Posted anonymously by: Pastor Williams

Dear Everybody:

Again I am going to need time. Hopefully I can get back to this before Sabbath. I would like to since I am going to be out of town for a few days after that. I will get back to you as soon as I can. I have two sermons to prepare (Sabb sermon and wedding on Sunday). Monday I will be tied up for most of the day including an appointment out of town in the evening.

I did not read your recent comments in full, just scanned them. But, I noticed that you insist that the term IJ is not in the Bible. I also noticed the azazel issue. Eventually I will reply to those matters.

I need to dedicate myself to the two sermons for now. It could take quite a bit of time Thur and Fri. They both must be ready by then. Tommorrow is family day at the ocean. But if I can do anything Thurs and/or Fri on these issues you’ll hear from me.

Hope you all have a wonderful 4th of July.

Sincerely your friend and brother in Jesus,
Pastor Williams

Thanks, NM. I appreciate your study on this subject and your contributions here.

I hope I’m not belaboring the point, but I wonder what the reason was for two goats on the Day of Atonement? One to be sacrificed and the other to be led away. Why not just one? 

Posted anonymously by: Ane

Glennspring

The need for two goats was because the first one, the dead one couldn’t fulfill both roles. One goat needed to be sacrificed and the other needed to be used to symbolize the removal of sin. The dead goat couldn’t complete both roles.

New Mexico gave a lot of good reasons why the scapegoat can’t represent Satan ... I think the biggest clue as to why not is found in Lev. 16:21 here we find the High Priest laid his hands on the scapegoat’s head and confessed the sins of the people on it. We don’t confess our sins to Satan and Satan cannot atone for our sins!

As for all the confusion over whether or not the scapegoat represents Satan or Christ, Satan is not exclusively an SDA interpretation. Here is where the confusion seems to stem from. The following was shared with me by a linguistics professor named Sebastian. I need to add a disclaimer, I’m on a mac and when I received his email some of the symbols used in his email did not transfer correctly to my computer for example this is how this word came through on my end, but I’m not sure if it was correctly translated from the pc world to the mac world (ex: (lzEaz”[]). But in this email to me Sebastian addresses the issue of how Satan came into the picture.

The word in question, translated as “scapegoat” in the Protestant KJV 1611 and as “emissary goat” in the Catholic DR of 1609, are both from the Latin Vulgate “caper emissarius,” literally “emissary goat” or “ goat of carrying away,” the KJV’s word ‘scape’ being a shortened version of the word ‘escape.’

The Latin Vulgate’s “capro emissario” is similar in wording to the Greek Septuagint (LXX) “tw/| avpopompai,w|”, which means “ the one who carries away,” with one difference, that being the appearance of the word ‘goat’ (caper).

Now, the Septuagint is a translation of a Hebrew text. However, as has been shown on a number of occasions, the Hebrew text from which the Septuagint was translated was not the same as the Hebrew text that we have today handed down to us from the Jewish community, often called the Masoretic text (MT). Traditionally, Christians have leaned in favor of the LXX over the MT where there are differences since the LXX was what was quoted by the early Christians, both biblical New Testament authors as well as other early Christians (apostolic fathers, etc.) Where as the Jewish community has typically looked upon the MT as authoritative over against the LXX, the discrepancies between the two being understood as ‘corruptions’ via translation from the Hebrew to the Greek. Fortunately we have the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which among many other texts both biblical and secular, was found the almost perfectly preserved text of Isaiah, dated to around 200-100 BC. What is so significant about this discovery is that the Isaiah scroll appears to be of the family of manuscripts from which the LXX is translated, since the places where there were discrepancies between the LXX and the MT, the Isaiah scroll lines up with the LXX. What is important for the question at hand, is that the Christian can safely rely on the LXX as at least an authoritative guide to what the Hebrew originally may have been.

The Hebrew of the MT has lzE)az”[]. The meaning of this word lzEaz”[] has been much debated since it does not appear anywhere else in Hebrew. Some have thought it to refer to a demon, possibly from a corruption of la-zz[ , which would mean ‘fierce god’, or some other variant, etc. While something like this is possible, a look at the context and the LXX would seem to indicate otherwise.

