Hello,

For all who love the way R.C. Sproul presents the gospel, the last Together for the Gospel Conference features in Session 5 a message delivered by Sproul entitled “The Curse Motif of the Atonement”, available here http://www.t4g.org/08/media/

I’ll try to transcribe as accurate as I can a part of his presentation dealing with the Scapegoat from Leviticus 16. In the SDA Church I was taught that the Scapegoat which was sent into the wilderness in the ceremony performed at the Day of Atonement was Satan, punished for the sins he provoked the saints to commit, a teaching which had not been abandoned by the SDA Church. Little I knew at that time the significance of the Scapegoat:

In the imagery of Atonement, on the Day of Atonement, we know that there are several animals involved in the ritual of that day. The priest before he can enter into the Holy of Holies where the High Priest and only the High Priest and only in this day of the year can go, must first himself make a blood sacrifice and go through an elaborate process of purification, and then there are two more animals involved, one who is killed, the other that survives. The one that is killed yields his blood which the High Priest takes into the inner sanctum and sprinkles on the mercy seat, sprinkles on the throne of Yahveh to bring reconciliation. And yet in this drama there is no power in that blood other than its pointing forward to the blood of the Lamb, even as the blood on the doorposts on the night of Passover pointed beyond itself to Christ our Passover who is sacrificed for us we know two things from the Day of Atonement: one, that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins and we also learn from the author of Hebrews that the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin.

But in that half of the drama with the blood sacrifice that is sprinkled on the Mercy Seat what is symbolized is an act of propitiation, which some brilliant translators in the middle of the twentieth century decided to take out of the New Testament to their everlasting shame… Those two words that are so central to the core of the gospel, propitiation and expiation, what’s the difference? They have the same root, but different prefixes. I want our people in Saint Andrews in central Florida to always understand the propitiation and expiation if they are going to understand the gospel and I tell them, I said “You know, our church is built in the classical style that is called the cruciform so that if you look at it from the air the shape of our building forms the shape of the cross.” And I said “If you come down the center hall, let it remind you of the vertical piece of the cross. Let it reminds you of propitiation, because in propitiation the Son does something to satisfy the justice and the wrath of the Father. It’s a vertical transaction” That it’s what is prefigured in the sacrifice that is made on the mercy seat.

Let’s not forget that the other animal that the liberal theologians try every which way to erase from the biblical record, as we’ve already heard. Yes, I’m of the goat, the Scapegoat who becomes the object of imputation when the priest now lays his hands on the back of the goat symbolically indicating the transfer or the imputation of the guilt of the people to the back of that goat. So that at the end of that ceremony, the priest lays his hands on the goat and says “May the sins of the people be upon this goat” and he says to the goat “Thank you very much for standing still during this” and he says to the people “You’re dismissed” No, no, no, no….

The significance really reaches its crescendo after the imputation of the sin of the people to the back of the goat when the goat is driven then into the wilderness, outside of the camp. Remember, when God numbered the people according to the tribes and they pitched the tabernacle, the tribes were in the circle and what was in the middle, equal distant from every settlement of every tribe was the tabernacle, indicating that God is in the midst of his people. And to be driven out of the covenant community, to be driven outside the camp was to be driven to the place where the blessings of the God did not reach, sent into the outer darkness, into the wilderness, into exile, into the CURSE.

That’s expiation, when in the cross not only is the Father’s justice satisfied by the atoning work of his Son, but in bearing our sins, the Lamb of God removes our sins from us as far as is the East from the West. How does he do it? By being CURSED

“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law” Listen to this: not simply by being cursed for us, but becoming a curse for us. He who is the incarnation of the glory of God now becomes the very incarnation of the divine curse. . .  “as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who hangs upon the tree.”

And Sproul goes on with the description of what Jesus suffered on the cross, bringing us closer to what happened in those dark hours which sealed our salvation. Listen to entire sermon and you’ll get a vivid picture of the necessity, sufficiency, and glory of penal substitutionary atonement realized by our Savior with the cost of becoming a curse, suffering God’s wrath toward our sins

For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. Therefore let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured.(Hebrews 13:11-14)

Hi Gabriel,

I’m on a quick break and don’t have much time, but saw you had posted this thread. 

Where does the word scapegoat come from in the original Hebrew?  My understanding is that one of the original translations is another word that was used for the devil.

Also, what happened to the scapegoat?  I read that the scapegoat, in practice, was hurled off a cliff so that it would never return to the camp.  Have you heard of this?

