Beautiful Gate

While John and Peter were going into the temple, they healed a “lame” man at the “gate of the temple, which is called Beautiful.” 

There have been three gates proposed for the Beautiful Gate. The first, mentioned by Josephus, is the Nicanor Gate. Josephus reports that the Nicanor Gate was large and lavishly decorated.¹ He also says the gate “opened on the east over against the gate of the holy house itself…”² The gate gave access from the court of women to the court of men and was, therefore, within the temple complex.³ This gate was likely destroyed when the Romans besieged the city in A.D. 70. The major argument in support of the Nicanor Gate is the Codex Bezae (D) that reads, “But when Peter and John were going out he went with them, and they, astonished, stood in the portico called Solomon’s,” identifying the Beautiful Gate as the Nicanor Gate. 

The second proposed Beautiful Gate is the Golden Gate, also called Shushan.⁴  The Golden Gate was in the east wall of the temple complex, directly opposite the Mount of Olives. Because of this, it was associated with Christ’s triumphant entry into the city on Palm Sunday, and the healing of the lame man.⁵ Although the gate existing today was likely built during the Crusader era, there is a persistent legend that Suleiman the Magnificent caused the Golden Gate to be filled in, apparently in an effort to thwart the idea that Jesus would return again through this gate.⁶ Scholars also suggest that the Greek word for “beautiful,” (ὡραῖος) resembles the Latin aurea, meaning golden, giving rise to the gate being called “Porta Aurea,” i.e. Golden Gate. Another argument in favor of the Golden Gate is the text of Acts itself. Luke records that Peter and John were going “up together to the temple (ἱερὸν)”. Usually, the word “ἱερὸν” refers to the temple complex, as opposed to “ναός” which refers to the sanctuary itself. If the Apostles had healed the man in the Nicanor Gate, Luke likely would have used ναός instead of ἱερὸν. Moreover, Luke says that the crowds gathered around the Apostles in Solomon’s Porch. Aside from Codex Bezae, in order for the chronology of the story to fit together, the Apostles would have healed the man, gone through the Golden Gate, and entered Solomon’s Porch.⁷ If they would have already entered the temple complex, healed the man in Nicanor Gate, entered the court of men, then come back out to Solomon’s Porch, Luke’s account would be much more convoluted than is his normal, careful style. Also, since the reading in Codex Bezae seems to be the variant one, it is likely not the original.

The last proposal is for the Double Gate at the southern wall of the Temple Mount complex, sharing the argument of the Golden Gate regarding the complex versus the sanctuary. These two gates were entrances and exits for the southern portion of the temple mount, and each one measured about five meters wide. This was probably the main entrance for pilgrims since it was located at the very large stairway leading up to the gates (64 meters long). This was an ideal location for begging, and his illness may have prohibited him from entrance onto the Temple Mount. Leen Ritmeyer believes this to be the most likely choice since the text reads that upon receiving his healing, the man attended the apostles into the temple courts “walking and jumping, and praising God” (Acts 3:2, 10).⁸

See Randall Price and H. Wayne House, Zondervan Handbook of Biblical Archaeology, pp. 295-298.