The LXX, as stated before, was translated from a Hebrew text. As far as we can tell it was translated in Alexandria somewhere around 200 BC. This is an extremely valuable translation, since it tells us how Jews understood the Old Testament before Christianity. Just think of the linguistic issues surrounding Isaiah 7:14 for example. As we already have seen, the LXX translated the passage into the Greek with ‘the one who carries away.’ This translation of whatever the original Hebrew may have been, is parrell to the LXX of Leviticus 16:26. “And he that sends forth the goat that has been set apart to be let go, shall wash his garments, and bathe his body in water, and afterwards shall enter into the camp.”

So then, how do we get the strange Hebrew word Azazel in the MT? Well, anyone who has spent anytime looking at manuscripts of the bible will readily tell you about the plethora of variants/copyist errors, especially in multi-lingual texts, many the same as we make today in our e-mails. A look at the characters of the Hebrew word readily brings to mind a very common root in Aramaic (a language very influential on Hebrew). The Aramaic verb ‘to go’, is ‘azal’ (Syriac Aramaic lza ), which appears in the Hebrew text of the MT in Proverbs 20:14 and Job 14:11. Furthermore, the word for ‘goat’ in Hebrew is ‘ez (z[) which written together with the verb ‘to go’ would read something like ‘ez azal (lzaz[), or with some minor vowel changes, a phenomenon common in such situations, we have the word ‘azazel (lzEaz”[]). If this is the case the text is then saying ‘goat of going’ or ‘goat of departure’ or as the Latin has is caper emissarius, as translated in the DR ‘emissary goat’ or ‘escapegoat’ or ‘scapegoat’ of the KJV

Thanks Ann, for that explanation.

Assuming Jesus fulfilled the types of both goats, then, and fulfilled the Day of Atonement sacrificial ritual in full at Calvary, (1) what explains Jesus’s continued sanctuarial role as High Priest today in Heaven as depicted in Hebrews, if the Atonement process and the sacrificial/priestly system has been completed, and (2) how do we understand the removal of sin via the scapegoat into the wilderness as sin remains in the earth?

In other words, if Jesus fulfilled all of those types at Calvary, what remains? Why are we still here?

Posted anonymously by: Ane

New Mexico

I’m perplexed that you recognize several areas where EGW’s teachings contradict Scripture ... but yet you don’t think she is a false prophet. Can you share examples of “true” Bible prophets ever contradicting Scripture?

*****************

Also I’d like to hear input from others about a rather startling conclusion I’ve recently arrived at. There are several aspects where SDA theology removes and replaces key roles of either Christ or the Holy Spirit with something or someone else. Let me list just a FEW of those teachings before I share my bold conclusion:

The teaching that Moses was resurrected and taken to heaven blatantly contradicts 1 Corinthians 15 which states Christ would be the first fruit of the resurrected with imperishable bodies. If Moses’ resurrection happened first that would make him the first fruit of the dead not Christ. This would make Moses our Savior not Christ. This teaching removes Christ from His role as Savior.

The teaching that Sabbath is the Seal of God, is a fact not found in Scripture. This teaching actually gives a day the significant role in sealing us for Salvation and bumps the Holy Spirit of a role assigned to Him. (Ephesians 1:13-14; 4:30)

The teaching that the scapegoat represents Satan bumps Christ from the picture and gives Satan a significant role in the atonement process.

The teaching about the Holy Spirit/Intercessor being withdrawn during the Time of Trouble also blatantly contradicts Scripture. And removes both Christ and the Holy Spirit from a significant role we will need to rely on heavily during persecution.

If I might be so bold as to suggest this, wouldn’t any teaching that bumps Christ or the Holy Spirit from the picture be a teaching against Christ? Or in other words anti-Christ? 

Posted anonymously by: Ane

glennspring

I have to run, but will respond to you last post later!

