Gabriel, good points. I agree that this fundamental belief statement leaves the door wide open to embracing the idea of Satan bearing the punishment for sins, even if the language of the statement doesn’t specifically affirm this.

I want to return to something Bill wrote earlier in this thread: “Lastly, The Prince of Peace, Morning Star, Lion of the Tribe of Judah, ‘scapegoat’.  Doesn’t really fit....”

This was exactly the problem Jesus’ death on the cross presented to the unbelieving Jews. How could the Messiah be crucified? According to their own Scriptures, anyone who was hanged on a tree—a common punishment in their day—was “cursed”. “And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God...” (Deuteronomy 21:22-23 ESV)

The Jews who witnessed Jesus’ death knew he couldn’t be the Messiah because the Messiah could not possibly suffer the same fate as a “cursed” criminal. The apostle Paul understood this objection because of his Jewish education, and he addressed this very point in his letter to the Galatians by pairing it with the “curse” of those who do not keep the whole law.

“For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.’ Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’ But the law is not of faith, rather ‘The one who does them shall live by them.’ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree’—so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. (Galatians 3:10-14 ESV)

It is critical to understand what Paul is saying here. He starts by indicting all of humanity in showing us that we are all cursed by our failure to keep the law and because of this, nobody can justified by the law. It is only by faith—not law—that anyone can be justified before God. But what about the curse of the law? It is not enough to simply say “I’m saved by faith” without dealing with God’s curse against lawbreakers. This is the critical point that the Jews didn’t see—that Jesus removed the curse by taking it upon himself. Knowing no sin, Jesus became the object of sin’s consequences by taking the full wrath of the Father. “ For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Corinthians 5:21 ESV).

The answer for the unbelieving Jews, as it is for those of us today who are looking to understand the meaning behind Jesus’ death, is found throughout Scripture. Foretelling the event hundreds of years before it happened, the prophet Isaiah wrote:

But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5 ESV)

To our human understanding, seeing the title of “scapegoat” among the other titles for Jesus may not make much sense, but it is thoroughly biblical. Without Jesus’ humiliating death on the cross in which he took the curse we deserve, we are truly without hope. He deserves all praise for willfully enduring this on behalf of sinful humans who deserve the very punishment he received.

Greg

Hello everyone!  After two course exams and a certification exam I am finally done and back home!  What a relief…

From Gabriel post #7:
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.

I’d like to point out that atonement is the process of reconciliation between God and man.  I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase “at one ment” Only Jesus can do this and has done this.  In our context, Websters online defines atonement as “the reconciliation of God and humankind through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ”.  The question is not of atonement but of bearing the final punishment for the sins of God’s people.  That is why I get offended when people claim that SDA’s believe that satan makes an atonement for sins.  I don’t think any Christian believes that and I find that charge laid on SDA’s offensive and unfounded.

Gabriel,
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.

Alright, I’m calmed down… partly.  You at least seem to agree that I never promoted that satan is doing atonement.  You then seem to imply that EGW does.  Since you brought her up, show me where she consciously or explicitly states that satan atones for our sins.  You try to confuse atonement and final punishment and portray them as the same.  Stop trying to portray SDA’s as saying satan atones for our sins!

Gabriel:
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.

“Never” compatible with it?  Absolute statements are ALWAYS ( ) dangerous Gabriel.  And paying attention to historians, the rabbinical views and early Christians is irrelevant?  Where do you think the novelists get the idea from… SDA’s?

When is the heavenly sanctuary cleansed as stated in Daniel 8:14?  Since the earthly sanctuary was cleansed yearly, this cannot be referring to the earthly sanctuary.  We should all agree that in prophesy 1 day stands for 1 year, the 2300 days did not end at the cross.  Jesus role as our heavenly priest begins at His ascension.  It is impossible for the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary to be represented at the cross before Jesus even began his ministration as our high priest.  Anyone who has the view that Jesus represents the goat for Azazel must deal with this point.  This view states that Jesus was lead outside the gates of the city and abandoned by God at the cross.  Since the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary is a future event, from the perspective of the cross, how can Jesus fit this role at the cross?

