Two thoughts on the Day of Atonement.

[Stewart (SDA)]

To Israel the command was given,

"Three times in the year all your males shall appear before the Lord GOD." (Ex 23:17)

"Three times in a year shall all your males appear before the LORD your God in the place which He shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles: and they shall not appear before the LORD empty."

(Deut 16:16) See also 2Chron 8:12-13

___________________________

These feasts, in latter times became generally known as 1. Passover, 2. Pentecost, and 3. Tabernacles. On these three occasions all the men of Israel were to appear before God. But there is something here that is significant by its omission.

Notice that God does NOT require His people to be personally present for the Day of Atonement. In a sense the Day of Atonement was the most important day of the year. It was regarded as the national day of judgment, in which the sins of God’s people, having being transferred to the Sanctuary throughout the year, were finally to be blotted out. (Note 1.) But the people of God were not required to be in attendance for that special 'event'.

However, non-attendance did not mean that the people of God were to have no involvement in the Day of Atonement. Quite the contrary! They were to be very much involved in the day -- every one was to "afflict" their soul through honest self examination and the humbling of their hearts. (See Ex 23:27-29). Yes, God does indeed refer to the Day of Atonement as "an holy convocation" (a holy gathering), but the people were to gather at the Temple by faith only. And since the ceremonies of the day were not secret rites, the people could, through an intelligent faith, follow the High Priest where-ever He went that solemn day, even into the most holy place.

Of course all the ceremonial days were given as "figures" (or pictures) to point us to important realities.

So, what does the omission teach us? I believe it teaches us that when the literal Day of Atonement is taking place, the people of God are physically absent from the scene in which the central activities of that day are taking place. (In the figure they were not required to attend, because when it came to the reality they would not be able to attend.)

It may be of interest to consider that it was only the professed people of God that were judged that day. The Day of Atonement applied to Israel -- to the people of God -- only. The activities of the day did NOT extend to the people of the world.

All of this pointed forward to the time when the people of God would effectively be judged -- judged "in absentia".

Many people mock the SDA doctrine of the Investigative Judgment, but points like this may be helpful to introduce the unpopular teaching.

_____________________________

Note 1.

Of course there were a number of daily atonements (See Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:6, 13, 17 etc.), but the Day of Atonement was the FINAL Atonement in the yearly ceremonial cycle. This "day" points us to a time of "final atonement", and we need not be ashamed of the term, as some in the church have become ashamed.

________

Stewart.

[Stewart (SDA)]

A Second Thought.

With regards to the 10th day of the 7th month - the Day of Atonement - the people were taught that

“on that day shall the [High] Priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that you may be clean from all your sins before the Lord.” (Lev 16:30)

The same thought was repeated, in essence, when it was said that the High Priest would, on that very day

“make an atonement for the children of Israel FOR ALL THEIR SINS once a year.” (Lev 16:34)

The ceremonial system teaches that the sins of the people were dealt with TWICE.

There were TWO distinct parts to making a complete atonement for the people.

The first part was achieved when a guilty person presented his spotless offering, confessed his sin and transferred his guilt to the animal. The penitent would then slay the victim with his own hand. And on that occasion "the [normal] priest shall make an atonement for him, and it [his sin] shall be forgiven him" (Lev 4:31).

But the work was not to stop there. Even though forgiveness was gained at that point, that man’s sin was to be dealt with a SECOND time. Atonement was accomplished thus far, but it was not yet complete. If forgiveness was gained in the first or the second month, the person knew that complete atonement, and complete cleansing, could not be had until the seventh month. This, I believe, is the clear teaching of the ceremonial "figure".

As we saw earlier –

"on that day [and not until that day] shall the [High] Priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that you may be clean from all your sins before the Lord." (Lev 16:30)

Prior to this being done, were the people clean from their sins? No, prior to this they could NOT be regarded as clean.

