holy ground in the NT?

[randyk]

Once again, the exclusive use of THE holy place under circumstances of OT temple worship does *not* mean there cannot be a different use of "the holy place!" And what possible NT use of a biblical "holy place" could become THE holy place in the NT? It is *Jerusalem!* Once the temple has been invalidated by Jesus' death, and once Jesus has committed the temple to complete destruction, all that remains of the holy place is Jerusalem!

My brother, who knows some Hebrew, has indicated that use of the definite article "the" in Hebrew is used differently in Hebrew than in English. As I said, the 1st use of THE holy place, or THE anything else, can be followed by simply "holy place," without the definite article.

My purpose in saying this is to show that the function of the definite article "the" does not set "The holy place" apart as a proper noun, indicating the temple. "The" is not operating in such a fashion as to identify any particular holy place other than the one the reader is being directed to in context. Should the context change, such as under NT circumstances, then "THE holy place" can mean something other than strictly the temple.

[ForHisglory]

Once again, the exclusive use of THE holy place under circumstances of OT temple worship does *not* mean there cannot be a different use of "the holy place!" And what possible NT use of a biblical "holy place" could become THE holy place in the NT? It is *Jerusalem!* Once the temple has been invalidated by Jesus' death, and once Jesus has committed the temple to complete destruction, all that remains of the holy place is Jerusalem!

OK, the FACT that the usage of "haqodesh" - "THE Holy place" (by the way place isn't actually within the word), is EXCLUSIVE used in scripture for the very SPECIFIC place in the Temple, and that we have ZERO examples in the OT or the NT, does NOT mean it cannot mean something else. It simply shows that 100% of the time this is the meaning found with this word.
Therefore to claim it has a DIFFERENT meaning to the usual meaning you would need some very strong PROOF that it is NOT talking about the Temple for anyone to even consider it as a possibility.

Jerusalem was a holy city in the OT and so you are arguing for a change yet that change isn't possible as it is ALREADY a reality in scripture.
You argue for a change for land OUTSIDE the city, yet the prophecy you cite speaks of it as a FUTURE thing, which is STILL YET to happen.
Nailing this argument shut, is the scripture in Hebrews which shows that according to the NT writer AT THE TIME when Hebrews was written, that outside the city was NOT the holy place.

Now contextually Jesus (we agree) has been talking about the destruction of the Temple. He has just come from the temple courts where they were admiring the Temple buildings (which would include the Holy place.) You are now trying to argue that the prophesied destruction of this Temple is NOT what would be in the Disciples minds?
What did the disciples ask? What would "the Holy place" have meant to those disciples when Jesus told them this?
Very clearly they would have understood the place IN the Temple.
Also note that probably Jesus was speaking Aramaic or Hebrew with the disciples and so the usage of the language is not the same as in English or Greek.
Also most think the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, when again it would have been clear.
Interestingly it is ONLY two books of the NT which mention "The Holy place" and BOTH are what most would consider are written for Jews. Therefore the association of ANY of the intended audience to that word would be the place in the Temple.

My brother, who knows some Hebrew, has indicated that use of the definite article "the" in Hebrew is used differently in Hebrew than in English. As I said, the 1st use of THE holy place, or THE anything else, can be followed by simply "holy place," without the definite article

.
Pay attention to that fact about Hebrew being different to English. Some of our mistakes is because we don't get Hebrew idioms or the connections of words like they do.

A simple example is the word sacrifice - QoRBan. In Hebrew the focus would be on QRB. These three letters also form the word QaRaB which means "near" such as be near or draw near.
So a person reading in Hebrew would immediately grasp a connection between the two ideas, which we do NOT get in English.
So a sacrifice allows one to get near to the one you have made sacrifice for.

In English the definite article is a separate word and so your claim in English is correct.

Now as for your claim about using the word without the definite article, you haven't actually given a single example where that may be correct. I am unaware of anywhere in English or Hebrew where this is true. There may be one, but it doesn't actually argue for your point, because in this instance we are dealing with the definite article which means it has to be a KNOWN Holy place. In fact there is ONLY ONE place which is given that definite article and does not require an introduction somewhere else for the place to be known.

