Views on the Scapegoat: A Litmus Test of True Adventism


Kevin Straub

Click to go to our Home Page


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




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.


straub1.jpgThis 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 ).


Satan is striving continually to bring in fanciful suppositions in regard to the sanctuary, degrading the wonderful representations of God and the ministry of Christ for our salvation into something that suits the carnal mind. He removes its presiding power from the hearts of believers, and supplies its place with fantastic theories invented to make void the truths of the atonement, and destroy our confidence in the doctrines which we have held sacred since the third angel's message was first given. Thus he would rob us of our faith in the very message that has made us a separate people, and has given character and power to our work. Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, p. 17. (1905) EV 225 (Emphasis supplied).


Satan's purpose is, through his devices, to make of none effect the testimonies of the Spirit of God. If he can lead the minds of the people of God to see things in a perverted light, they will lose confidence in the messages God sends through His servants; then he can the more readily deceive, and not be detected.  {12MR 201.1} 


The Sabbath question is to be the issue in the great final conflict in which all the world will act a part. {CCh 334.6}


As the people of God approach the perils of the last days, Satan holds earnest consultation with his angels as to the most successful plan of overthrowing their faith. … [He] directs his angels to lay their snares especially for those who are looking for the second advent of Christ and endeavoring to keep all the commandments of God.  {TM 472.1}

Says the great deceiver: "We must watch those who are calling the attention of the people to the Sabbath of Jehovah; they will lead many to see the claims of the law of God; and the same light which reveals the true Sabbath reveals also the ministration of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, and shows that the last work for man's salvation is now going forward. Hold the minds of the people in darkness till that work is ended, and we shall secure the world and the church also.  {TM 472.2} 

"The Sabbath is the great question which is to decide the destiny of souls. We must exalt the sabbath of our creating. We have caused it to be accepted by both worldlings and church members; now the church must be led to unite with the world in its support. We must work by signs and wonders to blind their eyes to the truth, and lead them to lay aside reason and the fear of God and follow custom and tradition.  {TM 472.3} 

"I will influence popular ministers to turn the attention of their hearers from the commandments of God. That which the Scriptures declare to be a perfect law of liberty shall be represented as a yoke of bondage. The people accept their minister's explanations of Scripture and do not investigate for themselves. Therefore, by working through the ministers, I can control the people according to my will.  {TM 472.4} (Emphasis supplied). 


I consider it an affront to Christ to hear this doctrine of the scapegoat as Christ, taught in Adventism. I understand that such things are not uncommon in the present denominational milieu. The Adventist church is in great disarray today, not only spiritually, but doctrinally.

In general, the common churchgoer is not aware of the blatant official repudiation of the investigative judgment doctrine that is found without a lot of difficulty by the student of Adventist history. It goes unnoticed simply because it is not taught much anymore and if it is the teaching is weak or subtly undermined in careful wordings that the issues are not discerned. The same goes for the entire package of teachings that stand or fall upon the Biblically-based teaching of the investigative judgment, based upon Daniel 8:14, which is understood to represent the movement of Christ into the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary in 1844, where He would bring forward the efficacy of His blood, His merits, to continue the work of atonement in a phase of ministry that would finalize the great controversy.

All of this is subject matter which is beyond the scope of the small discussion that I set out to do, here, and many volumes have been written for and against the doctrine of the investigative judgment and “final atonement,” and many volumes have been published on the history of the Advent movement which will serve the reader well in understanding what Seventh-day Adventism truly is. I thirst for the fellowship of believers who care about these things enough to study them.


My concern today is that when I take my family to an Adventist church, I would hope to hear Adventist teaching. If I wanted the evangelical first-apartment theology, we could attend closer to home at any of the Sunday keeping churches, and even other Sabbath-keeping churches, to receive that message. I understand, however, that I would be worshipping at Satan’s throne, were I to do this. Strong words? They aren’t mine, but that of the Spirit of the Lord.


Those who have not followed Jesus into the Holiest are under dark influence


I saw a throne, and on it sat the Father and the Son. … Before the throne I saw the Advent people--the church and the world. I saw two companies, one bowed down before the throne, deeply interested, while the other stood uninterested and careless. Those who were bowed before the throne would offer up their prayers and look to Jesus; then He would look to His Father, and appear to be pleading with Him. A light would come from the Father to the Son and from the Son to the praying company. Then I saw an exceeding bright light come from the Father to the Son, and from the Son it waved over the people before the throne. But few would receive this great light. Many came out from under it and immediately resisted it; others were careless and did not cherish the light, and it moved off from them. Some cherished it, and went and bowed down with the little praying company. This company all received the light and rejoiced in it, and their countenances shone with its glory.  {EW 54.2}

I saw the Father rise from the throne, and in a flaming chariot go into the holy of holies within the veil, and sit down. Then Jesus rose up from the throne, and the most of those who were bowed down arose with Him. I did not see one ray of light pass from Jesus to the careless multitude after He arose, and they were left in perfect darkness. Those who arose when Jesus did, kept their eyes fixed on Him as He left the throne and led them out a little way. Then He raised His right arm, and we heard His lovely voice saying, "Wait here; I am going to My Father to receive the kingdom; keep your garments spotless, and in a little while I will return from the wedding and receive you to Myself." Then a cloudy chariot, with wheels like flaming fire, surrounded by angels, came to where Jesus was. He stepped into the chariot and was borne to the holiest, where the Father sat. There I beheld Jesus, a great High Priest, standing before the Father. On the hem of His garment was a bell and a pomegranate, a bell and a pomegranate. Those who rose up with Jesus would send up their faith to Him in the holiest, and pray, "My Father, give us Thy Spirit." Then Jesus would breathe upon them the Holy Ghost. In that breath was light, power, and much love, joy, and peace. {EW 55.1}

I turned to look at the company who were still bowed before the throne; they did not know that Jesus had left it. Satan appeared to be by the throne, trying to carry on the work of God. I saw them look up to the throne, and pray, "Father, give us Thy Spirit." Satan would then breathe upon them an unholy influence.  -  {EW 56.1} (Emphasis added).


Let me say right now that I should not have to spend time writing an apologetic to Adventists for making use of Ellen G. White’s writings. That is also the subject of books already in print. Suffice it to say that we as Adventists can rely on the testimonies as valid revelation and guidance from the Lord without shame or embarrassment and if we cannot, then we have some serious reckoning to do with our choice of what message with which we consider ourselves in alignment, because Seventh-day Adventists are the people of the third angel’s message (a term which encompasses all three angels). If a teacher who calls himself or herself a Seventh-day Adventist does not accept the testimonies or the third angel’s message and cannot preach in accordance with them, then why does that teacher stand before Seventh-day Adventists?


“New” theology (old heresy) denies movement of Jesus into the holiest in 1844


Desmond Ford rocked the church in the 1980’s with theology that was a resurrection of Ballenger’s heresy of the early 1900’s, which runs specifically counter to our foundation teaching of the ending of the 2300 day prophecy in 1844 and the movement of Jesus into the Most Holy Place at that time.


The Lord has shown me in vision, that Jesus rose up, and shut the door, and entered the Holy of Holies, at the 7th month 1844….  {WLF 12.4}  [Emphasis added].


Anyone is free to accept the truth of the statement above as it reads, or reject it and call it delusion and falsehood. But let’s be clear about this: the statement has everything to do with the scapegoat doctrine, as well, for as mentioned above, it cannot be separated from the uniquely Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of the investigative judgment which began at the end of the 2300 day period of Daniel 8:14, in 1844, also identified as “the cleansing of the Sanctuary.”


Adventist theology, as it was developed under strenuous Bible study and confirmation and correction from the Spirit of the Lord through the testimony of E. G. White, will stand or fall if we stir even a pin from it. Teaching that Azazel is Christ is stirring a pin, indeed. I am going to refer to some of the material from The Great Controversy and from Early Writings, before moving on to further commentary. We will not neglect the Bible in this discussion, in case any reader should be concerned.





The Spirit of the Lord confirms the truth regarding the sanctuary and the scapegoat in the testimonies


For eighteen centuries this work of ministration continued in the first apartment of the sanctuary. The blood of Christ, pleaded in behalf of penitent believers, secured their pardon and acceptance with the Father, yet their sins still remained upon the books of record. As in the typical service there was a work of atonement at the close of the year, so before Christ's work for the redemption of men is completed there is a work of atonement for the removal of sin from the sanctuary. This is the service which began when the 2300 days ended. At that time, as foretold by Daniel the prophet, our High Priest entered the most holy, to perform the last division of His solemn work--to cleanse the sanctuary.  {GC 421.2} 

As anciently the sins of the people were by faith placed upon the sin offering and through its blood transferred, in figure, to the earthly sanctuary, so in the new covenant the sins of the repentant are by faith placed upon Christ and transferred, in fact, to the heavenly sanctuary. And as the typical cleansing of the earthly was accomplished by the removal of the sins by which it had been polluted, so the actual cleansing of the heavenly is to be accomplished by the removal, or blotting out, of the sins which are there recorded. But before this can be accomplished, there must be an examination of the books of record to determine who, through repentance of sin and faith in Christ, are entitled to the benefits of His atonement. The cleansing of the sanctuary therefore involves a work of investigation--a work of judgment. This work must be performed prior to the coming of Christ to redeem His people; for when He comes, His reward is with Him to give to every man according to his works. Revelation 22:12.  {GC 421.3}

Thus those who followed in the light of the prophetic word saw that, instead of coming to the earth at the termination of the 2300 days in 1844, Christ then entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary to perform the closing work of atonement preparatory to His coming.  {GC 422.1}

It was seen, also, that while the sin offering pointed to Christ as a sacrifice, and the high priest represented Christ as a mediator, the scapegoat typified Satan, the author of sin, upon whom the sins of the truly penitent will finally be placed. When the high priest, by virtue of the blood of the sin offering, removed the sins from the sanctuary, he placed them upon the scapegoat. When Christ, by virtue of His own blood, removes the sins of His people from the heavenly sanctuary at the close of His ministration, He will place them upon Satan, who, in the execution of the judgment, must bear the final penalty. The scapegoat was sent away into a land not inhabited, never to come again into the congregation of Israel. So will Satan be forever banished from the presence of God and His people, and he will be blotted from existence in the final destruction of sin and sinners.  {GC 422.2}  [Emphasis added]


Parenthetical note to apply due care and attention regarding exegesis of Ellen White on scapegoat as sin-bearer


In reading the above material from The Great Controversy, it is important to be careful in our interpretation. When she speaks of the sins of the penitent being placed upon Satan who will suffer the penalty for them, we must not bring forward the aspect of their sins that has been blotted out. Satan suffers for his part as instigator of sin in general and as tempter of the individual. Christ suffered for the part played by the sinner in the commission of their individual sins. It is not clear from this isolated reading that the sin that is expiated by the blood of Christ is not the same thing as that for which Satan will suffer the penalty. See discussion below on shared responsibility. We have clear statements that would admit of no sin-bearing by Satan in any sense that could put that part which is blotted out in the sanctuary service upon Satan. We have to see that the sin which was put upon Satan was that for which he alone is culpable and for which there is no atonement and no blotting out.


