Appendix One

Original Sin and its Consequences

Introduction

The core concept of original sin, has been sold in the ‘religious market’ since before biblical times. It has obviously been around longer than the Book of Job (considered to be the first written book of the Bible). Job’s erstwhile friends tried to convince him that he must be a great sinner, otherwise the things that had befallen him, could not have happened. In spite of Job’s protestations, that he had not sinned, his ‘friends’ refused to believe him. For his friends, the evidence was clear, he must have sinned, end of story. There was no such thing as ‘bad things happen to good people back then.’ This ancient attitude, so much on evidence in the story of Job, is one of the core concepts of what has become known as ‘original sin.’ Namely that we are punished, in the present, for our sins in the past.

Several centuries later we discover that this concept of present punishment for past sins, has been embellished to include the sins of our forefathers. Namely, we not only get punished for our own sins, but we also get punished for the sins of our ancestors. In the Book of Ezekiel, there is a relatively long discourse about sin and its consequences (see Eze. 18). This discourse, is specifically about whether descendants are held accountable for the sins of their fathers. When Ezekiel explains that the descendants are not guilty for the sins of the fathers, he realises that this is not going to be readily accepted, because it went against strongly held popular opinion. Therefore, Ezekiel quotes the objection that he knows will be raised:

Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? Eze. 18:19.

This resistance to Ezekiel’s explanation, is a result of the sacralistic attitude towards life. They cannot think in terms of individuality. For them, community is everything, including shared guilt for sin. At the end of Ezekiel’s discourse, he concludes that the descendants do not share in the sins of their forebears:

The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Eze. 18:20.

However, in spite of Ezekiel’s clear rejection of the concept of shared guilt. This sacralistic idea persisted for centuries. When Jesus came, we find his disciples imbued with the same ideas. When they came across a man born blind, they ask Jesus:

Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jn. 9:2.

This was obviously not the time for a lesson from Jesus about how the whole of nature suffers under sin, which includes the fact that our DNA has become corrupted and defective. Such an explanation would have been beyond the disciples understanding. So, Jesus simply said: “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents…” (Jn. 9:3).

With this reply, Jesus endorses the same conclusion that Ezekiel made – the descendants do not share in the sins of the parents. This is the biblical position. We stand before God as individuals. We are responsible for our own sins, and we do not share in the sins of others, and they do not share in ours. Nevertheless, we have in the religious market place today, this doctrine called ‘Original Sin.’ This doctrine, is virtually the creation of one man, and it was created out of necessity to establish and justify the Constantinian Empire Church, known today as the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, that man was Augustine.

Augustine

Even though these sacralistic notions about sin and guilt had been around for centuries in pagan societies, they never penetrated New Testament Christianity, until Augustine. The place that the Doctrine of Original Sin, has in systematic theology today, is solely the work of Augustine.

Augustine took on the responsibility of creating a theology that would justify the Empire Church that Constantine and his successors wanted. He needed a theology that would encourage universal membership in the Church. He found the solution in infant baptism. His next step was to find a reason for infant baptism. His solution was the Doctrine of Original Sin. Augustine taught that because we were all ‘in’ Adam, when Adam sinned, this meant that, we were all guilty of the same sin that Adam committed. This doctrine is still the foundation of the church that Augustine helped to create:

The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man.” By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice, and that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin contracted and not committeda state and not an act. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2^nd ed., Answer to question #404, Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

This definition of original sin provides us with a fascinating glimpse into the sacralistic mindset. Notice that it is based on the ‘unity of the human race’. The only way to remove the guilt was to be baptised. If someone died without baptism then that person would go to an eternally burning hell. Therefore, it was essential to baptise infants as soon as possible after birth. This gave the Church great power over the people. The people were totally dependent on the Church for their salvation. The first steps toward universal Church membership was accomplished. But there were many problems still to be resolved.

The Problem of Transmission

It was all very well to announce. that all mankind is as guilty of Adam’s sin, as Adam himself, it was another thing to explain how the guilt is transferred down through the generations. The only, even remotely plausible explanation, that Augustine could come up with, was that it was transferred by sexual intercourse. This necessary accoutrement to the doctrine of original sin, has poisoned the relationship between male and female ever since its inception. Sex became a dirty business. This doctrine was instrumental in the popularity of the monastic movement. Men fled into monasteries and women into nunneries, to escape the contamination they would encounter in the world, especially relations with the opposite sex. In addition, this original sin transference through sex doctrine, became the foundation of the celibate priesthood. By elevating the priesthood above the grubby business of reproducing ourselves, it was considered that the priesthood would be regarded as ‘holy’ and therefore holding more authority over the people.

The Human Nature of Christ

However, the greatest problem, the Augustinian innovations created, was a Christological one – what happened when God himself was incarnated into the human race? If the doctrine of original sin was true, then of necessity God himself would have to be smitten with sin and be guilty of the sin of Adam. Obviously, this could not possibly be the case – the Bible is very clear that Jesus lived a perfect life and never sinned. Therefore, faced with such with such an insurmountable problem, the doctrine of original sin would have to be dropped and Augustine would have to go back to the drawing board and start again. But that is not what happened. Augustine persisted with his illogical system – what he had created so far was too attractive (for the creation of an Empire Church), to discard. So, he smudged the issue. His solution was to state that Jesus was born of the Spirit of holiness, in a manner that was too mysterious for us to understand. He seemed to think that because the mother of Jesus, Mary, was a virgin, then that was sufficient for any contamination to be passed on to Jesus. Augustine left this problem for others to wrestle with.

The Immaculate Conception

The Catholic Church eventually offered a solution for their own created dilemma, in the immaculate conception of Mary. This was not a new idea. Mary as a co-redeemer, miracle worker and intercessor had been promoted in the Catholic Church virtually from its foundation – this included the idea of her immaculate conception. However, even in the Catholic Church, the immaculate conception was a controversial issue. Eventually, the Mary enthusiasts won the argument and the immaculate conception of Mary was officially announced to be Catholic dogma in 1854. In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Virgin Mary:

The immaculate conception story as put forth in 1854, does not address some obvious problems, such as, if Mary was born immaculate, how did that happen? Would it not mean that Mary’s parents would also have to be born immaculate, and their parents, etc. etc? Another problem, is the biblical evidence – there is none. There is no record in the Bible of some sort of miracle regarding the conception and birth of Mary. Nevertheless, the immaculate conception of Mary has always satisfied most Catholics as a solution to the human nature of Christ issue. What about the Protestants?

