What was the curtain of the temple made of

How thick was the curtain that was torn in two? Answers 1 Discuss 1. Michael Houdmann had answered a question about the reason the "Veil was torn," I found that answer and here it is: Solomon's temple was 30 cubits high 1 Kings , but Herod had increased the height to 40 cubits, according to the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian.

How could anyone ever imagine such a priceless thing? Republished by Blog Post Promoter. All Rights Reserved. For sure the High Priest was clueless just as millions today are — even after years of preaching about it. Everytime I study any topic from the Bible I end up with dozens of questions but never a definitive answer. Take the baptism of Jesus for instance. You could say He was 1. Men accept what seems right in their mind and reject the rest.

That torn veil, though. If I may add another that I had often seen in this, maybe for you ponder on: — 1. My question is one that i have asked many times but no solid answers were presented. Aniph, although only the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies, perhaps other priests pulled the veil back from the other side without themselves entering. By: chuckbumgardner on May 27, at am. The veil was draped in a fold so that the High Priest could enter on one side the right and in front of him was still more veil.

He had to walk to his left to the end of the veil, turn right through a slit before the Holy of Holies was visible. This prevented anyone else from accidentally peering into the Place he out not. They crawled underneath it! I am in a bible study class and this subject has come up in it. This has been very interesting to read, and I would just like to know the answer to this question. If the tearing of the veil was to signify a few things, no need for more sacrifices, God coming to dwell with us, etc….

Please know I am new in my walk with Christ, and whatever I read or study I have a tendency to over analyze. With this being so significant to those who believe, surely this has some significance to them. It also points to the fact that the way to God is now open and thatJesus is the only way the truth and the life.

I trust that you have come that way. It is nice to hear that you are a new beliver. God will speak to you through his word , and you are quite capable of listening to Him so be patient and He will reveal himself to you.

Keep going to church , and enjoy Good Christain fellowship. But the Rabbis do not shy from difficult things to explain. This would have been no small thing as these were understood as the famed Nikanor gates that nearly everyone entered the Temple by into the court of the Women. And we know the Temple was destroyed exactly 40 years after the death of our Lord, the Mesiah in 70 a. So either these two events coincided, which is probable,or the doors have been misinterpreted as the veil, which seems unlikely in light of the comment of Josephus noted by someone here already.

Also regarding the belief that God is Spirit, it is both the belief of Judaism and Christianity that He is exactly that. It is not foreign to Judaism that the Spirit of God inhabits flesh, but perhaps more the reaction to an ill understanding of just how that concept worked itself out in the form of our Lord.

Until He comes. Good question. But I do believe it really happened, regardless of the lack of extrabiblical evidence, simply because Scripture says it did. And the gospels show us that Jesus said a number of things that indicated his equality with the Father see John , e. But how did the Jews explain the torn veil in particular? By: chuckbumgardner on September 30, at pm. I was involved in the Ashkenazi Messianic Jewish community for 20 years, and I echo and extend what Chuck says.

Not just that only two writers of the Bible were gentile Job and Dr Luke , but that many Jewish people today accept that Yeshua Jesus is the Messiah, and that includes accepting that haShem, God the Father, tore the temple veil in two. Although the majority of the Jewish people rejected who Messiah was, this is by no means all Jews. That does not make them any less part of the Body of Messiah.

By: David on October 1, at am. Thanks, David. We see some of this reflected in Scripture in the Pharisees vs. By: chuckbumgardner on October 1, at am. I have searched in so many places and cannot find the answer to this question. Removing it to wash it would leave an open view to the most sacred place. Please enlighten me and provide me reading sources. What passages are you thinking of when you say that the blood was sprinkled on a daily basis on the veil? By: chuckbumgardner on October 26, at pm.

Leviticus mentions that the priest had to sprinkle the blood on the veil 7 times if the congregation or the priest sinned. But I am still curious, what happened to this blood- stained veil? I apologize for my misunderstanding.

Thank you! By: chuckbumgardner on November 6, at am. I read in a book that Blood was sprinkled upon the mercy seat once a year by the High Priest and that not one drop of that blood ever touched the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant because the Shakana Glory of the Lord consumed or lapped up every single drop of that Blood???

