1844 and the book of Hebrews...

[OntheDL]

Lets look into the book of Hebrews on the instances of Most Holy Place and Holy Place:

Hebrews 9
2 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein [was] the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.

3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all (39 39);

39 39: Hagion hagion: holy of holy

Fine. No problem here.

7 But into the second [went] the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and [for] the errors of the people:

8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all (39) was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

39 Hagion: holy place.

Here the Greek is hagion. This is a serious problem. By its content, vs8 is clear the MHP, but the Greek text is HP. This is inconsistent.

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place (39), having obtained eternal redemption [for us].

39: hagion: holy place

Vs12 strongly suggests here the room is MHP. Another problem with the inconsistent Greek text.

24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places (39) made with hands, [which are] the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

39: hagion: holy place

Another problem here. The Greek text should have been hagion hagion.


25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place (39) every year with blood of others;

39: hagion: Holy Place

Again, the high priest enters the Most Holy Place. So Greek here should have been hagion hagion. Another textual problem.



Hebrews 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest(39) by the blood of Jesus,

39: hagion

Here again the Greek is hagion while the text clearly shows the room is MHP. It should have been hagion hagio.


I checked other instance in the Greek where HP and MHP appeared.

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (39), (whoso readeth, let him understand)

39: hagion: holy place.

No problems here.

Jude 1:20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy (40) faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

40 hagios: most holy.

Interestingly here the strongs number is 40: hagios.

Unfortunately these two are not a large enough sample size to make a definitive conclusion to say about the usage of the word in Hebrews.

My theory for this inconsistency is that the book of Hebrews was originally written in Aramaic. There’re not enough evidence to strongly support this. However I think this is a possibility. My next step would be checking the Syriac Pershitta, the Aramaic New Testament to see what words where used in the book of Hebrews.

Let me give out my strongest caution here to those might consider it. There is no evidence that the Aramaic NT text is superior to the Greek. So only use this as a reference.

I remember Tall73 said we can not use word-for-word method to determine the precise translation. Then I’m lost with the grammar and what not. And I doubt we need to be experts of the original language to be able to understand the Bible.

While I can’t offer a definitive conclusion on the textual problems, I’m confident that Hebrews itself does not nullify the 1844 investigative judgment. In fact it confirms it.

Notice the author of Hebrews did not dismiss the annual atonement service where the high priest entered once a year into the MHP (Heb 9:1-7). It confirms and uses it as a type for the heavenly to be purified (vs 23).

However, we see clearly, the author of Hebrews was trying the persuade the new Hebrew Christians away from the earth sacrificial service and get them to focus on Jesus’ heavenly ministry which was ratified by His blood and inaugurated upon His ascension.


Hope this address some of the issues.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Checking with my interlinear Bible ( Green's ) I find in Heb 9:4 where it specifically speaks of the Holy of Holies with the words "ayia ayiwv" with strong's concordance # 39 above each. Which tells me that ayiwv may be a plural of ayia or hagion hagion's. Stong's doesn't give us the defintion of ayiwv to support this but specifically defines aiyia as "A sacred thing, holiest of all, holy place , sanctuary."( bolding mine ). So based on this we could take our pick of which is applicable here. I like the conclusion of OntheDL that the context in Heb 10:12 supports the Most Holy is entered. It could be a deeper study of the Aramaic language could help here but the syntax of the greek is conclusive enough I think to interpret what is being said.

 

[Jimlarmore]

It seems to me that the SDA church is right on in it's interpretation of the scripture that supports the IJ and 1844, however, with problems like this lurking in the wings in the scripture they can always make an issue over our interpretation and the potential variation of the original intent of the author/'s.

 

[OntheDL]

It seems to me that the SDA church is right on in it's interpretation of the scripture that supports the IJ and 1844, however, with problems like this lurking in the wings in the scripture they can always make an issue over our interpretation and the potential variation of the original intent of the author/'s.

I looked again at vs 24,

Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places (39) made with hands, [which are] the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

I think we can make a case for either the holy place or the most holy place.

