constructed were thirty feet long, fifteen feet broad, and seven and a half feet thick, we are not more astonished at the strength, and skill, and perseverance, by which they were constructed, than shocked by the relentless and brutal hostility by which they were shattered and overthrown, and utterly removed from our sight. A few gardens still remain on the sloping base of Mount Zion, watered from the pool of Siloam; the gardens of Gethsemane are still in a sort of ruined cultivation; the fences are broken down, and the olive trees decaying, as if the hand that pressed and fed them were withdrawn; the Mount of Olives still retains a languishing verdure, and nourishes a few of those trees from which it derives its name; but all round about Jerusalem the general aspect is blighted and barren; the grass is withered; the bare rock looks through the scanty sward; and the grain itself, like the staring progeny of famine, seems in doubt whether to come to maturity, or die in the ear. The vine that was brought from Egypt is cut off from the midst of the land; the vineyards are wasted; the hedges are taken away; and the graves of the ancient dead are open and tenantless." 3. On the accomplishment of prophecy in the condition in which this celebrated city has lain for ages, Keith well remarks:—It formed the theme of prophecy from the

(Thou Heavenly, New Jerusalem) Hymn for Vespers and Matins on the feast of the dedication of a church. It is not known who the author was, but it was written in the 6th or 7th century. There are about 30 translations. The one given in Britt is by W. Irons; the fourth verse reads: By many a salutary stroke, By many a weary blow that broke, Or polished with a workman's skill, The stones that form that glorious pile, They all are fitly framed to lie In their appointed place on high.

Fourth Sunday in Lent named from the first words of the Introit; also called Golden Rose, Mediana, Mothering, and Rose Sunday. Celebrated in joyful spirit because the observance of Lent is half over, rose-colored vestments are worn instead of purple, and flowers are allowed on the altar. See also the Catholic Encyclopedia article.

The chief city of the Holy Land, and to the Christian the most illustrious in the world. It is situated in 31 degrees 46'43" N. lat., and 35 degrees 13' E. long. on elevated ground south of the center of the country, about thirty-seven miles from the Mediterranean, and about twenty-four from the Jordan. Its site was early hallowed by God's trial of Abraham's faith, Genesis 22:1-24 2 Chronicles 3:1 . It was on the border of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah, mostly within the limits of the former, but reckoned as belonging to the latter, because conquered by it, Joshua 15:8 18:16,28 Judges 1:18 . The most ancient name of the city was Salem, Genesis 14:18 Psalm 76:2 ; and it afterwards was called Jebus, as belonging to the Jebusites, Judges 19:10,11 . Being a very strong position, it resisted the attempts of the Israelites to become the sole masters of it, until at length its fortress was stormed by David, 2 Samuel 5:6,9 ; after which it received its present name, and was also called "the city of David." It now became the religious and political center of the kingdom, and was greatly enlarged, adorned, and fortified. But its chief glory was, that in its magnificent temple the ONE LIVING AND TRUE GOD dwelt, and revealed himself. After the division of the tribes, it continued the capital of the kingdom of Judah, was several times taken and plundered, and at length was destroyed at the Babylonian captivity, 2 Kings 14:13 2 Chronicles 12:9 21:16 24:23 25:23 36:3,10 17:1-20:37 . After seventy years, it was rebuilt by the Jews on their return from captivity about 536 B. C., who did much to restore it to its former splendor. About 332 B. C., the city yielded to Alexander of Macedon; and not long after his death, Ptolemy of Egypt took it by an assault on the Sabbath, when it is said the Jews scrupled to fight. In 170 B. C., Jerusalem fell under the tyranny of Antiochus Epiphanes, who razed its walls, set up an image of Jupiter in the temple, and used every means to force the people into idolatry. Under the Maccabees, however, the Jews, in 163 B. C., recovered their independence. Just a century later, it was conquered by the Romans. Herod the Great expended vast sums in its embellishment. To the city and temple thus renovated the ever-blessed Messiah came, in the fullness of time, and made the place of his feet glorious. By his rejection and crucifixion Jerusalem filled up the cup of her guilt; the Jewish nation perished from off the land of their fathers, and the city and temple were taken by Titus and totally destroyed, A. D. 70-71. Of all the structures of Jerusalem, only three towers and a part of the western wall were left standing. Still, as the Jews began to return thither, and manifested a rebellious spirit, the emperor Adrian planted a Roman colony there in A. D. 135, and banished the Jews, prohibiting their return on pain of death. He changed the name of the city to Aelia Capitolina, consecrated it to heathen deities, in order to defile it as much as possible, and did what he could to obliterate all traces both of Judaism and Christianity. From this period the name Aelia became so common, that the name Jerusalem was preserved only among the Jews and better-informed Christians. In the time of Constantine, however, it resumed its ancient name, which it has retained to the present day. Helena, the mother of Constantine, built two churches in Bethlehem and on mount Olivet, about A. D. 326; and Julian, who, after his father, succeeded to the empire of his uncle Constantine, endeavored to rebuild the temple; but his design, and that of the Jews, whom he patronized, was frustrated, as contemporary historians relate, by an earthquake, and by balls of fire bursting forth among the workmen, A. D. 363. The subsequent history of Jerusalem may be told in a few words. In 613, it was taken by Chosroes king of Persia, who slew, it is said, 90,000 men, and demolished, to the utmost of his power, whatever the Christians had venerated: in 627, Heraclius defeated Chosroes, and Jerusalem was recovered by the Greeks. Soon after command the long and wretched era of Mohammedanism. About 637, the city was taken from the Christians by the caliph Omar, after a siege of four months, and continued under the caliphs of Bagdad till 868, when it was taken by Ahmed, a