And again,

The High Priest, on the 10th day of the 7th month, was “to make an atonement for the children of Israel FOR ALL THEIR SINS once a year.” (Lev 16:34)

Not until the atoning work of this day was complete, could the people be told that they were “clean from all your sins”. The phrase “all your sins”, meant, in that instance, all their sins that had been confessed and forgiven up to that point. All of their forgiven sins were to be retrospectively and FINALLY atoned for [blotted out] in the special events of the Day of Atonement.

It was only on that day that the final work could be accomplished. Only then could the people be declared truly “clean” from all their sins before the Lord.

If we accept that these ceremonial "figures" point us to the reality, then the principles involved here are important ones. The implications are broad...

___________________

Stewart.

[Gerr]

Excellent thoughts!

One thing that seems to have been lost when talking about the Passover and feast immediately following is: It is followed removal of leaven & the eating of unleaven bread (sanctification). They have killed & offered the Passover lamb/goat (justification), but were not totally safe because if they had leaven in their homes or if they ate leavened bread (sanctification or lack thereof), they could still be cut off from the congregation.

[Stewart (SDA)]

I see what you mean Gerry, and certainly agree.

Your comment brings to mind a thought -

If after genuine conversion, a new Christian does not understand that such a work is necessary, or for some reason does not undertake a time of searching for, and removal of leaven (sin) from their lives,

then that person will inevitably be cut off from the congregation and fall away.

________

Stewart.

[Musicman1228]

Stewart said, "The phrase “all your sins”, meant, in that instance, all their sins that had been confessed and forgiven up to that point. All of their forgiven sins were to be retrospectively and FINALLY atoned for [blotted out] in the special events of the Day of Atonement."

You did a wonderful job of defining the Day of Atonement. You also brought out something that to me is the most salient point of your whole thought process, and that is the above statement. The only sins that were dealt with on the day of Atonement were the FORGIVEN SINS of Israel. The lamb for the priests and the goat for the people were not slain for the 'ungodly', meaning those that still harbored un-confessed sins. This is a critical lesson for modern Christians who honestly believe that Jesus died for all their sins, including those that have not been confessed.

It is our job to confess our sins. When we do He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, thereby cleansing us from all unrighteousness. When we become cleansed we become righteous.

[Stewart (SDA)]

HEY STEWART (SDA)

ABOUT your 1st post that thought that the people of ISRAEL

did not have to be there was very interesting just like

we can not be at the heavenly sanctuary when JESUS is

preforming the rites up there....

dgrimm60

Yes indeed dgrimm60. Thankyou.

On the Day of Atonement, Jesus, the High Priest, carried His precious people (who are symbolically engraved on the 12 precious stones in His "Breast-Plate of judgment" (Ex 28:15,29,30)) with Him into the Most Holy place in heaven.

But when He carried them in there for "judgment", they are judged in their absence.

God's people are publicly examined in heaven before they get to heaven (even before the first resurrection happens). In the same way the unsaved will also be judged (or publicly examined) in heaven before the second resurrection happens.

The unsaved, or "wicked" will also be judged in their absence.

Regards,

Stewart.

[Stewart (SDA)]

If anyone is interested in another snippet relating to the Day of Atonement, the following idea is part of a thought about the Scapegoat.

_____________

Once "an end" had been made to reconciling each of the apartments in the house of God (Lev 16:20), then the SCAPEGOAT was brought to the door of the first apartment.

The High-priest placed both his hands onto the head of the Scapegoat, confessing "all the iniquities of the children of Israel" over the Scapegoat. Thus the iniquities were figuratively placed "upon the head of [that] goat". (Lev 16:21)

"And the goat shall bear upon him all [israel’s] iniquities

[carrying those iniquities upon him] into a land not inhabited".

Many contend that this goat must represent CHRIST. Because Christ, they say, is the only “sin bearer”: the only One who can possibly bear the iniquities of Israel.