My purpose in saying this is to show that the function of the definite article "the" does not set "The holy place" apart as a proper noun, indicating the temple. "The" is not operating in such a fashion as to identify any particular holy place other than the one the reader is being directed to in context. Should the context change, such as under NT circumstances, then "THE holy place" can mean something other than strictly the temple.

My point is that in Hebrew you are wrong, it does. Further CONTEXT also shows you are wrong. Additionally the two occasions when it is used in the NT, the OTHER time it is used shows you are wrong. To use a definite article requires people to know which holy place is in view. You only time you don't need this when it is being used as a Proper Noun.

So your claim falls on a number of grounds.
1) The definite article IS part of the word meaning it is different to English.
2) Every time the definite article is used with Holy place it ALWAYS speaks of the SAME place.
3) In order to avoid specifying where is meant means the context needs to point to somewhere else - which it doesn't.
4) In the NT it is ONLY used for the SAME place as it is used in the OT.
5) The audience who would have read it in Matthew (and Hebrews) would IMMEDIATELY have understood it to mean the SAME place as mentioned in the OT.
6) As highlighted in the NT outside the city is NOT a holy place (never mind not THE holy place).
7) Your prophecy of Jeremiah notes that one day it will be holy, but that that day has not yet come - and you have not argued for it to have come, which then means the prophecy shows it as being a place which is NOT holy, for it is yet to become holy.

I don't think there is any point my putting anything else unless you are able to show that these 7 points are incorrect. Simply reiterating what you have put won't change the FACTS of what was written. When you have resolved these 7 points AND shown that there is a reason why Jesus spoke of "the Holy place" but really meant a place which wasn't holy, nor would be understood as being holy by any of the NT writers then there is little more to say.

[Fenris]

The Gospel authors were *not* just writing for a Jewish audience.

Yeah, I'd disagree. Except for those portions of the Gospel that were specifically and explicitly targeting gentiles, I'd say the rest was mainly for Jewish consumption. Of course you already have your opinion on the matter, so...

[DurbanDude]

Thus, they were violators of God's "holy ground," requiring God to call in an unholy pagan army as "abominable desolators" of God's holy city. God's holiness had already been distributed outwards from Jerusalem among the people, and the Roman army took their stand among them, defiling God's holy people and the land from which Christ's ministry was launched.

At worst, it may be an interesting way of looking at it?[/LEFT]

I guess anything is possible if you look hard enough. My view is a little simpler, I see that when Antiochus desecrated the temple with a statue to Zeus this was regarded as an abomination in the holy place. This is the type of abomination we should be looking for.

The 42 months of Rev 13 seems to relate to an "image" whose description would fit better with the word "abomination" than the 66AD defeated Roman army. That army was defeated some distance from Jerusalem (Beth Horon is about 20 km away)
It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15 The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. 16 It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads

[Trivalee]

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.

I read post #9 and noted the various references of a holy place. However, Jesus was very specific in that he said "the holy place". Surely you acknowledge that grammatically a holy place is not the same as *the holy place*? Further, context is the key as you also observed. Jews don't recognise the areas surrounding the temple as holy, so I'm not sure why you refuse to see the error of claiming that outside the temple is holy?

Talking about 'definites' Jesus used "the" holy place to describe a specific structure that is known to every Jew in his day. Unfortunately, what you've done is shift the post and thereby present an unspecified holy place that the people of the time would have struggled to determine. Look at it this way:

1. The way Jesus used a definite adverb *the* before the holy place - 100% of Jews at that time would have known what he was telling them.
2. In contrast, with your definition, less than 1% of the Jewish population at the time would have correctly guessed which holy place Jesus had in mind.

Now, given the urgency and need to escape to save lives, Jesus couldn't have used an ambiguous term that would confuse and lead to loss of life. This is my view...

[Trivalee]

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.