Turkish sovereign of Egypt. During the space of 220 years, it was subject to several masters, Turkish and Saracenic, and in 1099 it was taken by the crusaders under Godfrey Bouillon, who was elected king. He was succeeded by his brother Baldwin, who died in 1118. In 1187, Saladin, sultan of the East, captured the city, assisted by the treachery of Raymond, count of Tripoli, who was found dead in his bed on the morning of the day in which he was to have delivered up the city. It was restored, in 1242, to the Latin princes, by Saleh Ismael, emir of Damascus; they lost it in 1291 to the sultans of Egypt, who held it till 1382. Selim, the Turkish sultan, reduced Egypt and Syria, including Jerusalem, in 1517, and his son Solyman built or reconstructed the present walls in 1534. Since then it has remained under the dominion of Turkey, except when held for a short time, 1832-4, by Ibrahim Pasha of Egypt. At present, this city is included in the pashalic of Damascus, though it has a resident Turkish governor. Jerusalem is situated on the central tableland of Judea, about 2,400 feet above the Mediterranean. It lies on ground which slopes gently down towards the east, the slope being terminated by an abrupt declivity, in some parts precipitous, and overhanging the valley of Jehoshaphat or of the Kidron. This sloping ground is also terminated on the south by the deep and narrow valley of Hinnom, which constituted the ancient southern boundary of the city, and which also ascends on its west side, and comes out upon the high ground on the northwest. See GIHON . But in the city itself, there were also two ravines or smaller valleys, dividing the land covered by buildings into three principal parts or hills. ZION, the highest of these, was in the southwest quarter of the city, skirted on the south and west by the deep valley of Hinnom. On its north and east sides lay the smaller valley "of the cheesemongers," or Tyropoeon also united, near the northeast foot of Zion, with a valley coming down from the north. Zion was also called, The city of David; and by Josephus, "the upper city." Surrounded anciently by walls as well as deep valleys, it was the strongest part of the city, and contained the citadel and the king's palace. The Tyropoeon separated it from Acra on the north and Moriah on the northeast. ACRA was less elevated than Zion, or than the ground to the northwest beyond the walls. It is called by Josephus "the lower city." MORIAH , the sacred hill, lay northeast of Zion, with which it was anciently connected at its nearest corner, by a bridge over the Tyropoeon, some remnants of which have been identified by Dr. Robinson. Moriah was at first a small eminence, but its area was greatly enlarged to make room for the temple. It was but a part of the continuous ridge on the east side of the city, overlooking the deep valley of the Kidron; rising on the north, after a slight depression, into the hill Bezetha, the "new city" of Joephus, and sinking away on the south into the hill Ophel. On the east of Jerusalem, and stretching from north to south, lies the Mount of Olives, divided from the city by the valley of the Kidron, and commanding a noble prospect of the city and surrounding county. Over against Moriah, or a little further north, lies the garden of Gethsemane, with its olive trees, at the foot of the Mount of Olives. Just below the city, on the east side of the valley of the Kidron, lies the miserable village of Siloa; farther down, this valley unites with that of Hinnon, at a beautiful spot anciently "the king's gardens;" still below, is the well of Nehemiah, anciently En-rogel; and from this spot the united valley winds among mountains southward and eastward to the Dead sea. In the mouth of the Tyropoeon, between Ophel and Zion, is the pool of Siloam. In the valley west and northwest of Zion are the two pools of Gihon, the lower being now broken and dry. In the rocks around Jerusalem, and chiefly in the sides of the valleys of the Kidron and Hinnom opposite the city, are many excavated tombs and caves. Of the WALLS of ancient Jerusalem, the most ancient that of David and Solomon, encircled the whole of Mount Zion, and was also continued around Moriah and Ophel. The depth of the valleys south and east of Jerusalem, rendered it comparatively easy to fortify and defend it on these sides. This southern wall, in the period of kings and of Christ, traversed the outmost verge of those hills, inclosing the pool of Siloam, Ophel, and portions apparently of the valleys of Hinnom and the Kidron, 2 Chronicles 33:14 Nehemiah 2:14 3:15 . A second wall, built by Jotham, Hezekiah, and Manasseh, made some changes on the southern line, and inclosed a large additional space on the north. It commenced somewhat east of the tower of Hippicus, on the northwest border of Zion, included Acra and part of Bezetha, and united with the old wall on the east. This wall was destroyed, as well as the first, at the captivity, but both were afterwards reerected, it is believed, on nearly the same lines, and were substantially the same at the time of Christ. The precise course of the second wall may perhaps be ascertained by future excavations, but is now more disputed than any other point of the topography of Jerusalem. To ascertain the exact location of "the tower Gennath," where this wall began, and trace its course "in a circuit" to Antonia, would show whether the traditional site of Calvary, now far within the city limits, lay within or without the ancient wall. The arguments from topography are strongly against the tradition; and it would seem that this whole region, if not actually within the wall, must have been at least occupied by the city suburbs at that time. The third wall, commenced by Herod Agrippa only ten years after the crucifixion of Christ, ran from the tower Hippicus nearly half a mile northwest to the tower of Psephinos, and sweeping round by the "tombs of the kings," passed down east of Bezetha, and joined the old eastern wall. The whole circumference of the city at that time was a little over four miles. Now it is only two and three quarters at the most; and the large space on the north, which the wall of Agrippa inclosed, is proved to have been built upon by the numerous cisterns which yet remain, and the marble fragments which the plough often turns up. The preceding plan of Ancient Jerusalem exhibits the walls, gates, towers, and other prominent objects in and around the city, with as much accuracy as