I think this is clearest evidence that the author did not intend to say one way or another, but rather emphasized on the fact that Christ by the merit of His blood, forever superceded the levitical priesthood and sacrificial rituals.

 

[OntheDL]

It seems to me that the SDA church is right on in it's interpretation of the scripture that supports the IJ and 1844, however, with problems like this lurking in the wings in the scripture they can always make an issue over our interpretation and the potential variation of the original intent of the author/'s.

Yes, it comes down to what we are looking for.

The bible must agree with itself in entirety. If the book of Hebrews nullifies the spiritual aspect of Day of Atonement service, then the sanctuary was given to God's people in vein.

I'm very comfortable with the conclusion we have here. The alternative has no foundation and introduces many more problems. That's a position impossible to reconcile with the rest of our knowledge on the subject.

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]

'I know that the sanctuary question stands in righteousness and truth, just as we have held it for so
many years. It is the enemy that leads minds off on sidetracks. He is pleased when those who know
the truth become engrossed in collecting scriptures to pile around erroneous theories, which have no
foundation in truth. The scriptures thus used are misapplied; they were not given to substantiate
error, but to strengthen truth.'--- Gospel Workers, page 303.

​

[/FONT]

 

[Jimlarmore]

Yes, it comes down to what we are looking for.

The bible must agree with itself in entirety. If the book of Hebrews nullifies the spiritual aspect of Day of Atonement service, then the sanctuary was given to God's people in vein.

I'm very comfortable with the conclusion we have here. The alternative has no foundation and introduces many more problems. That's a position impossible to reconcile with the rest of our knowledge on the subject.

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]'I know that the sanctuary question stands in righteousness and truth, just as we have held it for so[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]many years. It is the enemy that leads minds off on sidetracks. He is pleased when those who know[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]the truth become engrossed in collecting scriptures to pile around erroneous theories, which have no[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]foundation in truth. The scriptures thus used are misapplied; they were not given to substantiate[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]error, but to strengthen truth.'--- Gospel Workers, page 303.[/FONT]​

Sister White and her opinion is one of the aspects of the IJ that absolutely won't fly with formers. If you can't prove what you believe out of the Bible they don't want to hear it . Which is really ok with me, because we need to be solo sriptura when we are speaking to non-believers, don't you think?

I still like the trend we see in our God when He is judging things. Even though He already knows all He makes an investigative inquiry so all can see His justice. He did that in the garden of eden, tower of Babel, sodom and Gomorrah and He is doing it now as we speak in the investigative judgement.

God bless
Jim Larmore

 

[woobadooba]

Sister White and her opinion is one of the aspects of the IJ that absolutely won't fly with formers. If you can't prove what you believe out of the Bible they don't want to hear it . Which is really ok with me, because we need to be solo sriptura when we are speaking to non-believers, don't you think?

I still like the trend we see in our God when He is judging things. Even though He already knows all He makes an investigative inquiry so all can see His justice. He did that in the garden of eden, tower of Babel, sodom and Gomorrah and He is doing it now as we speak in the investigative judgement.

God bless
Jim Larmore

The IJ is most definitely Biblical. But according to the Bible it was in progress during the time of Peter. Meaning, it didn't begin to happen in 1844, but long before that time. 1Pt. 4:17

Now, we are either going to agree with what the Bible clearly says, or we are going to deny it for an interpretation that isn't so clear, of a prophecy.

I choose to agree with what the Bible clearly says.

Perhaps Occam's Razor could apply here.

 

[Jimlarmore]

The IJ is most definitely Biblical. But according to the Bible it was in progress during the time of Peter. Meaning, it didn't begin to happen in 1844, but long before that time. 1Pt. 4:17

Now, we are either going to agree with what the Bible clearly says, or we are going to deny it for an interpretation that isn't so clear, of a prophecy.

I choose to agree with what the Bible clearly says.

Perhaps Occam's Razor could apply here.

Occam's Razor applies to the concepts of science for sure but not necessarily Biblical interpretation. The wording in 1 Peter 4:17 and specifically "is come" is in italics in the KJV. If you see a word in italics in the KJV it means those were added for clarification by the translators and was not in the original language. IOW, "is come" is not inspired wording. Now lets look at the original language and see if it should be put there or not.