Further, since the sacrificial system is a type of the system that is in place in heaven, how does the idea that the scapegoat bears the sins of God’s people and never returns to camp fit in to the heavenly sanctuary?  The ‘Lord’s’ goat was slain and the blood was taken into the sanctuary and sprinkled on the mercy seat.  This fits well with Jesus role and PRESENCE in the heavenly sanctuary. 

Lastly, The Prince of Peace, Morning Star, Lion of the Tribe of Judah, “scapegoat”.  Doesn’t really fit....

Also the image of a Messiah dying under God’s curse did not fit the Jewish mind, as Isaiah predicted (Isaiah 53) The cross is truly a stumbling block.  The imagery of imputation depicted in the laying of hands on the back of the goat fits with Christ to whom our sins were imputed, not with Satan who is not our sin bearer. But the scapegoat together with the goat of the sin offering give us a composite and complete picture of what happened on Calvary which was necessary for our complete salvation, propitiation and expiation.

In the atonement both propitiation and expiation are involved. Propitiation refers to Christ’s satisfaction of God’s justice, making it “propitious” for God to forgive us. Propitiation may be seen as a vertical act of Christ directed to the Father. At the same time, Christ is an expiation for our sins, removing or carrying away from us our sins. As the Lamb of God, Jesus is our sin-bearer, taking our sins away and bearing them for us. On the cross Christ fulfills what is symbolized both by the slain lamb of Old Testament sacrifices and by the scapegoat on whom the sins of the people are transferred. The scapegoat was not sacrificed, but was sent into the wilderness to take far away the sins of the people. This action symbolized the remission of sins.  Sproul, R.C., Grace Unknown: The Heart of Reformed Theology,

More from R.C Sproul about the curse can be listened in his sermon, and also here from one of his books:

The presence of Yahweh in the midst of his tabernacle and temple was the concrete assurance of God’s blessing. To be cursed, then, is to be removed from the presence of God, to be set outside the camp, to be cut off from his benefits. The greatest terror to the Old Testament Jew was defilement—being pronounced “unclean” and driven out of the camp where the presence of God was focused. Adam and Eve suffered the curse when they were driven from the garden of Eden. The scapegoat of the Old Testament sacrificial system was driven out of the camp into the wilderness after the sins of the nation were symbolically imputed to it by the laying on of hands. This “separation” from the presence of God was symbolized by the covenant sign of circumcision. The covenant in the Old Testament was not said to be “written”; rather, it was “cut.” In the rite of circumcision, the Jews bore not only the mark of ethnic separation, whereby they were set apart for holiness and blessedness, but also carried the sign of the curse where, by means of the rite, they declared,“May I be cut off from the presence of God and his benefits if I fail to keep the stipulations (the law) of the covenant.”
On the cross, Jesus was cursed. He represented the covenant-breakers who were exposed to the curse and took the full measure of the curse upon himself. As the Lamb of God, the sin-bearer, he was cut off from the presence of God. On the cross, Jesus experienced forsakenness on our behalf. The darkness and earthquake that accompanied the event underscore the pain of the physical execution and focus on the loss of intimacy that the God-man Jesus enjoyed with God. God turned his back on Jesus and cut him off from all blessing, from all keeping, from all grace, and from all peace. Jesus did not die in the temple, but was killed outside the holy city at the hands of unclean Gentiles. Jesus was driven from the camp to experience the full horror of the unmitigated wrath of God. Nowhere in Scripture is the reality of God’s wrath more sharply manifested than when he forsook his Messiah. Here, the negative sanction of circumcision was fulfilled Sproul, R.C., Renewing Your Mind: Basic Christian Beliefes You Need to Know

Gabriel

Gabriel,

I poked around on the web and found this interesting on what some of the other (than SDA) church scholars have said about the scapegoat (Azazel).  The scapegoat representing the devil is not an SDA teaching but one that was held by the early Christians, the Jew’s and many protestants.  Neither does Christ as the scapegoat fit the sanctuary model, which I’ll point out later…

J. Russell Howden (Church of England).—The goat for Azazel, as it is sometimes misleadingly translated typifies God’s challenge to Satan.

Of the two goats, one was for Jehovah, signifying God’s acceptance of the sin-offering; the other was for Azazel. This is probably to be understood as a person, being parallel with Jehovah in the preceding clause. So Azazel is probably a synonym for Satan.—Sunday School Times, Jan. 15, 1927.

Samuel M. Zwemer (Presbyterian).—The devil (Sheitan, or Iblis) has a proper name—Azazel. He was expelled from Eden.—Islam, a Challenge to Faith, p. 89.

