This article talks about how me and my friend Jonathan Espina, who is also an Adventist defender, share our ideas about the SDA Sanctuary doctrine. I think Jonathan is really good at discussing SDA issues because he has a lot of theological books and SDA materials. It's easy for me to talk to him because we both understand each other's points and are excited about the same things.
Jonathan Espina says:
“In his attempt to show that Jesus as High Priest has entered the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary at His ascension, Ronald Obidos has used a biased translation of NIV for Hebrews 9:12 where it translated the Greek word Ta Hagia (literally, “the holies”) as “the Most Holy Place.”
ANSWER:
The NIV translation is right and matches the context in Hebrews chapter 9, which talks about the Day of Atonement. This day is linked to the rituals done yearly in the "Most Holy Place," not just the "Holy Place." Hebrews 9 talks about the Day of Atonement in verses 7, 8, 12, 24, 25, and probably refers to it in verses 23, 27, 28.
Hebrews 9:7 (NIV)
Hebrews 9:7 (NIV)
“But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance.”
Hebrews 9:8
(NIV) “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 functioning.”
Hebrews 9:11-12 (NIV) “
But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. 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, thus obtaining eternal redemption.”
Hebrews 9:24-25 (NIV)
“For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 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.”
The Greek words "ta hagia" and "tōn hagiōn" may look plural, but they usually mean something singular.[1] So, arguments based on them being plural are wrong. Saying "ta hagia" means "holy places" in Heb. 9:8 and other places would mess up most verses. For example, it would make Heb. 9:25 say the high priest went into two rooms, when it really means he went into one. It would also make Heb. 10:19, 20 say there were two holy places behind the curtain, which isn't right. And it would mean two places are like "the second" in Heb. 9:8, instead of one.Heb. 9 must be interpreted in its context, and on both sides of the chapter (e.g., 6:19-20 and 10:19-20) we have further allusions to the Day of Atonement in connection with what Christ has already done.
Hebrews 6:19-20 (NIV)
“We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.”
Hebrews 10:19-20 (NIV)
“Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body.”
It's easy to see that the writer of Hebrews is really focusing on how the blood of Christ does something very special. It allows people to be with God directly, like how the High Priest could go into the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement. Just saying that the blood of Christ is the main idea in Heb. 9 isn't enough. We need to understand that the main message of the chapter, and the whole book, is that "the blood of Christ lets us come close to God's right hand."
Saying that the NIV translation is biased is a biased argument from Jonathan Espina. He only focuses on the word "ta hagia" and ignores the context about the Day of Atonement. This should remind Christians to be cautious when discussing groups like the Seventh-day Adventist church. They are skilled at using language tricks instead of understanding the context. Even beginner students of Greek should understand that the meaning of words depends on the context.
Next, the so-called "translation discrepancy" in the NIV isn't really a problem, but rather shows honesty and careful study of the text. Hebrews 8:2 talks about the difference between the sanctuary in "heaven" (the true tent) and the one on "earth" (made by humans). So, it makes sense for the NIV to translate "sanctuary" in 8:2 as "Most Holy Place" because the contrast isn't between the "Holy Place" and the "Most Holy Place."
Thirdly, their Prophet Ellen White is telling Jonathan Espina that when Christ went to heaven in 1844, He went into the first room, or "the Holy Place," not both the "Holy Place" and "Most Holy Place." If they argue for the whole Sanctuary (both Holy Place and Most Holy Place), it contradicts itself. It suggests that Jesus went into not only the "Holy Place," as Ellen White says, but also into the Most Holy Place before 1844.
Ellen White said:
“The ministration of the priest throughout the year in the first apartment of the sanctuary, “within the veil” which formed the door and separated the holy place from the outer court, represents the work of ministration upon which Christ entered at His ascension…So did Christ plead His blood before the Father in behalf of sinners, and present before Him also, with the precious fragrance of His own righteousness, the prayers of penitent believers. Such was the work of ministration in the first apartment of the sanctuary in heaven.” Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 421
Fourthly, Jonathan Espina agreed with the assessment report of the Daniel and Revelation Committee (DARCOM) from the Biblical Research Institute. This report aligns with the NIV translation.
“However, the practice of the author of Hebrews is not fully consistent, because in two clear instances he uses the plural form to denote a single apartment (9:2, 3).”
It's true that "ta hagia" is a plural word with a singular meaning. Therefore, Jonathan Espina is incorrect in his argument that the NIV consistently translates every mention of the heavenly "ta hagia" as "the Most Holy Place." He contradicts himself because earlier he mentioned that the same Greek word "Tōn Hagiōn" appears in 8:2, where the NIV translates it as "the sanctuary." It's Jonathan Espina who breaks the law of Non-Contradiction, not me. The Law of Non-Contradiction states: [insert definition].
“In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.”[2]
I saw a comment from Jonathan Espina accusing me of contradicting myself about Hebrews 9:12. He shared the link to my YouTube video titled "Hebreo 9:12: Kailan Pumasok si Jesus sa Most Holy Place," where I supported the SDA theory that aligns with Jonathan Espina's view. According to the definition of the Law of Non-Contradiction I mentioned earlier, I didn't actually contradict myself. My statement in that video was made when I was a dedicated SDA defender a few years ago. If I had made that statement now, as someone who is not SDA, then Mr. Espina and other devoted SDA defenders would have a reason to celebrate. But sorry to disappoint them once again. I didn't make that statement in the video as both an SDA defender and an anti-SDA person at the same time.
There's no denying that Heb. 9 suggests that Christ fulfilled the Day of Atonement in AD 31. So, Jonathan Espina's inability to challenge the NIV translation of Hebrews 9:12 strongly suggests that the SDA Church's doctrine about 1844 is wrong.
Footnote:
[1] Grammarians list hagia as typical of those nouns with a plural form but not a plural meaning. See A Greek Grammar by Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, section 141.8; Handbook of Grammar of the Greek Testament, by S.G. Green, p. 203; A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, by A.T. Robertson, p. 408; A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by T. Blass, pp. 83, 84; and A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, by G.B. Winer, p. 176. Ta hagia is only one of a series of words in the New Testament which though plural in form have a singular meaning. “Heaven,” “world,” and other terms in some instances have a plural original. The phenomenon is related to a general, Grecian, or Biblical point of view of manifoldness or comprehensiveness.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
No comments:
Post a Comment