Exactly 165 years Ago, Christ Entered the Most Holy Place

[tall73]

Here's a fairly recent book that presents the Bible evidence for the Investigative Judgment. You can order it at the ABC. It's the best book I know of on this topic: The Silencing of Satan the Gospel of the Investigative Judgment, by Bradley Williams. He's now pastoring at the SDA church in Chula Vista, CA.

http://www.investigativejudgmentgospel.org/default.htm

I read MOST of the book just recently on inter-library loan.

I say most because it was one of the few books on the sanctuary that I just could not seem to get through. Partly that is because a lot of the material didn't relate to my particular objections.

For instance he spent a great deal of the time in his word studies showing that God will judge believers. I agree with that already. So that was of limited value to me. I can see how it might address some who deny such judgment.

But even for someone like me who accepts the idea that God will judge the believer I think he failed to deal with the texts that speak most strongly on how that judgment will play out in the end.

For instance, the following text describes us giving an account to God, being before His judgment seat, bowing the knee, and confessing. Those things do not happen in the IJ. We do not even know when our name comes up in the IJ:

Romans 14 makes plain that we give an account to God when we are before His judgment seat, we bow the knee and confess:

Rom 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

Rom 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

Rom 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

The bringing to light of the things of the heart happens at Jesus' coming, in the presence of men:

1Co 4:4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.

1Co 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

Jesus comes not only to execute judgment but to convict all of the ungodly of all their deeds.

Jud 1:15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

So if Jesus judges at His coming, if all confess, if all the ungodly are convicted of their ungodly deeds, if we are not to judge BEFORE the time at Jesus coming where He reveals hearts, etc. then exactly why do we need an IJ?

Everyone will confess anyway. The universe will have the statement right from the mouths of those before the judgment.

Now if God wants to do a separate IJ only on believers,that is fine with me. I don't think we can rule it out. I just don't see the evidence for it or a need for it. And in any case it would not be the fulfillment of the day of atonement type of cleansing in the sanctuary because Jesus already did that. The book did not address the Hebrews issues much at all as its focus was elsewhere.

[tall73]

Originally Posted By: tall73

Bob, you need not wonder when the entry continued into the Most Holy Place.

1. The innaugural work in both Holy Place and Most Holy Place was never called "Day of Atonement".

2. AFTER the innaugural work where all the sanctuary was consecrated - the HOLY Place ministry began.

3. In the Day of Atonement deals with sins of the PAST year - already entered into the sanctuary via the prior DAILY service. Your argument seems to be require that we stand the Bible model on its head. (As if that is a "better thing" to do).

4. One may "enter my house" once -- and then go to whatever room(s) they choose. We do not spin each room they go to as "another entry into my house".

As I am sure you will agree.

The text only speaks to entering the sanctuary itself --- and that is where your argument appears to fall apart.

[/quote']

He entered by means of blood.

He entered once for all into the sanctuary--which you admit included the MHP as He inaugurated. Therefore there is no question about whether He entered the MHP.

The blood of goats with entry was always associated with the MHP.

How does this entry by means of blood through the whole sanctuary indicate later entry?

If the once for all sacrifice serves for all the sacrifices how would the once for all entry BY MEANS OF blood not indicate all the entries?

Now if the Day of Atonement entry did not happen then, when do you posit it happened? The Day of Atonement entry involved entry through the whole sanctuary. At what point do you posit Jesus left the whole sanctuary then re-entered for the Day of Atonement entry?

Once for all is once for all Bob.

Quote:

1. The innaugural work in both Holy Place and Most Holy Place was never called "Day of Atonement".

Where do you see the inauguration called Day of Atonement here?

There are a number of fulfillments happening around the death and entry of Jesus. The inauguration is not called the Day of Atonement. Elements of the Day of Atonement are fulfilled through the same historical once-for-all redemptive activities of Christ that fulfilled the inauguration...and the red-heifer, and the daily sacrifices, and the ratification of the covenant.

Quote:

2. AFTER the innaugural work where all the sanctuary was consecrated - the HOLY Place ministry began.

The book particularly references that Jesus ministry is NOT characterized by a protracted daily ministry which was particularly a ministry of sacrifices in the earthly.

Heb 7:27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.

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.

The daily ministration of the priests with repetitive sacrifices was a sign of the weakness of the earthly.

Now as to continued ministration...I will explain that shortly after dealing with the discussion on Hebrews 23-25.

Also, while you are making here an argument about the timing of the type you have yet to explain why you accept other changes in the timing, such as the once-for-all sacrifice and entry. Does that fit the type?

But you accept it. Why?

Shouldn't you reject it out of hand since it doesn't fit the type?

Quote:

3. In the Day of Atonement deals with sins of the PAST year - already entered into the sanctuary via the prior DAILY service. Your argument seems to be require that we stand the Bible model on its head. (As if that is a "better thing" to do).

You have yet to establish any of your mechanism for defilement in this thread Bob. The text says the sin offering makes atonement and brings forgiveness for the offerer.