He [Christ] is the only sin-bearer….—Signs of the Times, June 28, 1899.


…the only sin-bearer is Jesus Christ. He alone can be my substitute and sin-bearer.—Review and Herald, June 9, 1896.


Proclaim remission of sins through Christ, the only Sin-bearer, the only Sin-pardoner.—The Voice in Speech and Song, p. 340. [p. 126]


The platform of truth: “Do not stir a pin” of the three angels’ messages


Again, I wish to underscore that the typology of the scapegoat as Satan is a fundamental and integral component of the sanctuary doctrine, which is encompassed in the first angel’s message. The rejection of that message brings about the pronouncement of the second angel (“Babylon is fallen”) and the warning of the third (“Receive not the mark of the beast”). The prognosis for the Babylonian churches is that they would not get better, but worse, ending by persecuting the people of God and at last falling utterly under the seven last plagues.


I saw a company who stood well-guarded and firm, giving no countenance to those who would unsettle the established faith of the body. God looked upon them with approbation. I was shown three steps-- the first, second, and third angels' messages. Said my accompanying angel, "Woe to him who shall move a block or stir a pin of these messages. The true understanding of these messages is of vital importance. The destiny of souls hangs upon the manner in which they are received." I was again brought down through these messages, and saw how dearly the people of God had purchased their experience. It had been obtained through much suffering and severe conflict. God had led them along step by step, until He had placed them upon a solid, immovable platform. I saw individuals approach the platform and examine the foundation. Some with rejoicing immediately stepped upon it. Others commenced to find fault with the foundation. They wished improvements made, and then the platform would be more perfect, and the people much happier. Some stepped off the platform to examine it and declared it to be laid wrong. But I saw that nearly all stood firm upon the platform and exhorted those who had stepped off to cease their complaints; for God was the Master Builder, and they were fighting against Him. They recounted the wonderful work of God, which had led them to the firm platform, and in union raised their eyes to heaven and with a loud voice glorified God. This affected some of those who had complained and left the platform, and they with humble look again stepped upon it.  {EW 258.3}


Comment: I cannot view the “nearly all” group who “stood firm upon the platform,” exhorting “those who had stepped off to cease their complaints” would be the mainstream denomination today. As I travel, write, stand up and speak, and discuss these matters with people all over the world, I just cannot say that it is my observation that nominal Seventh-day Adventists fit into a group that could be called “nearly all.”

My purpose in writing this paper is to implore those who are not on the platform to beseech God for the humility required to prayerfully reexamine the foundation and step back on it, joining the “nearly all” who are making the same call.


The terrible implications of the parallels between SdA guilt in rejection of the third angel’s message and the Jews’ rejection of the testimony of John the Baptist


I was pointed back to the proclamation of the first advent of Christ. John was sent in the spirit and power of Elijah to prepare the way of Jesus. Those who rejected the testimony of John were not benefited by the teachings of Jesus. Their opposition to the message that foretold His coming placed them where they could not readily receive the strongest evidence that He was the Messiah. Satan led on those who rejected the message of John to go still farther, to reject and crucify Christ. In doing this they placed themselves where they could not receive the blessing on the day of Pentecost, which would have taught them the way into the heavenly sanctuary. The rending of the veil of the temple showed that the Jewish sacrifices and ordinances would no longer be received. The great Sacrifice had been offered and had been accepted, and the Holy Spirit which descended on the day of Pentecost carried the minds of the disciples from the earthly sanctuary to the heavenly, where Jesus had entered by His own blood, to shed upon His disciples the benefits of His atonement. But the Jews were left in total darkness. They lost all the light which they might have had upon the plan of salvation, and still trusted in their useless sacrifices and offerings. The heavenly sanctuary had taken the place of the earthly, yet they had no knowledge of the change. Therefore they could not be benefited by the mediation of Christ in the holy place.  {EW 259.1}

Many look with horror at the course of the Jews in rejecting and crucifying Christ; and as they read the history of His shameful abuse, they think they love Him, and would not have denied Him as did Peter, or crucified Him as did the Jews. But God who reads the hearts of all, has brought to the test that love for Jesus which they professed to feel. All heaven watched with the deepest interest the reception of the first angel's message. But many who professed to love Jesus, and who shed tears as they read the story of the cross, derided the good news of His coming. Instead of receiving the message with gladness, they declared it to be a delusion. They hated those who loved His appearing and shut them out of the churches. Those who rejected the first message could not be benefited by the second; neither were they benefited by the midnight cry, which was to prepare them to enter with Jesus by faith into the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary. And by rejecting the two former messages, they have so darkened their understanding that they can see no light in the third angel's message, which shows the way into the most holy place. I saw that as the Jews crucified Jesus, so the nominal churches had crucified these messages, and therefore they have no knowledge of the way into the most holy, and they cannot be benefited by the intercession of Jesus there. Like the Jews, who offered their useless sacrifices, they offer up their useless prayers to the apartment which Jesus has left; and Satan, pleased with the deception, assumes a religious character, and leads the minds of these professed Christians to himself, working with his power, his signs and lying wonders, to fasten them in his snare. Some he deceives in one way, and some in another. He has different delusions prepared to affect different minds. Some look with horror upon one deception, while they readily receive another. Satan deceives some with Spiritualism. He also comes as an angel of light and spreads his influence over the land by means of false reformations. The churches are elated, and consider that God is working marvelously for them, when it is the work of another spirit. The excitement will die away and leave the world and the church in a worse condition than before.  {EW 260.1} 


The Spirit of the Lord confirms the truth in the work of O. R. L. Crozier


O. R. L. Crozier wrote an article, dated Feb. 7, 1846, detailing the Biblical evidence upon which the sanctuary teaching of the SdA church was formulated.


Ellen White had this to say about that article:


"The Lord shew me in vision, more than one year ago, that Brother Crozier had the true light, on the cleansing of the Sanctuary, et cetera; and that it was His will, that Brother C. should write out the view which he gave us in the Day-Star Extra, February 7, 1846. I feel fully authorized by the Lord, to recommend that Extra, to every saint." --Word to the "Little Flock,", 1847 (Emphasis supplied).


The “true light on the cleansing of the Sanctuary, et cetera,” would include Crozier’s thoughts on the meaning of the type with regard to the goat for Azazel. What did Crozier bring forward with regard to the scapegoat? Let us read:


The victims for the atonement of this day were, for the priest himself, a young bullock for a sin-offering, verse 3, and for the people, two goats; one for a sin-offering and the other for the scape-goat, and a ram for a burnt-offering, verses 5-8. He killed or caused to be killed the bullock for a sin-offering for himself, verse 11. "Then he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bringing it within the veil; And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the Lord, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy-seat that is upon the testimony that he die not. And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy-seat eastward; and before the mercy-seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times," verses 12-14. So much in preparation to make an atonement for the people; a description of which follows:

"Then shall he kill the goat of the sin-offering which is for the people and bring his blood within the veil, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy-seat. And he shall make an atonement for (cleanse, see marginal references,) the holy place (within the veil, verse 2), because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for (i.e. atone for or cleanse), the tabernacle of the congregation (the Holy) that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness," verses 15, 16; "And he shall go out (of the Holy of Holies) unto the altar that is before the Lord (in the Holy) and make an atonement for it; and shall take of the blood (for himself), and of the blood of the goat (for the people), and put it upon the horns of the altar round about. And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel," verses 18, 19. The altar was the golden altar of incense in the Holy upon which the blood of individual atonements was sprinkled during the daily ministration. Thus it received the uncleanness from which it is now cleansed. Exodus 30:1-10; "Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once a year, with the blood of the sin-offering of atonement." We see from verse 20, that at this stage of the work "he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar," i.e. the Holy of Holies, the Holy, and the altar in the latter.

We have before seen that atone, reconcile, cleanse, etc., signify the same, hence at this stage he has made an end of cleansing those places. As the blood of atonements for the forgiveness of sins was not sprinkled in the court, but in the tabernacle only, the entire work of cleansing the Sanctuary was performed within the tabernacle. These were holy things, yet cleansed yearly. The holy place within the veil contained the ark of the covenant, covered with the mercy-seat, overshadowed by the cherubims, between which the Lord dwelt in the cloud of divine glory. Who would think of calling such a place unclean? Yet the Lord provided at the time, yea, before it was built, that it should be annually cleansed. It was by blood, and not by fire, that this Sanctuary, which was a type of the new covenant Sanctuary was cleansed.

The high priest on this day "bore the iniquities of the holy things which the children of Israel hallowed in all their holy gifts." Exodus 28:38. These holy things composed the Sanctuary. Numbers 18:1. "And the Lord said unto Aaron, Thou, and thy sons, and thy father's house with thee shall bear the iniquity of the Sanctuary." This "iniquity of the Sanctuary" we have learned was not its own properly, but the children of Israel's, God's own people's, which it had received from them. And this transfer of iniquity from the people to their Sanctuary was not a mere casualty, incident on scenes of lawless rebellion, bloodshed or idolatry among themselves, not the devastation of an enemy; but it was according to the original arrangement and regular operation of this typical system. For we must bear in mind that all the instructions were given to Moses and Aaron before the erection of the Sanctuary. Provision was made to make atonement for sins committed in ignorance; but not till after they were known, Leviticus 4:14, 5:3-6, then of course they became sins of knowledge. Then the individual bore his iniquity, Leviticus 5:1-17; 7:1-8, till he presented his offering to the priest and slew it, the priest made an atonement with the blood, Leviticus 17:11, and he was forgiven, then of course free from his iniquity.

