Two Sacred Hills:

 

Two Sacred Hills: Why Golgotha, Not Moriah, Was Chosen for Christ’s Sacrifice

Jonathan Moore, D.P.M., Ph.D.

Inspiration of the BibleArchaeolog

Mount Moriah, the location of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, was the central place of worship and a site of great significance for the Jewish people. However, instead of choosing Mount Moriah as the setting for Jesus’ crucifixion, God chose Golgotha, “the place of the skull,” the distinctive site of Roman executions. While Mount Moriah represented religious purity, kingship, and priesthood, Golgotha represented death, shame, and rejection. Though within the shadow of the Temple, Golgotha was far removed from its sanctity and grandeur.

Many within Christianity have attempted to assert that Golgotha, “the place of the skull” and site of Jesus’ crucifixion, was, in fact, part of Mount Moriah, conflating the two significant locations. Yet, when it comes to Jesus’ crucifixion, Scripture offers no indication that Golgotha was situated on Mount Moriah itself. Though Golgotha was near the city and close to the Temple (John 19:20), it was distinctly outside the city walls (Hebrews 13:12) and separate from the sacred site of Abraham’s altar. This geographical distinction emphasizes God’s intent for the crucifixion of Christ to take place in a different location—near, but not on Mount Moriah.

Geographical and Topographical Differences

The geographical and topographical differences between Mount Moriah and Golgotha serve as a compelling introduction to the profound theological reasons for God’s choice of Golgotha as the site of Christ’s sacrifice. Mount Moriah, rising approximately 2,428 feet (740 meters) above sea level, was not only geographically central but symbolically the heart of Jewish worship. This elevated location was significant in Israel’s history, serving as the place where Abraham was tested with the near-sacrifice of his son Isaac (Genesis 22).1 Surely the provision of the ram in Isaac’s place foreshadowed Jesus, the ultimate sacrificial Lamb, Who would later come to fulfill God’s redemptive plan. Additionally, Moriah was where Abraham met Melchizedek, king of Salem, who blessed him and offered bread and wine, another typological pointer to Christ’s priestly role (Hebrews 7). Furthermore, it was on this mountain that Solomon built the Temple, which became the center of worship and sacrifices for the Jewish people for centuries (2 Chronicles 3:1).

In contrast, Golgotha, where Jesus was crucified, lies outside the city walls of Jerusalem to the west, approximately 600 yards (about a third of a mile) from the Temple. Topographically, Golgotha was part of an old limestone quarry that had been abandoned and eventually converted into a garden in the early first century. This location, once used for extracting building materials, later became a notorious execution site under Roman rule. It was a public, shameful place, not a hallowed ground of religious significance like the Temple Mount.

The height differences between the Temple Mount and Golgotha are also noteworthy. The Temple Mount stood higher, symbolic of its revered status in Jewish religious life. The grandeur of Herod’s Temple would have dominated the skyline, towering over the surrounding city and making it the focal point of worship, pilgrimage, and sacrifice. In contrast, Golgotha was a less distinguished, more isolated place of death, chosen deliberately by the Romans for public executions outside the city walls to maximize humiliation and warning.

Yet, it is precisely in these geographical and topographical differences that we find theological depth. As the following exploration reveals, the distinction between Golgotha and Mount Moriah seems intentional and deeply significant in God’s redemptive plan.

Golgotha Outside the City: A Fulfillment of the Sin Offering

One of the most profound reasons Jesus was crucified outside the city of Jerusalem on Golgotha, rather than on Mount Moriah, lies in the symbolism of the sin offering. According to the Mosaic Law, sin offerings were to be taken outside the camp to be burned, representing the removal of sin from the community (Leviticus 16:27). Hebrews 13:11-12 directly ties this to Jesus’ crucifixion:

The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood (NIV).

By being crucified outside the city, Jesus fulfilled the role of the sin offering, bearing the sins of humanity. If Jesus had been sacrificed on the Temple Mount, this crucial symbolism would be lost. His sacrifice was not just another offering within the Jewish system—it was something entirely new and greater. It was a sacrifice for sin that removed the need for any further sacrifices, as Hebrews 10:10 says, “We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

Separation from the Jewish Sacrificial System

The Temple on Mount Moriah was the heart of the Jewish sacrificial system, which was the central means through which Jews maintained their covenant relationship with God. The sacrifices offered there were temporary, designed to point forward to something greater. Jesus’ death brought that system to its fulfillment and end (Hebrews 10:1-4). Hebrews 10:12 tells us that Christ offered a single sacrifice for sins and then sat down at the right hand of God. His death being geographically distinct from the Temple reinforces that His sacrifice was not merely a continuation of the old system, but a completion and replacement of it.

In a sense, God was drawing a theological line between the Old and the New Covenants. Jesus’ crucifixion on Golgotha symbolizes the end of the old sacrificial system and the establishment of a New Covenant, one based on His blood (Luke 22:20). This separation is essential to the message of the Gospel, which is that salvation is no longer mediated through animal sacrifices but through the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 9:26-28).

