Adventist Online

The Scapegoat is used to make an atonement.  (Lev 16:10) Here, say some, is another reason why the Scapegoat must represent Christ. They ask, “How can the Devil make an atonement for the people of God?”  But we are in danger of adding to the words of Scripture if we say that the Scapegoat was used to “make an atonement” for Israel.


In the next chapter of Leviticus we are told that “it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul” (Lev 17:11).  The Scapegoat was used to make an atonement, we cannot deny that, and yet the Scapegoat's blood was not shed --  he was released alive in the wilderness. It is impossible therefore, that the Scapegoat could ever bring about an atonement [or any kind of reconciliation] between the souls of men and God. In what sense then, was the Scapegoat used to “make an atonement”?

Consider the thought : “since his fall, [Satan’s] life of unceasing activity has banished reflection; but he is now [at the opening of the thousand years] deprived of his power and left to contemplate the part which he has acted since first he rebelled against the government of heaven”. (GC p.660)

Until the Devil is bound, he gives himself no room for reflection. But now, when the “great chain” is upon him -- his work of millenia having been taken away -- his sin comes upon his head. Now, effectively for the very first time, his sins come upon his heart and mind, and he becomes ‘at one’ with them. Now there is an abject sense of failure, guilt, and terror upon him, and for a thousand years his sufferings are intense. (GC p.660.) For the first time he is at one with his sin.

Views: 399

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The Sacrificial system has to be thought of in terms of a process, the human being sins and needs a sacrifice to bear the penalty for sin on his behalf, the sacrificial animal would be then taken to the temple where the person confesses on the head of the sacrifice and kills the animal by slitting its throat. The blood is collected and sprinkled in the holy place, the person's sin is forgiven but the sin has not been paid for in a wholistic sense. On Yom Kippur two goats would be carried to the temple, lots are cast, one is made the sacrificial goat and the other one is the scapegoat, the sins of the people for the entire year is placed on the scapegoat and its banished from the camp by a strong person. The reason for the scapegoat is an act of punishing the being that is most responsible for sin. Ultimately Satan would have to pay for the world's sin problem and after his banishment would die.  

I agree with you Sheridan.

And I would say that the Scapegoat's punishment begins when the hands of the High Priest are laid on his head. Then it is that the sins of the people are finally transferred from Christ to the Devil. Then it is that a weight of guilt and terror settles on him, and he will find no relief from that for 1000 years.

My suggestion in the opening post is that there is also a bloodless "atonement" made with the Scapegoat when the High Priest lays His hands on that goat.

>>The Scapegoat is used to make an atonement.  (Lev 16:10) Here, say some, is another reason why the Scapegoat must representChrist. They ask, “How can the Devil make an atonement for the people of God?”  But we are in danger of adding to the words of Scripture if we say that the Scapegoat was used to “make an atonement” for Israel.
 
 
Steward, the problem lies in a mistranslation of Lev 16:8 and 16:10.  They have turned Azazel into the 2nd goat(live).  I have interrogated two rabbis(with black suits and the long curls) about this text and they confirmed that the 2nd goat is not Azazel.  I ask them "who is Azazel?"  They answered me it was a mountain that was name as such and they cast off the cliff of that mountain the live goat.  I ask them "what symbolizes Azazel?"  They said they didn't know.
 
Now let's look the mesoretic source of both of these texts with the KJV. 
 

 Lev 16:8 “Av Lv 16:8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats(sa'iyr); one lot for the LORD(Yhvh), and the other lot for the scapegoat(Azazel).”

A. Let’s make a note for “the”. In Hebrew when they want to put emphasis on a noun they will put the Hebrew letter Hey as prefix. The masoretic text have put a Hey before sa’iyr(H8163, Shaggy, a he-goat), however none is put in front of Y-hv-h(3068,self Existent) nor in front of azaz’el(5799, stout goat). However the KJV has added in each of these noun a “the” in the translation for the sake of easy English flowing sentences. That’s fine as long as the intended meaning is not distorted.

