Time that the dead should be Judged

[JoeMo]

Dave,

Just cuz this forum is named ClubAdventist doesn't mean members have to be card-carrying traditional historic SDA's dedicated to every word that proceedeth forth from the pen of EGW and "present truth" from over 150 years ago.  If everyone here agreed on absolutely everything that is brought up, this would be a boring place.

2 hours ago, Dave Watchman said:

I'm a little surprised by how some of the posters deviate from the standard SDA doctrine. Certain items to me just seem like a basic understanding of the prophetic time periods that they just go without saying. Like 70 weeks that started in 457 BC and 2300 years that ended in 1844, I have zero doubt that 1260 years ended in 1798 and that the dead wouldn't be judged until 1844.

You are free to believe whatever you want.  I for one do NOT believe that the 70 weeks started in 457 BC; nor do I believe that the 2300 morning/evenings (not days or years) ended in 1798; nor do I believe that an investigative judgement began in 1844.  But hey; thats me.  I'll stick with scripture as my primary resource rather than a denominational doctrine whose support is scripture is fuzzy at best.

Why would Jesus need over 175 years to "go through the books" if He already knows the end from the beginning?  When Hebrews speaks of Jesus entering the Most Holy Place upon His ascension, why does EGW say it didn't happen until 1844?  Why to SDA's place most of Daniel's vision from his time through the Roman Empire when the angel clearly tells him 4 times in Daniel 8 that the vision is for the end times (8:17, 19, 23, and 26)?

[Samie]

2 hours ago, Dave Watchman said:

Are you saying that Jesus began judging the dead in Hebrews 6?

No.

I'm simply saying that Scriptures tell us in Hebrews 6:19, 20 that Jesus has already entered the MHP, and that entering, necessarily, must have occurred PRIOR to the writing of Hebrews 6:19, 20 and therefore long before 1844 because Hebrews was written long before 1844.

As to judging the dead, I believe a person is judged whether to be blotted out or not from the book of life, when he dies (Heb 9:27). There's hope while alive.

[Samie]

3 hours ago, Dave Watchman said:

But if the writer of Hebrews or any of the disciples at the time of the authorship of the NT had an understanding of Daniel, they would have known that there was no chance that Jesus could return until after 2300 years had transpired since the command to restore Jerusalem in 457BC.

Sadly, the 457BC decree of the Achaemenid ruler Artaxerxes was NOT a command to restore Jerusalem.

Instead it was a command to BEAUTIFY the temple in Jerusalem. Hear Ezra himself, the priest and scribe, and privy to the 457BC decree given him by Artaxerxes:

Quote

NKJ Ezra 7:27 Blessed be the LORD God of our fathers, who has put such a thing as this in the king's heart, to beautify the house of the LORD which is in Jerusalem

Beautify? Does it mean the temple had been rebuilt? Yes, and that rebuilding was completed more than 50 years ago, in 516 BC, 70 years after Jerusalem fell in 586 BC.

Remember the 70-year-desolation of Jerusalem prophesied by Jeremiah the prophet? Notice that the year-for-a-day principle did not come into play in that time-prophecy: 70 years of desolation = 70 years when fulfilled.

[8thdaypriest]

On 6/17/2016 at 6:34 AM, Kevin H said:

You clearly misunderstood me. I know that Hebrews 6:19-20 says that Jesus HAS ENTERED the Most Holy Place. No where do I say that the text says that he "Will enter"  Thus you are misrepresenting me.

What I am saying is that there were two different times when the high priest has entered the Most Holy Place. First at the inauguration of the system and second on the day of atonement. While you can argue from the Hebrew, in the Septuagint they use two different terms to make clear which one of these two enterings of the Most Holy Place  they were talking about. The Author of Hebrews could have used one phrase to say that Jesus entered the Most Holy Place to inaugurate the heavenly temple. Or he could have used the other phrase to say that Jesus entered the Most Holy Place for the day of atonement ministry.

Having these two choices he decided to choose the phrase for entering the Most Holy Place to inaugurate the temple and start the heavenly ministry. You are saying things that indicate that you are interpreting the text as if the author of Hebrews choose the words that he did not choose.

I LIKE this idea, but would need to see the exact WORDS used in the Septuagint and also see which VERSES they were used in. 

[8thdaypriest]

On 6/18/2016 at 5:02 PM, Samie said:

I quoted Ps 110:4, written long before Christ's first advent. The verse says "the Lord has sworn". Seems past tense to me, that is, the Father's act of declaring His Son as High Priest occurred PRIOR to the writing of Ps 110:4.

I think we all know that prophecy can be spoken long before it actually comes to pass.

[8thdaypriest]

I'd like to bring up another verse. 

Deuteronomy 32:36 "For the LORD will judge His people And have compassion on His servants, When He sees that their power is gone, And there is no one remaining, bond or free." (NKJ)

This circumstance would mean the LORD would have to resurrect "His people". 

To me, this verse agrees with Daniel 12:7.

