Question to our SDA friend

GE:
In other words, we are in the position of authority and power to render useless the work of God through Christ. How can you still say it is "His", "free", "gift"? You should say what your stance really means, that is OUR, HERCULEAN STRENGTH to lift ourselves by the shoestrings that saves us.

Any one cincerely desiring understanding of God's free grace, just try a few Calvinist proponents - and experience what it is to come to truth and rest for your soul. Don't waste your time and disappoint your hopes here with SDAs. They have not the faintest idea, and what I assert, they invariably shall prove themselves ... not later, but immediately.

 

Azazel is Satan. Not Jesus.

Simple justice demands that while Christ suffers for my guilt, Satan must also be punished as the instigator of sin.

That is why, on the Day of Atonement, two goats were necessary. One was "for the Lord" (Lev. 16:7) to provide the atonement through the shedding of his blood; the other was "for Azazel" (Lev. 16:8). These two were, in the text, placed in antithesis. One typified our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who was slain as our substitute and vicariously bore our sins, with all the guilt and punishment entailed. Thus He made complete atonement for our sins. The other goat, we believe, stood for Satan, who is eventually to have rolled back upon his own head, not only his own sins, but the responsibility for all the sins he has caused others to commit.

Now two vital points involved are to be particularly noted: (1) that the transaction with the live goat (or Azazel) took place after the atonement for the sins of the people had been accomplished, and the reconciliation completed; and (2) that the live goat was not slain, and did not provide any propitiation or make any vicarious atonement. And without the shedding of blood there is no remission (Heb. 9:22). None of the blood of the live goat was shed, or poured out in propitiation, and none was taken into the sanctuary and sprinkled before the Lord, or placed on the horns of the altar.

Satan makes no atonement for our sins. But Satan will ultimately have to bear the retributive punishment for his responsibility in the sins of all men, both righteous and wicked.

 

CT:
"Azazel is Satan. Not Jesus."

GE:
Moses:
"And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD's lot fell, and (sacrifice) him for a sin offering. But the goat on which the lot fell to be the goat that escapes, shall be PRESENTED (OFFERED) ALIVE BEFORE THE LORD TO MAKE AN ATONEMENT WITH HIM, and to let him go (FREE) for an escape-goat into the wilderness."

Now, if satan is the scapegoat, satan "shall be PRESENTED (OFFERED) ALIVE BEFORE THE LORD TO MAKE AN ATONEMENT WITH HIM, and (be) let him go (FREE)".
Then satan is Jesus ... too blasphemous to comtemplate! Away with you and your devilish doctrines!

 

The identification of the scapegoat also involved the meaning of the word "Azazel" (ibid., pp. 234–237). On this point many non-Adventist scholars, such as Jenks, Spencer, Charles Beecher, and Matthew Henry, were quoted extensively. It was pointed out that both the Hebrews and the early Christians considered Azazel as the name of the devil, or a demon, and that the Syriac Azzail paralleled this usage. It was pointed out, further, that the use of the preposition "for," in the Hebrew of Lev. 16:8, implies that the lots were cast for a person—one for YHWH and one for Azazel. This would rule out Azazels being an impersonal name for evil. Also, it was pointed out that the Targums treated Azazel as a proper name, and that the Septuagint rendered it by apopompaios, a Greek word applied to a malign deity. This was also the position of the early Church Fathers. Origen said, "He who is called in the Septuagint apopompaios, and in the Hebrew Azazel, is no other than the devil."

In the Review and Herald for July 3, 1883 (60:424), Uriah Smith develops the subject at considerable length, listing reasons for considering Azazel as Satan: "The scape-goat having once been selected, it never after performed any office involving dignity or honour, or calling for any thing which would symbolise perfection of life or character. . . . The atonement is all made, sins are remitted, the records of the evil deeds of God’s people are blotted out, and they are forever freed from them, and these sins are all borne from the sanctuary, before ever Satan is called into requisition at all. God then simply uses him as the vehicle by which to make a final disposition of these sins in the lake of fire. Thus, so far as the work of atonement itself is concerned, the plan and work of mercy by which God’s people are forgiven their sins, Satan has no part to act."

