Views on the Scapegoat: A Litmus Test of True
Adventism
by
Kevin
Straub
By K. Straub, First Draft, Feb. 10, 2012
“And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one
lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat.” Lev. 16:8
“scapegoat” = Strong’s H5799
עזאזל
‛ăzâ'zêl
az-aw-zale'
From H5795 and H235; goat of
departure; the scapegoat: - scapegoat.
“…learned men think it was the name of the devil,
who was worshipped by the heathen in the form of a goat.” Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge
Who objects?
·
The Catholic
Church (according to Douay Rheims Bible parallel Haydock
Commentary)
·
D. M. Canright (Leading SdA defector)
·
Louis R. Conradi (Leading SdA defector)
·
W. W.
Fletcher (Leading SdA defector)
·
Albion
Ballenger (Leading SdA defector)
·
Walter Martin
(1st-day Evangelical leader, writer of Kingdom of the Cults)
·
Donald
Barnhouse (1st-day Evangelical leader, founder of Eternity magazine and radio pioneer)
·
Anthony Hoekema (1st-day expositor of Adventism as cult)
·
Dale Ratzlaff (Leading SdA defector)
·
Desmond Ford,
(Leading SdA defector)
·
Robert D.
Brinsmead (later career, Leading SdA defector)
·
Walter Rea
(Leading SdA defector)
·
Dirk Anderson
(Leading SdA defector) etc.
Woe unto them that call evil good,
and good evil;
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Isaiah 5:20
As indicated by the title, we are examining the
ramifications of the teaching that the “goat of departure,” or “Azazel” refers to Christ. It has come to my attention that
some teachers in the Seventh-day Adventist denomination set forth this thought
as advanced understanding for God’s people and it is my most solemn conviction
that it does not belong there. There are far-reaching implications in reversing
polarity from Satan to Christ in our application of the typology, as one would
expect in any teaching that would switch one for the other. We have to get this right. Did our
pioneers, including Ellen White get it all wrong? This is serious.
This teaching
comes out of the camps of the Catholics, the Evangelicals, and a lineup of
major defectors of Seventh-day Adventism, with particular reference being made
in this paper to the offshoot group of former Adventists and the Evangelicals,
both of whose views have found a solid footing in the SdA
denomination.
The mainstream “Protestant” Evangelical world is
comprised of those churches that refused
the preaching of the first angel’s message at the time of the Great Advent
Awakening in the first half of the nineteenth century, calling down on
themselves the message of the second angel, “Babylon is fallen.” Furthermore,
the third angel followed, bringing in the warning against receiving the mark of
the beast, which has directly to do with the Sabbath of the fourth commandment,
also which is central to Adventist theology, eschatology and soteriology.
The integrity of Seventh-day Adventist Biblical system of truth
Theological positions, like most forms of logical
construction, have a troubling tendency to be interconnected. It is seldom as
easy to alter any one position as it first may appear, for to do so will
usually demand a revision of some aspect of another position, which revises
another, and another, and another. As a result, what may initially seem to be
only a minor adjustment can easily lead to a complete alteration of a large
range of related concepts. (Dave
Fiedler, Hindsight: Seventh-day Adventist
History in Essays and Extracts, p. 23).
This is the case which obtains in this discussion,
as the definition of the typology of the scapegoat, which is no “minor
adjustment,” carries with it serious ramifications in the entire body of
Adventist thought and calls into question the validity of the studies of the
founders as well as the process by which our doctrines were formulated, i.e.,
the “testimonies of the Spirit.”
The blow that is struck against Adventism in this
teaching is systemic. It is also against the Sabbath, when taken all the way to
its conclusion. In the final crisis, this will be directly manifest to all.
Historically, the rejection of the Sabbath has often been the result
demonstrated in those who defect from the sanctuary teaching with all of its
typological understandings that came to light around the period of time in 1844
with its ending of the 2300 day prophecy.
Let the reader contemplate the implications of the
centrality of the Sabbath in the law as engraved by the finger of God upon the
tablets of stone. On each side of the statement “the seventh day is the
Sabbath” there are 146 words. The law was in the center of the ark. The ark was
in the center of the Most Holy Place, the heart/throne room of God in the
earthly sanctuary. The sanctuary was in the center of the priestly tribe. The
priestly tribe was in the center of the camp of Israel and Israel was placed in
the center of the nations of the civilized world. (See Taylor
G. Bunch, Exodus and Advent Movements in
Type and Antitype, pp. 22-23.)
It is because of the light that came in 1844, with
the attention brought to the ark in the Most Holy Place, that Joseph Bates
wrote Second Advent Waymarks
and High Heaps in order to convince Millerite
friends of the truth of the seventh-day Sabbath. In this book, Bates laid down
the evidence that had convinced the Millerites that
the 2300 days had ended in 1844 and by doing so hoping to show the “groundwork
for convincing them that because of 1844, the true Sabbath had now become
crucial.” (C. Mervyn Maxwell, Magnificent Disappointment, p. 105).
While not being able to develop the theme here, the
connection of the progression of the messages of the three angels, wherein it
is seen that the light on the sanctuary led to the light on the Sabbath, is
being underscored at the beginning of this paper because it is important
to understand that the undoing of one will be the eventual undoing of the
other. This might be a leap that is difficult to discern in the minds of many,
but this does not mean that it is not so. Dismantling any key aspect of the
sanctuary typology will have disastrous effects on the entire story told
through its rites and symbols.
The third angel’s message has to do with the very
progression of the light coming through the typology of the sanctuary system,
which leads into the Most Holy, where the light shines upon the Sabbath.
Inspiration reveals that it is so:
After Jesus
opened the door of the most holy, the light of the Sabbath was
seen, and the people of God were tested, as the children
of Israel were tested anciently, to see if they would keep God's law. I saw the third angel pointing upward, showing
the disappointed ones the way to the
holiest of the heavenly sanctuary. As they by faith enter the most
holy, they find Jesus, and hope and joy spring up anew. I saw them looking
back, reviewing the past, from the proclamation of the second advent of Jesus,
down through their experience to the
passing of the time in 1844. They see their disappointment
explained, and joy and certainty again animate them. The third angel has lighted up the past, the present, and the future, and they
know that God has indeed led them by His mysterious providence. {EW 254.2}
(Emphasis supplied).
Satan’s intent is to destroy the third angel’s
message as it is revealed through the last movement of the reformation, which
has the oracles of God. Namely, these
are the sanctuary, the Sabbath, and the Spirit of Prophecy.
The “Spirit of Prophecy,” being the “testimony of Jesus,” (Rev. 19:10) includes
all of true teaching as based upon inspiration, as that which harmonizes
completely with all that is given in the Old Testament prophets and the
apostles and it includes the end-time manifestation of inspiration through Sr.
White.
Denigrating the testimonies, the sanctuary truths, the Sabbath, all the
work of Satan
We consistently hear the Adventist pulpit regard
the writings as the “lesser light” in comparison to the Old and New Testaments,
but the reality is that the Bible writers themselves are also “lesser lights”
that point to the true Greater Light, Jesus Christ. We often find that the
teaching we receive counsels us to esteem the inspired writings of Mrs. White
as somehow inferior in quality to that of inspired writings of the canonical
authors. (See paper by Elder Lawrence Nelson, The Greater and Lesser Light, Jan. 01, 2000; Keep the Faith Ministries http://www.ktfministry.org/en/sermons/133/the-lesser-and-greater-light-part-1 ).
Satan is striving continually to bring in fanciful suppositions in regard to the
sanctuary, degrading the wonderful representations of God and the ministry
of Christ for our salvation into something that suits the carnal mind. He
removes its presiding power from the hearts of believers, and supplies its
place with fantastic theories invented to make
void the truths of the atonement, and destroy our confidence in the doctrines which
we have held sacred since the third angel's message was first given. Thus
he would rob us of our faith in the very message that has made us a separate
people, and has given character and power to our work. Special Testimonies,
Series B, No. 7, p. 17. (1905) EV 225 (Emphasis supplied).
Satan's purpose is, through his devices, to make of none effect
the testimonies of the Spirit of God. If he can lead the minds of the
people of God to see things in a perverted light, they will lose confidence in the messages God sends
through His servants; then he can the more readily deceive, and not be detected. {12MR
201.1}
The Sabbath
question is to be the issue in the great final conflict in
which all the world will act a part. {CCh 334.6}
As the people
of God approach the perils of the last days, Satan holds earnest consultation
with his angels as to the most successful plan of overthrowing their faith. … [He] directs his angels to lay their snares especially for those who
are looking for the second advent of Christ and endeavoring to keep all the
commandments of God. {TM 472.1}
Says the great deceiver: "We must watch those
who are calling the attention of the people to the Sabbath of Jehovah; they
will lead many to see the claims of the law of God; and the same light which reveals the true Sabbath reveals also the
ministration of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, and shows that the last
work for man's salvation is now going forward. Hold the minds of the people in darkness till that
work is ended, and we shall secure the world and the church also. {TM
472.2}
"The Sabbath is the great question which is to
decide the destiny of souls. We must exalt the sabbath
of our creating. We have caused it to be accepted by both worldlings
and church members; now the church must be led to unite with the world in its
support. We must work by signs and wonders to blind their eyes to the truth,
and lead them to lay aside reason and the fear of God and follow custom and
tradition. {TM 472.3}
"I will influence popular ministers to turn
the attention of their hearers from the commandments of God. That which the
Scriptures declare to be a perfect law of liberty shall be represented as a
yoke of bondage. The people accept their
minister's explanations of Scripture and do not investigate for themselves.
Therefore, by working through the ministers, I can control the people according
to my will. {TM 472.4} (Emphasis
supplied).
I consider it an affront to Christ to hear this
doctrine of the scapegoat as Christ, taught in Adventism. I understand that
such things are not uncommon in the present denominational milieu. The
Adventist church is in great disarray today, not only spiritually, but
doctrinally.
In general, the common churchgoer is not aware of
the blatant official repudiation of
the investigative judgment doctrine that is found without a lot of difficulty
by the student of Adventist history. It goes unnoticed simply because it is not
taught much anymore and if it is the teaching is weak or subtly undermined in
careful wordings that the issues are not discerned. The same goes for the
entire package of teachings that stand or fall upon the Biblically-based
teaching of the investigative judgment, based upon Daniel 8:14, which is
understood to represent the movement of Christ into the Most Holy Place of the
heavenly sanctuary in 1844, where He would bring forward the efficacy of His
blood, His merits, to continue the work
of atonement in a phase of ministry that would finalize the great controversy.
All of this is subject matter which is beyond the
scope of the small discussion that I set out to do, here, and many volumes have
been written for and against the doctrine of the investigative judgment and
“final atonement,” and many volumes have been published on the history of the Advent
movement which will serve the reader well in understanding what Seventh-day
Adventism truly is. I thirst for the fellowship of believers who care about
these things enough to study them.
My concern today is that when I take my family to
an Adventist church, I would hope to hear Adventist teaching. If I wanted the
evangelical first-apartment theology, we could attend closer to home at any of
the Sunday keeping churches, and even other Sabbath-keeping churches, to
receive that message. I understand, however,
that I would be worshipping at Satan’s throne, were I to do this. Strong words? They aren’t mine, but that of the Spirit of
the Lord.
Those who have not followed Jesus into the Holiest are under dark
influence
I saw a throne, and on it sat the Father and the
Son. … Before the throne I saw the Advent people--the church and the world. I
saw two companies, one bowed down before the throne, deeply interested, while
the other stood uninterested and careless. Those who were bowed before the
throne would offer up their prayers and look to Jesus; then He would look to
His Father, and appear to be pleading with Him. A light would come from the
Father to the Son and from the Son to the praying company. Then I saw an exceeding
bright light come from the Father to the Son, and from the Son it waved over
the people before the throne. But few would receive this great light. Many came
out from under it and immediately resisted it; others were careless and did not
cherish the light, and it moved off from them. Some cherished it, and went and
bowed down with the little praying company. This company all received the light
and rejoiced in it, and their countenances shone with
its glory. {EW 54.2}
I saw the Father rise from the throne, and in a
flaming chariot go into the holy of holies within the veil, and sit down. Then
Jesus rose up from the throne, and the most of those who were bowed down arose
with Him. I did not see one ray of light pass from Jesus to the careless
multitude after He arose, and they were left in perfect darkness. Those who arose when Jesus did,
kept their eyes fixed on Him as He left the throne and led them out a little
way. Then He raised His right arm, and we heard His lovely voice saying,
"Wait here; I am going to My Father to receive the kingdom; keep your
garments spotless, and in a little while I will return from the wedding and
receive you to Myself." Then a cloudy chariot, with wheels like flaming
fire, surrounded by angels, came to where Jesus was. He stepped into the
chariot and was borne to the holiest, where the Father sat. There I beheld
Jesus, a great High Priest, standing before the Father. On the hem of His
garment was a bell and a pomegranate, a bell and a
pomegranate. Those who rose up with Jesus would send up their faith to Him in
the holiest, and pray, "My Father, give us Thy Spirit." Then Jesus
would breathe upon them the Holy Ghost. In that breath was light, power, and
much love, joy, and peace. {EW 55.1}
I turned to look at the company who were still
bowed before the throne; they did not know that Jesus had left it. Satan appeared to be by the throne, trying
to carry on the work of God. I saw them look up to the throne, and pray,
"Father, give us Thy Spirit." Satan would then breathe upon them an
unholy influence….