But let me also run something by you. Yes, it is better. In the type all the camp had a chance to accept what was done because all of them were alive throughout the year, barring those who died that particular year.

But in the Adventist fulfillment only those after 1844 even have the opportunity to accept Christ's Day of Atonement provision.

But if in fact He made cleansing of sins in the first century (and the text clearly says He did) then all Christians from the outset have an opportunity to accept this work for themselves, just as the whole camp did in the type.

The redemptive acts of Christ happened at the beginning of the Christian faith and all have opportunity to participate.

Quote:

4. One may "enter my house" once -- and then go to whatever room(s) they choose. We do not spin each room they go to as "another entry into my house".

As I am sure you will agree.

You already agreed that the entry extended to the MHP. So what is there to argue about? Certainly as the sacrifice fulfilled all the entries Jesus' entry fulfilled all the cultic entries.

Jesus went into the MHP once for all and sat at the right hand of God. While all the sanctuary and even beyond it was said to be in God's presence, yet God always said that His manifest presence would be over the ark in the Most Holy Place.

Ex 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.

Ex 30:6 And you shall put it in front of the veil that is above the ark of the testimony, in front of the mercy seat that is above the testimony, where I will meet with you.

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.

Jdg 20:27 And the people of Israel inquired of the LORD (for the ark of the covenant of God was there in those days.

1Sa 4:4 So the people sent to Shiloh and brought from there the ark of the covenant of the LORD of hosts, who is enthroned on the cherubim. And the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were there with the ark of the covenant of God.

2Sa 6:2 And David arose and went with all the people who were with him from Baale-judah to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the name of the LORD of hosts who sits enthroned on the cherubim.

And the text says we come boldly to the throne of grace into God's presence.

Now while God did at times have a mobile pavilion we see specific reference to it when He went on the road so to speak, traveling to Babylon where Ezekiel saw it ,etc.

[tall73]

The way the sanctuary is arranged - you have to enter the Holy Place to get anywhere. Again I don't see anyway to change this point or to make the text say that at the cross Christ entered directly into the MHP once for all -- instead of entering "the tabernacle" or "sanctuary" once for all.

going between the Holy and Most Holy Place does not require "going back outside the sanctuary again" -- which again is where your argument falls apart it seems to me.

Since I never said Christ entered only the MHP or that He did so at the cross you are arguing against a straw man.

Jesus at His ascension went through the whole sanctuary, which you admitted extended to the MHP or He could not inaugurate.

I never said that Jesus entered somehow at the cross.

So this entry, once for all, by means of blood fulfilled all the cultic entries, just as the sacrifice once for all fulfilled all the sacrifices.

The high priest did not go into the MHP to inaugurate (the high priest did not inaugurate at all), then stay in the HP for most of the year then on the Day of Atonement go from the HP to the MHP.

That is not the type.

The type involves an entry on the Day of Atonement through the whole sanctuary, and Jesus did that once for all at His ascension, for both the inauguration and the Day of Atonement, because both involved entry by means of blood through the whole sanctuary. And Jesus' entry was once for all.

. Why are you then looking for a later entry?

[tall73]

[

Not true. The blood of the victim in the daily service was ritual the was carried on for most of the year. In fact Moses argued that the blood was either literally carried into the sanctuary or by virtue of the priest having eaten the sacrifice and then himself entering.

[wayfinder]

Read Leviticus 4, for a start.

[tall73]

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 contrast language is between the ONE sacrifice of the True antitype High Priest – vs the Often – in fact DAILY – sacrifices “offered up” by the High Priests – year after year.

Your argument centers around other uses of the word "prosphero", to offer/present, in connection with Christ's offering in death. And while prosphero is used in that way in Hebrews it is also used other ways in Hebrews, and it is not being used to describe the death here.

You made no attempt to address the arguments presented in my article in this regard. Notice the following elements of the argument:

Point 1. Verse 24 is speaking of the entry of Christ and His appearance in God's presence. This is clearly in the heavenly sanctuary, not on earth, not on the cross.

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.

Point 2. Verse 25 continues talking about the entry. The Greek of verse 25 begins with words that mean "nor yet in order that". This phrase "nor yet in order that" refers back to the entry. Nor yet did He enter in order to offer Himself.

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

It is still talking about the heavenly entry, not the death on the cross. Your contention that this is about the death on the cross ignores the Greek construction entirely.

Point 3. Offer or "prosphero", is in fact used to describe the blood ritual in the Day of Atonement in this very chapter.

Heb 9:7 but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people.

This was noted by Adventist scholar Felix Cortez in a footnote on page 25 of his recent dissertation The Anchor of the Soul that Enters 'Within the Veil': The Ascension of the 'Son' in the Letter to the Hebrews:

Interestingly, Hebrews departs from the language of the LXX to describe the manipulation of blood by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement: the blood is not “sprinkled” on the sanctuary but “offered” (9:7).