I would have thought that the essence of these discussions is to seek validation of our understanding of certain topics while revising our position on those proven by scripture that we got wrong? What's the point in sticking to our guns when everything points to our being wrong on a doctrine? Randy has been most vehement and dogmatic in his view of the OD. I really hope I can one day, see "this perspective" that only him has seen with regards to the OD.

[Trivalee]

Yeah, I'd disagree. Except for those portions of the Gospel that were specifically and explicitly targeting gentiles, I'd say the rest was mainly for Jewish consumption. Of course you already have your opinion on the matter, so...

Fenris, if you have not already read Matt 24, would you mind to take a quick look at v-15-20 and tell us what a Jews understands as "the holy place" with particular attention to the context of the discourse?

[Trivalee]

I guess anything is possible if you look hard enough. My view is a little simpler, I see that when Antiochus desecrated the temple with a statue to Zeus this was regarded as an abomination in the holy place. This is the type of abomination we should be looking for.

The 42 months of Rev 13 seems to relate to an "image" whose description would fit better with the word "abomination" than the 66AD defeated Roman army. That army was defeated some distance from Jerusalem (Beth Horon is about 20 km away)
It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15 The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. 16 It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads

I concur. Your remarks are a true reflection of what Jesus had in mind...

[randyk]

Yeah, I'd disagree. Except for those portions of the Gospel that were specifically and explicitly targeting gentiles, I'd say the rest was mainly for Jewish consumption. Of course you already have your opinion on the matter, so...

Yea, I don't mind that you disagree. You just have to justify your views for me to change my own opinion. My opinion is based on the fact the 4 Gospel authors had been commissioned by Jesus to take his Gospel out beyond Israel, after beginning in Jerusalem and in Judea. They were to begin proclaiming Jesus' message of the Kingdom within Israel, and then move out into the Roman world.

When these Gospels were written, this Commission from Jesus, to "go into all nations," had already been given. Therefore, even though the story was all about the time of Jesus' ministry, taking place in Israel, the intent was to take that story out among the Gentiles.

So in a sense I think we could both be right. This was written *about the Jewish people.* But it was a Jewish story designed to speak to Gentiles.

Initially, I don't think the Gentiles would've easily understood it. It required the help of Jewish believers to explain it, with all of the Jewish customs and laws involved. What Gentiles would know anything about the Feast of Passover, for example?

But the Original Church was founded among Jewish believers. And they were perfectly prepared to read and interpret the Gospel of Jesus to the Gentile nations.

[randyk]

I guess anything is possible if you look hard enough. My view is a little simpler, I see that when Antiochus desecrated the temple with a statue to Zeus this was regarded as an abomination in the holy place. This is the type of abomination we should be looking for.

The 42 months of Rev 13 seems to relate to an "image" whose description would fit better with the word "abomination" than the 66AD defeated Roman army. That army was defeated some distance from Jerusalem (Beth Horon is about 20 km away)
It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15 The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. 16 It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads

I do think you have to look a little harder, because we have the Holy Place, as a specific location, being degraded and deactivated from the time crossing from the OT to the NT. So when Jesus prophesied about the "holy place" in the NT era, he was speaking about a place, the city of Jerusalem, that would refer to a delegitimized Holy Place, and posit in its place a city where this destruction of the temple would take place.

Antiochus E. took place well before this. This event was a *future event* Jesus was foreseeing and predicting.

[randyk]

I would have thought that the essence of these discussions is to seek validation of our understanding of certain topics while revising our position on those proven by scripture that we got wrong? What's the point in sticking to our guns when everything points to our being wrong on a doctrine? Randy has been most vehement and dogmatic in his view of the OD. I really hope I can one day, see "this perspective" that only him has seen with regards to the OD.

I will respond to you, but much less to FHG, because you have a civil spirit. I'm less interested in Christians who use worldly tactics like name-calling, and insulting those who hold different positions.

My brother sent me a few articles yesterday on the subject. I will try to post them, for your consideration. They are scholarly, and try to approach the subject from a very fair viewpoint.

But you too, if all you want to do is insult me as "hard-headed," which in my view is *not* the truth, then neither am I interested in holding discussions with you on the topic.