- {EW 56.1} (Emphasis
added).
Let me say right now that I should not have to
spend time writing an apologetic to Adventists for making use of Ellen G.
White’s writings. That is also the subject of books already in print. Suffice it
to say that we as Adventists can rely on the testimonies as valid revelation
and guidance from the Lord without shame or embarrassment and if we cannot,
then we have some serious reckoning to do with our choice of what message with
which we consider ourselves in alignment, because Seventh-day Adventists are
the people of the third angel’s message (a term which encompasses all three
angels). If a teacher who calls himself or herself a Seventh-day Adventist does
not accept the testimonies or the third angel’s message and cannot preach in
accordance with them, then why does that teacher stand before Seventh-day
Adventists?
“New” theology (old heresy) denies movement of Jesus into the holiest in
1844
Desmond Ford rocked the church in the 1980’s with
theology that was a resurrection of Ballenger’s heresy of the early 1900’s,
which runs specifically counter to our foundation teaching of the ending of the
2300 day prophecy in 1844 and the movement of Jesus into the Most Holy Place at
that time.
The Lord has
shown me in vision, that Jesus
rose up, and shut the door, and entered the Holy of Holies, at the 7th month
1844…. {WLF 12.4} [Emphasis added].
Anyone is free to accept the truth of the statement
above as it reads, or reject it and call it delusion and falsehood. But let’s
be clear about this: the statement has everything to do with the scapegoat
doctrine, as well, for as mentioned above, it cannot be separated from the
uniquely Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of the investigative judgment which
began at the end of the 2300 day period of Daniel
8:14, in 1844, also identified as “the cleansing of the Sanctuary.”
Adventist theology, as it was developed under
strenuous Bible study and confirmation and correction from the Spirit of the
Lord through the testimony of E. G. White, will stand or fall if we stir even a
pin from it. Teaching that Azazel is Christ is
stirring a pin, indeed. I am going to refer to some of the material from The Great Controversy and from Early Writings, before moving on to
further commentary. We will not neglect the Bible in this discussion, in case
any reader should be concerned.
The Spirit of the Lord confirms the truth regarding the sanctuary and
the scapegoat in the testimonies
For eighteen centuries this work of ministration continued
in the first apartment of the sanctuary. The blood of Christ, pleaded in behalf
of penitent believers, secured their pardon and acceptance with the Father, yet
their sins still remained upon the books of record. As in the typical service
there was a work of atonement at the close of the year, so before Christ's work
for the redemption of men is completed there is a work of atonement for the
removal of sin from the sanctuary. This is the service which began when the
2300 days ended. At that time, as foretold by Daniel the prophet, our High
Priest entered the most holy, to perform the last division of His solemn
work--to cleanse the sanctuary. {GC 421.2}
As anciently the sins of the people were by faith
placed upon the sin offering and through its blood transferred, in figure, to
the earthly sanctuary, so in the new covenant the sins of the repentant are by
faith placed upon Christ and transferred, in fact, to the heavenly sanctuary.
And as the typical cleansing of the earthly was accomplished by the removal of
the sins by which it had been polluted, so the actual cleansing of the heavenly
is to be accomplished by the removal, or blotting out, of the sins which are
there recorded. But before this can be accomplished, there must be an
examination of the books of record to determine who, through repentance of sin
and faith in Christ, are entitled to the benefits of His atonement. The
cleansing of the sanctuary therefore involves a work of investigation--a work
of judgment. This work must be performed prior to the coming of Christ to
redeem His people; for when He comes, His reward is with Him to give to every
man according to his works. Revelation 22:12.
{GC 421.3}
Thus those who followed in the light of the
prophetic word saw that, instead of coming to the earth at the termination of
the 2300 days in 1844, Christ then entered the most holy place of the heavenly
sanctuary to perform the closing work of atonement preparatory to His
coming. {GC 422.1}
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 be
placed. When the high priest, by virtue of the blood of
the sin offering, removed the sins from the sanctuary, he placed them upon the
scapegoat. When Christ, by virtue of His own blood, removes the sins of His
people from the heavenly sanctuary at the close of His ministration, He will
place them upon Satan, who, in the execution of the judgment, must bear the
final penalty. The scapegoat was sent away into a land not inhabited, never to
come again into the congregation of Israel. So will Satan be forever banished
from the presence of God and His people, and he will be blotted from existence
in the final destruction of sin and sinners.
{GC 422.2} [Emphasis added]
Parenthetical note to apply due care and attention regarding exegesis of
Ellen White on scapegoat as sin-bearer
In reading the above material from The Great Controversy, it is important
to be careful in our interpretation. When she speaks of the sins of the
penitent being placed upon Satan who will suffer the penalty for them, we must
not bring forward the aspect of their sins that has been blotted out. Satan
suffers for his part as instigator of
sin in general and as tempter of the
individual. Christ suffered for the part played by the sinner in the commission
of their individual sins. It is not clear from this isolated reading that the
sin that is expiated by the blood of Christ is not the same thing as that for
which Satan will suffer the penalty. See discussion below on shared
responsibility. We have clear statements that would admit of no sin-bearing by
Satan in any sense that could put that part which is blotted out in the
sanctuary service upon Satan. We have to see that the sin which was put upon
Satan was that for which he alone is culpable and for which there is no
atonement and no blotting out.
He [Christ] is the only sin-bearer….—Signs of the
Times, June 28, 1899.
…the only sin-bearer is Jesus Christ. He alone can
be my substitute and sin-bearer.—Review and Herald, June 9, 1896.
Proclaim remission of sins through Christ, the only
Sin-bearer, the only Sin-pardoner.—The Voice in Speech and Song, p. 340.
[p. 126]
The platform of truth: “Do not stir a pin” of the three angels’ messages
Again, I wish to underscore that the typology of
the scapegoat as Satan is a fundamental and integral component of the sanctuary
doctrine, which is encompassed in the first angel’s message. The rejection of
that message brings about the pronouncement of the second angel (“Babylon is
fallen”) and the warning of the third (“Receive not the mark of the beast”).
The prognosis for the Babylonian churches is that they would not get better,
but worse, ending by persecuting the people of God and at last falling utterly
under the seven last plagues.
I saw a company who stood well-guarded and firm,
giving no countenance to those who would unsettle the established faith of the
body. God looked upon them with approbation. I was shown three steps-- the
first, second, and third angels' messages. Said my
accompanying angel, "Woe to him who shall move a block or stir a pin of
these messages. The true understanding of these messages is of vital
importance. The destiny of souls hangs upon the manner in which they are
received." I was again brought down through these messages, and saw how
dearly the people of God had purchased their experience. It had been obtained
through much suffering and severe conflict. God had led them along step by
step, until He had placed them upon a solid, immovable platform. I saw
individuals approach the platform and examine the foundation. Some with
rejoicing immediately stepped upon it. Others commenced to find fault with the
foundation. They wished improvements made, and then the platform would be more
perfect, and the people much happier. Some stepped off the platform to examine
it and declared it to be laid wrong. But I saw that nearly all stood firm upon
the platform and exhorted those who had stepped off to cease their complaints;
for God was the Master Builder, and they were fighting against Him. They
recounted the wonderful work of God, which had led them to the firm platform,
and in union raised their eyes to heaven and with a loud voice glorified God.
This affected some of those who had complained and left the platform, and they
with humble look again stepped upon it.
{EW 258.3}
Comment: I cannot view the “nearly all” group who
“stood firm upon the platform,” exhorting “those who had stepped off to cease
their complaints” would be the mainstream denomination today. As I travel,
write, stand up and speak, and discuss these matters with people all over the
world, I just cannot say that it is my observation that nominal Seventh-day
Adventists fit into a group that could be called “nearly all.”
My purpose in writing this paper is to implore
those who are not on the platform to beseech God for the humility required to
prayerfully reexamine the foundation and step back on it, joining the “nearly
all” who are making the same call.
The terrible implications of the parallels between SdA
guilt in rejection of the third angel’s message and the Jews’ rejection of the
testimony of John the Baptist
I was pointed back to the proclamation of the first
advent of Christ. John was sent in the spirit and power of Elijah to prepare
the way of Jesus. Those who rejected the testimony of John were not benefited
by the teachings of Jesus. Their opposition to the message that foretold His
coming placed them where they could not readily receive the strongest evidence
that He was the Messiah. Satan led on those who rejected the message of John to
go still farther, to reject and crucify Christ. In doing this they placed
themselves where they could not receive the blessing on the day of Pentecost,
which would have taught them the way into the heavenly sanctuary. The rending
of the veil of the temple showed that the Jewish sacrifices and ordinances
would no longer be received. The great Sacrifice had been offered and had been
accepted, and the Holy Spirit which descended on the day of Pentecost carried
the minds of the disciples from the earthly sanctuary to the heavenly, where
Jesus had entered by His own blood, to shed upon His disciples the benefits of
His atonement. But the Jews were left in total darkness. They lost all the
light which they might have had upon the plan of salvation, and still trusted
in their useless sacrifices and offerings. The heavenly sanctuary had taken the
place of the earthly, yet they had no knowledge of the change. Therefore they
could not be benefited by the mediation of Christ in the holy place. {EW
259.1}
Many look with horror at the course of the Jews in
rejecting and crucifying Christ; and as they read the history of His shameful
abuse, they think they love Him, and would not have denied Him as did Peter, or
crucified Him as did the Jews. But God who reads the
hearts of all, has brought to the test that love for Jesus which they professed
to feel. All heaven watched with the deepest interest the reception of the
first angel's message. But many who professed to love Jesus, and who shed tears
as they read the story of the cross, derided the good news of His coming. Instead
of receiving the message with gladness, they declared it to be a delusion. They
hated those who loved His appearing and shut them out of the churches. Those
who rejected the first message could not be benefited by the second; neither
were they benefited by the midnight cry, which was to prepare them to enter
with Jesus by faith into the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary. And by
rejecting the two former messages, they have so darkened their understanding
that they can see no light in the third angel's message, which shows the way
into the most holy place. I saw that as the Jews crucified Jesus, so the
nominal churches had crucified these messages, and therefore they have no
knowledge of the way into the most holy, and they cannot be benefited by the
intercession of Jesus there. Like the Jews, who offered their useless
sacrifices, they offer up their useless prayers to the apartment which Jesus
has left; and Satan, pleased with the deception, assumes a religious character,
and leads the minds of these professed Christians to himself, working with his
power, his signs and lying wonders, to fasten them in his snare. Some he
deceives in one way, and some in another. He has different delusions prepared
to affect different minds. Some look with horror upon one deception, while they
readily receive another. Satan deceives some with Spiritualism. He also comes
as an angel of light and spreads his influence over the land by means of false
reformations. The churches are elated, and consider that God is working
marvelously for them, when it is the work of another spirit. The excitement
will die away and leave the world and the church in a worse condition than
before. {EW 260.1}
The Spirit of the Lord confirms the truth in the work of O. R. L. Crozier
O. R. L. Crozier wrote an
article, dated Feb. 7, 1846, detailing the Biblical evidence upon which the
sanctuary teaching of the SdA church was formulated.
Ellen White had this to say about that article:
"The Lord
shew me in vision, more than one year ago, that
Brother Crozier had the true light, on the cleansing
of the Sanctuary, et cetera; and that
it was His will, that Brother C. should write out the view which he gave us in
the Day-Star Extra, February 7, 1846. I feel fully authorized by the Lord, to
recommend that Extra, to every saint." --Word to the
"Little Flock,",
1847 (Emphasis supplied).
