Was the veil that was torn symbolic in meaning?

[Dave]

This reminds me of Moses striking the rock for water. Apparently, the reason God was so angry with Moses for doing that, beyond the fact that Moses disobeyed Him by striking the rock instead of telling it to yield it's water, was also because it actually ruined the illustration, or symbolism that was supposed to be pictured in that action. I guess symbolism matters. lol Maybe a good thread topic on it's own.

I have only ever seen the veil symbolically in light of option #2 from Arial's post.

Dave

 

[Lees]

You talk about interpreting the Temple literally (which I am) and discuss the Holy of Holies being a replica of the things in Heaven, in the Throne room of God on High...

Which is all well and good... I don't disagree.

But you seem to be trying to argue against my "symbolic" interpretation of the veil, while seeming to agree with symbolic interpretations of the veil.

I am unclear what this has to do with various interpreting styles for understanding the book of Revelation - but there seems to be some determinative push for reasons unknown in a topic that has no relationship to how to interpret apocalyptic literature in the Bible.

But since you bring it up I only have one question for you, I'll make it really simple to answer.

Do you think a tapestry is hanging between us here on earth and the Throne room of God the Most High in heaven which is keeping us from the fullness of His presence?

Or do you suppose just maybe, the physical tapestry represents something else other than a carpet between heaven and earth?

Yes, that tapestry, that veil, on earth and in the Heavens, kept us from, not only the fullness of God, but protected us from being killed by God.

(Lev. 21:23) "Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries; for I the LORD do sanctify them." Do you believe that?

(Heb. 9:7) "But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people." Do you believe that?

You ask, 'what this has to do with various interpreting styles'? Everything. Because all is not a symbol to be interpreted in some 'deeper' and 'spiritual' manner. The Tabernacle is not a symbol. Yet it reveals much truth about God and Christ and salvation. The Tabernacle was real. The vail was real. Jesus flesh is real.

Yet many like to always declare things in Scripture 'symbolic'. Why? Because then 'they' are the ones who determine it's meaning. Never mind what it 'literally' says...because that is just 'symbolic'.

Symbolic as a method of interpretation, simply says anyones interpretation is fine and good.

As I said, the tearing of that physical vail is proof that it was no symbol. It represented a barrier between God and man. It's tearing took place because God is the One who tore it. It was torn on earth because it was torn in Heaven.

That is not symbolic. That is the real McCoy.

Lees

 

[Hazelelponi]

Yes, that tapestry, that veil, on earth and in the Heavens, kept us from, not only the fullness of God, but protected us from being killed by God.

Okay. Take care.

 

[Tambora]

The curtain was said to be 4 inches thick.
Not even Sampson could have ripped it from top to bottom!
Making it obvious that God did it.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

What was is symbolic of?

Was there more than one layer of symbolism?

The question comes from an old post written in reply to me from somewhere else about OT saints. Here's the quote...

"Yeah, they lived behind the veil and couldn't see the mystery. But, thanks be to God, he ripped it from bottom to top and they no longer could claim that ignorance."

I thought it might be worth exploring.

It means God is not behind the veil. (Although it this time he had not been for centuries) and that the high priest and its function according to mosaic law no longer was needed.

The law was a tutor to bring us to christ.

it had completed its mission

 

[makesends]

If the veil was literal...a literal veil...and the renting of it was literal...it was literally rent...then why is it's renting symbolic?

The veil itself was made after the veil literally existing in Heaven. As was the whole Tabernacle. (Ex. 25:8-9) "And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them. According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it."

(Heb. 8:5) "Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount."

I never said the veil or Tabernacle was 'just literal'. But it was literal and represented the Tabernacle in Heaven. Of which we can learn many literal truths.

Why this comparison to the atheist?

If, as you say, the veil is symbolic, then (Rev. 15) cannot be symbolic. See (Rev. 15:5) (15:8) Else you have a symbol representing not the true but another symbol. Meaning (Rev. 15) should be taken literally.

Lees

Speaking as an outsider, who has no decided view on the matter, just saying, if the veil is symbolic, it does not mean it is not literal also. No need to get persnickety here.

 

[makesends]

Symbolic as a method of interpretation, simply says anyones interpretation is fine and good.

To be honest, now, no. It does not say that. In fact, if it is literal, it is still going to get put to several different meanings and uses.