However, the fact that the sins of a people are borne by a secondary does not necessarily mean that the sins are removed solely to that secondary. And nor is it necessarily implied that the secondary provides salvation of any kind. I will endeavor to substantiate this view.

Consider the teaching of Jesus. Speaking to the Jews, He tells them that the blood of all the prophets, that was shed from the foundation of the world, would be required of that generation. -- “Verily”, He said to them, “it shall be required of this generation.” And in another place, speaking of the same thing, it is said, “all these things shall come upon this generation.” (Lk 11:50-51, Matt 23:36).

What shall “come upon” the generation that Jesus dwelt among? The blood of all the prophets that had been killed -- from “the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias”. (Matt 23:35)

The generation that rejected and slew Jesus will bear guilt, even for Abel’s blood which cried to God from the ground many years before. (Gen 4:10.) Of course we understand that it was Cain’s hand that took Abel’s life. Cain will bear guilt for his sin (that guilt is certainly not lessened, or removed from him), but according to Jesus', the generation that rejected and killed Him will also carry the guilt for Abel’s murder.

Recompense will be required of them. (Lk 11:51) But the point here is that Cain’s sin will effectively be upon their heads as well.

And coming upon them, they will bear the sin just as though it was their own.

Yet they bear it to what end? Do they bear it for the purpose of cleansing or reconciliation? No, they bear it only to a greater condemnation in the judgement. Indeed, “it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment,” than it will be for them! (Mk 6:11, Matt 21:35-41 etc)

_________________________

Another of Jesus' lessons is relevant.

He teaches that

"Whoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication,

causes her to commit adultery" (Matt 5:32).

If a man "causes" a woman "to commit adultery" is that man clear before God? Certainly not! That man is accountable for his part in the sinful course taken by the woman. The man plainly shares the guilt of her adultery, because he has caused it. (Indeed, he may carry the greater burden of guilt.) But what happens if the woman then receives forgiveness and cleansing for the sin, while the man that caused her former sin does not? In that case he continues to bear the sin alone. The warning is clear for those that cause others to sin.

Now this principle is plainly applicable to the Devil, insofar as his temptations are causative to the sins of other people.

He must therefore bear the guilt for the sins of those he has led into sin. The principle is apparent again – specific sins, while committed by one person, may be borne by another. Two (or more) can be accountable for a sin, even though the sin has been performed by the hand of but one.

________

Stewart

[BobRyan]

In Lev 16 the term "sin offering" is so specific to the Lord's Goat -- and so non-applicable to the scape goat that at one point the text simply says to sprinkle the blood of the sin offering -- without saying which goat it is.

That is because the scape goat is NOT a sin offering "once" it has been identified as the scape goat.

Thus there is "no" substituionary atoning aspect to the scape goat. None at all.

in Christ,

Bob

[Stewart (SDA)]

In Lev 16 the term "sin offering" is so specific to the Lord's Goat -- and so non-applicable to the scape goat that at one point the text simply says to sprinkle the blood of the sin offering -- without saying which goat it is.

That is because the scape goat is NOT a sin offering "once" it has been identified as the scape goat.

Thus there is "no" substituionary atoning aspect to the scape goat. None at all.

in Christ,

Bob

I certainly agree Bob, the Scapegoat provides NO substitutionary atonement.

But I don't know, maybe there is some interest to be had in the following thought. (It comes from an old article relating to the Scapegoat.)

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.

I suggest that a time will come when the Scapegoat will become “at-one” with the sins he had caused Israel to commit. He becomes joined to those sins, and in this way he effects an at-one-ment. But this is not an atonement made with God; it brings no reconciliation with God.

This point is strengthened in the next chapter of Leviticus where we are told that “it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul” (Lev 17:11). The Scapegoat was indeed used to make an atonement.

But the Scapegoat's blood was not to be shed -- he was to be let go in the wilderness. It is impossible therefore that the Scapegoat could ever be used to bring about an atonement between the souls of men and God.