The “true light on the cleansing of the Sanctuary, et cetera,” would include Crozier’s thoughts on the meaning of the type with regard
to the goat for Azazel. What did Crozier
bring forward with regard to the scapegoat? Let us read:
The victims for the atonement of this day were, for
the priest himself, a young bullock for a sin-offering, verse 3, and for the
people, two goats; one for a sin-offering and the other for the scape-goat, and a ram for a
burnt-offering, verses 5-8. He killed or caused to be killed the bullock
for a sin-offering for himself, verse 11. "Then he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar
before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bringing
it within the veil; And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the Lord,
that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy-seat that is upon the testimony
that he die not. And he shall take of the blood of
the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy-seat eastward; and
before the mercy-seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven
times," verses 12-14. So much in preparation to make an
atonement for the people; a description of which follows:
"Then shall he kill the goat of the
sin-offering which is for the people and bring his blood within the veil, and
do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it
upon the mercy-seat. And he shall make an atonement for (cleanse, see marginal
references,) the holy place (within the veil, verse 2), because of the
uncleanness of the children of Israel, because of their transgressions in all
their sins: and so shall he do for (i.e. atone for or cleanse), the tabernacle
of the congregation (the Holy) that remaineth among
them in the midst of their uncleanness," verses 15, 16; "And he shall
go out (of the Holy of Holies) unto the altar that is before the Lord (in the
Holy) and make an atonement for it; and shall take of the blood (for himself),
and of the blood of the goat (for the people), and put it upon the horns of the
altar round about. And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger
seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children
of Israel," verses 18, 19. The altar was the golden altar of incense in
the Holy upon which the blood of individual atonements was sprinkled during the
daily ministration. Thus it received the uncleanness from which it is now
cleansed. Exodus 30:1-10; "Aaron shall make an atonement
upon the horns of it once a year, with the blood of the sin-offering of
atonement." We see from verse 20, that at this stage of the work "he
hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the
congregation, and the altar," i.e. the Holy of Holies, the Holy, and the
altar in the latter.
We have before seen that atone, reconcile, cleanse,
etc., signify the same, hence at this stage he has
made an end of cleansing those places. As the blood of atonements for the
forgiveness of sins was not sprinkled in the court, but in the tabernacle only,
the entire work of cleansing the Sanctuary was performed within the tabernacle.
These were holy things, yet cleansed yearly. The holy place within the veil
contained the ark of the covenant, covered with the
mercy-seat, overshadowed by the cherubims, between
which the Lord dwelt in the cloud of divine glory. Who would think of calling
such a place unclean? Yet the Lord provided at the time, yea, before it was
built, that it should be annually cleansed. It was by blood, and not by fire,
that this Sanctuary, which was a type of the new covenant Sanctuary was
cleansed.
The high priest on this day "bore the
iniquities of the holy things which the children of Israel hallowed in all
their holy gifts." Exodus 28:38. These holy things composed the Sanctuary.
Numbers 18:1. "And the Lord said unto Aaron,
Thou, and thy sons, and thy father's house with thee shall bear the iniquity of
the Sanctuary." This "iniquity of the Sanctuary" we have learned
was not its own properly, but the children of Israel's, God's own people's,
which it had received from them. And this transfer of iniquity from the people
to their Sanctuary was not a mere casualty, incident on scenes of lawless
rebellion, bloodshed or idolatry among themselves, not the devastation of an
enemy; but it was according to the original arrangement and regular operation
of this typical system. For we must bear in mind that all the
instructions were given to Moses and Aaron before the erection of the
Sanctuary. Provision was made to make atonement for sins committed in
ignorance; but not till after they were known, Leviticus 4:14, 5:3-6, then of
course they became sins of knowledge. Then the individual bore his iniquity,
Leviticus 5:1-17; 7:1-8, till he presented his offering to the priest and slew
it, the priest made an atonement with the blood, Leviticus 17:11, and he was
forgiven, then of course free from his iniquity.
Now at what point did he cease to bear his
iniquity? Evidently when he had presented his victim slain; he had then done
his part. Through what medium was his iniquity conveyed to the Sanctuary? Through his victim, or rather its blood when the priest took and sprinkled
it before the veil and on the altar. Thus the iniquity was communicated
to their Sanctuary. The first thing done for the people on the tenth day of the
seventh month was to cleanse it, thence by the same means, the application of
blood. This done, the high priest bore the "iniquity of the
Sanctuary" for the people "to make atonement for them,"
Leviticus 10:17. "And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy
place (within the veil, verse 2) and the tabernacle of the congregation and the
altar (or when he hath cleansed the Sanctuary), he shall bring the live goat:
And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess
over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their
transgressions and all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and
shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: And the goat
shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited (margin, of
separation) Leviticus 16:20-22. This was the only office of the scape-goat, to finally receive and bear away from Israel
all their iniquities into an uninhabited wilderness and there retain them,
leaving Israel at their Sanctuary, and the priest to complete the atonement of
the day by burning the fat of the sin-offerings, and offering the two rams for
burnt-offerings on the brazen altar in the court, verses 24, 25. The burning
without the camp of the carcasses of the sin-offerings closed the services of
this important day, verse 27. …
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 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. …
THE SCAPE-GOAT
The next event of that day after the Sanctuary was
cleansed, was putting all the iniquities and transgressions of the children of
Israel upon the head of the scape-goat and sending
him away into a land not inhabited, or of separation. It is supposed by almost
every one that this goat typified Christ in some of His offices, and that the
type was fulfilled at the first Advent. From this opinion I must differ;
because, First, That goat was not sent away till after the High Priest had made
an end of cleansing the Sanctuary, Leviticus 16:20,21; hence that event cannot
meet its antitype till after the end of the 2300 days. Second, It was sent away from Israel into the wilderness, a land not
inhabited, to receive them. If our blessed Saviour is its antitype, He also
must be sent away, not His body alone, but soul and body, for the goat was sent
away alive, from, not to nor into this people; neither into heaven, for that is
not a wilderness or land not inhabited. Third, It
received and retained all the iniquities of Israel; but when Christ appears the
second time He will be "without sin". Fourth, The
goat received the iniquities from the hands of the priest and he sent it away.
As Christ is the Priest the goat must be something else besides Himself, and
which He can send away. Fifth, This was one of two
goats chosen for that day, one was the Lord's and offered for a sin-offering;
but the other was not called the Lord's, neither offered as a sacrifice. Its
only office was to receive the iniquities from the priest after he had cleansed
the Sanctuary from them, and bear them into a land not inhabited, leaving the
Sanctuary, priest and people behind and free from their iniquities. Leviticus
16:7-10,22. Sixth, The Hebrew name of the scape-goat, as will be seen from the margin of verse 8, is
"Azazel". On this verse, Wm. Jenks, in his
Comp. Com. has the following remarks: "(Scape-goat.) See diff. opin. in Bochart. Spencer, after the
oldest opinion of the Hebrews and Christians, thinks Azazel
is the name of the devil; and so Rosenmire, whom see.
The Syriac has Azazel, the
angel, (Strongone) who revolted." Seventh, At the appearing of Christ, as taught from Revelation 20,
Satan is to be bound and cast into the bottomless pit, which act and place are
significantly symbolized by the ancient High Priest sending the scape-goat into a separate and uninhabited wilderness.
Eighth, Thus we have the Scripture, the definition of the name in two ancient
languages both spoken at the same time, and the oldest opinion of the
Christians in favor of regarding the scape-goat as a
type of Satan. In the common use of the term, men always associate it with
something mean, calling the greatest villains and refugees from justice scape-goats. Ignorance of the law and its meaning is the
only possible origin that can be assigned for the opinion that the scape-goat was a type of Christ.
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 years imprisonment of Satan will have begun,
and the saints will have entered upon their millennial reign with Christ.
The Spirit of the Lord confirms the truth in the work of Uriah Smith
“The Lord will not lead minds now to set aside the
truth that the Holy Spirit has moved upon His servants in the past to
proclaim.” 17MR 12.4
“God used the
author of this book as a channel through which to communicate light to direct
minds to the truth. Shall we
not appreciate this light, which points us to the coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ, our King?” 1MR 63
The light given was that Thoughts on Daniel and The Revelation, The
Great Controversy, and Patriarchs and Prophets, would make their way. They
contain the very message the people must have, the special light God had
given His people. The angels of God would prepare the way for these books
in the hearts of the people.- Special
Instruction Regarding Royalties, p.7 (1899)
It wasn’t just light for Seventh-day Adventists; it
was light that we were to share with the world.
Daniel and
Revelation, Great Controversy, Patriarchs and Prophets, and
Desire of Ages should now go to the world. The grand instruction contained in Daniel and Revelation has been eagerly
perused by many in Australia. This book has been the means of bringing many
precious souls to a knowledge of the truth. Everything
that can be done should be done to circulate Thoughts on Daniel and Revelation. I know of no other book that can
take the place of this one. It is God's helping hand.--MS 76, 1901
In that book, Uriah spends some time discussing the
typology of the scapegoat as Satan and the meaning of the term Azazel, as discussed elsewhere in this paper.
Speaking of the binding of Satan, he discusses
Revelation 20:1-3.
A bright ray of light is thrown from the old
typical service directly upon this passage. Thus, Christ is the great High Priest
of this dispensation. On the day of atonement,
anciently, two goats were taken by the priest, upon which lots were cast, one
for the Lord, and the other for the scapegoat. The one upon which the Lord's
lot fell, was then slain, and his blood carried into the sanctuary to make an
atonement for the children of Israel, after which the sins of the people were
confessed upon the head of the other, or scapegoat, and he was sent away by the
hand of a fit man into the wilderness, or a place not inhabited. Now, as Christ
is the priest of this dispensation, so by arguments, a few of which we here
introduce, Satan is shown to be the antitypical scapegoat. {1897 UrS, DAR 732.3} …
The third reason for this position is the very
striking manner in which it harmonizes with the events to transpire in
connection with the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, as far as revealed to
us in the Scriptures of truth. {1897 UrS, DAR 734.4}
Answering to these events in the type, we behold in
the antitype, (a) the great offering for the world made on Calvary; (b) the
sins of all those who avail themselves of the merits of Christ's shed blood by
faith in him, borne, by the ministration of Christ while pleading his own
blood, into the new-covenant sanctuary; (c) after Christ, the minister of the
true tabernacle (Heb.8:2), has finished his ministration, he will remove the
sins of this people from the sanctuary, and lay them upon the head of their
author, the antitypical scapegoat, the devil; and (d) the devil will be sent
away with them into a land not inhabited.
{1897 UrS, DAR
734.6}
This we believe to be the very event described in
the verses under notice. The sanctuary service is, at the time here specified, closed. Christ lays upon the head
of the devil the sins which have been transferred to the sanctuary, and which
are imputed to the saints no more, and the devil is sent away, not by the hand
of the High Priest, but by the hand of another person, according to the type,
into a place here called the bottomless pit. Hence this angel is not Christ. …
{1897 UrS, DAR
735.1}
The Spirit of the Lord confirms the truth in the Sabbath and Sanctuary
Conferences
[Note: This section is adapted from chapter 9 of
Arthur L. White’s Ellen G. White: The
Early Years 1827-1862]
The first “General Conference” was the Rocky Hill
conference in Connecticut in April of 1848, where Bates spoke on the truth of
the Sabbath and Ellen testified regarding what God had shown her concerning the
Sabbath. Her and James started observing the Sabbath
and teaching it in the autumn of 1846. On Sabbath, Apr. 03, 1847, in the home
of the Howlands in Topsham, Maine, she received the
vision which confirmed the Sabbath truth. She was taught the Sabbath in the
Most Holy Place of the sanctuary. In that vision, the mention of “the mark of
the beast and his image” made it clear to them that the third angel’s message
had to do with the 7th day Sabbath. As with the sanctuary teachings,
the Sabbath light did not come first by vision, but by studying the Scriptures.
Following the Rocky Hill conference, there were
others. The Lord had shown Ellen that she would be in New York in the future.
They were invited to Volney, N.Y., for a conference
to be held beginning Friday evening, August 18, 1848. Bates again spoke on the
subject of the Sabbath. Ellen spoke on the parable of the ten virgins and she
had two visions at that meeting. This meeting was quite in disarray, with many
conflicting views amongst the brethren, contending for the supremacy. She went
into vision at that point. The angel corrected error and told them they must
yield their opinions to the Bible and unite
upon the third angel’s message. Later, J. N. Loughborough
related how she had taken the family Bible in her left hand and with face
turned in the opposite direction and looking upward, would turn to the various
Scripture references and point to them with her right hand while reciting them.
People present were looking closely at the Bible to verify that she was indeed
pointing to the correct texts.