Original Sin and the Reformation

Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk. This meant that he studied and taught Augustinianism. In his efforts to be biblical, in all his beliefs Luther, reformed many Catholic doctrines and practises – but all that Augustine taught he retained. Therefore, in his theology he retained the doctrine of original sin – and not just Luther, all the Magisterial Reformers, retained original sin – it became the foundation of their systematic theology:

Augustine’s formulation of original sin was popular among Protestant Reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, who equated original sin with concupiscence, affirming that it persisted even after baptism and completely destroyed freedom. Art. ‘Original sin’, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd rev. ed.): Oxford University Press, 2005.

Martin Luther, even retained some sort of special reverence for Mary, which was not supported by biblical evidence and was contrary to Protestant principles, such as ‘the Bible alone.’ Some of Luther’s comments on Mary include the following:

The last quotation is from a sermon preached by Luther. Ewald Plass, points out that Luther’s followers recognised that the great reformer was in error about Mary and her immaculate conception, because they removed it:

In this sermon Luther still holds to the immaculate conception of Mary. In later editions of the discourse the paragraphs which contain this error were omitted. Ibid.

Luther, never resolved the Augustinian dilemma about the nature of Christ. It would appear that he proscribed to the immaculate conception of Mary solution, evidenced by his reverence for her. However, it would also appear that he never specifically stated that Jesus escaped the contamination of original sin, because of Mary’s immaculate conception. However, the issue can never be ignored and Luther’s followers, rejecting the immaculate conception solution, have offered up the explanation that Jesus came with the nature of Adam before Adam fell into sin. An explanation for which there is no biblical evidence.

However, not all Protestants believe in the doctrine of original sin. Those Protestants who belong to the Free Church wing of the Reformation do not believe in original sin. For example, one of the largest denominations in the Free Church tradition declare:

Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually. Article VII, Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church.

The Magisterial Reformers choose to retain the doctrine of original sin, for the same reason that the Catholic Church originally created it. The Magisterial Reformers duplicated the church and state structure that the Catholics had created. They built state churches and they needed the same Augustinian theology that the Catholics used to justify their state church – to justify their Protestant state churches. The Free Church reformers were always opposed to state churches and therefore they were always opposed to the doctrine of original sin.

Is Original Sin Biblical?

There are two verses in the Bible that are used to support the doctrine of original sin. The context of the first one, is King David confessing his sin over his grievous dealings with Bathsheba and her husband:

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Ps. 51:5.

The verse does not qualify as a proof text for original sin (or any other doctrine), because it is subject to several different interpretations, such as:

1. Was David stating that he was conceived as a result of sexual sin?

2. Is David expressing his deep anguish in an exaggerated poetic manner?

3. David is confessing his own guilt. He takes personal responsibility. There is no mention of Adam.

4. The context is that, David is pleading for forgiveness, cleansing and renewal. He is stating why he needs forgiveness, cleansing and renewal.

5. If David meant us to understand this verse as a reference to original sin, he would have mentioned Adam, not his mother.

Because of these different ways of understanding this verse, it is dangerous to use it as a proof text. This is not good exegesis. If one uses it to prove original sin, one is practising eisegesis (reading into) not exegesis. The context of the second verse used to ‘prove’ original sin is about how sin and death entered the world:

Wherefore, as by one sin entered into the world, and death by sin;and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. Rom. 5:12.

Attempting to use this verse as a proof text for original sin, exposes the desperation behind the whole scheme. It exposes the fact that Augustine settled on the theology he wanted, to create the Empire Church and then he went looking for Bible evidence to justify it. Yes, the verse admits that Adam was the first to sin and that resulted in death. But it then goes on to say that all men die, because they have followed Adam’s example and committed sin. The verse does not say that mankind has fallen under the power of death, because of Adam’s sin. It says individuals die because of their own sins.

The Definition of Sin

When we think of original sin, we tend to equate this doctrine with sin and sinning. But this is not the precise Augustinian/Catholic/Magisterial Reformers understanding of sin. To understand the precise concept of original sin as understood by these entities, we need to revisit the Catholic definition of original sin:

The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man.” By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice, and that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin contracted and not committed a state and not an act. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2^nd ed., Answer to question #404, Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

Please note that the Catholic definition says that original sin is “propagated to all mankind,” which means it is passed down from parents to offspring, depriving everyone of “holiness.” Which means that, as we will soon discover holiness is not obtainable. This means that original sin is related to sin, “only in an analogical sense.” And this means that original sin is like sin, but it is not the same as sin. This Catholic definition then goes on to explain why original sin is different from sin. The difference is this: original sin is “contracted” whereas sin is something that is “committed.” The difference is further explained by stating that original sin is a “state,” whereas sin is an “act.”

What does it mean “contracted?” For a contract to take place, it requires two of more entities to be involved, and the contraction is something that goes on between them. In this case the two entities are the parents and the offspring and the contraction between them is the passing of original sin from the parent to the child. An appropriate analogy would be the passing of a virus from the carrier to the recipient. In the case of original sin, it is a contraction that takes place without the involvement of personal volition. It is automatic, there is no choice involved, it happens whether we want it or not. It is simply a part of being human. In the same way that we cannot choose our DNA, we cannot choose whether we will inherit original sin or not, it comes automatically with our humanity.

Therefore, original sin is also understood as a “state.” The state of being human. We can alter many things about ourselves; we can dye our hair, we can wear a wig, we can buff ourselves up with exercise. We can alter our mental, emotional and spiritual situations, we can alter our environment etc. etc. There are many things that we can change. But can we change the fact that we are human beings?

Maybe, in the future we will be enhancing our humanity will artificial intelligence and trans-humanism. But we cannot change from being a human being into something else. This is what the Augustinian/Catholic/Magisterial Reformers mean when they say original sin is a “state.” This means that sin is not something that we “do,” it is something that we “are.” And this “state” can never be changed – not in this lifetime – or this side of the second coming of Christ. The Magisterial Reformers teach that we will remain in this “original sin state” right up until the second coming of Christ, whereupon a miracle will take place:

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 1 Cor. 15:51-54.

A cursory glance at the context wherein these verses are taken from, reveals that Paul is instructing his readers about death and what happens to the body that goes down into the grave, and what happens when the body is resurrected. There is nothing in the context about a change of human nature. Therefore, to draw a conclusion at this point, what the proponents of original sin are saying, is that there is a difference between original sin and ordinary, everyday sin. We can confidently say that the Augustinians are saying that original sin is a type of ‘super sin’ from which mankind cannot escape, this side of the Second Coming. Whereas there is also ‘ordinary sin’ which somehow is not as powerful as original sin. This means that human beings have no control over their lives and cannot stop sinning (even with all the ‘succour’ that Heaven is prepared to give us, see Heb. 2:16-18).