B. In this text, Lamed was only used in front of both Y-hv-h and azaz’el to mean “for”. Following the flow and the context in this sentences there was one sin-offering that was for the Lord, and the other was for Azazel(the stout goat). By preserving the name Azazel as a stout goat, we see here that the second goat (live one of the sin offering) is
     i)for the stout goat and
    ii)is not the stout goat itself.
 
i) and ii) has two complete different meanings. We lost the intend meaning by translating it as ii). The way they did it is as followed:

  • #1.First Srong has incorrect defined the origin of the word azaz’el. ".
    Originally Posted By: elle
    The Hebrew word “aza’zel” is best translated as “Azazel” and not as “goat of departure”.
    • i) Strong has erroneously defined it as deriving from ‘ez (h5795 – she goat ) and ‘azal (h235 – to go away). azal-ez does not fit together well and does not make up azazel.

    • ii)It better derives from ‘azaz (h5810 -- to be stout ) and ‘el (h410 – god) -- fitting together perfectly azaz-el meaning a goat god also known as Pan, by which the Isreaelites where worshipping also in all their high places.
  • #2. The KJV and other version has added “the” in front of the incorrect definition of azaz’el, and voila, they have transformed the second goat of the sin offering into being Azaz’el instead of being sent To Azaz’el. This has totally distorted the intended meaning.

  • #3. And we have not tested nor verified the soundness of this translation. Also we have disregarded other segment in Lev 16 that is in disharmony with this translation. Here’s how :
    i) the two goats were to be sin-offering (Lev 16:5)
    ii) All sin offering needed to be without blemish, that means the second goat cannot represent Satan because Satan is full of blemish.
    iii) it is not in harmony with the second witness of this law that the Lord provided in Lev 14.
    iv) it is not in harmony with the laws of liability
    v) It is not in harmony with other scriptures revealing the fulfillment of the day of atonement.

 

Now let’s look at Lev 16:10 .:  For ease of reading I have put in Blue the KJV, in red the words incorrectly translated by KJV and in green what the Masoretic text reads.

In Blue -- regular KJV.
[In red]-- incorrect KJV translation.
(In green) -- what the Masoretic text read.

Lev 16:10 "But the goat, on which the lot fell [to be the] (for) Azazel, shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go [for a ] (to) Azazel into the wilderness. "

To translate ...

  • a)"to be the" Azazel ... instead of " for" Azazel,
  • b)" for a " Azazel into the wilderness ... instead of "to" Azazel into the wilderness

  • ...a) & b) in red changes the whole meaning. They have turn the 2nd goat of the sin offering into being Azazel instead of being sent To Azazel.

    the KJV and other translations have :
    • 1. They incorrectly translated azaz’el into scapegoat
    • 2. they have added the word “the” to go with “scapegoat
    • 3. and they have added the verb “be

      the” and “be” are added words and are not in the original text. 1. 2. And 3. has changed the whole meaning of the text.

    • 4. Also in the section b) they have added the word "a" which again was not in the original text and have distorted the intended meaning with it.


I’m not saying that Strong or whoever wrote KJV and whoever else who wrote the other translations, had a malintent. They tried to translate as best as they knew and that’s how they understood the gospel in their days and personally. Translation cannot be totally devoided from personal biases or from the influences of the current understanding of the time. They try as much as they could, however, personal understanding does come out through the translation. That’s why there are many different translation today. Not one is that much better than the other. At times the original text needs to be verified, word studies needs to be done to extract the Lord's true intended meaning, and we need to test all things with the Law and the manner of the law(Is 8:20).

Thank you Blessings.

So "the goat, on which the lot fell for Azazel" does not represent the Devil? And Azazel is the name of the mountain from which the Jews threw the goat to his death? Is there any indication in Scripture that God wanted His people to kill both goats?

The Jews had/have many traditions of course, and in my view, this thought that they threw the second goat from a cliff, is one of the traditions that makes the word of God of none-effect.

With regards to the word, "scapegoat", I'm aware that the term was coined by William Tyndale in 1530, and was later incorporated into the KJV. Tyndale mistakenly understood the Hebrew word to mean an "escape-goat." But "Azazel" is a proper noun, it is an individual's name, and it is clear, I think, that that name does not refer to God.