can be secured, now that it has borne the ravages of so many centuries, been nearly a score of times captured, and often razed to the ground. Fuller descriptions of many of the localities referred to may be found under their respective heads. MODERN JERUSALEM, called by the Arabs El-Kuds, the holy, occupies unquestionably the site of the Jerusalem of the Bible. It is still "beautiful for situation," and stands forth on its well-defined hills "as a city that is compact together," Psalm 48:2,12 122:3,4 125:1,2 . The distant view of its stately walls and numerous domes and minarets is highly imposing. But its old glory has departed; its thronging myriads are no more; desolation covers the barren mountains around it, and the tribes go up to the house of the Lord no longer. She that once sat as a queen among them, now sitteth solitary, "trodden down of the Gentiles," "reft of her sons, and mid her foes forlorn." "Zion is ploughed as a field," and the soil is mixed with the rubbish of ages, to the depth in some places of forty feet. The modern wall, built in 1542, varies from twenty to sixty feet in height, and is about two and a half miles in circuit. On the eastern and shortest side, its course is nearly straight; and it coincides, in the southern half on this side, with the wall of the sacred area now called El-Haram, the holy. This area, 510 yards long from north to south, and 310 to 350 yards in breadth, is inclosed by high walls, the lower stones of which are in many parts very large, and much more ancient than the superstructure. It is occupied by the great octagonal mosque called Kubbet es-Sukhrah, or Dome of the Rock, and the mosque El-Aksa, with their grounds. It covers the site of the ancient temple and of the great tower Antonia. See TEMPLE . At its southeast corner, where the wall is seventy-seven feet high, the ground at its base is one hundred and fifty feet above the dry bed of the Kidron. From this corner, the wall runs irregularly west by south, crosses mount Zion, leaving the greater part of it uninclosed on the south, and at its western verge turns north to the Jaffa gate, where the lower part of a very old and strong tower still remains. The upper part of this tower is less ancient and massive. It is known as "the tower of David," and is generally thought to have been the Hippicus of Josephus. Thence the wall sweeps irregularly round to the northeast corner. It is flanked at unequal distances by square towers, and has battlements running all around on its summit, with loopholes in them for arrows or muskets. There are now in use only four gates: the Jaffa or Bethlehem gate on the west, the Damascus gate on the north, St. Stephen's gate on the east, and Zion gate on the south. In the eastern wall of El-Haram is the Golden gate, long since blocked up, and in the city wall two smaller gates, more recently closed, namely, Herod's gate on the north-east, and Dung gate in the Tyropoeon on the south. Within the city walls are seen narrow and often covered streets, ungraded, ill-paved, and in some parts filthy, though less so than in most oriental cities. The houses are of hewn stone, with few windows towards the streets. Their flat roofs are strengthened and ornamented by many small domes. The most beautiful part of the city is the area of the great mosque-from which until recently all Christians have been rigorously excluded for six centuries-with its lawns and cypress trees, and the noble dome rising high above the wall. On mount Zion, much of the space within the wall is occupied by the huge Armenian convent, with the Syrian convent, and the church of St. James. Beyond the wall and far to the south is a Mohammedan mosque, professedly over the tomb of David. This is more jealously guarded against Christians than even the mosque of Omar. Near it is the small cemetery of the American missionaries. At the northwest corner of Zion rises the high square citadel above referred to, ancient and grand. Still farther north is the Latin convent, in the most westerly part of Jerusalem; and between it and the center of the city stands the church of the Holy Sepulchre, over the traditional scenes of the death and the resurrection of our Lord. See CALVARY . In various parts of the city the minarets of eight or ten mosques arise, amid an assemblage of about two thousand dwellings, not a few of which are much dilapidated. The present population of Jerusalem may be about 12,000 souls, of whom about two-fifths are Mohammedans, and the remainder Jews and Christians in nearly equal numbers. There is also a considerable garrison, 800 to 1,000, stationed there; and in April of each year many thousands of pilgrims from foreign lands make a flying visit to the sacred places. The Moslemim reside in the center of the city, and towards the north and east. The Jews' quarter is on the northeast side of Zion. The Greek, Latin, Armenian, Syrian, and Coptic Christians are located chiefly around their respective convents, and their burial-places are on mount Zion, as well as that of the American Protestant mission. The Jews bury on Mount Olivet and the Mohammedans in several places, though preferring the eastern brow of Moriah. Jerusalem is but the melancholy shadow of its former self. The nominal Christians residing there are in a state of degraded and ignorant subjection to the Mohammedans, and their petty discords and superstitions are a reproach to the Christian name. The Jews, 3,000 to 5,000 in number, are still more oppressed and abject. Most of them were born in other lands, and have come here to die, in a city no longer their own. Discouraged by endless exactions, they subsist on the charities of their brethren abroad. It is only as a purchased privilege that they are allowed to approach the foundations of the sacred hill where their fathers worshipped the only true God. Here, in a small area near some huge and ancient stones in the base of the western wall of Moriah, they gather, especially on sacred days, to sit weeping and wailing on the ground, taking up the heart-breaking lamentations of Jeremiah-living witnesses of the truth of God's word fulfilled in them. See WALL. THE NEW JERUSALEM, is a name given to the church of Christ, and signifying is firm foundations in the love, choice, an covenant of God; its strong bulwarks, living fountains, and beautiful palaces; its thronging thousands, its indwelling God, and its consummated glory in heaven, Galatians 4:26 Hebrews 12:22 Revelation 3:12 21:1-27 .

