Who was the "Scapegoat"?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I'm wondering who the "scapegoat" is in the Bible. Was it Satan (if he will bear the sins of everyone at the end of time)? Or was it Jesus (when He was crucified, I understood it to mean that He was the one who carried the sins of the world)?

Which one is it?

[Outta Here]

I'm sure you already know this, rudywoofs, but for the sake of discussion I thought I'd mention the part about the scapegoat that really bothers me: Both were without blemish. Up until the time God chooses one goat over the other, both were identical to one another (to the human observer) and without blemish.

[Woody]

I'm wondering who the "scapegoat" is in the Bible. Was it Satan (if he will bear the sins of everyone at the end of time)? Or was it Jesus (when He was crucified, I understood it to mean that He was the one who carried the sins of the world)?

Which one is it?

I vote for Both.

[fccool]

I'm wondering who the "scapegoat" is in the Bible. Was it Satan (if he will bear the sins of everyone at the end of time)? Or was it Jesus (when He was crucified, I understood it to mean that He was the one who carried the sins of the world)?

Which one is it?

Scapegoat is actually a symbol... not of Satan or Christ, but a symbol of God's forgiveness. I believe that just as scapegoat took the "symbolic sin" out of the Israel campus, so does God:

as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.

So, in essence... God is a scapegoat, because He eventually forgives and pays the price, which is how we ironically define a scapegoat... an innocent who takes the blame.

[pnattmbtc]

In the pseudopigrapha there's a reference to Azazel, who is banished to die for 10,000 years. In Jewish culture at that time, Azazel represented Satan.

[Rondo]

Did you know ther are two scapegoats in the Sanctuary system:

Quote:

Lev 16: 6 "Aaron is to offer the bull for his own sin offering to make atonement for himself and his household. 7 Then he is to take the two goats and present them before the LORD at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 8 He is to cast lots for the two goats—one lot for the LORD and the other for the scapegoat. [a] 9 Aaron shall bring the goat whose lot falls to the LORD and sacrifice it for a sin offering. 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 desert as a scapegoat.

Although, really only one of the goats is called the scapegoat, the other is called "the goat whose lot falls to the LORD ".

The end for the scapegoat could hardly represent Christ, but must be, dare I say, the Devil as EGW believes on page 422 of Great Controversey:

Quote:

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 authorof sin, upon whom the sins of the truly penitent will finally be placed.

[Rondo]

That doesn't make the Devil our Saviour as some would suggest. One act saves the sinner the other rids the universe of sin, does it not?

[Maschil]

AFTER the ministry in the most holy place was accomplished, one thing more remained for the priest to do, before the work was entirely finished. Having, by presenting before the law in the ark the blood of the appropriate offering, released from the sanctuary the sins for which that blood made atonement, those sins were canceled as related to the forgiven sinner, but were not by this act destroyed. The high priest having performed the ministry which took them from the sanctuary, they were left for him to dispose of in a manner plainly pointed out. He came out of the sanctuary, and laying both his hands on the head of the scape-goat, held in waiting at the door, confessed 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." Lev.16:21.

This is a plain statement that the sins taken from the sanctuary were transferred to the goat. The goat, with these sins upon him, was then by the hand of a suitable person sent away into the wilderness,into a land of forgetfulness, implying, probably, the destruction of the goat, in the death of which the sins of the people which he bore also perished.

The ceremony of thus sending away the sins of the people in the type, Lev.16:20-22, has already been noticed. The question now arises, What service in the real ministry of Christ, in the more perfect tabernacle above, answers to this, and how is it to be performed?

The principal question here to be decided is, What being shall we regard as the antitypical scape-goat? When the typical goat, anciently, loaded with the sins of the people, went forth from the camp of Israel, to be heard of no more forever, what did it foreshadow to be fulfilled in this dispensation? Here again we are led to differ very materially from the views which have obtained on this subject.

The idea very generally held is that the scape-goat typified Christ. Because John the Baptist said, John1:29, "Behold the Lamb of God which taketh [margin, beareth] away the sin of the world," and because it is said of the scape-goat that he "shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited," it is, without further thought, concluded by some that the latter was a type of the former. From such a view we dissent, for the following reasons:

1. If Christ, in bearing the sin of the world, fulfilled the antitype of the scape-goat, he must have filled this office at the time of the crucifixion; for Peter says of him, "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree;" 1Pet.2:24; and this is the only time when, and the only sense in which, he is said to have borne our sins. But in the type, the scape-goat did not bear away the sins of the people till after the cleansing of the sanctuary; hence the antitype of this work cannot take place till after the cleansing of the antitypical sanctuary, which work, as has been proved, did not commence till the termination of the 2300 days in 1844. Dan.8:14; Heb.9:23. It is therefore impossible to carry this work back to the crucifixion of Christ, which was even before he commenced his ministry in the heavenly sanctuary at all. Christ cannot therefore be the antitype of the scape-goat.