And neither can the Scapegoat ever provide “remission” from sins, seeing that it’s blood was not to be shed on Israel’s behalf. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission from sins. (Heb 9:22)

Stewart

[jasd]

...just a coupla contrarian points that might interest some one or another:

>>Many contend that this goat must represent CHRIST.<<

Unless typology is intended to portray Satan as unspotted and unblemished – as were both goats selected for the Day of Atonement rituals – both goats could only have represented Jesus Christ; both purposed to represent the different aspects of being hung on a tree and, seemingly, carrying man’s sins to that wilderness beyond the grave. However, that said,

much hast gang aft agley (have often gone awry...); such as Moses, inopportunely and in disobedience, striking the “Rock, which was Christ” twice more (for a total of three strikings), rather than simply speaking to it, as commanded by Gd – that it might pour forth water. Since then, the NT apprises us that

Jesus Christ’s atonement occurred at the cross, He, of the tribe of Judah rather than Levi, became High Priest, and laws regarding Temple rituals are therefor necessarily changed... re the Fall Feasts.

[oldsailor29]

Scapegoat by definition is one who takes blame for that of which he is innocent. This rules out Satan as the scapegoat because the law of joint venture means that there is no sin of which Satan is innocent. Satan is implicated in all sins.

And since Jesus did away with all temple rituals, there is nothing applicable to reality which can be taken from those rituals. The only rituals which now have meaning are baptism, foot washing, and communion.

[phkrause]

Interestingly put jasd.

pk

[skyblue888]

Scapegoat by definition is one who takes blame for that of which he is innocent. This rules out Satan as the scapegoat because the law of joint venture means that there is no sin of which Satan is innocent. Satan is implicated in all sins.

And since Jesus did away with all temple rituals, there is nothing applicable to reality which can be taken from those rituals. The only rituals which now have meaning are baptism, foot washing, and communion.

oldsailor, Are you saying that Satan will not be the scapegoat? I am afraid this teaching cannot harmonize with the words of inspiration.

"Since Satan is the originator of sin, the direct instigator of all the sins that caused the death of the Son of God, justice demands that Satan shall suffer the final punishment. Christ's work for the redemption of men and the purification of the universe from sin will be closed by the removal of sin from the heavenly sanctuary and the placing of these sins upon Satan, who will bear the final penalty. So in the typical service, the yearly round of ministration closed with the purification of the sanctuary, and the confessing of the sins on the head of the scapegoat.

Thus in the ministration of the tabernacle, and of the temple that afterward took its place, the people were taught each day the great truths relative to Christ's death and ministration, and once each year their minds were carried forward to the closing events of the great controversy between Christ and Satan, the final purification of the universe from sin and sinners." P.P.358.

sky

[skyblue888]

"As Christ at His ascension appeared in the presence of God to plead His blood in behalf of penitent believers, so the priest in the daily ministration sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice in the holy place in the sinner's behalf.

The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel the sin; it would stand on record in the sanctuary until the final atonement; so in the type the blood of the sin offering removed the sin from the penitent, but it rested in the sanctuary until the Day of Atonement.

In the great day of final award, the dead are to be "judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." Revelation 20:12. Then by virtue of the atoning blood of Christ, the sins of all the truly penitent will be blotted from the books of heaven. Thus the sanctuary will be freed, or cleansed, from the record of sin. In the type, this great work of atonement, or blotting out of sins, was represented by the services of the Day of Atonement--the cleansing of the earthly sanctuary, which was accomplished by the removal, by virtue of the blood of the sin offering, of the sins by which it had been polluted.

As in the final atonement the sins of the truly penitent are to be blotted from the records of heaven, no more to be remembered or come into mind, so in the type they were borne away into the wilderness, forever separated from the congregation.