E. W. Hengstenberg (Lutheran).—The manner in which the phrase “for Azazel” is contrasted with “for Jehovah,” necessarily requires that Azazel should designate a personal existence and if so, only Satan can be intended. If by Azazel, Satan is not meant, there is no reason for the lots that were cast. We can then see no reason why the decision was referred to God, why the high priest did not simply assign one goat for a sin offering, and the other for sending away into the desert. Egypt and the Books of Moses, pp. 170, 171.

J. B. Rotherham (Disciples of Christ?).—"And one lot for Azazel” (Lev. xvi. 8).—It seems impossible to dissent from the opinion that “Azazel,” instead of being a name for the (e)scape goat, is the name or title of an evil Being, opposed to Yahweh, to whom the live goat on the great Day of Propitiation was sent. Admitting so much, it still remains to inquire into the meaning of this very peculiar but impressive ceremony of sending the living goat to Azazel. Assuming that Satan is represented by Azazel—and there does not appear anything else which biblically we can assume—it is most important to observe that there is here no sacrifice offered to the evil spirit.—The Emphasized Bible, vol. 3, p. 918.

William Jenks (Congregationalist).—Scapegoat. See different opinion in Bochart. Spencer, after the oldest opinions of the Hebrews and Christian, thinks Azazel is the name of the devil, and so Rosenmuller, whom see. The Syriac has Azzail, the “angel (strong one) who revolted."—The Comprehensive Commentary of the Holy Bible, p. 410.

“Abingdon Bible Commentary” (Methodist).—On the goats lots are to be cast, one for Jehovah, and the other for Azazel. The translation dismissal in the R.V. mg. here (cf. removal in A.S.V. mg.) is inadmissible, being based on a false etymology. What the word meant is unknown, but it should be retained as the proper name of a wilderness demon—Page 289.

Mention might be made also of William Milligan, James Hastings, and William Smith, of the Presbyterian Church; Elmer Flack and H. C. Alleman, of the Lutheran Church; Charles Beecher and F. N. Peloubet, of the Congregational Church; George A. Barton, of the Society of Friends; John M’Clintock and James Strong, of the Methodist Church; James M. Gray, of the Reformed Episcopal Church; and a host of others who have expressed themselves in the same way. Adventists, during the years, have been in full accord with the expressions of such eminent theologians and scholars on this matter.

At best, the interpretation that the scapegoat represents Christ is a matter of modern contention but does not appear to be a matter of contention for early Christians.  They appeared to agree Azazel represented Satan.

From Wikipedia (not the most definitive source...)

Azazel in popular culture

* The Afrikaans author Etienne Leroux wrote a novel in 1968 with the title Een vir Azazel (One for Azazel) that was translated into English as One for the devil.
* In the thriller Fallen (film) Denzel Washington plays a detective who is terrorized by the demon Azazel.
* In the Marvel universe Azazel belongs to the Neyaphem, a group of mutants from biblical times and is the biological father of Nightcrawler.
* In Neil Gaiman’s The Sandman series of graphic novels Azazel is part of the triumvirate ruling Hell, together with Lucifer and Beelzebub.
* In the world of Warhammer (a tabletop game by Games Workshop) Azazel is the name given to Sigmar’s nemesis Garreon when he is found by the Norsii.
* The protagonist in Mikhail Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita has among his entourage one bearing the name Azazello, in a direct reference to Azazel.
* In the TV series Supernatural, Azazel is said to be the real name of the Yellow-Eyed Demon, the arch-villain of the first two seasons.

Even the comic writers appear to have gotten it right…

Why I believe Azazel cannot represent Jesus.

1.  It doesn’t make any sense to refer to a goat for the ‘Lord’ and a goat for ‘Azazel’ if they were both intended to be for the ‘Lord’.  Also, why draw lots if both represented Jesus?

2.  Jesus, in bearing the sins of the world represented the Lamb that was slain.  The lamb was used in the sacrificial system during the year in transferring the sins of God’s people to the sanctuary.  Jesus death at the cross was the beginning of His heavenly ministry.  Jesus carried the sins of His people to the heavenly sanctuary.  The cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, according to the Bible, does not take place at the cross. (Hebrews 9:23 and Daniel 8:14). 

3.  What fulfillment will the goat for Azazel find in the heavenly sanctuary?  Certainly not that Jesus will be taken out of the heavenly sanctuary and shoved off a cliff!

4.  Jesus is represented in the heavenly sanctuary as our great High Priest.  However, the goat for Azazel was sent away into the wilderness by the high priest, so the goat cannot represent the high priest himself.