 

If I'm correct, this "appearance before the Lord to make atonement" is simply having the sins placed on his head. This is not the same kind of "atonement" that Christ makes, because this goat does not die like the other one.

 

I see -- so offer GE a million dollars and GE rounds around saying "HEY look what I EARNED by my herculean strength as I lifted my fingers to accept the gift of cash"...

I doubt anyone on the planet would take your "herculean strength" story seriously.

in Christ,


Bob

 

Exellent point since the scapegoat is not sacrificed at all - so it CAN NOT be a "subtitutionary sacrifice" NOR can it be "an atoning sacrifice".

It is NEITHER a sacrifice NOR a sin offering according to the chapter - thus it serves no purpose for OTHERs -- it can only incur debt without paying for anything on behalf of anyone. Christ and the Lord's goat show the final disposition of the sin of the righteous - the scapegoat and Satan show the final disposition for the sin of the wicked which they themselves pay -- their own debt for their own sin that they must pay without it benefitting anyone else as though their payment were "a substitutionary atoning sacrifice". A point that seems to get lost on Shiloh each time it is posted.

in this case it is the symbol of Satan receiving his own debt OWED for tempting the saints.

in Christ,

Bob

 

great way to explain that... I like it... I hadnt thought about the part concerning the wicked, only the part about Satan...

 

GE:
O no, my friend, but he who curses another might be accurse himself, for Paul says what you accuse another of you stand guilty of yourselves. Don't judge, says Paul in Romans 14, quote: " For we all shall stand before the judgement seat of God".
I knew a few SDA's who shall stand before that God in Jesus Christ the day He comes ... they were my parents, and my brothers and sister - if ever there were Christians upon this earth they were . . . God be my witness!

But judged and found wanting the doctrine of their Church, for certain!

 

Claudia T:
"The identification of the scapegoat also involved the meaning of the word "Azazel" (ibid., pp. 234–237). On this point many non-Adventist scholars, such as Jenks, Spencer, Charles Beecher, and Matthew Henry, were quoted extensively. It was pointed out that both the Hebrews and the early Christians considered Azazel as the name of the devil, or a demon, and that the Syriac Azzail paralleled this usage. It was pointed out, further, that the use of the preposition "for," in the Hebrew of Lev. 16:8, implies that the lots were cast for a person—one for YHWH and one for Azazel. This would rule out Azazels being an impersonal name for evil. Also, it was pointed out that the Targums treated Azazel as a proper name, and that the Septuagint rendered it by apopompaios, a Greek word applied to a malign deity. This was also the position of the early Church Fathers. Origen said, "He who is called in the Septuagint apopompaios, and in the Hebrew Azazel, is no other than the devil."

GE:
Thanks for this useful information -- it describes well where all the confusion arose re the "goat for to go free".

Notice first the various scholars' use of extgra-biblical comparisons to get at its meaning, in stead of letting the context explain itself in the light of Christ to come.
Then notice how the make use of proof by assertion and supposition merely, Quote, "It was pointed out that both the Hebrews and the early Christians considered Azazel as the name of the devil, or a demon, and that the Syriac Azzail paralleled this usage." Because in Syriac, therefore also in Hebrew - without taking into consideration the words are not the same - therefore "early Christians"! It's ridiculous!

Thirdly it is resorted to the Jews through the LXX to tell Christians what the meaning is -- even though the LXX deserves great respect for its accuracy, it's not the original. In the end it must be Jesus Christ Himself who will explain the true meaning.

Lastly look at "the early Christian fathers ..." but ONLY Origin can be quoted - Of all people, Origin, whom I consider was the forerunner in all false doctrine in Christianity.

