Was the type books or was the type blood?

[tall73]

2) Christ is said to have entered the holy places, which the writer already designated as the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary. You continually refuse to accept this point.

I do refuse your characterization of the data. In fact you too admit to an inauguration. There can't be inauguration without entering the most holy.

But here is the longer defense of my view from my other thread which you did not address in detail.

---------------
Quote- Tall73

On Jesus entering the Most Holy Place, first I should make it clear that I am not sure there is a two compartment sanctuary in heaven. Hebrews says Christ entered “heaven itself which suggests that the two apartments were symbols of something greater and that all of heaven is the true. But whether there are two compartments or not I see Christ entering into the equivalent of the MHP. Here are the evidences I see:

1. He inaugurated and all admit that inauguration involved all of the temple and the temple furniture, requiring Moses to go into the MHP.

2. Jesus is said to have gone into God’s presence, sitting down at His right hand.


In the earthly type despite the flexibility of the term "before the Lord", God made it clear where His presence was most completely manifested.


Exo 25:21 And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give you. 22 There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you about all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel.

Lev 16:2 and the LORD said to Moses, "Tell Aaron your brother not to come at any time into the Holy Place inside the veil, before the mercy seat that is on the ark, so that he may not die. For I will appear in the cloud over the mercy seat.

Num 7:89 And when Moses went into the tent of meeting to speak with the LORD, he heard the voice speaking to him from above the mercy seat that was on the ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubim; and it spoke to him.


3. There is the question of why the author would even raise the high point of the Hebrews cultic year if he did not intend to show that Christ was better. That was the whole point of the book to show how Jesus went beyond Moses, beyond angels, His covenant was better, His blood was better, His priesthood was better, etc. By focusing special attention in his introduction of the earthly sanctuary on the Day of Atonement he sets up the later section where he details the fulfillment.

4. There is Day of Atonement imagery used.

Even Richard Davidson, who is probably the strongest inauguration proponent, is constrained to see at least one direct reference to the day of atonement:

I agree with Young that Hebrews 9:7 and 9:25 refer to Day of Atonement, because of the clear references to “once a year” and “every year” respectively.
Inauguration or Day of Atonement? Andrews University Seminary Studies, Spring 2002, pg. 79


5. The phrase “within the veil” which has been seen by some to be a reference to the Day of Atonement or the inauguration, but is admitted by most to be used consistently in the LXX in reference to entering the second veil, is another evidence, but since both Day of Atonement language and Inauguration language are used already it doesn’t add much to the argument. Therefore I won’t belabor the point other than to say that most Adventist scholars now admit this is a reference to entrance into the Most Holy, though some postulate just to inaugurate and then leave.

------------


As to my reasons for not believing there are two apartments:

The issue of whether the heavenly sanctuary has two apartments at all is another question asked by Johnsson. No specific reference is made to two compartments in the heavenly sanctuary in Hebrews.

While we emphasize the type and its fulfillment the whole text, like the rest of Hebrews, is actually a contrast. Just as Jesus was better than Moses and better than angels His ministration is better.

The old High Priest would die and needed to be replaced as we learned in an earlier chapter. But Jesus had an indestructible life. The old High Priest had to be from the tribe of Levi. But Jesus was from Judah, after the order of Melchizedek--He was Priest and King. In the old service the High Priest went through the same cycle every year entering only once per year (limited access), only with blood not his own, only with incense to shield him, and with everything perfect or he would be destroyed. But this High Priest entered not with blood of bulls and goats, and not over and over, but once, for all with his own blood. He did not enter only once and then withdraw quickly to repeat it the next year but sat down in God’s presence and has made a new way for us to have direct access to God . That was the very thing they did not have in the old system. Only the High Priest had access. But now we can come boldly before the throne of grace through the new and living way opened for us.

The old system was all about the limited access to God that is now a thing of the past.