So "the goat, on which the lot fell for Azazel" does not represent the Devil?

Azazel literally means "stout goat".  Symbolically, I see that it can also mean our rebellious carnal spirit that wants to rule in the place of Christ(anti-christ) and make our own laws.  John talks about antichrists  -- I think it represent anyone with a rebellious spirit which is a type of satan(adversary). 

And Azazel is the name of the mountain from which the Jews threw the goat to his death?

Jabal Muntar is the mountain they call Azazel.  What these Jews told me is what they currently understand that text.  It doesn't mean that they threw the goat off the cliff in Moses days as there was no such instruction.  The Bible only tells us that a strong man brought the goat to Azazel. 

 

Is there any indication in Scripture that God wanted His people to kill both goats? 

 

No there's none as pointed above.  What the Jews did later on with the goat could have been traditions of men.  Of course, like most of the law, they did not understand the ceremony.   

   

With regards to the word, "scapegoat", I'm aware that the term was coined by William Tyndale in 1530, and was later incorporated into the KJV. Tyndale mistakenly understood the Hebrew word to mean an "escape-goat." But "Azazel" is a proper noun, it is an individual's name, and it is clear, I think, that that name does not refer to God.

 

I agree, Azazel does not refer to the Lord, nor was it the second live goat in the ceremony.  It could of been the name of the mountain as wikipedia says -- "Later rabbis, interpreting "la-azazel" as "azaz" (rugged), and "el" (strong), refer it to the rugged and rough mountain cliff from which the goat was cast down (..)".  We don't know. 

 

Whatever the name of Azazel literally was, what's important is to recognize that

    a) it was not the second live-goat, and

    b) the live-goat was "let go to Azazel" as scripture says.

    c) look at other scriptures to show us the meaning.  We have Lev 14 with the cleansing ceremony with the two birds, one killed, the other released alive in the open field(Lev 14:7..."the field is the world" Mt 13:38 ).  Also, we have Jesus on the day of atonement went to get baptized(death=1st goat & 1st dove) and the Holy Spirit(strong man) led Jesus(alive= 2nd goat & 2nd dove) in the desert to be tempted by the devil for 40 days.  That was a fulfillment of a type or partial fulfillment.  It was not the complete fulfillment as it was a type of His second coming.  The two goats and the two doves represents the two coming & works of Jesus.  His first coming He came from the tribe of Judah to fulfill His first work -- to die at the cross and was given the scepter.  His second coming, He will come as a Joseph wearing a vesture dipped with blood(Rev 19:13) of goat(Gen 37:31).  He will fulfill His second work thru His body by which Rev 19:15 says "And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron:"

 

I think anyone looking into Hebrew word studies soon finds that Azazel is a difficult word to define. But Blessings, I have not been able to find any reputable Hebrew Word-Study that defines Azazel as "stout goat". Yes, the word "goat" is sometimes added/appended to the description, but that, in my view, is because the term Azazel is applied to a goat in Leviticus 16.

The idea of 'strong, stout, or rugged', appears to be contained in "Azaz"; but "el" is a Hebrew word designating a god. Of course "el" often refers to the true God, but "el" is also used in reference to any false "god".

But Blessings, I have not been able to find any reputable Hebrew Word-Study that defines Azazel as "stout goat". Yes, the word "goat" is sometimes added/appended to the description, but that, in my view, is because the term Azazel is applied to a goat in Leviticus 16.

The idea of 'strong, stout, or rugged', appears to be contained in "Azaz"; but "el" is a Hebrew word designating a god. Of course "el" often refers to the true God, but "el" is also used in reference to any false "god".

You are right Stewart azaz'el stands for "stout god" not "stout goat". I had little time to write and wrote that reply too fast and did a mistake there.  I have seen azaz'el defined as you said for awhile and if you look in my first post I have defined it  as "stout god".  Sorry for the confusion.
 
Blessings!