Daniel 12:7 "Then I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand to heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever, that it shall be for a time, times, and half a time; and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished." (NKJ)

The "holy people" will be "completely shattered" by the END of the "time, times, and half a time".  Their "power" will be gone.  AT THAT TIME - "the LORD will judge His people". 

That description does NOT apply to 1844.  It does NOT apply to 1798.  There were plenty of God's righteous people STILL AROUND in 1844, and in 1798. 

I personally believe that EVERY RIGHTEOUS WITNESS for the truth will be killed or shut up in prison.  THEN - it will be over. 

The "time, times, and half a time" = 1260 days = 42 months, will END with the Second Coming, and the resurrection of the "two witnesses".  It will be TIME to "reward your servants the prophets" (Rev. 11:15).   

[8thdaypriest]

We've been talking about "judging the dead", only in terms of deciding their final end. 

We have not talked about "judging" in terms of the execution of judgment.  The word translated "judge" is used both ways. Compare the following in two translations.  One says "judge" and the other says "execute judgment". 

NKJV Isaiah 66:16  "For by fire and by His sword The LORD will judge all flesh; And the slain of the LORD shall be many.

NRS  Isaiah 66:16 "For by fire will the LORD execute judgment, and by his sword, on all flesh; and those slain by the LORD shall be many.

Here's another verse where the LORD is executing judgment.  Yet HE is said to "judge". 

1 Samuel 2:10 "The adversaries of the LORD shall be broken in pieces; From heaven He will thunder against them. The LORD will judge the ends of the earth. "He will give strength to His king, And exalt the horn of His anointed." (NKJ)

The "Day of Judgment" is the day WHEN judgment is executed.

2 Peter 3:7 "But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. (2Pe 3:7 NKJ)

The "ungodly" go to perdition on the same DAY they are judged.

When will "the dead" be "judged" ? 

I believe judgment will be executed against the (rebellious unrepentant dead) at the Second Coming.  They will be resurrected to HEAR judgment pronounced against them, and then they will be executed. 

The redeemed will "not enter into judgment" (John 5:24) - except in the person of our High Priest, Jesus Christ.  We have escaped "judgment" (in the sense of its being executed against us). 

John 5:24 "Yes, indeed! I tell you that whoever hears what I am saying and trusts the One who sent me has eternal life - that is, he will not come up for judgment but has already crossed over from death to life!" (CJB)

[Samie]

15 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I think we all know that prophecy can be spoken long before it actually comes to pass.

Well said. But granting that Ps 110:4 is prophecy instead of pronouncement, when did it come to pass? Let's dig a little deeper for the buried treasure:

Quote

NIV Hebrews 7:27-28   27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.  28 For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

Seems clear to me from the above verses that Jesus was ALREADY High Priest when He offered up Himself.

[8thdaypriest]

3 hours ago, Samie said:

NIV Hebrews 7:27-28   27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.  28 For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

Samie.  This text you just quoted says "the oath" "came AFTER the law".  The law - the Torah - was spoke from Mt Sinai.  So this oath came AFTER Mt Sinai. 

[Rossw]

How many veils were there in the santuary? There were at least 2.

 3 Behind the second veil there was a [d]tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies,

If the daily sacrifices and the day of atonement on earth were periods of time representing what Christ would do in the heavenly sanctuary, doesn't it make logical sense the heavenly sanctuary would start with an inauguration, go through a time period of daily intercession, and end with a judgement period?

[Rossw]

On 6/18/2016 at 8:14 PM, JoeMo said:

You are free to believe whatever you want.  I for one do NOT believe that the 70 weeks started in 457 BC; nor do I believe that the 2300 morning/evenings (not days or years) ended in 1798; nor do I believe that an investigative judgement began in 1844.  But hey; thats me.  I'll stick with scripture as my primary resource rather than a denominational doctrine whose support is scripture is fuzzy at best.

Why would Jesus need over 175 years to "go through the books" if He already knows the end from the beginning?  When Hebrews speaks of Jesus entering the Most Holy Place upon His ascension, why does EGW say it didn't happen until 1844?  Why to SDA's place most of Daniel's vision from his time through the Roman Empire when the angel clearly tells him 4 times in Daniel 8 that the vision is for the end times (8:17, 19, 23, and 26)?

The 70 weeks is clearly a prophecy leading to Christ so it must be interpreted to years.

If 70 weeks must be interested in years it is safe to say 2300 days can also be interpreted into.

The time period of investigation must not be for God himself because He is omniscient. We do know there are different books for recording. Those books of record must for the benefit of somebody?

Your right Joemo, Daniel 8 does say the visions are for the time of the end. We then must interpret the 2300 into years. That puts the cleansing of the temple at the end times. But if there is no earthly temple at the end of time then the heavenly temple must receive the cleansing. Let's see how the NASB translates Daniel 8:14 

¹⁴ He said to me, “For2,300 evenings and mornings; then the holy place will be ^[q]properly restored.”

Does that read like an Antiochus Epiphanes fulfillment? Don't think so. So what does fulfill Daniel 8:14? The SDA's have the best answer.