Just as the above shows that the fulfillment often went beyond or even contrasted with the type, so this question over whether there are two apartments seems to be a contrast.

The earthly is spelled out in terms of a two apartment sanctuary in the beginning of the chapter. But the limited access of the old sanctuary is not what is pictured in the heavently sanctuary. Instead we see that it is heaven itself: We see that we have direct access to God--as contrasted with the limited once per year access of the earthly high priest.

Heb 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.

The reality far transcends the type. Since the NT indicates that heaven itself is the real sanctuary we should not read a two compartment sanctuary back in, just as we don’t insist that Jesus be of the tribe of Levi when the NT says otherwise.

Related to whether there are two compartments in the heavenly sanctuary is the discussion of the term τα αγια.

In the Daniel and Revelation committee they note that the best translation is of ta hagia is simply sanctuary:

The committee believes that ta hagia should be regarded as a general term that should be translated in most instances as “sanctuary” unless the context clearly indicates otherwise (such as in chapter 9:2, 3).

Jesus entered into the heavenly sanctuary which is heaven itself.There is no indication of a holy and holy of holies in heaven. And there is no indication of limited access. Instead there is a new and living way.


Now again Jon, you claim that you cannot debate Greek when it suits you, but your main argument rests on the Greek in contradiction with

a. The context
b. Our own scholars
c. Your own view of inauguration.

 

[tall73]

3) The Leviticus Yom Kippur states that the house of Israel will be clean in regard to all their transgressions. You've asserted this has already been fulfilled. Matthew 18 expressely contradicts your opinion, since our sins can and will be placed right back on our heads again if we turn away from the truth. Just as the master had once forgiven the debt, yet demanded it to be repaid in the end for wilful transgression of the servent, Christ said "So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you".

Does it make conscious sense that we are "clean" in regard to all our sins now, when we are not in heaven yet?

Lev 16:30 For on this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you. You shall be clean before the LORD from all your sins.

The work that Jesus brought about does in fact make us clean before the Lord from all our sins.

Heb 10:10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb 10:11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
Heb 10:12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,
Heb 10:13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.
Heb 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
Heb 10:15 And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
Heb 10:16 "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,"
Heb 10:17 then he adds, "I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more."
Heb 10:18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
Heb 10:19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus,
Heb 10:20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh,
Heb 10:21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God,
Heb 10:22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

For those who are in Christ we are perfected in Him. We are sprinkled from our evil conscience, which is a reference to the water of cleansing. The new covenant promised which Jesus fulfilled is that He will not remember our sins.

It is to the one who falls back and does not accept the merits of what Christ has done that the later admonition applies:

.
Heb 10:26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.
Heb 10:28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses.
Heb 10:29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?

The one in Christ is clean based on what Christ did. The one who falls back is not clean because he no longer has any basis for being clean.

Again to clarify for you and the lurkers: "clean" and "forgiven" are two different things. Forgiveness of sin can and does happen right now.

We are both right now. We are forgiven. And we are clean. And we are everything else that perfect implies. God said we are through what Jesus did FOR us. At the point we reject that we are on our own with nothing. We are cut off.

Could you demonstrate how "offer" means "presentation"? I've always taken that verse literally - offering of the sacrifice = killing the sacrifice. Christ only died once - He does not offer Himself repeatedly.

Amen. Doesn't Hebrews simply contrast this to the earthly priests who were continually going in and out? Christ entered once for all into the holy place.

Heb 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
Heb 9:25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,

The entering was by means of His blood. See verse 12

Heb 9:12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

This is a direct parallel to the description of the earthly:

Heb 9:7 but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood


Verse 2 compares the offering to the ENTRANCE of the priest, not to the sacrifice of the priest.

Now one would necessitate the other. They are both go together which is the whole point. The sacrifice always necessitated the ministration of the blood.

Therefore if Christ were to offer again and again He would have to ENTER again and again which would actually mean He would have to SUFFER again and again.