Wow this mountain must be very important. Every Day of Atonement they came to the Azazel mountain, it did not matter where they were, how far etc ? Very good thinking lol. Is Myron behind this ??? 

I see a lot of major problems with this discussion, starting in the original post where Stewart is unable to reconcile his beliefs with a verse in scripture and points to another verse in the following chapter as proof that the verse he does not like is wrong.  He then continues, using numerous quotes from Ellen White as support for his belief over this clear word of scripture.  Wow.  That speaks volumes concerning one's belief in the infallibility of scripture.  Since Stewart clearly does not believe in  this infallibility all discussion should have ended here.  No one should have answered him, but then most of the responses he received show this same disbelief in all who joined in on this discussion.  Although Blessings and Stewart both show some open-mindedness and willingness to change beliefs to match scripture, mostly they both join everyone else in defense of what they believe over what scripture says.

I'm sorry Blessings, you know I generally agree with you and your study methods, but this is what I am seeing in this thread, and it is a problem if it is true.  If I am misinterpreting what I see you have my apologies.  In his first post Rob raises an interesting and important question that no one even attempts to answer.  His second post is almost useless since he claims scripture says something but provides no proof, and most of what what he says in it is pure speculation that he makes no attempt to support in any way.  Most interesting is his conclusions about the doctrine of Satan, claiming the Jews had no understanding of it.  There is a reason for that.  Most of what we teach about Satan and Hell comes from Egyptian, Greek and Persian religion and philosophy and scripture has to be shoehorned to fit it.   We do not believe what scripture has to say regarding Satan and evil and we spend much time and effort ignoring its clear word to twist it to what we actually believe.  Provide your proofs Rob.  While you are at it provide your proof for eternal non-existence and show how this plan fits into God's law, which is all, including the portions he dictated to Moses, prophecy of the plan of salvation.  It certainly does not agree with the Sabbath laws, the highest of which is Jubilee, in which ALL  debt is cancelled.  None is paid for eternally.

The problem we face is that God said this goat, the one for Azazel.

10 But the goat chosen by lot as the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the Lord to be used for making atonement by sending it into the wilderness as a scapegoat.  22 The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a remote place; and the man shall release it in the wilderness.

The proper translation of and transliteration of azazel has already been discussed.  The meaning of azazel is still in question and I will provide some information on that later.  Of greater importance at the moment is the underlined passage.  This goat was not to be killed under any circumstances.  It is to be presented alive to make atonement by sending it into the wilderness.  This is something our theology and the Jewish theology Blessings discussed cannot account for.  And Stewart, because he cannot understand it, prefers to point to a text in the next chapter and claim that it invalidates this statement.   

Think of it this way.  Scripture is much like a 5000 piece puzzle or a huge dot-to-dot puzzle of massive proportions.  At Mt. Sinai 3500 years ago God gave us most the information we to piece this picture together.  Occasionally since then he has handed us a few more pieces of the puzzle, but more often has simply placed certain pieces together for us.  Yet there are always people so foolish as to force unrelated pieces together, throw out, or at least ignore, pieces God has given us, and bring in pieces of their own imagining and try to force the picture together in that way.  It becomes a disjointed mess and as prophecy becomes history they must either break it apart and try to force it together in yet another way or it simply bypasses their creation and leaves them completely irrelevant, something they will never admit to being.

Only a fool would treat a complex puzzle in this manner.  Anyone can be a fool from time to time.  Anyone would be a fool to claim this never could happen to them.  Last time I checked, everyone in this discussion was intelligent enough to avoid being a fool, yet as I read this discussion I see several who seem to be treading dangerously close to that line if they have not actually crossed over it already.  I know Stewart has enough wisdom to avoid such errors, so I must ask, “Why does it appear that you are ready to throw away pieces to this puzzle?”

