| Author | Message | ||
| Jrt Registered user Username: Jrt Post Number: 51 Registered: 10-2008 |
Question: I've been studying BSF material and this week it is on the Day of Atonement. Isn't there something in Adventism/EGW that says the scapegoat represented Satan? And then how the "heck" do we/SDA come up with Jesus entering into the Most Holy Place in 1844 when Hebrews clearly states in 9:26 (I think that is where it is) that Jesus did already enter the Most Holy Place . . . Am I wrong in saying that understanding clearly what happened on the Day of Atonement blows Adventism out of the water . . . But again . . . doesn't EGW say something about the scapegoat? JRT | ||
| Daisie_girl Registered user Username: Daisie_girl Post Number: 98 Registered: 9-2008 |
I'm in BSF too!! And I'm loving Leviticus!! Sorry, no answer to your question, but I had to post my rejoicing to a fellow BSF person!  | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 143 Registered: 8-2008 |
Yes. SDAs teach the scapegoat is Satan. In Lev. 16 the scapegoat is either for, or named, Azazel in Hebrew. The term "scapegoat" is a modern English phrase because the meaning and origin of the word "azazel" is uncertain. Tyndale translated it as "ez ozel," which would mean scapegoat, but I don't think modern scholars share this interpretation. Some ancient Rabbis, as well as the pseudoepigraphal book of Enoch, consider Azazel a personification of evil, possibly a demon or a leader of evil giants. Jude quotes from the book of Enoch, but that doesn't mean he endorses everything in the book of Enoch*, just as Paul would quote from Greek poetry and philosophy while obviously disagreeing with its conclusions. One interpretation, which doesn't rely on Sola Scriptura, but instead on Jewish mythology constructed after Lev. 16 was written, says that Azazel represented a desert demon. The goat was given to him as a bribe. If one holds to the ransom theory of atonement, then it is still possible that this represents Jesus. I have problems with this because of its reliance on non-Biblical writings constructed centuries after the Law was given. I believe the Jewish historical belief regarding Azazel was constructed from a twisting of Lev. 16, not from a previous understanding of who/what "azazel" meant. Thus, it was added after the fact. In other words, because the scapegoat is contrasted with the "one.. for the Lord" (v 8), Jews prescribed it as some sort of personification of evil or a gift to a demon or something like that. As always, we must use the NT to explain the OT: The scapegoat was indeed a personification of evil, insomuch as it bore the evil of the congregation. Paul says Jesus became sin for us (2. Cor 5:21). He bore the sin of the world. Thus, evil was placed upon Him in the sense of the atonement of the cross. The scapegoat was taken outside the camp. Speaking of Jesus's death outside of Jerusalem, Hebrews says, "Therefore let us go forth to Him, outside the camp, bearing His reproach" (Heb. 13:13). The scapegoat was a thing that would have been seen as unclean, because it was taken outside the camp. It was a thing that one would reproach, if I may use the term. Further, one etymology of Azazel likens it to a strong mountain or cliff. It is possible, in my view, that it was a foreshadowing of calvary. So I believe the scapegoat certainly represented Jesus: It represented how He was to bear our sins outside the camp, to die outside of Jerusalem. The scapegoat represented the forsakenness of Christ on the cross, the reproach He bore that was due us. The goat for the Lord represented His ascension and presentation of His blood to the Father, spoken of in Heb. 9. *On this point, the prophecy from Enoch that Jude quoted from I believe--but I cannot prove--was a prophecy handed down orally in Jewish history, which was later inserted into the book of Enoch, so I am not a believer that somehow the book of Enoch is inspired by association. Sources: Wikipedia, some other junk I read once. | ||
| Jonvil Registered user Username: Jonvil Post Number: 277 Registered: 4-2007 |
It was seen, also, that while the sin offering pointed to Christ as a sacrifice, and the high priest represented Christ as a mediator, the scapegoat typified Satan, the author of sin, upon whom the sins of the truly penitent will finally by placed. The Great Controversy, p. 422. As the priest, in removing the sins from the sanctuary, confessed them upon the head of the scapegoat, so Christ will place all these sins upon Satan, the originator and instigator of sin. The Great Controversy, p. 485. | ||
