As an educational tool, I would like to invite consideration of the Ford/evangelical treatment of Heb. 9:12. John317, how could they get 'Most Holy Place' out of ta hagia, when the MHP is specifically identified in the same chapter, by the same writer, as hagia hagiwn?

*just jumping in to say thank you to Redwood and John317 about my inquiry*

Just hope those references and quotes helped.

Ford based his belief on his theological convictions rather than on an analysis of the Greek at Hebrews 9: 12.

The text simply teaches that Jesus Christ entered once for all into the heavenly sanctuary upon His ascension to heaven. It is saying He entered directly into the very presence of the Father.

It's very interesting to note in this connection that the book of Daniel, chapter 7, verses 9 to 14, shows that the Father's throne has wheels. Why? Something only has wheels if it is created to move. So the Father's throne is not in a permanent location. It has moved. Now the Father is seated and waiting for judgment to begin. He is waiting for Someone. Sure enough, verse 13 says "one like the Son of Man" is seen "coming" to the Ancient of Days, and it is only then that the "dominion and glory and a kingdom" is given to the Son of Man. According to verses 25 and 26, this judgment session doesn't begin until after the end of the prophetic time, which I believe came to an end in 1798.

Yes, exactly. That is what I too would say. With Ford, theology drove exegesis--which is exactly the opposite of what it should be.



True enough. The NASB words it, "He entered the holy places." The NASB translation committee chose to go with the plural--although the same word is also used specifically to describe the Holy Place. Nevertheless, either call is correct. Christ entered the 'holy places,' the heavenly sanctuary. I suspect that devotees of Ford might argue that hagia can be used to describe either compartment. Generally speaking, that may be true. HOWEVER, the writer of Hebrews, in the very passage at issue, describes the MHP as hagia hagiwn.

Another argument which could be presented has to do with Christ as the Veil. However, He is the Veil in the Holy Place as well as in the MHP. In cases where an 'either/or' choice is available, one must look to the rest of Scripture. When one does so, it is very clear that the earthly sanctuary was a copy of the heavenly. The courtyard ministry prepared the way for the holy place ministry. The holy place ministry prepared the way for the MHP ministry. Christ completed the courtyard ministry just prior to his ascension. He went from the courtyard, the earth, to the holy place in the heavenly sanctuary. It is NOT POSSIBLE to skip from the courtyard to the MHP. But that is what the Fordite theology has done.

Why? Because of hostility toward the investigative judgment, which is what occurs in the MHP. The investigative judgment is necessary preparation for the executive judgment, which results in the entry of the saved into the heavenly Canaan and the execution of the lost. The whole idea of 'it doesn't matter what you do' is intricately connected with the Fordite theology. Accept Jesus, and the 'race has been run, the battle won.' All that's left is, 'Welcome home, children!' Yet, that theology does violence to Scripture.



True enough. Jesus could be present with the Father and at the same time carrying forward His Holy Place mediatorial ministry.

Dave

Without a doubt, the end of the papacy's reign of terror in 1798 signaled the beginning of the endtimes. However, 'prophetic time' as I understand it came to an end in 1844. That is the endpoint of the longest time prophecy in the Bible. There is no more prophetic time: "Time shall be no more." And that is why it is inappropriate to attempt to set dates for any event after 1844.

What I find particularly interesting is that in all but one occurrence in N-A 26th ed., the word hagia occurs as an adjective, without the article. The exception is Heb. 9:12. I am at home now, and don't have the Greek text available here, but as I recall, the grammar in v. 2 seemed a bit convoluted. The emphasis seemed to be on 'holy', perhaps the holiness of the earthly sanctuary. IOW the sanctuary was holy, and the first room was called holy (adjective, no article.) The inner room was hagia hagiwn (no article), or most holy, we might say. It is so interesting to compare the Greek text with the several English translations. In an effort to make readable English, they often do add some words. Doing so can change the import of the message, to varying degrees. But that is just my opinion. John317, as our resident Greek scholar, what think you of that?

Dave

Incidentally, perhaps the most intriguing occurrence of hagia, at least to me, is that in Acts 7:33, 'the place whereon you stand is holy (plural) ground.' I keep wondering if there isn't some other significance to this use of the plural, as well in reference to the sanctuary. Could it have to do with the plurality of the Godhead, the Trinity? Just a thought. Any thoughts about that? John317?

Dave

Yes, you're right, I agree. I was referring to the time, times, and half a time in Daniel 7: 25, the same period of time spoken of in Rev. 13: 5. Those prophetic time periods have already been fulfilled. God is not waiting for any more prophetic time to pass before Christ returns.

Any time a word which does not occur in the original is added by the translator, it is best to take a good look at it to see if it is correct or if there is another, better way to understand the verse. That's why I prefer texts that identify the added words, such as occurs in NKJV and NASV.

Just because a word does not have a definite article doesn't mean it should be understood as simply an adjective. It was not unusual for the definite article not to occur when the adjective functions as a substantive. That is most likely the case of the name for the inner room of the sanctuary. One reason the article is not used is when an expression has become technicalized or stereotyped. This is due to the tendency toward abbreviation of frequent or customary phraseology.

It's interesting to note, by the way, that in Lev. 6: 25, 29, 31, 36 and so on, the burnt offerings are described as "most holy," and in each instance, the LXX uses the words, "hagia hagiwn," the same word that is used in Hebrews 9: 3 in reference to the second apartment of the sanctuary.