To quote you, this is one's conclusion: "This would rule out Azazels being an impersonal name for evil." "The-goat-for-to-go-free" was a type of Christ - and therefore would not mean "evil".

 

Lev 17 also uses the symbol of a goat -- for those who suppose it can not be used to represent demons.

But the point remains - the scapegoat is not sacrificed. It is not the "sin offering" and therefore can not be a "substitutionary atoning sacrifice". It's blood "covers nothing" and Heb 9 states "Without the shedding of blood there is NO forgiveness of sins". It never receives the blood of the Lord's goat so it is also "forgiven of nothing".

no amount of rationalizing can change that fact in Lev 16.

The other point that remains is that the High Priest's role in Lev 16 is needed in the PROCESS of the Day of Atonement and the High Priestly role of Christ is SEEN to start in Heb 8-10 AFTER the Cross.

no amount of rationalizing can change that fact of scripture.

The BEST one might hope for is what DHK has tried which is to toss out the OT text as being "useful for doctrine" no matter what 2Tim 3:15-17 says to the contrary.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob Ryan:
"Lev 17 also uses the symbol of a goat -- for those who suppose it can not be used to represent demons."

GE:
That goat isn't the "live goat" of chapter 16.
Besides, a goat represents Christ in chapter 16, in fact two goats.

'Fact remains', dear Bob, despite the fact it's not sacrificed, that it says the priest ATONES WITH the live goat, and to atone with anything, that thing must be PRESENTED BEFORE THE LORD. That is what you will not, see, because admitting that, would require that you admit your church doctrine is faulty ... under the stamp of 'the gift of prophecy'.

 

BR:
"It is not the "sin offering" and therefore can not be a "substitutionary atoning sacrifice".

GE:
It is no condition an "offering" is a "sin offering" to "be a "substitutionary atoning SACRIFICE". You don't distinguish between 'sacrifice' and 'offering'.
An offering does not need to be a sacrifice in order to be a "sin offering".
And an offering need not be substitutionary in order to 'symbolise' Christ.

 

BR:
"no amount of rationalizing can change that fact in Lev 16."

GE:
No amount of rationlising can make your assertion, fact. You haven't found anything at all like what you call "fact", 'in Lev 16'! You just allege 'a goat', "represents satan" in Lv17, so it must represent satan in Lv16 as well.

Then you conveniently keep silent about the GREAT and MANY examples given you through other threads. Here is a fact in fact, right here in the case of the 'live goat', of an offering for sin and for the atonement of sin which is not a sacrifice.

 

I, for one, am sick of all the "let's bash the SDA" threads.

As far as I can tell, none of the SDA's on this board think I'm going to Hell for my theology, and I dont think a one of them is going to Hell for theirs.

 

GE:
It's not only to die - not only the blood - that atones; it is LIFE actually that atones - "the LIFE (that) is in the blood". Now because no creature has everlasting, redeemed LIFE in its blood, it required TWO goats to typify Christ who was Priest (sacrificed and offered) according to the Law of Indestructable LIFE". Jesus is the only Sacrifice whose LIFE is in His blood - whose DEATH means LIFE; whose LIFE and blood cannot be separated. 'This goat does not die like the other one' because they were mere mortal figures of Him who was the Lamb of God.

 

CT:
"Simple justice demands that while Christ suffers for my guilt, Satan must also be punished as the instigator of sin."

GE:
Simply your opinion ... that while Christ suffers for my guilt, the Scapegoat must indicate the devil, is what you really mean to say, isn't it? It's quite a different thing though!

 

BR:
"the scapegoat is not sacrificed at all - so it CAN NOT be a "subtitutionary sacrifice" NOR can it be "an atoning sacrifice"."

GE:
Who ever said the scapegoat was a sacrifice? We can all read. What you pretend never to notice, is that it does not always require blood to be shed in order to atone for sin, but ever, life to be presented before the LORD.