That year continued with a number of conferences
that solidified the doctrines on the Sanctuary and the Sabbath. Ellen would
later write of this time:
Many of our people do not realize how firmly the
foundation of our faith has been laid. My husband, Elder
Joseph Bates, Father Pierce, Elder [Hiram] Edson, and
others who were keen, noble, and true, were among those who, after the passing
of the time in 1844, searched for the truth as for hidden treasure. I
met with them, and we studied and prayed earnestly. Often we remained together
until late at night, and sometimes through the entire night, praying for light
and studying the Word.
Again and again these brethren came together to
study the Bible, in order that they might know its meaning, and be prepared to
teach it with power. When they came to the point in their study where they
said, "We can do nothing more," the Spirit of the Lord would come
upon me, I would be taken off in vision, and a clear explanation of the
passages we had been studying would be given me, with instruction as to how we
were to labor and teach effectively. Thus light was given that helped us to
understand the scriptures in regard to Christ, His mission, and His priesthood.
A line of truth extending from that time to the time when we shall enter the
city of God, was made plain to me, and I gave to
others the instruction that the Lord had given me. {1SM
206.4}
The leading points of our faith as we hold them
today were firmly established. Point after point was clearly defined, and all the
brethren came into harmony. {3MR 412.4}
The whole company of believers
were united in the truth. There were those who came in with strange
doctrines, but we were never afraid to meet them. Our experience was
wonderfully established by the revelation of the Holy Spirit. {3MR
413.1}
These experiences were repeated over and over
again. Thus many truths of the third angel's message were established, point by
point. {3SM 38.2}
All this was done by the Lord such a way so that
the claim could not be made that it was coming from Ellen.
During this whole time I could not understand the
reasoning of the brethren. My mind was locked, as it were, and I could not
comprehend the meaning of the scriptures we were studying. This was one of the
greatest sorrows of my life. I was in this condition of mind until all the
principal points of our faith were made clear to our minds, in harmony with the
Word of God. The brethren knew that when not in vision, I could not understand
these matters, and they accepted as light direct from heaven the revelations
given. {1SM 207.1}
If it did not come from Ellen herself and if it is
not light from God, then the one who denies the testimonies must teach that the
manifestations are of Satan. But this is not possible, either, due to the many
testimonies of revelations that came to Mrs. White of things that were taking
place elsewhere, behind closed doors, or that were yet to happen. Any doubting Thomases of today owe it to themselves to start doing some
reading of our history and the well-documented accounts that exist in abundance
for our edification and faith-building experience.
Avoiding the writings and teachings of the founders has set us adrift at
sea without an anchor
We are enjoined by teachers of the “new theology” (evangelical doctrine)
to take our teachings from the Bible alone. They must say this because the
pioneers and Ellen White are too plain to make any mistakes. The people in our
churches in general are not as strong in the study of the Scriptures as they
may have been in earlier times, especially before the advent of radio and
television and many other distractions of modern life. Therefore their thinking
is easier to mold in any direction that is pleasing to the teacher. If we were
encouraged by leadership to also study the writings of the founders of
Adventist thought, such as Crozier and Smith, James
and Ellen White, Waggoner and Jones, and many others who have held to their
teachings through the history of the church until our day, we would see today a
far less fractured denominational entity than Adventism has become. Do you see
such exhortation in your Sabbath School lessons? It can be shown rather that it
is now commonplace to see in our lesson quarterlies citations from Catholic and
1st-day protestant writers.
We have lost our bearings and now we are adrift in
a sea of confusing and conflicting teachings that all claim to be “Adventist.”
This has been the situation even since the nineteenth century, which has become
increasingly more desperate through each succeeding generation as the cycles of
sowing and reaping have borne their increasingly blighted fruit.
This may all sound so negative but it is not true?
Do we point to increasing numbers as success? Does bigger and better
infrastructure, modern media programming, and acceptance of the world, indicate
that we have taken the Lord’s leading to heart? Are we yielding a fruitful
harvest? Where is the glory of God in all the earth, as prophesied to come through
God’s people? Can you point to the work of the denomination as doing this work?
Do you have an affirmative answer when you look at the general conference
church? Your division? Your union?
Your local? How about your congregation? You?
Incidentally, it is a fact that God’s Spirit is now
moving in an awakening; the message that swells to a loud cry is here and it is
begin taught all over the world, but not by those who are teaching people to
stay away from the pioneers and the Spirit of Prophecy or by those who are
listening to those teachers and therefore do not have faith in our foundational
message as it was given through the founders.
A further implication of the injunction to “get
your teaching from the Bible,” is that the founders did not do this and that
Ellen White was deluded in claiming to have received guidance and affirmations
from heaven. In this, the visions are effectively falsified and the testimonies
are made “of none effect.” There is no other way to explain what is happening
in our churches today. Therefore, we are left to choose between two ignominious
options, in that the founders
·
would have
either fabricated our doctrines to save face in the wake of the great
disappointment, as is the claim of those self-styled expositors of Seventh-day
Adventism, or;
·
would have
been in gross error on vital points of doctrine that give Adventism its
distinctive features and that set it apart as the bearer of a unique message to
the world.
An exhortation to return to our foundation teachers and teaching
We must be clear about what this message truly is.
We are not here to play church or be a denomination among many. We are about
much more than telling the world that Jesus is coming in blazing glory--not in
a secret rapture,--and that they are worshipping on the wrong day. This is not
what makes us different nor is it what makes us Seventh-day Adventist.
We have a message that is more than unique, it is the very message that calls its adherents to
walk in the path of the reformers. As such, it leads to increasing light which
culminates in the loud cry of the fourth angel of Revelation 18 and ends the
great controversy. The reason that we are still here is because we have
abandoned ship, even while claiming we are that ship, still sailing to safe
harbors.
If we are the reformers of our day, I must ask, where is the increasing light? Where is
the swelling of the third angel’s message to its loud cry? For our “proof
positive” that it is happening, can we point to the fact that our understanding
of the gospel has been pulled away from its progressive development, as
anchored in the Holiest in the heavenly sanctuary, to a pre-first angel’s message justification-by-faith understanding as
taught by the earlier reformers? Of course not!
Can we excuse ourselves by mumbling words about
God’s timeline? (I.e., “He’ll get here when He gets here. He knows the time
which He has set and we don’t. Occupy till He comes.”) NO! We sin when we point to God as the reason
that the message has not done its work and the controversy has not been ended
before our day. The burden of the delay lies squarely on the shoulders of the
people and their leaders, both. Jeremiah 5:31 tells the story:
“The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests
bear rule by their means; and my people love [to have it] so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?”
(Emphasis supplied).
So, the question is, not what will the denomination
do, but what will YOU do?
Do not look to anyone other than yourself-under-Christ,
to be in the truth and give the third angel’s message as it is in Jesus. Study
for yourself, using all of the tools God has given:
First and foremost, an attitude of surrender is required, so pray always for a
willing heart to do His will. Then go to the Bible, the Spirit of Prophecy, the
pioneers, and the writings of those that have come after and who have followed
in their footsteps. There are two classes of teachers, those who have remained
faithful to the message as it was given and those who have not. You must know
the difference and then you can make an intelligent choice where you spend your
learning time.
The Spirit of the Lord confirms the truth in the Bible
For confirmation that Adventism does in fact get
its unique understanding from the Bible and does have a message that is in
contrast to the gospel of the mainstream of modern Christianity, fallen
Christianity, to be clear, I will share here a thirteen point feature for your
resource, as taken from C. Mervyn Maxwell’s, Magnificent Disappointment:
1.
Daniel 7:9-14, 22 shows Father
and Son both “coming” to a new place in heaven for the judgment. In this
classic portrayal of judgment day in heaven, both the Ancient of Days and the
Son of Man “come” to a new place in heaven for judgment. Verses 25, 26 indicate
that this judgment was to begin around the end of the 1260 years (1798).
2.
Daniel 12:1, 2; Revelation 20:6 show that at the second coming, the “blessed and holy,” whose “names
are found written in the book of life,” are resurrected to receive life
everlasting, indicating that their judgment precedes the second coming.
3.
Daniel 8:14 gives the
year of the judgment. (It parallels the judgment scene in Daniel 7). By using
sanctuary language (“then shall the sanctuary be cleansed”), it directs our
attention to the Day of Atonement (see Leviticus 16, 23) in order to learn more
about the judgment.
4.
Leviticus 16, 23. On the Day
of Atonement, when the high priest entered the most holy place to cleanse the
sanctuary and the congregation of their sins, the people—as on a day of judgment—were to “afflict their souls’
or be judged and “cut off” (see
Leviticus 23:26-32, KJV). The Day of Atonement was a day of reconciliation and salvation
to the repentant but a day of judgment to people who refused to participate
spiritually.
5.
Comparison of the spring and autumn types directs attention to the actual date October 22, the correct Day of Atonement
in 1844. Just as Jesus fulfilled the springtime Passover ceremony in the year
of prophecy and on the actual day of the Passover, so He could be counted on to
fulfill the autumn Day of Atonement ceremony in the year of prophecy (1844) and
on the actual Day of Atonement (10th day, 7th
month=October 22. See chapter 3).
6.
Malachi 3 says that the Lord was to
“come” suddenly to His temple to “purge” or cleanse the sons of Levi. The
coming and cleansing recall Daniel 7 and Leviticus 16 and point to the special
parallel cleansing of God’s people while the heavenly sanctuary is being
cleansed.
7.
Hebrews 8 and 9 affirm the
existence of a two part heavenly sanctuary (by comparison with the early
tabernacle; see Hebrews 9 and 15) and inform us of the need of the heavenly
sanctuary to be purified at some time (see Hebrews 9:22, 23).
8.
Acts 3:19, 20 promises
that sins that have been repented of will be “blotted out” at the time when God
will “send the Christ,” whom the heavens must retain until the time comes for
“establishing all” that God’s prophets have predicted.
9.
The wedding parables show that those saints who are ready would go “into the marriage”
near the end of time (parable of the virgins, Matthew 25). Evidently
Jesus meant that they would go in only by faith, because in Luke 12:35-37 He
spoke of His followers as waiting on earth until He would return from the
wedding. In Matthew 22 He portrayed the wedding guests as being examined
(judged) to see if they were wearing the wedding garment.
10. Other wedding
imagery. In various places the New Testament teaches that
Christ is at present betrothed to His corporate church (that is, to the church
as a whole, otherwise known as His “kingdom,” not to the individual members,
who are married to their own human spouses). Jesus is busy purifying His
church-kingdom from every spot and wrinkle. When His church-kingdom is fit to
be His bride—that is, after the cleansing of the examination period is
completed—He will marry it, thus receiving His kingdom. Then He will return to
earth to take His individual church members and guests to His wedding supper
which follows immediately. See Ephesians 5; Luke 12; 35-37; Luke 19:11, 12;
Revelation 19:9.
11. Revelation
14:6-12 contains the first angel’s message with its
announcement of the arrival of the judgment hour while the gospel is still
being preached. The second and third angels call the saints to separate
themselves from all false Christians and to keep the commandments of God. Thus,
while the judgment is sorting out God’s people in heaven, a sorting-out process
is called for among the professed people of God on earth.
12. 1 Peter 4:17 announces the basic principle that “judgment [must] begin with the
household of God.” Peter’s words echo to the teaching of Ezekiel 9:6, “begin at my sanctuary.” They have a special
relationship and relevance to the end-time judgment of the first angel’s
message and the sealing work of Revelation 7:1-3.
13. The doctrine
of perseverance shows that even those who
accept Christ as their Saviour are expected by God to persevere in their
faith-obedience relationship to Him or lose out in the judgment. The person who
“has the Son of God has life” right now, but he will be saved only if he
“endures to the end” (1 John 5:12; Matthew 24:13). A believer is expected to
call Jesus “Lord,” but unless the believer obeys Jesus, calling Him “Lord” will
not avail (Romans 10:9; Matthew 7:21). To be forgiven ultimately, the Christian
must be forgiven (see Matthew 6:14). A Gentile grafted into Paul’s olive tree
will, if unpersevering, be cut off as surely as the
Jewish nation once was (see Romans 11:21). We are saved by faith, but only if
our faith is living faith, that produces acts of mercy
and goodness (see James 2). The judgment investigates people who have at any
time professed faith in Jesus to see whether they have persevered in their
faith-obedience relationship.
…[The] Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of the pre-advent investigative
judgment is not based on an isolated proof text but was developed from a large
body of interrelated data located in both the Old and New Testaments. (pp.
82-84).