Since Satan is the originator of sin, the direct instigator of all the sins that caused the death of the Son of God, justice demands that Satan shall suffer the final punishment. Christ's work for the redemption of men and the purification of the universe from sin will be closed by the removal of sin from the heavenly sanctuary and the placing of these sins upon Satan, who will bear the final penalty. So in the typical service, the yearly round of ministration closed with the purification of the sanctuary, and the confessing of the sins on the head of the scapegoat.

Thus in the ministration of the tabernacle, and of the temple that afterward took its place, the people were taught each day the great truths relative to Christ's death and ministration, and once each year their minds were carried forward to the closing events of the great controversy between Christ and Satan, the final purification of the universe from sin and sinners." P.P.357,358.

[Stewart (SDA)]

...just a coupla contrarian points that might interest some one or another:

>>Many contend that this goat must represent CHRIST.<<

Unless typology is intended to portray Satan as unspotted and unblemished – as were both goats selected for the Day of Atonement rituals – both goats could only have represented Jesus Christ; both purposed to represent the different aspects of being hung on a tree and, seemingly, carrying man’s sins to that wilderness beyond the grave...

Jesus Christ’s atonement occurred at the cross, He, of the tribe of Judah rather than Levi, became High Priest, and laws regarding Temple rituals are therefor necessarily changed... re the Fall Feasts.

Interesting Jasd,

it certainly does appear that both the goats used on the Day of Atonement met the external requirements of a sin offering.

I will need to spend more time considering the point you raise here.

But the Scapegoat was brought only after "AN END" had been made to the work of reconciliation. To me this negates every possibility that the Scapegoat could represent Christ in one of His roles as man's Substitute.

If the Scapegoat did indeed represent Christ "carrying man's sins to that wilderness beyond the grave" then to me that would constitute a part of His work of reconciliation between God and man.

But again, the work of reconciliation was finished before "the live goat" was brought.

Lev 16:20-21

"And when he has 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".

_______

Stewart.

[jasd]

>>Scapegoat by definition is one who takes blame for that of which he is innocent.<<

It may be that we misrepresent Azazel with the term scapegoat.

>>This rules out Satan as the scapegoat because the law of joint venture means that there is no sin of which Satan is innocent. Satan is implicated in all sins.<<

Then more or less added should cause no problem, yes?

>>And since Jesus did away with all temple rituals, there is nothing applicable to reality which can be taken from those rituals.<<

Then we err in dwelling upon such as the Fall Feasts and what they might teach?

>>The only rituals which now have meaning are baptism, foot washing, and communion.<<

Re “baptism”: did Jesus Christ baptize by water? Should we emulate His method of baptizing? Did not St Paul forswear baptizing – by himself?

Is the ritual of “foot washing” universal – or relegated to this or that .org?

Did not Jesus Christ encourage us to embrace communion more often than quarterly (“as oft as ye…”) Perhaps, we might do well to have it daily?

[jasd]

>>Interestingly put jasd.<<

There is a sort of dissonance for an old geezer, myself, being ornery, yes? However,

sometimes, orneriness resonates...

[jasd]

>>AN END of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar...<<

Would it make a difference should it be noted that the "END of reconciliation applied to [things] - and not to the individual or the congregation...?

[Stewart (SDA)]

>>AN END of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar...<<

Would it make a difference should it be noted that the "END of reconciliation applied to [things] - and not to the individual or the congregation...?

In my view that does not make a difference, jasd.

The "things" that were reconciled were reconciled with the blood "of the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people" (Lev 16:15).

Each of those "things" were reconciled, but the cleansing of the people was always the primary objective.

The blood was employed "for the people", and so the reconciliation that was achieved was effectively "for the people."

Again, the blood of the goat was used on those "things" to

"make an atonement for [the people], to cleanse [the people], that [the people] may be clean from all [their] sins before the Lord." (16:30)

All the sins of the people that had been transferred to the Sanctuary -- these needed to be cleansed, removed.

When the Priest had "made an end" of that work THEN the Scapegoat was brought to the door.

