holy ground in the NT?

[ForHisglory]

The Gospel authors were *not* just writing for a Jewish audience. They interpreted all things under the Law of Moses in the light of a new priesthood, a new temple, and a new and eternal sacrifice. Everything in Hebrew prophecy pointed forward to a *final* redemption of Israel. Jesus claimed to *be* that eternal sacrifice, removing the stain of Israel's guilt forever. It has not happened yet because the history of Israel's redemption is not yet complete. I know you don't accept this version, but this is the Christian version.

You have stated that the OD is FOCUSED on the Jews. The Jewish Disciples and the Jewish Diaspora coming afterwards.
However when we note that this is speaking of a Jewish reality, then somehow you disassociate the OD from being Jewish.
Seems to be very convenient and not contextually correct.
Further the question is - how would the disciples and the people of THAT generation (which again is what YOU claim it to be about) have understood the words "the Holy place." There is ONLY ONE meaning they would have understood. Your attempts about playing with words, semantic arguments etc are plain to see that you are doing so SOLELY because following the plain, literal and clear meaning invalidates what you are saying.
I don't think I need put anything else as it is clear you are not looking for the TRUTH of what is stated, but simply trying to justify an understanding you have received all by yourself.

[Trivalee]

First Jeremiah 31:38 - 40 has NOT YET happened.
Therefore AT the time of Jeremiah (and that of Daniel) and later of Jesus, this AREA outside the then present city walls was NOT considered holy. In a future time this will be the case.
This means that UNTIL the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31 occurs we CANNOT claim ground as holy, which the prophecy says will be holy ONLY at that later time. In fact it shows the opposite.

Secondly, the reference Jesus made was NOT to any holy territory, but to a SPECIFIC holy place. He used words which are used in the Bible 34 times in 33 verses. EVERY SINGLE time the pharse "the Holy place" is used it refers to a SPECIFIC holy place, which is the one in the Temple. This is CONFIRMED as being the location because Jesus was talking about the Temple in the OD and what would happen to it.

The prophecy does NOT support the contention that an army OUTSIDE Jerusalem, on land NOT counted as holy, could in anyway be considered a SIGN of something STANDING in the Holy place.
It requires unbelievable changes to how words are used when such a use is NOT supported ANYWHERE in the Bible.
Further it makes it IMPOSSIBLE for anyone who heard Jesus speaking of "the Holy place" to recognise what happened as they would be seeing an army standing on land which is NOT holy.

I agree that the "holy place" specifically denotes the temple and its altar. To include the areas outside the temple and even the streets of Jerusalem as holy is a bit of stretch that won't find support in scripture. That said, I will just point out that not every prophecy in Jeremiah 31 that is still in the future. For example, the New Covenant (Jer 31:31-35) is already operative.

[ForHisglory]

In reference to the definite article "the," there is a distinct difference between identifying an OT form of the holy place and identifying a NT form of the holy place. The holy place being identified is associated with an OT passage (Dan 9) that refers to a NT form of the holy place (Christ). It is when the temple is being destroyed (70 AD), showing that there is a more important "holy place" in the eyes of God. That holy place was in Jerusalem where Jesus died for the sins of both Israel and all of mankind.

Is the Temple an OT or NT form? Is it the destruction of Jesus or that of the Temple which is in view?
Is Jesus saying EVERYWHERE is holy in this passage?

It is, I believe, critical to understand the change from OT to NT definitions of what God views as the holy place. Today, even while we're in the NT era, we can refer back to *the* Holy Place of the temple. But in terms of what "holy place" is referred to in the NT, it has to do with Christ becoming the anointed holy place in Jerusalem, when he died for sin, and as a result desolated both Jerusalem and the OT temple. This was a clear indication that there was a more important "holy place" that fulfilled the temple. And that was Christ in Jerusalem.

In referring to the place Christ died, therefore, the thought was not a ritual enacted through the Holy Place of the temple, but rather, something Christ had to do apart from a flawed priesthood. He destroyed the temple, and appeared himself in the holy place of Jerusalem, from which the Messiah was to appear and provide eternal salvation for Israel.

Actually the writer of Hebrews disagrees with your claim. This is NT writing and still states "the Holy place" is referring to a place IN the Temple.
He did NOT appear in the Holy place.

The Holy Place in the temple, therefore, is not the crucial thing in NT writings. If referring to the OT structure, the holy place is *the* Holy Place of the Temple. But in referring to what happened after Christ died for sin, *the* holy place is the place where Christ died as an eternal redemption for Israel. It was in the holy city of Jerusalem, where Christ gave his life a sacrifice for sin.