The author in 9:7 uses an unusual term to describe the Day of Atonement ministration of blood in the earthly sanctuary. The blood in the Day of Atonement type was sprinkled. Instead of sprinkling, the author of Hebrews describes it as presentation of blood. This anticipates the fulfillment in which Christ enters God's presence (9:24) and offers Himself (9:25), just as the earthly high priest offered the blood on the Day of Atonement in God's presence, according to the author in vs. 7.

Heb 9:7 but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people.

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

Jesus did not sprinkle Himself in heaven, but He presented Himself. His shed blood was long since dried after the cross. But He lives again and presents blood in the form of a living, completed sacrifice. He presents Himself in God's presence.

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.

Point 4. Jesus' offering of Himself is compared to the entry of the earthly high priest, not the killing of the animal by the high priest.

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 blood is already shed and the priest is entering in verse 25. This is not a reference to the death of the animal as you contend.

And as we already saw, the phrase "nor yet in order that" indicates that verse 25 is about the entry into God's presence, continuing the thought of verse 24. So it is not a reference to what Jesus did on the cross.

This offering in heaven fits the type under discussion, the cleansing of the heavenly things, which was accomplished by blood presentation in God's presence on the Day of Atonement.

Point 5. If we take Jesus' offering of Himself in verse 25 to be death then it does not make sense of the whole argument in verses 25 and 26.

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,

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.

The argument the author is making in verse 26 is that if Jesus were to offer Himself in heaven before God often He would also have to suffer (death) often. The ministration of the blood followed the death of the victim.

But this argument, that for Jesus to present Himself often in heaven would require Him to suffer often, is lost if both offer and suffer mean death. If both offer and suffer refer to death, then the argument of the two verses would be:

Nor yet was it to die often . . . for then he would have had to die often.

The statement would be redundant.

Instead what we see in vs. 24 and 25, in direct answer to the necessity of the cleansing of the heavenly things, is an entrance into God's presence. There Jesus fulfilled the offering of the blood by the earthly high priest on the Day of Atonement. Jesus died as a once-for-all sacrifice, entered once for all and then presented Himself in God's presence not often but once for all. Jesus is living. He does not present His blood in a bowl but in His person.

So the argument of verse 23, that it is necessary for the heavenly things to be cleansed by better sacrifices, is now seen to be spelled out. It is through Jesus' past-tense

- once-for-all death

- once-for-all entry

- offering of Himself in God's presence, not often, but once

[tall73]

Read Leviticus 4, for a start.

I am not sure who this is in reference to. If you could please use quotes it would help. It may just be because I am using the threaded or "flattened" view.

[tall73]

9:24 is a focus on Christ's ministry STARTING as of that ENTERING... (not ENDING as Victor seems to argue)

9:25-28 has a focus on the completion of the once for all sacrifice – not completion of the High Priest’s role in ministry in the sanctuary.

Hence in 1John 2:2 (NIV) we have the "completed Atoning Sacrifice" language "He is the Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE World".

Bob, verse 24 and 25 both show aspects of Jesus' entrance as seen above. So it is not describing the death on the cross.

But certainly Jesus' ministry does not end at His ascension to heaven into God's presence. On this we agree. He ever lives to make intercession for us. Jesus ministers the completed atonement provided through His sacrifice. Not only the sacrifice on the cross but the presentation of it in heaven is necessary, just as it was in the type.

And Jesus did both.

Now He does minister the results of that one time

-death once for all

-entry once for all

- presentation not often but once in God's presence.

The blood of Christ certainly still cleanses because not all were alive when He presented it and now we receive it in real time.

But the historical acts of death, entry and presentation in God's presence that brought cleansing for sins is done. The cleansing of Jesus's blood now is on the basis of His completed blood work.

So yes, we see that there is ongoing cleansing:

Heb 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

The blood of Christ is what cleanses, but the text indicates that the blood was offered long ago, not now. It is that historical act of blood that cleanses us now in real time.

We come real time into God's presence to accept the benefits of His completed work:

Heb 4:14 Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.

Heb 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

Heb 4:16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Now let's look at the rest of the picture. What did Christ do in the first century?

He made purification for sins--all of them. By the time Jesus sat down (which happened IN the sanctuary not on earth) He had made purification for sins.

Heb 1:3b After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high

Making purification for all sins is exactly what the cleansing in the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement was all about. And it is seen as accomplished already in the first century.

And it doesn't just say it made potential for cleansing. It says He cleansed them.

Notice some other statements in Hebrews that underscore Jesus past-tense dealing with sin.

Heb 9:26b 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.

Jesus put away sin already in the first century by the sacrifice of Himself. This is viewed as a completed act.

So He put away sin, He made purification for sin.

Now you might object that real time acceptance of it by all believers has not happened yet. Granted! But the author views this work of Christ as completed, irrespective of who accepts it later.

The cleansing is made. Now people either "afflict" themselves or not and accept the provision of the High Priest.

In the type the High Priest made the cleansing regardless of who accepted outside. Those who did not afflict themselves were cut off, and did not receive the benefits. But the cleansing was made either way.

Here is another once for all text that will surprise some:

Heb 10:10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Here in the first century the author is saying that we have been sanctified once for all.