5.  The Bible says that Jesus is the light (lampstand), bread (showbread), alter, priest, Holy Spirit is the oil of the lampstand, prayers of the saints are the smoke of the incense, but where does it say that Jesus is Azazel or scapegoat?  You would think if this was a symbol of Jesus, someone would have pointed this out like the other symbols… Jesus is represented by many things in the Bible, but never the (e)scapegoat.

6.  The goat was sent into the wilderness, to a land not inhabited, never to be heard of again.  But Jesus dwells in the midst of His people and ministers in the heavenly sanctuary on His peoples behalf.

7.  The name Azazel does not appear to have any relation to Jesus, as was previously stated, in the original Hebrew.  But in fact has much historical references to the Devil, demons or Satan.

So, would the Devil fit into the sanctuary model?  I believe so:

Earthly Sanctuary
1.  Sin of the transgressor imparted to the sacrificial victim.
2.  By the blood of the sacrifice, priest carries the sin into the sanctuary.
3.  On the tenth day of the seventh month, the high priest removes these sins from the sanctuary by the blood of the sin offering for the people and lays them on the head of the goat for Azazel.
4.  The goat for Azazel bears them into a land not inhabited.

Heavenly Sanctuary
1.  Jesus provides the great sacrifice for sin on the cross
2.  By faith in Jesus sacrifice, my sins are borne by Christ to the heavenly sanctuary.
3.  After Christ is finished His ministration on behalf of sinners (Revelation 15:17), He will remove the sins from the sanctuary and lay them on the head of their author, the goat for Azazel, or the Devil.
4.  The Devil will be sent into a land not inhabited.  (Revelation 20:1-3)

Again, this is not some SDA teaching, but has been held by many scholars from different denominations.

Oops… Revelation 16:17, and a loud voice came out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, “it is done!”.  Revelation 15:17 does not exist

I found the following article on the internet useful for comparing which view about the identity of scapegoat fits better with the Bible.

http://www.israelofgod.org/azazel.htm

The subject of this study concerns the activities of the high priest on the Day of Atonement; in particular, confessing the sins of Israel upon the head of the goat that was sent away into the wilderness (Lev.16:21).

The Day of Atonement is one of God’s solemn feast days. On the tenth day of the seventh month of God’s Scriptural calendar the high priest (Aaron) was to make an atonement for the sins of Israel. To accomplish this Aaron selected two young goats from the congregation of the children of Israel (Lev.16:5). He was then instructed to cast lots to determine which goat would be “for the Lord” and which for “the scapegoat” (KJV - from “escape goat"). According to Strong’s, the word “scapegoat” comes from the Hebrew “azazel” which literally means “goat of departure.” It is formed from the Hebrew “ez” meaning goat and “azal” meaning “to go away.” The precise meaning has been greatly disputed. Some commentators believe “azazel” refers to the name of the region where the goat was sent. Others believe it to be the proper name of a spirit, demon, or Satan himself. The interpretation that Strong suggests occurs in both the Septuagint and the Vulgate and underlies the rabbinic view, “the goat that is dispatched,” in Mishnah Yoma 6:2. In “Pentateuch & Haftorahs” by Dr.J.H. Hertz (Late Chief Rabbi of the British Empire), Soncino Press, 1990, pg.481, we read; “The Heb. Azazel, however, is not a proper name, but a rare Hebrew noun ... meaning, ‘dismissal’ or, ‘entire removal’ (RV Margin, Gesenius, Hoffmann, and the Oxford Hebrew Dictionary). It is the ancient technical term for the entire removal of sin and guilt of the community, that was symbolized by the sending away of the goat into the wilderness.”

Since the word “azazel” is not used anywhere else in Scripture and since there are several opinions as to its meaning, we need to determine, via other Scriptures, its true meaning and interpretation. The most important point concerning “azazel” (the scapegoat) is found in Lev.16:10; “But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him , and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.” If we choose to believe “azazel” represents Satan, this leads us to the question of whether or not Satan can make an atonement for God’s people. Nowhere in Scripture is there a reference to Satan having any part in the atonement.
Instead, we read; “And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement” (Rom.5:11). “Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Heb.1:3). “Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once , when he offered up himself” (Heb.7:27). “For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself “ (Heb.9:26).

The Scriptures clearly state that Messiah made the atonement for us by himself . However, it is suggested by many (including myself until recently) that the first goat represented the atoning work of Jesus, but the second goat represents Satan. It is believed that, since Satan was “the original cause” of all sin, “justice demands that God place right back on the head of the devil his guilt - not our guilt, but his own guilt - for leading us into sin.” Pagan Holidays or God’s Holy Days - Which? by Herbert W. Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God, 1986, pg.36.

