Anne said:

I’m not a dispensationalist. Nor am I antinomian. I am most certainly under law!

If you want to tuck me into a camp, tuck me into the camp of Believers, who are struggling to weed at all the error in their theology and want to focus on arriving at the most basic and essential truths in regards to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Who are open to correction and willing to make adjustments to their theology as they grow in truth and spiritually mature in Jesus Christ....

I think you and I both end up with the same basic conclusion, but we certainly arrive at it much differently.

At this point I’m not so sure how we differ.  Perhaps we are saying much the same thing in different ways.  In what ways do you think we differ in our approach?  My approach is to follow this Paul’s admonition to Timothy:

2 Tim 3:14-17
4 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NIV

My differences with the dispensationalist approach is that it seems to sequester portions of the scripture, which does simplity life but is not necessarily the best approach.  Since you are not a dispensationalist and use the entire Bible, how do we differ?

I maintain Jeremiah KNEW the term torah meant teachings. I agree Torah also means the 5 books of Moses. But my Hebrew dictionary interprets the word torah in the passage where Jeremiah predicts the New Covenant, as teachings, not as the 5 Books of Moses. I believe the Books of Moses became the Torah, because that is what torah means, teachings. But Jeremiah, said this law/torah, would not be like the one in the books of Moses, AKA the Old Covenant. So I don’t see it as abusing this passage to use the interpretation of teachings instead of the Books of Moses.

Ane, it seems fair to interpret Jeremiah’s statement in the broader sense.  I don’t believe the torah Jeremiah was talking about is limited to the books of Moses, but since the primary source for torah in Jeremiah’s day were the books of Moses, I don’t see how he could have excluded the books of Moses from his meaning either.

Let me give some examples of statements in the Hebrew scriptures:

Ps 1:1-3
Psalms 1

1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
KJV

When the Israelites read this psalm I have difficult envisioning that when they read this passage they excluded the books of Moses.

Ps 40:5-9
5 Many, O LORD my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts which are to us-ward: they cannot be reckoned up in order unto thee: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered.

6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,

8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.
9 I have preached righteousness in the great congregation: lo, I have not refrained my lips, O LORD, thou knowest.
KJV

Ps 94:12
12 Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O LORD, and teachest him out of thy law;
KJV

Ps 119:18
8 Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.
KJV

Ps 119:94-97
4 I am thine, save me; for I have sought thy precepts.

95 The wicked have waited for me to destroy me: but I will consider thy testimonies.

96 I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.

97 O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day.
KJV

Ps 119:160-165
160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

161 Princes have persecuted me without a cause: but my heart standeth in awe of thy word.

162 I rejoice at thy word, as one that findeth great spoil.

163 I hate and abhor lying: but thy law do I love.

164 Seven times a day do I praise thee because of thy righteous judgments.

165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.
KJV

Isa 8:19-20
19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?

20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
KJV

As you know, the Hebrew scriptures are full of this type of statement.  For me, it is difficult to avoid the impression that the Israelites who wrote these passages and who later read them even if they were using the word torah in the more general sense were not speaking at least partly if not primarily about the books of Moses.

I’m not saying you are doing that, but for me life would be much simpler if I could sequester the books of Moses from the rest of the Bible, but somehow they have to be included in the equatiion.  To say they are “obsolete” would be nice, but because of the many of verses like the ones I just quoted, I’m not prepared to take that step yet.

Posted anonymously by: Ane

New Mexico,

You said:

... life would be much simpler if I could sequester the books of Moses from the rest of the Bible, but somehow they have to be included in the equatiion. To say they are “obsolete” would be nice, but ... I’m not prepared to take that step yet.

I agree, the Books of Moses are NOT obsolete! They were fulfilled, but they are not obsolete.

I’m saying that the ENTIRE Old Covenant is obsolete. And that is not my opinion, that is a cold hard fact of Scripture I have to deal with. (See Hebrews 8 & 9)

Now it just so happens that the Old Covenant is FOUND in the Books of Moses. But again the Books of Moses are not obsolete, they are fulfilled. It is the Old Covenant that is obsolete.

So here are the cold hard FACTS I cannot ignore when I go to interpret Jeremiah’s prophecy of the New Covenant.

1. Israel KNEW the Old Covenant was specifically given to them, NOT to their ancestors. (See Deuteronomy 5:3—but please don’t use the Clear Word to check that text out as it radically and recklessly altered that text!)

In Jeremiah 31:31-34 Jeremiah specifically said:

2. A New Covenant was coming.

3. He said it would NOT be like the Old Covenant God had made with Israel.

4. He also said this New Covenant would be written on their hearts.

5. The writer of Hebrews brings New Covenant clarification to this whole equation. And he does not use the term torah, but rather nomos which means teachings. So now I have to figure out WHICH teachings were written in my heart. Israel, may or may not have understood which teachings Jeremiah was referring to ... but WE have that clarification, no matter how Israel would have understood it. There were many things that were left a mystery to Israel that we have the benefit of understanding much clearer than they.

6. The writer of Hebrews 8 & 9 repeats Jeremiah’s prophecy and then declared the ENTIRE Old Covenant as obsolete.

7. The ten Commandments are very much a part of the Old Covenant (See Deuteronomy 4:13; Deuteronomy 9:9-11; Deuteronomy 9:15). Of course there was more to the Old Covenant than the 10 commandments, but they were most definitely considered to be part of the Old Covenant.

So if the Old Covenant is obsolete, and the 10 Commandments were a part of that, and the New Covenant won’t be like the Old I personally have to deal with those facts ... and what does that mean to me spiritually. What is my moral compass now since the 10 Commandments were part of the obsolete Old Covenant?

Now I must look to the teachings of Christ and His Apostles under the New Covenant to see if they taught any aspect of the Old Covenant should carry over into the New Covenant and for what they taught that would make the New Covenant different.

When the Magna Carta became obsolete surely US citizens did not look to it to see what law they were still under. They studied the new law to figure out if anything from the Magna Carta carried over that they might still have to obey.

Hope that clarifies my position.

Going back to the Scapegoat issue...On another Christian forum, someone posted this link to talk about where and what the lake of fire is. This is a non-SDA source. While reading this, there was a part of the paper that talked about the Scapegoat quoting from the book of Enoch. I think it has some telling information that could support the idea that the scapegoat could be Satan. What I am posting is edited to take out extra information that is not relevant.

The Place of the Scapegoat
No one can adequately grasp the typical teaching about Gehenna, the abyss (bottomless pit), and the Lake of Fire, without realizing what the area is like in which the Scapegoat was taken. The geographical name of this region is: The Wilderness of Judaea. It is one of the most unique areas on earth. That wilderness is an utter desert of the worst kind and yet it was right next door to the region “of olive oil, and honey: a land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack any thing in it” (Deut. 8:8,9). The margin between “paradise” and “utter desolation” is often no more than one, two, or three miles. People who travel to the area are amazed at the abrupt contrast....."From the heart of the country [near Jerusalem] the wilderness of Judaea carries violence and desolation right down to the same desolation of the Dead Sea valley (p.211). There could hardly be an area more foreboding and awesomely stark on the surface of this earth.”

This is the very region where Christ battled Satan for forty days --and won! But this is also where Satan will be bound (the area of the Scapegoat) for 1000 years (Rev.20:1-3). There could be no harsher area for confinement. This is the region of the abyss (the bottomless pit) of the Book of Revelation.

