Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How the Passover celebrated in 31 A.D. coincided with a Gregorian Wed ( death of Christ ), Thursday and Friday...
...That is the primary question & given it's the fundamental peg holding the prophetic schema together.
While the NKJV certainly has its share of translational issues, so also does the KJV. Let's not forget about that misplaced comma in Luke 23:43, and the reference to "Easter" in Acts 12:4 rather than the more accurate word: "Passover." Of course, there are other matters too, but these two should be enough to show that you can't necessarily use the idea that it is a faulty translation of the passage to prove that it isn't referring to the Most Holy Place, unless the context clearly suggests it. But the context appears to suggest that it was the Most Holy Place, and that's likely why the NKJV was translated to reflect that:
"For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of anotherHe then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." (Hebrews 9:24-26 NKJV)
In the OT, the Most Holy Place was where the presence of God was (relative to the sanctuary). See Exodus 25:22 and Leviticus 16:2. Therefore, when the writer of Hebrews speaks of Jesus appearing "in the presence of God for us," he seems to imply that He entered the Most Holy Place. This is likely why he also said, "Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need" (Hebrews 4:16 NKJV). The usage of the word "mercy" within this context seems to be connected to the idea of the "mercy seat," which was located in the Most Holy Place of the sanctuary.
Having said that, we can now go boldly to the throne of grace because Jesus, through the shedding of His own blood and death, opened the way to it. This was illustrated when the veil was rent, as recorded in Mark 15:38. If Jesus only entered the Holy Place, then why was the veil to the Most Holy Place rent?
While the NKJV certainly has its share of translational issues, so also does the KJV. Let's not forget about that misplaced comma in Luke 23:43, and the reference to "Easter" in Acts 12:4 rather than the more accurate word: "Passover." Of course, there are other matters too, but these two should be enough to show that you can't necessarily use the idea that it is a faulty translation of the passage to prove that it isn't referring to the Most Holy Place, unless the context clearly suggests it. But the context appears to suggest that it was the Most Holy Place, and that's likely why the NKJV was translated to reflect that:
"For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of anotherHe then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." (Hebrews 9:24-26 NKJV)
In the OT, the Most Holy Place was where the presence of God was (relative to the sanctuary). See Exodus 25:22 and Leviticus 16:2. Therefore, when the writer of Hebrews speaks of Jesus appearing "in the presence of God for us," he seems to imply that He entered the Most Holy Place. This is likely why he also said, "Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need" (Hebrews 4:16 NKJV). The usage of the word "mercy" within this context seems to be connected to the idea of the "mercy seat," which was located in the Most Holy Place of the sanctuary.
Having said that, we can now go boldly to the throne of grace because Jesus, through the shedding of His own blood and death, opened the way to it. This was illustrated when the veil was rent, as recorded in Mark 15:38.
Do you ask how it is that God's throne at this time appears in the holy place of the heavenly sanctuary instead of in the most holy place, as symbolized in the earthly sanctuary? Being only a type, the earthly could not fully represent the heavenly because its parts,...had no inherent power, while their antitypes in the heavenly sanctuary are full of life and activity. God's throne...is a living moving throne...
If Jesus only entered the Holy Place, then why was the veil to the Most Holy Place rent?
They will hold onto any translation that suits them, no matter how unlikely or flawed. They can't give any ground or their house of cards may collapse.
Very interesting discussion. I hope you have some more good questions.
There is no biblical basis for the Sanctuary Message. This came about as a result of a failed prophecy. Matthew 24:36 states no one not even the angels of heaven knows when Christ would return. I am sure that scripture was in the same bible that the early Adventists had including E.G. White. It is time for us to focus on Jesus, we know three things about him.
(i) He was born
(ii) He was resurrected
(iii) He will return as King of Kings and Lord of Lord
Christ didn't die on a wednesday. Of course, that's not up for debate in this thread.
The text in the book of Hebrews isn't referring to a compartment, but to the sanctuary as a whole. The NKJV translation is incorrect. The proper translation states that Christ entered into the holy place. Not the most Holy Place.
I think the biggest issue here is a misunderstanding of sanctuary and how it relates to Christ's work.
All I'm saying is that IF an apologist for the SDA Church had a formal debate...
...On the rubrics of Adventisms prophetic schema leading up to 22 October.
...The fact that Passover in 31 A.D. didn't fall on a Friday would be the first thing mentioned.
so the translation is incorrect? huh? are you able to prove that? or is your assessment based on hearsay?
Totally true. I wasn't necessarily relying on the translation of the KJV so to say. I looked up the word which was translated as Holy Place. This is why I know that the translation in the NKJV is incorrect. The word "Hagion" is used to describe the Holy Place. The phrase Hagia Hagion (sp?) is used to describe the Most Holy place.
Stryder06 said:That was a symbol showing that the earthly sanctuary, along with its services had ceased: Daniel 9:7 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease...
Good point! But there seems to be a problem: in the KJV with Strongs, G39 (hagion) appears in Hebrews 9:3 for the expression, Holiest of all, while it also appears as such in Hebrews 9:24 for holy places, and 9:25 for "holy place"
Whats even more ironic is the fact that G39 (hagion) could mean holiest of all, while G40 (hagios) could mean most holy. How do you explain this apparent contradiction? And where do you see "Hagia Hagion"?
Indeed! But it also indicates that Christ has removed the barrier that separated us from God.