[Kevin H]

On ‎6‎/‎18‎/‎2016 at 11:14 PM, JoeMo said:

 

You are free to believe whatever you want.  I for one do NOT believe that the 70 weeks started in 457 BC

Why would Jesus need over 175 years to "go through the books" if He already knows the end from the beginning?  When Hebrews speaks of Jesus entering the Most Holy Place upon His ascension, why does EGW say it didn't happen until 1844?  Why to SDA's place most of Daniel's vision from his time through the Roman Empire when the angel clearly tells him 4 times in Daniel 8 that the vision is for the end times (8:17, 19, 23, and 26)?

First a question: Why do you not believe that the 70 weeks started in 457 BC? Back when Miller (and the scholars he read) picked that date, they were lucky to pick dates in the correct century. Yet the decree of 457 BC has since become one of the best established dates of ancient history attested to in both the Elephantine and (If I recall correctly) Samaritan papyri. In fact it was implemented on the day of Atonement. Many religions have come to believe this. The dispensationalists have it up to the start of the 70th week, the start of the ministry of Jesus and then cut off the 70th week until the very end of time. (Granted there were things for the 70th week where some was fulfilled when Jesus was on earth and some were not able to be fulfilled due to Jesus not being accepted and that it could have ended in the setting up of God's kingdom. While we can look for analogies of these things, I believe they are wrong for cutting off the 70th week and making it THE 70th week for things we will find in the end with all the extras they hang on this.) There were around the time of Jesus (and in the years following) who would somehow connect the 70 years in one way or another to things related to themselves, but based on 457 BC. In John we find Jesus' ministry beginning with "Behold the lamb of God who scapegoats the sins of the world" indicating that Jesus' ministry began on Yom Kippur 69 weeks of years from the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem that started in 457 BC.  Friend or foe of Adventism tends to concede this point. What do you have to say to prove all of these wrong?

Second: (and I'm going to post some evidence in response to an earlier post here) that when you compare Hebrews with the Septuagint it uses language that is used for the inauguration of the sanctuary, (Exodus 40: 9-15 among other texts)

Third: Had Jesus been accepted it would have  ended with the end of the world. Daniel (and Ezekiel) predicts what could have happened having it as a goal for the Hebrews to reach for.

Fourth: Why would it need Jesus over 175 years to go over the books; We need to remember that God is working with the entire universe. What is happening in heaven is reflected on what is happening on earth. As God told Job that yes he is all-powerful, but he is dealing with the behemoth (the beast that represents the history of humanity) and the Leviathan (the beast that represents the accusations of Satan)

Quote

Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?

² Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?

³ Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?

⁴ Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?

⁵ Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?

⁶ Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?

⁷ Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?

⁸ Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.

⁹ Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?

¹⁰ None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?

 

Mere power is not the issue here. The mere speed that God can judge is not the issue. There is an event going on in heaven and reflected on earth. The angels and unfallen worlds are evaluating the lives of those who have made profession of following God. Did they really follow him or was it only mouth service without allowing God's spirit to work on their hearts. And if they did allow God to work on their hearts just what happened and how did God do it. This helps them understand the Great Controversy clearer and helps them understand their own salvation clearer. They closed their probation at the cross. But they have had a time for deeper understanding, and thus this is a review.

This is reflected on earth through the rediscovery of the ancient world that began in the middle of the 1800s with Robinson exploring the holy hand and making Biblical Geography a serious science leading to archaeology. And around this time the Rosetta stone was translated opening up ancient writings, and the two events uniting in many more ancient records and writings being discovered in archaeology. We are living at a time where we get to INVESTIGATE the pages of scripture in a way that Luther, Tyndale, and Wesley and any of them would long to live in our time and investigate the scriptures with what we have. Jesus is taking the same time to judge that we require to study and learn more about the Bible.

[Kevin H]

On ‎6‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 7:36 AM, Samie said:

Again, can you tell me the verse or verses where the two different terms are used? Thanks.

The passages include: Exodus 40; Lev 8:10-12; Num 7:1

Here is some information from a paper by Dr. Richard Davidson discussing these chapters and Hebrews

Quote

Hebrews 10:19–20. The first parallel passage to which we turn is Heb 10:19-20. George Rice has identified a chiastic parallel between Heb 6:19-20 and Heb 10:19-20.19 The chiastic linkage between these two passages becomes even clearer in the more detailed literary analysis of this section of the Epistle by William Shea:20

A. The Veil—6:19-20

          B. The Priesthood—7:1-25

                   C. The Sacrifice—7:26-28

                         D. The Sanctuary—8:1-5

                                   E. The Covenant—8:6-13

                                                   F. The Earthly Sanctuary—9:1-10

                                                  F. The Heavenly Sanctuary—9:11-14

                                   E. The Covenant—9:15-22

                       D. The Sanctuary—9:23-28

                C. The Sacrifice—10:1-10

           B. The Priesthood—10:11-18

A. The Veil—10:19-20

Note how the members A and A in this structure constitute the two parallel "veil" passages (6:19-20 and 10:19-20).