Now at what point did he cease to bear his iniquity? Evidently when he had presented his victim slain; he had then done his part. Through what medium was his iniquity conveyed to the Sanctuary? Through his victim, or rather its blood when the priest took and sprinkled it before the veil and on the altar. Thus the iniquity was communicated to their Sanctuary. The first thing done for the people on the tenth day of the seventh month was to cleanse it, thence by the same means, the application of blood. This done, the high priest bore the "iniquity of the Sanctuary" for the people "to make atonement for them," Leviticus 10:17. "And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place (within the veil, verse 2) and the tabernacle of the congregation and the altar (or when he hath cleansed the Sanctuary), he shall bring the live goat: And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions and all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited (margin, of separation) Leviticus 16:20-22. This was the only office of the scape-goat, to finally receive and bear away from Israel all their iniquities into an uninhabited wilderness and there retain them, leaving Israel at their Sanctuary, and the priest to complete the atonement of the day by burning the fat of the sin-offerings, and offering the two rams for burnt-offerings on the brazen altar in the court, verses 24, 25. The burning without the camp of the carcasses of the sin-offerings closed the services of this important day, verse 27. …


But again, they say the atonement was made and finished on Calvary, when the Lamb of God expired. So men have taught us, and so the churches and world believe; but it is none the more true or sacred on that account, if unsupported by Divine authority. Perhaps few or none who hold that opinion have ever tested the foundation on which it rests.


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

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

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

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

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

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



The next event of that day after the Sanctuary was cleansed, was putting all the iniquities and transgressions of the children of Israel upon the head of the scape-goat and sending him away into a land not inhabited, or of separation. It is supposed by almost every one that this goat typified Christ in some of His offices, and that the type was fulfilled at the first Advent. From this opinion I must differ; because, First, That goat was not sent away till after the High Priest had made an end of cleansing the Sanctuary, Leviticus 16:20,21; hence that event cannot meet its antitype till after the end of the 2300 days. Second, It was sent away from Israel into the wilderness, a land not inhabited, to receive them. If our blessed Saviour is its antitype, He also must be sent away, not His body alone, but soul and body, for the goat was sent away alive, from, not to nor into this people; neither into heaven, for that is not a wilderness or land not inhabited. Third, It received and retained all the iniquities of Israel; but when Christ appears the second time He will be "without sin". Fourth, The goat received the iniquities from the hands of the priest and he sent it away. As Christ is the Priest the goat must be something else besides Himself, and which He can send away. Fifth, This was one of two goats chosen for that day, one was the Lord's and offered for a sin-offering; but the other was not called the Lord's, neither offered as a sacrifice. Its only office was to receive the iniquities from the priest after he had cleansed the Sanctuary from them, and bear them into a land not inhabited, leaving the Sanctuary, priest and people behind and free from their iniquities. Leviticus 16:7-10,22. Sixth, The Hebrew name of the scape-goat, as will be seen from the margin of verse 8, is "Azazel". On this verse, Wm. Jenks, in his Comp. Com. has the following remarks: "(Scape-goat.) See diff. opin. in Bochart. Spencer, after the oldest opinion of the Hebrews and Christians, thinks Azazel is the name of the devil; and so Rosenmire, whom see. The Syriac has Azazel, the angel, (Strongone) who revolted." Seventh, At the appearing of Christ, as taught from Revelation 20, Satan is to be bound and cast into the bottomless pit, which act and place are significantly symbolized by the ancient High Priest sending the scape-goat into a separate and uninhabited wilderness. Eighth, Thus we have the Scripture, the definition of the name in two ancient languages both spoken at the same time, and the oldest opinion of the Christians in favor of regarding the scape-goat as a type of Satan. In the common use of the term, men always associate it with something mean, calling the greatest villains and refugees from justice scape-goats. Ignorance of the law and its meaning is the only possible origin that can be assigned for the opinion that the scape-goat was a type of Christ.

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

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


The Spirit of the Lord confirms the truth in the work of Uriah Smith


“The Lord will not lead minds now to set aside the truth that the Holy Spirit has moved upon His servants in the past to proclaim.” 17MR 12.4


“God used the author of this book as a channel through which to communicate light to direct minds to the truth. Shall we not appreciate this light, which points us to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, our King?” 1MR 63


The light given was that Thoughts on Daniel and The Revelation, The Great Controversy, and Patriarchs and Prophets, would make their way. They contain the very message the people must have, the special light God had given His people. The angels of God would prepare the way for these books in the hearts of the people.-  Special Instruction Regarding Royalties, p.7 (1899)


It wasn’t just light for Seventh-day Adventists; it was light that we were to share with the world.


Daniel and Revelation, Great Controversy, Patriarchs and Prophets, and Desire of Ages should now go to the world. The grand instruction contained in Daniel and Revelation has been eagerly perused by many in Australia. This book has been the means of bringing many precious souls to a knowledge of the truth. Everything that can be done should be done to circulate Thoughts on Daniel and Revelation. I know of no other book that can take the place of this one. It is God's helping hand.--MS 76, 1901


In that book, Uriah spends some time discussing the typology of the scapegoat as Satan and the meaning of the term Azazel, as discussed elsewhere in this paper.

Speaking of the binding of Satan, he discusses Revelation 20:1-3.


A bright ray of light is thrown from the old typical service directly upon this passage. Thus, Christ is the great High Priest of this dispensation. On the day of atonement, anciently, two goats were taken by the priest, upon which lots were cast, one for the Lord, and the other for the scapegoat. The one upon which the Lord's lot fell, was then slain, and his blood carried into the sanctuary to make an atonement for the children of Israel, after which the sins of the people were confessed upon the head of the other, or scapegoat, and he was sent away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness, or a place not inhabited. Now, as Christ is the priest of this dispensation, so by arguments, a few of which we here introduce, Satan is shown to be the antitypical scapegoat.  {1897 UrS, DAR 732.3} …

The third reason for this position is the very striking manner in which it harmonizes with the events to transpire in connection with the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, as far as revealed to us in the Scriptures of truth. {1897 UrS, DAR 734.4}

Answering to these events in the type, we behold in the antitype, (a) the great offering for the world made on Calvary; (b) the sins of all those who avail themselves of the merits of Christ's shed blood by faith in him, borne, by the ministration of Christ while pleading his own blood, into the new-covenant sanctuary; (c) after Christ, the minister of the true tabernacle (Heb.8:2), has finished his ministration, he will remove the sins of this people from the sanctuary, and lay them upon the head of their author, the antitypical scapegoat, the devil; and (d) the devil will be sent away with them into a land not inhabited.  {1897 UrS, DAR 734.6}

This we believe to be the very event described in the verses under notice. The sanctuary service is, at the time here specified, closed. Christ lays upon the head of the devil the sins which have been transferred to the sanctuary, and which are imputed to the saints no more, and the devil is sent away, not by the hand of the High Priest, but by the hand of another person, according to the type, into a place here called the bottomless pit. Hence this angel is not Christ. … {1897 UrS, DAR 735.1}


The Spirit of the Lord confirms the truth in the Sabbath and Sanctuary Conferences


[Note: This section is adapted from chapter 9 of Arthur L. White’s Ellen G. White: The Early Years 1827-1862]


The first “General Conference” was the Rocky Hill conference in Connecticut in April of 1848, where Bates spoke on the truth of the Sabbath and Ellen testified regarding what God had shown her concerning the Sabbath. Her and James started observing the Sabbath and teaching it in the autumn of 1846. On Sabbath, Apr. 03, 1847, in the home of the Howlands in Topsham, Maine, she received the vision which confirmed the Sabbath truth. She was taught the Sabbath in the Most Holy Place of the sanctuary. In that vision, the mention of “the mark of the beast and his image” made it clear to them that the third angel’s message had to do with the 7th day Sabbath. As with the sanctuary teachings, the Sabbath light did not come first by vision, but by studying the Scriptures.

Following the Rocky Hill conference, there were others. The Lord had shown Ellen that she would be in New York in the future. They were invited to Volney, N.Y., for a conference to be held beginning Friday evening, August 18, 1848. Bates again spoke on the subject of the Sabbath. Ellen spoke on the parable of the ten virgins and she had two visions at that meeting. This meeting was quite in disarray, with many conflicting views amongst the brethren, contending for the supremacy. She went into vision at that point. The angel corrected error and told them they must yield their opinions to the Bible and unite upon the third angel’s message. Later, J. N. Loughborough related how she had taken the family Bible in her left hand and with face turned in the opposite direction and looking upward, would turn to the various Scripture references and point to them with her right hand while reciting them. People present were looking closely at the Bible to verify that she was indeed pointing to the correct texts.

That year continued with a number of conferences that solidified the doctrines on the Sanctuary and the Sabbath. Ellen would later write of this time:


Many of our people do not realize how firmly the foundation of our faith has been laid. My husband, Elder Joseph Bates, Father Pierce, Elder [Hiram] Edson, and others who were keen, noble, and true, were among those who, after the passing of the time in 1844, searched for the truth as for hidden treasure. I met with them, and we studied and prayed earnestly. Often we remained together until late at night, and sometimes through the entire night, praying for light and studying the Word.

Again and again these brethren came together to study the Bible, in order that they might know its meaning, and be prepared to teach it with power. When they came to the point in their study where they said, "We can do nothing more," the Spirit of the Lord would come upon me, I would be taken off in vision, and a clear explanation of the passages we had been studying would be given me, with instruction as to how we were to labor and teach effectively. Thus light was given that helped us to understand the scriptures in regard to Christ, His mission, and His priesthood. A line of truth extending from that time to the time when we shall enter the city of God, was made plain to me, and I gave to others the instruction that the Lord had given me.  {1SM 206.4}


The leading points of our faith as we hold them today were firmly established. Point after point was clearly defined, and all the brethren came into harmony.  {3MR 412.4} 

The whole company of believers were united in the truth. There were those who came in with strange doctrines, but we were never afraid to meet them. Our experience was wonderfully established by the revelation of the Holy Spirit.  {3MR 413.1} 


These experiences were repeated over and over again. Thus many truths of the third angel's message were established, point by point.  {3SM 38.2} 


All this was done by the Lord such a way so that the claim could not be made that it was coming from Ellen.