...In a book written about 100 years before the birth of Christ and attributed to Enoch, we have more information about these matters as understood by Jewish people who lived back at that time. This Book of Enoch is not a canonical book of the Bible, but it is refereed to by Jude in verses 14 and 15 of his epistle. It does describe a great deal of information that is very compatible with teachings found in the Book of Revelation. The book gives much typical teaching about Gehenna, the abyss, and the Lake of Fire, as believed in many Jewish quarters in the time of Christ.

In this book the ancient Enoch was supposed to have seen in vision the manner in which God would judge evil angels and wicked men. In Enoch 54:1 he sees “a deep valley with burning fire.” This is the streambed of Gehenna as it leaves Jerusalem for its eastward trek to the Wilderness of Judaea and the Dead Sea. Once a person starts down the streambed from Jerusalem, he gets closer to the wilderness. He then comes in contact with the kings and the mighty [the angelic powers in confinement] mentioned in Isaiah 24:21,22. This is the place of the pit (or the abyss). It answers to the Beth Chaduda region where the Scapegoat (the Azazel) is cast into an abyss—down a steep and precipitous cliff.

The Book of Enoch says this is where “iron chains are placed on those who descend into its bosom”—the bosom of the abyss. This is the place (or places) where the evil angels are going to be temporarily confined. “These are being prepared for the hosts of Azazel, so that they may take them and cast them into the abyss [the bottomless pit] of complete condemnation” (Enoch 54:5). “And God will imprison those angels, who have shown unrighteousness in that burning valley [that is, the eastern parts of Gehenna, the Wady en-Nar) in the mountains of Israel.” This is the very place where the Scapegoat (the Azazel goat) was taken in the ritual of the Day of Atonement.

The Book of Enoch goes on to say that it is the same place where a “star had fallen from heaven...into the abyss: now that abyss [the bottomless pit] was narrow and deep, and horrible, and dark” (Enoch 88:1,2). The apostle John in the Book of Revelation spoke of the same place. “I saw a star fall from heaven into the earth: and to him was given the key to the bottomless pit [the abyss]. And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace” (Rev.9:1,2). The Book of Enoch also said the archangels of God will take hold of Azazel (the Scapegoat) with his angels “and cast them into the burning furnace” (Enoch 54:6).

As said before, the typical location of this abyss is where the Scapegoat was taken—a few miles east of Jerusalem down the Valley of Fire (the eastern extension of Gehenna).

Though one may disagree (as do I) to talk about the place of punishment being on this earth as this author does, the point I’m trying to make is that by doing so, he links the scapegoat geographically and biblically using the Book of Enoch written before the NT, to link the scapegoat to Satan by the meaning of Azazel.

Now I know that the book of Enoch is not a canonical book, but the point remains that this is not an SDA invention.

The whole article (which BTW, IS interesting though far off in my opinion) can be found here…

http://www.askelm.com/secrets/sec106.htm

Guibox, I’d be careful reading too much into this, since the author of the passage you quoted, Ernest L. Martin, teaches Universalism throughout the website.

For example, on the biography section, we find these statements:

“It was since that time [Mr. Sielaff] learned the truths of God regarding the Universal Reconciliation of all to God and the deification of man through the redemptive work of Christ Jesus.”

“Since the Holy Scriptures dogmatically teach the Universal Reconciliation of all humans throughout all periods of human history, [Mr. Martin] was an ardent advocate of this Scriptural truth. He hoped that all people on earth can experience their freedoms that they all have in Christ. All his writings attest to this fundamental truth that motivated his academic and religious endeavors and activities.”

Source here

There’s another section detailing the “gospel” of Universal Reconciliation beginning here, and also see this page.  Martin likes to quote the apostle Paul to support Universalism, but he apparently neglected to read 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10, which clearly speaks of punishment for those who “do not obey the gospel”.

By taking a Universalist position, Martin believes that hell is reserved only for Satan and the fallen angels.  The section on the scapegoat is part of his supporting evidence for this, although there is a passing reference to the “wicked human beings” who will also be in hell.  Frankly, I’m not sure what to make of this, since it contradicts the Universalist position.  Regardless, in giving such prominence to outright heresy, Martin’s credibility on other issues is seriously in question.

Greg

New Mexico wrote:

“As you know, the Hebrew scriptures are full of this type of statement. For me, it is difficult to avoid the impression that the Israelites who wrote these passages and who later read them even if they were using the word torah in the more general sense were not speaking at least partly if not primarily about the books of Moses.

I’m not saying you are doing that, but for me life would be much simpler if I could sequester the books of Moses from the rest of the Bible, but somehow they have to be included in the equatiion. To say they are “obsolete” would be nice, but because of the many of verses like the ones I just quoted, I’m not prepared to take that step yet.”
---------------------------------------------------------

I agree NM that all scripture is profitable for reproof, and correction. My position on New Covenant theology has also changed somewhat. I agree with you that we cannot separate the Decalogue, or the books of Moses, from the rest of the Bible. However, we are interpreting the books of Moses and the decalogue in light of the New Covenant, and what the book of Hebrews and the other epistles tell us.

There are binding moral laws all throughout the OT, that have never been abrogated. The moral precepts of the decalogue are always eternally binding. Even the Sabbath command is eternally binding except now it has a spiritual fulfillment in Christ, and our Sabbath rest is 24/7, and Christ in us thru the Holy Spirit enables us to keep the law of God. When Jeremiah said that the New Covenant would be writen on our hearts, he was talking about the ministry of the indwelling Spirit of God, who would change our hearts of stone, and give us a new heart to obey.

I agree with all the statements you posted from the Psalms regarding our delighting in the Law of God. The OT has ceremonial and moral laws mixed throughout the Torah, including the decalogue. The Jews themselves always believed the Sabbath was a ceremonial law meant exclusively for them. We can only understand the decalogue in light of the entire Bible. Really, the entire Bible contains the Law of God, of which the decalogue is an important part.

Stan

Don’t get me wrong, Greg. From what I read, I really didn’t put much stock on alot this guy said. I just notice that many formers seem to look at SDAs like they have two heads when trying to support the scapegoat being Satan, and usually inevitably play the ‘unique doctrine of EGW and the SDA church’ card to refute it.

My point is that there are others (including whoever thought he was Enoch way back when) that also have and can find the means to link the whole ‘scapegoat=Azazel=Satan’ together.

However, just because someone is a universalist, that doesn’t mean that they don’t have areas of doctrine that may be correct. For example L.Ray Smith is a universalist but his exegetical interpretation of Luke 16 is by far the most theological and culturally sound interpretation I’ve ever read on the subject.

Posted anonymously by: dwayne

guibox,

Is it so hard to accept that Jesus Christ is the One and Only sin bearer for God’s people? I noticed that you did not come up with even one Bible text to support your position. Just why is that?

Perhaps you would grace us with your answer to the following:

How many sin bearers does it take to remove the sins of sda?

Oh, and please don’t forget to quote Bible chapter and verse to corroborate your answer.

Posted anonymously by: Pastor Williams

Dear Faithful Ones:
I have given herein a quick response to those interested in the identity of the goat for Azazel. I decided that I feared putting you off any longer more than I feared embarrassing myself with a rushed response. Such responses usually yield me several typo’s and few things, because they are poorly written, or proof read, that end up not saying what I intended to say.

New Mexico, I am sorry it has taken me longer than I wanted to get to again on this. But I really have been busy of late. I will comment on one thing you bring up as I consider dwayne’s comments.

Deacon: I will have to take a better look at what you have written. I will do that as soon as I can. I do not have time to get to everyone on every facet of this discussion, but yours is very interesting and I think I owe some of your thoughts more attention.