Follow Me!

However, there is much about the change of human nature in the rest of the Bible, especially the words of Jesus. What does it mean for the original sin afflicted Augustinians when Jesus said, “Follow me?” What does it mean for them when Jesus said, “You must be born again.” What does it mean for them when Jesus said, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect?” The original sin afflicted Augustinians have to reply, “I’m sorry Jesus, I can’t do any of that, I have to keep on sinning, until you come and miraculously remove original sin from my human nature.”

Whereas, what the original sin afflicted Augustinians miss out on, is the fact that the miracles that change us into the image of Christ are available now. This is why the doctrine of original sin is so dangerous. It puts off, what Christians should be doing now, and pushes it into the future. It allows people to think that it matters not what they do (because they cannot stop sinning), they just have to ‘believe’ and they will be saved. It creates in people a false sense of security. And from their high perch of ‘security’ they denigrate anyone who dares to think or teach differently.

Appendix Two

On the Right Hand of God

In the Holy Place or the Most Holy Place

Introduction

David prophesied that it would happen (see Ps. 110:1). Peter and others, testify that it did happen (see Acts 2:33,34; Heb. 1:13 etc.). And the Bible tells us twelve times, that when Jesus ascended to heaven, He either sat down on the right-hand side of God the Father, or that He is standing at the right hand of the Father. And two of these references tell us specifically where He sat down – on “the throne of God” (Heb. 8:1; 12:2).

For some Advent believers, this has caused a problem. It is commonly understood, that the throne of God is in the most holy place. And it is therefore reasoned, that if Jesus sat down on the right-hand side of God – on His throne, that He must have gone into the most holy place in AD31, at His ascension, and not in 1844. If this is true, then the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine, about the investigative judgment, is seriously called into question.

The 1844 date and what happened on October 22^nd, is vital to the foundation and credibility of the Advent movement. The investigative judgment (and the sanctuary doctrine), is one of the ‘pillars of the faith.’ There are others who keep the seventh-day Sabbath, there are many more who believe in the second coming of Christ, but it is only the Seventh-day Adventist Church, that preaches the investigative judgment. It is unique to the SDA Church, because it is ‘present truth’ – and it is under attack, because present truth is always new – it demands choice, action and change. It is therefore never popular, and always resisted.

The ‘Jesus must have gone straight into the most holy place in AD31’ argument, sounds convincing only because we have failed to grasp some important truths, about what has sometimes been, disparagingly described as ‘celestial furniture.’

Does God Have Only One Throne?

Could there be a solution, to this apparent problem, if it was understood, that God has at least two thrones? Ellen White certainly knew, that there is more than one throne, in heaven. Here is her description of what happened in 1844:

I saw a throne, and on it sat the Father and the Son…. I saw two companies, one bowed down before the throne, deeply interested, while the other stood uninterested and careless. I saw the Father rise from the throne, and in a flaming chariot go into the holy of holies and sit down. Then Jesus rose up from the throne… a cloudy chariot, with wheels like flaming fire, surrounded by angels, came to where Jesus was. He stepped into the chariot and was borne to the holiest, where the Father sat. There I beheld Jesus, a great High Priest, standing before the Father… I turned and looked at the company who were still bowed before the throne; they did not know that Jesus had left it. EW 55, 56.

First, Ellen White sees the Father and the Son, sitting on the same throne. Then she sees both of them, transported into the most holy place, although not together, and only the Father sits down. The Son stands before the Father, who is seated on the throne. Then she notices that the throne where they were formerly sitting is empty – but nevertheless, still the focus of one of the two groups of people that she saw (the careless group).

From this description, we cannot escape the conclusion that Ellen White saw two thrones. The scene began with the Father and the Son on a throne, and ended with the Father seated in the most holy place on another throne. Every Adventist knows that the throne in the most holy place was represented by the ark of the covenant. But it would appear, not all are familiar, with the other throne.

This other throne is clearly not in the most holy place – it is a throne in addition to the one, that we are so familiar with. Just like Ellen White, John saw this other throne in his visions, and it is the same throne that she saw:

And immediately I was in the spirit: and behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne… and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven spirits of God. Rev. 4:2, 5.

The important consideration here, in John’s vision, is what John saw before the throne of God – the seven lamps of fire. In the earthly sanctuary, which was made after the ‘pattern’ in heaven, what was it that represented the seven lamps of fire? Answer: – the seven-headed candlestick. Where was the seven-headed candlestick in the earthly sanctuary? Answer: – in the first apartment or holy place, not the most holy place. Therefore, the throne, that John saw must also be in the holy place. Does this mean that God had a throne in the holy place? Yes! That is exactly what it means – God has a throne in the holy place. It is this throne that Ellen White saw in vision. It was this throne that the Father and the Son were sitting on at the beginning of the vision. And it was this throne that they vacated in 1844, in order to take up residence in the most holy place, to start the investigative judgment.

Ellen White recognizes that Revelation chap. 4 – the chapter that reveals the Father on His throne, is a description of the holy place – not the most holy place. The same applies to the scene in Rev. 8:3:

The holy places of the sanctuary in heaven are represented by the two apartments in the sanctuary on earth. As in vision the apostle John was granted a view of the temple of God in heaven, he beheld there “seven lamps of fire burning before the throne.” Revelation 4:5. He saw an angel “having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden alter which was before the throne.” Rev. 8:3. Here the prophet was permitted to behold the first apartment of the sanctuary in heaven; and he saw there the “seven lamps of fire” and “the golden alter,” represented by the golden candlestick and the alter of incense in the sanctuary on earth. GC 414, 415.

Judgment takes place in the most holy place. It is there that the ten commandments are located. It is there that the law is covered by the mercy seat. It is there that the law is ‘mingled’ with mercy. It is there that judgment took place once a year in the earthly sanctuary, which is a type, for the antitype, that takes place just once in heaven. John also saw the most holy place, when it was opened in heaven:

Again, “the temple of God was opened” (Revelation 11:19), and he looked within the inner veil, upon the holy of holies. Here he beheld “the ark of His testament,” represented by the sacred chest constructed by Moses to contain the law of God. GC 415.