Called also Salem, Ariel, Jebus, the "city of God," the "holy city;" by the modern Arabs el-Khuds, meaning "the holy;" once "the city of Judah" (2 Chronicles 25:28 ). This name is in the original in the dual form, and means "possession of peace," or "foundation of peace." The dual form probably refers to the two mountains on which it was built, viz., Zion and Moriah; or, as some suppose, to the two parts of the city, the "upper" and the "lower city." Jerusalem is a "mountain city enthroned on a mountain fastness" (Compare Psalm 68:15,16 ; 87:1 ; 125:2 ; 76:1,2 ; 122:3 ). It stands on the edge of one of the highest table-lands in Palestine, and is surrounded on the south-eastern, the southern, and the western sides by deep and precipitous ravines. It is first mentioned in Scripture under the name Salem (Genesis 14:18 ; Compare Psalm 76:2 ). When first mentioned under the name Jerusalem, Adonizedek was its king (Joshua 10:1 ). It is afterwards named among the cities of Benjamin (Judges 19:10 ; 1 Chronicles 11:4 ); but in the time of David it was divided between Benjamin and Judah. After the death of Joshua the city was taken and set on fire by the men of Judah (Judges 1:1-8 ); but the Jebusites were not wholly driven out of it. The city is not again mentioned till we are told that David brought the head of Goliath thither (1 Samuel 17:54 ). David afterwards led his forces against the Jebusites still residing within its walls, and drove them out, fixing his own dwelling on Zion, which he called "the city of David" (2 Samuel 5:5-9 ; 1 Chronicles 11:4-8 ). Here he built an altar to the Lord on the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite (2 Samuel 24:15-25 ), and thither he brought up the ark of the covenant and placed it in the new tabernacle which he had prepared for it. Jerusalem now became the capital of the kingdom. After the death of David, Solomon built the temple, a house for the name of the Lord, on Mount Moriah (B.C. 1010). He also greatly strengthened and adorned the city, and it became the great centre of all the civil and religious affairs of the nation (Deuteronomy 12:5 ; comp 12:14; 14:23; 16:11-16; Psalm 122 ). After the disruption of the kingdom on the accession to the throne of Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, Jerusalem became the capital of the kingdom of the two tribes. It was subsequently often taken and retaken by the Egyptians, the Assyrians, and by the kings of Israel (2 Kings 14:13,14 ; 18:15,16 ; 23:33-35 ; 24:14 ; 2 Chronicles 12:9 ; 26:9 ; 27:3,4 ; 29:3 ; 32:30 ; 33:11 ), till finally, for the abounding iniquities of the nation, after a siege of three years, it was taken and utterly destroyed, its walls razed to the ground, and its temple and palaces consumed by fire, by Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon (2 Kings 25 ; 2 Chronicles 36 ; Jeremiah 39 ), B.C. 588. The desolation of the city and the land was completed by the retreat of the principal Jews into Egypt (Jeremiah 4044-44 ), and by the final carrying captive into Babylon of all that still remained in the land (52:3), so that it was left without an inhabitant (B.C. 582). Compare the predictions, Deuteronomy 28 ; Leviticus 26:14-39 . But the streets and walls of Jerusalem were again to be built, in troublous times (Daniel 9:16,19,25 ), after a captivity of seventy years. This restoration was begun B.C. 536, "in the first year of Cyrus" (Ezra 1:2,3,5-11 ). The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah contain the history of the re-building of the city and temple, and the restoration of the kingdom of the Jews, consisting of a portion of all the tribes. The kingdom thus constituted was for two centuries under the dominion of Persia, till B.C. 331; and thereafter, for about a century and a half, under the rulers of the Greek empire in Asia, till B.C. 167. For a century the Jews maintained their independence under native rulers, the Asmonean princes. At the close of this period they fell under the rule of Herod and of members of his family, but practically under Rome, till the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, A.D. 70. The city was then laid in ruins. The modern Jerusalem by-and-by began to be built over the immense beds of rubbish resulting from the overthrow of the ancient city; and whilst it occupies certainly the same site, there are no evidences that even the lines of its streets are now what they were in the ancient city. Till A.D. 131 the Jews who still lingered about Jerusalem quietly submitted to the Roman sway. But in that year the emperor (Hadrian), in order to hold them in subjection, rebuilt and fortified the city. The Jews, however, took possession of it, having risen under the leadership of one Bar-Chohaba (i.e., "the son of the star") in revolt against the Romans. Some four years afterwards (A.D. 135), however, they were driven out of it with great slaughter, and the city was again destroyed; and over its ruins was built a Roman city called Aelia Capitolina, a name which it retained till it fell under the dominion of the Mohammedans, when it was called el-Khuds, i.e., "the holy." In A.D. 326 Helena, mother of the emperor Constantine, made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem with the view of discovering the places mentioned in the life of our Lord. She caused a church to be built on what was then supposed to be the place of the nativity at Bethlehem. Constantine, animated by her example, searched for the holy sepulchre, and built over the supposed site a magnificent church, which was completed and dedicated A.D. 335. He relaxed the laws against the Jews till this time in force, and permitted them once a year to visit the city and wail over the desolation of "the holy and beautiful house." In A.D. 614 the Persians, after defeating the Roman forces of the emperor Heraclius, took Jerusalem by storm, and retained it till A.D. 637, when it was taken by the Arabians under the Khalif Omar. It remained in their possession till it passed, in A.D. 960, under the dominion of the Fatimite khalifs of Egypt, and in A.D. 1073 under the Turcomans. In A.D. 1099 the crusader Godfrey of Bouillon took the city from the Moslems with great slaughter, and was elected king of Jerusalem. He converted the Mosque of Omar into a Christian cathedral. During the eighty-eight years which followed, many churches and convents were erected in the holy city. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was rebuilt during this period, and it alone remains to this day. In A.D. 1187 the sultan Saladin wrested the city from the Christians. From that time to the present day, with few intervals, Jerusalem has remained in the hands of the Moslems. It has, however, during that period been again and again taken and retaken, demolished in great part and rebuilt, no city in the world having passed through so many vicissitudes. In the year 1850 the Greek and Latin monks residing in Jerusalem had a fierce dispute about the guardianship of what are called the "holy places." In this dispute the emperor Nicholas of Russia sided with the Greeks, and Louis Napoleon, the emperor of the French, with the Latins. This led the Turkish authorities to settle the question in a way unsatisfactory to Russia. Out of this there sprang the Crimean War, which was protracted and sanguinary, but which had important consequences in the way of breaking down the barriers of Turkish exclusiveness. Modern Jerusalem "lies near the summit of a broad mountain-ridge, which extends without interruption from the plain of Esdraelon to a line drawn between the southern end of the Dead Sea and the southeastern corner of the Mediterranean." This high, uneven table-land is everywhere from 20 to 25 geographical miles in breadth. It was anciently known as the mountains of Ephraim and Judah. "Jerusalem is a city of contrasts, and differs widely from Damascus, not merely because it is a stone town in mountains, whilst the latter is a mud city in a plain, but because while in Damascus Moslem religion and Oriental custom are unmixed with any foreign element, in Jerusalem every form of religion, every nationality of East and West, is represented at one time." Jerusalem is first mentioned under that name in the Book of Joshua, and the Tell-el-Amarna collection of tablets includes six letters from its Amorite king to Egypt, recording the attack of the Abiri about B.C. 1480. The name is there spelt Uru-Salim ("city of peace"). Another monumental record in which the Holy City is named is that of Sennacherib's attack in B.C. 702. The "camp of the Assyrians" was still shown about A.D. 70, on the flat ground to the north-west, included in the new quarter of the city. The city of David included both the upper city and Millo, and was surrounded by a wall built by David and Solomon, who appear to have restored the original Jebusite fortifications. The name Zion (or Sion) appears to have been, like Ariel ("the hearth of God"), a poetical term for Jerusalem, but in the Greek age was more specially used of the Temple hill. The priests' quarter grew up on Ophel, south of the Temple, where also was Solomon's Palace outside the original city of David. The walls of the city were extended by Jotham and Manasseh to include this suburb and the Temple (2 Chronicles 27:3 ; 33:14 ). Jerusalem is now a town of some 50,000 inhabitants, with ancient mediaeval walls, partly on the old lines, but extending less far to the south. The traditional sites, as a rule, were first shown in the 4th and later centuries A.D., and have no authority. The results of excavation have, however, settled most of the disputed questions, the limits of the Temple area, and the course of the old walls having been traced.