If that is true, where in Scripture is the fulfillment of Lev.16:21? The antitypical high priest (Jesus) is to lay hands on Satan’s head and confess the sins of Israel upon him. Yet, we do not find that in Scripture. It can be said that the angel of Rev.20:1 represents the “fit man” that sends the goat (Satan) into the wilderness (represented by the “bottomless pit"), but without the fulfillment of the actual laying on of hands or any other references to Satan making an atonement for us, it becomes total assumption, a mere theory. Some may try to suggest that the angel is in fact Jesus. Rev.19:11-14 portray Jesus coming down from heaven to earth to smite the nations, the beast, and the false prophet. Afterwards , the angel of Rev.20:1 comes down from heaven to bind Satan. That angel is the only one who lays hands on Satan, not to confess sins on his head, but to cast him into the bottomless pit.

On the other hand, the Scriptures paint a beautiful picture of the fulfillment of Jesus as the goat that was sent away bearing the sins of Israel. First read Lev.16:22; “And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.” Now consider the following;

Is.53:6c - “And God hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” The sins of Israel were laid on Jesus. They were placed upon him and him alone.

Is.53:11c - “For he shall bear their iniquities .”

Is.53:12d - “And he (Jesus) bare the sin of many ...” Jesus is the one who bore our sins. He carried them away upon his own head which is what the Hebrew ‘cabal’ (bare) means.

Is.53:4a - “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows:” Jesus is the sin-bearer, not Satan.
Heb.9:28a - “So Messiah was once offered to bear the sins of many;”

1 Pe.2:24a - “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree.” There is no other sin-bearer.

The act of laying on of hands (vs.21; also; Lev.1:4; 3:2; 4:4,15,29,33) symbolizes the transference of sins from the guilty party (the children of Israel) to the innocent (azazel). The innocent then becomes the sin-bearer. Jesus undeniably fulfills the type (Is.53:4,6,11,12). Satan, however, cannot fulfill the type because he was never innocent. It will not satisfy the justice of God to transfer the sins of the guilty to another guilty party. Since lots were used to decide which goat was “for the Lord,” it meant that both goats had to be unblemished. The antitype of an unblemished goat was the sinlessness of Messiah. Can it be said that Satan is sinless and was to be represented by an unblemished goat? “Azazel” was to bear the iniquities of the children of Israel unto a land “not inhabited.” We have just read how Scripture undeniably teaches that Messiah is the only sin bearer. Therefore, he is the only person that fulfills the type of “azazel.” But how does Jesus fulfill being sent to a land not inhabited and let go in the wilderness?

The Scriptures make several clear statements concerning the act of carrying away sin.

Jn.1:29 - “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”

Heb.9:26b - “But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”
1 Jn.3:5 - “And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.”

Jesus is the goat that carried away the sins of Israel. He took them upon himself and “was made to be sin for us” (2 Cor.5:21). Therefore he fulfills the antitypical “azazel.” There is no need for Satan to bare anyone’s sins. He has his own sins to bare and they will prove to be unbearable.

The Hebrew for “not inhabited” is “gezerah” meaning “a desert (as separated).” It comes from the root word “gazar” meaning “to cut down or off.” Messiah was certainly cut off and separated from not only the land of the living, but from his Father as well. When Jesus cried out, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” it was because at that moment he was separated from God having taken upon himself the sins of the world. Sin clearly causes a separation from God as Isaiah wrote; “But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear” (Is.59:2). Jesus’ disciples also separated themselves from him by forsaking him and denying him. Jesus was even separated by “suffering without the gate” and without the camp (Heb.13:11-13). He was sent into the wilderness of total separation as he bore our sins away.  [...]

The bottom line is this; The Scriptures declare Jesus to be the ONLY sin-bearer who not only died for the remission of sins, but also the only one to actually take away those sins. When we view the Lord’s goat and azazel as one atonement offering, rather than two separate offerings separated by thousands of years, we can understand and appreciate the symbolic fulfillment more readily. Jesus is the perfect fulfillment of the typical atonement sacrifice. As the Lord’s goat his blood cleansed the heavenly sanctuary (Heb.9:23) and the Israel of God (Lev.16:17). As “azazel” he bore our sins and took them away forever. Halleluyah

Gabriel

Gabriel
“If we choose to believe “azazel” represents Satan, this leads us to the question of whether or not Satan can make an atonement for God’s people. Nowhere in Scripture is there a reference to Satan having any part in the atonement.”

This seem to be a common misunderstanding propagated by those who want to claim the goat for Azazel represents Jesus.  Nobody believes that Satan makes an “atonement for God’s people”.

