Exactly 165 years Ago, Christ Entered the Most Holy Place

[tall73]

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.

Your argument rests on ignoring the Greek contruction in verse. 25 and on ignoring other uses of the word PROSFERW.

And it ignores the Day of Atonement allusion, and it ignores the context of the discussion being the cleansing of the heavenly things, and it ignores the very plain fulfillment of death, entry, purification of sins. Hebrews 1:3 says He made purification for sins and then sat down.

[wayfinder]

Are either one of you able to show evidence that Paul wrote Hebrews?

[tall73]

Originally Posted By: tall73

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.

I agree that this is a reference to the earthly Day of Atonement service - I do not agree that "offers for himself" is not speaking of the offering up on the altar of the sin offering - because Lev 16 actually says that this is what it means.

[tall73]

Are either one of you able to show evidence that Paul wrote Hebrews?

There is "evidence" put forth for numerous authors. I have not stated that I think Paul wrote it.

I asked Bob the following when Bob claimed he wrote it:

Since you are limiting yourself only to exegesis can you explain where you derived that the author of Hebrews is Paul?

[tall73]

Originally Posted By: Tall73

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,

True. But the flaw in your argument is found in vs 25 - because just when you want to argue that "offer" does not refer to suffering or dying -- but rather manipulation of the blood offering inside the Sanctuary -- the author of Hebrews draws our attention back out to the altar of sacrifice for the true meaning of "offer himself repeatedly".

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.

Your whole argument is that "suffer often" is not needed - becuase you have tried to isolate "offer once" and "offer often" to JUST the work that is done inside the sanctuary in a hope against hope effort to get sanctuary service 'completed' if one admits "sacrifice of christ completed" by substituting the service for the sacrifice required for the service.

But the author of the text explicity goes to that very point -- showing that ALTAR of sacrifice action would be REPEATED if one argues that He was to be "offered repeatedly" -- JUST when your own argument wanted to say that "offering" is ONLY a reference to the activity inside the sanctuary!

Thus in all your presentations of this point - you are careful to leave out the author's own expansion on that teaching as found in vs 26-28!

How do you keep missing that point?

[tall73]

Originally Posted By: tall73

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' date=' which you admitted extended to the MHP or He could not inaugurate.

[/quote']

Indeed -- inauguration involves the entire sanctuary - but does not also involve the daily service nor the Day of Atonement.

Which is the problem your argument has here.

Nor did it involve a ONCE FOR ALL entry!

The death once for all does not fit the type.

The entry once for all does not fit the type.

But it does SURPASS and fulfill the type.

[tall73]

Quote:

The high priest did not go into the MHP to inaugurate (the high priest did not inaugurate at all),

The OT sanctuary was innaugurated each time it was built. to argue that the High Priest did not do it - is to miss a few texts of scripture. (In fact the only reason that Moses participated is that he was also of the tribe of Levi).

A. The type the author uses is the wilderness sanctuary, and the picture Jesus is compared to for the inauguration is Moses, not the high priest.

B. Solomon led the inauguration for the temple. After his inauguration prayer the following occurred:

1Ki 8:62 Then the king, and all Israel with him, offered sacrifice before the LORD.

1Ki 8:63 Solomon offered as peace offerings to the LORD 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep. So the king and all the people of Israel dedicated the house of the LORD.

1Ki 8:64 The same day the king consecrated the middle of the court that was before the house of the LORD, for there he offered the burnt offering and the grain offering and the fat pieces of the peace offerings, because the bronze altar that was before the LORD was too small to receive the burnt offering and the grain offering and the fat pieces of the peace offerings.

2Ch 7:5 King Solomon offered as a sacrifice 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep. So the king and all the people dedicated the house of God.

2Ch 7:6 The priests stood at their posts; the Levites also, with the instruments for music to the LORD that King David had made for giving thanks to the LORD--for his steadfast love endures forever--whenever David offered praises by their ministry; opposite them the priests sounded trumpets, and all Israel stood.