_______

Stewart

[Stewart (SDA)]

Scapegoat by definition is one who takes blame for that of which he is innocent...

I don't think the following comments were made with any Adventist bias, but you may find these interesting.

Comments here relate to the origins of the word "Scapegoat".

From wordorigins.org

“This term, for one who is punished for the misdeeds of others, is the result of a mistranslation. The term was coined in 1530 by William Tyndale, who misread the Hebrew word 'Azazel', the proper name of Canaanite demon, as 'ez ozel', literally the goat that departs.”

From wikianswers.com

"The word was coined in English around 1530 AD by a biblical scholar named William Tyndale and is actually just his loose or mistaken translation of earlier misunderstandings and mistranslations in Latin and Hebrew going all the way back to chapter 16 of Leviticus and still largely misunderstood to this day.

Not until the 19th century did Scapegoat come to mean someone who is blamed or punished for the mistakes or sins of others..."

And from Wikipedia.com

“The word "Scapegoat" is a mistranslation of the word Azazel (In Hebrew: #####) originated by William Tyndale in his 1530 Bible, and appropriated in the King James Version of the Bible (Leviticus chapter 16) in 1611. Confounded by the word, Tyndale had interpreted Azazel as ez ozel - literally, "the goat that departs"; hence "(e)scape goat."

________

Stewart.

[jasd]

>>In my view that does not make a difference, jasd.

[...]

The blood was employed "for the people", and so the reconciliation that was achieved was effectively "for the people."<<

Okay, point taken.

>>Again, the blood of the goat was used on those "things" to

"make an atonement for [the people], to cleanse [the people], that [the people] may be clean from all [their] sins before the Lord." (16:30)<< [ed.jasd]

Dan 8:14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

Could the above bolded be appositional? I’d say...

>>All the sins of the people that had been transferred to the Sanctuary -- these needed to be cleansed, removed.<<

Speaking of which, what do make of the practice of the Kol Nidre – negating offenses committed during the coming year – until the next Day of Atonement?

The fact that, such as yourself, are seriously studying issues re the Day of Atonement and how its meaning might apply to us who live in these ‘latter times’ is encouraging.

Disseminated ‘interpretations’ seem to lend a certain quizzicalness to the matter.

[Ted Oplinger]

Scapegoat by definition is one who takes blame for that of which he is innocent. This rules out Satan as the scapegoat because the law of joint venture means that there is no sin of which Satan is innocent. Satan is implicated in all sins.

And since Jesus did away with all temple rituals, there is nothing applicable to reality which can be taken from those rituals. The only rituals which now have meaning are baptism, foot washing, and communion.

The "scapegoat" term has the modern context of innocence applied to it.

The Hebrew "Azazel" had no context of innocence applied to it, but rather is clearly in contention with the Lord's Goat - and thus by nature is guilty of contending against Christ.

The unblemished aspect is a reference to Isaiah 14/Ezekiel 28, where Satan is described as originally unblemished, until sin was found in him.

The Day of Atonement transferred the responsibility for being the causal agent in tempting people to sin, back onto the causal agent - Satan, who contends with Christ.

In no way, shape, or form is Satan being protrayed as a sacrifice, bearing the sin of the people away from congregation. Rather, Satan is protrayed as the recipient of Divine justice before being led out to the wilderness for being the author of sin.

To address a point made early in the thread.

There is a reason why the three feasts listed required all be present:

Passover: Christ our Paschal Lamb included us all in Him. We all were present there. Antitype met type.

Pentecost: All are to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Antitype is currently meeting type, and will continue to until probation closes.

The first is fulfilled; the second is in the process of being fulfilled. The last will soon be.

After the Exodus, all the ransomed of Israel lived in booths and shalters made from whatever they could make.

After the Second Coming, our Exodus will also take place. All the ransomed of Christ will be present. Then will we see the antitype of the Feast of Booths met.