The word indicating sanctification is in the perfect tense, indicating a completed action in the past with ongoing results. It is finished.

Now is the author a proponent of once-saved-always-saved? Hardly! We see that he is not in the rest of the book as Hebrews is in fact one giant appeal to not fall away from Christ.

But the issue for the author is that Jesus has already made this great salvation. Now we either accept the salvation already made or reject it.

Heb 2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;

Sin is already put away, He already made purification for sin, we are already sanctified once for all.

Acceptance of the gift happens in real time but the work is already done for us.

Again the author uses the perfect tense of our perfection through what Christ already did in the past:

Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Hath perfected is again in the perfect tense, a past action with ongoing results. He has perfected forever....past tense.

Jesus work is accepted in real time, but was accomplished completely in the past. This putting away of sin, making purification for sins, perfecting, sanctifying is already done.

The perfect tense is again used in regard to our being sprinkled and washed clean which allows us to enter.

In the earthly the worshiper could never enter into God's direct presence, only the high priest, once per year could.

But by Jesus perfect tense, completed action, cleansing we now can enter His presence with confidence:

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, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.

Having our hearts sprinkled and having our bodies washed with pure water are in the perfect tense.

It is the cleansing that Jesus already made that allows us to enter into God's presence.

So while acceptance happens real time and therefore we see future cleansing, the actual cleansing is already made in the first century, in the perfect tense, for all believers, for all time, for all sins.

Jesus did it with His death once for all, entry once for all and presentation in God's presence not often but once.

We have already been sanctified once for all:

Heb 10:10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Now Bob there is only one New Testament discussion of the cleansing of the heavenly things, which references the entry into God's presence, in the heavenly sanctuary, compared with the yearly entry of the earthly high priest. We see it in Hebrews, and it is in the past tense.

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: tall73

Jesus entered BY MEANS of blood. Blood was not necessary to enter the first compartment.

Not true. The blood of the victim in the daily service was ritual the was carried on for most of the year. In fact Moses argued that the blood was either literally carried into the sanctuary or by virtue of the priest having eaten the sacrifice and then himself entering.

Trying to divorce the daily service of cleansing, through the blood of the sacrifice, from the sanctuary service model is going to be a huge uphill for your argument. You really want to go there?

[BobRyan]

Paul makes the argument in Hebrews that Christ's work is the antitype for what we see "in type" in the earthly priesthood. But he also notices some "differences". One of them being that the earthly High Priest had to offer many sacrifices and so would enter the sanctuary many times.

Quote:

Heb 9

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

25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.

Heb 7:27 (Christ) does not need DAILY LIKE the High Priest to OFFER UP sacrifices)

Heb 10

10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;

12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD,

Heb 9

26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,

28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

Paul’s emphasis is on being crucified as a sacrifice for sin ONCE (“by the Sacrifice of Himself”) vs OFTEN (“offer up sacrifices”)

The contrast language is between the ONE sacrifice of the True antitype High Priest – vs the Often – in fact DAILY – sacrifices “offered up” by the High Priests – year after year.

Heb 10:10 “offering the BODY” – done on the altar of sacrifice – not in the sanctuary.

Heb 7:27 “Offer UP sacrifices” (offered up in smoke according to the text of scripture ) done DAILY by the High Priest

The contrast language points to the fact that Christ does not need to go out and get “another sacrifice” daily or even year after year.

9:24 is a focus on Christ's ministry STARTING as of that ENTERING... (not ENDING as Victor seems to argue)

9:25-28 has a focus on the completion of the once for all sacrifice – not completion of the High Priest’s role in ministry in the sanctuary.

Hence in 1John 2:2 (NIV) we have the "completed Atoning Sacrifice" language "He is the Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE World".

[BobRyan]

Point 3. Offer or "prosphero", is in fact used to describe the blood ritual in the Day of Atonement in this very chapter.

Heb 9:7 but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people.

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

The way the sanctuary is arranged - you have to enter the Holy Place to get anywhere. Again I don't see anyway to change this point or to make the text say that at the cross Christ entered directly into the MHP once for all -- instead of entering "the tabernacle" or "sanctuary" once for all.

going between the Holy and Most Holy Place does not require "going back outside the sanctuary again" -- which again is where your argument falls apart it seems to me.

Since I never said Christ entered only the MHP or that He did so at the cross you are arguing against a straw man.

Jesus at His ascension went through the whole sanctuary, which you admitted extended to the MHP or He could not inaugurate.

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

And obviously you have to go through the Holy Place to get TO the Most Holy Place -- so a SINGLE entry into the sanctuary itself begins with the Holy Place -- and at a given point in time goes to the Most Holy -- which is STILL a "single entry" into the Heavenly Sanctuary since no need to go back out of the Sanctuary and get another sacrifice.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob, you need not wonder when the entry continued into the Most Holy Place.

[tall73]

Bob I have been busy today with other things, but will respond in depth later.

But I notice that in your analysis of point 2 you totally ignored the actual argument of point 2 which is crucial.