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. (John 14:6 NASB)
Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever. (Hebrews 7:25-28 NASB)
Regarding what you said about what you learned from the book: The Path to the Throne of God, where you said God's throne moved from the Most Holy place to the holy place, that is an interesting theory, but there is nothing to back it up from Scripture. Yet, Scripture indicates that Christ entered the holiest place:
"so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us. This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil, where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." (Hebrews 6:18-20 NASB)
"For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;" (Hebrews 9:24 NASB)
These passages appear to show that Jesus entered the Holy of Holies. Therefore, we have this hope of being able to go before the throne of grace because Christ has entered for us. And when we go to that place, we go there clothed in Christs righteousness, not to be condemned, but to receive mercy, because He paid the penalty for our sins" (see Rom. 3:25, Heb. 2:17, Gal. 2:20, and Rom. 8:1).
Sorry, I don't see a contradiction. As you said, it "could mean", but by looking at how the author uses the word, in context, we can determine what he's talking about. And Hagia Hagion i seen in 9:2
The removal of the veil symbolized the end of the earthly sacrifices. We can go straight to the Father through Christ.
What I said was that God's throne was a moving throne, and the book I referenced gave a better explanation than what I could type out. Scripture very much shows God's throne on the move. In Eze 1 and Isaiah 6 we see God on His throne, which isn't in the MHP.
You do know that there was a veil that separated the court from the Sanctuary right?
Im sorry, but those verses do not place Christ in the MHP. They simply don't. If you would like, you can look at the link I presented to Marsten in post #30. I would also suggest a study of the first chapter of Revelation. In Chapter 1 Christ is seen walking among 7 candlesticks, which I believe correlates very nicely with the menorah that was within the holy place.
Stryder06,
I found what you were talking about concerning "Hagia Hagion." But I also found some other things.
In Hebrews 9:3 of the Greek text from Wescott-Hort Version 1881, "Hagia Hagion" is the underlying text for "Holy of Holies"
But...
In the KJV with Strong's the word is "hagion" (Strong's G39)
And in the NASB with Strong's the word is "hagios" (Strong's G40)
Note: both the KJV and NASB with Strong's are from the esword program, while the verse that has "Hagia Hagion" is from this page: Hebrews 9:3 Biblos Interlinear Bible
Here's an image to illustrate what I am referring to:
As you can see, there is an obvious lack of consistency here. Therefore, relying so heavily on the presence of the expression "hagia hagion" as proof that Jesus didn't enter the Most Holy Place isn't necessarily the best way to approach the issue. In my opinion, the best way to approach it would be to weigh the evidence which suggests He entered the Most Holy Place against any evidence which suggests that He didn't. Thus far, I have seen more Scriptural evidence to support the idea that He did enter the Most Holy Place than evidence to prove He didn't.
I'm sorry, but I don't see any inconsistency
While the NKJV certainly has its share of translational issues, so also does the KJV. Let's not forget about that misplaced comma in Luke 23:43, and the reference to "Easter" in Acts 12:4 rather than the more accurate word: "Passover."
Heb 9:12 uses the word 'hagion', means holy place. The Greek words Most Holy place is 'hagion hagion': holy of holies.
Of course, there are other matters too, but these two should be enough to show that you can't necessarily use the idea that it is a faulty translation of the passage to prove that it isn't referring to the Most Holy Place, unless the context clearly suggests it. But the context appears to suggest that it was the Most Holy Place, and that's likely why the NKJV was translated to reflect that:
I think you have the good idea here. But we need to also look at what intent the author was writing with to his intended audience.
"For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another—He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." (Hebrews 9:24-26 NKJV)
In the OT, the Most Holy Place was where the presence of God was (relative to the sanctuary). See Exodus 25:22 and Leviticus 16:2. Therefore, when the writer of Hebrews speaks of Jesus appearing "in the presence of God for us," he seems to imply that He entered the Most Holy Place. This is likely why he also said, "Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need" (Hebrews 4:16 NKJV). The usage of the word "mercy" within this context seems to be connected to the idea of the "mercy seat," which was located in the Most Holy Place of the sanctuary.
Having said that, we can now go boldly to the throne of grace because Jesus, through the shedding of His own blood and death, opened the way to it. This was illustrated when the veil was rent, as recorded in Mark 15:38. If Jesus only entered the Holy Place, then why was the veil to the Most Holy Place rent?
According to Young's Literal Translation, the Bible says, "And Christ being come, chief priest of the coming good things, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands--that is, not of this creation-- neither through blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, did enter in once into the holy places, age-during redemption having obtained;" (Hebrews 9:11-12 YLT)
"holy places" is plural, which means that must include both the "holy place" and the "Most Holy Place." It would not make sense to exclude the Most Holy Place from "the holy places."
Purging our sins does not involve going into the MHP. And as stated before, the throne of God is not static; aside from that, the term "sat down at the right hand..." is an expression used to show ones Authority. Stating that Christ is seated at the right hand of God is showing that Christ has ultimate Authority. I don't think you can believe that Christ has literally just been sitting for the past 2k years.The Bible makes it clear that Jesus "purged our sins" and "sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high" (Hebrews 1:3 KJV). It would seem that He could not have done this without entering the Most Holy Place.
I have a question for you: What do you believe made the Most Holy Place the Holiest of all?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?