2. The scape-goat, after being loaded with sin, was sent away by the priest. He could not therefore be the priest himself. But in this dispensation Christ is priest; he cannot therefore be the antitypical scape-goat to be sent away by the priest. Christ cannot send away himself. The conclusion is hence inevitable that the scape-goat must be some being whom Christ, after placing upon him the sins borne from the sanctuary, shall send away into a land not inhabited.

3. The scape-goat was sent away from Israel, into the uninhabited wilderness. If our Saviour is its antitype, he also must be sent away, not his body alone, as some suppose who refer it to his death, but in his entire being (for the goat was sent away alive) from, not to, nor into, his people; neither into Heaven; for that is not a wilderness, or land not inhabited. But instead of thus being sent away, Christ is to dwell in the midst of his people, the true Israel of faith, for evermore.

4. The scape-goat received and retained all the iniquities of the children of Israel; but when Christ appears the second time, he will be "without sin."

5. It is impossible that two goats, one of which was chosen by the Lord, and is called the Lord's, while the other is not so called, but was left to perform an entirely different office,-it is impossible that these both should typify the same person. But the goat on which the Lord's lot fell, the blood of which was ministered in the sanctuary, did certainly typify Christ. Just as surely the scape-goat did not typify him.

Having thus proved by evidence which must be conclusive to every mind, that Christ cannot be the antitype of the Levitical scape-goat, the direct question, Who is the antitype of that goat? now presents itself for solution.

1. The definition of the word is sufficient to suggest an application. In the common acceptation of the word, the term scape-goat is applied to any miserable vagabond who has become obnoxious to the claims of justice; while it is revolting to all our conceptions of the character and glory of Christ, to apply this term to him, it must strike every one as a very appropriate designation for a certain character whom the Scriptures style, the accuser, adversary, angel of the bottomless pit, Beelzebub, Belial, dragon, enemy, evil spirit, father of lies, murderer, prince of devils, serpent, tempter, seducer, etc.

2. We are not without direct evidence to the same purpose. The Hebrew word for scape-goat, as given in the margin of Lev.16:8, is Azazel. On this verse, Jenks, in his Comprehensive Commentary, remarks: "Scape-goat. See different opinions in Bochart. Spencer, after the oldest opinion 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.'" These authorities unmistakably point out Satan. Thus we have the definition of the Scripture term for scape-goat, in two ancient languages, with the oldest opinion of both Hebrews and Christians, in favor of the view that the scape-goat is a type of Satan.

3. Charles Beecher, in "Redeemer and Redeemed," pp.67,68, says:- "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 Gerundinensis feels called to say that it is not a sacrifice, but only done because commanded by God.

4. "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 , and in the Hebrew Azazel, is no other than the devil.' "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." On page 70, Mr. Beecher further says: "The meaning of the term [scape-goat] viewed as a proper name, was stated, in 1677, by Spencer, Dean of Ely, to be powerful Apostate, or mighty Receder." Prof. Bush is also quoted on page 72, as regarding Azazel as a proper name of Satan.

It is but just to Mr.B. to remark that while he thinks that Azazel is the name for Satan, he does not regard the goat as representing Satan, but looks upon the ceremony as performed in some sense in reference to Satan. This he thinks implied in the words engraved on the lots which the high priest drew for the goats on the day of atonement; one, La-Yehovah, for Jehovah, the other, La-Azazel, for Azazel, for the devil; and he takes the transaction to signify that subjection of Christ to Satan which is implied in the sentence that the serpent should bruise the heel of the seed of the woman. But as this was done at the crucifixion, it can have no reference to the ceremony of the scape-goat, a ceremony not performed till the work in the sanctuary is finished. And inasmuch as the goat upon which the lot fell for the Lord typified Christ himself, so the goat upon which the lot fell for Azazel would typify Azazel, or Satan himself.

Another reason for considering the scape-goat a type of Satan is the very striking manner in which the ceremony of sending away the goat into the wilderness harmonizes with the events to transpire in connection with the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, so far as revealed to us in the Scriptures of truth.