Point 2. Verse 25 continues talking about the entry. The Greek of verse 25 begins with words that mean "nor yet in order that". This phrase "nor yet in order that" refers back to the entry. Nor yet did He enter in order to offer Himself.

You did nothing to address the connecting phrase "nor yet in order that."

That phrase indicates that this verse is still talking about the entry in heaven, not the death outside the sanctuary.

This assertion, that He did not offer Himself often, is still referring to the entry. Until you address the Greek you are avoiding the issue. Offer in connection with the entry in heaven cannot be the offering on earth.

Nor yet was it (His entry) in order that He might present Himself often.

[tall73]

The following Bible versions recognize this connection to the entry in verse v. 24 and add the word "enter" to vs. 25 to clarify that it has reference to the entry of Christ in verse 24:

Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. (New International Version)

Nor did He [enter into the heavenly sanctuary to] offer Himself regularly again and again, as the high priest enters the [Holy of] Holies every year with blood not his own.

(Amplified Bible)

And he did not enter heaven to offer himself again and again, like the high priest here on earth who enters the Most Holy Place year after year with the blood of an animal.

(New Living Translation)

When one examines the commentaries below you can see why they did. The phrase for "nor yet in order that" indicates that the entry is being spoken of. Most word-for-word versions will not actually add a word to indicate it, but these are dynamic equivalents, so they translate "thought" rather than words, and add enter in.

Obviously I am not positing this to show that the word enter is in the text, as it is not. The phrase in Greek however can only refer back to the entry, which is recognized by translators and commentators.

[tall73]

The following commentaries, which look particularly at the Greek text, recognize the significance of the combination of the Greek terms OUDE and hINA in combination, "Nor in order that.". I had to change the Greek font to transliteration here. I am using the B-Greek format: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/faq.html

The New International Greek Testament Commentary recognizes that the author's nor yet in order that is tied to the main clause in verse 24 for He has not entered:

The author writes OUD hINA rather than OUC hINA because the main clause (OUR GAR . . . EISHLQHN) is expressed negatively.

Or to put that in English, the author writes "nor yet" rather than "not in order that" because the main clause (For not ....entered) is expressed negatively.

The Interpretation: The Epistle to the Hebrews

OU and now OUDE: Christ did "not...nor," etc. Christ did not enter into a mere earthly sanctuary; nor (did he enter heaven) in order to be offering himself often like as the high priest enters into the sanctuary year by year

In English the first part reads: "Not" and now "nor yet"

Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, by Franz Delitsch

V. 25 Nor yet (is he entered in) that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy of holies year by year with alien blood.

Expositor’s Bible Commentary

Where there is nothing in the Greek corresponding to NIV’s “did he enter heaven,” the words seem required.

Vincet's Word Studies

Nor yet that (OUD hINA)

Supply did he enter. “Nor yet did he enter that he might offer,” etc.

[tall73]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

Not true. The blood of the victim in the daily service was ritual the was carried on for most of the year. In fact Moses argued that the blood was either literally carried into the sanctuary or by virtue of the priest having eaten the sacrifice and then himself entering.

Trying to divorce the daily service of cleansing' date=' through the blood of the sacrifice, from the sanctuary service model is going to be a huge uphill for your argument. You really want to go there?

Originally Posted By: tall73

Did I say that blood did not enter the first compartment in the daily?

I said blood was not NECESSARY to ENTER the first compartment.

It was necessary to enter the second. He entered BY MEANS OF blood.

And Moses did not say the blood was carried in by eating it. You are interpreting the passage to fit your view.

In both cases a sacrifice was the means for entering and all sin offerings (yes all of them) required that the animal be killed. Heb 9 makes the point as well "Without the shedding of blood no forgiveness of sins".

[/quote']

Bob you are arguing against something I am not saying again. I am not arguing that blood ministration was not necessary for sin offerings.

I am arguing that ENTRY in to the second compartment only happened with blood. That was not true of the first compartment.

The entry into the first compartment happened all the time without blood. Because entry happened regularly into the first compartment for purposes OTHER THAN offering.

In fact blood offerings that actually required going into the sanctuary were not all that common as they were only for the anointed priest or for the whole camp.

Quote:

This rule applied to the daily service -- it applied to the entire sacrificial system.

Thus there is no such thing as "no blood necessary" to officiate on the sinners behalf in the daily service regarding the daily incidental forgiveness of sins.

Which means that the work of Christ in both the daily and yearly service would require blood sacrifice.

The point remains.

You are arguing against a point I am not making.

My point is that Jesus ENTERED BY MEANS OF, ie blood was necessary to enter. Blood was not necessary to ENTER into the first compartment as they went in to it regularly for various reasons that did not require sacrifice or blood.

[tall73]

Originally Posted By: Tall73

Nor in fact did Moses say anything about the sin transferring to the sanctuary at all in Leviticus 10:17. The priest bore the sin and made ATONEMENT.

In Lev 16 the sins of the entire year are dealt with -- as they have been transferred to the sanctuary.