The Temple’s Role as a Symbol of the Old Covenant

The Temple itself was a symbol of the Old Covenant and its temporary nature. Jesus prophesied the destruction of the Temple (Matthew 24:2), which would happen in A.D. 70. His crucifixion outside the Temple signifies the passing of the Old Covenant and the impending end of the Temple’s role as the center of worship. The curtain of the Temple was torn in two at the moment of Jesus’ death (Matthew 27:51), symbolizing that the separation between God and humanity had been removed. Worship was no longer tied to the Temple but to Jesus Himself.

Theologically, placing Jesus’ sacrifice on Golgotha emphasizes that the new way of relating to God—through Christ—is separate from the old Temple system. If Jesus had been crucified on Mount Moriah, it would have kept the Temple system too central in the New Covenant. By choosing Golgotha, God made it clear that the Temple system was being replaced by Christ’s body, which is the true Temple (John 2:19-21).

Avoiding Syncretism and Confusion

Imagine if Jesus had been crucified on Mount Moriah, where the Jewish Temple stood. This location was not only sacred to Jews but also significant to Christians. Mount Moriah had long been associated with the Mosaic covenant, the priesthood, and the sacrificial system established under the Law. If Christ had died there, it would have been easy for Christians to mistakenly elevate the Temple sacrifices as eternally binding, rather than understanding that Christ was the ultimate fulfillment of all that those sacrifices foreshadowed. The theological implications would have been disastrous. Instead of the clear break that Christianity needed to distinguish itself as the fulfillment of Judaism, the association between Jesus’ sacrifice and the Jewish Temple sacrifices would have led to confusion and potentially syncretism, where people might blend the old Jewish system with the New Covenant.

By separating the locations, God ensured that the two systems—the Mosaic system centered on the Temple and the New Covenant centered on Christ—would remain distinct. Had Golgotha and Mount Moriah overlapped, there might have been a temptation for early Christians (and later followers) to continue to hold the Jewish sacrifices as sacred, alongside Jesus’ ultimate sacrifice. This would have undermined the complete sufficiency of Jesus’ atonement and perpetuated reliance on the Temple system that Jesus came to replace.

Jesus, the Sacrifice for All Nations

Mount Moriah, and by extension, the Temple, was the focal point for Jewish worship. It was where Jews believed God’s presence dwelled, and only the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies once a year on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16). By sacrificing Jesus outside the city, God signaled that the sacrifice of His Son was not just for Jews but for the whole world.

As a public place for executions, Golgotha was accessible and visible to all—Jews, Gentiles, Romans, and foreigners alike. This underscores that Jesus’ sacrifice was for “every tribe, language, people, and nation” (Revelation 5:9). If Jesus had been sacrificed within the Temple precincts, the message might have been seen as exclusive to Jews, reinforcing the idea that salvation was only through the Jewish system.

Conclusion

Therefore, the distinct separation between Mount Moriah and Golgotha was no accident. Golgotha, a place of rejection, became the site of salvation, while Moriah, with all its ancient significance, remains the heart of the Old Covenant, which Christ came to fulfill. By choosing Golgotha for the sacrifice of Jesus rather than Mount Moriah, God demonstrated the distinctiveness of Jesus’ sacrifice from the old system. Golgotha symbolizes Jesus as the ultimate sin offering, fulfilling the Law but establishing a New Covenant that transcends the Jewish Temple and its rituals.

Jesus was not sacrificed where kings ruled or priests labored. God, in His wisdom, chose for the ultimate sacrifice to take place in a place of rejection—a place reserved for the cursed and the despised. This site was far more fitting for the One Who came “to seek and save the lost” (Luke 19:10) and to bear the sins of the world. The separation of these two sites prevents any syncretism and keeps the focus on Christ’s sacrifice for all nations, rather than allowing it to be tied to the Jewish sacrificial system. This separation preserves the truth that Jesus’ sacrifice is the end of all sacrifices, and that in Him, all peoples—Jews and Gentiles alike—find their way to God.

Endnotes

1 However, it is crucial to note that when God directed Abraham to offer Isaac in Genesis 22:2, He specified “the land of Moriah,” not necessarily Mount Moriah. This phrase may imply that the broader region in which Jerusalem sits, including Mount Moriah and other nearby elevations, was encompassed within the “land of Moriah.” While some may argue this point, Scripture specifically connects the building of Solomon’s Temple on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite with the exact site of Abraham’s offering of Isaac. These two events—Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac and Solomon’s Temple construction—are indelibly linked in Scripture (see Genesis 22:2 and 2 Chronicles 3:1). These verses bridge the geographical and theological significance of Mount Moriah as the site for Israel’s Temple and the place of Abraham’s test of faith.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.