The Bible teaching on the Scapegoat doctrine
To hone this further, we examine the Biblical truth
of the function and identity of the scapegoat. Rather than reinventing the
wheel, I will rely upon material printed in M. L. Andreasen’s
The Sanctuary Service, Chapter
Fourteen, “The Scapegoat,” pp. 188-210. It is advisable for the serious student
to temporarily depart from this paper and read that chapter in its entirety,
then come back here for a careful summary of that chapter.
Two key thoughts that I want to underscore are
that; 1) Azazel is in no way a sin bearer in the
sense of sacrifice for sin or making substitutionary
atonement or; 2) that he bears sin that belongs to anyone other than himself.
It is imperative that we deal with the apparent
difficulty that presents itself in the statement that “the scapegoat “shall be
presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement
with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.” (Lev. 16:10)
What is the meaning of “make an atonement with him”?
On the surface, this does not sound like something we would wish to associate
with Satan in any way. To examine this, we need to consider how it is that the
scapegoat functions.
On the Day of Atonement, the scapegoat was brought
into the ceremony only after the work of reconciliation was completed, as we
read in Leviticus 16:20, “when he hath made
an end of reconciling the holy [place], and the tabernacle of the
congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat….” (Emphasis
supplied.) We should not need to belabor the point that the atonement is
complete at this point.
A further objection here that can be made has to do
with the laying on of hands on the scapegoat and confession by the High Priest
“all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in
all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat….” Is this to say that
sins already put on the head of the LORD’s goat go again on the Devil? We
cannot say this, or we introduce confusion and heresy. We make the atonement of
Jesus incomplete and it would appear that Satan is required to bear sin for
others in a substitutionary sense of atonement.
The key to understanding what is happening here is
the concept of “shared responsibility.” Andreasen
writes, “Most sins admit of shared responsibility. The person committing the
sin is often mostly to blame, though this is not always the case. Some are more
sinned against than sinning. The man who educates a child to steal cannot
escape responsibility by saying that he himself does not steal.”
When we look at this it is only that which we would
expect of a just God. Satan does not suffer for anyone’s sins but his own. The
fact is, he does have a part to play in all of the sins that have been
committed, for he is the instigator of rebellion and he is the chief tempter.
So, while he suffers for sin that he actually committed himself, he also
suffers for the part he plays in the sins committed by the righteous, as well
as the part he has in the sins of the fallen, both of angels and men. This does
not mean that the finally impenitent will not have to suffer for their part in
their own sin. Of course they must. The principle is set forth clearly in the
Bible, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the
iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear
the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him,
and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” Ezekiel 18:20). It is
plain enough.
Coming back to the question raised above, we ask,
“How is it that Leviticus 16:10 should say that Satan makes an
atonement? Returning to Andreasen, we read,
“This punishment is not expiatory; nor is it substitutionary; neither is it atoning, except in the sense
that a criminal atones for his sins by being hanged on the gallows. He simply
suffers for his own sins and for his influence in causing others to sin. This
principle is well stated by Mrs. E. G. white when she says, ‘The punishment of
the sinner will be measured by the extent to which he has influenced others in
impenitence.’ –The Youth’s Instructor, May
9, 1901. ‘Of all the sins that God will punish, none are more grievous in His sight than those that encourage others to do
evil.’—Patriarchs and Prophets, p.
323. In harmony with this is the statement that Satan must bear ‘the guilt of
all the sins which he has caused God’s people to commit.’—The Great Controversy, p. 485. Putting these statements together,
we find that Satan will be punished for his part in the sins of the impenitent,
and also for his part in the sins of the righteous. This is just for he is the
one who led them into sin.” Andreasen, p. 193
What about the sins of the righteous in which they had
their own part? We are now clear about the sins of the righteous in which Satan
had the part of instigation. Satan does not have any part of that component of
the sins of the righteous which belong to themselves. Their personal guilt has
gone to the Sin-bearer, Jesus. He bore them on the cross and expiated their
guilt, there. The sacrificial atonement was made. As High Priest, He brought
His blood into the sanctuary and made the final atonement for them there,
blotting them out before placing the guilt for Satan’s part on the head of the
scapegoat. Has Satan’s part in the sins of the righteous been atoned for by
Christ? “It has not. Satan must pay for it himself with his life.” (Ibid. p.193). We
must continually stress, due to the charges made by our detractors,
that it is a great error to say that because we apply the typology of
the scapegoat to Satan we make him to have a part in bearing sin in any
expiatory sense. “The saints are in no way indebted to him; his bearing of sin
is in no way related to salvation; his work is evil and only evil.” (Ibid. 195).
Jesus bore the sins of the world. (John 3:16; 1
Tim. 4:10)
In the daily burnt offering Israel saw Christ as
the Saviour of all men, a continual sacrifice applicable to all, providing
temporarily and provisionally for all sin, confessed or unconfessed.
In the sin offering they saw men accepting by faith the proffered salvation and
receiving forgiveness. On the Day of Atonement they saw the high priest making
atonement and providing complete cleansing for those who already had their sins
forgiven and were still penitent…. With this the atonement was complete, and
nothing needed to be or could be added. The sins were that day blotted out, and
even the record was nonexistent.” (Ibid, p. 197).
We must not personify sin. It is the nature of sin
that it exists only as attached to the free moral agent, in the existence of a
life. Sins that are atoned for cannot go on. For any person to think that sin
that has been cast to the depths of the sea, in Christ, to again surface to
hike a ride on Satan, does not understand that Christ actually annihilated them
in His own body on the cross. If we were to believe that Satan must take them
in order for them to be disposed of, we are subject to stand guilty as charged
by our evangelical friends.
The
typology will attest to the truth that
“the bearing of sins does
not have the same meaning in the case of Satan as in that of Christ. If we look
at the type we find that when sin was transferred to any sacrifice, it meant the
death of the animal. The animal bore sin with the eventual view of the blotting
out of that sin, and death ensued in each case….
Not
so when Satan bears sin. Although the scapegoat eventually died, Scripture is
very careful not to mention this fact, lest some might draw wrong conclusions.
When the sins were placed upon the scapegoat there was no ensuing death, no
sprinkling of blood, no burning of fat upon the altar, no eating of the flesh, no priestly ministration of any kind. Not even did a priest
lead the scapegoat away…. All this is recorded to emphasize the fact that the
scapegoat served a purpose entirely different from that of the Lord’s goat.” (Ibid., p. 202).
In the work of the judgment and cleansing of sin,
or final atonement, the sinner is appropriating the merits of Christ to their
life and heeding the injunction, “Go, and sin no more.” Sin comes to an end, by
the grace of God, in the power of the Holy Spirit, looking to Christ. Sin is
blotted out. The sinner becomes a new creature. “In all this Satan has no part
whatsoever.” (ibid.,
p. 204).
But what happens to Satan? Does he escape
punishment because the …[sinner] repents? By no means. His guilt is not diminished by her change of
heart. He must suffer for his part in tempting her and leading her into sin. He
is responsible for putting evil desires into the heart….” (Ibid., p. 204).
The
sins that are put on the head of the scapegoat are not the atoned-for sins:
they are Satan’s share in all these same sin, the share for which no atonement
was made and which were not provided for in the Lord’s goat….
In
this way all sin is provided for. Christ bears and annuls, in His own body, all
the confessed sins of His people; the unrepentant sinner who does not accept
Christ as his sin bearer bears his own sin; Satan bears his own sins and in
addition the terrific weight of the guilt of all the sins which he has caused
others to commit. If to this we add the sins of the angels who fell, we have a
complete and just disposal of all sin in this world and in the universe. (Ibid.) p. 206.
To conclude this segment, let it be firmly planted
in your mind that the atonement of the scapegoat is not in any way to be
understood as the atonement of Christ.
As a criminal is led to the gallows, so the goat
with a rope around its neck was led to destruction. As a
criminal thus atoned for his transgression, so the goat likewise atoned—not
atonement unto salvation, but punitive atonement unto death. (Ibid. p. 207).
A response to
charges that Adventism teaches Azazel/Satan as Sin
Bearer
Here is something that Ellen White apologist Bob
Pickle wrote in response to the anti-Adventist video, "Seventh-day
Adventism, the Spirit Behind the Church"
#191: "Adventists further deviate in their salvation
doctrine by teaching that Satan ultimately becomes the sin-bearer. They teach
he bears away the sins of the world. 'As the priest in removing the sins from
the sanctuary, confess them upon the head of the scapegoat, so Christ will
place all these sins upon Satan, the originator and instigator of sin...' Great Controversy p. 485." (Ibid.)
Satan becomes the sin-bearer. Though the term "sin-bearer" appears
in Mrs. White's published and released writings at least 186 times, she not
once said that Satan is our "sin-bearer." She consistently
taught that Christ is our "only sin-bearer":
In His intercession as our advocate, Christ needs
no man's virtue, no man's intercession. He is the only sin-bearer, the only
sin-offering.—Signs of the Times, June 28, 1899.
How hard poor mortals strive to be sin-bearers for
themselves and for others! but the only sin-bearer is
Jesus Christ. He alone can be my substitute and sin-bearer. The forerunner of
Christ exclaimed, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh
away the sin of the world."—Review and Herald, June 9, 1896.
Proclaim remission of sins through Christ, the only
Sin-bearer, the only Sin-pardoner. Proclaim the remission of sins through
repentance toward God and faith in Christ, and God will ratify your testimony.—The
Voice in Speech and Song, p. 340. [p. 126]
I have never read where any Seventh-day Adventist
has called Satan our sin-bearer. If Jesus is our "only sin-bearer,"
how can Satan be one too?
…Notice carefully what even the part quoted in the
video says:
"As the priest in removing the sins from the
sanctuary...."
Truly the high priest, representing Jesus Christ,
must be the sin bearer, for it is he who is removing the sins by carrying them in
his own person.
Mr. Martin refers to what Seventh-day Adventists
believe that the closing ceremonies of the services of the Day of Atonement
represent. This has nothing to do with who the sin-bearer is. Consider
carefully the following verses:
And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one
lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat [the Hebrew reads
"for Azazel"]. (Lev. 16:8)
And when he hath made an end of
reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation,
and the altar, he shall bring the live goat: And Aaron shall lay both his hands
upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the
children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting
them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit
man into the wilderness: And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities
unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.
(Lev. 16:20-22)
Notice that the goat for Azazel
has the sins put upon him only after the high priest has made an end of
reconciling. Since the word for "reconciling" is the Hebrew word for
"atoning," this means that the sins are only put upon him after
the end of the atonement.
Jesus is our high priest. Whom
would Jesus put the sins of God's people upon after He has
finished the atonement? Himself? If so, why would He
need to have sins placed upon Himself after the
atonement is finished?
If the only atonement that ever was or ever shall
be occurred at the cross, why would Jesus place sins upon Himself after He
had already died for sin?
The Adventist position that Azazel
is Satan makes more sense and raises less questions:
After the atonement is finished, Jesus our high priest, the great Sin-bearer,
will place all our sins upon Azazel, Satan, since he
is the cause and instigator of all sin.
That Azazel is a name for
Satan is supported by the following discussion by John N. Andrews:
That the ancient people of God understand the scape-goat to represent, not Christ, but Satan, the following
testimonies will show. It will be seen, moreover, that there is direct evidence
that Satan is intended in the very signification and use of this word.
Charles Beecher, in his work entitled
"Redeemer and Redeemed," pp. 66-70, says:-
"Two goats were to be presented before the
Lord by the high priest. They must be exactly alike in value, size, age, color
- they must be counterparts. Placing these goats before him, the high priest
put both hands into an urn containing the golden lots, and drew them out, one
in each hand. On the one was engraven, La Yehovah
(for Jehovah), on the other La Azazel (for Azazel).
"The goat on which the lot La Yehovah fell was slain. After its blood had been sprinkled
in the holy of holies, the high priest laid his hands on the head of the second
goat, confessed the sins of the congregation, and gave him to a fit man to lead
away and let go in the wilderness; the man thus employed being obliged to wash
his clothes and person before returning to the congregation."
Mr. Beecher states two views respecting the meaning
of this term Azazel, each of which he shows to be
manifestly untrue. He then gives his own view, as follows:-
"The third opinion is,
that Azazel is a proper name of Satan. In support of
this, the following points are urged: The use of the preposition implies it.
The same preposition is used on both lots, La Yehova,
La Azazel; and if the one indicates a person, it
seems natural the other should, especially considering the act of casting lots.
If one is for Jehovah, the other would seem for some other person or being; not
one for Jehovah, and the other for the goat itself.