During this whole time I could not understand the reasoning of the brethren. My mind was locked, as it were, and I could not comprehend the meaning of the scriptures we were studying. This was one of the greatest sorrows of my life. I was in this condition of mind until all the principal points of our faith were made clear to our minds, in harmony with the Word of God. The brethren knew that when not in vision, I could not understand these matters, and they accepted as light direct from heaven the revelations given.  {1SM 207.1} 


If it did not come from Ellen herself and if it is not light from God, then the one who denies the testimonies must teach that the manifestations are of Satan. But this is not possible, either, due to the many testimonies of revelations that came to Mrs. White of things that were taking place elsewhere, behind closed doors, or that were yet to happen. Any doubting Thomases of today owe it to themselves to start doing some reading of our history and the well-documented accounts that exist in abundance for our edification and faith-building experience.


Avoiding the writings and teachings of the founders has set us adrift at sea without an anchor


          We are enjoined by teachers of the “new theology” (evangelical doctrine) to take our teachings from the Bible alone. They must say this because the pioneers and Ellen White are too plain to make any mistakes. The people in our churches in general are not as strong in the study of the Scriptures as they may have been in earlier times, especially before the advent of radio and television and many other distractions of modern life. Therefore their thinking is easier to mold in any direction that is pleasing to the teacher. If we were encouraged by leadership to also study the writings of the founders of Adventist thought, such as Crozier and Smith, James and Ellen White, Waggoner and Jones, and many others who have held to their teachings through the history of the church until our day, we would see today a far less fractured denominational entity than Adventism has become. Do you see such exhortation in your Sabbath School lessons? It can be shown rather that it is now commonplace to see in our lesson quarterlies citations from Catholic and 1st-day protestant writers.

We have lost our bearings and now we are adrift in a sea of confusing and conflicting teachings that all claim to be “Adventist.” This has been the situation even since the nineteenth century, which has become increasingly more desperate through each succeeding generation as the cycles of sowing and reaping have borne their increasingly blighted fruit.

This may all sound so negative but it is not true? Do we point to increasing numbers as success? Does bigger and better infrastructure, modern media programming, and acceptance of the world, indicate that we have taken the Lord’s leading to heart? Are we yielding a fruitful harvest? Where is the glory of God in all the earth, as prophesied to come through God’s people? Can you point to the work of the denomination as doing this work? Do you have an affirmative answer when you look at the general conference church? Your division? Your union? Your local? How about your congregation? You?

Incidentally, it is a fact that God’s Spirit is now moving in an awakening; the message that swells to a loud cry is here and it is begin taught all over the world, but not by those who are teaching people to stay away from the pioneers and the Spirit of Prophecy or by those who are listening to those teachers and therefore do not have faith in our foundational message as it was given through the founders.

A further implication of the injunction to “get your teaching from the Bible,” is that the founders did not do this and that Ellen White was deluded in claiming to have received guidance and affirmations from heaven. In this, the visions are effectively falsified and the testimonies are made “of none effect.” There is no other way to explain what is happening in our churches today. Therefore, we are left to choose between two ignominious options, in that the founders


·                    would have either fabricated our doctrines to save face in the wake of the great disappointment, as is the claim of those self-styled expositors of Seventh-day Adventism, or;

·                    would have been in gross error on vital points of doctrine that give Adventism its distinctive features and that set it apart as the bearer of a unique message to the world.


An exhortation to return to our foundation teachers and teaching


We must be clear about what this message truly is. We are not here to play church or be a denomination among many. We are about much more than telling the world that Jesus is coming in blazing glory--not in a secret rapture,--and that they are worshipping on the wrong day. This is not what makes us different nor is it what makes us Seventh-day Adventist.

We have a message that is more than unique, it is the very message that calls its adherents to walk in the path of the reformers. As such, it leads to increasing light which culminates in the loud cry of the fourth angel of Revelation 18 and ends the great controversy. The reason that we are still here is because we have abandoned ship, even while claiming we are that ship, still sailing to safe harbors.

If we are the reformers of our day, I must ask, where is the increasing light? Where is the swelling of the third angel’s message to its loud cry? For our “proof positive” that it is happening, can we point to the fact that our understanding of the gospel has been pulled away from its progressive development, as anchored in the Holiest in the heavenly sanctuary, to a pre-first angel’s message justification-by-faith understanding as taught by the earlier reformers? Of course not!

Can we excuse ourselves by mumbling words about God’s timeline? (I.e., “He’ll get here when He gets here. He knows the time which He has set and we don’t. Occupy till He comes.”) NO! We sin when we point to God as the reason that the message has not done its work and the controversy has not been ended before our day. The burden of the delay lies squarely on the shoulders of the people and their leaders, both. Jeremiah 5:31 tells the story:


“The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love [to have it] so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?” (Emphasis supplied).


So, the question is, not what will the denomination do, but what will YOU do?

Do not look to anyone other than yourself-under-Christ, to be in the truth and give the third angel’s message as it is in Jesus. Study for yourself, using all of the tools God has given: First and foremost, an attitude of surrender is required, so pray always for a willing heart to do His will. Then go to the Bible, the Spirit of Prophecy, the pioneers, and the writings of those that have come after and who have followed in their footsteps. There are two classes of teachers, those who have remained faithful to the message as it was given and those who have not. You must know the difference and then you can make an intelligent choice where you spend your learning time.


The Spirit of the Lord confirms the truth in the Bible


For confirmation that Adventism does in fact get its unique understanding from the Bible and does have a message that is in contrast to the gospel of the mainstream of modern Christianity, fallen Christianity, to be clear, I will share here a thirteen point feature for your resource, as taken from C. Mervyn Maxwell’s, Magnificent Disappointment:


1.           Daniel 7:9-14, 22 shows Father and Son both “coming” to a new place in heaven for the judgment. In this classic portrayal of judgment day in heaven, both the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man “come” to a new place in heaven for judgment. Verses 25, 26 indicate that this judgment was to begin around the end of the 1260 years (1798).

2.           Daniel 12:1, 2; Revelation 20:6 show that at the second coming, the “blessed and holy,” whose “names are found written in the book of life,” are resurrected to receive life everlasting, indicating that their judgment precedes the second coming.

3.           Daniel 8:14 gives the year of the judgment. (It parallels the judgment scene in Daniel 7). By using sanctuary language (“then shall the sanctuary be cleansed”), it directs our attention to the Day of Atonement (see Leviticus 16, 23) in order to learn more about the judgment.

4.           Leviticus 16, 23. On the Day of Atonement, when the high priest entered the most holy place to cleanse the sanctuary and the congregation of their sins, the people—as on a day of judgment—were to “afflict their souls’ or be judged and “cut off” (see Leviticus 23:26-32, KJV). The Day of Atonement was a day of reconciliation and salvation to the repentant but a day of judgment to people who refused to participate spiritually.

5.           Comparison of the spring and autumn types directs attention to the actual date October 22, the correct Day of Atonement in 1844. Just as Jesus fulfilled the springtime Passover ceremony in the year of prophecy and on the actual day of the Passover, so He could be counted on to fulfill the autumn Day of Atonement ceremony in the year of prophecy (1844) and on the actual Day of Atonement (10th day, 7th month=October 22. See chapter 3).

6.           Malachi 3 says that the Lord was to “come” suddenly to His temple to “purge” or cleanse the sons of Levi. The coming and cleansing recall Daniel 7 and Leviticus 16 and point to the special parallel cleansing of God’s people while the heavenly sanctuary is being cleansed.

7.           Hebrews 8 and 9 affirm the existence of a two part heavenly sanctuary (by comparison with the early tabernacle; see Hebrews 9 and 15) and inform us of the need of the heavenly sanctuary to be purified at some time (see Hebrews 9:22, 23).

8.           Acts 3:19, 20 promises that sins that have been repented of will be “blotted out” at the time when God will “send the Christ,” whom the heavens must retain until the time comes for “establishing all” that God’s prophets have predicted.

9.           The wedding parables show that those saints who are ready would go “into the marriage” near the end of time (parable of the virgins, Matthew 25). Evidently Jesus meant that they would go in only by faith, because in Luke 12:35-37 He spoke of His followers as waiting on earth until He would return from the wedding. In Matthew 22 He portrayed the wedding guests as being examined (judged) to see if they were wearing the wedding garment.

10.       Other wedding imagery. In various places the New Testament teaches that Christ is at present betrothed to His corporate church (that is, to the church as a whole, otherwise known as His “kingdom,” not to the individual members, who are married to their own human spouses). Jesus is busy purifying His church-kingdom from every spot and wrinkle. When His church-kingdom is fit to be His bride—that is, after the cleansing of the examination period is completed—He will marry it, thus receiving His kingdom. Then He will return to earth to take His individual church members and guests to His wedding supper which follows immediately. See Ephesians 5; Luke 12; 35-37; Luke 19:11, 12; Revelation 19:9.

11.       Revelation 14:6-12 contains the first angel’s message with its announcement of the arrival of the judgment hour while the gospel is still being preached. The second and third angels call the saints to separate themselves from all false Christians and to keep the commandments of God. Thus, while the judgment is sorting out God’s people in heaven, a sorting-out process is called for among the professed people of God on earth.

12.       1 Peter 4:17 announces the basic principle that “judgment [must] begin with the household of God.” Peter’s words echo to the teaching of Ezekiel 9:6, “begin at my sanctuary.” They have a special relationship and relevance to the end-time judgment of the first angel’s message and the sealing work of Revelation 7:1-3.

13.       The doctrine of perseverance shows that even those who accept Christ as their Saviour are expected by God to persevere in their faith-obedience relationship to Him or lose out in the judgment. The person who “has the Son of God has life” right now, but he will be saved only if he “endures to the end” (1 John 5:12; Matthew 24:13). A believer is expected to call Jesus “Lord,” but unless the believer obeys Jesus, calling Him “Lord” will not avail (Romans 10:9; Matthew 7:21). To be forgiven ultimately, the Christian must be forgiven (see Matthew 6:14). A Gentile grafted into Paul’s olive tree will, if unpersevering, be cut off as surely as the Jewish nation once was (see Romans 11:21). We are saved by faith, but only if our faith is living faith, that produces acts of mercy and goodness (see James 2). The judgment investigates people who have at any time professed faith in Jesus to see whether they have persevered in their faith-obedience relationship.