Dwayne, thank you for your “7 Biblical reasons that the scapegoat represents Jesus Christ.” This provides us all with that which we need to address one another’s points. Again, I am afraid that I am going to not get around to reading and responding to all that has been written. In this string. But I will give responses to the 7 parallels you have enumerated.
1) Like Jesus Christ who offered himself, the scapegoat is a sin offering.  Lev 16:5
It is not entirely clear that we are to understand that both goats mentioned in Lev 16:5 were a offering for sin. The best we can say is that they together were a sin offering—This could be by one of them being the offering for sin. It could be as you think of it. Neither is sure. But this is sure 1)The Lord’s goat was a sin offering. 2) The goat for Azazel is never itself designated as a sin offering.
2) Like Jesus Christ who is holy and undefiled, as a sin offering, the scapegoat is without spot or blemish.  Lev 3,4
Nothing is specifically stated about this in Lev 16. This may of may not be of significance. My next comment will address itself to this (number 2) as well as number 3. Please note the emphasis on an undefiled versus defiled offering.
3) Like Jesus Christ who made atonement, the scapegoat is to make atonement Lev 16:10

New Mexico I am thinking of your comment:
“I’m still not sure how the death of a wicked person can make atonement for me or for my sins? You can atone for the wrong an individual does by punishing him for his own sins, but how can Satan atone for my sins?”

As you read the following, I hope you will see that you have touched on the answer in the heart of what you wrote. I do not think you have hit it on the head, but you have gotten close enough.

Atonement in the Bible is not always made by a righteous or spotless sacrifice. Note that please. At times an unrighteous, unholy, defiled sacrifice made atonement. Those who think atonement can only be made by the Holy spotless Christ have not looked far enough into this. I already invited you all to discover this for yourself. In any case, here it is:

Num 25:1 While Israel was staying in Shittim, the men began to indulge in sexual immorality with Moabite women, 2 who invited them to the sacrifices to their gods. The people ate and bowed down before these gods. 3 So Israel joined in worshiping the Baal of Peor. And the LORD’s anger burned against them. 4 The LORD said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of these people, kill them and expose them in broad daylight before the LORD, so that the LORD’s fierce anger may turn away from Israel.” ....6 Then an Israelite man brought to his family a Midianite woman right before the eyes of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel while they were weeping at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 7 When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand 8 and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear through both of them-- through the Israelite and into the woman’s body. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped .... 10 The LORD said to Moses, 11 “Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, has turned my anger away from the Israelites; for he was as zealous as I am for my honor among them, so that in my zeal I did not put an end to them. 12 Therefore tell him I am making my covenant of peace with him. 13 He and his descendants will have a covenant of a lasting priesthood, because he was zealous for the honor of his God and made atonement for the Israelites.” (NIV)
First let me point out that the word for atonement here is the same one used in Lev 16:10. But, who is this that made atonement? And what was the offering that made an atonement for the Israelites? Well, as is shown in the above, it is a man from the priesthood family of Israel that makes atonement (a type of Christ). What was the offering? It was an unrighteous, unholy, immoral, defiled sacrifice. This sacrifice, borrowing the words that Barnes applies to Azazel, was a type of “an evil personal being ... in opposition to Yahweh.”

Phinehas is a type of Jesus here as He completes His at-one-ment work by getting rid of sin. He finishes the work in the IJ by showing that while he will take the punishment for our sins, the blame for our sins rightly belongs with Satan. Barnes is a bit confusing on who he thinks Azazel is, but he does give this much affirmation in his commentary:

“Azazel is the pre-Mosaic name of an evil personal being placed in opposition to Yahweh .... By this exppressive outward sign the sins were sent back to the author of sin himself, “the entirely separate one, [=scapegoat / azazel]” who was banished from the realm of grace.”

No wonder then that atonement is pictured in Deut 32 in terms that seem so similar to those used in the book of Revelation to describe the destruction of the wicked.

Deut 32:40 I lift my hand to heaven and declare: As surely as I live forever, 41 when I sharpen my flashing sword and my hand grasps it in judgment, I will take vengeance on my adversaries and repay those who hate me. 42 I will make my arrows drunk with blood, while my sword devours flesh: the blood of the slain and the captives, the heads of the enemy leaders.” 43 Rejoice, O nations, with his people, for he will avenge the blood of his servants; he will take vengeance on his enemies and make atonement for his land and people. (NIV)

We, of course recognize Revelation’s parallel themes of vengeance (6:10), blood (14:20), sword (13:10;19:15,21) with Deut 32.

It is not to much to say that if this is the type of atonement is made by the wicked for their rebellion against God, Satan, who is the author and inciter of all rebellion against God, would also make such an atonement. This is the type of atonement that the goat for Azazel makes in the rituals of the day of atonement.
4) Like Jesus Christ who receives our confession of sins, the scapegoat receives confession of all the sins of God’s people.  Lev 16:21a
The passage says that the high priest “put” the confessed sins on the live goat. The word here is “nathan” and is never translated “receive(s, d, etc.). The live goat does not receive confessed sins he has them (as “nathan” is translated elsewhere) applied, ascribed, assigned, bestowed, committed to him. This is not the picture of reception here nor in the other places “nathan” is used int this chapter: Lev 16:8 where the lots is cast for the goats, in verse 13 where the incense is placed on the altar, or in verse 18 where the blood is applied to the horns of the altar.

That is a major problem for this attempt to connect Azazel with Christ, but that is not the most serious flaw. If we are to take this as you read it, the live goat bears away the sins of believers. But he bears only their sins. This according to your gospel was accomplished in AD 31 when Jesus died on the cross.

According to Gen 12:3 all peoples on earth would be blessed through Christ the promised Messiah and 1Jn 2:2 makes it crystal clear that Jesus by His death “is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” Evidently Jesus really meant it when He said that God so loved the world that He gave us His Son. Limiting the atonement to Israel would be a pretty sad theology, but limiting it to only the saved is still tragic. I am afraid the Reformed doctrine has major problems in how it limits, indeed it degrades God’s love. (By the way, I am bit confused by your comment in number 5 (below) where you seem to believe that Jesus died for all. Now, do you have a different idea that others in the forum about this?)
But this evidence from the testimony of Jesus also makes entirely impossible such limitations on God’s love. And, now to the point: It also makes impossible an application of either goat symbol in the day of atonement rituals to only the events of AD 31. According to the Bible Gospel, Jesus on the cross died for all mankind—every last one of them. Such is the true extent of God’s love for us all. But, in contrast to this, on the day of atonement the sacrifices were all limited to the saved. This means that something else is being prophecied in these rituals that is distinct from Calvary. And the only really satisfactory biblically based explanation of this is found in the vindication of the saints in the investigative judgment. In the investigative judgment / day of atonement the faithfulness of the saints caused them to rest in the work of the high priest while they spent their time being a bit hard on their own souls, i.e., being self critical (the basic idea of “‘anah.”). Meanwhile the high priest was cleansing (symbolically) the universe of all sin and sinners (I believe Azazel also included in the message intended by the Azazel symbolism a prophecy of the destruction of all sin).

Satan certainly does not make an atonement for our sins—like Christ did. That is a crazy idea that is thrown at SDA’s and is entirely bogus. It is bogus because that has never been the position of our Church. It might well be that the real problem is that the SDA pioneers read their Bibles more fully and understood the meaning of atonement better than their detractors. Now, New Mexico, the way Satan makes atonement, how is it? By dying for his own sins? I suppose so. But I think we also ought to remember that it is the whole Azazel ritual not something the live goat did that made it make atonement. Part of that we putting the sins of the saved on it. This is Christ putting on Satan the blame for sins he tempted us to commit. But there was also the fit man aspect of the ritual. The fit man is Christ who is the mighty angel who binds Satan for a thousand years. Then there is a reasonable assumption that the goat dies of natural causes in the wilderness. This is Christ bringing the Devil to his end, without human hand, in the lake of fire. This is why Phinehas was exalted to the high priesthood, because his zeal led him to make atonement as Christ would make atonement in his destruction of Satan.