"What goes to confirm this is,
that the most ancient paraphrases and translations treat Azazel
as a proper name. The Chaldee paraphrase and the targums of Onkelos and Jonathan
would certainly have translated it if it was not a proper name, but they do
not. The Septuagint, or oldest Greek version, renders it by apopompaios,
a word applied by the Greeks to a malign deity, sometimes appeased by
sacrifices.
"Another confirmation is found in the Book of
Enoch, where the name Azalzel, evidently a corruption
of Azazel, is given to one of the fallen angels, thus
plainly showing what was the prevalent understanding of the Jews at that day.
"Still another evidence
is found in the Arabic, where Azazel is employed as
the name of the evil spirit
"In addition to these, we have the evidence of
the Jewish work, Zohar, and of the Cabalistic and
Rabbinical writers. They tell us that the following proverb was current among the
Jews: 'On the day of atonement, a gift to Sammael.'
Hence Moses Gerundinenses feels called to say that it
is not a sacrifice, but only done because commanded by God.
"Another step in the evidence is when we find
this same opinion passing from the Jewish to the early Christian church. Origen
was the most learned of the Fathers, and on such a point as this, the meaning
of a Hebrew word, his testimony is reliable. Says Origen: 'He who is called in
the Septuagint apopompaios and in the Hebrew Azazel, is no other than the devil.'
"Lastly, a circumstance is mentioned of the
Emperor Julian, the apostate, that confirms the
argument. He brought as an objection against the Bible, that Moses commanded a
sacrifice to the evil spirit. An objection he never could have thought of, had
not Azazel been generally regarded as a proper name.
"In view, then, of the difficulties attending
any other meaning, and the accumulated evidence in favor of this, Hengstenberg affirms with great confidence that Azazel cannot be anything else but another name for Satan.
. . .
"The meaning of the term, viewed as a proper
name, was stated in 1677, by Spencer, Dean of Ely, to be Powerful Apostate, or
Mighty Receder."
Mr. Beecher, on the seventy-second page of his
work, states that Professor Bush considers Azazel to
be a proper name of Satan.
Gesenius, the great Hebrew lexicographer, says:-
"Azazel, a word
found only in the law respecting the day of atonement.
Lev.16:8,10,26. . . . By this name is probably to be
understood originally some idol that was appeased with sacrifices, as Saturn
and Mars; but afterwards as the names of idols were often transferred to
demons, it seems to denote an evil demon dwelling in the desert and to be
placed with victims, in accordance with this very ancient and Gentile rite.
This name Azazel is also used by the Arabs for an
evil demon."
Milton represents Azazel
as one of the fallen angels, and the standard-bearer of Satan:-
"That proud honor claimed
Azazel as his right, a cherub tall;
Who forthwith from the glittering staff unfurled
The imperial ensign."
- Paradise Lost, book 1.
The "Comprehensive Commentary" has the
following important remarks:-
"Scape-goat. See different opinions in Bochart. Spencer,
after the oldest opinions of the Hebrews and Christians, thinks Azazel is the name of the devil; and so Rosenmuller,
whom see. The Syriac has Azzail,
the angel (strong one) who revolted."
"Cassell's
Illustrated Bible" speaks thus of the scape-goat:-
"We offer the following exposition as much
more likely, and much more satisfactory: That Azazel
is a personal denomination for the evil one."
Certainly, these are very important testimonies to
show that Satan is typified by the scape-goat. To
show the reasonableness of that act which rolls back upon
Satan the sins of the people of God, and also to define the nature of the act,
let us carefully state the case. Every sin committed by men is
instigated by Satan. This part of the transgression is the sin of Satan alone,
and belongs solely to him, whether men repent or not. But consenting to the
tempter, and obeying him, is the sin of the one tempted. This part of the
transgression will, in the case of all who avail themselves of the work of our
High Priest, be placed upon the antitypical scape-goat,
Satan, and he will have to bear the full punishment of all such sins.
One of the most important events, therefore, in the
opening of the great day of judgment, is that of
placing the sins of the overcomers upon the head of
the great author of sin. The fallen angels will, no doubt, share with their
great leader in this fearful burden of guilt. Satan and his angels are reserved
to the judgment of the great day. And one of its first events after the
righteous are made immortal is that they are exalted to sit in judgment upon
the fallen angels. Jude 6; 2Peter 2:4; 1Cor.6:2,3. (The
Judgment, Its Events and Their Order 78-82)
While one will be hard pressed to find anywhere in
Adventist literature that Satan is our sin-bearer, one can find references,
like in the next to last paragraph, where it says that Satan will
"bear" the "punishment" of the "sins" of the
"people of God."
The difference between the two ideas of sin-bearer
and bearing punishment for sins is more than just semantics. Every
Bible-believing Christian believes that those who do not place their sins on
the great Sin-bearer Jesus Christ will have to bear the full punishment of
their own sins. Would that make the unsaved person his own sin-bearer? Of course not. Even though he has to bear the punishment of
his sins since He did not accept the offer of salvation through Jesus, he does
not become a sin-bearer.
The term "sin-bearer" carries the
connotation of "Savior." Jesus is our Sin-bearer because He died in
our place, as our substitute, for our sins. He paid the penalty for our sins
that we rightfully deserved to receive.
A sin-bearer, a substitute, a savior, these things
neither the unsaved nor Satan can be, even though they must bear the punishment
for the sins that they are carrying upon their guilty souls.
http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/jeremiah-films/video-5.htm#191
Christ bore our sins on the cross, so Satan can't be
our sin-bearer. This is a straw man:
1.
Seventh-day
Adventists believe wholeheartedly that Christ bore our sins on the cross.
2.
Seventh-day
Adventists believe that salvation is centered in Christ alone.
3.
It is
inappropriate to use a verse that says Christ bore our sins on the cross to
prove that Satan cannot be the scapegoat after the atonement is finished (see #191).
Clearly, according to the Bible, the sins are placed
on the goat for Azazel by the high
priest after the atonement is finished. Therefore, Christ our
high priest will place the sins on someone after the atonement is finished. If
this be not Satan, then whom is it?
http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/jeremiah-films/video-5.htm#192
So what shall we say? If Satan bears "the full
punishment" of certain sins after the atonement is over, does that not make
him a sin-bearer? Not at all.
Every Bible-believing Christian knows that those
who do not place their sins on the great Sin-bearer Jesus Christ will have to
bear the full punishment of their own sins. Does then the unsaved person become
his own sin-bearer? Of course not. Even though he has
to bear the full punishment of his own sins, he does not become a sin-bearer.
The term "sin-bearer" carries the
connotation of Savior, substitute, and mediator. This the
unsaved can never be.
How Jesus can transfer sin to Satan after the
atonement is finished is not the only thing Adventist theology explains. The
first gospel promise said that Satan's head would be crushed under the feet of
the "seed," which Paul identifies as both Christ and his followers
(Gen. 3:15; Gal. 3:16, 29). Paul also says that "the God of peace shall
bruise Satan under your feet shortly" (Rom. 16:20). While it is easy to
see how Christ will crush Satan's head, what part do the redeemed have in all
this?
Placing sins upon the scapegoat after the atonement
is over has nothing to do with our salvation. It has everything to do with the
punishment of the great rebel who has caused so much misery on planet earth.
(Pastor John Witcombe, cited from private communication).
The final generation redeemed have their part in
this in that they, as the remnant-elect 144,000, stand as a testimony to the
full efficacy of the blood of Christ to wash their robes, not solely in
forgiving sin past, but in producing full regeneration of character in the
present and implanting the living mind of Christ in sinful and condemned flesh.
This is what is meant by the “fit man” that leads the goat into the wilderness.
This final-generation remnant-elect plays a vital
role in the closing of the great controversy. It has been Satan’s contention
that the law of God cannot be kept in total God-centeredness and perfect
altruism; that service to God cannot be rendered entirely from a motivation of
love--that hope of reward or fear of punishment plays into the experience of
God’s followers.
The typology of Azazel
teaches that Satan’s philosophies are banished to oblivion, never to arise
again. This has nothing to do with making or applying the atonement but it has
everything to do with the end of the process of atonement which has the result
of securing the universe by making an end of sin and bringing in everlasting
righteousness.
The work of the fit man brings into view a
tremendous subject of vital importance in the final generation, which takes us
into new heights of understanding of the great controversy. It is the advancing
light of the third angel’s message in the examination of the interrelated
topics of the law of God, the character of God, the Sabbath, and the
righteousness of God, the atonement, the glory of the fourth angel, and more.
It is about the final message of mercy to the world.
Christ as the “goat of departure” contradicts the final message of mercy
that restores truth about God’s Character
This is not an easy subject to portray in a few
lines. The key thought here would be that the ending of the rebellion is
achieved by undoing the lies that fomented the rebellion in the beginning.
The rebellion began by denigrating God’s character.
It was Satan’s implicit charge that God was authoritarian and arbitrary and
that He would rule by force. When fear of a punishing God was brought in, hatred
and loathing was born. This serves to breed total disregard for God’s law and
the setting up of self-rule, which is rebellion, and separation/sin. So
it is that when the truth about God’s character is set right, that healing
takes place, love rules, reconciliation occurs with the result that sin
and separation ceases.
You see, people like to talk about the cleansing of
the sanctuary as the work of cleansing His people from sin that they may stand
in the day of the Lord. But what is it that ends sin? What brings about a
condition of total surrender so that the Spirit/Christ will abide fully in the
heart continually, with the effect, of course, that sin ceases?
It is the
casting out of fear and this comes with the truths about the character of
God being restored.
·
There is no
fear in love.
·
Perfect love
casts out all fear.
·
Fear has to
do with punishment.
·
This fear is
removed in the one who is brought back to love.
These four ideas are all found in one powerful
text, 1 John 4:18.
The truth about God must be restored for the end to
come.
He caused the fall of man through the same temptations
with which he had caused the fall of angels; and in the world where he proposed
to work out his principles of rebellion, the battle had to be fought, that all
might behold the real nature and results of disobedience to God's great moral
standard. He represented God in a false light, clothing him with his own
attributes. Christ came to represent the Father in his true character. He
showed that he was not an arbitrary judge, ready to bring judgments upon men,
and delighting in condemning and punishing them for their evil
deeds." {ST, November 18, 1889 par.
6}
It is Satan's constant effort to misrepresent the
character of God, the nature of sin, and the real issues at stake in the great
controversy. His sophistry lessens the obligation of the divine law, and gives
men license to sin. At the same time he causes them to cherish false
conceptions of God, so that they regard him with fear and hate, rather than
with love. {GC88 568.4}
Another line of thought to explore in this is that
the sanctuary is the dwelling place of God. Of course, if we have a wrong
concept of God, His dwelling place is a haunted mansion and needs the cobwebs
swept away and the lights turned on. Also, if He is to dwell in us, then
we too are a sanctuary and if a wrong concept of God is dwelling in our own
heart, that also needs to be set right, justified. By beholding God as He is we become changed into His image.
Another thought, which arises from the upside down
theology that the scapegoat is Christ has to do with the fact that. the scapegoat is banished in the final atonement. That is
why the scapegoat cannot be Christ. Satan is the one who brought in the
doctrine of fear and punishment and caused rebellion and sin, therefore, he has
to bear the responsibility for all of these lies. Neither are they arbitrarily
placed on his head. The demonstrations of the final crisis and later the Great
White Throne judgment scene cause him a loss of support from his own and their
rage and rebellion directs at him and his bankrupt philosophies.
In the old service, he was led out by a “fit man”
(Christ, through the 144,000) into the wilderness and abandoned. The people of
God vindicate God’s character by living fully according to righteous
principles, the government of heaven. The putting out of the erroneous concept
of the character of God is what secures the universe from ever experiencing
another rebellion.
Jesus came to tell the truth about God because
Satan had clothed Him with his own attributes. There were two goats selected on
the day of atonement, one for the LORD and one for Azazel The scapegoat cannot be Jesus. Jesus remains with
us, with the scars of the controversy indelibly imprinted in His flesh—the
bruised heel. The scapegoat is sent into exile, along with his ideas—the
crushed head.
The final eradication of sin
Again, a vast subject presents itself in relation
to our thoughts on the character of God, the sanctuary and the scapegoat. As we
look to the final disposition of the wicked we have elsewhere explored this
theme to find that the conclusion of the matter reveals that sin will be the
agent of destruction and not God. We cannot cover this here except to point to
the sanctuary. The psalmist said, in fact, that when he went to the sanctuary
he could understand the end of the wicked. (Ps.