Green's interlinear of 1 Peter 4:17 "To glorify but God in respect this. Because the time to begin the judgement from the house of God if and firstly from us what will the end of those disobeying the "tou" of God." From this it may be a stretch to conclude that the words "is come" should be put in or not. The context of this verse is not of a flavor to indicate anything to do with the sanctuarial services or a moving from one part of the sanctuary or not. It just appears that the judgement will start with the house of God and really gives no time frame for this to initiate. Am I wrong on this? Please be specific.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[woobadooba]

Occam's Razor applies to the concepts of science for sure but not necessarily Biblical interpretation.

Yes, I realise this. That's why I had said, "perhaps" it "could apply here" (in principle, not strict scientific law). Meaning, the simplest answer is found in 1Pt. 4:17 which clearly appears to indicate that it had begun during Peter's time.

wording in 1 Peter 4:17 and specifically "is come" is in italics in the KJV. If you see a word in italics in the KJV it means those were added for clarification by the translators and was not in the original language. IOW, "is come" is not inspired wording. Now lets look at the original language and see if it should be put there or not.

I also realise this. However, it is a fact that Peter believed that he was living in the last days (Acts 2:17), and that Jesus would come during his generation. So it would make perfect sense then to conclude that he had intended to convey the thought that the judgment had begun during that time. The translators obviously understood this too. Hence the reason for inserting "is come".

Furthermore, if Peter was merely referring to the executive phase of God's judgment in that passage, then it would make no sense at all for him to say that it begins with the house of God.

For judgment will be executed on the wicked before it is administered to the righteous. See Matt 13--the parable of the wheat and tares. So it can't merely be referring to the executive phase.

Therefore, it is most reasonable to conclude that since Peter believed that Jesus was coming soon, that he was speaking of the investigative phase of God's judgment, and thus declaring that God's people would be held accountable for their deeds, that their lives had to measure up to the one that God had called them to live--to be holy--that they were to live as unto the Day of the Lord, so to speak.

So this would mean that when Peter spoke of "judgment" he was speaking of it in the sense that it was ongoing, and would eventually reach its culminating point on the day of God's wrath.

 

[Jimlarmore]

I also realise this. However, it is a fact that Peter believed that he was living in the last days (Acts 2:17), and that Jesus would come during his generation. So it would make perfect sense then to conclude that he had intended to convey the thought that the judgment had begun during that time. The translators obviously understood this too. Hence the reason for inserting "is come".

This is using logic for interpretive conclusions of the Bible and I like that. However, if you go that way you have to allow the inverse to come into the picture so here goes. If Peter truely "believed that Christ was coming in his day" then we can safely say that this belief of his was not inspired of God because we know for a fact that Christ's second coming didn't occurr back then. If however he was just bringing up the fact that the judgement started with the house of God first with no time line attached then it makes perfect sense and we can reattach inspiration to the context of these verses. Like Ellen White Peter was not a perfect man. Which way can you go with this based on these facts? I still kind of like the original language on this which says nothing of a time line or the sanctuary.

Furthermore, if Peter was merely referring to the executive phase of God's judgment in that passage, then it would make no sense at all for him to say that it begins with the house of God.

For judgment will be executed on the wicked before it is administered to the righteous. See Matt 13--the parable of the wheat and tares. So it can't merely be referring to the executive phase.

Again, I have to respectfully disagree. The righteous must be shown to be worthy of eternal life in a pre-advent judgement before the wicked are destroyed at His 2nd coming or after the millenium. When Christ stands up and makes His declaration in Rev. 22:11 that seals the fate of all on earth for righteousness or condemnation.

[quote]
So this would mean that when Peter spoke of "judgment" he was speaking of it in the sense that it was ongoing, and would eventually reach its culminating point on the day of God's wrath.[/quote]

I think this is true to an extent in that when anyone dies his probation is closed at that time.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[woobadooba]

This is using logic for interpretive conclusions of the Bible and I like that. However, if you go that way you have to allow the inverse to come into the picture so here goes. If Peter truely "believed that Christ was coming in his day" then we can safely say that this belief of his was not inspired of God because we know for a fact that Christ's second coming didn't occurr back then.