This is a far more comprehensive understanding of the day of atonement than the popular view that most non-SDA commentators take. And it is perfectly in harmony with the message of the book of Revelation et al. That deals with things far beyond (in time) the events of the cross. Limiting the day of atonement to AD 31 is akin to limiting the Passover to the cross. They both certainly apply, but, as we certainly know with the Passover, their prophetic message reaches into time beyond the Second Coming, and deal with the conflict between God and the forces of evil right up to their destruction. The popular gospel seems to promote a very limited understanding of these things. All the focus is on AD 31 as if our redeemer were not still doing mighty and wonderful things for us today.
5) Like Jesus Christ who was led away as a sheep to the slaughter taking away the sins of the world, the scapegoat is led away out of the camp into the wilderness taking away all the sins of God’s people.  Lev 16:21b

The live goat is called the live goat because he was alive when the fit man left him out in the cut off place/ desert. Things that are slaughtered are not alive. Various (dead) sacrificial parts were taken outside as was the live goat, but only the live goat was alive after it got outside the camp. The law demands death not living to pay our debt. To be sure the live goat eventually died outside the camp. But, if we take the Bible alone we have to admit that God did not inspire Moses to instruct anyone to kill the goat for Azazel. And from that it seems that we can say that the goat was to die by no human hand—which is the way the little horn meets its doom (Dan 7) and the way the Devil meets his doom (Rev 20). See more on this below.

In this comment you say Christ took away the sins of the world. The next thought limits it to the sins of the believers. So which is it? That is why I say above that I am confused as to what you believe now. Anyway, the difference I am pointing out here in what you wrote is not to be critical of you, but to bring out once again, the point that there is too stark a contrast between the day of atonement and Calvary to say that the day of atonement is fulfilled entirely in Calvary.
6) Like Jesus Christ who bore all our iniquities, the scapegoat bears all the transgressions, iniquities and sins on himself Lev 16:22
It is not clear here if you mean that the scapegoat bears ours, or all sins. Other than that, I have to agree that Jesus bore all our iniquities. But, I really don’t understand why those who have rejected the IJ cannot accept the idea that Satan will also have to pay for the sins he tempted us to commit.
7) Like Jesus Christ who cleanses us from all unrighteousness and who made atonement for our sins, the scapegoat’s purpose was to cleanse God’s people from all their sins and to make atonement for their sins Lev 16:30,34
Well, this (number 7) is, at best, an incomplete picture of the day of atonement. The day of atonement was designed to cleanse the people AND the sanctuary (a clear representation of the command center of salvation—heaven (Heb 8 ). But number 7 is completely wrong when it maintains that the live goat cleansed anything. That is not stated anywhere in Lev 16 nor anywhere else in the Bible. In fact, the only goat that cleanses anything is the goat for the Lord. The other sacrifices that lost their lives on the day of atonement may be fairly said to have contributed to the atonement AND cleansing of our sins, but not Azazel’s goat. Their blood was applied to cleanse, but Azazel gave up no blood to cleanse. Therefore, if in any way the live goat made atonement or cleansed anything, it is not in the same sense as all the other animals that were types of Christ.

Posted anonymously by: Ane

Pastor Williams

In regards to this statement:

2) Like Jesus Christ who is holy and undefiled, as a sin offering, the scapegoat is without spot or blemish. Lev 3,4 Nothing is specifically stated about this in Lev 16.

I STRONGLY DISAGREE. This concept that both goats were without blemish is VERY much stated.

All goats in the sacrificial system had to be without blemish. In this case they had to cast lots to determine which goat would play which role. If one goat was without blemish and the other was blemished and the lot accidently fell on the blemished goat it would have been a huge act of disobedience to sacrifice that goat.

Also if both a blemished goat and and unblemished goat were used there would have be no need to cast lots.

Therefore we can safely conclude both goats were unblemished!

You seem to be going through some extremely long detailed lengths to go out of your way to make the scapegoat be Satan, when you can stay right in the passage of Leviticus 16 and find many reasons why it is not.

Ane

Posted anonymously by: Ane

Pastor Williams

Every picture or analogy breaks down when pushed to extremes!

Obviously the term atonement can mean different things. There is a religious connotation which refers to Christ. And then there is a more general connotation that means setting a wrong, right, asking forgiveness, paying the price etc. So in regards to Satan and all sinners ultimately paying a price for sin you could use the term atone rightly here.

But in the context of Leviticus 16 we need to determine WHO is doing the atoning and for what. The Day of Atonement Ritual was specifically about Christ paying the price. The focus of this day was on HIM and HIS role in the plan of redemption. This transaction of atonement was between God and Himself.

Have you ever called a Rabbi to see how Jews would have understood the scapegoat role?

Ane

ane said:

I’m saying that the ENTIRE Old Covenant is obsolete. And that is not my opinion, that is a cold hard fact of Scripture I have to deal with. (See Hebrews 8 & 9).....

Now I must look to the teachings of Christ and His Apostles under the New Covenant to see if they taught any aspect of the Old Covenant should carry over into the New Covenant and for what they taught that would make the New Covenant different.

When the Magna Carta became obsolete surely US citizens did not look to it to see what law they were still under. They studied the new law to figure out if anything from the Magna Carta carried over that they might still have to obey.

Hope that clarifies my position.

Ane, I’m not sure I understand your position yet.  Since there are over 200 Bible texts which discuss covenant, for me it is not quite that simple.  The entire weight of evidence from these many texts has to be considered.

Since you have used the analogy to English law, it is interesting to not that much of American law is bassed on English common law.  Although we live in the United States, it is my understanding that many of our court decisions are still based on English common law.  That is exactly how I view the laws of Moses.  Many of the principles upon which they were written are still the principles which govern modern Christian morality although many of the details were given to cover a specific culture at a specific time in history and no longer apply. 

I’m sorry to quote so many texts, but I don’t know how to give a flavor of how the Bible deals with God’s covenants otherwise.  I’ve tried to limit as much as possible.

Gen 17:3-8
3 Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 4 “As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. 5 No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8 The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.”
NIV

Gen 17:19-22
19 Then God said, “Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year.” 22 When he had finished speaking with Abraham, God went up from him.
NIV

Ex 31:16-17
16 The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. 17 It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.’”
NIV

Lev 26:40-46
40 “‘But if they will confess their sins and the sins of their fathers--their treachery against me and their hostility toward me, 41 which made me hostile toward them so that I sent them into the land of their enemies--then when their uncircumcised hearts are humbled and they pay for their sin, 42 I will remember my covenant with Jacob and my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land. 43 For the land will be deserted by them and will enjoy its sabbaths while it lies desolate without them. They will pay for their sins because they rejected my laws and abhorred my decrees. 44 Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them. I am the LORD their God. 45 But for their sake I will remember the covenant with their ancestors whom I brought out of Egypt in the sight of the nations to be their God. I am the LORD.’”
46 These are the decrees, the laws and the regulations that the LORD established on Mount Sinai between himself and the Israelites through Moses.
NIV

