Page 1 of 31 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 458

Thread: holy ground in the NT?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,329

    holy ground in the NT?

    The following is an email I sent to my brother, as we continue to discuss what "holy place" refers to in the Olivet Discourse. The "abomination of desolation" will "stand in the holy place." This is a sign the Disciples of Jesus were supposed to "see" and recognize it as somehow connected to the destruction of the temple, or the end of Jewish religion. This is just my musings on the subject for your consideration...

    Jer 31.38-40 seems to indicate that Jerusalem, as a city, is holy territory. And that is not new, since Jerusalem has long been considered the "holy city." Isaiah, Daniel, Nehemiah, Matthew, and John referred to Jerusalem as the "holy city."


    The extension of "holy place" from the temple to the city of Jerusalem appears to be an extended application of holy ground to holy people. The land in proximity to God's presence is holy, such as the Holy Place next to the Most Holy Place, or Moses' standing on holy ground next to the burning bush. And the people in Jerusalem, in proximity to the temple, are holy, being in the immediate vicinity of God's house, and benefiting from His priesthood.

    Specifically, under the Law, the people of Jerusalem were made holy due to the priests being themselves made holy by the anointing oil, enabling their service on behalf of Israel, to render both themselves and the people who lived in God's immediate presence to be made holy. The purpose of the priestly service, after all, was to enable the people to come into immediate contact with the glory of God, causing them to be made holy. And those, among the common people, who lived in Jerusalem, lived in the presence of God's glory in the temple, enabling them to be considered holy, along with the priests.

    Interestingly, I think it was author Gordon Lindsay who pointed out that [in Bible Prophecy] the larger dimensions of the city of Jerusalem better fit *today's Jerusalem* than the one that followed the Persian restoration or the time of Jesus! I don't know, however, whether Lindsay was pointing to Zech 14.10-11 or to Jer 31.38-40? They both represent expansion of the original territory of Jerusalem, expanding the area considered "holy."

    As I said, in Zech 14, we have an extended application of what is made "holy"...
    21 Every pot in Jerusalem and Judah will be holy to the Lord Almighty, and all who come to sacrifice will take some of the pots and cook in them.

    It does appear, in Bible Prophecy, that the goal of making the Jewish People holy will somehow be achieved. It was initially made possible, legally, by Christ's priestly work in offering himself as a sacrifice to God. But this only made a small portion of Israel holy, namely, the Christian remnant of Israel.

    But prophecy seems to indicate that the wicked in Israel will be removed, and the believing remnant turned into a fully consecrated nation, once again. At that time, the OT sacrificial system will no longer be required as a medium for transmitting holiness from God to the People. Instead, Christ's administration of his sacrifice will enable a whole nation to be declared holy, simply by their verbal commitment to God as a nation.

    But what happened in the 70 AD event is different inasmuch as only a remnant of believers were created at that time. At that time, the "holy place" would've still been Jerusalem and the temple, although their priestly services would no longer have been needed nor recognized. Instead, the unbelieving majority would've been viewed as "devoted to destruction" by their failure to live under the administration of Christ's priestly services.

    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?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,752
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,329

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    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.
    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,752
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    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."
    Sorry but the phrase "the Holy Place" is a SINGLE word in Hebrew and ALWAYS applies to the place in the Temple. Holy ground is NOT "the Holy Place".
    So it is INCORRECT to claim it MOST OFTEN applies to the Temple, when it ALWAYS applies to the Temple.
    Further when the phrase is used in the NT as a Greek term we ONLY find it is TWO places. The first is in Matthew 24 where it is referring BACK to the OT usage as spoken of by the prophet Daniel - so CONTEXT clearly speaks of the Temple. The second is in Heb 9:2 where again it is speaking of the Then, which was the Temple.
    Now that tent moved around, and the location of the tent was irrelevant, but the POSITION of "the Holy place" was ALWAYS the same, being INSIDE the Temple.

    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."
    Again false reasoning.
    You clearly state in relation to the destruction of the Temple, which means CONTEXT is about when an OT Temple IS in existence. IN FACT it is the time BEFORE that Temple is destroyed. SO CONTEXTUALLY you are COMPLETELY wrong.
    There is NO different place.
    Now where Jesus died was SPECIFICALLY according to OT and also NT statements a place which was NOT holy.

    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.
    Did the Temple exist? Yes! Was it in view in the CONTEXT? Yes! Are you now trying to claim there is NO SPECIFIC Holy place, in which case Jesus' statement then becomes nonsense.