Ane

Posted anonymously by: dwayne

[quote author="Pastor Williams"]
Now, to now answer your question in a simple and straightforward way (who is being judged): 2Thess 1 addresses the judgments of the saved and the lost. It is not a either/or situation. 2Thess 1:3-5 contains a inspired insight into the evidence employed to vindicate us in the judgment of the saved. Then in verse 6 Paul transitions to the judgment of the persecutors. It is as easy as that.

No, it’s not as easy as that. 2 Thess 1 can hardly be constrained to being “judgments of the saved and the lost” as you surmise. Take a better look at the judgment of God in 2 Thess 1.

The Apostle Paul is saying is that God’s judgment is correct and is, in fact, an ongoing process. The evidence of this process: 2 Thess 1:3-4.

Time-wise you are left with a ‘door of difficulty’ that no amount of spinning will make go away. Paul is telling the church that this righteous judgment is now taking place, in their day. This does not lend any support for an IJ that supposedly begins sometimes after 1844.

Not only is God’s righteous judgment ongoing in Paul’s day, there is no indication that it is an investigation of the saved. The reality, according to Paul, is that those who do not obey the gospel will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction when Christ comes. There is nothing here to support two judgments, the “judgments of the saved and the lost”.

If “2 Thess is one of the most powerful supports for the IJ in all the NT”, we’re definitely not talking the traditional sda/egw IJ. There is no support for the time period of 1844 and no support for two separate judgments of the saved and the lost.

[quote author="Ane"] There are several aspects where SDA theology removes and replaces key roles of either Christ or the Holy Spirit with something or someone else.The teaching that Moses was resurrected and taken to heaven blatantly contradicts 1 Corinthians 15 which states Christ would be the first fruit of the resurrected with imperishable bodies....

Strangely enough, the alternative, that Moses ‘soul’ was what was present at the Mount, thus signifying that our ‘soul’ goes to heaven when we die, also contradicts the clear teaching of 1 Corinthians 15 (particularily vs 13-28), as well as John 6:40,49,2 Timothy 4:6-8, John 14:1-3, John 5:28-29, Job 14:10-14, Ecclesiastes 9:5,6,10,Acts 2:34, and countless others that lay out quite clearly that eternal life/immortality is only realized and experience at the resurrection and not at our physical death as some disembodied ‘soul’.

[quote author="Ane"]If Moses’ resurrection happened first that would make him the first fruit of the dead not Christ. This would make Moses our Savior not Christ. This teaching removes Christ from His role as Savior.

You seem to have forgotten the little sick girl and Lazarus who were both resurrected by Christ.  What about the person that Elisha resurrected? Are they our saviors too?

Perhaps being the ‘first fruits’ is significant as far as the salvific value Christ’s resurrection brought as opposed to simply rising from the dead.

[quote author="Ane"]The teaching that Sabbath is the Seal of God, is a fact not found in Scripture. This teaching actually gives a day the significant role in sealing us for Salvation and bumps the Holy Spirit of a role assigned to Him. (Ephesians 1:13-14; 4:30)

‘sealing us for salvation’ by the Holy Spirit and the ‘sabbath being a seal of God’s chosen people’(just as it was in the OT) are not dichotomous.

[quote author="Ane"]The teaching that the scapegoat represents Satan bumps Christ from the picture and gives Satan a significant role in the atonement process.

I disagree because one can look at both goats not as complete atonement but simply their role in sin. If atonement was done at the cross, then in the sanctuary service, the atonement stops with the sacrificed goat, symbolizing Christ, the ‘spotless lamb’. He cannot be two goats at the same time. For both aspects of the goats to truly be symbolic and type meeting anti-type, you should technically have the sacrifical goat have all the sins placed on it, led out into the wilderness and then be sacrificed. This truly would represent what Christ did with sin.

However, we don’t have that.

We have TWO goats.

The first is sacrificed for the sins (Does this not truly represent Christ?) Atonment is completed.

What of the OTHER goat? What part does sin play now? Obviously not in vicarious atonement for it was already done.