Now there is nothing in Scripture that says we cannot celebrate these days (or others, like the new moon feasts) with Christ and His sacrifice as the focus. MIght even be a beneficial experience...

[Stewart (SDA)]

Returning briefly to the ceremonial pictures, and to the realities behind them.

The first of the great offerings on the Day of Atonement was the young Bullock.

This was offered [at least in part] for the High Priest Himself.

(Lev 16:11)

“And Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and shall make an atonement for himself, and for his house, and shall kill the bullock of the sin offering which is for himself”.

Understandably, many people teach that the offering of the Bullock has no counterpart in reality.

“Type” can have no “anti-type” in that aspect of the ceremony [they say], because there is no sin for which the true High Priest must seek forgiveness and atonement.

But now I take the view that there IS a sense in which Christ does indeed atone “for Himself”.

And I suggest that the offering made by Him, “for Himself”, is fitly represented by the Bullock, considering the enormity of the “problem” He is atoning for.

Through the ages Christ has necessarily used a channel of communication with humanity which has, in effect, meant that He has misrepresented Himself (or veiled Himself). The Bible is certainly the Word of God, and yet “God, as a writer is not represented” in that Book. (1SM 21)

“Men will often say such an expression [in the Bible] is not like God. But [this is because] God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen.” (ibid.)

The presentation of His true character is to be a major part in the closing-up of the work on earth prior to Jesus’ return. Christ Himself engages in a work to repair the mis-representations that have come upon God’s name. There is a re-alignment, a restorative work to be done, and I believe that Christ Himself is now engaged in that work. This work, I believe, is represented in the offering of the young Bullock.

A large amount of skill and strength was required in that offering.

________________________________

1Jn 3:2-3

"...it does not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when He shall appear, we [as a waiting people] shall be like Him; for we shall [finally then] see Him as He is.

And every man that hath this hope in him purifies himself, even as He is pure.”

"every man that hath this hope in him purifies himself." What hope? Why, of seeing Jesus as He is..." (CTr 258).

"We dare not run any risk of losing the one hope we have cherished so long, of seeing Jesus as He is and of being made like Him." (TDG 155)

When we finally see Jesus and the Father as they really are, then we shall be like Them in character, and Jesus will come in glory.

_______

Stewart

[Stewart (SDA)]

Further to my last posting.

"The Majesty of heaven was not discerned in the disguise of humanity." (TMK 58)

In my view this "disguise" refers not only to Christ during His incarnation. The words of the Bible [in varying degrees] also bear that "disguise of humanity". Why? Because the Word of God "is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity." (1SM 21)

For this reason the majesty of God’s character is often not discerned [even by God’s people] in the words of Scripture.

________

Stewart

[BobRyan]

...just a coupla contrarian points that might interest some one or another:

>>Many contend that this goat must represent CHRIST.<<

Unless typology is intended to portray Satan as unspotted and unblemished – as were both goats selected for the Day of Atonement rituals – both goats could only have represented Jesus Christ; both purposed to represent the different aspects of being hung on a tree and, seemingly, carrying man’s sins to that wilderness beyond the grave. However, that said,

The scapegoat "once identified" is never given the title "sin offering". All sin offerings had to be slain and burned. The scapegoat was neither killed nor burned. It could not be a substitutionary atoning sacrifice by definition.

It reprensents sin that is not paid for by the blood of the Lord's Goat in the sanctuary. It is sin that comes out of the sanctuary and is "returned to the sinner". The sinner's death is not "substitutionary" it is not "atoning" for others -- it does nothing but get rid of the sinner in a way that accounts for all of his sins.

Thus all the wicked who laid claims to the blood of Christ -- but were not saved - have their sins returned to them.

And all the sins that Satan caused the saved saints to commit are then added to his already "large account" for "his part" in the "added sin" of tempting someone "not of his kingdom". A crime whose penalty could only be calculated once those "not of his kingdom" were officially identified.

in Christ,

Bob