73:17) and that the end of the wicked would be “cut off,” the same as we read
of those who are sent out of the camp on the Day of Atonement. (Ps 37:38). They suffer the same fate as
that of the scapegoat, in that they are banished. God’s wrath is abandonment,
or the “hiding of His face.” (Deut.
31:17, 18; Isa. 54:8; Ps. 89:46, etc.) [Inquire to straub@direct.ca for the Bible/SoP research paper The Ending of the Great Controversy: The Fires for a thorough treatment on this subject.
Turning to M. L. Andreasen
for comment on the final eradication of sin, we are to consider the Day of
Atonement reality that all of those who did not “afflict their souls” were “cut
off” on that day. The typical ceremonial divided the people into two groups.
The ones who entered into the soul searching and
confession, having brought their sin offering and made their restitution,
awaited the outcome. As they heard the tinkling of the bells on the garment of
the high priest, they knew that their sins were blotted out and they were clean
before God. The other group, not having afflicted their souls or entered into
the process, had to bear their own sin and were thus, “cut off.” (Lev. 23:29). In this scenario it would
not mean the infliction of death under civil code but rather banishment from
the camp. (You can search the SdA commentary on this
term.) When we are told that we are to consider the end of the wicked in the
sanctuary we look at the scapegoat and how it is that he, Satan, is to suffer
the penalty for sin and we do not see killing, but abandonment.
The Day of Atonement follows two outcomes for
sinners: their sin goes onto the goat for the LORD and is thus removed by the
death of the same, or they themselves are banished, “cut off.”
The leading away of the scapegoat must have been a
solemn moment for all Israel. In him each man had a vivid illustration of what
would happen to him as he failed in his duty toward God. Driven out of the
camp, out into the wilderness, alone and forsaken, the prey of hunger and
thirst, of heat by day and cold by night, surrounded by wild animals and other
dangers of the night, laden with sin and with the curse of God resting upon
him—this was the fate of the scapegoat, and this would be the fate of such as
departed from God. The lesson must have been vivid and powerful, and one not
easily forgotten. (M. L. Andreasen,
The Sanctuary Service, p. 210).
From Neil Livingston’s paper on final atonement:
What God gave us at the beginning still stands. God’s message does not
change—we did not understand the third angel’s message in error
“Study the Bible truths that for fifty years have
been calling us out from the world.” Ellen White counseled. Ibid.
In other words, noting time and place (1906) when
this testimony was penned, the truth that pioneer Adventists taught from 1844
to the turn of the century was, and still is, the Third Angel's Message. The
pioneer Seventh-day Adventist messages, given this people in
the past century, is the true end-time “gospel” to a perishing world.
God does not change. His message does not change. Any message that is not in
harmony with this “most precious message” is what Ellen White called “strange
fire,” what we know today as “new theology.”
Do not move any pillars as set in place after “the passing of time in
1844”
When the power of God testifies to what is truth,
the truth is to stand forever as the truth…The truth for this time, God has given us as a foundation for our faith. He Himself
has taught us what is truth…And while the Scriptures
are God’s Word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such
application moves one pillar of the foundation that God has sustained these
fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the
wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the
past messages that have come to the people of God.” A Call to the Watchmen,
p. 14.
Notice that, “He [God] Himself has taught us what is truth,” and, “when the power of God testifies to what is
truth, “the truth is to stand forever as the truth.” Ibid. Could
anything be more plain? An
application, or interpretation, of Scripture that “moves one pillar of the
foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake.”
Ibid. In this statement, Ellen White emphasized that
it was “the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that
have come to the people of God.” Ibid.
The past fifty years have not dimmed one jot or principle of our faith as we received the
great and wonderful evidences that were made certain to us in 1844, after the
passing of the time…Not a word is changed or denied. That which the Holy Spirit
testified to as truth after the passing of the time, in our great disappointment,
is the solid foundation of truth…” The Upward Look, 352.
Not a word is changed or denied,” of the Advent truth for “the past fifty years,” and this
truth that was laid down after the great disappointment in 1844 “is the solid
foundation of truth.” The emphasis again and again is stated to be the truth
that was held by Seventh-day Adventists for “the past fifty years.” Gospel Workers, 1915, 307.
The seven pillars
Seven pillars of truth:
·
passing of
time in 1844
·
second coming
·
cleansing of
the sanctuary
·
three angel’s
messages
·
commandments
of God
·
faith of
Jesus; overcoming in sinful flesh
·
Sabbath
·
non-immortality
of the wicked
Satan attacks the first angel’s message, the sanctuary.
The first “pillar”
or “landmark” that Satan would attack is the foundation pillar of the Advent
movement. This landmark is the First Angel’s Message, the message that the
remnant people were commissioned to give to a perishing world. The sanctuary
truth is the one doctrine held only by Seventh-day Adventists. … [The attack
would have to be subtle.] If Satan attacked the sanctuary truth outright, by
stating “there is no sanctuary in heaven,” the Advent people would detect the
deception immediately. Too many testimonies had been written against that kind
of an assault upon this foundation pillar of Adventism.
Final atonement doctrine is where he strikes, by bringing in the
“completed atonement at the cross” error.
History
reveals that Satan would shrewdly concentrate his assault on the most important
“phase” of the sanctuary truth. Satan would cleverly attack, and try to negate,
the “final atonement” and the “blotting out of sins” work of Jesus Christ, our
heavenly High Priest. Satan would introduce into the Seventh-day Adventist
Church the false concept held by the fallen churches of Babylon that the
atonement was final, completed and finished on the cross. This false concept
would lead the people to feel secure in their sins. This most subtle deception
would, at the same time, do away with the truth of the 1844 message—that the
final atonement is being completed in heaven by our High Priest, Jesus Christ, the true Lamb of God.
To complete
his masterful deception, Satan, after establishing the erroneous “complete and
final atonement on the cross” concept, would then introduce into the
Seventh-day Adventist Church a false concept of the human nature Christ assumed
while in the flesh. This second false concept would give the people a false
“assurance” and lead them to believe that Christ is their substitute only. This
deception would lead the people to accept the false doctrine of “free grace”
held by all so-called “contemporary Christians.” This would be Satan’s most
cunning and subtle deception, for it would lead the people to be lost in their
sins!
This is the spiritualism of the Omega
Spiritualism
by definition is the sophistry of Satan in its fundamental tenets of “ye shall
not surely die,” and “ye are gods.” All of the enemy’s kingdom principles
derive from these. In other words, translated into simple
terms, this means, “You have innate righteousness, follow your own will, sin
and live too.” All of his paths have these teachings in some form. In
the case of the Omega, which applies to the end-time Advent people, it is in
the teachings that are commonly heard from pulpits today: that
Christ-did-it-all, finished-at-the-cross mantra that does not like to talk
about total overcoming but emphasizes the part “if-we-sin-we-are-covered.” It
avoids any discussion of the close of probation for the living, because in most
cases it does not believe in this. Therefore, it leads to a false experience,
in that we can now live as we want and we’re covered just fine. Eternal life is
guaranteed. It is not far off from once-saved-always saved. Just read your
Bible and pray. This is all intended by Satan to take Adventists step by step
into a first-apartment evangelical experience and on into the mark of the
beast.
This
overwhelming deception the Spirit of Prophecy describes as “the Omega of
apostasy.”
“The Omega
would follow in a little while,” Ellen White warned. “I tremble for our
people.” Sermons and Talks, 341.
Jesus warned
that in the last days Satan’s battle strategy against the remnant people of God
would be so deceptive that “if it were possible, it should deceive the very
elect.” Matthew 24:24b. Thus Paul stated, “and no marvel; for Satan himself is
transformed into an angel of light, therefore it is no great thing if his
ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness.” 2 Corinthians 11:14, 15a.
Ellen White
cautioned, “One will arise and still another with new light which contradicts
the light that God has given under the demonstration of His Holy Spirit…We are
not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the
special points of our faith.” A Call to the Watchmen, 14.
How can we
know what is truth? How can we identify heresy in these last days? How can we
avoid being deceived by our cunning adversary?
“When the power of God testifies to what is truth,
the truth is to stand forever as the truth. No after suppositions, contrary to
the light God has given, are to be entertained.” Ibid. …
So that is
the key, the doctrinal rock we should hold on to—the truth in our past history!
“We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the
Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past
history.” Life Sketches, 196. This statement
was published in 1915. We must go back to the beginning of the Advent movement,
the first “fifty years” of our past history, to discover what
was the truth that was endorsed by “the wonderful demonstration of the Holy
Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the
people of God.” A Call to the Watchmen, 14.
Then we must compare any new teaching, and “new theology,” to the teachings of
pioneer Seventh-day Adventists from 1844 to the turn of the century.
Crosier explains final atonement (Remember, the Lord endorsed this
teaching, through the gift of prophecy)
1.
If the atonement was made on Calvary, by whom was it made? The making of the
atonement is the work of a Priest. 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), 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 the capacity till after His resurrection, and we have no
record of His doing anything 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, until after His ascension when, by His own blood,
He entered His heavenly Sanctuary for us.
Any valid representations of a complete atonement
made at the cross would of necessity be in reference to sacrificial atonement, the basis for the entire work yet to be
done. The sacrifice was perfect and
complete and finished at the cross but the priest must yet take the blood into
the sanctuary and administer the merits of Christ through the blood. In another
sense, inspiration can speak of a completion of the atonement on Calvary in prolepsis,
as a rhetorical device, as looking forward to the work being finished on the
basis of the sacrificial atonement. Another example of such a device is found
in Revelation 16:6, which is in reference to the third plague being poured on
the water so they can have blood to drink, because they “have shed the blood of
saints and prophets.” We know that there are no martyrs under the plagues, so
this is speaking of what they intend to
do, in the passing of the death decree. The
legislation of it makes it as good as done. So it is with reference to the
finished work at the cross. We can say the atonement was complete, as a noun,
but we cannot say it was completed,
as a verb, at that time. Further, it must be obvious that the atonement was
not complete at the cross, because we are still here on earth. When final
atonement is complete, the marriage is complete and at this time He leaves the
Holiest, lays aside the priestly robes, puts on the kingly attire, and comes to
get His bride.
…pioneer
Adventists did not believe in a “completed and final atonement on the cross.”
Indeed, the “Fundamental Principles of Beliefs” written by James White and
published in the Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook [1847-1914] stated
almost the very words of Crosier on the final atonement. Note carefully the
statement by James White: “That there is one Lord Jesus Christ…that He…died our
sacrifice, was raised for our justification, ascended on high to be our only
Mediator in the sanctuary in heaven, where, with His own blood, He makes the
atonement for our sins; which atonement, so far from being made on the cross,
which was but the offering of the sacrifice, is the very last portion of His
work as priest, according to the example of the Levitical
priesthood, which foreshadowed and prefigured the ministry of our Lord in
heaven.” James White, 1874 Fundamental Principles, op. sit. The Living
Witness, “Significant Articles From the Signs
of the Times,” 1874-1959, Pacific Press Publishing association, 1959….
J. N. Andrews was clear on final atonement:
“The work of cleansing the sanctuary is succeeded
by the act of placing the sins, thus removed, upon the head of the scapegoat,
to be borne away forever from the sanctuary,” Andrews concludes. “The work
of our High Priest for the sins of the world will then be completed, and He
will be ready to appear ‘without sin unto salvation.’” James N. Andrews, The
Sanctuary and Twenty-Three Hundred Days, Steam Press of the Seventh-day
Adventist Publishing Association, battle Creek, MI., 1872, p. 92.
At this point, I could also provide citations from
publications of the views of Joseph Bates, Stephen N. Haskell, Alonzo T. Jones,
J. N. Loughborough, E. J. Waggoner, Joseph H.
Waggoner, and others that would show the same thing, as treasures mined from their personal studies in the Bible, not from
Ellen White. The reader can follow up; to bring them here would just make a
longer paper, although it is valuable knowledge to garner into one’s own barns,
because it reveals that “This position was one of the ‘foundation’ truths that was endorsed by the Spirit of God at the beginning of the
Advent movement.” Livingston, p. 21
Ellen White confirms:
Ellen White’s view never changed, of course. From
early to late statements, she was always clear that the “atonement” was not
completed and finished on the cross, but in the heavenly sanctuary. The
following two statements were penned in 1912.
His [Christ] work as high priest completes the
divine plan of redemption by making the final atonement for sin.” Manuscript
69, 1912, p. 13. (Emphasis supplied).