Deut 4:25-34
25 After you have had children and grandchildren and have lived in the land a long time--if you then become corrupt and make any kind of idol, doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God and provoking him to anger, 26 I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you this day that you will quickly perish from the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess. You will not live there long but will certainly be destroyed. 27 The LORD will scatter you among the peoples, and only a few of you will survive among the nations to which the LORD will drive you. 28 There you will worship man-made gods of wood and stone, which cannot see or hear or eat or smell. 29 But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul. 30 When you are in distress and all these things have happened to you, then in later days you will return to the LORD your God and obey him. 31 For the LORD your God is a merciful God; he will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your forefathers, which he confirmed to them by oath.
32 Ask now about the former days, long before your time, from the day God created man on the earth; ask from one end of the heavens to the other. Has anything so great as this ever happened, or has anything like it ever been heard of? 33 Has any other people heard the voice of God speaking out of fire, as you have, and lived? 34 Has any god ever tried to take for himself one nation out of another nation, by testings, by miraculous signs and wonders, by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, or by great and awesome deeds, like all the things the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your very eyes?
NIV

Deut 7:7-12
7 The LORD did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. 8 But it was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath he swore to your forefathers that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. 9 Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands. 10 But
those who hate him he will repay to their face by destruction;
he will not be slow to repay to their face those who hate him.
11 Therefore, take care to follow the commands, decrees and laws I give you today.
12 If you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them, then the LORD your God will keep his covenant of love with you, as he swore to your forefathers.NIV

Judg 2:1-3
2:1 The angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bokim and said, “I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land that I swore to give to your forefathers. I said, ‘I will never break my covenant with you, 2 and you shall not make a covenant with the people of this land, but you shall break down their altars.’ Yet you have disobeyed me. Why have you done this? 3 Now therefore I tell you that I will not drive them out before you; they will be [thorns] in your sides and their gods will be a snare to you.”
NIV

1 Chron 16:14-18
14 He is the LORD our God;
his judgments are in all the earth.
15 He remembers his covenant forever,
the word he commanded, for a thousand generations,
16 the covenant he made with Abraham,
the oath he swore to Isaac.
17 He confirmed it to Jacob as a decree,
to Israel as an everlasting covenant:
18 “To you I will give the land of Canaan
as the portion you will inherit.”
NIV

Ps 89:3-4
3 You said, “I have made a covenant with my chosen one,
I have sworn to David my servant,
4’I will establish your line forever
and make your throne firm through all generations.’”
NIV

Ps 89:28-37
28 I will maintain my love to him forever,
and my covenant with him will never fail.
29 I will establish his line forever,
his throne as long as the heavens endure.

30 “If his sons forsake my law
and do not follow my statutes,
31 if they violate my decrees
and fail to keep my commands,
32 I will punish their sin with the rod,
their iniquity with flogging;
33 but I will not take my love from him,
nor will I ever betray my faithfulness.
34 I will not violate my covenant
or alter what my lips have uttered.
35 Once for all, I have sworn by my holiness--
and I will not lie to David--
36 that his line will continue forever
and his throne endure before me like the sun;
37 it will be established forever like the moon,
the faithful witness in the sky.”
NIV

Ps 105:8-11
8 He remembers his covenant forever,
the word he commanded, for a thousand generations,
9 the covenant he made with Abraham,
the oath he swore to Isaac.
10 He confirmed it to Jacob as a decree,
to Israel as an everlasting covenant:
11 “To you I will give the land of Canaan
as the portion you will inherit.”
NIV

Ps 111:2-9
2 Great are the works of the LORD;
they are pondered by all who delight in them.
3 Glorious and majestic are his deeds,
and his righteousness endures forever.
4 He has caused his wonders to be remembered;
the LORD is gracious and compassionate.
5 He provides food for those who fear him;
he remembers his covenant forever.
6 He has shown his people the power of his works,
giving them the lands of other nations.
7 The works of his hands are faithful and just;
all his precepts are trustworthy.
8 They are steadfast for ever and ever,
done in faithfulness and uprightness.
9 He provided redemption for his people;
he ordained his covenant forever--
holy and awesome is his name.
NIV

Jer 11:1-11
11:1 This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: 2 “Listen to the terms of this covenant and tell them to the people of Judah and to those who live in Jerusalem. 3 Tell them that this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘Cursed is the man who does not obey the terms of this covenant-- 4 the terms I commanded your forefathers when I brought them out of Egypt, out of the iron-smelting furnace.’ I said, ‘Obey me and do everything I command you, and you will be my people, and I will be your God. 5 Then I will fulfill the oath I swore to your forefathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey’--the land you possess today.”
I answered, “Amen, LORD.”

Jer 31:30-34
30 Instead, everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes--his own teeth will be set on edge.

31 “The time is coming,” declares the LORD,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,”
declares the LORD.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the LORD.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”
NIV

Jer 33:19-26
19 The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: 20 “This is what the LORD says: ‘If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night no longer come at their appointed time, 21 then my covenant with David my servant--and my covenant with the Levites who are priests ministering before me--can be broken and David will no longer have a descendant to reign on his throne. 22 I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars of the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore.’”

23 The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: 24 “Have you not noticed that these people are saying, ‘The LORD has rejected the two kingdoms he chose’? So they despise my people and no longer regard them as a nation. 25 This is what the LORD says: ‘If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the fixed laws of heaven and earth, 26 then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them.’”
NIV

Ezek 16:59-63
59 “‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will deal with you as you deserve, because you have despised my oath by breaking the covenant. 60 Yet I will remember the covenant I made with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you. 61 Then you will remember your ways and be ashamed when you receive your sisters, both those who are older than you and those who are younger. I will give them to you as daughters, but not on the basis of my covenant with you. 62 So I will establish my covenant with you, and you will know that I am the LORD. 63 Then, when I make atonement for you for all you have done, you will remember and be ashamed and never again open your mouth because of your humiliation, declares the Sovereign LORD.’” NIV

Luke 1:67-79
67 His father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied:

68 “Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel,
because he has come and has redeemed his people.
69 He has raised up a horn of salvation for us
in the house of his servant David
70(as he said through his holy prophets of long ago),
71 salvation from our enemies
and from the hand of all who hate us-
72 to show mercy to our fathers
and to remember his holy covenant,
73 the oath he swore to our father Abraham:
74 to rescue us from the hand of our enemies,
and to enable us to serve him without fear
75 in holiness and righteousness before him all our days.
76 And you, my child, will be called a prophet of the Most High;
for you will go on before the Lord to prepare the way for him,
77 to give his people the knowledge of salvation
through the forgiveness of their sins, 78 because of the tender mercy of our God,
by which the rising sun will come to us from heaven
79 to shine on those living in darkness
and in the shadow of death,
to guide our feet into the path of peace.”
NIV

Acts 3:17-26
17 “Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. 18 But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer. 19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, 20 and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you-even Jesus. 21 He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. 22 For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you. 23 Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from among his people.’
24 “Indeed, all the prophets from Samuel on, as many as have spoken, have foretold these days. 25 And you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers. He said to Abraham, ‘Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.’ 26 When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.” NIV

Rom 11:25-30
25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27 And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”
28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. NIV

Rev 11:19
19 Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a great hailstorm.
NIV

Gal 3:15-18
15 Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.  17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
NIV

I didn’t include Hebrews since you have already refered to it and didn’t quote the terms of the New Covenant for the same reason. 