2Ch 7:7 And Solomon consecrated the middle of the court that was before the house of the LORD, for there he offered the burnt offering and the fat of the peace offerings, because the bronze altar Solomon had made could not hold the burnt offering and the grain offering and the fat.

2Ch 7:8 At that time Solomon held the feast for seven days, and all Israel with him, a very great assembly, from Lebo-hamath to the Brook of Egypt.

On the other hand at the dedication of the second temple we have less information, but the people, the priests and the levites are said to have taken part.

[tall73]

There is no type or antitype that states that the innauguration service completes the daily and the Day of Atonement.

There is no type or antitype that says that walking between the Holy and Most Holy is "another entry" into the Sanctuary. Which again is where your argument seems to fall down.

in Christ,

Bob

There is no type that has a once-for-all death and entry in the first place! I think you are missing the point that Jesus goes far beyond the limited type.

Nor is there a type where the priest sits around in the temple then goes from one compartment to the next on the DOA as you propose.

So your view does not fit the type either. But it also disregards the once for all entry by means of blood through the whole sanctuary, which fulfills the entries. It is once for all in the same sense that the sacrifice is.

[tall73]

Originally Posted By: tall73

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

The entry "ends" as soon as he steps inside the sanctuary (the Most Holy Place) for at that point he is no longer "entering" he "has entered".

Another point where it appears that your argument falls down.

Originally Posted By: Bob

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.

Originally Posted By: Tall73

He entered by means of blood.

He entered once for all into the sanctuary--which you admit included the MHP as He inaugurated.

I admit that the entry was into the sanctuary - once inside the Holy Place -- he was no longer "entering" the sanctuary -- rather He "had entered" -- entry was once for all - and done.

Once inside the sanctuary - the ministry of the sanctuary services begin - starting with the Holy Place ministry.

Quote:

Therefore there is no question about whether He entered the MHP.

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

I have already shown the entry with the blood of goats applicable to the Daily service and incidental sin.

See Lev 4.

Originally Posted By: Tall73

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

It does not -- Christ does not leave the Sanctuary -- so no need for "another entry".

Which is a huge gap in your argument so far.

Quote:

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?

One sacrifice -- one entry into the sanctuary itself.

That fact does not change.

Then with "entry complete" -- we have innauguration followed by Holy Place ministry followed by Most Holy Place ministry.

That is how the OT model would dictate the sequence.

Quote:

Now if the Day of Atonement entry did not happen then, when do you posit it happened?

The entry into the Sanctuary happened once -- after the cross.

The ministry of the Holy Place service followed by the ministry of the Most Holy Place service are all enabled through the fact that Christ is now "in" the Sanctuary itself and does not "need to leave" between those services to "get another sacrifice".

Originally Posted By: Tall73

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?

[/quote']

No need to posit that since we have only 1 sacrifice and 1 entry into the sanctuary (entry into the Holy Place of course).

All other ministry is then enabled in it's proper time via the fact that Christ is already inside the Sanctuary and does not need to enter it again for a new phase of ministry. He can simply move from one place to the other at the appointed time.

A fact that seems to keep getting missed in your argument.

in Christ,

Bob

Now Bob you in this post argue that Jesus only entered into the holy place, and then He had "entered." Are you now renouncing your earlier statement that Jesus inaugurated the whole sanctuary?

To do that He entered both compartments.

Therefore the entry involved both. And the entry was once for all.

You mention the type but the type is obviously being surpassed here, as the author illustrates once for all entry which in no way fits the type.

Now you say that you are not suggesting that Jesus leaves again and then re-enters, so you are not agreeing with the type either. So why are you basing your argument on the type?

The earthly is the shadow Bob, the heavenly is the reality. Jesus' once for all entry at once fulfilled and far surpassed the type.

[tall73]

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

See Robertson

Now you tell me to see Robertson, and say that "in order that" is a poor rendering, but what does Robertson tell you?

He notes that you have a "Purpose clause with hina"...

What is a purpose clause with hINA Bob?

hINA describes purpose.