Scripture is full of clues as to how this works and what these two goats represent in terms of how they are fulfilled in Jesus ministry.  Furthermore, there are two other parallel sacrifices found in Leviticus 14 which also shed light on the interpretation of this sacrifice.  The two doves used in cleansing the mildewed house, and the two doves used in cleansing the body of leprosy are not the same as the two goats, but they closely parallel them.  In all three cases, one animal is killed as a sin offering and the other is set free.  No one suggests the second dove represents Satan since the blood of the first is smeared on its back, a sign of redemption.  It may be possible that the smearing of the blood is a detail left out of the Day of Atonement law, but I do have doubts concerning that.  Still, if this goat really does parallel the second dove it would stand to reason that this goat is also in some way covered by the blood of the first as it does whatever work is being prophesied by these sacrifices.  This would call into question any interpretation that says this goat represents Satan.

So what does this goat represent if it must be Jesus and cannot be Satan?  There are clues given throughout the Bible.  I don’t know of any that are clear and obvious, but there are many that make some kind of sense and point to two separate works of Christ, one requiring death and the other requiring life.  Christians everywhere are quite familiar with the concept that the death work is justification, and they like to think the process of salvation ends right there.  Most have some awareness, but little actual understanding that after Justification must come Sanctification, and that you are not actually saved until that process is complete.  I know we have most of us chastised Kevin for his over-emphasis on, and incorrect teaching of, Sanctification, but he is right about one thing.  Without it no one will enter their inheritance.  They are saved when they are justified, but this just prevents their being under the penalty of the law.  This was the death work, the first goat, the first dove, which had to shed its blood to cover (atone for) our sins. 

Paul refers to this state in Romans 4:17 when he defines justification as God calling what is not as though it were.  We are not righteous.  By paying the penalty for us Jesus is able to declare us righteous even though we are not.  The translation of this passage in the NIV has a problem because it defines this not as Paul wrote it, but in terms of looking forward to the life work of Christ, the work of Sanctification and says that God calls into being those things that had not been up to now.  This is true in that it is something that Jesus does in us, but it is not the work of Justification which is Paul’s focus in this chapter; it is not the work of the first goat, it is the work of the second.

As Kevin so frequently points out, no one containing any sin will be allowed into the New Jerusalem, the capitol of the Kingdom of Heaven.  Kevin mistakes the city for the entire kingdom, something the metaphors shows to be an incorrect interpretation.  Those who are justified enter the kingdom by their justification, but until they are actually righteous, and not just righteous in name only, they cannot enter the city and the presence of God.  It is the work of this second goat to make them actually righteous and in this way it atones for their sin.  Now, since Moses used this word of the second goat, which makes us actually sinless by sanctifying us the standard definition of atonement is not adequate. 

As I explained before it is normally defined as to cover.  This is what the first goat does with its blood.  It covers our sins so they cannot be seen by the law (unfortunately our enemies see them even after they covered legally, and they keep reminding us of what terrible sinners we are.)  Yet we remain the same sinners with our own selfish desires and unwillingness to obey the law of God.  Once the past sins are covered, in order to remain sinless there must be a complete character change from the Old Man of Sin to the New Man of the Spirit.  This cannot be a simple covering as occurred with the first Goat, but Moses called the work of this second goat an atonement.  Clearly there must be something more to the meaning of this word, and if we do not expand the meaning as is used in the law we begin making the same mistake Stewart wishes to make and reject the second goat as actually providing an atonement since it has not spilled any of its blood.  Of course, if we see it properly as representing Jesus after his resurrection we will come to realize that the blood was already shed by this goat.  Jesus was raised as a new man.  Paul stresses this point later in Romans 6 and 7; it is the primary focus of these two chapters.  In the eyes of the law anyone who is resurrected is not the same person who died.  The second goat is the New Man and does its work of atonement based on the blood of the first, but its work is not simply the covering of sin, it is the removal of sin.  The two doves work in a very similar manner.

This view of these sacrifices is a rather new view.  I am not certain if it originates from Dr. Stephen E. Jones or is simply most clearly presented by him in one of his earliest books.  Contrary to what most SDAs claim, the view we teach was not originated by EGW, since it was taught by adventists long before Miller even began his study of the “end time” prophecies, something he began long before she was even born.  That Ellen White continued teaching this throughout her ministry is still something I consider irrelevant for a number of reasons.  Primarily for me it is that only early in her ministry did this woman present her messages strictly as a description of what God showed her in vision.  It must therefore be considered to be her personal interpretation of what God told her, and as with all people, the woman had certain idols of the heart that are very clear to anyone who is not also blinded in part by those same idols, and most especially by those who have succeeded in casting down those idols. 