But believing something is going to happen, and stating that it will happen are two different things. Peter never gave a date of when Jesus would return. He just simply believed that it could have been at any time during his generation.

Hence, just because he believed this that doesn't mean he was a false prophet. Now, if he had given a date, then that would have been different. But he didn't. So this "inverse" argument really does us no good here.

Again, the reason for speaking of the judgment here was to inform God's people that their lives were being examined day by day. He wanted them to know that they wouldn't slip into heaven on a banana peel, so to speak, but that they had to live up to their true calling, to be holy and undefiled by the world. Thus they would have to give an account for everything that they had done throughout their 'believing' lives on that great day when God would judge the world.

If however he was just bringing up the fact that the judgement started with the house of God first with no time line attached then it makes perfect sense and we can reattach inspiration to the context of these verses. Like Ellen White Peter was not a perfect man. Which way can you go with this based on these facts? I still kind of like the original language on this which says nothing of a time line or the sanctuary.

Again, peter didn't give an exact date. And a belief is far different from a so-called inspired interpretation of a Bible passage. So there really is no comparison between the two. Ellen White never said, "This is what I believe Zech. 13:6 is saying." She spoke with authority on her interpretation of this passage. In fact, she even made the claim that everything she had written was inspired by God. This obviously included her interpretations of Bible passages.

Again, I have to respectfully disagree. The righteous must be shown to be worthy of eternal life in a pre-advent judgement before the wicked are destroyed at His 2nd coming or after the millenium. When Christ stands up and makes His declaration in Rev. 22:11 that seals the fate of all on earth for righteousness or condemnation.

So then you don't agree with what Jesus said? He made it very clear that the tares would be burned up before the wheat would be gathered together into the barn. In other words, the wicked would be destroyed before the righteous would receive their reward.

Incidentally, in Matt. 13 Jesus was referring to the judgment that would take place at the second coming, not the judgment that would take place after the millennium. See 1Thess. 4:16-17, and notice how it says, "we who are alive and remain". They are alive and they remain because they haven't been slain by the brightness of Jesus' coming. Hint: the tares are already burned up at this point. And now the wheat which remains is going to be gathered together to be placed into the barn (the righteous will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air).

 

[Sophia7]

I looked again at vs 24,

Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places (39) made with hands, [which are] the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

I think we can make a case for either the holy place or the most holy place.

I think this is clearest evidence that the author did not intend to say one way or another, but rather emphasized on the fact that Christ by the merit of His blood, forever superceded the levitical priesthood and sacrificial rituals.

I believe that in context, the term hagia (holy places or holies) in this verse refers to the whole sanctuary--which would include both the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place.

 

[Sophia7]

This is using logic for interpretive conclusions of the Bible and I like that. However, if you go that way you have to allow the inverse to come into the picture so here goes. If Peter truely "believed that Christ was coming in his day" then we can safely say that this belief of his was not inspired of God because we know for a fact that Christ's second coming didn't occurr back then.

Let me ask you a question: could Jesus have come back in Peter's day if the early Christians had fulfilled their mission of spreading the gospel to the world? They certainly seemed to expect it. Even Jesus, in Matthew 24, gave them that impression:

32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
​

 

[Jimlarmore]

Let me ask you a question: could Jesus have come back in Peter's day if the early Christians had fulfilled their mission of spreading the gospel to the world? They certainly seemed to expect it. Even Jesus, in Matthew 24, gave them that impression:

32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:​

33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. ​

34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. ​

35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.​

​

Good questions Sophia. I think it's good to ponder such things as long as they don't make us turn our back on the Lord. The prophetic time line as we know it now may have indeed been different had they completely evangelized the world back then. Of course if that happened and the Lord returned way back then that would have negated the 1260 and the 2300 day prophecy of Daniel concerning the little horn and the IJ, but it's possible I guess. This is one of those questions we will have to ask the Lord one day in the Holy City or afterward in the earth made new. Man, have I got a lot of questions for my creator .