Here are some selections that describe this:

A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Dana and Maney

Its full translation when final is "in order that", but what we usually find is simply "that".

Strong's

hina

hin'-ah

Probably from the same as the former part of G1438 (through the demonstrative idea; compare G3588); in order that (denoting the purpose or the result)

Notice they render it "in order that".

Thayers

hina

Thayer Definition:

1) that, in order that, so that

There it is again..."in order that".

Gingrich's Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament:

hINA conjuction--1. Denoting purpose, aim or goal, in order that, that

And again "in order that".

The article on hINA in the abridged Theological Dictionary of the New Testament starts with:

hINA [in order that]

[BobRyan]

Are either one of you able to show evidence that Paul wrote Hebrews?

What would you accept as evidence?

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

No Bible translators insert the phrase "Nor yet did He enter in order to offer Himself" as you have done.

NASB

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.

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;

See Robertson

Quote:

That he should offer himself often (ina pollaki prosperh eauton). Purpose clause with ina and present active subjunctive of prosperw (keep on offering himself, like 1 John 5:1 1 John 5:3 ). With blood not his own (en aimati allotriwi). So-called instrumental use of en (accompaniment). allotrio means "belonging to another," "not one's own" ( Luke 16:12 ).

Your argumenet is with the text.

Quote:

oud' ina pollakiv prosferh| eauton, wsper o arxiereuv eiserxetai eiv ta agia kat' eniauton en aimati allotriw|,

What is most damaging to your argument is that in this case the author himself points the reader explicitly to the fact of the sacrifice once vs the sacrifice often -- never does the author argue that the sanctuary service has ended OR that Christ has even begun the Most Holy Place Day of Atonement segement of the Sanctuary service in heaven. His focus is entirely on the problem of "sacrifice" offerred up on the altar (suffering often) that would require entering the sanctuary often.

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

====================

Now you tell me to see Robertson, and say that "in order that" is a poor rendering, but what does Robertson tell you?

He notes that you have a "Purpose clause with hina"...

What is a purpose clause with hINA Bob?

[BobRyan]

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.

Vs 28 shows the true context for "offered once" as being "to bear the sins of man". Christ does not "bear the sins of many" in heaven NEITHER does his cleansing blood "bear sins of many" -- rather it COVERS the sins of many. It is because of bearing the sins of many on the cross -- that the sacrifice is made.

In the Atonement model - the sins are first placed on the animal TO BE sacrificed (it bears the sins of many) and then is sacrificed. Next the cleansing blood is used in atonement. The blood bears the life of the victim. It is payment -- it is not sin (debt).

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

If His purpose were to offer Himself many times on the cross - so as to have many entries into the holy place every year (as do the earthly High Priests) then it would mean suffering "many times".

NONE of them render it as "Nor yet did He enter in order to offer Himself"

NASB

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.

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;

See Robertson for Heb 9:25

Quote:

That he should offer himself often (ina pollaki prosperh eauton). Purpose clause with ina and present active subjunctive of prosperw (keep on offering himself, like 1 John 5:1 1 John 5:3 ). With blood not his own (en aimati allotriwi). So-called instrumental use of en (accompaniment). allotrio means "belonging to another," "not one's own" ( Luke 16:12 ).

oud' ina pollakiv prosferh| eauton, wsper o arxiereuv eiserxetai eiv ta agia kat' eniauton en aimati allotriw|,

What is most damaging to your argument is that in this case the author himself points the reader explicitly to the fact of the sacrifice once vs the sacrifice often -- never does the author argue that the sanctuary service has ended OR that Christ has even begun the Most Holy Place Day of Atonement segement of the Sanctuary service in heaven. His focus is entirely on the problem of "sacrifice" offerred up on the altar (suffering often) that would require entering the sanctuary often.

Thus

NASB

25 nor was it (INSERT: "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.

Does not help your argument for "Nor yet did He enter in order to offer Himself"

Nor does the following edit make it to your "Nor yet did He enter in order to offer Himself"

YLT

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

Your only choice here is to argue that the best transalations are all wrong. That should tell you something.