Actually the Holy place in the prophecy of Daniel and as stated in the OD and in EVERY SINGLE usage of it in scripture OT or NT refers to the PHYSICAL Temple.
When you provide a verse which shows that the particular usage means anywhere else then you will have a SINGLE scripture. So far you have ZERO scripture and it becomes pointless highlighting this as you simply aren't interested in how scripture speaks of this.
Not a single ECF claimed that anywhere other than in the Temple was the Holy place either (as far as I can check). This is why Eusebius who tried to tie down what the AoD was, specifically connected it with where the Temple had physically been.

[ForHisglory]

I agree that the "holy place" specifically denotes the temple and its altar. To include the areas outside the temple and even the streets of Jerusalem as holy is a bit of stretch that won't find support in scripture. That said, I will just point out that not every prophecy in Jeremiah 31 that is still in the future. For example, the New Covenant (Jer 31:31-35) is already operative.

There is a thread about the NC, so won't get into that - however the question is specifically in regards to that part of the prophecy at the time of Jesus and the destruction of the temple. Clearly at that time this was not a correct understanding.

[Trivalee]

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.

By your own definition of what a holy place means and also, by tying *holy place* to the OT, your insistence that areas outside the temple also constituted a holy place is self defeating, isn't it? Jesus might have been dead by 70 AD, but the temple, symbolic of OT worship was still standing. Therefore, by own definition of a holy place, why would you ignore the temples sanctum and claim that the areas outside where the soldiers stood was equally holy ground?

I've tried but can't find support for your theory that per "context" in the NT, the "holy place" should have a different sense of meaning. Can you provide a scripture(s) for this definition change of a holy place in the NT or, are we supposed to take your word for it? You said: "It is the place where Jesus applied his new priestly sacrifice for sin." I've not read anywhere or heard that Golgotha (the place Jesus was nailed on the cross) and made his priestly sacrifice for sin, is described as *holy*!

Talking about context and since this particularly partain to Israel, there's no other holy place that fits than the temple! Don't forget that the leaders of the Church (James et al) also worshipped in the temple at a time that is undeniably, NT. Therefore, your shifting of the post in attempt to validate your definition doesn't add up.

[Trivalee]

In Judaism, "the holy place" (I see your quote uses the definite article) refers to the Temple in Jerusalem, excluding the Holy of Holies. One assumes that the NT writers, writing for a Jewish audience, would have had that meaning in mind.

Thanks for clearing this out for us. I don't believe that the areas outside the temple constitute a holy place as well.

[Trivalee]

The Gospel authors were *not* just writing for a Jewish audience. They interpreted all things under the Law of Moses in the light of a new priesthood, a new temple, and a new and eternal sacrifice. Everything in Hebrew prophecy pointed forward to a *final* redemption of Israel. Jesus claimed to *be* that eternal sacrifice, removing the stain of Israel's guilt forever. It has not happened yet because the history of Israel's redemption is not yet complete. I know you don't accept this version, but this is the Christian version.

The difference between Jewish and Christians views in this can be seen in the different interpretations of Daniel's 70 Weeks in Dan 9. Christians commonly interpret this as the critical point in time when Israel obtained *legal redemption.* This was when Christ made himself a sacrifice for sin, using a new priesthood, a self-proclaimed priesthood of Deity. In doing so he brought eternal forgiveness on behalf of Israel from God Himself, subject to acceptance of Christ as the spiritual way of righteousness.

Jews do not accept this, obviously, and would refer to the old priesthood of the Law. Inasmuch as Christians have a new priesthood, temple, and sacrifice they would not find the Holy Place of the temple significant anymore. Jesus referred to the holy place while he was still under the Law of Moses. But he referred to a time when he considered that the Jewish worship in the temple would no longer be honored by God due to their rejection of him as the source of righteousness.

No, the "holy place" for the Gospel authors, in my opinion, would refer to the *place where Jesus laid his life down as a sacrifice for Jewish sins.* That would be in Jerusalem, the holy city. It had nothing to do with the temple any longer except that Daniel had predicted its desolation by a besieging army.

Dan 9.26 The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.

Randy, is it possible for us to limit the discussion exclusively to what the "holy place" means without recourse to the Christian view of Israel's redemption. With regards to what Jesus did, you know am with you through and through. But I just feel that to be able to determine once and for all, the "holy place" Jesus had in mind in the discourse is, it will be confusing to delve into the differences between the Christian and Jewish beliefs.