    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.
    So you are claiming a place which is OUTSIDE the city, and SPECIFICALLY stated as NOT being holy in the NT is now holy. Where is your scriptural support?
    Heb 13:11* For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp.*
    Heb 13:12* So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.

    He sanctifies for He is holy, but the place itself is NOT holy, but the place of sin.
    This again ties into Levitical Law.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,329

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Sorry but the phrase "the Holy Place" is a SINGLE word in Hebrew and ALWAYS applies to the place in the Temple. Holy ground is NOT "the Holy Place".
    So it is INCORRECT to claim it MOST OFTEN applies to the Temple, when it ALWAYS applies to the Temple.
    Further when the phrase is used in the NT as a Greek term we ONLY find it is TWO places. The first is in Matthew 24 where it is referring BACK to the OT usage as spoken of by the prophet Daniel - so CONTEXT clearly speaks of the Temple. The second is in Heb 9:2 where again it is speaking of the Then, which was the Temple.
    Now that tent moved around, and the location of the tent was irrelevant, but the POSITION of "the Holy place" was ALWAYS the same, being INSIDE the Temple.


    Again false reasoning.
    You clearly state in relation to the destruction of the Temple, which means CONTEXT is about when an OT Temple IS in existence. IN FACT it is the time BEFORE that Temple is destroyed. SO CONTEXTUALLY you are COMPLETELY wrong.
    There is NO different place.
    Now where Jesus died was SPECIFICALLY according to OT and also NT statements a place which was NOT holy.


    Did the Temple exist? Yes! Was it in view in the CONTEXT? Yes! Are you now trying to claim there is NO SPECIFIC Holy place, in which case Jesus' statement then becomes nonsense.


    So you are claiming a place which is OUTSIDE the city, and SPECIFICALLY stated as NOT being holy in the NT is now holy. Where is your scriptural support?
    Heb 13:11* For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp.*
    Heb 13:12* So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.

    He sanctifies for He is holy, but the place itself is NOT holy, but the place of sin.
    This again ties into Levitical Law.
    No, this is a *NT application.* And the "holy place" was never limited to the temple itself. The "holy place" can be used as a proper noun or as a general concept.

    I choose the later, based on the context. This is the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy of the 70 Weeks, in which the Messiah would provide final atonement for sin, and devote to destruction both Jerusalem and the temple. The "abomination of desolation" was thus God's judgment against Jerusalem by means of the pagan Romans.

    The use of pagan enemies to destroy apostate Israel was a common theme in the OT Scriptures. And this wasn't the 1st time Jerusalem had been destroyed, along with its temple. Bringing a pagan army *into the holy place* would mean, as a general concept, the entry into Jerusalem's vicinity by besieging troops.

    I'm disinterested in your "out isn't in" argument. My position remains that the city of Jerusalem encompasses the area around the walls of the city as well.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,329

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Jer 31.38 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when this city will be rebuilt for me from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. 39 The measuring line will stretch from there straight to the hill of Gareb and then turn to Goah. 40 The whole valley where dead bodies and ashes are thrown, and all the terraces out to the Kidron Valley on the east as far as the corner of the Horse Gate, will be holy to the Lord. The city will never again be uprooted or demolished.”

    The expanded city of Jerusalem encompassed areas that were unclean, but which could be made holy. Jesus' sacrifice could make Jerusalem the "holy place" in its entirety, since it cleansed both those who had been saints under the Law and those who were without the Law considered "unclean."

    Though this is a future prophecy, Christ's sacrifice took place "in the holy place," which was "outside the camp." Clearly, this was a "holy place." Daniel was told this would be an "anointing of the holy place."

    Dan 9.24 “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,752
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    No, this is a *NT application.* And the "holy place" was never limited to the temple itself. The "holy place" can be used as a proper noun or as a general concept.
    Nope, the application is about the Temple and what is the place considered as "the Holy place".
    "The Holy place" is NEVER used as a proper noun or as a general concept.
    You are IGNORING the DEFINITE article "the" which speaks of a SPECIFIC place. When the definite article "the" is used with "holy" it ONLY speaks of a SINGLE place BOTH in the NT and the OT.

    I choose the later, based on the context. This is the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy of the 70 Weeks, in which the Messiah would provide final atonement for sin, and devote to destruction both Jerusalem and the temple. The "abomination of desolation" was thus God's judgment against Jerusalem by means of the pagan Romans.
    You cannot choose the latter, when the latter doesn't exist WITHIN scripture.