None of those happen again and again. It was all once, which is the departure from the type.

But if you want to read it the other way, which may be possible, and the idea of "offer" referring to the presentation of blood bothers you, then feel free to read it that way. You may be right. But it does not change the rest of the text. I will look at that below.

But I do want to pause right here and say that it is this sort of thing that I appreciate about our discussions. I need to search the LXX for usage, and look into the matter more. And I appreciate you prompting me to do so.

However, as I mentioned above, if you read offer differently it does not change the issue.

The whole argument of these verses is to show that Christ did indeed enter in, BY MEANS OF His own blood.

Not only does this parallel the description of the earthly DOA but again it is attended by such strong day of atonement references in vs. 25 that even Davidson is compelled to admit this is a day of atonement reference.

Heb 9:25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,

- High priest
- By means of blood, contrasted with the priest who brought other blood
- Yearly

However you take "offer" it is clear that the ministration of the blood of the sacrifice has started. That was the whole reason to "ENTER", to minister the blood, which ALWAYS happened directly after the sacrifice.

So if the once for all sacrifice included the Day of Atonement, which all admit, then why would you say the ministration of that blood was later when there are such strong verbal links to that very service as the high point of the cultus?

The blood was offered right after the sacrifice. You agree with that for everything else apparently, but not for the DOA.

Now of course I think it started AND ended, since He then sat down, having finished that ministration.

But even if you see it ongoing until the end it started at the ascension, not in 1844. And it is tied to Day of Atonement language.

Now the difference between you and Davidson is that he admits v. 25 must be a reference to the day of atonement. But he says that it is a reference to the future. But it cannot be due to the context and the tenses and the nature of the events described. They already happened before the author of Hebrews' time.

Now if you want to say that you see no reference to the Day of Atonement, as you have before, that is your choice.

But when he speaks of the high priest, entering by means of blood, yearly, and has already made what you admit is a clear reference to the earthly Day of Atonement which this parallels, then I fail to see why you would think it was something else, when our own scholars do not agree in the work written to address the issue.

Nor does the most recent research, which I looked at when going to talk to the professors, deny that this is a reference to the Day of Atonement.

But if you think it is not, then what other service was yearly, involving the high priest and involving the entering by means of blood?

You have admitted to an inauguration which REQUIRES entrance into the most holy place.

Your only argument is on τα αγια, a Greek term that the Greek scholars do not agree with you on. And it does not agree with your own position.

Heb 9:26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.


Don't forget Adventists interpret the outer court as the earthly side of salvation. Christ's earthly work is completed, once for all, sacrificed once. He entered the heavenly side of salvation once for all; there will be no repetition.

Oh I agree with the outer court part not being repeated, and the entering not being repeated. But I am also pointing out the other implications of the entering by means of His blood, that the ministration of blood for the once for all sacrifice began. You admit it did for the inauguration, do you not?

Well then how do you separate out each service? There was one sacrifice. He entered once. The blood FROM THAT SACRIFICE was ministered. And it was presented in day of atonement language.

But again, the MHP represents judgment. This happens immediately prior to Christ's second coming. Daniel states "judgment was passed in favour of the saints." Nowhere in your posts have I seen you reference the judgment aspect of Yom Kippur. This is unmistakeable, even both Jewish and non-Adventist historians will agree it was a day of judgment.

Jon

You say it represents judgment. But the only judgment you can point to is not directly involved in the type of cleansing but in the results of not following the prescriptions.




Now let me ask this--do you believe that some of the blood was offered at one point for the daily, the inauguration ,etc. and some other portion later?

If so we can look at that. And I imagine you would hold to the timing of the feast in the year being the determining factor?

 

[tall73]

Jon,

I have mentioned a point again and again regarding something that I think you hold to which is crucial for at least two reasons. But I want to be sure that in fact you do hold to that or I can stop mentioning it.

Do you believe that Christ inaugurated the heavenly sanctuary at His ascension?