Here’s what I have gleaned from these verses. 
1.  God’s covenants are permanent and dependable.  Many of the covenants, all or most of which are found originally in the books of Moses are called everlasting, for 1,000 generations, conservatively measuring off a time of 15,000 to 20,000 years.
2.  The new covenants don’t abrogate the previous covenants.  For instance, the Siani covenant was given as a fulfillment of the promises to Abraham.
3.  Fulfilling a covenant doesn’t mean the covenant is obsolete or invalid.  Multiple covenants will be in effect at the same time and will often reinforce each other.  When God brought the nation of Israel out of Egypt, that didn’t invalidate the covenant made to Abraham that Israel would inherit the land of Caanan forever.
4.  Jesus’ ministry was a fulfilment of the covenant promises made to Israel in the Hebrew scriptures.  This didn’t mean the covenant promises were voided, rather it strengthened the covenant promises.
5.  Paul himself said that God’s gifts and God’s calling are irrevocable. 
6.  Furthermore, Paul, in making his point between the relationship between the law and grace in Galatians, reiterated again the Biblical principle that covenants are permantent.  He based his argument from the torah that because covenants are permanent, the law didn’t set aside the covenant previously established by God with Abraham.  If Jesus had made the torah obsolete, for Paul to argue his case from an obsolete book would be absure.  Rather, Paul is making the case that the gospel is in complete accord with the torah.
7.  Although this point is difficult to make from a few texts since it is fundamental to the entire New Testament, even a quick purusal of the New Testament shows that Jesus and the apostles almost always quoted the Hebrew scriptures, including the torah, to support their doctrinal positions.  They didn’t say, I’ve received a revelation and you are to believe it because I’ve said so, rather they backed their positions with scripture, the Hebrew scriptures.  Trying to use the Hebrew scriptures to establish that the Hebrew scriptures are obsolete makes about as much sense as sawing off the branch you are sitting on or climbing a ladder and then kicking it out from under yourself.  From my reading of the New Testament, I can not arrive at any other conclusion than that Jesus and His disciples considered the gospel a fulfillment of the promises in the Hebrew scriptures, completely compatible with Hebrew scriptures including the torah, which confirmed their validity.

The book of Hebrews, like all the New Testament books, follows the familar pattern and bases it’s arguments on the Hebrew scriptures.  Indeed, the passage to which you refered:

Heb 8:13
13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
NIV

follows immediately after an extensive verbatum quote from Heremiah 31 found in the Hebrew scriptures where Jeremiah gives the terms of the new covenant. The author here is basing the suthority for his argument on Jermiah’s authority as part of the Hebrew scriptures.  It this light, it would be worthwhile to investigate why the old covenant was deficient and in what way it was obsolete. 

Because this is becoming such a long post, I will break now, but I would be willing to pursue this discussion further in future posts if you are still interested in the subject.

Pastor Williams said:

It is not entirely clear that we are to understand that both goats mentioned in Lev 16:5 were a offering for sin. The best we can say is that they together were a sin offering—This could be by one of them being the offering for sin. It could be as you think of it. Neither is sure. But this is sure 1)The Lord’s goat was a sin offering. 2) The goat for Azazel is never itself designated as a sin offering.

I believe you are correct that the scapegoat is not separately called a sin offering, but I believe the majority opinion that Lev. 16 does indicate that both together formed one sin offering.  This is perhaps not beyond dispute, but fairly strong evidence none the less.

Pastor Williams said:

Phinehas is a type of Jesus here as He completes His at-one-ment work by getting rid of sin. He finishes the work in the IJ by showing that while he will take the punishment for our sins, the blame for our sins rightly belongs with Satan. Barnes is a bit confusing on who he thinks Azazel is, but he does give this much affirmation in his commentary:
“Azazel is the pre-Mosaic name of an evil personal being placed in opposition to Yahweh .... By this exppressive outward sign the sins were sent back to the author of sin himself, “the entirely separate one, [=scapegoat / azazel]” who was banished from the realm of grace.”

There is much here with which I can agree.  Although it is not proven, I tend agree that Azazel in I Enoch is probably as close to the early Israelite’s view on Azazel as we will ever get. 

However, none of this evidence addresses the issue I was raising.  How can the death of an evil person atone for my sins.  I agree that Satan shares responsibility for sin and he rightly will pay the penalty for his part of sins, but that doesn’t address the issue of how he can atone for my responsibility and my guilt.  So far as I can tell from the Bible, that role is limited to Jesus.

4) Like Jesus Christ who receives our confession of sins, the scapegoat receives confession of all the sins of God’s people. Lev 16:21a
The passage says that the high priest “put” the confessed sins on the live goat. The word here is “nathan” and is never translated “receive(s, d, etc.). The live goat does not receive confessed sins he has them (as “nathan” is translated elsewhere) applied, ascribed, assigned, bestowed, committed to him. This is not the picture of reception here nor in the other places “nathan” is used int this chapter: Lev 16:8 where the lots is cast for the goats, in verse 13 where the incense is placed on the altar, or in verse 18 where the blood is applied to the horns of the altar.

I’m afraid I don’t follow you here.  The scapegoat was sin free before the priest confessed the people’s sins over his head, and afterwards he bore their sins away with him.  I miss your point.

According to Gen 12:3 all peoples on earth would be blessed through Christ the promised Messiah and 1Jn 2:2 makes it crystal clear that Jesus by His death “is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” Evidently Jesus really meant it when He said that God so loved the world that He gave us His Son. Limiting the atonement to Israel would be a pretty sad theology, but limiting it to only the saved is still tragic. I am afraid the Reformed doctrine has major problems in how it limits, indeed it degrades God’s love. (By the way, I am bit confused by your comment in number 5 (below) where you seem to believe that Jesus died for all. Now, do you have a different idea that others in the forum about this?)…

I’m not sure how this argument works.  The sacrificial system was not a complete statement describing every aspect of the gospel.  That would push the metaphor too far.  It delt specifically with Israel’s sins, not with God’s universal sacrifice. 

....Now, New Mexico, the way Satan makes atonement, how is it? By dying for his own sins? I suppose so. But I think we also ought to remember that it is the whole Azazel ritual not something the live goat did that made it make atonement. Part of that we putting the sins of the saved on it. This is Christ putting on Satan the blame for sins he tempted us to commit....

Finally we have connected, you here have acknowledged my argument that Satan dies only for his own sins and therefore can not make atonement for me. What you appear to be saying is that the scapegoat, Satan, doesn’t make the atonement when it carries the sins with it, but the priest actually made the atonement when he confessed our sins on it and what happened to it afterwards was irrelevant to the atonement.  However, it is hard not to connect the two since that is the scapegoats only function, to carry away the people’s sins.  The question remains, how does confessing my sins over Satan’s head make atonement for by personal guilt?

Lev 16:10
10 But the goat chosen by lot as the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the LORD to be used for making atonement by sending it into the desert as a scapegoat.
NIV

On the other hand, your little dig leaves you wide open, since it is the perfect opportunity to quote one of those Adventist pioneers who had Mrs. White’s direct endorsement, ORL Crosier here is what you said:

Satan certainly does not make an atonement for our sins—like Christ did. That is a crazy idea that is thrown at SDA’s and is entirely bogus. It is bogus because that has never been the position of our Church. It might well be that the real problem is that the SDA pioneers read their Bibles more fully and understood the meaning of atonement better than their detractors…

In response, let’s see how Crosier phrased the future Adventist position”

Because it is said, “The goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited.” Leviticus 16:22; And John said, “Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh (margin, beareth) away the sin of the world,” it is concluded without further thought that the former was the type of the latter. But a little attention to the law will show that the sins were borne from the people by the priest, and from the priest by the goat. First, They are Imparted to the victim. Second, The priest bore them in its blood to the Sanctuary. Third, After cleansing them from it on the tenth day of the seventh month, he bore them to the scape-goat. And fourth, The goat finally bore them away beyond the camp of Israel to the wilderness. .