    I'm disinterested in your "out isn't in" argument. My position remains that the city of Jerusalem encompasses the area around the walls of the city as well.
    We BOTH know that OUT is NOT IN, however what you are claiming here is that the prophecy of Jeremiah 31 has been fulfilled in order to change a place which is NOT Holy and clearly NOT holy according to the Jeremiah 31 prophecy and IS holy, which according to the Jeremiah prophecy is still in the FUTURE.
    IOW you are claiming an OT statement as being fulfilled yet this clearly has NOT which ACTUALLY means your claim is PROVEN as false by the very prophecy you are claiming supports your view.
    If Jeremiah 31 has been fulfilled then please state WHEN it was fulfilled so that everyone can see the veracity of your view.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,752
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Jer 31.38 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when this city will be rebuilt for me from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. 39 The measuring line will stretch from there straight to the hill of Gareb and then turn to Goah. 40 The whole valley where dead bodies and ashes are thrown, and all the terraces out to the Kidron Valley on the east as far as the corner of the Horse Gate, will be holy to the Lord. The city will never again be uprooted or demolished.”

    The expanded city of Jerusalem encompassed areas that were unclean, but which could be made holy. Jesus' sacrifice could make Jerusalem the "holy place" in its entirety, since it cleansed both those who had been saints under the Law and those who were without the Law considered "unclean."
    Have you note notice you have put "could be made" holy, and NOT "have been made" holy.
    The FACT is that it has NOT YET been made holy and will not be until a FUTURE time. This means it WAS NOT holy at the time Jesus uttered His words in Matt 24, nor did that change by 70 AD.

    Though this is a future prophecy, Christ's sacrifice took place "in the holy place," which was "outside the camp." Clearly, this was a "holy place." Daniel was told this would be an "anointing of the holy place."
    No Christ's sacrifice did NOT happen "in the Holy Place". Hebrews 13 states the OPPOSITE. So are you saying the writer of Hebrews did NOT KNOW that the place was holy?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,329

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    I'd like to ask the question: How many "holy places" are there?
    There is the Holy Place of the temple, which is actually the *name* of a room. It is perhaps the proper noun to be capitalized "Holy Place."

    Exo 26.33 Hang the curtain from the clasps and place the ark of the covenant law behind the curtain. The curtain will separate the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place.

    1) The Holy Place also represents the Most Holy Place.

    Exo 28.29-35 Whenever Aaron enters the Holy Place, he will bear the names of the sons of Israel over his heart on the breastpiece of decision as a continuing memorial before the Lord... Aaron must wear it when he ministers. The sound of the bells will be heard when he enters the Holy Place before the Lord and when he comes out, so that he will not die.

    2) The places where the ark of entered Jerusalem, which were buildings associated with David's palace, were holy places.

    2 Chron 8.11 Solomon brought Pharaoh’s daughter up from the City of David to the palace he had built for her, for he said, “My wife must not live in the palace of David king of Israel, because the places the ark of the Lord has entered are holy.”

    3) Heaven is God's holy place.

    2 Chron 30.27 The priests and the Levites stood to bless the people, and God heard them, for their prayer reached heaven, his holy dwelling place.

    4) "Standing in the holy place" is the equivalent of standing in the court of the priests.

    2 Chron 35.5 Stand in the holy place with a group of Levites for each subdivision of the families of your fellow Israelites, the lay people.

    5) The mountain of the Lord, which is sometimes used as a symbol of Jerusalem, is a holy place.

    Psalm 24.3 Who may ascend the mountain of the Lord? Who may stand in his holy place?

    6) God and Christ are a holy place.

    Isa 8.14 He will be a holy place; for both Israel and Judah he will be a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.

    What is *the* holy place? Some think it is the temple chamber called technically "the Holy Place," as a proper noun. But above we see that there are other holy places. And they are not limited to just the term "holy place." There are holy territories designated in that general sense. For example, the territory outside the temple where the priests are to actually live in Ezekiel's vision of the temple (Eze 40-48) are designated a holy territory.

    Eze 45.1 When you allot the land as an inheritance, you are to present to the Lord a portion of the land as a sacred district, 25,000 cubits long and 20,000 cubits wide; the entire area will be holy.

    So what is *the* holy place? It can be technically applied, and most often is in the OT Scriptures, to the chamber in the temple where under the Law priests ministered at the altar of incense and at the lampstand, giving it oil, and at the table of bread, resupplying it.

    But there may be an argument for *the* holy place being the place where God dwelled, whether in heaven, or in the Most Holy, or wherever the ark had entered Jerusalem. After all, the Holy Place in one place alluded to the Most Holy where God dwelled. And God Himself is identified as the holy place. We might assume, then, that when Christ went to the cross to minister salvation for all he went as an anointed priest who was a divine "holy place." He was crucified in an unclean place, and yet was, himself, a "holy place."