 

[Kevin H]

Davidson continues

Quote

Which of these two OT cultic events involving the entry "within the veil" is in view in Heb 6:19-20—Day of Atonement or inauguration? All assumptions of scholars aside, this passage taken in isolation does not provide the necessary information to decide. There is no distinctive terminology or motif in these verses which points decisively to one event and not the other. One hint, not generally noted by commentators, is that Heb 6:20 refers to "Jesus, having become [genomenos, aorist participle] High Priest . . ." This seems to allude to a point in time in which Jesus took on the office of high priest, and in the OT system, the initiation of the priesthood (including the high priest) took place at the time of sanctuary inauguration (see Exod 40:9-15). While suggestive, this point is not decisive, especially since Jesus is high priest after the order of Melchizedek and not of Aaron.

Quote

21 Norman H. Young, "Where Jesus Has gone as a forerunner on Our Behalf," AUSS 39 (2001): 11.

22 BDAG, 272 (emphasis original).

23 For Pentateuchal usage, see the next footnote. Outside the Pentateuch, for the verb, see 1 Kgs 8:63 and 2 Chr 7:5 (the dedication of Solomon’s temple); and 2 Chr 15:8 (the re-dedication of the altar after it was desecrated). The noun enkainia is used in reference to the post-exilic dedication/inauguration of the Temple by Ezra (Ezra 6:16, 17).

What is the OT event alluded to in Heb 10:19-20? Most commentators have assumed a Day of Atonement background, with little or no regard for possible LXX terminology employed in the passage. Scholars have generally taken Heb 6:19-20 as a key to what event is in view in 10:19-20, but as we have already pointed out, the former passage does not settle this question. I am convinced that the latter passage (10:19-20) is the key to interpreting the former (6:19-20), and not the other way around. In describing Christ’s work as He enters "by a new and living way . . . through the veil," the author of Hebrews employs a LXX term, enkainizō. This verb means "to bring about the beginning of something, with implication that it is newly established, ratify, inaugurate, dedicate,"22 and with its nominal derivatives is used frequently as a cultic term throughout the LXX employed in describing the inauguration of the sanctuary/Temple.23 In the Pentateuchal materials regarding the sanctuary cultus, this Greek root is found in the LXX four times, all in one chapter, Numbers 7, describing the inauguration/dedication of the

sanctuary altar.24 This Greek term is never used in the LXX to refer to the Day of Atonement rituals.25

24 The noun enkainismos appears in Num 7:10, 11, 84; and the noun enkainōsis occurs in Num 7:88.

25 The only other occurrence of this term in the (LXX) Pentateuch is in Deut 20:5, where it refers to the dedication of a new house (private dwelling of an Israelite).

26 See, e.g., Ellingworth, Hebrews, 518.

27 A notable exception is the study of N. A. Dahl, "A New and Living Way: The Approach to God According to Hebrews 10:19-25," Int 15 (1951): 401-412. Based upon cultic LXX usage of enkainizō followed in Hebrews, Dahl (ibid.), 405, concludes that the opening of the way in Heb 10:20 "is a cultic act of consecration, identical with the ratification of the new covenant." Dahl’s analysis of more than half-century ago anticipates the results of my own research.

28 So Dahl (ibid., 405), who notes that the term enkainizō, both in Heb 6

Some commentators have noted the LXX usage in their discussion of Heb 10:19-20,26 but they have not generally allowed the force of this word to inform their interpretation of the OT background event behind this passage.27 That the author of Hebrews had in mind the cultic LXX meaning of this word, "inaugurated" (as correctly translated in NASB), and not a more general notion of "opened" (as in the translation of the NIV among others), is apparent in that the only other passage in which this term appears in the epistle (or in the NT) is Heb 9:18, where it indisputably has the cultic meaning of "inaugurated/dedicated" (we return to this passage below).28 Even if one does not go to the LXX translation of the OT, Heb 9:18 makes clear that the meaning of "inaugurated/dedicated" and the OT background setting of the inauguration services of the sanctuary and not the Day of Atonement, is what is in view in the parallel passage of Heb 10:19-20. Other Greek terms were available to convey the idea of "opened," but the author’s selection of this particular LXX cultic term for inauguration certainly must be given its proper force. The author of Hebrews is here indicating that Christ’s entering by a new and living way through the veil was in order to inaugurate the heavenly sanctuary.

Quote

In v. 19, the believers are called to have "boldness to enter the ta hagia by the blood of Jesus." The term ta hagia is often translated by "Holiest" or "Most Holy Place" and commentators suggest that this alludes to the Day of Atonement when the high priest went into the second apartment. Even if ta hagia did refer to the Most Holy Place, it would still fit the OT background setting of inauguration equally well as Day of Atonement, inasmuch as the entire sanctuary—including both Holy Place and Most Holy Place—was inaugurated, according to Exodus 40.