The opening of the most holy place, took place only once every year – on the day of atonement. In the Book of Revelation, the opening of the most holy place does not occur until the end of chap. 11. In other words, in the Book of Revelation, all the events depicted there, in the first half of the book, take place in the holy place – the events, in the second half of the book, take place in the most holy place. To clarify:- the events themselves do not necessarily take place within the holy places, but they are directed from the holy places/and/or whilst the presence of Jesus or the Father are in the holy places.

The Throne in the Holy Place

In his vision of ‘celestial furniture,’ it was revealed, to John, that there was a throne opposite the seven-headed candlestick. These are not incidental details. These details help us to prove and confirm that the Adventist doctrine of the investigative judgment is correct.

In the earthly sanctuary, we discover that, what is opposite the seven-headed candlestick, is the table of showbread. On the table of showbread, are 12 loaves of bread. The bread was replaced every seven days, on the Sabbath, with fresh loaves. The priests ate the bread that was replaced. We have always understood the number 12 to represent the 12 tribes of Israel. But why bread? And why are the 12 loaves arranged in two stacks? Fresh from feeding the five thousand, bread was on everyone’s mind and Jesus said to the people:

My Father giveth you the true bread from heaven… I am that bread of life…except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man… ye have no life in you… he that eateth of this bread shall live forever. Jn. 6:25-58.

Throughout this discussion, Jesus has been comparing the bread, that Moses provided (manna), with Himself. Jesus is “the bread which came down from heaven” (Jn. 6:33,41,51).

The bread on the table of showbread represents divinity [The word ‘showbread’ literally means ‘bread of the face’ or ‘bread of the presence’]. It represents. that part of the relationship, between mankind and God, that is presented in the words: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4). The priests, eating the bread, after it had lain on the table for seven days, represent this relationship. They are symbolically fulfilling the instructions of Christ when He said:

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and bread that I give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Jn. 6:51.

By eating the bread in the sanctuary, the priests were, spiritually imbibing the life of Christ into them and being changed into His image. The work of the priests was to take this ‘life’ and share it with the people, through their teaching and example. Thus, the whole nation was spiritually edified by the ‘flesh’ of Christ.

Jesus is the ‘bread of life’ which came down from heaven, because He is the member of the Godhead, that took upon Himself humanity and walked the earth as a human being. Bread is the basic foodstuff of mankind – and it is therefore, a fitting representation of the divine nourishment, that we all need in order to be fully developed human beings. The bread on the table of showbread was therefore, symbolically representing the spiritual food, that heaven is prepared to supply in abundance, to every believer.

It should therefore be obvious why the bread was arranged in two stacks – the two stacks represent the Father and the Son sitting on the throne – the throne in the holy place that both John and Ellen White saw.

The Sides of the North

The great controversy began because, Satan coveted Christ’s position in heaven. Satan therefore, would have coveted Christ’s position on the throne, on the right hand of the Father. The earthly sanctuary was always placed facing the east. The table of showbread was always placed on the north side of the sanctuary (Ex. 26:35). It is therefore no accident, that one of Satan’s ambitions, was to sit on a throne on the ‘north side.’ The prophet Isaiah saw it all:

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Isa. 14:12-14.

Satan’s ambition is exposed. He wants to duplicate, everything that God has, and he wants to duplicate everything that God does. Therefore, he wants to sit on a throne ‘in the sides of the north’ – just as God does – and God’s north sited throne is in the holy place.

Within the Veil

However, in spite of the above, those who want to believe, that Christ went into the most holy place, in the year 31AD, will still not be convinced that their position is incorrect. This is because, they believe they can prove, that Jesus went into the most holy place, at his ascension, on the basis of what is stated in the letter to the Hebrews:

Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Heb. 6:19, 20.

The argument is made, that the phrase, ‘within the veil’ refers to the veil between the holy place and the most holy place. Therefore, Jesus must have entered into the most holy place, when he ascended to heaven. If this conclusion is correct, then once again the whole Adventist edifice is called into question, and threatens the Advent movement with irrelevancy.

Most reasonable Bible students, would agree that the phrase ‘within the veil’ taken on its own, does not provide conclusive evidence for the location of Jesus in heaven (this is because there are two veils in the earthly sanctuary, one covering the entrance into the holy place and one covering the entrance into the most holy place). We need to find corroborating evidence before we can declare this conclusion to be a correct one.

However, there is no corroborating evidence for the view that this is the second veil into the most holy place. To the contrary there is evidence that this is not the second veil. This evidence is found in Heb. 9:1-3:

Here Paul shows us, that when he wants to make a clear distinction between the first and the second veil, he does so, using the expression ‘second veil’ to indicate the most holy place. By not using the same expression ‘second veil’ in Heb. 6:19, gives far more weight to the argument that ‘the veil’ in Heb. 6:19 is not the veil into the most holy place.

Hebrews and ‘Hagia’

When one compares the many different Bible translations, that are available in the English language, it becomes clearly evident that there is much confusion over the definitive meaning of the word ‘hagia.’ And yet, it is this word ‘hagia’ that is so crucial to Adventist theology. Most agree, that he word ‘hagia,’ taken on its own, means ‘holies.’ This word ‘hagia,’ occurs seven times, in the letter to the Hebrews. All English Bible versions translate ‘hagia’ in different ways. Variously, it is translated; sanctuary, holy place, holy places, most holy place, holiest of all, holiest etc. In other words. it is never translated consistently the same way. A comparison of some selected Bible versions is a useful illustration:

Verse	American Revised	King James	New International


9:2	holy place	sanctuary	holy place
9:8	holy place	holiest of all	most holy place
9:12	holy place	Holy place	most holy place
9:24	holy place	Holy places	Sanctuary
9:25	holy place	Holy place	most holy place
10:19	holy place	holiest	most holy place
13:11	holy place	Sanctuary	most holy place

Verse	Moffatt	New Living Translation	New Revised Standard


9:2	holy place	Holy place	holy place
9:8	Holiest Presence	Most holy place	Sanctuary
9:12	holy place	Most holy place	holy place
9:24	holy place	earthly place of worship	Sanctuary
9:25	holy place	Most holy place	holy place
10:19	holy Presence	Most holy place	Sanctuary
13:11	holy place	Holy place	Sanctuary

Looking at the variations of translation, it can be seen that these selected Bibles can basically be divided into two groups. Firstly, there are Bibles that never apply ‘hagia’ to the most holy place. And secondly, there are Bibles that do sometimes apply ‘hagia’ to the most holy place. Thus, people are free to choose, the Bible that best suits their own personal opinion. Those who believe, Jesus went straight into the most holy place, at His ascension, have their Bibles to prove their case, and those who believe, Jesus went into the most holy place in 1844, have their Bibles to prove their case.