In Lev 10:16-18 Moses is angry saying "since the BLOOD had not been brought inside, into the sanctuary, you should ceratinly have eaten it in the sanctuary" after making the point that "He gave it to you to bear away the guilt of the congregation, to make atonement for THEM before the Lord".

in Christ,

Bob

Nowhere in the above text does it say sin was transferred to the sanctuary.

Lev 10:17 Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD?

The priest, not the sanctuary, bears the sin. And he bears the transgression not to transfer it to the sanctuary, which is never said in the text, but to atone for them.

In fact, the reason he eats it in the sanctuary is stated both in this text and in Lev. 6. It is not so that it can defile the sanctuary. They are to eat it in the HOLY place because the offering is HOLY.

Lev 6:25 "Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering. In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the LORD; it is most holy.

Lev 6:26 The priest who offers it for sin shall eat it. In a holy place it shall be eaten, in the court of the tent of meeting.

And the blood of the sin offering is also clearly stated to make forgiveness and atonement, not to transfer, not to defile:

Lev 4:35 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.

Lev 6:30 But no sin offering shall be eaten from which any blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the Holy Place; it shall be burned up with fire.

The blood made atonement by its life, not defiled or transferred, but atoned and cleansed.

Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.

Blood in the various rites did not defile. It made cleansing:

Heb 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

Now as to the defilement of the sanctuary, the sanctuary was defiled because it was in the midst of unclean people.

Lev 16:16 And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.

The abominations of Israel defiled the sanctuary:

Ezekiel 5:5 "Thus says the Lord GOD, 'This is Jerusalem; I have set her at the center of the nations, with lands around her.

6 'But she has rebelled against My ordinances more wickedly than the nations and against My statutes more than the lands which surround her; for they have rejected My ordinances and have not walked in My statutes.'

7 "Therefore, thus says the Lord GOD, 'Because you have more turmoil than the nations which surround you and have not walked in My statutes, nor observed My ordinances, nor observed the ordinances of the nations which surround you,'

8 therefore, thus says the Lord GOD, 'Behold, I, even I, am against you, and I will execute judgments among you in the sight of the nations.

9 'And because of all your abominations, I will do among you what I have not done, and the like of which I will never do again.

10 'Therefore, fathers will eat their sons among you, and sons will eat their fathers; for I will execute judgments on you and scatter all your remnant to every wind.

11 'So as I live,' declares the Lord GOD, 'surely,because you have defiled My sanctuary with all your detestable idols and with all your abominations, therefore I will also withdraw, and My eye will have no pity and I will not spare.

Defiling happened here without any sin offering.

Here again we have an instance where the defilement due to sin happened without any offering made. In this case the result was death. They had to pay for their own sin:

Lev 20:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Lev 20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.

Lev 20:3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.

If someone did not avail themselves of the cleansing that God offered for their uncleanness they were cut off for defiling the sanctuary:

Num19:13 Anyone who touches a corpse, the body of a man who has died, and does not purify himself, defiles the tabernacle of the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from Israel. Because the water for impurity was not sprinkled on him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is still on him.

Because sin and uncleanness defiles the sin and uncleanness was kept as far from the sanctuary as possible:

The woman had to wait until she was clean before she could approach the sanctuary, and then had to make atonement for the uncleanness. These things were done so that the people would not die in their uncleanness:

Lev 15:25 And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean.

Lev 15:26 Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation.

Lev 15:27 And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.

Lev 15:28 But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean.

Lev 15:29 And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

Lev 15:30 And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.

Lev 15:31 Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle that is among them.

God dwells in the midst of Israel in the sanctuary. So vile was the defilement of uncleanness that God put the lepers out of the camp so that they would not defile the camp where God dwells in the midst of them.

Num 5:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Num 5:2 Command the children of Israel, that they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead:

Num 5:3 Both male and female shall ye put out, without the camp shall ye put them; that they defile not their camps, in the midst whereof I dwell.

Num 5:4 And the children of Israel did so, and put them out without the camp: as the LORD spake unto Moses, so did the children of Israel.

The woman who was unclean due to childbirth could not approach near the sanctuary due to her uncleanness.

Lev 12:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Lev 12:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.

Lev 12:3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

Lev 12:4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.

If a priest entered into God's presence while unclean he would be cut off:

Lev 22:3 Say unto them, Whosoever he be of all your seed among your generations, that goeth unto the holy things, which the children of Israel hallow unto the LORD, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from my presence: I am the LORD.

In fact God even made them go outside the camp to bury their dung so that it would not defile the camp itself, because He walked in the midst of the camp:

Deu 23:12 "You shall have a place outside the camp, and you shall go out to it.

Deu 23:13 And you shall have a trowel with your tools, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig a hole with it and turn back and cover up your excrement.

Deu 23:14 Because the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you

This system of holiness was to keep sin and defilement from the sanctuary. But even then it dwelled in the midst of their uncleanness. And it was defiled by their sins, with no offering being necessary.