Concerning extrabiblical records of the veil. Though not a great fan of Josephus I thought I would check and see what he had to say about this. We, also, have the singular fact presented that the curtain of the Temple, after being rent at the time of the Passion, was left hanging for a considerable period of time.

The Works of Josephus, trans. Very encouraging to see this discussion. There is value in this on another level. The sages, as noted here, comment on the thickness of the veil for perhaps another reason. The veil serves to shield us from the Presence of Hashem. It is for our benefit that it existed. We are also told that the chasm separating Sheol from Gan Eden, Paradise, is precisely this distance as well. Yet it is a distance too great to transgress, as Abraham tells the rich man in Sheol.

A mere handbreadth separates life from death, flesh from spirit, heaven from hell. And I will remove My palm and you shall see My back, but My face cannot be seen. Interesting that the moment the Son of God departs this world, the handbreadth is removed. Interesting perspective you bring there to the situation, Chris.

Man now had access to the presence of GOD, as mentioned a number of times above , which on earth was the Holiest of Holies behind the veil. GOD no longer needed to be present on earth for priests to bring sin offerings to. Hebrews 16 — Alister, I like this strand of thought and will certainly think about it a bit. But some immediate concerns emerge. Yes, we do have access to God, but we always did. He entered to offer atonement.

We access our Father now on this earth by prayer, they did also. I think the point of no man entering the Holy of Holies rests on the issue of that atonement, the Most Acceptable Sacrifice that the annual offering pointed man toward.

Offerings were not new to the Temple periods. Righteous Abel offered outside of the sacrificial system long before. I like this idea, but having some difficulty with the whole of the thought. He is, as you stated, the Lamb. He is the High Priest.

The veil did not prevent access, for a man entered each year. Perhaps the Cherubim who guard the gates of Gan Eden might. Still, the idea has created something of an itch in the back of my mind. Thank-you for your comments Chris, there is plenty to chew on there. I feel I have made my comments to long in the past, and have given a fairly brief outline to my train of thought above.

It would take me to long to try to answer what you have asked and will look into it more in the future, however I would like to hear your thoughts as to what I try to put across. Maybe together we might be able to work out something more comprehensible.

We are purified by HIS cleansing Blood. The Hebrews had to carry out a ritual sin offering for forgiveness. As you known in front of it was an enormous Curtain, the Veil. I might add that most of the other religions in those days had a special temple for their god although their gods were made of wood, stone or some earthly construction.

After the veil was torn what was behind could be viewed by anyone, usually only the other priests , who might come into the Holy Place, i. I doubt that any one did go through that gap but the possibility was there. I am sorry that I am inclined to get a bit long-winded, but I hope this helps a little. I will try to follow up on the other things you have mentioned in the future.

I have often wondered how the High Priest was able to enter the Most Holy place by drawing aside the heavy curtail while carrying blood. This would seem that the Holy Place would have then been explosed. Someone has suggested that the veil somehow overlapped, something like a maise enabling the High Priest to enter without touching it. If that was so it could account for the suggested differences in the thickness of the veil. Someone on your site suggested that he may have entered at the side which could be a possibility.

I would like to hear your take on this and thanks for all the good material. By: Earle Sheffield on November 10, at pm. It was a linen cirtain held up in four places by golden hooks.

I imagine the high priest just went to the end of the curtain and pulled it aside with one hand wide enough for him to fit and walked through. After he passed gravity would close it.

I think that perhaps years of a dominant gentile doctrine has skewed our thoughts enough that we have difficulty with these things. None of us escape it, for it has been the lot we received from our forefathers. Connections between what is old and what is new are superficially taught to us and we are generally satisfied with the milk and never crave the meat.

Further, we are ignorant of the languages Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew from which these things are founded upon. We can know these things and are the richer in our faith for them. That is why I said earlier how I appreciate these chats. It is meat. The text is living. It cannot be divorced from the larger concepts and precepts of the whole of the text.

So when we say that we now enter the Holy of holies, we must give the precedent for it. Nothing is new, but rather a perfecting picture of the old. The old does not disappear either, but is absorbed into the new.

So if we are told that we can be confident that we now enter the Holy of Holies by His blood, then we can deduce that the other bloods of the past priests are now of no effect. But this does not negate that they were acceptable previously, because they looked forward in faith to the sacrifice of our Master. And we know they were acceptable. We could as well deduce just how we will enter by looking at how the priests entered; by virtue of the High priest, but not physically themselves.