What *is* the truth about me being "closed-minded?" The truth is, I memorized the Olivet Discourse back in the early 70s. I've held to your position, most likely, and any number of positions. I've never felt that I really had it right. As you can tell from all of the discussions, there are a variety of views, and problems with every view.

I've changed my views on this and other subjects throughout the years. Just because I've held tenaciously to my arguments here on this subject does *not* mean that I'm inflexible. It just means that it is taking quite some time for me to get to the bottom of our differences, because I have seen over and over again that my position is not being represented properly.

For example, it has taken me quite a long time on this Forum to communicate to some that my view of the Great Distress is different than how they've been thinking I view it. They've regularly argued with me, thinking that the Great Distress was the 66-70 AD tribulation when the Romans defeated the Jews in Jerusalem.

But I've not viewed it that way. It's taken me quite some time to communicate just how I view this. And until I'm arguing with people who really understand my position, I'm not dealing with anybody remotely able to correct my notions, because they simply don't understand what my notions are!

Another example is how one brother continually inserts what my beliefs are, and ignores my own statements on what I believe. For example, I define the "holy place" as a concentric circle around the vicinity of Jerusalem, and then I am ridiculed for believing that "outside the walls" is what I believe the "holy place" to be.

Some people are just not worth responding to, because they are incapable of being fair with a position they don't themselves hold to. They are more interested in defending their own position than in understanding someone else's position.

[randyk]

I read post #9 and noted the various references of a holy place. However, Jesus was very specific in that he said "the holy place". Surely you acknowledge that grammatically a holy place is not the same as *the holy place*? Further, context is the key as you also observed. Jews don't recognise the areas surrounding the temple as holy, so I'm not sure why you refuse to see the error of claiming that outside the temple is holy?

Talking about 'definites' Jesus used "the" holy place to describe a specific structure that is known to every Jew in his day. Unfortunately, what you've done is shift the post and thereby present an unspecified holy place that the people of the time would have struggled to determine. Look at it this way:

1. The way Jesus used a definite adverb *the* before the holy place - 100% of Jews at that time would have known what he was telling them.
2. In contrast, with your definition, less than 1% of the Jewish population at the time would have correctly guessed which holy place Jesus had in mind.

Now, given the urgency and need to escape to save lives, Jesus couldn't have used an ambiguous term that would confuse and lead to loss of life. This is my view...

I agree with a lot of your logic here, except that you don't recognize the context, as I see it. This was a prophecy of the destruction of the temple in Jesus' generation. And it happened in 70 AD by the Romans. Jesus was telling his disciples that the key sign to avoid this would be to see the Roman Army encircle Jerusalem. Matthew and Mark describe the same thing as an Abomination of Desolation standing in the holy place, or where it doesn't belong.

So yes, the "holy place" refers back, in every Jewish mind, to the Holy Place of the temple. But the flexible usage of a holy area, or holy territory, allows an expansion of the application from strictly to the Holy Place in the temple to the city surrounding that temple.

[DurbanDude]

Antiochus E. took place well before this. This event was a *future event* Jesus was foreseeing and predicting.

Exactly we should be looking for a future event. I believe it will be similar in nature to the historical example of an abomination. The image in Revelation 13 will be a good fit.

[randyk]

Hopefully you can zoom these?

AoD AD Culver.jpg
AoD SB Frost 1.jpg
SB Frost 2.jpg

[randyk]

It was suggested that the following point discredits my position that the AoD "in the holy place" cannot refer to Jerusalem.
Reference to "the holy place" under conditions of OT Jerusalem always included the temple. Therefore, the holy place must refer exclusively to the temple, and never to Jerusalem, where the temple was located.

However, Jesus completely rejected the temple, indicating that he was the true temple and thus, the true "holy place." It was in Jerusalem, where the temporary Holy Place was located, that Jesus died to fulfil the sanctification of Jerusalem, which is what the temple represented.

Thus, the abomination standing in the holy place was the Roman Army standing around Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the holy place where Jesus had finished his work of redemption. Jesus had anointed Jerusalem by his work of redemption. And the pagan Romans desecrated it.

Dan 9.25 Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.