But if the author of Hebrews is indebted throughout his epistle to LXX usage, as is almost universally recognized by scholars, then the evidence points in a different direction than the Most Holy Place as the correct translation of ta hagia. Some years ago I accompanied my wife Jo Ann while she spoke at a Women’s Retreat at a hotel in Gettysburg, Penn., and, confined to my hotel room (the husband of a woman’s retreat speaker is not welcome at the meetings!), I spent the weekend examining all 109 references to ta hagia in the LXX. I had just finished looking at the final reference when Jo Ann came returned to our hotel room from her last meeting, to find me literally jumping on the bed, using the bed springs as a trampoline to demonstrate my jubilation at what I had found! After looking at all 109 references, I rejoiced to discover that the LXX never uses the term ta hagia to denote the Most Holy Place of the sanctuary by itself. Rather, the term ta hagia is the regular LXX term for the sanctuary as a whole, not for the Most Holy Place alone! I returned home after the weekend and that next week enthusiastically shared these conclusions with my sanctuary class. My enthusiasm was evidently contagious, because one of my students, Carl Cosaert, who soon thereafter completed his Seminary studies, decided to write an MA thesis to formally examine what I had seen in my weekend retreat. His research confirms my initial findings, showing that throughout the LXX ta hagia is regularly employed to

refer to the whole sanctuary in general. Moreover, Cosaert also shows this to be the case in other early Greek literature of Judaism (Pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus). He further demonstrates that in both LXX and other early Jewish literature ta hagia is never used to describe the Most Holy Place alone.29 In light of this overwhelming consistent evidence of background usage, it would be highly unlikely that the author of the epistle to the Hebrews broke with this LXX and contemporary Jewish usage. Some modern versions such as NEB have recognized the force of the LXX usage and (I believe) correctly translated this term consistently as "sanctuary" throughout its occurrences in the Epistle of Hebrews.30

29 Carl Coesart, "A Study of Ta Hagia in the LXX, Pseudepigrapha, Philo, and Josephus, and Its Implications in Hebrews" (M.A. Thesis, Nazarene Theological Seminary, 2000), examines the 109 occurrences of ta hagia in the LXX that refer to the sanctuary, and shows how 106 times the term has reference to the whole sanctuary, while in three verses it refers to the Holy Place (1 Kgs 8:8; 2 Chr 5:9, 11). Never does it have reference to the Most Holy Place alone (not even 2 Chr 5:11, contrary to some scholarly claims). See the summary of Coesart’s research regarding the extra-biblical usage in his article, "The Use of Hagios for the Sanctuary in the Old Testament, Pseudepigrapha, Philo, and Josephus," AUSS 42 (2004): 91–103.

30 See also, e.g., Ellingworth, Hebrews, 517, who points out that the term ta hagia here in Heb 6:19, as well as in 9:12 and 9:8, "refers to the heavenly sanctuary without distinction between its parts . . ."

31 The fulfillment of Ps 40:6-8 (and Dan 9:27), involving the transition from the sacrificial system on earth to the antitypical sacrifice of Christ and His work in the heavenly sanctuary, is indicated in the Gospels by the rending of the veil between Holy and Most Holy Place at the death of Christ (Matt 27:51; Mk 15:38; Luke 23:45). Ellen White forcefully describes this reality: "When Christ was crucified, the inner veil of the temple was rent in twain from top to bottom, signifying that the great final sacrifice had been made, and that the system of sacrificial offerings was forever at an end" (DA 165). Again, she writes (ibid., 233): "In the spring of A. D. 31, Christ the true sacrifice was offered on Calvary. Then the veil of the temple was rent in twain, showing that the sacredness and significance of the sacrificial service had departed. The time had come for the earthly sacrifice and oblation to cease" (ibid., 233; cf. EW 253; PK 699). According to White, this rending of the Temple veil at the death of Christ further indicates "that a new and living way had been opened to the fallen race" (FLB 201; cf. CTr 293, AG 155, 5BC 1109, 7BC 932, SD 288) and that "the partition wall between the Jews and the Gentile s was broken down" (EW 209; cf.

LXX usage of crucial sanctuary-related terms—both enkainizō and ta hagia—lead us to an OT background consisting of inauguration of the entire sanctuary. Of course, the final determiner of meaning in any given passage is the immediate context. The context of Heb 10:19-20 points strongly in the direction of inauguration. Heb 10:1-10 points to a time of transition between the first sacrificial system that is taken away "that He may establish the second" (v. 10), in fulfillment of Ps 40:6-8.31 Verse 12 refers to the initiation of Christ’s high

priestly ministry as he "sat down at the right hand of God" in fulfillment of Ps 110 (LXX 109):1. Verse 16 refers to the making of a new covenant. And v. 20 refers to "a new and living way"—which in light of 9:8 is the way into the heavenly sanctuary. What we have is a context of fourfold initiation—of a sacrificial system, covenant, high priesthood, and sanctuary. Such initiation of all these entities in the OT occurred at the time of inauguration, not Day of Atonement. The context of the passage thus supports the consistent use of LXX terminology.