Please show me where I stated that anywhere in my post.  That idea is stupid Gabriel, and you should be ashamed for suggesting it.  It is frequently made because, I believe, the opposing view is a weak.  I would rather you deal with the evidence I put out and not the untrue rhetoric that people like to make against those who don’t agree with them.  Satan making an atonement for me… good grief!

Bill.

Bill - 05 May 2008 08:00 AM

Gabriel
“If we choose to believe “azazel” represents Satan, this leads us to the question of whether or not Satan can make an atonement for God’s people. Nowhere in Scripture is there a reference to Satan having any part in the atonement.”

This seem to be a common misunderstanding propagated by those who want to claim the goat for Azazel represents Jesus.  Nobody believes that Satan makes an “atonement for God’s people”.

Please show me where I stated that anywhere in my post. That idea is stupid Gabriel, and you should be ashamed for suggesting it.  It is frequently made
because, I believe, the opposing view is a weak.  I would rather you deal with the evidence I put out and not the untrue rhetoric that people like to make against those who don’t agree with them.  Satan making an atonement for me… good grief!

Bill.

Uhhhh, take it easy Bill, take it easy, i had not accused you of promoting consciously and explicitly the idea that Satan is doing atonement. Let us take a second look at some of Ellen White’s quotes about the subject, and I will like to comment on them.

Satan and his angels suffered long. Satan bore not only the weight and punishment of his own sins, but also of the sins of the redeemed host, which had been placed upon him; and he must also suffer for the ruin of souls which he had caused. Then I saw that Satan and all the wicked host were consumed, and the justice of God was satisfied; and all the angelic host, and all the redeemed saints, with a loud voice said, “Amen!” EW 294.2

To bear the punishment = atonement. “Satan bore ... punishment of his own sins, and the sins of the redeemed host”. Was not this punishment what Christ bore on the cross for us, making atonement?

Satan did not then exult as he had done. He had hoped to break up the plan of salvation; but it was laid too deep. And now by the death of Christ he knew that he himself must finally die, and his kingdom be given to Jesus. He held a council with his angels. He had prevailed nothing against the Son of God, and now they must increase their efforts and with their power and cunning turn to His followers. They must prevent all whom they could from receiving the salvation purchased for them by Jesus. By so doing Satan could still work against the government of God. Also it would be for his own interest to keep from Jesus as many as possible. For the sins of those who are redeemed by the blood of Christ will at last be rolled back upon the originator of sin, and he must bear their punishment, while those who do not accept salvation through Jesus will suffer the penalty of their own sins. {EW 178.1}

Interesting: unbelievers will suffer the punishment for their sins, and Satan will suffer the punishment for the sins of the believers.  Notice, it is not Satan suffering the punishment for his sins, something which he obviously will suffer, but he should suffer only for the sins of those who are saved, the rest of people suffering for themselves. This shows that he is suffering as a substitute, in the place of believer, and since he’s suffering the punishment of sin, the combination is obvious: Substitionary atonement. I thought that Jesus did this for us on the cross.

“And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited.” Not until the goat had been thus sent away did the people regard themselves as freed from the burden of their sins. Every man was to afflict his soul while the work of atonement was going forward. All business was laid aside, and the whole congregation of Israel spent the day in solemn humiliation before God, with prayer, fasting, and deep searching of heart.  {PP 355.4}

Here is the crux of the matter: people are free from sin only after, not before the goat had been sent away. Notice that we are told that people should keep the proper attitude because the work of atonement is going forward, with the scapegoat as part of it. But let us look at the reason, why people are free from sin only after the scapegoat carries the sins.

Important truths concerning the atonement were taught the people by this yearly service. In the sin offerings presented during the year, a substitute had been accepted in the sinner’s stead; but the blood of the victim had not made full atonement for the sin. It had only provided a means by which the sin was transferred to the sanctuary. By the offering of blood, the sinner acknowledged the authority of the law, confessed the guilt of his transgression, and expressed his faith in Him who was to take away the sin of the world; but he was not entirely released from the condemnation of the law. On the Day of Atonement the high priest, having taken an offering for the congregation, went into the most holy place with the blood and sprinkled it upon the mercy seat, above the tables of the law. Thus the claims of the law, which demanded the life of the sinner, were satisfied. Then in his character of mediator the priest took the sins upon himself, and, leaving the sanctuary, he bore with him the burden of Israel’s guilt. At the door of the tabernacle he laid his hands upon the head of the scapegoat and confessed over him “all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat.” And as the goat bearing these sins was sent away, they were, with him, regarded as forever separated from the people. Such was the service performed “unto the example and shadow of heavenly things.” Hebrews 8:5.  {PP 355.5}