So how is the text reconciled? The atonement offering was a complete covering for Israel. If it was accepted by God, then Israel was accepted also, if only until the next Yom Kippur. We know our atonement is once for all time because His offering was acceptable to God in perpetuity.

By that we enter into the Holy of Holies in the Heavenlies, but as I said, access does not change for us or those who preceded us. Regarding differences, again we must see the picture as being perfected.

It is a misconception to say that the Jewish people had to carry out ritual sin offerings for forgiveness. The Yom Kippur sacrifice was the correction for the errors of the previous year. God gave the halacha, the way of walking, but they must perform it in faith. Did not that same God give us a way of walking? Must we perform it to the letter of love to be acceptable to Him? We strive in the same faith with those who came before us offering sacrifices. We both look for our deliverance from the same Messiah, the same blood.

If the Tabernacle was made visible, we must deduce that God was no longer there or the death toll from those who looked on would not escape the authors of history.

No such event is recorded. What is recorded is in the Pauline letters and Acts, where we see that the disciples did not neglect the Temple Worship and further at Shovout, Pentacost, 50 days later the Spirit was poured out from the upper room, generally understood as the upper room of the Temple court.

The breach Hebrew; Peretz is a messianic term but I still struggle with this. I just do not know. Perhaps our God would do us a kindness and open our eyes.

Thank-you Chris, As I mentioned before I find your perspective very interesting. I merely seek it as an honour to you. Please forgive me if this inappropriate! Yes, knowledge of the Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew give a great depth of meaning, as does also knowledge of the Jewish culture in those days. They are things I would like to more about them. I fully agree with you concerning your paragraph concerning the living text.

G Yes the act of sacrifice and the blood of sin offerings of an innocent third party was given by and acceptable to GOD. And so the story goes on through other sacrifices throughout the Bible.

Looking forward to seeing your further comments. I am a nurse and have no difficulty moving through curtains with my hands full, using my elbows to move the curtains aside. Elaine, The passing through the veil was not as base as you might suppose. But regarding the disposal of things connected to the Holy, it would be buried, as is the veil of the Torah is to this day.

Regarding two curtains, do you mean why were there two? Or why were they made each year? Alister, Here are two sources which might help us in this. Here are two more articles that may throw some light on these perplexing passages about the Torn Veil:. This article covers the connection between the Baptism of Jesus at the beginning of His ministry and the Cross at the end of His ministry and how the curtain, which was weaved to display a panorama of the heavens, is a metaphor for some spiritual truths.

I would wonder if there is not a chiasm inserted within those heavenly tearings as well. There is a deeper connection underlying this also. I wonder…. He says the temple veil taken down each Day of Atonement was burned. Leslie also states in page , that the High Priest used his elbows to open the veil and gain entrance to the Most Holy Place in the Day of Atonement.

Thanks for all the superb work helping in defining the who, what, when, where, and how to all this. Everyone elses comments were helpful as well. By: Mark Bell on February 13, at am. Hi Chris, if you are still there. I was looking through my commentaries and came across the words Yom Kippur. Am I right in saying they mean Atonement or the Day of Atonement? Hi Alister, Yes. Yom is day in Hebrew. Kippur is atonement.

It is the holiest day of the Hebrew calendar. It is the pinnacle of the fall feasts. Although Yom Kippur is the holiest day of the Jewish year, it is not the holiest day of the Jewish calendar, that would be Shabbat. Shabbat the Sabbath from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown is considered as first amongst all holy days. Another way to describe it is the holiest yom kadosh gadol, or high holiday.

I forget which Jewish Sage stressed this, but the reasoning is that this was a holy day holiday specifically written by the finger of haShem God. David, You are right, my brother. I stand corrected indeed, for it is Shabbat that stands apart among the days. Thank you. I think i will remain silent today. Until Shilo comes. Hi Chris, Sorry this is so late. I hope you are you will still be around for future conversations. I value your input and knowledge and wisdom, and the perspectives we have had in the past.