[randyk]

I agree that the "holy place" specifically denotes the temple and its altar. To include the areas outside the temple and even the streets of Jerusalem as holy is a bit of stretch that won't find support in scripture. That said, I will just point out that not every prophecy in Jeremiah 31 that is still in the future. For example, the New Covenant (Jer 31:31-35) is already operative.

You apparently did not consider post #9, where I described the many applications of *a holy place,* or *a holy territory?* When it comes to use of the definite article "the," there is no means by this of determining a particular application of "holy place" apart from the particular context.

For example, among the references I gave you a holy place in Scriptures is identified as God's dwelling place in heaven. So we may say it is *the* holy place of God in the heavens. In this case "the" holy place does not signify an exclusive use of the term "holy place!" As such, the definite article "the" is not completely relevant.

What makes it difficult to identify what "the holy place" is in the NT context depends on whether the NT Scriptures are referring back to an OT application, or to a NT application. Clearly, the most used OT application of holy place is a proper noun, the Holy Place of the temple. However, what is the most *normal* application of "holy place" in the NT setting?

I would argue that the "holy place" refers not to the temple, which Jesus consigned to destruction. Rather, the "holy place" for him was the location where Messiah was to work his true and final work of sin's expiation. It was the city of Jerusalem, where Messiah was prophesied to fulfil his mission.

This appears to be the context of Dan 9, which was written while the Law was still in effect, and when the "holy place" most often referred to the temple. But here in Dan 9 the explicit mission of Messiah in the 70 Weeks appears to be making an atonement for sin, and an anointing of a "holy place."

And as we read further, towards the end of the 70 Weeks, the Messiah is cut off, animal sacrifices are removed, and the temple is desolated. This "anointing of a holy place" appears to be the appearance of Messiah in Jerusalem. It cannot be the temple, since it is not "anointed," but rather, "desolated.

By contrast, the committing of sacrilege against the holy place would be the abominable Romans who make siege against the city to destroy it, along with the temple. This is the "abomination of desolation," which "stands in the holy place." The Romans, as a pagan Army, were trampling the city of Jerusalem, where Christ made his sacrifice for all sin!

I'm not trying to push this on anybody. This is just my opinion, respectfully.

[randyk]

Randy, is it possible for us to limit the discussion exclusively to what the "holy place" means without recourse to the Christian view of Israel's redemption. With regards to what Jesus did, you know am with you through and through. But I just feel that to be able to determine once and for all, the "holy place" Jesus had in mind in the discourse is, it will be confusing to delve into the differences between the Christian and Jewish beliefs.

Yes, I understand. I've been discussing this subject all morning with my brother. He repeats many of the arguments mentioned here--in fact most of them--but tries to understand my position. In post #9 I mention all the uses of "holy place," and I discuss the use of the definite article "the" above. Let me know what you think?

[ForHisglory]

You apparently did not consider post #9, where I described the many applications of *a holy place,* or *a holy territory?* When it comes to use of the definite article "the," there is no means by this of determining a particular application of "holy place" apart from the particular context.

This is incorrect. In Hebrew the PREFIX "ha" is used with a word as a COMBINED word which tells you it is the DEFINITE article in use.
The word for holy is "qodesh" and this word is used when you speak of any holy place or land or anything which is holy, such as holy vessels.
The word translated as "the holy place" is "haqodesh" and is NEVER used for anything EXCEPT the place in the Temple. There is NO usage of the definite article with any other combination of "holy"#
We also have the holy of holies which is "qodesh haqodeshim" which is ONLY used for that place.
So it is NOT determined by CONTEXT ever, but is INTRINSIC to the actual word used.

For example, among the references I gave you a holy place in Scriptures is identified as God's dwelling place in heaven. So we may say it is *the* holy place of God in the heavens. In this case "the" holy place does not signify an exclusive use of the term "holy place!" As such, the definite article "the" is not completely relevant.

This is because you are arguing in how the word is used in ENGLISH. However in Hebrew this argument is meaningless in scripture.

What makes it difficult to identify what "the holy place" is in the NT context depends on whether the NT Scriptures are referring back to an OT application, or to a NT application. Clearly, the most used OT application of holy place is a proper noun, the Holy Place of the temple. However, what is the most *normal* application of "holy place" in the NT setting?

Actually there is no such issue as the words "the Holy place" are ONLY used twice in the NT.
The first is Matt 24:15 which is referring to the Temple and the OT, and is the verse in question, and in Hebrew 9:2 which is also speakin gof the Temple:
Heb 9:2* For a tent was prepared, the first section, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence. It is called the Holy Place.*
Heb 9:3* Behind the second curtain was a second section called the Most Holy Place,

So it is NOT possible to argue from any scripture what you are trying to argue. CONTEXTUALLY in the NT "the Holy place" ONLY refers to the place in the Temple.