It is unfortunate that, there is so much variation in the word of God, but to a certain extent it is understandable. As already mentioned, the word ‘hagia’ simply means ‘holies’ and taken on its own, isolated from any context, it is a difficult word to translate. But Bible translators, do not translate words out of context. More often than not, the context, within which words appear, will determine how they are translated. Therefore, translators have looked at the context and have wielded their pens accordingly – according to their own opinions about the context. What is very interesting, is that the translators of The American Revised Version, consistently translate ‘hagia’ as holy place. Is there a reason why do they do that?

Defining Hagia

What is surely definitive, about how we should understand a word, is if we discover how the author himself defines it. Perhaps the translators, of the American Revised Version, searched for a definition and they found what they were looking for, in the same place where Paul used the expression ‘second veil’:

Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary (hagia). And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all (hagia hagion); Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant. Heb. 9:1-4.

Here Paul, is describing the sanctuary and its contents. He starts with the ‘first’ and in the ‘first’ is the candlestick and the table of showbread. This ‘first’ is obviously the first apartment, which we call the holy place, and Paul calls it the ‘hagia.’ Therefore, the holy place and the ‘hagia’ are the same thing. Therefore, whenever we see the word ‘hagia’ in the letter to the Hebrews we should translate it holy place – because the author of the letter has defined it for us.

Paul goes on to explain what is beyond the second veil – the ark of the covenant etc. This is obviously the most holy place and Paul calls it ‘hagia hagion.’ Therefore, whenever we see the word ‘hagia hagion’ in the letter to the Hebrews, we should translate it most holy place – because the author of the letter has defined it for us.

Therefore, it is safe to conclude that the translators of the American Revised Version, discovered these definitions provided by Paul and followed the logic faithfully. However, if we follow the example of the American Revised Version and always translate ‘hagia’ as holy place we are presented with four apparent problems. These apparent problems are where contextual evidence is quoted to support the claim that ‘hagia’ should be translated most holy place and not holy place:

1. In chapter 9, verses 6-8, Paul tells us that the Holy Spirit wants to teach us something valuable by the fact that the priests went into the holy place “accomplishing the service of God” – however the high priest went into the most holy place “alone once every year.” From these facts, Paul then draws the lesson, which he says the Holy Spirit wants to teach us:

The Holy Spirit this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all (hagia) was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing. Heb. 9:8.

Chapter 9:2, not only provides us with a definition for ‘hagia’, it also provides us with a definition for ‘first tabernacle’ – which also must mean holy place:

For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary (hagia – holy place). Heb. 9:2.

Therefore, if we accept that ‘hagia’ always means holy place, a paraphrase of verse 8 would read:

From the above facts, the Holy Spirit is revealing to us today, that the way into the holy place was not yet made manifest, while the holy place was still fulfilling its function (or still operating).

This paraphrase does not make much sense. And this is why some try to resolve this puzzle by claiming, that it makes more sense to translate ‘hagia’ in this instance, as most holy place. However, we only have to insert two words into our paraphrase, and it will make sense and it will also make contextual sense:

From the above facts, the Holy Spirit is revealing to us today, that the way into the heavenly holy place was not yet made manifest, while the earthly holy place was still fulfilling its function (or still operating).

Such an understanding of verse 8, is legitimate, because it recognizes the definitions (provided by the author) of both ‘hagia’ and ‘first tabernacle.’ And secondly, it fits both the context of the overall letter and also the immediate context. The very next verse (and the rest of the chapter) sets out to contrast the earthly sanctuary with the heavenly sanctuary. Paul wants to prove that a change has taken place. It is this change that the Holy Spirit wants to inform us about. The emphasis is on the change, not on the type of ministry, or where the ministry is taking place. Paul is telling us that the earthly service had change built into it “which was a figure (symbol) for the time then present” – that figure was now fulfilled. The change is from an earthly system to a heavenly system. Having established that a change has taken place, Paul then sets out to show why the change is better and greater than what preceded the change. And this is indeed how some Bibles interpret this verse, obviously guided by the context, such as the Amplified Bible:

By this the Holy Spirit signifies that the way into the Holy Place [the true Holy of Holies and the presence of God] has not yet been disclosed as long as the first or outer tabernacle is still standing [that is, as long as the Levitical system of worship remains a recognized institution]. Heb. 9:8. Amplified Bible.

Therefore, the problem with ‘hagia’ in verse 8 can be resolved. In chapter 9, Paul is presenting a carefully wrought out argument. Verse 8 is just a part of his carefully wrought out argument. In verse 8, all Paul is trying to do, is to prove, that a change has taken place, before moving on to his next point.

2. In Hebrews 9:25, we have the expression “into the hagia every year with blood of others.” Because the expression “every year with blood” invokes images of the Day of Atonement [when the high priest went into the most holy place, with blood, once every year], many translators, looking at the context, have translated ‘hagia’ as most holy place.

However, if the context of verse 25, is only cursorily examined, it becomes obvious that the subject matter is the oft repeated sacrifices of the earthly system compared and contrasted with the once only, never to be repeated sacrifice, of the heavenly system. Therefore, the expression “every year” can legitimately be translated from the Greek as “year by year.” In other words, “continually.” The earthly sacrifices had to be offered continually, whereas the sacrifice of Christ, to inaugurate the heavenly system, only needed to be offered once. And again, the Amplified Bible, translates this verse correctly:

For Christ did not enter into a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but [He entered] into heaven itself, now to appear in the very presence of God on our behalf; nor did He [enter into the heavenly sanctuary to] offer Himself again and again, as the high priest enters the Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Heb. 9:24, 25. Amplified Bible

Once again, the focus is on a contrast between the earthly and heavenly systems. In the earthly system it was continual – “as the high priest enters the Holy Place every year.” Whereas the heavenly system only required this once – and this is the point Paul wants to make. It is not necessary to read day of atonement imagery into this verse, and once again ‘hagia’ can legitimately be translated as – holy place.

3. Hebrews 9:12 speaks of Christ entering the ‘hagia’ not “by the blood of goats and calves” – rather by “his own blood.” Once again, because goats and calves are mentioned as the sacrifices on the day of atonement (see Lev. 16), many commentators and translators believe that this is a reference to the day of atonement. Therefore, they translate ‘hagia’ as most holy place.

Another reason for assuming, that this is the day of atonement is because the subject matter is ‘cleansing of sin’ and cleansing of sin, is what took place on the day of atonement. However, contextual considerations reveal that the subject is cleansing of sin, period. In other words, the subject matter is cleansing and just because cleansing was something that occurred on the day of atonement [among many other cleansing ceremonies], it is a speculative leap, to assume, that the cleansing, is exclusively referring to the day of atonement.