I see nothing wrong with the concept that Satan will suffer for all that he has wrought on the earth. The bible is full of ‘reaping what you sow’ and that those who ‘lead the little ones astray’ or make ‘sons of hell’ will be punished severely and held responsible.

Why would this not apply to Satan, the great and ultimate cause of sin, simply by default?

Posted anonymously by: Ane

guibox

The sick girl and Lazarus were not raised from the dead with imperishable bodies. They died, were resurrected and then died again. And I think you meant Elijah ... he never did die so this would not apply to him.

I also don’t agree with the SDA stance of the state of the dead. I do believe a soul returns to God. I find WAY more Scripture to support that stance than what SDAs teach, I think the texts SDAs use are taken out of context. I’m amazed at how much Scripture one has to ignore to say otherwise.

Being the First Fruit of the dead is significant because it pointed to our Savior. 1 Cor. 15:23 specifically says the resurrection of the dead with imperishable bodies had to happen in that order Christ first then those who are His.

In regards to Sabbath as the Seal of God where is that taught in Scripture?

As for the scapegoat representing Satan, the high priest laid his hands on that goat and confessed the sins of the people to it, we do not confess our sins to Satan. He does not play any key role in atonement. Christ paid the price and took the punishment for sin. Satan will ultimately die for sin, just as each unrepentant sinner will also. CHRIST PAID THE PRICE.

Please explain how both goats have a role in sin?

They both have a role in atoning for sin, but not a role in sin itself? Christ can be 2 goats at one time because the one goat could not complete the role of the sacrifice and the symbolism of removing sin.

Posted anonymously by: Ane

glennspring

You asked: What explains Jesus’s continued sanctuarial role as High Priest today in Heaven as depicted in Hebrews, if the Atonement process and the sacrificial/priestly system has been completed.

Jesus role as high priest in Hebrews is different than the role of high priest in the Levitical system. For one thing Hebrews depicts Christ as our High Priest SITTING.

Day after day every priest STANDS and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away the sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he SAT down at the right hand of God. –Hebrews 10:11-12

Note the contrast between a STANDING priest and a SITTING priest. The Levitical priest always stood because his work of atonement was never finished. But Christ, our High Priest, SAT DOWN at the right Hand of God. WHY? Because His work of atonement was finished!

The Book of Hebrews spends a great deal of time comparing and contrasting the duties of the Old Covenant High Priest to the New Covenant High Priestly duties of Christ. Christ’s role is different as our mediator by virtue of the fact that we are IN HIM. Apart from being IN HIM, we stand before a just and Holy God clothed only in our own filthy rags. When we are in Christ, we stand before God covered by Christ’s perfect substitionary life, death, and resurrection. Based on Christ’s merits alone, those who are in Him are declared justified or not guilty. As our substitionary mediator, it is Christ who is judged in our place and we receive the undeserved benefits of His perfection because we are in Him. Unbelievers have only their own sinful depraved lives to be judged by and have no substitionary mediator between them and God. Those who present their own lives and own works to God, no matter how “good” they might think they are, will be justly condemened.

Also you asked: How do we understand the removal of sin via the scapegoat into the wilderness as sin remains in the earth? In other words, if Jesus fulfilled all of those types at Calvary, what remains? Why are we still here?

I see this as symbolic of the fact that just like the scapegoat removed the sin from the camp, Jesus will one day remove sin from earth. We are still here because He hasn’t returned yet. Scripture says He knows those who are His since the foundation of the earth, so evidently all those have not been born yet. Maybe He is just waiting for His family to be complete.

All analogies if pushed to the extreme can start falling apart. I just know that if I take the Bible at its word this scapegoat cannot represent Satan.

The high priest laid his hands and confessed the sins on the head of the scapegoat. We don’t confess our sins to Satan. The goat removed the sin from camp. Satan does not carry away or remove our sins. The goat was led out the gate to be killed by predators, just like Christ was led out the city gates to be killed by predators. The Bible truly has left big clues for us as to WHO this goat represents.