…[The] Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of the pre-advent investigative judgment is not based on an isolated proof text but was developed from a large body of interrelated data located in both the Old and New Testaments. (pp. 82-84).


The Bible teaching on the Scapegoat doctrine


To hone this further, we examine the Biblical truth of the function and identity of the scapegoat. Rather than reinventing the wheel, I will rely upon material printed in M. L. Andreasen’s The Sanctuary Service, Chapter Fourteen, “The Scapegoat,” pp. 188-210. It is advisable for the serious student to temporarily depart from this paper and read that chapter in its entirety, then come back here for a careful summary of that chapter.

Two key thoughts that I want to underscore are that; 1) Azazel is in no way a sin bearer in the sense of sacrifice for sin or making substitutionary atonement or; 2) that he bears sin that belongs to anyone other than himself.

It is imperative that we deal with the apparent difficulty that presents itself in the statement that “the scapegoat “shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.” (Lev. 16:10) What is the meaning of “make an atonement with him”? On the surface, this does not sound like something we would wish to associate with Satan in any way. To examine this, we need to consider how it is that the scapegoat functions.

On the Day of Atonement, the scapegoat was brought into the ceremony only after the work of reconciliation was completed, as we read in Leviticus 16:20, “when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy [place], and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat….” (Emphasis supplied.) We should not need to belabor the point that the atonement is complete at this point.

A further objection here that can be made has to do with the laying on of hands on the scapegoat and confession by the High Priest “all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat….” Is this to say that sins already put on the head of the LORD’s goat go again on the Devil? We cannot say this, or we introduce confusion and heresy. We make the atonement of Jesus incomplete and it would appear that Satan is required to bear sin for others in a substitutionary sense of atonement.

The key to understanding what is happening here is the concept of “shared responsibility.” Andreasen writes, “Most sins admit of shared responsibility. The person committing the sin is often mostly to blame, though this is not always the case. Some are more sinned against than sinning. The man who educates a child to steal cannot escape responsibility by saying that he himself does not steal.”

When we look at this it is only that which we would expect of a just God. Satan does not suffer for anyone’s sins but his own. The fact is, he does have a part to play in all of the sins that have been committed, for he is the instigator of rebellion and he is the chief tempter. So, while he suffers for sin that he actually committed himself, he also suffers for the part he plays in the sins committed by the righteous, as well as the part he has in the sins of the fallen, both of angels and men. This does not mean that the finally impenitent will not have to suffer for their part in their own sin. Of course they must. The principle is set forth clearly in the Bible, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” Ezekiel 18:20). It is plain enough.

Coming back to the question raised above, we ask, “How is it that Leviticus 16:10 should say that Satan makes an atonement? Returning to Andreasen, we read,


“This punishment is not expiatory; nor is it substitutionary; neither is it atoning, except in the sense that a criminal atones for his sins by being hanged on the gallows. He simply suffers for his own sins and for his influence in causing others to sin. This principle is well stated by Mrs. E. G. white when she says, ‘The punishment of the sinner will be measured by the extent to which he has influenced others in impenitence.’ –The Youth’s Instructor, May 9, 1901. ‘Of all the sins that God will punish, none are more grievous in His sight than those that encourage others to do evil.’—Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 323. In harmony with this is the statement that Satan must bear ‘the guilt of all the sins which he has caused God’s people to commit.’—The Great Controversy, p. 485. Putting these statements together, we find that Satan will be punished for his part in the sins of the impenitent, and also for his part in the sins of the righteous. This is just for he is the one who led them into sin.” Andreasen, p. 193


What about the sins of the righteous in which they had their own part? We are now clear about the sins of the righteous in which Satan had the part of instigation. Satan does not have any part of that component of the sins of the righteous which belong to themselves. Their personal guilt has gone to the Sin-bearer, Jesus. He bore them on the cross and expiated their guilt, there. The sacrificial atonement was made. As High Priest, He brought His blood into the sanctuary and made the final atonement for them there, blotting them out before placing the guilt for Satan’s part on the head of the scapegoat. Has Satan’s part in the sins of the righteous been atoned for by Christ? “It has not. Satan must pay for it himself with his life.” (Ibid. p.193). We must continually stress, due to the charges made by our detractors, that it is a great error to say that because we apply the typology of the scapegoat to Satan we make him to have a part in bearing sin in any expiatory sense. “The saints are in no way indebted to him; his bearing of sin is in no way related to salvation; his work is evil and only evil.” (Ibid. 195).

Jesus bore the sins of the world. (John 3:16; 1 Tim. 4:10)


In the daily burnt offering Israel saw Christ as the Saviour of all men, a continual sacrifice applicable to all, providing temporarily and provisionally for all sin, confessed or unconfessed. In the sin offering they saw men accepting by faith the proffered salvation and receiving forgiveness. On the Day of Atonement they saw the high priest making atonement and providing complete cleansing for those who already had their sins forgiven and were still penitent…. With this the atonement was complete, and nothing needed to be or could be added. The sins were that day blotted out, and even the record was nonexistent.” (Ibid, p. 197).


We must not personify sin. It is the nature of sin that it exists only as attached to the free moral agent, in the existence of a life. Sins that are atoned for cannot go on. For any person to think that sin that has been cast to the depths of the sea, in Christ, to again surface to hike a ride on Satan, does not understand that Christ actually annihilated them in His own body on the cross. If we were to believe that Satan must take them in order for them to be disposed of, we are subject to stand guilty as charged by our evangelical friends.

          The typology will attest to the truth that


the bearing of sins does not have the same meaning in the case of Satan as in that of Christ. If we look at the type we find that when sin was transferred to any sacrifice, it meant the death of the animal. The animal bore sin with the eventual view of the blotting out of that sin, and death ensued in each case….

          Not so when Satan bears sin. Although the scapegoat eventually died, Scripture is very careful not to mention this fact, lest some might draw wrong conclusions. When the sins were placed upon the scapegoat there was no ensuing death, no sprinkling of blood, no burning of fat upon the altar, no eating of the flesh, no priestly ministration of any kind. Not even did a priest lead the scapegoat away…. All this is recorded to emphasize the fact that the scapegoat served a purpose entirely different from that of the Lord’s goat.” (Ibid., p. 202).


In the work of the judgment and cleansing of sin, or final atonement, the sinner is appropriating the merits of Christ to their life and heeding the injunction, “Go, and sin no more.” Sin comes to an end, by the grace of God, in the power of the Holy Spirit, looking to Christ. Sin is blotted out. The sinner becomes a new creature. “In all this Satan has no part whatsoever.” (ibid., p. 204).


But what happens to Satan? Does he escape punishment because the …[sinner] repents? By no means. His guilt is not diminished by her change of heart. He must suffer for his part in tempting her and leading her into sin. He is responsible for putting evil desires into the heart….” (Ibid., p. 204).


          The sins that are put on the head of the scapegoat are not the atoned-for sins: they are Satan’s share in all these same sin, the share for which no atonement was made and which were not provided for in the Lord’s goat….

          In this way all sin is provided for. Christ bears and annuls, in His own body, all the confessed sins of His people; the unrepentant sinner who does not accept Christ as his sin bearer bears his own sin; Satan bears his own sins and in addition the terrific weight of the guilt of all the sins which he has caused others to commit. If to this we add the sins of the angels who fell, we have a complete and just disposal of all sin in this world and in the universe. (Ibid.) p. 206.


To conclude this segment, let it be firmly planted in your mind that the atonement of the scapegoat is not in any way to be understood as the atonement of Christ.


As a criminal is led to the gallows, so the goat with a rope around its neck was led to destruction. As a criminal thus atoned for his transgression, so the goat likewise atoned—not atonement unto salvation, but punitive atonement unto death. (Ibid. p. 207).



A response to charges that Adventism teaches Azazel/Satan as Sin Bearer


Here is something that Ellen White apologist Bob Pickle wrote in response to the anti-Adventist video, "Seventh-day Adventism, the Spirit Behind the Church"


#191: "Adventists further deviate in their salvation doctrine by teaching that Satan ultimately becomes the sin-bearer. They teach he bears away the sins of the world. 'As the priest in removing the sins from the sanctuary, confess them upon the head of the scapegoat, so Christ will place all these sins upon Satan, the originator and instigator of sin...' Great Controversy p. 485." (Ibid.)


Satan becomes the sin-bearer. Though the term "sin-bearer" appears in Mrs. White's published and released writings at least 186 times, she not once said that Satan is our "sin-bearer." She consistently taught that Christ is our "only sin-bearer":


In His intercession as our advocate, Christ needs no man's virtue, no man's intercession. He is the only sin-bearer, the only sin-offering.—Signs of the Times, June 28, 1899.


How hard poor mortals strive to be sin-bearers for themselves and for others! but the only sin-bearer is Jesus Christ. He alone can be my substitute and sin-bearer. The forerunner of Christ exclaimed, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."—Review and Herald, June 9, 1896.


Proclaim remission of sins through Christ, the only Sin-bearer, the only Sin-pardoner. Proclaim the remission of sins through repentance toward God and faith in Christ, and God will ratify your testimony.—The Voice in Speech and Song, p. 340. [p. 126]


I have never read where any Seventh-day Adventist has called Satan our sin-bearer. If Jesus is our "only sin-bearer," how can Satan be one too?

…Notice carefully what even the part quoted in the video says:


"As the priest in removing the sins from the sanctuary...."


Truly the high priest, representing Jesus Christ, must be the sin bearer, for it is he who is removing the sins by carrying them in his own person.

Mr. Martin refers to what Seventh-day Adventists believe that the closing ceremonies of the services of the Day of Atonement represent. This has nothing to do with who the sin-bearer is. Consider carefully the following verses:


And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat [the Hebrew reads "for Azazel"]. (Lev. 16:8)


And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat: And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness. (Lev. 16:20-22)


Notice that the goat for Azazel has the sins put upon him only after the high priest has made an end of reconciling. Since the word for "reconciling" is the Hebrew word for "atoning," this means that the sins are only put upon him after the end of the atonement.