I do not believe that the goat for Azazel represents Jesus and based on all the evidence, believe that it much more closely represents satan.  You don’t have to agree with me, but are free to make your own mistakes…

Greg,
To our human understanding, seeing the title of “scapegoat” among the other titles for Jesus may not make much sense, but it is thoroughly biblical. Without Jesus’ humiliating death on the cross in which he took the curse we deserve, we are truly without hope. He deserves all praise for willfully enduring this on behalf of sinful humans who deserve the very punishment he received.

I disagree with your claim that the title of scapegoat belongs to Jesus.  To say it is “thoroughly” Biblical would imply that Jesus was referred to as the scapegoat in the Bible.  I am not aware of anywhere in the Bible where Jesus was given the title of scapegoat or goat for Azazel.  If you are aware of some such reference please feel free to quote it.

The following list is of names and titles given specifically to our Lord Jesus. The more we study this list, the more we will understand who Jesus really is. How can we help but love Him?

Strangely, I don’t see scapegoat or goat for Azazel listed…
See the list at: http://www.letsdiscussjesus.org/names.htm

I do agree with the rest of your statement and that Jesus did bear our curse.  We are cursed because we are not able to keep the law.  The breaking of the law brings about our curse.  I believe the curse is a form of separation from God.  Jesus reconciled us back to God.  There is no one else that makes this atonement possible.

Gabriel,

What did you mean by the following?

“I knew that Ellen White, the third Person of the Godhead for the early adventist was a white woman, but we are in the era of political correctness.”

Bill.

Bill - 11 May 2008 06:40 PM

When is the heavenly sanctuary cleansed as stated in Daniel 8:14?

“13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to the one who spoke, “For how long is the vision concerning the regular burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled underfoot?” 14 And he said to me, “For 2,300 evenings and mornings. Then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state.” “

You assume that the sanctuary in verse 14 is the Heavenly? Then so must be the sanctuary in verse 13. Whether earthly or heavenly, then what began “trampling” it underfoot at the beginning of the 70 week prophecy in 483BC (or whatever the SDA date is)?

Bill,

The sad truth is that Seventh-day Adventists actually claim to have TWO sin-bearers; namely, Jesus and Satan.  For Adventists, without Satan meritoriously suffering annihilation in their behalf, their sins cannot be finally blotted out.  Sins, in SDA jargon, are only conditionally forgiven.  Thus, without Satan’s final atoning role, there is no heaven for anyone. (see GC, pp. 422 & 485) In other words, eternal bliss is ultimately conditional upon the salvific role of Satan.

In the truest sense, Adventism teaches that God rewards Satan for his busy deviltry--the more people he can keep from becoming Christians the less suffering he will have to endure for their confessed sins.  The SDA view of the scapegoat is not publicly preached alot these days due to it obviously being outright heresy and even embarrassing.  However, at the same time, it is heavily defended by official Adventism and its devout members.  It is a doctrine reserved for those who are “settled in the truth.”

Dennis Fischer

Do I sense bitterness in your post, pastor?  I’ll apologize in advance because I like you pastor, however, I was disappointed in what you wrote.

Your comments are portrayed in an untrue, highly exaggerated light and expressed in a false way that suggests Adventists are unique in this view.  You forget that scholars of various denominations have held this view such as Lutheran, Presbyterian, Evangelical, Methodist and others.  Not to mention early Christians and Jews.

Further, I believe this interpretation best fits the historical evidence and typical service of the earthly sanctuary. 

Your focus, and others so far, have been on one issue, bearing sin, and ignore that Satan bears an equal responsibility through his temptations and deceptions.  Have you forgotten that he got us into this trouble?