Notice what the sacrifices, the sin offerings, representing Jesus ‘ sacrifice accomplished: they had only made a partial atonement, they just transferred the sins to the sanctuary, nothing more. Even in the day of atonement, the blood of the sacrifices sprinkled in the Holy of Holies does not make full atonement. The sins are still there, ready to be transferred, and it is taken from the sanctuary and put on the back of the scapegoat. There is not yet made full atonement, even if the blood of sacrifice is applied in the Holy of Holies. People are not yet freed from their sins. There is a final act to be accomplished, there is still some punishment for these sins, suffered by the scapegoat, Satan. Finally the atonement is complete, completed by Satan’s sufferings for the sins of the believers. Jesus’ sufferings had not made a complete atonement, only with Satan’s sufferings the atonement is complete. Until the scapegoat (Satan) dies, the sin is only passed from one place to another, from people to the sanctuary, and from sanctuary to Satan. The sin is not canceled, it is not yet expiated.

This is the doctrine in the words of Ellen White, and it is sustained by the SDA Church.  I recognize that Adventists had no intention to believe that Satan is making atonement for their sins, but their denial does not help them because if Jesus’ work of expiation symbolized by the Scapegoat is replaced with Satan’s work, Adventists end up like this

When the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord, then the sins of the repentant soul who has received the grace of Christ and has overcome through the blood of the Lamb, will be removed from the records of heaven, and will be placed upon Satan, the scapegoat, the originator of sin, and be remembered no more against him forever. . . . When the conflict of life is ended, when the armor is laid off at the feet of Jesus, when the saints of God are glorified, then and then only will it be safe to claim that we are saved, and sinless.-- Signs of the Times, May 16, 1895.  {3SM 355.5}

Is this the glorious gospel of God’s free grace? I doubt. We are saved today, sinless today by faith alone in Christ’s blood alone. That’s the gospel.

Gabriel

I agree with Gabriel and RC Sproul on this issue, but in fairness to what Bill is saying, the doctrine of the scapegoat of SDAs was thoroughly evaluated by an objective Reformed scholar by the name of Anthony Hoekema when writing about SDAs and classifying them as a cult based on exchatology.  He admitted that though the SDA doctrine is problematic, it was clear that SDAs DO NOT teach that Satan makes an atonement for sin.

I get a little tired of reading some former SDA sites which allege that the SDA church is a “Satanic Cult” and are Satan worshippers who believe that Satan atoned for their sins.

Please, give me a break! This kind of exaggeration is not helpful. I don’t believe that you will hear sermons anymore in most SDA churches on the scapegoat doctrine.

Stan

Bill,

The goat shall bear all their iniquities on itself to a remote area, and he shall let the goat go free in the wilderness. Leviticus 16:22

There are two clear facts that refute completely the interpretation that Satan is the scapegoat.

1. Nowhere in the Bible Satan is showed as carrying the sins of the believers.
2. Only Jesus is presented as carrying the sins of the believers.

Only Jesus is compatible with the imagery of scapegoat, Satan is never compatible with it. Paying attention to semantics or what novelists are saying about Azazel is irrelevant at this point.

Let us rejoice together in what Jesus accomplished for us, his work of propitiation and expiation. We are today free, forever free from the punishment of sin, and heirs with Christ of the heavenly kingdom. Let us be glad and rejoice in the prince paid for our sins, which was sufficient to satisfy completely God’s wrath directed at our sins.

Soli Deo Gloria

In Christ alone, who took on flesh
Fullness of God in helpless babe
This gift of love and righteousness
Scorned by the ones He came to save
‘Til on that cross as Jesus died
The wrath of God was satisfied
For every sin on Him was laid
Here in the death of Christ I live

No guilt in life, no fear in death
This is the power of Christ in me
From life’s first cry to final breath
Jesus commands my destiny
No power of hell, no scheme of man
Can ever pluck me from His hand
‘til He returns or calls me home
Here in the power of Christ I’ll stand

Gabriel

Amen Gabriel to your last post. That is a wonderful gospel hymn that we can rejoice in and put our hope in.

Stan

Stan Ermshar - 05 May 2008 12:24 PM

I get a little tired of reading some former SDA sites which allege that the SDA church is a “Satanic Cult” and are Satan worshippers who believe that Satan atoned for their sins.

Please, give me a break! This kind of exaggeration is not helpful. I don’t believe that you will hear sermons anymore in most SDA churches on the scapegoat doctrine.