    Dan 9.24 Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place... 26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.

    The definite article "the" does not indicate "which" holy place is in mind, but only that a specific holy place is in mind among several options. It is context that is crucial.

    And in the Olivet Discourse, the Abomination of Desolation standing in the "holy place" is not necessarily a reference to the chamber of the temple designated as such. On the contrary, the context is, as Dan 9.26 indicates and as Luke 21.20 indicates, an army laying siege to Jerusalem, in order to destroy it and the temple.

    Being "in the holy place," therefore, appears to be a reference to being in the vicinity of Jerusalem, in position to defeat it. *The holy place* is likely the region of Jerusalem including the walled city and its outskirts where Jesus made believers holy through his covenant of salvation.

    Jesus' salvation makes all holy who believe, wherever they may live in the world. But given while Jesus was still under the Law, his reference to *the* holy place likely was a reference to the area where he was to die for the sins of all men. And that was in the vicinity of Jerusalem.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,752
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I'd like to ask the question: How many "holy places" are there?
    There is the Holy Place of the temple, which is actually the *name* of a room. It is perhaps the proper noun to be capitalized "Holy Place."

    Exo 26.33 Hang the curtain from the clasps and place the ark of the covenant law behind the curtain. The curtain will separate the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place.
    Here we have the differentiation between the two different places:
    In Hebrew one is called "ha qodesh - הַקֹּ֑דֶשׁ" this literally means "the Holy" and is translated as "the Holy place".

    The other is called "qodesh haqodeshim -הַקֳּדָשִֽׁי קֹ֥דֶשׁ" this literally means "Holy the Holies" and is translated as "the Most Holy" or "the Holy of Holies".

    Neither is a substitute for the other anywhere in scripture.

    1) The Holy Place also represents the Most Holy Place.

    Exo 28.29-35 Whenever Aaron enters the Holy Place, he will bear the names of the sons of Israel over his heart on the breastpiece of decision as a continuing memorial before the Lord... Aaron must wear it when he ministers. The sound of the bells will be heard when he enters the Holy Place before the Lord and when he comes out, so that he will not die.[/QUOTE]
    Always bad to miss out part of a passage which clarifies the meaning.
    He enters the Holy Place which is OUTSIDE the Most Holy yet we are told he enters God's presence, which is IN the Most Holy. So the location of Most Holy isn't stated as the point of his entering before the Lord is stated:
    Exo 28:30* And in the breastpiece of judgment you shall put the Urim and the Thummim, and they shall be on Aaron's heart, when he goes in before the LORD. Thus Aaron shall bear the judgment of the people of Israel on his heart before the LORD regularly.

    2) The places where the ark of entered Jerusalem, which were buildings associated with David's palace, were holy places.

    2 Chron 8.11 Solomon brought Pharaoh’s daughter up from the City of David to the palace he had built for her, for he said, “My wife must not live in the palace of David king of Israel, because the places the ark of the Lord has entered are holy.”
    A holy place is NOT the same as THE Holy place.
    In Hebrew you have the DEFINITE article with the word, unlike in English were it is a separate word.
    There are many holy places. This is not the point. The point is that NOT A SINGLE occasion when "The Holy place" is mentioned is it referring to anywhere but INSIDE the Temple.

    3) Heaven is God's holy place.

    2 Chron 30.27 The priests and the Levites stood to bless the people, and God heard them, for their prayer reached heaven, his holy dwelling place.
    Same point above, many holy places.

    4) "Standing in the holy place" is the equivalent of standing in the court of the priests.

    2 Chron 35.5 Stand in the holy place with a group of Levites for each subdivision of the families of your fellow Israelites, the lay people.
    Two problems with this claim:
    1) The Hebrew does NOT say "the Holy place" it says בַקֹּ֗דֶשׁ which simply means "in (a) holy place" - there is NO definite article used here, no "The" involved.
    2) The translators are suggesting that there is one representative of the Levites families in the place known as "the Holy place" which is a possibility as this would be 24 people.

    5) The mountain of the Lord, which is sometimes used as a symbol of Jerusalem, is a holy place.

    Psalm 24.3 Who may ascend the mountain of the Lord? Who may stand in his holy place?
    A holy place NOT the holy place.

    6) God and Christ are a holy place.

    Isa 8.14 He will be a holy place; for both Israel and Judah he will be a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.
    Again A holy place.

    What is *the* holy place? Some think it is the temple chamber called technically "the Holy Place," as a proper noun. But above we see that there are other holy places. And they are not limited to just the term "holy place." There are holy territories designated in that general sense. For example, the territory outside the temple where the priests are to actually live in Ezekiel's vision of the temple (Eze 40-48) are designated a holy territory.

