
Originally Posted by
randyk
It is *context* that determines the meaning of a term. 50 times out of 50 the "holy place" will mean the Holy Place in the OT Temple if the context is the OT Temple. Since the term "holy place" is itself largely an OT term, it will most often in the OT apply to the temple. However, "holy place" is *not* always a reference to the OT temple. For example, before the temple was even built the place where Moses stood, next to the burning bush, was considered "holy ground."
Therefore, the context of the destruction of the temple, in a period in which an OT temple no longer applies, has a different sense of "holy ground," just as it did before the temple was built. It is the place where Jesus applied his new priestly sacrifice for sin. This, generally, was the total area encompassing Jerusalem, including the surrounding fields where the people of Jerusalem farmed. This is the area to which the pagan Roman armies came to destroy both the city and the temple. They were, in a very real sense, the "abomination of desolation."
My point is, the "Holy Place" of the OT temple no longer applied after NT truth came into being. The temple worship had been delegitimized as a "holy place." It had been condemned as ill-served by the sacrifice of Christ, because they Jews had chosen OT worship over the new redemption brought by Jesus.
No, the "holy place" here represented was the *place* where Jesus offered his new sacrifice for sin, rendering the need for OT temple sacrifice unnecessary and deficient, in light of a better sacrifice. The "holy place" was the place where Jesus made this better redemption for Israel, in Jerusalem.
I have little interest in any extended discourse with you, brother. I've not found discussion with you very edifying. I hope you'll change your attitude, and engage in discussions in a more congenial way.
Bookmarks