1. References (a) In canonical writings.-In the NT the name ‘New Jerusalem’ occurs only twice, and these references are both in the Apocalypse of John, viz. Revelation 3:12 : ‘He that overcometh … I will write upon him … the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God’; Revelation 21:2 : ‘And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God’ (cf. Revelation 21:10). But other phrases with the same reference occur elsewhere in the NT, as Galatians 4:26 : ‘But the Jerusalem that is above is free’; and Hebrews 12:22 : ‘But ye are come … unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem.’ It is a city of heavenly origin and full of fresh life, the metropolis of the new earth (cf. Revelation 21:1). This hope of a new order of things (cf. Matthew 19:28, 2 Peter 3:13), with Jerusalem as the centre, is not confined to the NT; it occurs also in the OT, e.g. in Isaiah 65:17 : ‘For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former things shall not be remembered, nor come into mind,’ and in Isaiah 66:22 : ‘For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain.’ But the metropolis that appears in Isaiah is not the New Jerusalem; it is the old city as before, only purified and blessed by God in a special manner. The basis of the new conception within the OT is found in such passages as Ezekiel 40:2 : ‘In the visions of God brought he me into the land of Israel, and set me down upon a very high mountain, whereon was as it were the frame of a city on the south,’ with the whole description of the city in the following chapters (40-48); Isaiah 54:11 ff.: ‘O thou afflicted, tossed with tempest, and not comforted, behold, I will set thy stones in fair colours and lay thy foundations with sapphires’; Isaiah 60:10 ff.: ‘And strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee: for in my wrath I smote thee, but in my favour have I had mercy on thee’; Haggai 2:7-9 : ‘I will fill this house with glory.… The latter glory of this house shall be greater than the former, saith the Lord of hosts’; Zechariah 2:4 f. (English Version ): ‘Jerusalem shall be inhabited as villages without walls.… For I, saith the Lord, will be unto her a wall of fire round about, and I will be the glory in the midst of her.’ (b) In non-canonical writings.-Jewish writings, mainly apocalyptic, fill up the gulf between the Old and New Testaments with regard to the new city and the conception underlying it. The new order of things appears in 1 En. xlv. 4, 5: ‘And I will transform the heaven and make it an eternal blessing and light: and I will transform the earth and make it a blessing’; lxxii. 1: ‘till the new creation is accomplished which dureth till eternity’; xci. 16: ‘And the first heaven shall depart and pass away, and a new heaven shall appear, and all the powers of the heavens shall give sevenfold light.’ In the Book of Jubilees the new creation is mentioned; cf. i. 29: ‘And the angel of the presence who went before the camp of Israel took the tables of the divisions of the years … from the day of the ^[1] creation when the heavens and the earth shall be renewed and all their creation according to the powers of the heaven, … until the sanctuary of the Lord shall be made in Jerusalem on Mount Zion.’ There is the same implication in 2 En. (Slavonic Enoch) lxv. 6 ff.: ‘When all creation visible and invisible, as the Lord created it, shall end, then every man goes to the great judgement, and then all time shall perish, … they (i.e. the righteous) will live eternally.… And they shall have a great indestructible wall, and a paradise bright and incorruptible, for all corruptible things shall pass away, and there will be eternal life.’ Again the renewal of creation appears in 2 Bar. (Apoc. Bar.) xxxii. 6: ‘For there will be a greater trial than these two tribulations when the Mighty One will renew His creation’; and in 4 Ezr. 7:75: ‘Thou shalt renew the creation.’ The hope of an ideal city, too, finds frequent mention in Jewish literature, e.g. in Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Daniel 5:12): ‘And, in the New Jerusalem shall the righteous rejoice, and it shall be unto the glory of God for ever’; this is the earliest occurrence of the expression ‘New Jerusalem,’ but here it simply implies the rebuilding of the old city. The idea emerges fully for the first time in 1 En. xc. 28, 29, where the pre-existence of the New Jerusalem is implied though not specifically assigned to the new house brought and set up by God Himself: ‘They folded up that old house.… And I saw till the Lord of the sheep brought a new house greater and loftier than that first, and set it up in the place of the first which had been folded up: all its pillars were new, and its ornaments were new and larger than those of the first, the old one which He had taken away, and all the sheep were within it’ (cf. liii. 6). The heavenly Jerusalem in 4 Ezra is described as ‘the city that now is invisible’ (7:26), ‘a City builded’ (8:52, 10:27), ‘the ^[2] pattern of her ^[3]’ (10:49); its descent from heaven is mentioned Exodus 39:10-13: ‘And Zion shall come and shall be made manifest to all men, prepared and builded, even as thou didst see the mountain cut out without hands,’ while its preservation in heaven is referred to in 2 Bar. iv. 2-7: ‘This building now built in your midst is not that which is revealed with Me, that which was prepared beforehand here from the time when I took counsel to make Paradise, and showed it to Adam before he sinned, but when he transgressed the commandment it was removed from him, as also Paradise. And after these things I showed it to My servant Abraham by night among the portions of the victims. And again also I showed it to Moses on Mount Sinai when I showed to him the likeness of the tabernacle and all its vessels. And now, behold, it is preserved with Me, as also Paradise.’ The idea of the new city as simply a purification of the old appears in 1 En. x. 16-19: ‘Destroy all wrong from the face of the earth.… And then shall all the righteous escape, and shall live till they beget thousands of children, and all the days of their youth and their old age shall they complete in peace. And then shall the whole earth be tilled in righteousness, and shall all be planted with trees and be full of blessing’; also in xxv. 1-6: ‘This high mountain which thou hast seen, whose summit is like the throne of God, is His throne, where the Holy Great One, the Lord of Glory, the Eternal King, will sit, when He shall come down to visit the earth with goodness. And as for this fragrant tree … it shall be transplanted to the holy place, to the temple of the Lord, the Eternal King. Then shall they rejoice with joy and be glad, and into the holy place shall they enter; and its fragrance shall be in their bones, and they shall live a long life on earth, such as thy fathers lived’; and again in Pss.