Also since all animals in the sacrificial system were to be without blemish, if one goat was Christ and the other Satan, they could’ve brought a blemished goat and an unblemished one. But instead they had to draw lots because both goats were unblemished. The lots were drawn to determine which aspect of the roles each goat would play.

Posted anonymously by: ane

guibox

Sorry I misunderstood what you said about Elisha raising someone from the dead ... and went off on tangent about Elijah. I just re-read your post and I see what you were saying.

Was this person raised with an imperishable body, or did they die again?

Ane

[quote author="Ane"]guibox
I also don’t agree with the SDA stance of the state of the dead. I do believe a soul returns to God. I find WAY more Scripture to support that stance than what SDAs teach, I think the texts SDAs use are taken out of context. I’m amazed at how much Scripture one has to ignore to say otherwise.

This is obviously another topic that could be started but I believe that it is the immortality of the soul advocates that ‘take out of context’ and ‘ignore much scripture’ to support what is bascially a Greek concept and not SDAs on this matter.

I am firmly convinced more than the validity of the Sabbath, the prophetic role of EGW and our prophetic eschaetology all rolled into one, that conditional immortality is as true blue and biblical as the sacrifice of Christ; and the belief of the traditional state of the dead and the immortality of the soul are as unbiblical as purgatory and Marianism.

My studies of the Reformers and scholars such as William Tyndale,Martin Luther, and Oscar Cullman,the scriptures and original Hebrew and Greek languages, and current theologians today from the evangelical and reformed faiths who have come over to the conditional immortalitist camp have reaffirmed that to me crystal clear.

Ane, though you have good biblical foundation to dispute the current topic on the IJ and the scapegoat and are making good points in that direction, I believe that you are left with meager amounts of ambiguous proof texting to support the ‘immortal soul’ and myriads of clear scripture that support conditional immortality that can only be worked around with much twisting and eisigesis.

If you’d like to debate this on another thread, I’d be more than happy to do so.

Posted anonymously by: Ane

guibox,

Actually I do not wish to take you up on a state of the dead debate.

What I will say is had it not been for the SDA invention of the lie about Moses’ resurrection which directly contradicts 1 Cor. 15 I would have never dived into a study regarding the state of the dead in the first place.

It was upon the realization of this lie that made me realize I had to take on the study and was STUNNED at all the Scripture I have to avoid to make the SDA stance hold water.

You and I both feel we have individually studied this out thoroughly so we can just entrust each other to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, our teacher and our helper to continue to bring truth to light on this matter.

Respectfully,

Ane

[quote author="Ane"] What I will say is had it not been for the SDA invention of the lie about Moses’ resurrection which directly contradicts 1 Cor. 15 I would have never dived into a study regarding the state of the dead in the first place.

It was upon the realization of this lie that made me realize I had to take on the study and was STUNNED at all the Scripture I have to avoid to make the SDA stance hold water.

Ane, it seems a bit much to call this a lie.  Biblical evidence for the resurrection of Moses exists in Jude 9.

It also seems a stretch to conclude that if Moses was bodily resurrected that this somehow directly contradicts I Cor 15.  Enoch and Elijah were normal human beings bearing all the corruptness as us, yet both of them were taken to heaven before Christ. It seems obvious enough to me to conclude that Paul was aware of this and didn’t believe it contradicted his point in 1 Corinthians 15 at all.

[quote author="Ane"] Jesus role as high priest in Hebrews is different than the role of high priest in the Levitical system. For one thing Hebrews depicts Christ as our High Priest SITTING.

Day after day every priest STANDS and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away the sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he SAT down at the right hand of God. –Hebrews 10:11-12.

Whatever Jesus’s physical posture as High Priest, it’s nevertheless true that Jesus acts as our Mediator and that “He ever liveth to make intercession for us”.  This suggests to me that the atonement process continues in some form in heaven.  In the earthly sanctuary the atonement process included both the sacrifice and the High Priestly intercession. And while the sacrifice of the atonement is completed, Christ’s role as intercessor continues.