Unfortunately for you, IF your claim about "the Holy place" is wrong then it means your entire claim about the OD is also wrong, which then means your understanding of the 70 weeks is wrong, and your entire edifice of beliefs are wrong about this prophecy, which is why you are desperately trying to make it mean something it doesn't. I can understand that as it means a lot of your understanding needs reevaluating, which is very hard to do.

Thanks for clearing this out for us. I don't believe that the areas outside the temple constitute a holy place as well.

The will be an time when every where is holy - but this is NOT until Satan is cast into the LoF.

[randyk]

The term "the holy place" is not relevant in the Hebrew, if determining the Holy Place of the temple must be in view. "The holy place" can refer to any particular holy place. The fact it is nearly always used in connection with the temple does *not* mean it always has to refer to the temple. This is just the product of OT usage, which nearly always has to do with OT temple worship.

The fact "a holy place," with the indefinite article "a," is less often used is the product of the fact OT usage of "holy place" nearly always has to do with the OT temple. While the temple was most often in focus in the OT, it is clear that there were other places termed a "holy place." They were just not the primary focus in the OT Scriptures.

In fact, I was told that once *the* holy place is stated as being in view, the definite article *the* can be dropped from "holy place", and still refer back to recent use of "the holy place." So, the definite article is not necessary at all times in establishing reference to any particular application. It just refers back to the original designated use, where the definite article "the" has been applied.

In other words, to claim "the holy place" always applies to the temple is a misnomer. That is just how it is *most often* used in the OT Scriptures. The fact the OT refers to other "holy places" makes it clear that there are, in fact, holy places that could conceivably apply as "the holy place" in a NT sense.

My belief is that once the Holy Place of the temple has been invalidated in the NT, along with the whole temple, then the only place remaining of what had been designated "the Holy Place" is the city of Jerusalem. The city of Jerusalem had always been associated with the temple, and the presence of the temple in the city is what made the city holy.

Not only that, but Jerusalem, and the mountain upon which it was built, was considered, in OT Scriptures, a "holy place," specifically a "holy city." This means that in the NT the same holy place can now become "the holy place," with the elimination of the Holy Place of the temple. The important association is now with the anointed Jesus, who was prophesied to perform his work in Jerusalem. "The holy place" is now Jerusalem, where Jesus initiated his new covenant. For the sake of David, this city will be completely restored.

It is, in NT usage, the place where Jesus was anointed to perform his work of final redemption for Israel. And it was this "sacred place" where the pagan Romans took their abominable stand around the city to destroy it. This is the clear and unadulterated context of the Olivet Discourse where this term "the holy place" is used.

So "the holy place" in the Olivet Discourse likely refers to the city of Jerusalem, since Dan 9.24 seems to refer to the obliteration of the temple, along with its Holy Place, and to an abomination of desolation associated with a continuing desolation of Jerusalem. The only "holy place" thus remaining in Jerusalem is Jerusalem itself, and this was the "holy place" the Olivet Discourse had in mind.

Rev 11.2 may be referring to a symbolic temple worship, emphasizing the continuing desolation of the city of Jerusalem. In other words, the Holy Place of the temple has lost all relevance in the NT except as a symbol of NT worship for Christ.

Obviously, the OT use of "the Holy place" was written in Hebrew. NT applications in Greek speak primarily of a "new temple," which represents Christ and his Church.

Most importantly, this is the context in the Olivet Discourse in which the Roman Army stood in the "holy place," encircling Jerusalem.

[ForHisglory]

The term "the holy place" is not relevant in the Hebrew, if determining the Holy Place of the temple must be in view. "The holy place" can refer to any particular holy place.

Incorrect. Maybe best discuss with someone who knows Hebrew.
The word "qodesh" means "holy" and your entire argument is about discussing "qodesh". However the word "qodesh" is NOT used. the word being used is "haqodesh"
It is ENTIRELY relevant that when the word "haqodesh" is used it ALWAYS refers to the Holy place in the Temple. NEVER anywhere else.

The fact it is nearly always used in connection with the temple does *not* mean it always has to refer to the temple. This is just the product of OT usage, which nearly always has to do with OT temple worship.

NOT nearly always, BUT always. There is NOT a SINGLE occassion when the word "haqodesh" is used which is NOT referring to "the Holy place" in the Temple. NOT one! it is a 100% record.