Jesus is our high priest. Whom would Jesus put the sins of God's people upon after He has finished the atonement? Himself? If so, why would He need to have sins placed upon Himself after the atonement is finished?

If the only atonement that ever was or ever shall be occurred at the cross, why would Jesus place sins upon Himself after He had already died for sin?

The Adventist position that Azazel is Satan makes more sense and raises less questions: After the atonement is finished, Jesus our high priest, the great Sin-bearer, will place all our sins upon Azazel, Satan, since he is the cause and instigator of all sin.

That Azazel is a name for Satan is supported by the following discussion by John N. Andrews:

That the ancient people of God understand the scape-goat to represent, not Christ, but Satan, the following testimonies will show. It will be seen, moreover, that there is direct evidence that Satan is intended in the very signification and use of this word.

Charles Beecher, in his work entitled "Redeemer and Redeemed," pp. 66-70, says:-

"Two goats were to be presented before the Lord by the high priest. They must be exactly alike in value, size, age, color - they must be counterparts. Placing these goats before him, the high priest put both hands into an urn containing the golden lots, and drew them out, one in each hand. On the one was engraven, La Yehovah (for Jehovah), on the other La Azazel (for Azazel).

"The goat on which the lot La Yehovah fell was slain. After its blood had been sprinkled in the holy of holies, the high priest laid his hands on the head of the second goat, confessed the sins of the congregation, and gave him to a fit man to lead away and let go in the wilderness; the man thus employed being obliged to wash his clothes and person before returning to the congregation."

Mr. Beecher states two views respecting the meaning of this term Azazel, each of which he shows to be manifestly untrue. He then gives his own view, as follows:-

"The third opinion is, that Azazel is a proper name of Satan. In support of this, the following points are urged: The use of the preposition implies it. The same preposition is used on both lots, La Yehova, La Azazel; and if the one indicates a person, it seems natural the other should, especially considering the act of casting lots. If one is for Jehovah, the other would seem for some other person or being; not one for Jehovah, and the other for the goat itself.

"What goes to confirm this is, that the most ancient paraphrases and translations treat Azazel as a proper name. The Chaldee paraphrase and the targums of Onkelos and Jonathan would certainly have translated it if it was not a proper name, but they do not. The Septuagint, or oldest Greek version, renders it by apopompaios, a word applied by the Greeks to a malign deity, sometimes appeased by sacrifices.

"Another confirmation is found in the Book of Enoch, where the name Azalzel, evidently a corruption of Azazel, is given to one of the fallen angels, thus plainly showing what was the prevalent understanding of the Jews at that day.

"Still another evidence is found in the Arabic, where Azazel is employed as the name of the evil spirit

"In addition to these, we have the evidence of the Jewish work, Zohar, and of the Cabalistic and Rabbinical writers. They tell us that the following proverb was current among the Jews: 'On the day of atonement, a gift to Sammael.' Hence Moses Gerundinenses feels called to say that it is not a sacrifice, but only done because commanded by God.

"Another step in the evidence is when we find this same opinion passing from the Jewish to the early Christian church. Origen was the most learned of the Fathers, and on such a point as this, the meaning of a Hebrew word, his testimony is reliable. Says Origen: 'He who is called in the Septuagint apopompaios and in the Hebrew Azazel, is no other than the devil.'

"Lastly, a circumstance is mentioned of the Emperor Julian, the apostate, that confirms the argument. He brought as an objection against the Bible, that Moses commanded a sacrifice to the evil spirit. An objection he never could have thought of, had not Azazel been generally regarded as a proper name.

"In view, then, of the difficulties attending any other meaning, and the accumulated evidence in favor of this, Hengstenberg affirms with great confidence that Azazel cannot be anything else but another name for Satan. . . .

"The meaning of the term, viewed as a proper name, was stated in 1677, by Spencer, Dean of Ely, to be Powerful Apostate, or Mighty Receder."

Mr. Beecher, on the seventy-second page of his work, states that Professor Bush considers Azazel to be a proper name of Satan.

Gesenius, the great Hebrew lexicographer, says:-


"Azazel, a word found only in the law respecting the day of atonement. Lev.16:8,10,26. . . . By this name is probably to be understood originally some idol that was appeased with sacrifices, as Saturn and Mars; but afterwards as the names of idols were often transferred to demons, it seems to denote an evil demon dwelling in the desert and to be placed with victims, in accordance with this very ancient and Gentile rite. This name Azazel is also used by the Arabs for an evil demon."


Milton represents Azazel as one of the fallen angels, and the standard-bearer of Satan:-


"That proud honor claimed

Azazel as his right, a cherub tall;

Who forthwith from the glittering staff unfurled

The imperial ensign."

- Paradise Lost, book 1.


The "Comprehensive Commentary" has the following important remarks:-


"Scape-goat. See different opinions in Bochart. Spencer, after the oldest opinions of the Hebrews and Christians, thinks Azazel is the name of the devil; and so Rosenmuller, whom see. The Syriac has Azzail, the angel (strong one) who revolted."


"Cassell's Illustrated Bible" speaks thus of the scape-goat:-


"We offer the following exposition as much more likely, and much more satisfactory: That Azazel is a personal denomination for the evil one."

Certainly, these are very important testimonies to show that Satan is typified by the scape-goat. To show the reasonableness of that act which rolls back upon Satan the sins of the people of God, and also to define the nature of the act, let us carefully state the case. Every sin committed by men is instigated by Satan. This part of the transgression is the sin of Satan alone, and belongs solely to him, whether men repent or not. But consenting to the tempter, and obeying him, is the sin of the one tempted. This part of the transgression will, in the case of all who avail themselves of the work of our High Priest, be placed upon the antitypical scape-goat, Satan, and he will have to bear the full punishment of all such sins.

One of the most important events, therefore, in the opening of the great day of judgment, is that of placing the sins of the overcomers upon the head of the great author of sin. The fallen angels will, no doubt, share with their great leader in this fearful burden of guilt. Satan and his angels are reserved to the judgment of the great day. And one of its first events after the righteous are made immortal is that they are exalted to sit in judgment upon the fallen angels. Jude 6; 2Peter 2:4; 1Cor.6:2,3. (The Judgment, Its Events and Their Order 78-82)


While one will be hard pressed to find anywhere in Adventist literature that Satan is our sin-bearer, one can find references, like in the next to last paragraph, where it says that Satan will "bear" the "punishment" of the "sins" of the "people of God."

The difference between the two ideas of sin-bearer and bearing punishment for sins is more than just semantics. Every Bible-believing Christian believes that those who do not place their sins on the great Sin-bearer Jesus Christ will have to bear the full punishment of their own sins. Would that make the unsaved person his own sin-bearer? Of course not. Even though he has to bear the punishment of his sins since He did not accept the offer of salvation through Jesus, he does not become a sin-bearer.

The term "sin-bearer" carries the connotation of "Savior." Jesus is our Sin-bearer because He died in our place, as our substitute, for our sins. He paid the penalty for our sins that we rightfully deserved to receive.

A sin-bearer, a substitute, a savior, these things neither the unsaved nor Satan can be, even though they must bear the punishment for the sins that they are carrying upon their guilty souls.


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?


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 for the Bible/SoP research paper The Ending of the Great Controversy: The Fires for a thorough treatment on this subject.

Turning to M. L. Andreasen for comment on the final eradication of sin, we are to consider the Day of Atonement reality that all of those who did not “afflict their souls” were “cut off” on that day. The typical ceremonial divided the people into two groups. The ones who entered into the soul searching and confession, having brought their sin offering and made their restitution, awaited the outcome. As they heard the tinkling of the bells on the garment of the high priest, they knew that their sins were blotted out and they were clean before God. The other group, not having afflicted their souls or entered into the process, had to bear their own sin and were thus, “cut off.” (Lev. 23:29). In this scenario it would not mean the infliction of death under civil code but rather banishment from the camp. (You can search the SdA commentary on this term.) When we are told that we are to consider the end of the wicked in the sanctuary we look at the scapegoat and how it is that he, Satan, is to suffer the penalty for sin and we do not see killing, but abandonment.

The Day of Atonement follows two outcomes for sinners: their sin goes onto the goat for the LORD and is thus removed by the death of the same, or they themselves are banished, “cut off.”


The leading away of the scapegoat must have been a solemn moment for all Israel. In him each man had a vivid illustration of what would happen to him as he failed in his duty toward God. Driven out of the camp, out into the wilderness, alone and forsaken, the prey of hunger and thirst, of heat by day and cold by night, surrounded by wild animals and other dangers of the night, laden with sin and with the curse of God resting upon him—this was the fate of the scapegoat, and this would be the fate of such as departed from God. The lesson must have been vivid and powerful, and one not easily forgotten. (M. L. Andreasen, The Sanctuary Service, p. 210).


From Neil Livingston’s paper on final atonement:


What God gave us at the beginning still stands. God’s message does not change—we did not understand the third angel’s message in error


“Study the Bible truths that for fifty years have been calling us out from the world.” Ellen White counseled. Ibid.

In other words, noting time and place (1906) when this testimony was penned, the truth that pioneer Adventists taught from 1844 to the turn of the century was, and still is, the Third Angel's Message. The pioneer Seventh-day Adventist messages, given this people in the past century, is the true end-time “gospel” to a perishing world. God does not change. His message does not change. Any message that is not in harmony with this “most precious message” is what Ellen White called “strange fire,” what we know today as “new theology.”


Do not move any pillars as set in place after “the passing of time in 1844”


When the power of God testifies to what is truth, the truth is to stand forever as the truth…The truth for this time, God has given us as a foundation for our faith. He Himself has taught us what is truth…And while the Scriptures are God’s Word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar of the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God.” A Call to the Watchmen, p. 14.


Notice that, “He [God] Himself has taught us what is truth,” and, “when the power of God testifies to what is truth, “the truth is to stand forever as the truth.” Ibid. Could anything be more plain? An application, or interpretation, of Scripture that “moves one pillar of the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. Ibid. In this statement, Ellen White emphasized that it was “the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God.” Ibid.