Secondly her penchant for “plagiarism” is well noted.  Most of what her distracters call plagiarism is not.  That is it poor scholarship really doesn’t matter.  It would be better that the woman mention sources she used other than her visions.  She does do some of this, but much of what she says is simply repetition of messages she read from other servants of God, liked, and used.  It is only plagiarism if it is exact quotes for which she provides no cites and no additional material from other sources brought in to support her personal conclusions.  I have never seen any credible evidence that she does this.  The apostle Paul has numerous uncredited cites in his writings, both from scriptural sources and non-canonical Hebrew religious writings and also from Pagan Greek philosophers.  I’ve never heard any of these same detractors fussing that he was not God’s messenger for this reason.  I have seen them insist that we count as the infallible word of God the statements Paul made and said this is my opinion; God has not revealed anything on this matter to me.  These people lose their credibility to point fingers at EGW for both those reasons.  This does not mean that every word EGW wrote was actually sourced from her visions or the instructions of her angelic companion, and it is clear at times that other sources were used.  How reliable are those sources and how reliable is her discernment of what they say.  In teaching of the second goat Ellen White simply repeats the teachings of the Advent Movement that had existed long before her birth, just as with the Investigative Judgment she appears to only repeat Hiram Edson’s vision and the interpretation he and his friends placed on that without providing clear evidence that God ever gave her additional revelation on the matter.

This newer interpretation of these two goats and two doves has a clear advantage of being able to stand in the light of all the scripture dealing with the matter without having to be brought into serious question because we are told all the sacrifices represent Jesus or because some other specific requirement of the law makes us deeply question how the interpretation we give to one law fails when we try to bring it into the light of a second law on the same subject.  It may not be a perfect interpretation, but it has fewer and less serious inconsistencies than the interpretation used by Adventists. 

Ellen White has been dead for over 95 years now.  God’s promise in Amos 3:7 says he does nothing without first revealing his plan to his servants the prophets.  There have always been prophets throughout the ages.  God still reveals to them today.  God has never been in the habit of revealing details of his plans very long before actually doing what was done.  While he has given us long range outlines the details are still revealed only as they come up.  It was possible to find the approximate timing of Jesus birth from the prophecies given to Daniel, but only when the Angel revealed first John’s birth as the forerunner of the messiah, and later revealed to Mary and Joseph the conception of Jesus were the actual plans made known.  Some of the other plans for later in his life were revealed a few years in advance, but his disciples refused to accept those revelations until they were actually fulfilled because they did not fit with what they had been taught all their lives by their church concerning the Messiah. 

Ninety-five years is a long time to go without new revelation regarding what God is doing in the world.  Either the prophecy of Amos is a lie, or our teaching that EGW was the last prophet is a lie.  There is a statement in Jesus teachings, I believe somewhere in Luke, which I cannot find at the moment and will not take the time to search out right now, which says evil men have stolen the kingdom of God for their own purposes.  That was true in Jesus day of the priests, of whom he said, 13 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.”  The same thing was true of this movement in 1888 when the message of Justification by Faith was once again brought to the attention of this world.  God called for a fulfillment of Passover (Justification by Faith) and it was rejected by this people because it takes the power over salvation out of the hands of men. 