If His purpose were to offer Himself many times on the cross - so as to have many entries into the holy place every year (as do the earthly High Priests) then it would mean suffering "many times".

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

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.

...

I admit that the entry was into the sanctuary - once inside the Holy Place -- he was no longer "entering" the sanctuary -- rather He "had entered" -- entry was once for all - and done.

Once inside the sanctuary - (the innauguration takes place followed by ) the ministry of the sanctuary services begin - starting with the Holy Place ministry.

...

One sacrifice -- one entry into the sanctuary itself.

That fact does not change.

Then with "entry complete" -- we have innauguration followed by Holy Place ministry followed by Most Holy Place ministry.That is how the OT model would dictate the sequence.

[BobRyan]

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.

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

Leviticus 16:25

"Then he shall offer up in smoke the fat of the sin offering on the altar.

But the fat is not what it is talking about in 9:7. It is the blood. And the blood is also what is talked about in 9:25.

[BobRyan]

Points that are clear from Scripture.

1. Christ offers up One Sacrifice – for all time Heb 9:25-28 10:10. All sacrifices collapse into one.

2. Christ enters “once” into the heavenly Sanctuary Heb 9:11-12. All entry into the sanctuary collapses into one.

3. The events of the antitype – are distinct and separate

a. Passover (1Cor 5) – Christ our Passover lamb is slain – ON Passover.

b. First Fruits. (1Cor 15) – Christ the first fruits of the dead – raised up ON the feast of First Fruits

c. Pentecost (Acts 2) – Outpouring the Holy Spirit – happens ON Pentecost

d. Day of Atonement (Lev 16) – Dan 8:14 – happens ON the Day of Atonement

Heb 9 never says that “Christ offers his blood once for all in the Sanctuary”.

Heb 9 never argues that the ministry of the benefits of the sacrifice has ended in the heavenly Sanctuary

Heb 9 never argues that the Day of Atonement event in heaven has already begun.

Heb 9 does state that the inauguration event in heaven is in the past.

Heb 9 does state that the benefits realized in the daily service of the sanctuary are current and ongoing. Vs 11-15

On the Altar of sacrifice (the cross) – the “body of Christ” is offered as a sacrifice – Heb 10:10 “once for all”

On the Altar of sacrifice (the cross) – Christ is in the role of the sacrificial lamb – “bearing the sins of many” – Heb 9:28

But now “ongoing” Christ “appears in the presence of God for us” Heb 9:24 As our High Priest.

[BobRyan]

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.

[tall73]

No Bible translators insert the phrase "Nor yet did He enter in order to offer Himself" as you have done.

NASB

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.

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;

Bob, I already posted versions that do add the word "enter", because they realize it is the thought of the author based on the text. The reason the texts above would not is because they are word-for-word translations and even if the structure demands the notion that this is in regards to entry they are not going to supply a word that is not there. But the "NOR THAT" is still accomplishing the same thing.

Jesus did not enter not enter into the earthly

nor did He enter in order that He might present Himself often.

I have already posted commentaries on this, and you made no answer to them. You just re-posted the same gripe about my particular rendering. And then you pointed to a later use of the word offer as evidence that it must be talking about the same thing. But that does not address the evidence of the Greek construction itself. And there are other uses of PROSFERW in Hebrews, such as the offering of blood in 9:7, and the offering of prayers in 5:7.

The word simply means "present" or "offer" and is not limited only to the offering of the animal.

Now in regards to hINA, the texts above are from WORD-for-WORD translations and will not make hINA into "in order" that, but rather they translate it as "that" because they try to maintain one word for one word whenever possible.

However, I have also noted that lexicons, commentaries, even your own scholar that you quote, Robinson, sees hINA for what it is, a purpose clause. Therefore "in order that" is in fact the meaning.

You can translate it numerous ways. But its meaning remains the same.