The past fifty years have not dimmed one jot or principle of our faith as we received the great and wonderful evidences that were made certain to us in 1844, after the passing of the time…Not a word is changed or denied. That which the Holy Spirit testified to as truth after the passing of the time, in our great disappointment, is the solid foundation of truth…” The Upward Look, 352.


Not a word is changed or denied,” of the Advent truth for “the past fifty years,” and this truth that was laid down after the great disappointment in 1844 “is the solid foundation of truth.” The emphasis again and again is stated to be the truth that was held by Seventh-day Adventists for “the past fifty years.” Gospel Workers, 1915, 307.



The seven pillars


Seven pillars of truth:


·                    passing of time in 1844

·                    second coming

·                    cleansing of the sanctuary

·                    three angel’s messages

·                    commandments of God

·                    faith of Jesus; overcoming in sinful flesh

·                    Sabbath

·                    non-immortality of the wicked


Satan attacks the first angel’s message, the sanctuary.


The first “pillar” or “landmark” that Satan would attack is the foundation pillar of the Advent movement. This landmark is the First Angel’s Message, the message that the remnant people were commissioned to give to a perishing world. The sanctuary truth is the one doctrine held only by Seventh-day Adventists. … [The attack would have to be subtle.] If Satan attacked the sanctuary truth outright, by stating “there is no sanctuary in heaven,” the Advent people would detect the deception immediately. Too many testimonies had been written against that kind of an assault upon this foundation pillar of Adventism.


Final atonement doctrine is where he strikes, by bringing in the “completed atonement at the cross” error.


History reveals that Satan would shrewdly concentrate his assault on the most important “phase” of the sanctuary truth. Satan would cleverly attack, and try to negate, the “final atonement” and the “blotting out of sins” work of Jesus Christ, our heavenly High Priest. Satan would introduce into the Seventh-day Adventist Church the false concept held by the fallen churches of Babylon that the atonement was final, completed and finished on the cross. This false concept would lead the people to feel secure in their sins. This most subtle deception would, at the same time, do away with the truth of the 1844 message—that the final atonement is being completed in heaven by our High Priest, Jesus Christ, the true Lamb of God.

To complete his masterful deception, Satan, after establishing the erroneous “complete and final atonement on the cross” concept, would then introduce into the Seventh-day Adventist Church a false concept of the human nature Christ assumed while in the flesh. This second false concept would give the people a false “assurance” and lead them to believe that Christ is their substitute only. This deception would lead the people to accept the false doctrine of “free grace” held by all so-called “contemporary Christians.” This would be Satan’s most cunning and subtle deception, for it would lead the people to be lost in their sins!


This is the spiritualism of the Omega


Spiritualism by definition is the sophistry of Satan in its fundamental tenets of “ye shall not surely die,” and “ye are gods.” All of the enemy’s kingdom principles derive from these. In other words, translated into simple terms, this means, “You have innate righteousness, follow your own will, sin and live too.” All of his paths have these teachings in some form. In the case of the Omega, which applies to the end-time Advent people, it is in the teachings that are commonly heard from pulpits today: that Christ-did-it-all, finished-at-the-cross mantra that does not like to talk about total overcoming but emphasizes the part “if-we-sin-we-are-covered.” It avoids any discussion of the close of probation for the living, because in most cases it does not believe in this. Therefore, it leads to a false experience, in that we can now live as we want and we’re covered just fine. Eternal life is guaranteed. It is not far off from once-saved-always saved. Just read your Bible and pray. This is all intended by Satan to take Adventists step by step into a first-apartment evangelical experience and on into the mark of the beast.


This overwhelming deception the Spirit of Prophecy describes as “the Omega of apostasy.”

“The Omega would follow in a little while,” Ellen White warned. “I tremble for our people.” Sermons and Talks, 341.

Jesus warned that in the last days Satan’s battle strategy against the remnant people of God would be so deceptive that “if it were possible, it should deceive the very elect.” Matthew 24:24b. Thus Paul stated, “and no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light, therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness.” 2 Corinthians 11:14, 15a.

Ellen White cautioned, “One will arise and still another with new light which contradicts the light that God has given under the demonstration of His Holy Spirit…We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith.” A Call to the Watchmen, 14.

How can we know what is truth? How can we identify heresy in these last days? How can we avoid being deceived by our cunning adversary?

“When the power of God testifies to what is truth, the truth is to stand forever as the truth. No after suppositions, contrary to the light God has given, are to be entertained.” Ibid. …

So that is the key, the doctrinal rock we should hold on to—the truth in our past history! “We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past history.” Life Sketches, 196. This statement was published in 1915. We must go back to the beginning of the Advent movement, the first “fifty years” of our past history, to discover what was the truth that was endorsed by “the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God.” A Call to the Watchmen, 14. Then we must compare any new teaching, and “new theology,” to the teachings of pioneer Seventh-day Adventists from 1844 to the turn of the century.


Crosier explains final atonement (Remember, the Lord endorsed this teaching, through the gift of prophecy)


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

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

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

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

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

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


Any valid representations of a complete atonement made at the cross would of necessity be in reference to sacrificial atonement, the basis for the entire work yet to be done. The sacrifice was perfect and complete and finished at the cross but the priest must yet take the blood into the sanctuary and administer the merits of Christ through the blood. In another sense, inspiration can speak of a completion of the atonement on Calvary in prolepsis, as a rhetorical device, as looking forward to the work being finished on the basis of the sacrificial atonement. Another example of such a device is found in Revelation 16:6, which is in reference to the third plague being poured on the water so they can have blood to drink, because they “have shed the blood of saints and prophets.” We know that there are no martyrs under the plagues, so this is speaking of what they intend to do, in the passing of the death decree. The legislation of it makes it as good as done. So it is with reference to the finished work at the cross. We can say the atonement was complete, as a noun, but we cannot say it was completed, as a verb, at that time. Further, it must be obvious that the atonement was not complete at the cross, because we are still here on earth. When final atonement is complete, the marriage is complete and at this time He leaves the Holiest, lays aside the priestly robes, puts on the kingly attire, and comes to get His bride.


…pioneer Adventists did not believe in a “completed and final atonement on the cross.” Indeed, the “Fundamental Principles of Beliefs” written by James White and published in the Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook [1847-1914] stated almost the very words of Crosier on the final atonement. Note carefully the statement by James White: “That there is one Lord Jesus Christ…that He…died our sacrifice, was raised for our justification, ascended on high to be our only Mediator in the sanctuary in heaven, where, with His own blood, He makes the atonement for our sins; which atonement, so far from being made on the cross, which was but the offering of the sacrifice, is the very last portion of His work as priest, according to the example of the Levitical priesthood, which foreshadowed and prefigured the ministry of our Lord in heaven.” James White, 1874 Fundamental Principles, op. sit. The Living Witness, “Significant Articles From the Signs of the Times,” 1874-1959, Pacific Press Publishing association, 1959….


J. N. Andrews was clear on final atonement:


“The work of cleansing the sanctuary is succeeded by the act of placing the sins, thus removed, upon the head of the scapegoat, to be borne away forever from the sanctuary,” Andrews concludes. “The work of our High Priest for the sins of the world will then be completed, and He will be ready to appear ‘without sin unto salvation.’” James N. Andrews, The Sanctuary and Twenty-Three Hundred Days, Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, battle Creek, MI., 1872, p. 92.


At this point, I could also provide citations from publications of the views of Joseph Bates, Stephen N. Haskell, Alonzo T. Jones, J. N. Loughborough, E. J. Waggoner, Joseph H. Waggoner, and others that would show the same thing, as treasures mined from their personal studies in the Bible, not from Ellen White. The reader can follow up; to bring them here would just make a longer paper, although it is valuable knowledge to garner into one’s own barns, because it reveals that “This position was one of the ‘foundation’ truths that was endorsed by the Spirit of God at the beginning of the Advent movement.” Livingston, p. 21


Ellen White confirms:


Ellen White’s view never changed, of course. From early to late statements, she was always clear that the “atonement” was not completed and finished on the cross, but in the heavenly sanctuary. The following two statements were penned in 1912.


His [Christ] work as high priest completes the divine plan of redemption by making the final atonement for sin.” Manuscript 69, 1912, p. 13. (Emphasis supplied).


When Christ, the Mediator, burst the bands of the tomb, and ascended on high to minister for man, [1] He first entered the holy place, where, by virtue of His own sacrifice, He made an offering for the sins of men. With intercession and pleading He presented before God the prayers and repentance and faith of His people, purified by the incense of His own merits. [2] He next entered the Most Holy Place [in 1844], to make an atonement for the sins of the people, and cleanse the sanctuary. His work as High Priest completes the divine plan of redemption by making the final atonement for sin. Manuscript Releases, vol. II, 54. (Emphasis supplied).


Erroneous Contemporary Adventist Church Statement


It may be that we open up the proverbial “can of worms” on this by bringing in the debacle of Questions on Doctrine (QOD). Let the reader understand there is a backdrop of history here that opens this matter up to a much bigger problem than any local teaching of error. This ill is systemic in Adventism today. Although not new heresy, this difficulty stems in a significant part from the evangelical conferences of the mid-1950’s which resulted in the publishing of “books of a new order” as was desired by the enemy of souls and was prophesied to occur in the future if his supposed reformation were to take place. That reformation has obviously been well underway for some time. (See Testimonies for the Church Containing Messages of Warning and Instruction to Seventh-day Adventists, p.39, par. 3-4).

There are good books that bring forward the true history of the matter and one that I would highly recommend for the reader to study is written by member and leader in good standing, Elder Herb Douglass’ A Fork in the Road who was employed by the publisher of QOD at the time of its publication. The behind the scenes story is fascinating.

This matter is truly a great divide as the church seems to be officially split but any official travel of the path of error, as one sees in QOD, necessitates a repudiation of the pioneers and Ellen White. We cannot agree that it is any sort of advance in light or progressive understanding to do such a thing, but rather a falling away from the upward path into the deepening darkness of the chasm below.