Hebrews 10:19-20 therefore calls for believers to boldly enter the heavenly sanctuary (ta hagia) by a new and living way (i.e., the way into the heavenly sanctuary), which Jesus our high priest has inaugurated for us through the veil. The emphasis indeed is upon believers’ access, but it is access to the entire heavenly sanctuary, not just the Most Holy Place, which Jesus has brought about by His blood and His entering through the veil to inaugurate the heavenly sanctuary.

Hebrews 10:19-20 must be seen to illuminate its chiastic counterpart passage in Heb 6:19-20. Note that both passages move in the same two stages, with the latter passage further elaborating upon the former in each stage. The first verse of each passage (i.e., 6:19 and 10:19) refers to the believers’ entry into the heavenly sanctuary, while the succeeding verse in each case deals with the entering work of Christ the high priest that makes possible the believers’ entry. In the first parallel stage, Heb 6:19 utilizes the more common and general term for the believers’ entering, i.e., eiserchomai, to "go in, enter"; while Heb 10:19 employs a less common and more specific parallel term further describing the nature of the entering, i.e., eisodos "entrance,

Quote

The latter passage elaborates on the believers’ entering, showing that the issue in both passages is access. Likewise, in the second stage of parallel passages, Heb 6:20 utilizes the more common and general Greek term for Christ’s entering, i.e., again eiserchomai, while Heb 10:20 employs a less common and more specific parallel term further describing the nature of the entering, i.e., enkainizō , "to inaugurate." The latter passage elaborates on the nature of Christ’s entering, s showing that the event in both passages is that of inauguration.

32 BDAG, 294, and a look at the LXX use of this term reveals that it often has the meaning of "entrance" with an implication of "access." See, e.g., Josh 13:5; Judg 1:24-25; 1 Sam 17:52; 2 Kgs 14:25; 1 Chr 9:19; 2 Chron 16:1; Ezek 27:3; 42:9; 1 Macc 14:5; Wisdom 7:6. It is also used of entrance into God’s house in 2 Kgs (4 Kgdms.) 23:11, and of entrance to the Lord’s house in the context of the inauguration of the new messianic temple in Ezek 44:5.

Hebrews 10:19-20 also underscores the same kind of action (aktionsart) as in 6:19-20. In the first pair of verses, dealing with the believers’ entering, Heb 6:19 has eiserchomenēn, the present participle of eiserchomai, and Heb 10:19 has the non-temporal noun eisodos "entrance, access." Both indicate the ongoing access of the believers (hope) into the heavenly sanctuary. In the second pair of verses, dealing with the entering work of Christ, Heb 6:20 has eisēlthen, the aorist form of eiserchomai, and Heb 10:20 has enekainisen, the aorist of enkainizō. The use of the aorists indicate punctiliar action, the specific point in time when Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary to inaugurate it once-for all, thus providing the ongoing access to believers through His blood.

This is a fulfillment of Dan 9:24, which predicts that before the end of the 70 week prophecy (which we will see in our discussion of Daniel 9 in our chap. 21 below, ended in 34 A.D.), the Messiah would "anoint the Most Holy Place." It doesn’t matter which veil Heb 6:19-20 and Heb 10:20 refer to (second or first), contra Ballenger and more recent detractors,

since at the inauguration of the sanctuary Moses (acting in his priestly function before the ordaining of Aaron) went into both the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place (Exod 40:9-10; Num 7:1).

Hebrews 9:12. The second major "entering" passage that parallels Heb 6:19-20 is Heb

9:12. In the chiastic structure of the central section of Hebrews, this passage comes at the climax of the chiasm with its comparison and contrast between the earthly and heavenly sanctuaries. Heb 9:12 reads: "Not with the blood of goats [tragōn] and calves [moschōn], but with His own blood He entered [eisēlthen] the sanctuary [ta hagia] once for all, having obtained eternal redemption." As noted above, commentators on this verse generally see this as a reference to Christ’s entry into the heavenly Most Holy Place paralleling the earthly high priest’s entry into the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement. But once again, little or no attention is paid by these commentators to the LXX background of the crux terms in this verse.

We have already pointed out that ta hagia is a term in the LXX for the entire sanctuary as a whole, and never the Most Holy Place in particular, and this usage seems to be followed by the author of Hebrews. Even if the term did in Heb 9:12 refer solely to the Most Holy Place, we noted above that such a reference would fit both the Day of Atonement and the inauguration equally as well, since both OT events involved entering the Most Holy Place. But it seems much more likely that this passage is no exception to the general usage in the LXX and Hebrews and refers to the heavenly sanctuary as a whole. Regardless of its meaning in this passage, ta hagia does not assist us in deciding between Day of Atonement and Inauguration as OT background event for this passage.

I've tried to edit passages from a longer section for brevity. I apologize for any unclearness and willing to share either the entire paper or the section about the language in Hebrews and Septuagint.

[JoeMo]

58 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

What do you have to say to prove all of these wrong?

I don't have any proof.  I was just stating my current opinions and beliefs.  Sorry I wasn't more clear.  In fact, I will concede that it is feasible that the 70 weeks started in 457 BC; but my current belief is that the 70th week was cut off from the previous 69; and will be fulfilled someone in the future (at the revealing of the "anointed one" (lower-case letters purposely used; because I don't believe the "anointed one" is Christ).