When Christ, the Mediator, burst the bands of the
tomb, and ascended on high to minister for man, [1] He first entered the
holy place, where, by virtue of His own sacrifice, He made an
offering for the sins of men. With intercession and pleading He presented
before God the prayers and repentance and faith of His people, purified by the
incense of His own merits. [2] He next entered the Most Holy Place [in
1844], to make an atonement for the sins of the people, and cleanse the
sanctuary. His work as High Priest completes the divine plan of redemption
by making the final atonement for sin. Manuscript Releases, vol.
II, 54. (Emphasis supplied).
Erroneous Contemporary Adventist Church Statement
It may be that we open up the proverbial “can of
worms” on this by bringing in the debacle of Questions on Doctrine (QOD). Let the reader understand there is a
backdrop of history here that opens this matter up to a much bigger problem
than any local teaching of error. This ill is
systemic in Adventism today. Although not new heresy, this difficulty stems in
a significant part from the evangelical conferences of the mid-1950’s which
resulted in the publishing of “books of a new order” as was desired by the enemy
of souls and was prophesied to occur in the future if his supposed reformation were to take place. That reformation
has obviously been well underway for some time. (See Testimonies for the Church Containing Messages of Warning and
Instruction to Seventh-day Adventists, p.39, par. 3-4).
There are good books that bring forward the true
history of the matter and one that I would highly recommend for the reader to
study is written by member and leader in good standing, Elder Herb Douglass’ A Fork in the Road who was employed by
the publisher of QOD at the time of its publication. The behind the scenes
story is fascinating.
This matter is truly a great divide as the church
seems to be officially split but any official travel of the path of error, as
one sees in QOD, necessitates a repudiation of the pioneers and Ellen White. We
cannot agree that it is any sort of advance in light or progressive
understanding to do such a thing, but rather a falling away from the upward
path into the deepening darkness of the chasm below.
To embrace deviations in our sanctuary message can
only result in the loss of the third angel’s message and a wide-open door to
friendship with the world. Such friendship is not a healthy one, as it causes
us to move to their position and not them to ours. Until Seventh-day Adventism
truly acknowledges that it has allowed itself to largely become “offshoot” from
the truth and until she would see the wisdom of officially repudiating all
publications and statements and purge from her payroll all members that teach
these heresies, we are stuck with a house divided, which ultimately cannot
stand. This is the deplorable condition in which the denomination seeks to “Go
Forward” today, as we heard from the president of the General Conference, Ted
N. C. Wilson, at the outset of his ministry to the church. Until we dismantle
this apostasy, we have conflict at all levels.
Some believe that God is going to purify His
church, meaning Conference Adventism. I am watching for this, but highly doubt
that it will happen. I personally believe the sliding will continue. This does
not mean that any individual is obligated to identify with it. Those who
embrace the truth as it is in Jesus, and who follow the Lamb “withersoever He goeth” are encouraged to stand up and stay
standing, however God leads them to do it. My writing and sharing of this paper
is part of my own duty to do these things. I’ll leave this thought there.
This becomes all the more meaningful when we
realize that Jesus, our surety, entered the “holy places” and appeared in the
presence of God for us. But it was not with the hope of obtaining something for
us at that time, or at some future time. No! He had already obtained it
for us on the cross. [emphasis theirs] And
now, as our High Priest, He ministers the virtues of His atoning sacrifice.
Representative Group of Seventh-day Adventists, Questions on Doctrine,
Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington, D.C., 1957, 381.
Notice, Ellen White states that Jesus “entered the
holy place, where…He made an offering for the sons of men.” Manuscript
Releases, vol. II, 54. The contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church says
“No.” They admit that Jesus did enter the “holy places” and appeared in the
presence of God for us. “But it was not with the hope of obtaining something
for us at that time, or at some future time.” Representative Group of
Seventh-day Adventists, Questions on Doctrine, Review and Herald
Publishing Association, Washington, D.C., 1957, 381.
Ellen White says, “He next entered the most holy
place, to make an atonement for the sins of the
people, and cleanse the sanctuary.” And, “His work as High Priest completes the
divine plan of redemption by making the final atonement for sin.” Manuscript
Releases, vol. II, 54. The contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church says,
“No! He had already obtained it for us on the cross.” Representative
Group of Seventh-day Adventists, Questions on Doctrine, Review and
Herald Publishing Association, Washington, D.C., 1957, 381.
“The sins of those who have obtained pardon through
the great sin-offering, are, at the close of our Lord’s work in the holy
places, blotted out (Acts 3:19),” J. N. Andrews concluded, “and being then
transferred to the scapegoat, are borne away from the sanctuary and host
forever, and rest upon the head of their author, the devil.” J. N. Andrews.…
As he [Christ] repeated these words, he pointed to
the heavenly sanctuary. The minds of all who embrace this message are directed
to the most holy place, where Jesus stands before the ark, making His final
intercession for all those for whom mercy still lingers and for those who
have ignorantly broken the law of God. This atonement is made for the
righteous dead as well as for the righteous living. Early
Writings, 254.
Jesus makes an atonement for those who died, not receiving the light upon God’s commandments, who
sinned ignorantly. Spiritual Gifts, vol. I, 162, 163. …
Early departure from the truth: Brother Ballenger
Satan today has a heyday with all of this because
the prophet is not alive to write specific letters to address individual
teachers, but we can compare early apostasies with those of today to know
exactly what she would say to them, were she alive. Let us look at the case of
Albion Ballenger, at the opening of the twentieth century.
It was reported by Elder E. W. Farnsworth by a
letter to the General Conference president, who passed the information to W. C.
White on March 16, 1905 that
…Brother Ballenger has got into a condition of mind
which would seem to me to unfit him entirely to preach the message. He has been
studying the subject of the sanctuary a good deal lately, and he comes to the
conclusion that the atonement was made when Christ was crucified and that
when He ascended He went immediately into the Most Holy Place and that His
ministry has been carried on there ever since. (Arthur L. White, EGW: The
Early Elmshaven Years, vol. 5, 407). (Emphasis
supplied).
Notice the three heretical concepts of Ballenger’s
teaching.
1. The atonement was made when Christ was crucified,
2. and that when He ascended
He went immediately into the Most Holy Place,
3. and that His ministry has
been carried on there ever since.
Astounding! This is exactly the teaching of the “new”
theology currently devastating [has devastated] the Seventh-day Adventist
Church. This erroneous concept is entirely at odds with the historic teaching
of pioneer Adventists. Moreover, this teaching is in opposition to the Spirit
of Prophecy.
“He [Ballenger] sees clearly that his view cannot
be made to harmonize with the testimonies,” Farnsworth wrote in his letter, “at
least he admits freely that he is totally unable to do so.” Ibid.
Farnsworth stated further that, in his own mind,
Ballenger felt that “there is an irreconcilable difference” between his
theories and Ellen White. “This, of course, involves the authenticity of the
Testimonies and practically upsets them,” Farnsworth concluded. Ibid. …
Ellen White repudiates Ballenger soundly
“It will be one of the great evils that will
come to our people to have the Scriptures taken out of their true place and
so interpreted as to substantiate error that contradicts the light and
the Testimonies that God has been giving us for the past half century,”
Ellen White replied to Ballenger. “I declare in the name of the Lord that the
most dangerous heresies are seeking to find entrance among us as a people,
and Elder Ballenger is making spoil of his own soul.” Manuscript
Release, 59, 1905. (For further EGW statements on the teachings of
A. F. Ballenger, see Christ In His Sanctuary,
3-18).
“There is
not truth in the explanations of Scripture that Elder Ballenger and those
associated with him are presenting,” Ellen White cautioned. “I am instructed
to say to Elder Ballenger, your theories, which have multitudes of fine
threads, and need so many explanations, are not truth, and are not to
be brought to the flock of God.” Ibid.
The attack of Satan on the sanctuary truth at that
time came to naught because the Messenger of the Lord was alive and confronted
the false doctrine. However, today Ellen White is no longer with the Church. As
Israel of old, we only have the writings of the prophet. Has the Seventh-day
Adventist Church fallen for the old erroneous concepts of Ballenger? Although
Ellen White had warned that these dangerous concepts “are not to be brought to
the flock of God,” that is exactly what has been promoted by the “new”
theology.
Contemporary Scholars Endorse Ballenger’s Theories
In 1981 Roy Adams, … [at
time of this writing] assistant editor of the Adventist Review, wrote
his Doctoral Dissertation at Andrews University. Adams wrote on the sanctuary
doctrinal positions held by Uriah Smith, M. L. Andreason,
and A. F. Ballenger. Notice carefully the following conclusion by Roy Adams on
the position held by A. F. Ballenger:
“Ballenger’s treatment of Hebrews 6:19, 20 is so strong, exegetically, that it has to be regarded as
a significant movement towards a closer affinity to the biblical testimony
in regard to the meaning of the phrase ‘within the veil.’ His argumentation,
based as it was on solid scriptural indications, far surpassed the value of
[Uriah] Smith’s on the same point. And inasmuch as the two positions were
diametrically opposed to each other, Ballenger’s is to be preferred.”
Roy Adams, The Sanctuary Doctrine, “Three Approaches
in the Seventh-day Adventist Church,” Andrews University Seminary Doctoral
Dissertation Series, Andrews university Press, 1981, 245.
Notice that Roy Adams, speaking for contemporary
Seventh-day Adventist theologians, states that Ballenger’s treatment of
Scripture “is so strong,” and “that it has to be regarded as a significant
movement towards a closer affinity to the biblical testimony.” On this point
Adams concluded that Ballenger’s argumentations are “based as it was on solid
scriptural indications.”
Coming full circle
We must not lose our focus in relating some of
these details of history, in that it is my attempt to relate the teaching that Azazel is Christ is entirely incompatible with true
Seventh-day Adventism. Keeping in mind that Ellen bore to us the heavenly
imprimatur upon Uriah Smith’s work in Daniel
and the Revelation, where we find also the teaching of Azazel
as Satan--not Christ--we see that Roy Adams denigrates Smith, saying, “His
[Ballenger’s] argumentation, based as it was on solid scriptural indications,
far surpassed the value of Smith’s on the same point.”
Roy Adams admits that Ballenger and Smith were at
opposite ends of theology on the sanctuary doctrine, “And inasmuch as the two
positions were diametrically opposed to each other…” The truth is that
Ballenger was “diametrically opposed” to all pioneer Adventists. … Even
Ballenger himself had stated that “there is an irreconcilable difference”
between his theories and Ellen White. E. E. Andross, Bible
study, No. II, July 13, 1911,
13.
Then Roy Adams, completely disregarding Spirit of
Prophecy counsel, states that “Ballenger’s [position] is to be preferred,”
to that of Uriah Smith. Adams could have chosen any other pioneer Adventist
instead of Uriah Smith as an example of pioneer Adventist teaching on the
sanctuary, because Uriah Smith’s writings on the subject are in perfect harmony
with O. R. L. Crosier, James White, J. N. Andrews and others.
“Ballenger’s radical departure in the area of the
sanctuary was of immense significance to the purpose of this study,”
Adams admits. The Sanctuary Doctrine, 256.
“But while it would be impossible to synthesize the
sanctuary theology of these three figures [Uriah Smith, A. F. Ballenger, M. L. Andreason] into a unified whole, it is feasible to build
a contemporary Adventist theology of the sanctuary, using their insights, however
diverse they are in some points.” Adams reasons. “Such an eclectic approach
would need to discard or modify some features while retaining others
with profit.” Ibid. 255.
This is the real problem with contemporary
Adventist scholarship. They wish to teach truth mixed with error. Why? Because Adventist leadership aspires to join the great Ecumenical
movement sweeping the world. They wish to be considered “Christian
brethren” by the fallen churches of Babylon! …
“It will be one of the great evils that will come
to our people,” Ellen White predicted, “to have the Scriptures taken out of
their true place and so interpreted as to substantiate error that
contradicts the light and the Testimonies that God has been giving us for the
past half century.” Ibid.
“Let us all cling to the established truth of the
sanctuary,” Ellen White concluded. Ibid. In
1905 this “truth of the sanctuary” would be the “established truth” presented
by Crosier, James White, and other pioneer Adventists.
The contemporary Church is now teaching the false
doctrines on the sanctuary that were first introduced by A. F. Ballenger. On
the First Angel’s Message, the sanctuary truth, the Seventh-day Adventist
Church is now in apostasy. How the Lord will choose to deal with the Church and
this apostasy is a frightening possibility. Is it any wonder that Ellen White,
commenting on this “Omega of Apostasy” stated that, “I tremble for our people.” Sermons
and Talks,
Closing statement
We have nothing to fear for the future, except as
we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and
His teaching in our past history” Life Sketches, 196.
Simple enough.