To embrace deviations in our sanctuary message can only result in the loss of the third angel’s message and a wide-open door to friendship with the world. Such friendship is not a healthy one, as it causes us to move to their position and not them to ours. Until Seventh-day Adventism truly acknowledges that it has allowed itself to largely become “offshoot” from the truth and until she would see the wisdom of officially repudiating all publications and statements and purge from her payroll all members that teach these heresies, we are stuck with a house divided, which ultimately cannot stand. This is the deplorable condition in which the denomination seeks to “Go Forward” today, as we heard from the president of the General Conference, Ted N. C. Wilson, at the outset of his ministry to the church. Until we dismantle this apostasy, we have conflict at all levels.

Some believe that God is going to purify His church, meaning Conference Adventism. I am watching for this, but highly doubt that it will happen. I personally believe the sliding will continue. This does not mean that any individual is obligated to identify with it. Those who embrace the truth as it is in Jesus, and who follow the Lamb “withersoever He goeth” are encouraged to stand up and stay standing, however God leads them to do it. My writing and sharing of this paper is part of my own duty to do these things. I’ll leave this thought there.


This becomes all the more meaningful when we realize that Jesus, our surety, entered the “holy places” and appeared in the presence of God for us. But it was not with the hope of obtaining something for us at that time, or at some future time. No! He had already obtained it for us on the cross. [emphasis theirs] And now, as our High Priest, He ministers the virtues of His atoning sacrifice. Representative Group of Seventh-day Adventists, Questions on Doctrine, Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington, D.C., 1957, 381.


Notice, Ellen White states that Jesus “entered the holy place, where…He made an offering for the sons of men.” Manuscript Releases, vol. II, 54. The contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church says “No.” They admit that Jesus did enter the “holy places” and appeared in the presence of God for us. “But it was not with the hope of obtaining something for us at that time, or at some future time.” Representative Group of Seventh-day Adventists, Questions on Doctrine, Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington, D.C., 1957, 381.

Ellen White says, “He next entered the most holy place, to make an atonement for the sins of the people, and cleanse the sanctuary.” And, “His work as High Priest completes the divine plan of redemption by making the final atonement for sin.” Manuscript Releases, vol. II, 54. The contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church says, “No! He had already obtained it for us on the cross.” Representative Group of Seventh-day Adventists, Questions on Doctrine, Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington, D.C., 1957, 381.

“The sins of those who have obtained pardon through the great sin-offering, are, at the close of our Lord’s work in the holy places, blotted out (Acts 3:19),” J. N. Andrews concluded, “and being then transferred to the scapegoat, are borne away from the sanctuary and host forever, and rest upon the head of their author, the devil.” J. N. Andrews.…


As he [Christ] repeated these words, he pointed to the heavenly sanctuary. The minds of all who embrace this message are directed to the most holy place, where Jesus stands before the ark, making His final intercession for all those for whom mercy still lingers and for those who have ignorantly broken the law of God. This atonement is made for the righteous dead as well as for the righteous living. Early Writings, 254.


Jesus makes an atonement for those who died, not receiving the light upon God’s commandments, who sinned ignorantly. Spiritual Gifts, vol. I, 162, 163.


Early departure from the truth: Brother Ballenger


Satan today has a heyday with all of this because the prophet is not alive to write specific letters to address individual teachers, but we can compare early apostasies with those of today to know exactly what she would say to them, were she alive. Let us look at the case of Albion Ballenger, at the opening of the twentieth century.

It was reported by Elder E. W. Farnsworth by a letter to the General Conference president, who passed the information to W. C. White on March 16, 1905 that


…Brother Ballenger has got into a condition of mind which would seem to me to unfit him entirely to preach the message. He has been studying the subject of the sanctuary a good deal lately, and he comes to the conclusion that the atonement was made when Christ was crucified and that when He ascended He went immediately into the Most Holy Place and that His ministry has been carried on there ever since. (Arthur L. White, EGW: The Early Elmshaven Years, vol. 5, 407). (Emphasis supplied).


Notice the three heretical concepts of Ballenger’s teaching.


1. The atonement was made when Christ was crucified,

2. and that when He ascended He went immediately into the Most Holy Place,

3. and that His ministry has been carried on there ever since.


Astounding! This is exactly the teaching of the “new” theology currently devastating [has devastated] the Seventh-day Adventist Church. This erroneous concept is entirely at odds with the historic teaching of pioneer Adventists. Moreover, this teaching is in opposition to the Spirit of Prophecy.


“He [Ballenger] sees clearly that his view cannot be made to harmonize with the testimonies,” Farnsworth wrote in his letter, “at least he admits freely that he is totally unable to do so.” Ibid.

Farnsworth stated further that, in his own mind, Ballenger felt that “there is an irreconcilable difference” between his theories and Ellen White. “This, of course, involves the authenticity of the Testimonies and practically upsets them,” Farnsworth concluded. Ibid. …


Ellen White repudiates Ballenger soundly


It will be one of the great evils that will come to our people to have the Scriptures taken out of their true place and so interpreted as to substantiate error that contradicts the light and the Testimonies that God has been giving us for the past half century,” Ellen White replied to Ballenger. “I declare in the name of the Lord that the most dangerous heresies are seeking to find entrance among us as a people, and Elder Ballenger is making spoil of his own soul.” Manuscript Release, 59, 1905. (For further EGW statements on the teachings of A. F. Ballenger, see Christ In His Sanctuary, 3-18).

 “There is not truth in the explanations of Scripture that Elder Ballenger and those associated with him are presenting,” Ellen White cautioned. “I am instructed to say to Elder Ballenger, your theories, which have multitudes of fine threads, and need so many explanations, are not truth, and are not to be brought to the flock of God.” Ibid.

The attack of Satan on the sanctuary truth at that time came to naught because the Messenger of the Lord was alive and confronted the false doctrine. However, today Ellen White is no longer with the Church. As Israel of old, we only have the writings of the prophet. Has the Seventh-day Adventist Church fallen for the old erroneous concepts of Ballenger? Although Ellen White had warned that these dangerous concepts “are not to be brought to the flock of God,” that is exactly what has been promoted by the “new” theology.


Contemporary Scholars Endorse Ballenger’s Theories


In 1981 Roy Adams, … [at time of this writing] assistant editor of the Adventist Review, wrote his Doctoral Dissertation at Andrews University. Adams wrote on the sanctuary doctrinal positions held by Uriah Smith, M. L. Andreason, and A. F. Ballenger. Notice carefully the following conclusion by Roy Adams on the position held by A. F. Ballenger:


“Ballenger’s treatment of Hebrews 6:19, 20 is so strong, exegetically, that it has to be regarded as a significant movement towards a closer affinity to the biblical testimony in regard to the meaning of the phrase ‘within the veil.’ His argumentation, based as it was on solid scriptural indications, far surpassed the value of [Uriah] Smith’s on the same point. And inasmuch as the two positions were diametrically opposed to each other, Ballenger’s is to be preferred.” Roy Adams, The Sanctuary Doctrine, “Three Approaches in the Seventh-day Adventist Church,” Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series, Andrews university Press, 1981, 245.


Notice that Roy Adams, speaking for contemporary Seventh-day Adventist theologians, states that Ballenger’s treatment of Scripture “is so strong,” and “that it has to be regarded as a significant movement towards a closer affinity to the biblical testimony.” On this point Adams concluded that Ballenger’s argumentations are “based as it was on solid scriptural indications.”


Coming full circle


We must not lose our focus in relating some of these details of history, in that it is my attempt to relate the teaching that Azazel is Christ is entirely incompatible with true Seventh-day Adventism. Keeping in mind that Ellen bore to us the heavenly imprimatur upon Uriah Smith’s work in Daniel and the Revelation, where we find also the teaching of Azazel as Satan--not Christ--we see that Roy Adams denigrates Smith, saying, “His [Ballenger’s] argumentation, based as it was on solid scriptural indications, far surpassed the value of Smith’s on the same point.”


Roy Adams admits that Ballenger and Smith were at opposite ends of theology on the sanctuary doctrine, “And inasmuch as the two positions were diametrically opposed to each other…” The truth is that Ballenger was “diametrically opposed” to all pioneer Adventists. … Even Ballenger himself had stated that “there is an irreconcilable difference” between his theories and Ellen White. E. E. Andross, Bible study, No. II, July 13, 1911, 13.

Then Roy Adams, completely disregarding Spirit of Prophecy counsel, states that “Ballenger’s [position] is to be preferred,” to that of Uriah Smith. Adams could have chosen any other pioneer Adventist instead of Uriah Smith as an example of pioneer Adventist teaching on the sanctuary, because Uriah Smith’s writings on the subject are in perfect harmony with O. R. L. Crosier, James White, J. N. Andrews and others.

“Ballenger’s radical departure in the area of the sanctuary was of immense significance to the purpose of this study,” Adams admits. The Sanctuary Doctrine, 256.

“But while it would be impossible to synthesize the sanctuary theology of these three figures [Uriah Smith, A. F. Ballenger, M. L. Andreason] into a unified whole, it is feasible to build a contemporary Adventist theology of the sanctuary, using their insights, however diverse they are in some points.” Adams reasons. “Such an eclectic approach would need to discard or modify some features while retaining others with profit.” Ibid. 255.

This is the real problem with contemporary Adventist scholarship. They wish to teach truth mixed with error. Why? Because Adventist leadership aspires to join the great Ecumenical movement sweeping the world. They wish to be considered “Christian brethren” by the fallen churches of Babylon! …

“It will be one of the great evils that will come to our people,” Ellen White predicted, “to have the Scriptures taken out of their true place and so interpreted as to substantiate error that contradicts the light and the Testimonies that God has been giving us for the past half century.” Ibid.

“Let us all cling to the established truth of the sanctuary,” Ellen White concluded. Ibid. In 1905 this “truth of the sanctuary” would be the “established truth” presented by Crosier, James White, and other pioneer Adventists.

The contemporary Church is now teaching the false doctrines on the sanctuary that were first introduced by A. F. Ballenger. On the First Angel’s Message, the sanctuary truth, the Seventh-day Adventist Church is now in apostasy. How the Lord will choose to deal with the Church and this apostasy is a frightening possibility. Is it any wonder that Ellen White, commenting on this “Omega of Apostasy” stated that, “I tremble for our people.Sermons and Talks, 


Closing statement


We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past historyLife Sketches, 196.


Simple enough.