Yet the Adventist system turns this on its head. Rather than keeping uncleanness far from the temple Adventists assert that the holy blood which represents Christ's blood, brought sin right in through God's front door into His house.

Defilement is always seen as something to be avoided in the type. And the cleansing was to remove the regrettable state of impurity.

But the text says that the offerings made atonement, brought forgiveness, and the blood is said to make cleansing.

There is no statement that the sin offering defiles the sanctuary. But there are statements that the sanctuary was defiled without any offering being necessary.

Both the offerings of the Day of Atonement and the offerings of the sin offering are said to make atonement.

One is an individual picture of forgiveness whereby the sinner repents of a specific sin, and personally kills the substitute that pays for his crime. T

he other is a corporate ceremony to show that God makes provision for all sin.

Sinners are a stain on the universe, and they bring defilement. But God has made a means to remove the defilement through Christ.

[BobRyan]

Bob I have been busy today with other things, but will respond in depth later.

But I notice that in your analysis of point 2 you totally ignored the actual argument of point 2 which is crucial.

Originally Posted By: tall

Point 2. Verse 25 continues talking about the entry. The Greek of verse 25 begins with words that mean "nor yet in order that". This phrase "nor yet in order that" refers back to the entry. Nor yet did He enter in order to offer Himself.

You did nothing to address the connecting phrase "nor yet in order that."

[tall73]

Originally Posted By: tall73

Bob I have been busy today with other things, but will respond in depth later.

But I notice that in your analysis of point 2 you totally ignored the actual argument of point 2 which is crucial.

You did nothing to address the connecting phrase "nor yet in order that."

1. The best Bible Scholarship does not INSERT "in order that" after "NOR YET" into that text.

2. No Bible scholars insert the phrase "Nor did HE ENTER in ORDER to" as you have done.

Closest you get to inserting BOTH "Nor yet in order" is...

NASB

25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often' date=' as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.

KJ21

25Nor yet should He offer Himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place with blood of others every year;

YLT

25 nor that he may many times offer himself, even as the chief priest doth enter into the holy places every year with blood of others;

where NONE of them render it as "nor yet in order that" and none of them give us the forced "Nor yet did He enter in order to offer Himself".

Your argumenet is with the text.

Originally Posted By: Tall73

That phrase indicates that this verse is still talking about the entry in heaven, not the death outside the sanctuary.

This assertion, that He did not offer Himself often, is still referring to the entry. Until you address the Greek you are avoiding the issue. Offer in connection with the entry in heaven cannot be the offering on earth.

Nor yet was it (His entry) in order that He might present Himself often.

[/quote']

You seem to be standing alone in that field.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob, did you read the commentaries I posted?

Nor yet that is the same as nor yet in order that, but they shorten it to correspond to one word.

Are you familiar with the Greek term hINA?

You may want to go read the article I linked to as it contains a number of commentaries that in fact do take this view based on the Greek text.

And see above the other commentaries I pointed out that state why it is necessary to read it as the entry.

I don't have time to transliterate right now for the others as they use more Greek characters:

Commentary on the New Testament by D. D. Whedon

This offer is parallel to the entereth of the high priest; it, therefore does not here mean to sacrifice himself, but to present himself in heaven, as the high prest presented himself in the holy place. Yet in both cases a previous sacrifice takes place.

Jamieson Faussett Brown

Construe, "Nor yet did He enter for this purpose that He may offer Himself often," that is, "present Himself in the presence of God, as the high priest does (Paul uses the present tense, as the legal service was then existing), year by year, on the Day of Atonement, entering the Holy of Holies.

Beacon Bible Commentary

Extends the thought of the previous verse by affirming that this crucial self-presentation before the Father does not need to be repeated, as the high priest entereth into the [earthly] holy place every year with blood of others.

Vincet's Word Studies

Offer himself refers rather to Christ's entrance into the heavenly sanctuary and presentation of himself before God, than to his offering on the cross...The sacrifice on the cross is described by PAQEIN suffer, Heb 9:26, and is introduced as a distinct thought. The point is that, being once in the heavenly sanctuary, Christ was not compelled to renew often his presentation of himself there, since, in that case, it would be necessary for him to suffer often. Each separate offering would necessitate a corresponding suffering.

[tall73]

You seem to be standing alone in that field.

in Christ,

Bob

Not at all.

But please respond to the actual Greek text.

Do you know what OUDE means?

Do you know what hINA means?

hINA indicates purpose. You can translate it a number of ways but it is still going to be indicating purpose here.

[BobRyan]

As I noted - Robertson himself does not hold to your rendering nor do we have the best Bible translations rendering the text "Nor yet was it (His entry) in order that He might present Himself often "

Also note what happens when we take the classic

"nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. "

And turn it into "nor was it (in order) that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. " -- your argument is still not helped - given that Paul clarifies the issue "explicitly" for the reader in the following two texts (which also may help to explain why Bible translators are not inserting "in order that" into the text).