You ignore the illogic of having two goats if they both represent the Lord and why one has a proper name for the Lord and the other has a proper name for what early Rabbinic writers considered the Devil!.  Consider Smith and Peloubrt’s “A Dictionary of the Bible.” “The best modern scholars agree that it designates the personal being to whom the goat was sent, probably Satan.” (Page 65) Also J. Russell Howden of the Church of England, “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.” I know there are other interpretations for Azazel including a place in the wilderness, but these don’t make sense to me in light of its parallel position with Jehovah.

You ignore that the goat was sent out never to return to the camp.  Not just the sin but the goat.

You ignore that Jesus priestly ministry didn’t begin until after he rose again and ascended to heaven where we have a Great High Priest.  How can Jesus, as High Priest, place the sins He is bearing on Himself and send Himself out into the wilderness before He begins His priestly ministry?

Instead you revert to the wild claim of Adventists belief in satan’s “meritoriously” “atoning” “salvific” role and then conclude with the standard charge of heresy and self embarrassment.  Thank you for shedding this new light…

It would be nice if someone here would consider all the evidence and context of what the symbolisms portray and offer information rather than reverting to such nasty criticism…

BrianL,
You assume that the sanctuary in verse 14 is the Heavenly? Then so must be the sanctuary in verse 13. Whether earthly or heavenly, then what began “trampling” it underfoot at the beginning of the 70 week prophecy in 483BC (or whatever the SDA date is)?

Lets look at the 70 weeks…

Daniel 9:24,
“Seventy weeks are determined
For your people and for your holy city,
To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the Most Holy.”

At the end of the 70 weeks, there was an anointing of the “Most Holy”.  Many non-Adventist scholars view this as a “new temple”, a “most holy place” the “establishment of a new holy of holies,” where God’s presence will be manifest.  The earthly sanctuary was anointed before services began (Exodus 30:26-28), Adventists believe that the heavenly was anointed as well, at the time Jesus ascended to heaven, prior to starting His heavenly ministrations.  Thus this time prophesy is clearly dealing with an heavenly sanctuary.

Bill - 13 May 2008 09:04 PM

BrianL,
You assume that the sanctuary in verse 14 is the Heavenly? Then so must be the sanctuary in verse 13. Whether earthly or heavenly, then what began “trampling” it underfoot at the beginning of the 70 week prophecy in 483BC (or whatever the SDA date is)?

Lets look at the 70 weeks…

Daniel 9:24,
“Seventy weeks are determined
For your people and for your holy city,
To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the Most Holy.”

At the end of the 70 weeks, there was an anointing of the “Most Holy”.  Many non-Adventist scholars view this as a “new temple”, a “most holy place” the “establishment of a new holy of holies,” where God’s presence will be manifest.  The earthly sanctuary was anointed before services began (Exodus 30:26-28), Adventists believe that the heavenly was anointed as well, at the time Jesus ascended to heaven, prior to starting His heavenly ministrations.  Thus this time prophesy is clearly dealing with an heavenly sanctuary.

Whether earthly or heavenly, then what began “trampling” it underfoot at the beginning of the 70 week prophecy in 483BC (or whatever the SDA date is)?

BrianL - 13 May 2008 09:41 PM

Whether earthly or heavenly, then what began “trampling” it underfoot at the beginning of the 70 week prophecy in 483BC (or whatever the SDA date is)?

Sure Brian, Anything or anyone that places themselves in the place or role of Christ, in the heavenly sanctuary, tramples on it.

Daniel 8:11-14
“He even exalted himself as high as the Prince of the host; and by him the daily sacrifices were taken away, and the place of His sanctuary was cast down.  Because of transgression, an army was given over to the horn to oppose the daily sacrifices; and he cast truth down to the ground. He did all this and prospered.  Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said to that certain one who was speaking, “How long will the vision be, concerning the daily sacrifices and the transgression of desolation, the giving of both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled underfoot?” And he said to me, “For two thousand three hundred days; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed.”