    Eze 45.1 When you allot the land as an inheritance, you are to present to the Lord a portion of the land as a sacred district, 25,000 cubits long and 20,000 cubits wide; the entire area will be holy.

    So what is *the* holy place? It can be technically applied, and most often is in the OT Scriptures, to the chamber in the temple where under the Law priests ministered at the altar of incense and at the lampstand, giving it oil, and at the table of bread, resupplying it.
    Throughout you miss the FACT that the word used for "A Holy place" is a different word to "The Holy place".
    There are many holy places and territories. However in scripture the word "The Holy - הַקֹּ֑דֶשׁ" is ONLY used for the place in the Temple and NEVER for anywhere else.
    There is NO argument supported by scripture for anywhere else to be called "the Holy place".

    But there may be an argument for *the* holy place being the place where God dwelled, whether in heaven, or in the Most Holy, or wherever the ark had entered Jerusalem. After all, the Holy Place in one place alluded to the Most Holy where God dwelled. And God Himself is identified as the holy place. We might assume, then, that when Christ went to the cross to minister salvation for all he went as an anointed priest who was a divine "holy place." He was crucified in an unclean place, and yet was, himself, a "holy place."

    Dan 9.24 Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place... 26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.

    The definite article "the" does not indicate "which" holy place is in mind, but only that a specific holy place is in mind among several options. It is context that is crucial.

    And in the Olivet Discourse, the Abomination of Desolation standing in the "holy place" is not necessarily a reference to the chamber of the temple designated as such. On the contrary, the context is, as Dan 9.26 indicates and as Luke 21.20 indicates, an army laying siege to Jerusalem, in order to destroy it and the temple.

    Being "in the holy place," therefore, appears to be a reference to being in the vicinity of Jerusalem, in position to defeat it. *The holy place* is likely the region of Jerusalem including the walled city and its outskirts where Jesus made believers holy through his covenant of salvation.

    Jesus' salvation makes all holy who believe, wherever they may live in the world. But given while Jesus was still under the Law, his reference to *the* holy place likely was a reference to the area where he was to die for the sins of all men. And that was in the vicinity of Jerusalem.
    Jesus' reference was NOT to the place He was going to die, which was an unholy place and which the author of Hebrews confirms was NOT the Holy place.
    The connection to Daniel and to the Temple points to a meaning connected WITH the Temple. A meaning you are trying to deny as it means the rest of your thinking is also wrong.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Wherever the Lord places me
    Posts
    42,687

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    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.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,752
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
    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.
    Especially if they suggest referring to Daniel's mention of an Abomination of Desolation and the destruction of the Temple.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,329

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
    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.
    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.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,329

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    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.

    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.

    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.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,329

    Re: holy ground in the NT?

    So the question arises: If Jesus died outside of the walls of Jerusalem, how could he have said he would die *in Jerusalem?* I think it's clear that the vicinity and legal jurisdiction of Jerusalem encompassed the outskirts of the city, as well. It was in a very real sense that Jesus died *in Jerusalem* at the same time he died "outside the camp," ie outside of the city walls.

    Luke 13.33 In any case, I must press on today and tomorrow and the next day—for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!

    Matthew 23.37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’ ”

    Heb 13.11 The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. 12 And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. 13 Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. 14 For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come.

    I think there is an additional question here: If Jesus was taken outside of Jerusalem to an unclean place, how could it be said that he died in the holy city of Jerusalem? Jesus had shown that the city had become extremely ungodly, violating the sacred nature of Jerusalem, as the place where the temple had stood. This was while the Law was still in effect.

    So after Jesus died for sin outside the camp of Jerusalem he was still viewed as being in the holy place of Jerusalem, not in the sense of the Law, which had been defiled, but only in the sense of his own sacrifice as Messiah. He died in an unclean place as far as the Law. But he died in the holy place as far as redemption from sin.

    And so, this holy place was Jerusalem where Jesus died, because even though as far as the Law he had died in an unclean place, as far as prophecy goes he died in Jerusalem where he was to make a new covenant, declaring Israel's sins forgiven.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Holy, Holy, Holy! Lord God Almighty
    By doug3 in forum Praise
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Apr 24th 2011, 03:41 PM
  2. My first ground up build...
    By Firefighter in forum Solomon's Porch
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: Mar 10th 2011, 01:39 PM
  3. Holy Ground
    By LLarios in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Sep 8th 2009, 06:19 AM
  4. Replies: 128
    Last Post: Jul 18th 2009, 11:28 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •