WHERE DID JESUS
GO (IN HEAVEN) IN A.D. 31?
HEBREWS NINE
We can begin to answer by asking an
important and very much related question:
WHERE DID JESUS GO (IN HEAVEN) IN A.D. 31?
According to many Bible Scholars,
the evangelical world, Walter Martin, Desmond Ford
and many Seventh Day Adventists, Jesus entered
into the Most Holy Place in Heaven in AD 31. This
position of course, contradicts the historical official
position of the Seventh Day Adventist Church.
Did Jesus really entered the Most Holy
place in Heaven in AD 31 or in 1844 as Seventh Day Adventists
propose?
According to Walter Martin, "If
Jesus at the resurrection went into the second apartment of the
heavenly sanctuary in heaven itself, with his own blood and obtained
eternal redemption for us, then there is no 1844 investigative
judgment. It is a myth....Then there isn't any investigative
judgment. Nobody has been looking over the books in heaven since
1844, because Jesus entered at the time of His resurrection into
heaven itself with His own blood. It's all over. He obtained
eternal redemption for us. You don't need this forced holiness
in which you spend your life keeping track of all the commandments
that you're supposed to keep in order for you to eventually to
come out on the right side"--Walter
Martin, March 15,
1989 lecture in Fresno, California.
Let's analyze this answer: While there
is absolutely no question that we are saved by faith, there
is also no question that we must obey the faith, (Rom 16:26)
with and in God's power. I see no "forced
holiness" in doing what Jesus said: "If your love me,
keep my commandments...He that hath my commandments, and keepeth
them, he it is that loveth me..." John 14: 15, 21.
Walter Martin stated that "If Jesus
at the resurrection [A.D. 31] went into the second apartment
of the heavenly sanctuary in heaven itself, with his own blood
and obtained eternal redemption for us, then there is no 1844
investigative judgment. It is a myth."
If we follow Mr. Martin's assumption,
then the opposite assumption should also hold
true. That is: If Jesus at the resurrection [AD 31], did not entered the second apartment [because He entered the
first apartment] of the heavenly sanctuary in heaven itself,
with his own blood and obtained eternal redemption for us, then
there is an 1844 Investigative Judgment. It is not a myth.
I do not believe however, that the question
regarding where Jesus entered in AD 31, can be answered by either
assumption alone. It is just not as sample as that. There
is much more we need to investigate and research in the Bible
to find out what is God's truth. The Bible alone must interpret
itself. The Bible alone must give the true and proper answer.
Before we start our Bible study, let us
read on how Walter Martin described the Evangelical Conferences
of the mid- 1950's and the Seventh Day Adventist Church, (Walter
Martin and the Seventh Day Adventist Church) at his March 15,
1989, Fresno, California, lecture (Published in the Study
of Hebrews nine by Vance Ferrel of Pilgrims Rest - Beer-sheba
Spgs, TN 37305):
"Now, I'll never forget when we were
in Washington {D.C.} at the Seventh Day Adventist Seminary {General
Conference building, not the Seminary which was next door} negotiating
these various doctrines and going through them in 1956 (spring
1955 to spring 1956). I said:
Why don't you get a couple of Greek
scholars from the Seminary bring them over here." and
I said, "Dr. Canon {an Evangelical college teacher he brought
with him} is a Greek scholar and I read the text of the Greek."
I said, "Let us take a look at whether or not Hiram Edson
and Ellen White and early Adventists were right, or if in fact
the very foundation of the denomination was based upon theological
error."
They said, "Fine." They sent
for Dr. {William} Murdoch and for Dr. Theodore Heppenstall, both
of whom were excellent Greek scholars. I'll never forget
Dr. Canon sitting at this large table with all these Adventists
around us, and Dr. Canon saying, "I wonder if we turn in
our Bibles-I'd like you to do that right now,-to the Epistle
to the Hebrews." And they said, "Fine." And they
turned to Hebrews, chapter 9. When they got to Hebrews, chapter
9, we all had our Greek New
Testaments out. And Dr. Canon said, "I would
like to exegete for me Hebrews 9 versus 11 and 12.
We won't look at any theology books, yours or ours... Just the
text, and you tell me what the text says."
Dr. Murdock looked at the text, Dr. Heppenstall
looked at the text, and Dr. Canon read:
"But Christ, having become a High
Priest of good things which are to come by a greater and more
perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is to say not of
this building, not earthly, neither by the blood of goats and
calves, but by His own blood, He entered in once into
the Holy Place having obtained eternal redemption for us."
Canon went through it in Greek {verbally
translated it to them}, and I turned to Dr. Roy Allan Anderson,
head of all Seventh-day Adventist ministers and missionaries,
and I said, "All right this passage contradicts Ellen White,
Hiram Edson, and all the foundations of Adventism. If Jesus
at the resurrection went into the second apartment of the heavenly
sanctuary in heaven itself, with his own blood and obtained eternal
redemption for us, then there is no 1844 investigative judgment.
It is a myth.
Anderson
looked down at the text and he turned to Ted Heppenstall and
said these words, "Does the Greek text say that,
Ted?" And Ted Heppenstall looked up from his Greek
New Testament and said, "Yes." Dr. Murdoch said,
"It does."
Does the Greek
text really say that? Let us use several Bible versions,
and let us look at the original Greek using several Hebrew-Greek
Key Study Bibles, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
and Strong's Bible Concordance:
HEBREWS NINE
Let us you and I examine Hebrews 9, verses
11 and 12 in the New International Version (NIV): {9:11}
"When Christ came as high priest of the good things that
are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect
tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part
of this creation."
{9:12}
"He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves;
but he entered the Most Holy Place once
for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal
redemption." This particular translation states that He entered the Most Holy Place
once for all by his own blood. Obviously this is
AD 31.
But, let us now look at the King James
Version:
{9:11}
"But Christ being come an high priest of good things to
come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made
with hands, that is to say, not of this building;"
{9:12}
"Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own
blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."
According to this version, in this particular
verse, he entered the Holy Place not the
Most Holy Place as stated in the New International Version.
Again, this is AD 31, but not the same
place. Which is right the NIV or the KJV? This
gets even more confusing when we compare the NIV and the KJV
in the following verses:
NIV {9:24} "For Christ did not
enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of
the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us
in God's presence." {9:25} "Nor did he enter
heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest
enters the Most Holy Place every
year with blood that is not his own."
KJV {9:24}
"For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but
into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for
us:" {9:25} "Nor yet that he should offer himself
often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place
every year with blood of others;"
The NIV in verse 24 uses the word
"sanctuary" and the KJV uses the word
holy places. In verse 25, the NIV uses the words
"Most Holy Place" and the KJV uses the
words "holy place". As we can see these two
Bible versions do not agree with each other. However, in
Hebrews 9:8, they do:
NIV {9:8} "The
Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most
Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as
the first tabernacle was still standing."
KJV {9:8}
"The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into
the holiest of all was not yet made
manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing".
In this case "The Holiest of all" and the "Most
Holy Place" are the same thing. But is the "Holy Place"
and the "Most Holy" place, also the same thing? or
the same place? Let us ask the question again, which is right?
The NIV or the KJV?
What if we use another version. Let us
try the New American Standard Heb-Greek Key Study Bible 1977
in Hebrews 9: 24, 25 and 8:
NASB {9:24} "For
Christ did not enter a holy place made with
hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now
to appear in the presence of God for us;" {9:25} "nor
was it that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest
enters the holy place year by year with blood not
his own." {9:8} "The Holy Spirit is signifying
this, that the way into the holy place has not
yet been disclosed, while the outer tabernacle is still standing."
According to the NASB (New-American
Standard) Hebrew-Greek Study Bible, Jesus entered the
holy place, not the Most Holy Place in AD 31! Once more,
let us ask the question: Which Bible version is right? The
NIV, the KJV or NASB?
To determine which is right, we need to
determine the meaning of the Greek words in the Bible manuscripts
for the words: "sanctuary", "holy place" and
the "most holy place". We find the words "hagion",
"hagia" and "hagia-hagion", are used in the
original language in which the book of Hebrews was written.
We will start our investigation of the
meaning of these three words by looking Abingdon"s Strong's
Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Let's see how it defines
the word hagion:
39. hagion
{hag'-ee-on} neuter of 40; a sacred thing (i.e. spot):---holiest
(of all), holy place, sanctuary.
According to the above definition (s),
the word can mean 'holiest', 'holy place' or 'sanctuary'. This
is where the problem begins. This is the reason why many Bibles, (particularly modern translations) use one of the three
terms to define 'hagia' or 'hagion' or 'hagia hagion' as the
same thing. The author of the Book of Hebrews however, was
very consistent in its use. In fact, the author (of Hebrews)
defines its use in the first three verses of Hebrews chapter
9. He used 'hagion' to mean the entire two apartment
sanctuary {9:1}, he used 'hagia' to define 'holy place'
{9:2} and he used 'hagia hagion' to define the
'holiest' or "Most Holy Place' {9:3}. He was consistent.
When he meant to use 'hagia' he used 'hagia'. When he meant to
use 'hagia hagion', he used 'hagia hagion', etc.
The author of Hebrews used 'hagia'
in the following chapters and verses: 8:2; 9:2,
8, 12, 24, 25; 10:19; 13:11, which means Holy Place.
He did not use 'hagia hagion' (Most Holy).
Let us see another definition of the same word under the number:
(hagia, hagion): The interior (either the
outer or the inner of the two rooms) of the sanctuary of the
Jerusalem Temple or of the earlier tabernacle or of a corresponding
'spiritual holy place,' perhaps regarded as being in heaven -
'the holy place'...'a tent was constructed, the outer one...which
was called the Holy Place' He 9:2; 'he entered once
and for all into the Holy Place' He 9:12. The inner room
was more specifically identified by the phrase [hagia hagion]
literally 'holy of holies He 9:3, a Hebrew idiom indicating
superlative degree" The Louw & Nida Greek-English Lexicon
of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains-Second Edition.
United Bible Societies, New York, 1989 Volume 1 - Under the
number 7.35.
So we can see accordingly, that Jesus entered
the Holy Place in AD 31, not the Most Holy (Holy of Holies).
Personally I have studied quite a few other different Bible versions
in the Spanish and English languages, compared text by text,
using several standard Hebrew-Greek Study Bibles and Bible concordances.
My conclusions are simply as follows:
1. Different
Bible versions have been translated by different men or groups
of men with different backgrounds and in many instances, these
men give "tradition" equal force or equal inspiration
as the Bible Inspired Text, making both one distinctive source
of revelation. One example of this we find in the New American
Bible (NAB)-Catholic Bible Press - Thomas Nelson Publishers.
The NAB states under the section titled: "Purpose of
the Bible" pg. IX:
"...the Bible and Tradition go hand
in hand: they are not two distinct sources of revelations. As
the Fathers of Vatican II put it. "Sacred tradition and
sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God which
is committed to the church" (Dei Verbum, #10).
In a sense, Tradition is Scripture lived in the Church."
Another interesting statement found in the
same page states:
"He reveals himself in the Church
through the Councils, through what Catholics call the magisterium,
or "teaching authority of the Popes and Bishops,"
and through the lives of our people. In the Catholic faith
this has been called "Tradition."
We can see then, that "tradition"
plays a mayor role in what is determined as "bible truth"
and / or "bible doctrine". This "tradition"
placed as equal or above inspired scripture, allow for certain
words to be admitted in some old bible translations and more
so in the new modern ecumenical translations as the "true
original Hebrew and / or Greek words", in spite of the
real meaning given by the original bible authors, as we have
seen and will further see in the case of Hebrews nine.
In many modern Bible translations words
have been omitted, changed, substituted or modified. For example
Philip Mauro {a Greek scholar} has recorded no fewer than 7,
578 verbal divergences in the gospels alone between the Textus
Receptus and the Codex Vaticanus. These consist of the omission
of 2,877 words, the addition of 536 words, the substitution of
935 words, the transposition of 2,098 words and the modification
of 1,132 words (Philip Mauro, Which Version? Authorized
or Revised?, quoted in D.O. fuller, op. cit., pg.
78. Also
quoted in Modern Bible-Translations Unmasked, Russell R. Standish
and Colin D. Standish pg. 10)
2. With the decree of the Second Vatican
Council (Dei Verbum) and with the directive of Pope Pius
XII, new modern bible translations have been made with the approval
of the Catholic Church in cooperation with the "separated brethren".
This fact is evidenced in the New American Bible (NAB) cited
earlier. This Bible states:
"...the translators have
carried out the directive of our predecessor, Pius XII, in
his famous Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, and the
decree of the Second Vatican Council (Dei Verbum), which
prescribed that 'up-to-date and appropriate translations be made
in the various languages, by preference from the original texts
of the sacred books,' and that 'with approval of Church authority,
these translations may be produced in cooperation with
our separated brethren' so that 'all 'Christians may be able
to use them."
Back
to Index | Next