This was the legal process, and when fulfilled the author of sins will have received them back again, (but the ungodly will bear their own sins), and his head will have been bruised by the seed of the woman; the “strong man armed” will have been bound by a stronger than he, “and his house (the grave) spoiled of its goods (the saints).” Matthew 12:29; Leviticus 11:21, 22 see Leviticus 16:21, 22. The thousand yean imprisonment of Satan will have begun, and the saints will have entered upon their millennial reign with Christ.

The people confess their sins, they are transfered to the victim, the victim’s blood {the heavenly lubricant}then enables the sins to be transfered to the sanctuary, the priest then carried them to the scapegoat, and then the scapegoat then carried the sins away.  According to this scenario the atonement by the burnt offerings only moved the sins around but never actually got rid of them.  This nullifies the arguement that the scapegoat represents a universal forgiveness of sins since Crosier was very specific that “the ungodly will bear their own sins.” I don’t know how to avoid the conclusion that in Crosier’s doctrine which Mrs. White endorsed, Satan is a vicarious sin bearer but only for sins which have been confesssed. 

Pastor Williams, it appears you are arguing a different position that those Adventist pioneers taught. By altering your position relative to the pioneers, you are on stronger theological, ground since it lacks some of the most heretical positions the pioneers held, but that is beside the point.  If you acknowledge what you are doing, that is fair enough since all churches make mistakes and have the right to change, but it isn’t fair to accuse those of us who disagree with the pioneers positions of misrepresenting them.  If anyone is guilty of that, it would seem to be those church scholars who defend a position which is different than the pioneers under the assumption that if they can defend the new position they automatically exonerate the pioneers.

Pastor Williams said: 

The live goat is called the live goat because he was alive when the fit man left him out in the cut off place/ desert. Things that are slaughtered are not alive. Various (dead) sacrificial parts were taken outside as was the live goat, but only the live goat was alive after it got outside the camp. The law demands death not living to pay our debt. To be sure the live goat eventually died outside the camp. But, if we take the Bible alone we have to admit that God did not inspire Moses to instruct anyone to kill the goat for Azazel. And from that it seems that we can say that the goat was to die by no human hand—which is the way the little horn meets its doom (Dan 7) and the way the Devil meets his doom (Rev 20). See more on this below.

Of your various arguments, I find this one the most interesting.  Although the Jewish tradition states that the Jews would throw the scapegoat over a cliff, that fact is not included in the Bible, so as you say, from the scripture, the manner in which the scapegoat died is left undefined.  As you acknowledge, that the scapegoat did eventually die and that it was carrying the people’s sins when it died is undeniable.  But the manner of it’s death is undefined in scripture. 

Since you mentioned the pioneers, let me quote the founder of the Adventist sanctuary doctrine on this very topic.

… But again, they say the atonement was made and finished on Calvary, when the Lamb of God expired. So men have taught us, and,so the churches and world

19

believe; but it is none the more true or sacred on that account, if unsupported by Divine authority. Perhaps few or none who hold that opinion have ever tested the foundation on which it rests.

1. If the atonement was made on Calvary, by whom was it made? The making of the atonement is the work of a Priest? but who officiated on Calvary? -Roman soldiers and wicked Jews.

2. The slaying of the victim was not making the atonement: the sinner slew the victim, Leviticus 4:1-4, 13-15, etc., after that the Priest took the blood and made the atonement. Leviticus 4:5-12, 16-21.

3. Christ was the appointed High Priest to make the atonement, and He certainly could not have acted in that capacity till after His resurrection, and we have no record of His doing any thing on earth after His resurrection, which could be called the atonement.

4. The atonement was made in the Sanctuary, but Calvary was not such a place.

5. He could not, according to Hebrews 8:4, make the atonement while on earth. “If He were on earth, He should not be a Priest.” The Levitical was the earthly priesthood, the Divine, the heavenly.

6. Therefore, He did not begin the work of making the atonement, whatever the nature of that work may be, till after His ascension, when by His own blood He entered His heavenly Sanctuary for us.

According to ORL Crosier, no atonement occurred on the cross at all because Jesus didn’t die the way or in the place the burnt offerings died.  In other words, because none of the sacrifices died in the manner Jesus died, Jesus couldn’t have performed any part of the atonement on the cross at all. This argument impresses me as similar to your argument that the scapegoat couldn’t represent Christ because it’s cause of death is undefined in scripture.

although your argument makes more sense than that of the pioneers, even now there are difficulties.  In order to accept your argument we have to believe that:
1. An innocent victim, which was one of an identical pair, represents satan.  Perhaps if the animal had been a pig or some other unclean animal this would be easier to accept.  Perhaps if the goats had been handles differently, so that the one who had handled the scapegoat before the people’s sins had been confessed over it had been unclean and had had to wash his clothes, it would be stronger.  But that is not the case, apparently both goats were identical. 
2. Next we have to accept that the act of atonement was when the sins were confessed over the head of the victim, not when it was led away from the camp carrying the sins of the people.  I’m not sure if I understand this point, but I suppose the rational for this is the fact that at the cross, Satan’s character was completely unmasked which would be similar to confessing all the sins over Satan’s head.  However, that doesn’t fit sequentially with the Adventist sanctuary teaching since Satan has already been exposed, not sometime in the future.
3.  Third, as I understand it, we are asked to believe the scapegoat represented a universal atonement for the sins of the entire world but I can’t find anything in the ceremony to indicate that.
4.  Finally, we are asked to believe that if we find pastor William’s arguments convincing, that somehow exonerates the pioneers. 

Posted anonymously by: dwayne

[quote author="Mr Williams"]1) Like Jesus Christ who offered himself, the scapegoat is a sin offering. Lev 16:5
It is not entirely clear that we are to understand that both goats mentioned in Lev 16:5 were a offering for sin. The best we can say is that they together were a sin offering—This could be by one of them being the offering for sin. It could be as you think of it. Neither is sure. But this is sure 1)The Lord’s goat was a sin offering. 2) The goat for Azazel is never itself designated as a sin offering.

I will address only this first point for now as I am slowly but surely coming to realization that this is a spiritual battle that belongs to the Lord. My observation is that you enjoy thrashing about in the shadows, turning every which way, to the point of contradicting the authority of the Holy Scriptures.

It is abundantly clear that Lev 16:5 designates both goats as a sin offering.

Yet you say, “It is not entirely clear that we are to understand that both goats mentioned in Lev 16:5 were a offering for sin.”

Unbelievable!

Did anyone ever consider equating Rev. 20: 1-7; and Rev. 20: 10 with the goat for Azazel? Did anyone ever consider that one cannot make type “walk on all fours!”.

Finally did anyone consider that there is no salvation in the blood of Goats? 

Posted anonymously by: Pastor Williams

Dear dwayne:
I am sorry brother I am not trying to be frustrating. As it turns out though, when I looked at the commentaries it seems that they also take note of this question about whether one or both were the sin offering. But, I am truly sorry if I appear to be trying to wiggle out from under the facts. I am sharing my thoughts about things as they come into mind. Perhaps I should be more careful. Such is also the confession I make to Ane in the following.

Dear Ane:
OK I concede. If you asked me whether the two goats were without blemish when chosen for the day of atonement ritual I would tend to say they were without blemish. After all one of them is going to represent Christ. I think you have to take into account that I did say, “this may not be of significance.” Anyway, dwayne positively states that it was spotless and my point is that nothing is clearly stated about that IN LEV 16. Again this is a minor point and I concede that you are correct.

Ane, you write, “The focus of this day was on HIM and HIS role in the plan of redemption. This transaction of atonement was between God and Himself.”