Now you have offered no evidence that hINA means anything other than what all the authorities say--for the purpose of, that, in order that, so that, etc.

So if you want to keep arguing over my rendering if of it as "in order that" you are really just avoiding the bigger issue. The lexicons note that this is not only an acceptable translation but in fact the main idea of the word.

Dana and Mantey note that the full translation is "in order that" but we usually find just "that"

A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Dana and Maney

Its full translation when final is "in order that", but what we usually find is simply "that".

This is due both to translation philosophy and to the need to keep the text to a reasonable size since you can't elaborate on the meaning of every Greek word.

Now, since you have not challenged the notion that this is a purpose clause, but only my particular way of expressing that fact, I can only assume that

a. you don't care

b. you don't get it

c. you agree.

Whichever of the above is the case your argument about my particular way of rendering it is just a smokescreen.

[tall73]

Your argumenet is with the text.

Bob, I have no disagreement with Robinson. Nor do I have a disagreement with the text. In fact I am trying to get you to look at the text but you are intent on ignoring the construction of OUD hINA because it refers back to verse. 24.

That he should offer himself often (hina pollakis prosphere; heauton). Purpose clause with hina and present active subjunctive of prosphero; (keep on offering himself, like Heb_5:1, Heb_5:3).

First of all he is not addressing the impact of the word "NOR" here or OUD, because He does not quote it. He quotes the phrase beginning with hINA to explain the significance of a hINA clause with the subjunctive mood. He notes it is a PURPOSE clause, which is the very thing I have been noting.

He also indicates that it is in the PRESENT tense which is suggestive of continual offering. In other words he is noting the meaning of the Greek text, which is the whole purpose of his commentary.

Now in your version of Robertson he references I John. But in mine he references Hebrews. which makes it a bit confusing what he is referring to.

But in Hebrews 5:1 we see a similar use of hINA with PROSFERW in the subjunctive. So it is likely he is referring to that.

And in I John 5:3 we have a hINA clause with the subjunctive as well, so it might refer to that.

The subjunctive is used to indicate something that is not happening in reality. In this case the whole phrase would be "for the purpose that He would keep on offering Himself.

Now when you also figure in OUD you wind up with something like:

"Nor for the purpose that He would keep on offering Himself...."

Nor what? Again it is tied to the entry of verse 24 and its negative statement.

Not...nor...

[tall73]

What is most damaging to your argument is that in this case the author himself points the reader explicitly to the fact of the sacrifice once vs the sacrifice often -- never does the author argue that the sanctuary service has ended OR that Christ has even begun the Most Holy Place Day of Atonement segement of the Sanctuary service in heaven. His focus is entirely on the problem of "sacrifice" offerred up on the altar (suffering often) that would require entering the sanctuary often.

Actually the focus in 24-25 is clearly on the entry and the context is 23 which is the cleansing of heavenly things. So no, those verses are not all about the death.

And the comparison in 25 is to the ENTRY with blood, not the shedding of blood which happened earlier.

The offer often of verse 28 is refuting the suffer often which would be necessitated by Jesus presenting Himself often as the priest presents blood often.

The argument is...

If A then B.

But B is not true.

If A

IF Jesus were to present Himself often in God's presence in fulfillment of the blood rite the high priest did

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,

Then B

THEN Jesus would have to suffer often. You need the death to get the blood for presentation.

Heb 9:26a for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world.

But B is not true

Jesus does not have to suffer often. He appeared once to put away sin by His death. He does not die often. Men die once. Jesus died once for sins.

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.

Heb 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,

Heb 9:28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

So in 23-25 the context is the cleansing of the heavenly things which happened in the sanctuary, with blood.

The entry is clearly seen as you admit in v. 24.

Verse 25 continues the discussion of the entry, He did not enter to present Himself often. The often entry specified is that of the high priest yearly. The entry is pictured not the death of the animal.

Verse 26a explains that for Him to do so would necessitate dying often.

Verse 26b-28 indicates that Jesus did not need to die often, for He died once for sin, and man only dies once.