Stan

Perhaps you will not hear sermons, but as in the case with LDS polygamy, the teaching had not been deleted from official books.  All the quotes above are from writings considered authoritative for the SDA Church. And as you can see from what Bill said, the doctrine is not dead at all.

Stan Ermshar - 05 May 2008 12:24 PM

He admitted that though the SDA doctrine is problematic, it was clear that SDAs DO NOT teach that Satan makes an atonement for sin.

Hoekema affirms the following about the SDa doctrine of the scapegoat:

1. To affirms that the second goat represents Satan means to attribute a work of Christ to the prince of darkness..

2. It implies that Jesus’ work of atonement was insufficient for the complete eradication of sin.

3. If it is necessary that these sins to be carried by Satan before their eradication from the universe, Satan plays an indispensable role in the removal of sin.

He concludes by saying that even if Adventists deny that Satan makes atonement for our sins, they are guilty of attributing to Satan something which only Christ is doing: the blotting of our sins.

Stan Ermshar - 05 May 2008 12:24 PM

I get a little tired of reading some former SDA sites which allege that the SDA church is a “Satanic Cult” and are Satan worshippers who believe that Satan atoned for their sins.

I don’t think that the Scapegoat teaching makes the SDA satanic because even Adventists, like Bill above, reject the idea that Satan makes atonement for our sins, and find it horrific. But if the work of the Scapegoat truly is a part of atonement and represents the expiation of sins made by Jesus, it is inevitable that replacing Jesus with Satan attributes to Satan a role in the atonement, and also it leaves the atonement incomplete. It should be obvious that this conclusion is inevitable.
And as long as the SDA Church promotes Patriarchs and Prophets, and Selected Messages as authoritative writings, it cannot detach herself from the responsibility of promoting, even unconsciously, a dangerous doctrine. The SDAs are ready to hold the line here and even throw insults at other christians in order to defend this peculiar doctrine. It is not a benign doctrine.

Gabriel

Gabriel, I think you hit upon an important point here. Even if Ellen White’s teaching about Satan bearing the sins of humanity is no longer promoted in the Adventist church, it has never been repudiated. Her writings remain in the background, waiting to confuse someone who is not grounded in the biblical doctrine of the atonement. I don’t think it is easy to accuse the modern Adventist church of making Satan part of the atonement, but I do fault them for not overturning Ellen White’s harmful teachings on this subject.

Greg

Greg,

The Scapegoat doctrine is still taught in the SDA Church under another heading, Fundamental Belief Number 26

26. The Millennium and the End of Sin:
The millennium is the thousand-year reign of Christ with His saints in heaven between the first and second resurrections. During this time the wicked dead will be judged; the earth will be utterly desolate, without living human inhabitants, but occupied by Satan and his angels. At its close Christ with His saints and the Holy City will descend from heaven to earth. The unrighteous dead will then be resurrected, and with Satan and his angels will surround the city; but fire from God will consume them and cleanse the earth. The universe will thus be freed of sin and sinners forever. (Rev. 20; 1 Cor. 6:2, 3; Jer. 4:23-26; Rev. 21:1-5; Mal. 4:1; Eze. 28:18, 19.)

The idea that the earth will be desolate for 1000 years, only with Satan and angels has at the root the image of the scapegoat in the desert. It is part of Satan’s punishment, and it integrated part of the official doctrine of the SDA. Take a look at the Great Controversy written by Ellen White:

Now the event takes place foreshadowed in the last solemn service of the Day of Atonement. When the ministration in the holy of holies had been completed, and the sins of Israel had been removed from the sanctuary by virtue of the blood of the sin offering, then the scapegoat was presented alive before the Lord; and in the presence of the congregation the high priest confessed over him “all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat.” Leviticus 16:21. In like manner, when the work of atonement in the heavenly sanctuary has been completed, then in the presence of God and heavenly angels and the hosts of the redeemed the sins of God’s people will be placed upon Satan; he will be declared guilty of all the evil which he has caused them to commit. And as the scapegoat was sent away into a land not inhabited, so Satan will be banished to the desolate earth, an uninhabited and dreary wilderness.
The revelator foretells the banishment of Satan and the condition of chaos and desolation to which the earth is to be reduced, and he declares that this condition will exist for a thousand years. After presenting the scenes of the Lord’s second coming and the destruction of the wicked, the prophecy continues: “I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.” Revelation 20:1-3.  {GC 658}

In this way, the doctrine of the scapegoat is integral part of the SDA Fundamental Beliefs, and even if no mention of the scapegoat is present, the concept underlies the interpretation of Revelation 20 and is at the foundation of SDA Fundamental Belief 26.

Gabriel