As I mentioned earlier I am especially interested in finding more of the culture s at the time of Christ, the connections between the Old and New Testaments and the language where it pertains to these. The smaller details of the language do not concern me. I have checked up on Yom Kipper. Wikipedia calls it the Sabbath of Sabbaths. What interests me is that while the people were fervently praying for forgiveness and atonement.

I will be hosting a congregational Passover Seder on the 17th, and this is one of the explanations I will give. My concern has not been with the veils thickness than on wha followed after it got torn-was it retained or removed?

Concerning extra biblical records of the veil. Until then I remain somewhat skeptical of him and his writings. Knowing the difficulty of understanding ancient Hebrew and Greek through the culture of the western mindset it puzzles me that the width or breadth mentions is always assumed to be across the palm.

First, the mixture of subjects in the apocalyptic texts can be explained: throne visions, lists of the secrets of creation and surveys of history which deal not only with the past but also with the future are the knowledge given to those who passed beyond the veil of the temple , the raz nihyeh of the Qumran texts.

Second, it suggests that the material in the apocalypses originated with the high priests since they were the ones who passed through the veil into the holy of holies. It gives a context for understanding the known priestly writings of the Hebrew scriptures with their concern for measurements and dates, and their conception of history as an unfolding plan [41]. It explains, for example, why the description of the temple in 1 Kings mentions neither the chariot throne nor the veil and why the essential features of the world beyond the temple veil - the cherubim, the anointing oil - were later said to have disappeared from the temple not as a result of the Babylonians but in the time of Josiah If we adopt the widely accepted exilic dating of Isaiah 40, the sanctuary traditions which I have been reconstructing have implications which reach beyond Old Testament study.

The most notable of these was Eusebius of Caesarea, who, in his work The Preparation of the Gospel, argued the case in great detail and listed all those who had held such views before him. Eusebius and the other apologists were probably correct. My reconstruction suggests that the priests of the first temple knew an invisible, heavenly world on which the tabernacle or temple had been modelled; that they spoke of forms: the form of a man and the form of a throne; that they described the heavens as an embroidered curtain; that they knew the distinction between time, outside the veil, and eternity within it.

They knew that time was the moving image of eternity. They knew of angels, the sons of God begotten on Day One, as Job suggests. They concerned themselves with the mathematics of the creation, the weights and the measures. They believed that the creation was bonded together by a great oath or covenant.

They believed that the stars were divine beings, angels, and they described a creator whose work was completed not by motion but by Sabbath rest. On the basis of my reconstructions, I suggest that the sanctuary traditions which survive in the apocalypses were not the development of ideas in the canonical OT, but their antecedents.

If it be to the first sanctuary, was there then a curtain? Again, if the second, was there then an ark? By implication, the house is the earth. Essays in Memory of E. Neusner Leiden p.

Yoma 77a, c. Gruenwald, S. Shaked, G. Idel that the surot in 4Q 19 are early evidence for mysticism, and his own suggestion that sur and d e mut referred to the man on the throne. The Assumption of Moses 2. This passed into Christian usage e. Hermas Parables 3. The problem of the Sitz in Leben of Genesis 1.

Henri Cazelles , ed. Caquot and M. Delcor Neukirchen-Vluyn , pp. Levenson Creation and the Persistence of Evil. See also J. Levenson op. The P redaction of Ex. Graham, Sheffield Academic Press pp. In Memory of G. Wright ed. Cross, Lemke and Miller, New York pp.

Ezekiel did see the temple in his vision Ezek. We should not forget that Gen. The angels were variously said to have been created, not begotten, on the second day or the fifth.

On the basis of Ps. Johannan taught that they were created on the second day because the LORD formed the firmament in v. Hanina said on the fifth day because they were winged creatures. This is consistent with my proposal for the meaning of sur in the passages connected with divine fatherhood, namely, that they were deliberately obscured and removed.

Brenner and C. Fontaine Sheffield Academic Press suggests that the wise man was initiated by studying the myth of creation and then being reborn as a divine child in the presence of Wisdom who showed him the creation.

Also Wyatt op. Charles the Book of Enoch Oxford , p. They had not made the link between the sevenfold knowledge, the resurrected ones and the secrets of creation. For a better understanding see Stone op. Scullion London p. For the contrary view see R. Whybray Proverbs London pp. She was established, v. McKane Proverbs London Wisdom brought forth and hidden i.