And further - it is damaged beyond repair by the focus of Paul himself arguing that the problem is with the sacrifice offerred up in smoke - being repeated - "suffering often". Thus my insistence that we not ignore the direct link Paul makes here

Quote:

Heb 9

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

25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.

Heb 7:27 (Christ) does not need DAILY LIKE the High Priest to OFFER UP sacrifices)

Heb 10

10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;

12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD,

Heb 9

26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,

28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

The attempt to suppose that "offer" is isolated to the work of the Day of Atonement in heaven (not even mentioned in Heb 9) as disconnected with the sacrifice stretches the text beyond all recognition.

When the subject of Christ ministering the benefits of his blood before God is referenced – Paul does not say Christ “offers himself up before God” in the Sanctuary in heaven – RATHER Paul states explicitly “24 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;”

I fully agree that the one sacrifice -- suffices for all forms of sacrifice needed and the one entry into the sanctuary that "brings the blood" of that ONE sacrifice is all that is needed -- I find your "Nor yet did He enter in order to offer Himself" forced rendering without support.

The closest you can get is ""nor was it (in order) that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. " -- which no translator does -- but would at least allow the substitution you prefer.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Paul’s emphasis is on being crucified as a sacrifice for sin ONCE (“by the Sacrifice of Himself”) vs OFTEN (“offer up sacrifices”) - not "standing before God once"

(as if Christ is no longer standing before God

- or as if his role as High Priest ministering the benefits of His blood is over,

- or as if a specific phase of the heavenly sanctuary service is over

- or as if all phases were collapsed into one the OT model or sequence is now to be ignored).

The contrast language is between the ONE sacrifice of the True antitype High Priest – vs the Often – in fact DAILY – sacrifices “offered up” by the High Priests – year after year.

Heb 10:10 “offering the BODY” – done on the altar of sacrifice – not in the sanctuary.

The attempt to suppose that "offer" is isolated to the work of the Day of Atonement in heaven (not even mentioned in Heb 9) as disconnected with the sacrifice stretches the text beyond all recognition.

When the subject of Christ ministering the benefits of his blood before God is referenced – Paul does not say Christ “offers himself up before God” in the Sanctuary in heaven – RATHER Paul states explicitly “24 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;”

Heb 7:27 “Offer UP sacrifices” (offered up in smoke according to the text of scripture ) done DAILY by the High Priest

The contrast language points to the fact that Christ does not need to go out and get “another sacrifice” daily or even year after year.

9:24 is a focus on Christ's ministry STARTING as of that ENTERING... (not ENDING ministry, or ending the Daily, or exiting the Holy Place)

9:25-28 has a focus on the completion of the once for all sacrifice – not completion of the High Priest’s role in ministry in the sanctuary, nor even an explicit reference to the ending Day of Atonement service having already started in heaven.

Paul argues for end of sacrifice – not end of ministry. and certainly not the end of the Daily and the start of the Day of Atonement.

My argument rests on the explicit statements of Paul in the text as he focuses on sacrifice and contrasts Christ's vs that of animals.

[tall73]

As I noted - Robertson himself does not hold to your rendering nor do we have the best Bible translations rendering the text "Nor yet was it (His entry) in order that He might present Himself often "

Also note what happens when we take the classic

"nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. "

And turn it into "nor was it (in order) that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. " -- your argument is still not helped - given that Paul clarifies the issue "explicitly" for the reader in the following two texts (which also may help to explain why Bible translators are not inserting "in order that" into the text).

And further - it is damaged beyond repair by the focus of Paul himself arguing that the problem is with the sacrifice offerred up in smoke - being repeated - "suffering often". Thus my insistence that we not ignore the direct link Paul makes here

A. "Nor that" is the same thing as "nor yet in order that". The second just makes it more plain what the Greek is saying. hINA is indicating purpose. So you could translate it a number of ways, such as "for the purpose of" "in order that", etc.

Literal Bible versions such as you quote try to render one word for one word, so no they would not use that. But the Greek still indicates purpose. And so you must address that.

Nor is noting the second negation, the first of which is He did not enter into the earthly, back in verse 24.

He did not enter into the earthly....Nor did He enter in order to offer Himself often.

And in fact the commentaries do note this.

B. The nor that refers back to the entry. So yes it is in fact critical. Jesus did not enter to die. He had already died.

C. The link in fact makes perfect sense with the next verse. If Jesus had to present Himself often He would also have to die often. Your view that both offer and suffer mean death makes the text redundant:

Nor did He die often for then He would have to die often....

And it ignores the entry context.

Jesus did not enter to die. He had already died.

D. You are still ignoring the meaning of the text in the Greek Bob. Please explain what OUD hINA means and what the purpose clause refers back to in Greek in your view.

[tall73]

Heb 9

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

25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.

Heb 7:27 (Christ) does not need DAILY LIKE the High Priest to OFFER UP sacrifices)

Heb 10

10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;

12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD,

Heb 9

26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,

28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

The attempt to suppose that "offer" is isolated to the work of the Day of Atonement in heaven (not even mentioned in Heb 9) as disconnected with the sacrifice stretches the text beyond all recognition.