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
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
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
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
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
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.
Final
atonement doctrine is where he strikes, by bringing in the “completed atonement
at the cross” error.
“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. …
Crosier
explains final atonement (Remember, the Lord endorsed this teaching, through
the gift of prophecy)
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.
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
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
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
“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
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
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.
“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.
“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.”
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
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.