[tall73]

NASB

25 nor was it (INSERT: "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.

Does not help your argument for "Nor yet did He enter in order to offer Himself"

Nor does

YLT

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

Help your argument for "Nor yet did He enter in order to offer Himself"

Nor do any of them render it as "Nor yet did He enter in order to offer Himself"

Your only choice here is to argue that the best transalations are all wrong. That should tell you something.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob, I already noted three translations which do indicate that the entry was involved:

Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself (New International Version)

Nor did He [enter into the heavenly sanctuary to] offer Himself

(Amplified Bible)

And he did not enter heaven to offer himself

(New Living Translation)

Now you note that because the three versions you cite don't render it that way that the meaning is not the same.

But again you ignore the TYPE of translations represented. The three you quote are word for word and the three I quote are dynamic equivalent.

The whole method of a word for word is to not add words, though in this case the Greek requires that it be speaking of the entry.

I posted commentators that discussed the same.

I posted lexicons that spell out the meaning of in hINA.

But you still keep falling back to this argument that does not address the evidence.

the THAT of the YLT and NASB is the same as "in order that." It is a translation of hINA that indicates purpose.

NOR and NOR YET express the same thing.

So you are arguing over my rendering instead of the meaning which they all agree on. And that gets you no where.

[tall73]

Vs 28 shows the true context for "offered once" as being "to bear the sins of man". Christ does not "bear the sins of many" in heaven NEITHER does his cleansing blood "bear sins of many" -- rather it COVERS the sins of many. It is because of bearing the sins of many on the cross -- that the sacrifice is made.

In the Atonement model - the sins are first placed on the animal TO BE sacrificed (it bears the sins of many) and then is sacrificed. Next the cleansing blood is used in atonement. The blood bears the life of the victim. It is payment -- it is not sin (debt).

a. Since I agree v. 28 is talking about the death I have no issue with the type. The sin was placed on the animal before death. Verse 28 is evidence that Jesus did not have to suffer often, as mentioned in verse 26.

And verse 26 is clarifying that if Jesus had to present Himself in God's presence often, in comparison to the high priest entering with blood, then He would have to die often.

b. Now you say He does not bear the sins in heaven. You say it is payment, not sin.

GOOD! I agree with you.

But Ellen White does not. She does see Jesus bearing sin to the heavenly sanctuary and then depositing them.

As the sins of the people were anciently transferred, in figure, to the earthly sanctuary by the blood of the sin offering, so our sins are, in fact, transferred to the heavenly sanctuary by the blood of Christ.

She does not see the death as cancelling sin but merely shuffling it around. She does not see the blood of Christ as cleansing but defiling....until later.

But it cleanses indeed, not only in the yearly but throughout the year in the various services of the law:

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

And Jesus already bore sins in His death, and does not bear them to the heavenly sanctuary but takes His cleansing blood to purify the heavenly things.

[tall73]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

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.

...

I admit that the entry was into the sanctuary - once inside the Holy Place -- he was no longer "entering" the sanctuary -- rather He "had entered" -- entry was once for all - and done.

Once inside the sanctuary - (the innauguration takes place followed by ) the ministry of the sanctuary services begin - starting with the Holy Place ministry.

...

One sacrifice -- one entry into the sanctuary itself.

That fact does not change.

Then with "entry complete" -- we have innauguration followed by Holy Place ministry followed by Most Holy Place ministry.That is how the OT model would dictate the sequence.

Originally Posted By: tall73

Now Bob you in this post argue that Jesus only entered into the holy place, and then He had "entered." Are you now renouncing your earlier statement that Jesus inaugurated the whole sanctuary?

I find your logic illusive just then -- since I spelled out the proposed sequence above that does not renounce innauguration - but rather explicitly references it.

[tall73]

Bob the whole discussion is the cleansing of the heavenly things..how is that not mentioning it? And the thing it is parallel to is the ENTRY of the High Priest, how is that not mentioning it?

The entry with blood was AFTER the death of the animal.