WHICH VEIL IS TORN?

[Beck]

When the veil was mentioned to have been torn by a earthquake it was in reference to the 'wall of separation' But as it is there were more than one curtain, so which curtain was torn? I have also thought it to be in reference to the curtain of separation bewteen the Holy place and the Most holy place.

(Matthew 27:51)
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

Matthew as well as Mark and Luke speak of the veil of the temple and not so much as the vail of the Most holy. I'm under the consideration that the door with a veil to be torn is one that is the Outer door 'gate' of the court yard of the temple.(Exodus 27:16)

Considering that an wall of separation is the temple wall itself that separated the people (ie Gentiles) from God.

[yaacov]

I may be mistaken, but in the Temple of Herod, which the Gospel is referring to, wasn't their a double large door entering into the Holy Place, instead of a vail? If so, then the only vail to be torn was the second vail, or, the vail entering the Holy of Holies. Anyway, regardless, Hebrews 10:19-20 seems to explain which vail is meant: the rending of Christ's flesh on the cross seems to be responsible for the rending of the vail, "through the vail" into the Holiest Place: "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which He hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh;"

[sylvius]

I may be mistaken, but in the Temple of Herod, which the Gospel is referring to, wasn't their a double large door entering into the Holy Place, instead of a vail? If so, then the only vail to be torn was the second vail, or, the vail entering the Holy of Holies. Anyway, regardless, Hebrews 10:19-20 seems to explain which vail is meant: the rending of Christ's flesh on the cross seems to be responsible for the rending of the vail, "through the vail" into the Holiest Place: "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which He hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh;"

I thought it was after Exodus 14:21,
And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the Lord led the sea with the strong east wind all night, and He made the sea into dry land and the waters split.

"and the waters split", Hebrew: וַיִּבָּקְעוּ הַמָּיִם, "vayibaku hamayim" = quintessential pesach.

LXX has:
καὶ ἐσχίσθη τὸ ὕδωρ , "kai eschisthè to hudor"

Greek Mark 15:38,
Καὶ τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ ἐσχίσθη εἰς δύο ἀπ' ἄνωθεν ἕως κάτω


וַיִּבָּקְעוּ הַמָּיִם form the last ten letters of the 216-lettered Name. Exodus 14:19-21.

216 being gematria of "d'vir", the name of the holy of holies.

(216 forming the perfect cube 6x6x6, hidden in hte fist verse of Genesis, see:

http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_216.asp

[duxrow]

Question. Really two(2) vails? Seems so from Hebrews 9:2 "For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.

9:3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;

9:4 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;

Also, Temple of Cyrus, Ezra 1, rather than Herod, doncha think?

[sylvius]

Question. Really two(2) vails? Seems so from Hebrews 9:2 "For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.

9:3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;

9:4 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;

Also, Temple of Cyrus, Ezra 1, rather than Herod, doncha think?

Anoter proof that Hebrews wasn't written by Paul, nor by someone who had ever visited the temple before it was destroyed.

[Beck]

I may be mistaken, but in the Temple of Herod, which the Gospel is referring to, wasn't their a double large door entering into the Holy Place, instead of a vail?

Yes the gate of Nicanor the main gate to enter the tabernacle were the first veil was in the tabernacle replaced later with double doors.

If so, then the only vail to be torn was the second vail, or, the vail entering the Holy of Holies.Anyway, regardless, Hebrews 10:19-20 seems to explain which vail is meant: the rending of Christ's flesh on the cross seems to be responsible for the rending of the vail, "through the vail" into the Holiest Place: "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which He hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh;"

Yes that seems to be the case I was just wondering if it was correct.

[duxrow]

Anoter proof that Hebrews wasn't written by Paul, nor by someone who had ever visited the temple before it was destroyed.

The mortal who penned the Book of Hebrews isn't all that important to me, though I do favor the 14 books by Paul. The vail in front of the Holiest Place is the only vail I've considered, and if there's another, where is it, and what does it hide?

[Beck]

Jospehus records in the Wars of the Jews

Thus also, before the Jewish rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus [Nisan] and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day-time; which light lasted for half an hour. This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it. At the same festival also, a heifer, as she was being led by the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple. Moreover, the eastern gate of the inner, [court of the temple,] which was of brass, and vastly heavy, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the firm floor, which was there made of one entire stone, was seen to be opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night. Now, those that kept watch in the temple came thereupon running to the captain of the temple, and told him of it; who then came up thither, and not without great difficulty was able to shut the gate again. This also appeared to the vulgar to be a very happy prodigy, as if God did thereby open them the gate of happiness. But the men of learning understood it, that the security of their holy house was dissolved of its own accord, and that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies. So these publicly declared, that this signal foreshewed the DESOLATION that was coming upon them” - (IV,5,3).

In early writings of the church fathers, Jerome in a Letter to Hedibia relates that the huge lintel of the Temple was broken and splintered and fell. He connects this with the rending of the Veil. Says Edersheim, “it would seem an obvious inference to connect again this breaking of the lintel with an earthquake” (p. 610, op. cit.).

This veil would have not being the veil of the holy of holies, but the temple entering through the gate of Nicanor. Which seems to have two large doors connected with a veil. For the huge doors of the Temple behind the Veil to open, of their own accord, or in association with the great earthquake, would cause them to pull powerfully against the Veil, and with the lintel falling, at the same time, could have torn it in two from top to bottom.
http://www.ensignmessage.com/archive...ousevents.html

[sylvius]

http://www.ensignmessage.com/archive...ousevents.html

Very untrustworthy, i don't believe a thing of it.

It sounds like Dee Dee Warren on:
http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html

That door is closed.

I.e. they force everything to fit in their own agenda.

Mark was written after 70 AD (CE), and so were Matthew, Luke, John and Acts.

The very mentioning of the destructuion of the temple in Mark 13:2 is simple proof of that fact.

The so called Olivet discourse was written to underline that the destruction of the temple didn't mean "the end of the age", nor has any relation to that.

The rending of the veil right at the moment of Jesus' death is just not historical.

[Beck]

This was my understanding at first that the veil that separated the holy place from the holy of holies wasn't the veil or wall of separation that was torn. If any wall of separation [middle wall of separation Eph.2:14] was among the temple it was the wall that divided the holy place from the people. This of course would have been the gate of Nicanor.

This would seem to be backed up by Josephus and Jerome that it wasn't the veil for the holy of holies. That's what I was getting at...