That the subject matter is cleansing and that the day of atonement is not exclusively intended, is proven because, in the very next verse (v. 13), Paul brings in another ceremony – that of the red heifer (see Num. chap.19), which also cleansed the people of their sins. The focus is what cleanses the people, not any particular day, and certainly not where Jesus is, or where He is not – that is to say, whether Jesus is in the holy place or the most holy place.

The ceremony involving the red heifer is mentioned at this point, not only because it involves cleansing from sin: “for a water of separation: it is a purification for sin” (Num. 19:9) – but also because of its prophetic significance. The red heifer was a prophecy, pointing forward to the fact, that Jesus did not just come, with His own blood for cleansing, but also water. Jesus came: “not by water only, but by water and blood” (1 Jn. 5:6). When Jesus died, out of the wound in His side flowed both blood and water (see Jn 19:33,34), for the cleansing of sin.

The reason Paul mentions the goats and the bulls and the heifer, is because he is about to make another comparison between the earthly system and the heavenly. This is the main point that he wants to make:

For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? Heb. 12:13, 14.

Paul is simply offering, one more proof, for the superiority of the new covenant, over the old covenant. What took place on the day of atonement, and through the ashes of the red heifer sprinkled on the believer, can now take place in the hearts of the new testament believers on a daily basis, as we “come boldly unto the throne of grace” (Heb. 4:16), through the veil [into heaven]. The emphasis in these verses is not on where Jesus is in heaven, but on what Jesus is now doing for us in heaven – and that it is far superior to what was done on earth. Yet again, the Amplified Bible translates these verses correctly:

But when Christ appeared as a High Priest of the good things to come [that is, true spiritual worship], He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not a part of this [material] creation. He went once for all into the Holy Place [the Holy of Holies of heaven, into the presence of God], and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, having obtained and secured eternal redemption [that is, the salvation of all who personally believe in Him as Savior]. For if the sprinkling of [ceremonially] defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a [burnt] heifer is sufficient for the cleansing of the body,how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal [Holy] Spirit willingly offered Himself unblemished [that is, without moral or spiritual imperfection as a sacrifice] to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works and lifeless observances to serve the ever living God? For this reason He is the Mediator and Negotiator of a new covenant [that is, an entirely new agreement uniting God and man], so that those who have been called [by God] may receive [the fulfilment of] the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has taken place [as the payment] which redeems them from the sins committed under the obsolete first covenant. Heb. 9:11-15. Amplified Bible.

Please note, that the context is about the cleansing of sin. Not the day of atonement. There is no doubt that because bulls and goats are included in the list of sacrificial animals, a case can be made that this is the day of atonement, but it is a very weak case. Firstly, because bulls and goats were used in other sacrifices, not exclusively the day of atonement. Secondly, the red heifer is also included, which has nothing to do with the day of atonement. Thirdly, throughout the whole letter to the Hebrews Paul’s object is not trying to place Jesus in the holy place or the most holy place. Rather, it is to prove that the new ministry that Jesus is accomplishing in heaven, is far better, superior and greater than what was accomplished on earth. In this particular case the cleansing that Jesus accomplishes for us in heaven, is better, superior and greater than earth.

4. Hebrews 13:11, tells us that the bodies of the sacrifices, in the earthly system, were “burned without the camp.” Once again, this appears to invoke day of atonement imagery on the basis of what appears in Lev. 16:27 [the sacrifices on the day of atonement were burned without the camp]. And once again the word ‘hagia’, because of this purported association with the day of atonement, is often translated as most holy place. However, if we include verses 9, 10 & 12, the context reveals once again, that this is a compare and contrast situation, between the old and new covenants:

Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein. We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary (hagia) by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Heb. 13:9-12.

Paul starts off in verse 9, making the point, that it is better to “be established by grace.” He then contrasts grace, with those who want to be established, “with meats.” He is referring to the requirements, of the ceremonial laws, regarding food – which the Jews were “occupied therein” – but from which they have received no “profit.” Paul’s next point is to contrast the freedom that Christians have to eat from an “altar” whereas those “which serve the tabernacle” (Jews), have no access to. So, what is this altar that Christians can freely eat from? To answer this question, we have to first establish which altar the Jews could not eat from. The altar the Jews could not eat from was the altar in the courtyard, when the blood from the sacrifices, was taken into the holy place – this sacrifice had to be wholly consumed by fire (see Lev. 6:30). This altar represented the death of Christ (the sacrificial lamb). It is this ‘altar’ that we can now eat freely off. Jesus said:

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. Jn. 6:51-55.

Christians, freely, eat off this ‘altar,’ whenever they partake of the Lord’s Supper/Communion. We can eat freely eat off this ‘altar,’ because of what the altar, in the earthly tabernacle, represented – it was a prophecy pointing to the sacrifice of Christ, which has now been fulfilled.

The next point that Paul wants to make is that, “the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary (hagia) by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp” – burnt without the camp for a reason – and the reason is because they were pointing forward to how Christ would be sacrificed at the same location – without the camp – “Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.”

What Paul is saying here has nothing to do with the day of atonement. Paul is dealing with those elements of the ceremonial law that prophecy the death of Christ, and the benefits that accrue to us from His death. The day of atonement is also prophetic, but it is not a prophecy about the death of Christ. Once again, Paul is pointing out how the earthly sacrifices were a mere shadow of the reality, which was the sacrifice made at the cross. Any links made with the day of atonement, are incidental and fall under the category of a “private interpretation” (see 2 Pet. 1:20). Paul is not writing about the day of atonement. He is doing what he does all through the Book of Hebrews, he is contrasting the earthly system with the heavenly system, and extolling the fact that the latter is so much better and superior and greater than the former.

Conclusion

If Bible students insist on finding evidence for the fact that Jesus went directly into the most holy place in 34AD, then the Book of Hebrews is not a good place to find it. This is because Hebrews does not concern itself with the precise location of Christ in heaven. The purpose of the letter is to prove that the Levitical system has been done away with and a far greater, better and superior system has been put in its place.

When the Letter to the Hebrews was written, the Jewish Christians were still worshipping in the temple – they were still keeping the ceremonial law (see Acts 2:46; 21:20). What would happen to their faith when Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed as Christ prophesied? Surely, they needed to have their faith re-directed from the earthly system to the heavenly system? This is why the Letter to the Hebrews was written. It was not written for the ‘spiritual Hebrews’ to argue about the location of Jesus in heaven some 2000 years later.