But, on the day of atonement there was a definite and unusually strong emphasis on what believers were doing. They were to afflict their souls and do not work. This is the same as the focus on the believer on the day of the Lord’s supper where the focus is on Christ. Yet it is stated, “let a man examine himself ... For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” 1 Cor 11:28, 29 Those who refused to afflict their souls were to be expelled from Israel. Yes, the role of the high priest was the major emphasis, but to imply as you do that his “role” alone was the focus is not correct and therefore it certainly does not follow this proves anything about who the live goat represents.

As I have given Lev 16 more thought a couple of other matters have come to mind that further make it difficult for me to believe that the live goat is anything other than a representation of someone other than Jesus:

1. The live goat is sent into a land “not inhabited” The resurrected Lord goes to a place abundantly inhabited to prepare more habitations for us. Nor is Jesus banished like the live goat to a place where He will die, but is received into glory to live forever. This is more than the inability of a type to fully portray the antitype—they are contradictory and contrasting and in opposition against each other.

2. The goat is the only animal that has sins confessed over it on the day of atonement. In fact this part of the service is unusual in the over all system of sacrifices. I cannot find any other sacrifice where the worshiper placed their hands on the head of the sacrifice while confessing sin (my emphasis here is on the combination of the two). There are cases where the sinner confesses just before the priest kills the sacrifice. And there are many examples of placing ones hand or hands on the head of the sacrifice, but no other place where the ceremony is carried out the same way as in the Azazel ritual. Why? It makes the most sense to understand the Azazel ritual as typical of Satan being made to accept responsibility for leading the saints into sin. And as Hengstenberg thought, as a celebration of victory over him:

“Hengstenberg ... is of opinion that Azazel refers to Satan .... This design was, according to him, effected by the provision of two goats; for while, by the blood of the first, an atonement was made for sin, the second, symbolically loaded with the forgiven sins of the Israelites; was sent away in derisive triumph over the baffled accuser of mankind; and thus the evil being was seen to be altogether inferior in power to the good one. The truth of this view is, in Hengstenberg’s opinion, established by Zech. 3, which bears close resemblance to this passage, and forms an inspired commentary upon it.” (from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary)

Ane,
You ask if I have consulted a Rabbi. There are times when consulting the traditions of the Jews is interesting and even helpful. However, it is not authoritative. I think the only authoritative source is the Bible itself. So settling this on the basis of what the Jews did or thought is not an option for me. Again, I would and do use their opinions but keep them at the level of opinions; similar to what New Mexico does in his reference to 1Enoch.

Dear New Mexico:
The Azazel ritual is not a prophecy that Satan will make atonement for your sins.  He does not “atone for [your] responsibility and [your] guilt.” Later you return to this question writing, “The question remains, how does confessing my sins over Satan’s head make atonement for by personal guilt?”

Where is the confusion and why are you still wondering? I have never suggested that Satan makes atonement for your sins nor that WE confess our sins over him. I will deal with your question seriously, but it is hard to understand why you are locked into this strange idea. Is this a tactic or is this a real conceptual block you have going here? Ok, let me treat this seriously and put it this way: Prophetically speaking our High Priest makes atonement with Azazel-Satan in these senses: 1) Satan is judged and made to pay accept responsibility for the existence of rebellion and sin in God’s kingdom. 2) Satan is made to pay for his sins which includes tempting us to sin. 3) The death of Satan brings at-one-ment, complete reconciliation and peace to God’s kingdom.

On point number 4, dwayne says Jesus is like the scapegoat because it “recieves” our sins as Jesus did on the cross. My point is that Jesus did willingly receive our guilt and punishment, but the Hebrew does not support the idea that the goat does the same. It might not be too much to say that the picture is of the goat being forced to accept our sins. Think of the contrast between Jesus receiving our sins and Jesus in John 8 forcing the accusers to face up to their sins. That is the sort of contrast I see here. And to me that favors the idea that this is Satan; Satan “loaded with the forgiven sins of the Israelites; was sent away in derisive triumph over the baffled accuser of mankind (Hengstenberg).”

You write, “It delt (sic.) specifically with Israel’s sins, not with God’s universal sacrifice. ”

I do not understand this, or at least I cannot agree that the sanctuary services are only for the Jews.

Take another look at your quote from Crosier and please tell me where you see him maintaining the “the arguement that the scapegoat represents a universal forgiveness of sins”: Is it the first part of Crosier’s statement? Reread it with my comments and you should see that it is not supportive of your interpretation:

“Because it is said [By whom? Probably the popular commentators who see the live goat as a type of Christ. It is generally understood that this was the popular thinking of that time and of long before. In any case, it seems obvious that Crosier is arguing against popular ideas. See my following comments that explain this] , “The goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited.” Leviticus 16:22 And John said, “Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh (margin, beareth) away the sin of the world,” it is concluded without further thought [by others that] that the former was the type of the latter [In other words, they conclude without a lot of thought that “the live goat is a type of Christ”]. But a little attention [This shows at least that Crosier disagrees that the live goat represents Christ. It is safe to assume that Crosier would reject the notion that “ the scapegoat represents a universal forgiveness of sins” that includes the lost, and that he would, like most Christians, recoil at any suggestion that Satan provides us with forgiveness.]....”

Now as for Crosier’s sentament about the atonement and Calvary: I would depart from him on this point. However, I would be more gracious than others. I think in the heat of argument he went too far to make a valid point over which those to whom he addresses himself have stumbled. Namely, their contention that the atonement at Calvary makes impossible further atonement work accomplished by Jesus.

Next you wrote:
In order to accept your argument we have to believe that:

1. An innocent victim, which was one of an identical pair, represents satan. Perhaps if the animal had been a pig or some other unclean animal this would be easier to accept ....

Well as it turns out this is not as hard a pill to swallow as you think. You see both Christ and his enemy started out pure. One stayed that way. Our High Priest shows us in the day of atonement ritual that the other (Lucifer the covering cherub) is guilty of sin. This is Satan “loaded with the forgiven sins of the Israelites; ... sent away in derisive triumph over the baffled accuser of mankind (Hengstenberg).”

2. Next we have to accept that the act of atonement was when the sins were confessed over the head of the victim ...

Oops, who said this? See above for the ways in which atonement is made in the live goat ritual. Atonement is never made by confession.

3. Third, as I understand it, we are asked to believe the scapegoat represented a universal atonement for the sins of the entire world but I can’t find anything in the ceremony to indicate that.

But you also have not shown that you have found anyone who said the scapegoat represented a universal atonement. That was not Crosier’s point.

4. Finally, we are asked to believe that if we find pastor William’s arguments convincing, that somehow exonerates the pioneers.

I am not trying to exonerate the pioneers, never have, never will. That is not and will not be my motive or my goal. But so far, you have not shown anything serious enough to need exonerating. Think that the atonement was not at the cross is serious, but my word man!, we have moved on beyond that. No one ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever! taught me that in college, or seminary. If anyone still believes that too bad, but how can anyone think that they need “exoneration?” You consider it a sin to be wrong about this?

Posted anonymously by: dwayne

[quote author="Pastor Williams"]Dear dwayne:
I am sorry brother I am not trying to be frustrating. As it turns out though, when I looked at the commentaries it seems that they also take note of this question about whether one or both were the sin offering. But, I am truly sorry if I appear to be trying to wiggle out from under the facts. I am sharing my thoughts about things as they come into mind. Perhaps I should be more careful.

Apology accepted. It would also help if you could give a basic direct answer to the following:

Do you agree that the scapegoat is a sin offering? Yes or No