[LifeHiscost]

36 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

I don't believe the "anointed one" is Christ).

Jesus who is from Nazareth -- how God did anoint him with the Holy Spirit and power; who went through, doing good, and healing all those oppressed by the devil, because God was with him; .....Acts 10

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

[JoeMo]

34 minutes ago, LifeHiscost said:

Jesus who is from Nazareth -- how God did anoint him with the Holy Spirit and power; who went through, doing good, and healing all those oppressed by the devil, because God was with him; .....Acts 10

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

I believe that the anointed one in Daniel 9 is the antichrist, not Jesus; so this comment is not germane to my position.  Daniel 9 doesn't even mention anything about Nazareth.

[Samie]

On 21/06/2016 at 2:25 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

Samie.  This text you just quoted says "the oath" "came AFTER the law".  The law - the Torah - was spoke from Mt Sinai.  So this oath came AFTER Mt Sinai. 

Yes. Even Ps 110:4 was written AFTER Mt Sinai.

I am just pointing out that I believe Jesus was ALREADY High Priest when He offered up Himself on the cross.

[8thdaypriest]

1 hour ago, LifeHiscost said:

Jesus who is from Nazareth -- how God did anoint him with the Holy Spirit and power; who went through, doing good, and healing all those oppressed by the devil, because God was with him; .....Acts 10

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

Lucifer was also "anointed".  He was "the anointed cherub who covereth"  (Ezekiel 28:14).  That aside:

Priests and Kings were anointed.  If the Temple is rebuilt/restored on the Mount in Jerusalem, the Jews WILL anoint a High Priest.  I know they are hoping to find a jar with "ashes of the red heifer", and another with holy/priestly oil (or at least the exact formula to make more) along with the Ark of the Covenant, WHEN it is found. 

A great earthquake in Jerusalem may open the chamber where it was hidden by Jeremiah, OR an Islamic bomb - could have the same effect.  They must have the ashes of the "red heifer" in order to ceremonially cleanse any candidate for High Priest. 

Where the text says "Messiah be cut off, and have nothing" - the word translated "messiah" simply means "anointed one". 

When the Little Horn takes over the rebuilt Temple that "anointed one" (assuming it is referring to a High Priest) would then be "cut off" and "have nothing". 

[Samie]

Thanks, Kevin.

That was a tremendous effort on your part, and I really appreciate it. Noticeably, the phrase "within the veil" was not among those discussed at length. Heb 6:19, 20 specifically stated that Jesus has entered "within the veil", and in the OT, "within the veil" refers to the MHP.

I believe that Jesus was ALREADY High Priest when He offered Himself on the cross. It is ONLY the High Priest that was AUTHORIZED to officiate in the offering of sacrifices at Yom Kippur. If Jesus was NOT High Priest when He offered Himself, then He would be guilty of usurpation of authority.  It necessarily follows that since Jesus was already High Priest when He offered Himself, the inaugauration MUST have earlier occurred PRIOR to Calvary's events.

That said, His entry into "within the veil" or into the MHP in Heb 6:19, 20 is not for the antitype Day of Atonement which has ALREADY transpired in Calvary. NOR that specific entry of His into the MHP has anything to do with the inaugauration which must have occurred PREVIOUS to Calvary.

[Dave Watchman]

On 6/18/2016 at 11:14 PM, JoeMo said:

You are free to believe whatever you want.  I for one do NOT believe that the 70 weeks started in 457 BC; nor do I believe that the 2300 morning/evenings (not days or years) ended in 1798; nor do I believe that an investigative judgement began in 1844.  But hey; thats me.  I'll stick with scripture as my primary resource rather than a denominational doctrine whose support is scripture is fuzzy at best.

Why would Jesus need over 175 years to "go through the books" if He already knows the end from the beginning?  When Hebrews speaks of Jesus entering the Most Holy Place upon His ascension, why does EGW say it didn't happen until 1844?  Why to SDA's place most of Daniel's vision from his time through the Roman Empire when the angel clearly tells him 4 times in Daniel 8 that the vision is for the end times (8:17, 19, 23, and 26)?

I know.

Jesus seemed to be saying the same thing. "if you are willing to accept it ", John the Baptist was Elijah. He didn't demand or command that we accept it, He just said "if". I always thought that sounded peculiar. As for me, I would believe whatever He said whether I could accept it or not.

Quote

Why would Jesus need over 175 years to "go through the books" if He already knows the end from the beginning?  When Hebrews speaks of Jesus entering the Most Holy Place upon His ascension, why does EGW say it didn't happen until 1844?  Why to SDA's place most of Daniel's vision from his time through the Roman Empire when the angel clearly tells him 4 times in Daniel 8 that the vision is for the end times (8:17, 19, 23, and 26)?