In 1910 the call to Pentecost went to another people, not this one even though “Our Prophet” was still alive.  Our rejection of the message he sent through her and other teachers/prophets in our own denomination meant we were not eligible to receive this next message.  That message, calling the attention of the church to Sanctification, was given to others.  Of course Pentecost was also stolen by evil men and turned to their own purposes and it now has a bad name as people who reject the law of God and treat grace as license to do any sin they please (while still condemning others for their sins) instead of learning to keep and live according to the law of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Later still, in 1945 God gave a further revelation concerning the Feast of Tabernacles and the adoption of the sons of God.  This people still had not accepted righteousness by faith in any form other than lip service, if they even gave it that much credence at that time.  They certainly were not eligible to receive the sonship message, so God gave this message to other prophets.  Yet once again evil men and idols of the heart turned the message to evil and prevented many who wanted to enter from going in.  Due to blindness the church tried to give its inheritance to the Jews and even allowed them to steal the birthright name, Israel, from the rightful heirs.  As a result we are still here with no one having yet entered into the inheritance, the very purpose this denomination supposedly came into existence.  We never received the second two messages because we rejected the first.  We now have Dwight Nelson and others begging God to send us the Pentecost message again, failing to recognize that this is a confession of our failure to accept it before and an admission that we are not eligible to enter the city when the time comes.

There are many in this forum who will reject this message because it does not come from Ellen White.  Because this denomination rejected the Passover message when it was given to her in 1888 God bypassed her when the time came to give the Pentecost message in 1910 and she was not even alive and any replacement prophets had been rejected by this denomination in 1945 when the time came for the sonship message to be released in the world the first time.  It would be a shame for those claiming to be God’s people to reject this message now that it is once again being released into the world simply because it did not come from Ellen White or any other SDA.  The few SDA’s who are really listening are only calling for a game of catch up for the Pentecostal message and the downpayment of the Holy Spirit, not the full out pouring that will come with the revealing of the fully mature sons of God at Tabernacles.  At the very least we need to be paying attention to this message now, and reexamining our 250 year old doctrines in the light of the rest of the laws that apply to these interpretations as well as any new light God sends through his prophets today.

I have written much on this subject of the second goat on this forum.  Below are links to the most pertinent studies I have provided.  I suggest you look into them. 

http://www.adventistonline.com/forum/topics/azazel-christ-or-satan?...

http://www.adventistonline.com/forum/topics/azazel-christ-or-satan?...

http://www.adventistonline.com/forum/topics/galatians-4-days-months...

I would also suggest that any with an interest in the subject read Stephen E. Jones’ Laws of the Second Coming.  The book is available to be read on-line at his website free of charge, and a PDF file of the book can also be downloaded there at no cost.  The direct link to his book is http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.net/teachings/books/the-laws-of-....  The PDF can be downloaded from the link below the table of contents on this page.  

The following is a quote from chapter 10 of this book, the last section of that chapter, dealing with Jesus’ baptism on the Day of Atonement.

When Jesus was baptized, John saw a dove appearing over Him bearing witness that He was a type of the first dove. After His baptism He was led by the Holy Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil for forty days. In His going into the wilderness, He was the antitype of the second goat. This is a unique fusion of the two laws, showing that they were meant to be overlaid upon each other.

The Holy Spirit was the only One qualified to lead Him into the wilderness and thereby fulfill the law inLeviticus 16:21,

21 Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel, and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man whostands in readiness.

Matthew 4:1 shows the fulfillment of this prophetic law:

1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

Leviticus 16:8 refers to the second goat as a "scapegoat." The literal Hebrew reads, "for Azazel." The word is derived from az, a female goat, and azel, to go away. However, in other ancient literature the word is a name for an evil deity, roughly comparable to the devil. This identification with an evil deity only makes sense when we interpret it according to Jesus' fulfillment of the passage in Matthew 4. Then we can see that the goat being sent away "for Azazel" is fulfilled by Jesus being led into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. It does not mean that the goat is of the devil, or evil in any way, but rather that it was to be tried and tested by the devil for a season in order to prove its worthiness. In the scriptures, evil beings are an integral part of the plan of God to test and perfect the overcomers.

Jesus remained fasting in the wilderness forty days as He was tempted. Then He returned and began to teach and preach the Word in His ministry. This foreshadows the Pentecostal Age as well, which appears to be a period of forty Jubilees (40 x 49 = 1960 years). The Church in the wilderness under Moses was tried and tested in the wilderness forty years. Likewise, God has raised up Jesus Christ, one like unto Moses, to lead the Church under Pentecost in the wilderness to try them and test their hearts to see if they would hear His voice and be obedient.

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2022   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service