I find it notable that the little horn referred to in these passages grows out of a male goat.  Tell me Brian, why a goat?

Bill,

Thank you for your comments.  There is no “bitterness” in my post about the SDA view of the scapegoat.  My outrage, however, is focused upon the SDA view of the atonement.  To my knowledge, there no reputable scholar or church that has or does now believe about the scapegoat just like Seventh-day Adventists do.  Since when is Satan represented in Scripture as a perfect sacrifice without spot or blemish?  Having two similar birds or animals (one sacrificed and one set free alive) representing similar but different aspects is not ”illogical” as you indicated.  For example, in Scripture notice Lev. 14:4-7 for the rite of cleansing from leprosy by using two clean birds or turtledoves (one was sacrificed and one set free alive).

Putting the sins on the head of the goat (Lev. 16:21-22) is an act more than merely a symbolic gesture.  It was a picture of the ultimate “substitutionary atonement” fulfilled by the Lord Jesus Christ.  The scapegoat clearly represented the REMOVAL OF SIN from the camp of Israel.  Obviously, Satan cannot fill such a salvific role.  The scapegoat (literally Azazel or “escape goat") clearly pictured the substitutionary bearing and total removal of sin which would later be fully accomplished by Jesus Christ. Indeed, the scapegoat was all about sin-bearing.

Dennis Fischer

Bill - 14 May 2008 05:00 AM

Sure Brian, Anything or anyone that places themselves in the place or role of Christ, in the heavenly sanctuary, tramples on it.

Well then, who or what began “trampling” it underfoot at the beginning of the 70 week prophecy in 483BC (or whatever the SDA date is)?

Do I have to explain everything Brian???

The answer to your question should be clear in my previous posts.  The trampling pictured in Daniel 8:11-14 didn’t occur at the beginning of the 70 week prophecy in 457 BC.  The goat pictured in Daniel 8 refers to the Greek empire.  The single horn is Alexander and the four that came up, after, refer to his four generals.  The small horn that trampled the heavenly sanctuary followed that.  It should be obvious that this small horn was not in “483BC (or whatever the SDA date is)”.  Further, I told you that the 70 weeks ended with the anointing of the Most Holy which would have occurred before Jesus began His heavenly ministry.  The heavenly sanctuary cannot be trampled before it is in operation.

I’ll answer more of your questions, when you answer mine…

Dennis,
Since when is Satan represented in Scripture as a perfect sacrifice without spot or blemish?

He’s not. 

Since when did I represent the goat was a sacrifice?

Bill - 14 May 2008 07:03 AM

Do I have to explain everything Brian???

Possibly

Bill - 14 May 2008 07:03 AM

The answer to your question should be clear in my previous posts. 

If it was I wouldn’t have asked further. Sorry.

Bill - 14 May 2008 07:03 AM

The trampling pictured in Daniel 8:11-14 didn’t occur at the beginning of the 70 week prophecy in 457 BC.  The goat pictured in Daniel 8 refers to the Greek empire.  The single horn is Alexander and the four that came up, after, refer to his four generals.  The small horn that trampled the heavenly sanctuary followed that.  It should be obvious that this small horn was not in “483BC (or whatever the SDA date is)”.  Further, I told you that the 70 weeks ended with the anointing of the Most Holy which would have occurred before Jesus began His heavenly ministry.  The heavenly sanctuary cannot be trampled before it is in operation.

It sounds like your saying that the 2300 days did not start until Jesus began His heavenly ministry in the 1st century. How then does 1844 fit the picture?

Dan 8:13-14 HCSB Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to the speaker, ”How long will the events of this vision last--the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and of the host to be trampled?” (14) He said to me, “For 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be restored.”

Bill - 14 May 2008 07:03 AM

I’ll answer more of your questions, when you answer mine…

I have no idea why Alexander is represented by a male goat.