| Jrt Registered user Username: Jrt Post Number: 52 Registered: 10-2008 |
Thanks . . . Jonvil and Bskillet and fellow BSFer . . . I actually did a search and found the GC quotes too . . . I was just using my Bible and it was interesting that the cross-references sent me to Hebrews and also to Dan. 9 . . . Hebrews seems to indicate that the scapegoat also represented Jesus . . . and then the Dan. 9:26 verse was the "Annointed One will be cut off" which as I understand it now most likely refers to Jesus ministry was "cut-short" by calvary . . . Anyways, scripturally it looks like to me the scapegoat refers to Jesus . . . JRT | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 145 Registered: 8-2008 |
Dan 9:26 says the anointed one will be cut off, "though not for himself," IIRC. Jesus did not die for Himself, but for us. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9330 Registered: 12-2003  |
True story, Jrt! I remember around 1994 when I read Leviticus 16 and realized with a nearly visceral jolt that the scapegoat HAD to be Jesus, not Satan, as I had been taught. No one but Jesus could bear our sins; no one but Jesus took them out of the "camp" and into the wilderness, far away from His people. Not only that, but the scapegoat and the atonement sacrifice both had to be perfect lambs or kids, and they were chosen for their roles by drawing lots. The implications of the lot-drawing was what really clarified the doctrine for me. Satan and Jesus do not start out "interchangeable". They are not both perfect specimens, either of which could have played either role. The Mormons teach that Jesus and Lucifer were once brothers, but Lucifer went bad, and God honored Jesus. Ellen, for that matter, writes that Satan was angry because God chose to exalt Jesus and not him. God didn't "choose to exalt" Jesus; He is eternally God. Jesus and Satan were not similar in the "beginning"; Satan is created, Jesus is not. I even remember telling Richard what I had just read that day the words of Leviticus came alive and changed my perspective, and I remember how off-guard it caught him, and he actually disagreed with me! (but not for long--he just had to study it himself and make the connections...!) All this happened as we were just beginning our odyssey of study that led us out of SDA darkness straight to—JESUS! Yes, the whole SDA sanctuary and scapegoat doctrine totally blows Adventism out of the water. It has absolutely no biblical or theological leg on which to stand. Whey don't they change? Angel Rodriguez said it best at a "workers conference" in the NPUC in 1998 (I think it was). He said, without the 1844/sanctuary doctrine, the Adventist church has no reason to exist. This is the only completely unique doctrine they have, the only thing that gives them a unique identity. It—and by extension EGW—stays. Colleen | ||
| 8thday Registered user Username: 8thday Post Number: 648 Registered: 11-2007  |
Yes, Hebrews does seem to make the whole atonement thing pretty simple - all at once, at one time, a long time ago. Set us free indeed from the IJ forever!! It's SOOOOO plain!!! It boggles the mind - how blind we can be. Sondra | ||
| Darrell Registered user Username: Darrell Post Number: 120 Registered: 10-1999 |
Compare these verses from Leviticus 16 and Hebrews 13: Leviticus 16: 26 "The man who releases the goat as a scapegoat must wash his clothes and bathe himself with water; afterward he may come into the camp. 27 The bull and the goat for the sin offerings, whose blood was brought into the Most Holy Place to make atonement, must be taken outside the camp; their hides, flesh and offal are to be burned up. 28 The man who burns them must wash his clothes and bathe himself with water; afterward he may come into the camp." Hebrews 13: 11 "The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. 12And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. 13Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. 14For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come." Notice that Hebrews is referring to the Bull and the "Lord's Goat" when talking about the animals burned outside the camp. But it may be possible that it references the "azazel" also when it says "Let us then go to Him outside the camp". I find it interesting that in the cases of both goats, the men that take them outside the camp, whether to release or burn, must wash themselves before returning. This too, supports the idea that both represent Jesus. The scapegoat as Satan belief does not fit, and at best seems contrived. |