-Sol. 17:25, 33: ‘And that he may purge Jerusalem from nations that trample (her) down to destruction’; ‘and he shall purge Jerusalem, making it holy as of old.’ Tobit mentions the ideal city in Tobit 13:16-17 : ‘For Jerusalem shall be builded with sapphires and emeralds and precious stones; thy walls and towers and battlements with pure gold. And the streets of Jerusalem shall be paved with beryl and carbuncle and stones of Ophir.’ 2. Rise and development of the conception.-The Jews at first had no thought of any change in the present order of things: ‘One generation goeth, and another generation cometh; and the earth abideth for ever’ (Ecclesiastes 1:4); ‘Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be moved for ever’ (Psalms 104:5); ‘The world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved’ (Psalms 93:1, Psalms 96:10); ‘He hath also stablished them ^[4] for ever and ever’ (Psalms 148:6). The heavens and the earth formed an established order of things that would be eternal in duration. According to the prophetic teaching, the scene of the Messianic Kingdom was to be the present earth, and that Kingdom was to last for ever; cf. Isaiah 1:25 f.: ‘And I will … throughly purge away thy dross, and will take away all thy tin: and I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning: afterward thou shalt be called The city of righteousness, the faithful city’; Zephaniah 3:12 f.: ‘But I will leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the Lord. The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies … for they shall feed and lie down, and none shall make them afraid’; Jeremiah 23:5 f.: ‘Behold … I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely.… In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; Jeremiah 12:15 : ‘After that I have plucked them ^[5] up, I will return and have compassion on them; and I will bring them again, every man to his heritage, and every man to his land’; Ezekiel 37:26 f.: ‘I will place them ^[6], and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.’ Isaiah 2:2 f. (= Micah 4:1 f.): ‘The mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it … for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.’ The advent of the Kingdom at first was to synchronize with the return from exile, but with that event the hopes of the people were not fulfilled. Haggai and Zechariah expected, however, that whenever the Temple was rebuilt, the Messianic Kingdom would be ushered in (cf. Haggai 2:7-9, Zechariah 2:1-5). With Joel, who introduces us into the apocalyptic atmosphere, we find the same conception, as in the Prophets, of the eternity of the Messianic Kingdom with Jerusalem as its centre: ‘So shall ye know that I am the Lord your God, dwelling in Zion my holy mountain: then shall Jerusalem be holy, and there shall no strangers pass through her any more.… But Judah shall abide for ever, and Jerusalem from generation to generation’ (Joel 3:17-18; Joel 3:20). But this conception gradually underwent a change that can already be traced in two late passages of the OT, viz. Isaiah 65:17; Isaiah 66:22, where the scene of the Messianic Kingdom is no longer this present world but a new heaven and a new earth. Jerusalem will be transformed as the metropolis of the new earth, but not yet created a new as the New Jerusalem: ‘For, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old, and the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.… The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox: and dust shall be the serpent’s meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord’ (65:18b-25). The two late passages above imply a gradual transformation of the world-moral and physical-an idea which probably betrays Persian influence (cf. T. K. Cheyne, Origin of the Psalter ^[7] , 1889], London, 1891, p. 405). The same idea is perhaps present also in Isaiah 51:16 : ‘And I have put my words in thy mouth, and have covered thee in the shadow of mine hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and say unto Zion, Thou art my people,’ but if so, it is a foreign element adopted in eclectic fashion from Zoroastrianism (cf. B. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia ^[8] , iii.], Göttingen, 1892, p. 359). Nowhere else in the OT is the Messianic Kingdom conceived of otherwise than as eternal on this present earth. The change is, however, prepared for in certain post-Exilic passages, e.g. poetically in Isaiah 51:6 : ‘Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished’; also in 34:3f.: ‘Their slain also shall be cast out, and the mountains shall be melted with their blood. And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fade away, as the leaf fadeth from off the vine, and as a fading leaf from the fig tree’; and finally in Psalms 102:25 f., which, however, may simply be a reflexion of the new conception from the Maccabaean age (cf. C. A. Briggs, International Critical Commentary , ‘Psalms,’ Edinburgh, 1907, ad loc.): ‘Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed.’ Outside the OT in the apocalyptic literature we have to look for the further progress of this conception. The gradual moral and physical transformation of the world that we have noticed as an adopted feature in Isaiah appears again, during the 2nd cent. b.c., in Jub. i. 29 (above); also in iv. 26: ‘and Mount Zion (which) will be sanctified in the new creation for a sanctification of the earth; through it will the earth be sanctified from all (its) guilt and its uncleanness throughout the generations of the world’; ‘And the days shall begin to grow many and increase amongst those children of men till their days draw nigh to one thousand years, and to a greater number of years than (before) was the number of the days’ (xxiii. 27); and once more in Test. Levi, xviii. 9: ‘In his ^[9] priesthood shall sin come to an end, and the lawless shall cease to do evil.’ It was during the stern days of the Maccabees that the change began to make itself felt with regard to the inappropriateness of the present world as the scene of the future Kingdom. The first trace of it meets us in 1 En. lxxxiii-xc., which Charles dates before 161 b.c. (cf. R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch, Oxford, 1912, Introd., p. lii). Here the centre of the Kingdom is no longer the earthly Jerusalem, but the New Jerusalem brought down from heaven (cf. 1 En. xc. 28, 29, supra). A purified city is not enough; a new and heavenly city must take the place of the old and earthly city as the metropolis of the world-wide Messianic Kingdom. It is to be noted that this portion of the Book of Enoch is dated very shortly after the Book of Daniel and not long after 1 Enoch vi-xxxvi, in neither of which does the New Jerusalem yet appear. The implication in the new idea, however, was not logically carried out until during the 1st cent. b.c. There is mention in 1 En. xci. 16 of a new heaven but not of a new earth, but it is in 1 En. xxxvii-lxxi. (94-64 b.c.) that we have for the first time the conception of a new heaven and a new earth consistently set forth. In 1 En. xlv. 4, 5 the idea is accepted in its entire significance implying the immortal blessedness of man: ‘And I will cause Mine elect ones to dwell upon it: but the sinners and evil-doers shall not set foot thereon’ (cf. Isaiah 65:20, where rather illogically the wicked still live on the new earth). The author of the Parables (i.e. 1 En. xxxvii-lxxi) stands apart from his contemporaries in this new conception of the scene of the Messianic Kingdom and also apart from the writers of the 1st cent. a.d., with regard to the duration of the Kingdom; for while most other writers left behind the OT idea of an everlasting Kingdom and expected only a temporary one on the present earth, he holds to the eternal duration of the Kingdom, contributing the new and fruitful conception of a new heaven and a new earth as the scene of it. It is here, therefore, in the apocalyptic literature that we find the immediate source of the Christian hope of a new heaven and a new earth which meets us in the NT. During the first seven decades of the 1st cent. a.d., i.e. up to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, the prevalent thought was that of a temporary Messianic Kingdom with the earth as its scene, described sometimes in a very materialistic fashion, as in 2 Bar. xxix. 5: ‘The earth also shall yield its fruit ten thousandfold and on each vine there shall be a thousand branches, and each branch will produce a thousand clusters, and each cluster will produce a thousand grapes, and each grape will produce a cor of wine.’ The spiritual change too in the members of the Kingdom seems to be wrought in a mechanical fashion, for sin disappears suddenly rather by Divine fiat than by any gradual process, in striking contrast to what we saw in Jubilees, Isaiah, and The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. The duration of the temporary Kingdom appears in 4 Ezr 7:28, 29 as 400 years, but in 2 En. xxxii., xxxiii. as 1,000 years, to which the Christian view of the Millennium owes its origin. Even the thought of a temporary Messianic Kingdom is at times given up, especially after the destruction of Jerusalem, for the present earth is wholly unfit for the advent of the Messiah; a renewal of the world is felt to be necessary-a renewal that will be everlasting and incorruptible (cf. 4 Ezr. 7:75). It is in these last decades of the 1st cent. a.d., after the earthly Jerusalem has gone, that the thought of the New Jerusalem reappears as the centre of the renewed world to which all hopes are turned, and here we encounter the writings of the NT, which contain that sublimest of descriptions of the New Jerusalem in the Christian Apocalypse. The conception of the Millennium, or the reign of Christ for a thousand years on the present earth, with Jerusalem as the metropolis of this temporary Kingdom, occurs only in the Apocalypse (cf. Revelation 20:4-6), no place being found for it elsewhere in the NT. It is a conception with an exclusively Jewish basis, but one that opens the way for the idea of a new era of blessedness, not on the present earth but in a renewed world; at the close of the Millennium the present order of things passes away-‘And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat upon it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them’ (Revelation 20:11); ‘And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth are passed away’ (Revelation 21:1). This is the scene of the final consummation, and the centre of it is no more the earthly Jerusalem or a purified Jerusalem, but the New Jerusalem that comes down from heaven-from God Himself (Revelation 21:2). It is the same city that the author of Hebrews, writing some time before the author of the Apocalypse, has in mind when he refers to Abraham, who ‘looked for the city which hath the foundations, whose builder and maker is God’ (Hebrews 11:10); it is ‘the heavenly Jerusalem’ (Hebrews 12:22), the centre of that Kingdom ‘that cannot be shaken,’ for ‘yet once more will I make to tremble not the earth only, but also the heaven. And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that have been made, that those things which are not shaken may remain’ (Hebrews 12:26-28). Even earlier in the century St. Paul has the same thought, not yet, however, developed, of the new city, ‘the Jerusalem that is above’ (Galatians 4:26), and the same idea is present when he says, ‘Our citizenship is in heaven’ (Philippians 3:20). 3. The description of the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:9-27; Revelation 22:1-5).-The details of this sublime description are typically Jewish, but the thought is pre-eminently Christian. The earthly Jerusalem had been in ruins for a quarter of a century, Hadrian’s new city was not yet in existence, and the Christian Seer had no thought of the possibility of rebuilding the old. The new city must come down from heaven to be a fitting abode for Christ and the saints. The Seer represents himself as being shown ‘the holy city’ from a high mountain by one of the seven angels (Revelation 21:9-10). ‘Her light was like unto a jasper stone, clear as crystal: having a wall great and high; having twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels; and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: on the east were three gates; and on the north three gates; and on the south three gates; and on the west three gates. And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb’ (Revelation 21:11-14). As in Ezekiel’s city, the twelve gates of the New Jerusalem bear the names of the twelve tribes-three names on each side of its foursquare order (cf. Ezekiel 48:30-35). But besides these, there appear twelve other names on the city wall; between each pair of gateways above the surface of the rock is a foundation stone, and each stone bears the name of an apostle. The same connexion of the twelve tribes and the twelve apostles appears in Matthew 19:28, where Jesus says of His disciples: ‘in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.’ St. Paul has a similar thought when speaking of the Ephesians: ‘Ye are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone’ (Ephesians 2:19-20). The heavenly city is measured by the angel with a golden measuring rod (Revelation 21:15). ‘And the city lieth foursquare, and the length thereof is as great as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs: the length and the breadth and the height thereof are equal. And he measured the wall thereof, a hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of an angel’ (Revelation 21:16 f.). Moffatt translates: ‘he measured fifteen hundred miles with his rod for the City, for its breadth and length and height alike; he made the measure of the wall seventy-two yards, by human, that is, by angelic reckoning’ (The New Testament: A New Translation, London, 1913). It is a huge cube, as high as it is broad and long, like the Holy of Holies in Solomon’s Temple (cf. 1 Kings 6:20), only the measurements are hyperbolical. The wall is out of all proportion to the height of the city, but both heights, it ought to be noted, are multiples of twelve, the number of the tribes and of the apostles. Revelation 21:18-21 : ‘And the building of the wall thereof was jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto pure glass. The foundations of the wall of the city were adorned with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, chalcedony; the fourth, emerald; the fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, topaz; the tenth, chrysoprase; the eleventh, jacinth; the twelfth, amethyst. And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; each one of the several gates was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass’ (cf. also Isaiah 54:11 f. and Tobit 13:16 f.). Similar lists occur in Ezekiel 28:13 of the precious stones with which the king of Tyre was covered, and in Exodus 28:17-20; in 13:36 of the gems set in the breastplate of the high priest; the latter are reproduced in the Apocalypse evidently from memory, as the lists do not completely coincide. What was exclusively for the high priest’s breastplate is now for the whole city of the New Jerusalem-the foundation stones with the names of the apostles are brilliant with all manner of sparkling gems, and each gate consists of a single monster pearl. Revelation 21:22 f.: ‘And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God the Almighty, and the Lamb, are the temple thereof. And the city hath no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine upon it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the lamp thereof is the Lamb.’ The actual presence of God and the Christ in the City forms the sanctuary; similarly in 2 Corinthians 6:16 St. Paul says: ‘we are a temple of the living God; even as God said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people’; only what St. Paul says of individuals the Seer says of the ideal city as a whole. No need in such a place for any created light, since the Divine presence is there illuminating all; its sun is the glory of the Father, and its lamp the glorified Son. There is here a fulfilment of the ideal in Isaiah 60:19 f.: ‘The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory.…’ Revelation 21:24-27 : ‘And the nations shall walk amidst the light thereof; and the kings of the earth do bring their glory into it. And the gates thereof shall in no wise be shut by day (for there shall be no night there): and they shall bring the glory and the honour of the nations into it: and there shall in no wise enter into it anything unclean, or he that maketh an abomination and a lie: but only they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.’ The traits are all found in Isaiah: ‘And nations shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising’ (Isaiah 60:3); ‘Thy gates also shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the wealth of the nations, and their kings led with them’ (Isaiah 60:11); ‘henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean’ (Isaiah 52:1). The description closes in Revelation 22:1-5 : Revelation 22:1 f.: ‘And he shewed me a river of water of life, bright as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb, in the midst of the street thereof. And on this side of the river and on that was the tree of life, bearing twelve manner of fruits, yielding its fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.’ The old Jerusalem had been in a waterless region, but already Ezekiel saw ‘waters’ issuing out ‘from under the threshold of the house eastward,’ and falling into the Kedron valley, and finally making their way to the Dead Sea (cf. Ezekiel 47:1-12); and in Zechariah 14:8 there is the expectation that, when the day of the Lord cometh, ‘living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the eastern sea, and half of them toward the western sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.’ In the New Jerusalem the source of the river is in the throne of God and the Lamb, and on its banks is the tree of life, the generic singular here going back to Genesis 2:9, though the representation has its origin in Ezekiel 47:12 : ‘And by the river upon the

Jerusalem has existed for thousands of years and during that time the shape of the city has changed repeatedly – valleys filled in, hills taken away, other hills added by the accumulation of rubbish, and city boundaries altered from era to era. But the overall picture of an elevated city built on an uneven plateau remains as in Bible times. Valleys and streams The only convenient access to the city in ancient times was from the north, access on the other sides being hindered by cliffs that fell away into deep valleys. On the south-west side was the Valley of Hinnom, where at times idolaters set up altars on which they offered their children as burnt sacrifices to the god Molech (Joshua 15:8; 2 Chronicles 28:3; 2 Chronicles 33:6). Jeremiah foretold God’s judgment on these people by announcing that in the place where they killed their children, they themselves would be killed and their corpses left to rot in the sun (Jeremiah 7:31-34; Jeremiah 32:35). People also used the Valley of Hinnom as a place to dump broken pottery (Jeremiah 19:1-13). Other rubbish accumulated, with the result that in later years the place became a public garbage dump where fires burnt continually. The Hebrew name ‘Valley of Hinnom’ transliterated via the Greek is gehenna, which was the word Jesus used to indicate the place of final judgment on the wicked (Matthew 5:29-30; Matthew 10:28; Matthew 18:9; Matthew 23:33; Mark 9:43-48; cf. Revelation 20:10; Revelation 20:15; see HELL). Immediately to the east of the city another valley ran south, separating the city from the Mount of Olives. This was known as the Valley of Kidron or the Valley of Jehoshaphat. In the rainy season a swiftly flowing stream ran from the hills north of Jerusalem through this valley, ending in the Dead Sea (2 Samuel 15:23; 1 Kings 2:37; 1 Kings 15:13; 2 Chronicles 30:14; Joel 3:2; Joel 3:12; John 18:1). Jerusalem