Maybe He doesn't need 175 years. Maybe He can stop time and do it in 5 minutes. Maybe we are going to go over the very same data but it will take us a thousand years. Maybe He's not judging the dead from behind a curtain. Maybe He and the 24 elders and all the holy angels are watching every minute of every person's life and seeing their thoughts on a giant holographic plasma screen. Because before we annihilate someone that was created in the image of God, we have to be sure of the time that they'll be sustained in the fire before they're consumed.

For me, understanding that the time, times, and half a time from Daniel 7 ended in 1798 and the 2300 years of Daniel 8 ended in 1844 are like pure gold keys of understanding. I once wrote a long note on the abomination of desolation that not too many people liked very much. It would have first required an acceptance and understanding of the Adventist historicist position of Daniel 7 and Revelation 12. Most of the people there must have thought that the two prophetic time periods have to be added together to make a seven year  end time tribulation.

"If you are willing to accept it ", it probably is a good thing to have the choice. Because if Jesus made a big show of it and proved His case with Scripture in front of those men, it would have meant that we were getting the bad ending of the ultimatum - " lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.” It might have been too much for them to handle.

“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes. And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers,

2 hours ago, JoeMo said:

In fact, I will concede that it is feasible that the 70 weeks started in 457 BC;

I think you are a good guy Joe.

[Kevin H]

2 hours ago, JoeMo said:

I don't have any proof.  I was just stating my current opinions and beliefs.  Sorry I wasn't more clear.  In fact, I will concede that it is feasible that the 70 weeks started in 457 BC; but my current belief is that the 70th week was cut off from the previous 69; and will be fulfilled someone in the future (at the revealing of the "anointed one" (lower-case letters purposely used; because I don't believe the "anointed one" is Christ).

Ok, now we are back on where we can discuss our differences and our understandings. Just did not know why you had said that you disagreed with a point that is fairly well agreed upon by the different parties.

[Kevin H]

11 minutes ago, Samie said:

Thanks, Kevin.

That was a tremendous effort on your part, and I really appreciate it. Noticeably, the phrase "within the veil" was not among those discussed at length. Heb 6:19, 20 specifically stated that Jesus has entered "within the veil", and in the OT, "within the veil" refers to the MHP.

I believe that Jesus was ALREADY High Priest when He offered Himself on the cross. It is ONLY the High Priest that was AUTHORIZED to officiate in the offering of sacrifices at Yom Kippur. If Jesus was NOT High Priest when He offered Himself, then He would be guilty of usurpation of authority.  It necessarily follows that since Jesus was already High Priest when He offered Himself, the inaugauration MUST have earlier occurred PRIOR to Calvary's events.

That said, His entry into "within the veil" or into the MHP in Heb 6:19, 20 is not for the antitype Day of Atonement which has ALREADY transpired in Calvary. NOR that specific entry of His into the MHP has anything to do with the inaugauration which must have occurred PREVIOUS to Calvary.

I was trying to bring enough information to try to cover but not overwhelm you. The paper deals with the point about the phrasing "Within the Veil" and the difference between how it was worded in the Septuagint between the chapters where the priest enters on the day of atonement, and  the inauguration in Exodus 40; Lev 8:10-12; Num 7:1. If the author of Hebrews wanted it to be the Day of Atonement entering beyond the veil, why didn't he or she use the Septuagint language for entering on the day of atonement instead of using the Septuagint language for entering to inaugurate? If you wish I can send you a copy either of the whole paper or the section dealing with this issue. The article points our how other scholars, including non-Adventists are starting to realize that Hebrews does not use the language for entering on the day of atonement.

[Samie]

1 minute ago, Kevin H said:

I was trying to bring enough information to try to cover but not overwhelm you. The paper deals with the point about the phrasing "Within the Veil" and the difference between how it was worded in the Septuagint between the chapters where the priest enters on the day of atonement, and  the inauguration in Exodus 40; Lev 8:10-12; Num 7:1. If the author of Hebrews wanted it to be the Day of Atonement entering beyond the veil, why didn't he or she use the Septuagint language for entering on the day of atonement instead of using the Septuagint language for entering to inaugurate? If you wish I can send you a copy either of the whole paper or the section dealing with this issue. The article points our how other scholars, including non-Adventists are starting to realize that Hebrews does not use the language for entering on the day of atonement.

While I am grateful for your offer of sending me the papers and would be glad receiving them, it would not be of any consequence to our issue at hand. It is because, I believe, as I earlier pointed out, that Jesus' entry into "within the veil" in Heb 6:19, 20 is NEITHER for Yom Kippur NOR for the inauguration.

[Kevin H]

49 minutes ago, Samie said:

While I am grateful for your offer of sending me the papers and would be glad receiving them, it would not be of any consequence to our issue at hand. It is because, I believe, as I earlier pointed out, that Jesus' entry into "within the veil" in Heb 6:19, 20 is NEITHER for Yom Kippur NOR for the inauguration.

But this means that you are forcing upon a text more than what the text is actually saying and that you do not allow the text to speak for itself. An additional note besides the technical language as to when the event of the entrance, the Septuagint also uses the term "within the veil" as a term for the entire sanctuary and does not do what we do, limit to the Most Holy Place.