 

[OntheDL]

Yes, if all the conditions were fulfilled for the Lord's return in the apostles' days, there wouldn't have been those time prophesies.

The Lord in His perfect knowledge knows all the events in advance, but He lets the history run its course.

That's why I think when the disciples asked Jesus about the destruction of Jerusalem in Matthew 24, He gave them dual applications: one for 70AD, one for the endtime.

So I don't know if this addresses the question, but everything applies to the end, also applied to every generation in one way or another.

Though I question if the disciples understood the meaning of time prophesies because the bible tells us the understanding was sealed for the endtime, it wouldn't be wrong for the disciples to expect to see Jesus' return and to expect the judgment to begin. Ellen White certainly expected to be among the 144000.

So my understanding is that everything in the bible somehow all apply to us but there is also a precise timing for the events the Lord had foretold. That's the beauty of it.

 

[OntheDL]

I believe that in context, the term hagia (holy places or holies) in this verse refers to the whole sanctuary--which would include both the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place.

Yeah, I think that's pretty much what Paul was trying to say.

 

[woobadooba]

Good questions Sophia. I think it's good to ponder such things as long as they don't make us turn our back on the Lord. The prophetic time line as we know it now may have indeed been different had they completely evangelized the world back then. Of course if that happened and the Lord returned way back then that would have negated the 1260 and the 2300 day prophecy of Daniel concerning the big horn and the IJ, but it's possible I guess. This is one of those questions we will have to ask the Lord one day in the Holy City or afterward in the earth made new. Man, have I got a lot of questions for my creator .

This is a valid point. It is then evident that if Peter believed that Jesus could have returned during his generation that he obviously didn't understand the 2300 day prophecy of Daniel.

And I am a firm believer that since God knows the end from the beginning, this prophecy would have to play itself out regardless of what people believed, even if they were prophets.

A person doesn't have to understand all things to be a prophet of God, but just simply has to answer to God's calling, and carry out the work that has been appointed to him/her by God.

After all, Peter still held to the belief that the Gentiles had no part with the covenant people (the promises to the Jews), even after the resurrection of Christ. For, he believed them to be unclean. God had to show him that he erred in his thinking. See Acts 10. The interesting thing is that the Gentiles were always included. See Gen. 12:1-3 But for some reason Peter didn't understand this.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Very good analogy Woob. I think what we need to remember is that the inspiration process may or may not reveal all things. What this means to me is that Peter may have had a strong personal belief that the Lord was going to return in his lifetime but his placing that belief in the Bible may not have come from the Holy Spirit. The book of Daniel was essentially a sealed book for Peter back then so it's no surprize that he was unaware of the 1260 or 2300 day prophecy and how they would impact the future back then. Now the Lord could have revealed it to him but if He had then I don't think Peter would have been saying what he did about the soon coming of the Lord.

OTOH, soon is a relative thing. In Revelations it speaks of the dragon being wroth because he knows that he has but a short time. In the over-all scheme of things six thousand years is a very short time compared to the trillions of years in the eternal past Lucifer could have existed after his creation and before his fall to sin.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Jon0388g]

Then again, maybe Peter didn't imply that Jesus would return in his day per se;

"And it shall be in the last days.....that I will pour forth of My Spirit on all mankind...." Acts 2:17

This seems like Peter did believe that the Second Advent could take place. But - Peter goes on to quote;

"And I will grant wonders in the sky above, and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke. The sun will be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and glorious day of the Lord shall come..." Acts 7:19-20

Possibly this could counter that Peter would have believed that Jesus would return, as these signs did not happen in Peter's day.

J

 

[woobadooba]

Then again, maybe Peter didn't imply that Jesus would return in his day per se;

"And it shall be in the last days.....that I will pour forth of My Spirit on all mankind...." Acts 2:17

This seems like Peter did believe that the Second Advent could take place. But - Peter goes on to quote;

"And I will grant wonders in the sky above, and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke. The sun will be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and glorious day of the Lord shall come..." Acts 7:19-20

Possibly this could counter that Peter would have believed that Jesus would return, as these signs did not happen in Peter's day.

J

But he very well could have believed that they could have happened at any point during his generation.