The fact "a holy place," with the indefinite article "a," is less often used is the product of the fact OT usage of "holy place" nearly always has to do with the OT temple. While the temple was most often in focus in the OT, it is clear that there were other places termed a "holy place." They were just not the primary focus in the OT Scriptures.

Nope, the use of "a" is a usage of English and not found in the Hebrew. When the word "qodesh" is used it can be a bout a place or a thing or a person.
There are 470 occurrences of "qodesh" and another 171 of "qadesh" which is the root of the word. These are about:
a day - Gen 2:3
the ground - Exo 3:5
a meeting - Exo 12:16
the firstborn - Exo 13:2
God - Exo 15:11
God's place - Exo 15:13
Sabbath - Exo 16:23
the people - Exo 19:10
the priests - Exo 19:22
and their garments - Exo 29:21
the sacrifices - Exo 29:27

These are all examples of things which are stated as being "holy" yet NONE of them are "haqodesh".

In fact, I was told that once *the* holy place is stated as being in view, the definite article *the* can be dropped from "holy place", and still refer back to recent use of "the holy place." So, the definite article is not necessary at all times in establishing reference to any particular application. It just refers back to the original designated use, where the definite article "the" has been applied.

You were told once. Do you have an example? Further this argues the OPPOSITE to what you are claiming.
The usage of "the" in the word ONLY refers to the place in the Temple.

In other words, to claim "the holy place" always applies to the temple is a misnomer. That is just how it is *most often* used in the OT Scriptures. The fact the OT refers to other "holy places" makes it clear that there are, in fact, holy places that could conceivably apply as "the holy place" in a NT sense.

Nope. As it ALWAYS applies to the one place it is not a misnomer.
Further as shown there are ONLY TWO places in the NT which refer to "the Holy place".
I have given you both verses and one is the verse in dispute which is CLEARLY in CONTEXT related to the Temple and its destruction.
The other is also about the Temple and no one argues contrary to this.

My belief is that once the Holy Place of the temple has been invalidated in the NT, along with the whole temple, then the only place remaining of what had been designated "the Holy Place" is the city of Jerusalem. The city of Jerusalem had always been associated with the temple, and the presence of the temple in the city is what made the city holy.

Lots of problems with this.
1) Jesus spoke about a place BEFORE any supposed invalidation.
2) The Holy place was NOT invalidated by Jesus' death as shown by the writer to the Hebrews.
3) By invalidating what is holy does NOT somehow make a different place which is holy then become holy by removing what was holy in it. Jerusalem is the Holy city because it is the place where the Holy IS.

[ForHisglory]

Obviously, the OT use of "the Holy place" was written in Hebrew. NT applications in Greek speak primarily of a "new temple," which represents Christ and his Church.
Most importantly, this is the context in the Olivet Discourse in which the Roman Army stood in the "holy place," encircling Jerusalem.

Did Jesus speak of the "new temple" or the Church in the OD? Nope, so He was making reference to an EXISTING structure with a place which EVERYONE knew was "the Holy place".
The Roman army NEVER stood in the "new temple" and nor was the land OUTSIDE Jerusalem made holy so that scholars 2,000 years later could suddenly understand a word which has been used in a certain way repeatedly in a unique revelation to that one individual.

[Trivalee]

Did Jesus speak of the "new temple" or the Church in the OD? Nope, so He was making reference to an EXISTING structure with a place which EVERYONE knew was "the Holy place".
The Roman army NEVER stood in the "new temple" and nor was the land OUTSIDE Jerusalem made holy so that scholars 2,000 years later could suddenly understand a word which has been used in a certain way repeatedly in a unique revelation to that one individual.

I made the same observation yesterday that the "holy place" Jesus had in mind in the OD has to be one that everyone in Israel (from the least to the greatest) would have recognised. And it's none other than the temple. Not the ground outside or the streets of Jerusalem either.

[ForHisglory]

I made the same observation yesterday that the "holy place" Jesus had in mind in the OD has to be one that everyone in Israel (from the least to the greatest) would have recognised. And it's none other than the temple. Not the ground outside or the streets of Jerusalem either.

The problem for randyk is that if he accepts that the holy place refers to the specific place noted over and over in the OT and also in the NT, then his basic claim that the OD is about the Jews and their diaspora then comes crashing down as he will have to acknowledge that Matt 24:15 has not yet happened in history and so the OD is about more than 70 AD and then means those ECFs who claimed the 70 weeks was completed by 70 AD were also wrong (which we know anyway).
This means his own understanding which he has been building over many years has hit a problem which of course requires a change which is always hard to do.