Therefore, the expression “within the veil” that is supposedly such conclusive evidence that Jesus went into the most holy place at His ascension is not conclusive at all. The word veil is not preceded by the word ‘deuteron’ [second – as it is in Heb. 9:3]. In other words, Paul knew how to indicate the veil between the holy place and the most holy place, when he wanted to. The fact that he does not specifically indicate the veil of separation between the two apartments in Heb 6:19, is an indication that we should simply regard this reference to a veil, as a poetic method of describing Christ’s entrance into heaven – into the presence of the Father – waiting for Him to return to the holy place – to take his rightful place – to the right of him – on the table of showbread – the throne.

God has a throne in the holy place. It sits on the north side. And in the earthly sanctuary it was called the table of showbread. We also know that the sanctuary is based on a ‘pattern’ that represents heaven. Therefore, we can safely conclude that God has a throne in the holy place in heaven. And therefore, we can also safely conclude that it is not necessary to believe that Jesus went straight into the most holy place at His ascension – in order to sit on the right hand of the Father.

Extra note: Some believe, that the tearing of the veil, into the most holy place, at the death of Christ, is evidence that the way into the holy place in heaven, was opened in 31AD – and therefore, at His ascension, Christ must have gone straight into the most holy place. But such a view totally destroys the harmony of Scripture, and specifically the sublime truths portrayed in the Jewish Festivals. The Jewish Festivals were both commemorative and prophetic. The prophetic elements of the festivals, point to the life and mission of Christ and the plan of salvation. The festivals take place in a chronological manner, one following the other, over the course of the Jewish religious year. They portray the major steps in the life of Christ and the plan of salvation. The cycle of festivals begins in the spring with Passover, which represents the death of Christ. The yearly cycle ends in the autumn, with the festival of tabernacles, which occurs five days after the day of atonement.

If we are to believe that the tearing of the veil, represents the opening of the most holy place, on the day of atonement – then we are dragging the day of atonement out of the autumn and placing it in the spring. We are also saying that passover and the day of atonement occurred on the same day in 31AD. This is not good theology. We cannot have the anti-typical day of atonement in 31AD and uphold the integrity of the Jewish festivals, at the same time.

The simpler understanding of the tearing of the veil, is to accept that, this was God’s way of showing to the Jews, that the death of Christ has brought the temple service and the ceremonial law to an end. The prophetic purpose of the ceremonial law and the temple service was to point forward to Christ. Now that Christ had come, now that He had died – there was no more purpose and no more need for the Old Testament system. God had to tear the veil into the most holy place, because if He had torn any other veil, it would have conveyed the wrong lesson. If God had torn the veil into the holy place, it would have indicated that the Old Testament system was being only partially torn down. The message that needed to be conveyed was that the whole system was over and done with – replaced by something greater, better and superior. We must not forget that the Letter to the Hebrews is so named, because it is a letter for those who needed to understand the great changes that had just taken place with the death and resurrection of Christ. It is dealing with real vital issues for that time. Paul is not writing about where Jesus went in 34AD or 1844. Therefore, we need to carefully ‘divide the word of truth’ (see 1 Tim. 2 Tim. 2:15), lest we stray into a ‘private interpretation’ (see 2 Pet. 1:20).

Appendix Three

The Relationship Gospel

Introduction

Some years ago, the Adventist Church did a survey of its members. One of the findings was thought to be disturbing. The survey revealed, that Seventh-day Adventists did not have the assurance of salvation.

This was considered a problem and a remedy had to be found – and thus the relationship gospel in the SDA Church was born. Of course, this was nothing new in the religious market place. The relationship gospel has been preached in the wider Christion community for many years. But it was relatively new to the SDA Church. And what, you may ask, is wrong with the relationship gospel? What is wrong with preaching, that people ought to have a relationship with Jesus? Answer: there is nothing wrong with preaching we must have a relationship with Jesus. A relationship with Jesus is essential to salvation. The problem is we are never told what that relationship is – it is never defined.

We have many relationships. We have family relationships, we have employment relationships, we have community relationships, we have marriage relationships, we have relationships with government departments, we even have relationships with our pets. All of these relationships are different. In order to distinguish between them, they have to be defined. So, how do we define a relationship with Jesus? What is it that distinguishes a relationship with Jesus, from all these other relationships that we are involved with?

The Last Supper and Diatheke

There is one person who knows exactly what sort of relationship we should have with Jesus – Jesus Himself. So, let’s ask Jesus what our relationship with Him ought to be. We find the answer we are seeking, in what Jesus said at the last supper:

And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matt. 26:27, 28.

At first glance we might find it difficult to find our relationship to Jesus in these two verses. But this is because we have not been served well by the translators. The word ‘testament’ (‘diatheke’), can also be translated as ‘covenant.’

In the letter to the Hebrews there are many references to the covenant. It is here that we can prove that the Greek word ‘diatheke’ can also be translated as ‘covenant.’ In Hebrews, chapter eight, the subject matter is the new covenant, and the breaking of that covenant by the Israelites:

For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant (‘diatheke’) with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. Heb. 8:8.

In both the last supper reference and the new covenant reference we are dealing with the same word ‘diatheke.’ In the last supper it is translated ‘testament’ and in the new covenant reference it is translated ‘covenant.’ Which means that the word ‘diatheke’ can be translated either testament or covenant. Therefore, when Jesus said, “this is the blood of the new diatheke” – what is the better translation – testament or covenant?

Diatheke: Testament or Covenant?

The fact that all translators prefer to follow the traditional interpretation, is almost certainly because the next day, Jesus gives His life on the cross for the salvation of the world. Jesus also knew that He was going to die the next day. Therefore, because Jesus knew He was about to die, and because it is customary for people who know they are about to die, to write their last will and testament, it is rationalized that testament is the more appropriate translation. However, when it comes to Jesus we are not dealing with human customs and traditions – we are dealing with divine plans and purposes and prophecy. Covenant is the better translation for the following reasons:

God has already spent a lot of time with the prophets of old, laying the groundwork for the coming of the Messiah and a new covenant. The coming of the Messiah heralded an important transition period from Judaism to Christianity, which also required a new covenant. The night before His crucifixion, Jesus was instituting a memorial to the transition, from the old covenant to the new covenant to be observed until His return. Therefore, it would appear more appropriate to understand His use of the word ‘diatheke’ to mean covenant.
Three of the gospels record the last supper. In all these accounts the word ‘diatheke’ is translated the same way, as testament. But one of the main purposes of all the gospels is to prove that Jesus is the Messiah – the prophesized One. Therefore, the gospel writers took every chance to provide the evidence that Jesus was fulfilling prophecy. Therefore, it is reasonable to suppose that because they knew that there was a prophesied new covenant (which Paul wrote was put into effect at the cross), that when they came to write their gospels, they saw this as more evidence that Jesus truly was the Messiah, and by His death the creator of the new covenant. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that by using the word ‘diatheke’ they meant it to be understand as ‘covenant.’

The Covenant Relationship

From the very beginning, the relationship with God has always been a covenant relationship. God has always been in covenant relationship with his people – right from the time of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. In the Book of Hosea, we find God making a comparison between those who were breaking the covenant in the time of Hosea, with the original covenant breaker, Adam:

But they, like Adam, have transgressed the covenant… Hos. 6:7. Amplified Bible.

Unfortunately, here, once again, we are faced with a translation problem. The King James version is different to the Amplified Bible version. Instead of ‘Adam’ the KJV translates the relevant Hebrew word here as, ‘man.’ This is because the Hebrew name for Adam can also be translated as man – because Adam was the first man. But in this context, using the name Adam makes much more sense. This means that Adam was in a covenantal relationship with God. Which means that the human race was in covenantal relationship with God from the very beginning.

The covenant with Adam was a very simple one. “You can live in the home that I have made for you – the Garden of Eden – but do not eat of that tree – the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” Thus, we learn that the original covenant came with a condition, just one small condition – ‘do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.’ In other words, the original covenant was made with a condition – the condition of obedience.

From that time onward, God always made covenant relationships with His people. He made a covenant with Noah, when He promised to never flood the world again, and introduced the rainbow as a sign of His promise (see Gen. 9:8-17). The Noahite covenant does not mention any conditions. The same applied to the first covenant God made with Abram (later changed to Abraham). However, God revisited the first covenant He made with Abraham and added the condition of circumcision (see Gen. 15:18; 17:1-11).

The next major step in this covenant relationship is revealed at Mt. Sinai. Here the conditions were greatly expanded – he written law, including the moral law, written with God’s own finger. When the conditions were read to the people, they all accepted them and promised to keep them:

And he (Moses) took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words. Ex. 24:7, 8.

Here we see the components of the covenant. God offers the Israelites His covenant on the basis that they keep the law (the law being the conditions of the covenant). The people agreed to the conditions, but they failed to keep the conditions. Therefore, the Mt. Sinai covenant failed. But it only failed, because the people failed.

If there is one thing, that characterized the history of God’s people, it was their failure to keep the covenant. After promising to keep the covenant, they almost immediately apostatized, by dancing around the golden calf. In the history of the Israelites, there were short periods of revival and renewal, but the norm was mostly disloyalty and disobedience. The last chapter of Second Chronicles, records God’s decision to send the people, who promised to keep His covenant, back into captivity where He had found them. And it is stated there, that God did this because He had no other remedy. About the same time that they were going into captivity, God said through his prophet Jeremiah, that He would make a new covenant:

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer. 31:31-33.

When does the Bible say that this promise, made by God would go into effect? When was the fulfillment of this prophecy? We find the answer in Hebrews chapter eight. The Book of Hebrews is about the greater and better things, that came with the death and resurrection of Christ:

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry,by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people. Heb. 8:6-10.

Christ’s better ministry includes the fact, that He is the mediator of a better and new covenant. What is it that makes it better? It is better because, it is based on better promises – the promises of God. The old covenant was based on the promises of man – and they failed. The new covenant is better because, it is based on the promises of God. In the old covenant the people said, “no problem, we will do it.” In the new covenant, God says, “I will do it.” And what is it that God will do? How is God going to make the new covenant a success? He says, “I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts.” In other words, in the old covenant the people’s attitude to the covenant was that they had to obey the conditions of the covenant – in the new covenant the people have a change of attitude – they want to keep the conditions of the covenant. This change of attitude is God’s work in the human heart. This is what God achieved with the death of Christ on the cross. The people change from fearing God at Mt. Sinai to loving God at Calvary.

When the people of the earth contemplate the cross they either fall in love with Jesus or they reject Him. If they love Jesus, Jesus says to us: “If you love me keep my commandments” (Jn. 14:15). Jesus could just as well have said: “If you love me keep my covenant.” If we obey and keep His commandments/covenant Jesus has another promise for us:

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. Jn. 14:16, 17.

Because we now love Jesus, we want to please Him. Therefore, we want to obey Him. We have had a change of attitude we want to obey Him because we love Him. By contemplating the cross our hard-hearts have been broken open and the Holy Spirit come in. We now have a covenant relationship with Jesus, through the presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives. But wait there is more:

He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. Jn. 14:21-23.

Because we love Jesus and keep His commandments/covenant, Jesus asks the Father to send us the Holy Spirit. When the holy Spirit enters our lives, He brings the presence of Jesus, and not just Jesus, but also the Father. They both make their ‘abode’ in us. Therefore, when we have a biblical relationship with Jesus, we also have a relationship with the Father – through Jesus.

Historical Consequences

The history of Christianity would have been different, if covenant had been used instead of testament. It would have been different because, Christianity would have been spared the huge dichotomy that people make between the old covenant and the new covenant. It is commonly thought that the old covenant is about a God of wrath and the new covenant is about a God of love – the old about a God of law and the new about a God of love. And the reason Christianity would have been spared all this, is because it would have been understood, right from the beginning, that our relationship to Jesus was a covenant relationship. If people had read these words, “For this is my blood of the new covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins” – instead of these words – “For this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” There would never have arisen the misunderstanding about the old and new covenants, and there would never have been any confusion over what our relationship to Jesus ought to be.

Conclusion

When we purchase a house or anything on hire purchase we enter into a contract. Most people are familiar with contract law, and they understand that contracts come with terms and conditions. If we want to honor the contract and reap the benefits of the contract, we have to keep, or obey, the terms and conditions. The same applies to God’s covenant. Except for one thing, there are no terms in God’s covenant. ‘Terms’ are all about time limits and restrictions. God’s covenants have no time limits – God’s covenant is good for life – and beyond. Therefore, God’s covenant has no ‘terms’ only conditions. The New Testament contract/covenant, really only has one condition – “If you love me.” Everything else flows from this one condition. If we love Jesus, we have a relationship with Him – a covenant relationship. When we have this covenant relationship with Jesus – we have the assurance of salvation.