Thus in the type we see the following acts performed: 1. The sin of the transgressor is imparted to the victim. 2. That sin is borne by the priest in the blood of the offering into the sanctuary. 3. On the day of atonement, the priest, with the blood of the sin-offering for the people, removes all these sins from the sanctuary, and lays them upon the head of the scape-goat. 4. The goat is then sent away into a land not inhabited.

Answering to these several events in the type, we have in the antitype the following: 1. The great offering for the world was made on Calvary. 2. The sins of all those who avail themselves of the offer of Christ's blood by faith in him, are represented in that blood, with which he entered into the sanctuary on high, Heb.9:12, and are through that transferred to that sanctuary. 3. After Christ, the minister of the true tabernacle, Heb.8:2, has finished his ministration, and by the atonement has released the sins of his people from the sanctuary, he will lay them upon the head of their author, the antitypical scape-goat, the devil. 4. The devil will then be sent away, loaded with these sins, into a land not inhabited.

And we apprehend that we find a description of this latter event in plain terms in Rev.20:1-3: "And I saw an angel come down from Heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit, and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the devil and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years should be fulfilled."

This is just such a movement in reference to Satan as we might expect to occur on the supposition that he is the antitype of the ancient scape-goat. Looking upon him as such antitype, we watch for some transaction which will correspond to the sending away of the goat anciently, loaded with sins, into the waste wilderness.

And as we reach a point just subsequent to the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, when, in the order of the sanctuary work, the scape-goat should be sent away in antitype, lo, an angel comes down from Heaven, lays hold upon Satan, binds him, and casts him into the bottomless pit for a thousand years. And as we look upon this scene, we can but involuntarily exclaim, Here is the sending away of the antitypical scape-goat.

With this view we can show the relation of the scene described in Rev.20:1-3, to other events, and give a reason why it occurs. Without this, it comes in abruptly; and who can tell why just this disposition, instead of some other, is at this time made of the devil? This scene occurs at just the right time to fulfill the antitype; for it is immediately after Christ has finished his work as priest. Secondly, the right agent is employed. The goat anciently was not led away by the high priest, but by the hand of another person. So here it is not Christ, our great High Priest, who casts Satan into the bottomless pit, but an angel; which admirably answers to the type. Thirdly, he is cast into the right place. Anciently, the goat was sent away into a waste wilderness, a land not inhabited. The devil is cast into the bottomless pit, corresponding most fittingly to the former, as we shall see.

This word, bottomless pit, in the original signifies an abyss, bottomless, deep, profound. Its use seems to be to denote any place of darkness, desolation, and death. Thus in Rev.9:1,2, it is applied to the barren wastes of the Arabian desert,, and in Rom.10:7, to the grave. In Gen.1:2, the same word is rendered "deep" in the declaration that "darkness was upon the face of the deep;" and here it must apply to the whole earth in its state of primeval chaos. And we have reason to believe that it means precisely this in Rev.20:3, when it is made the dreary prison-house of Satan. At this time, let it be borne in mind, the earth is a vast charnel-house of desolation and death. The voice of God has shaken it to its foundations, the islands and mountains have been moved out of their places, the great earthquake has leveled to the earth the mightiest works of man, the seven last plagues have left their withering and blasting foot-prints over all the fair face of nature, the burning glory attending the coming of the Son of man has borne its part in accomplishing the general desolation, the wicked have been given to the slaughter, and their putrefying flesh and bleaching bones lie unburied and unlamented from one end of the earth to the other. Thus is the earth made empty and waste, and turned upside down. Isa.24:1. Thus is it brought back again to its original state of chaos; for Jeremiah, describing the scenes of the last days, says, "I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form,, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light." Jer.4:19-26. And what better term could be used to describe it rolling on in its disorganized condition of darkness and desolation for a thousand years, than the term abyss or bottomless pit, which was used to describe it in the beginning?

Here is a desolate wilderness, or "land not inhabited," well befitting the great antitypical scape-goat. And what more fitting retribution could at this point overtake the author of all our woe, than that he should, through all these slow-circling thousand years, be confined amid the ruin which his own hands have indirectly wrought, unable to flee from his habitation of woe, or to repair in the least degree its hideous wretchedness.

But it may be asked if Paul does not show by the expression that Christ "appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself," that he did put it away upon the cross. The answer is that that must be understood only as making provision for the putting away of sin; for sins cannot be put away in advance, and millions of those who will be saved, were yet unborn when Christ suffered.

But a still stronger objection to the view here advocated,, that Satan is the antitype of the scape-goat, is urged from the expression used in reference to that goat in Lev.16:10: "But the goat on which the lot fell to be the scape-goat, shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scape-goat into the wilderness." How, it is asked, can the scape-goat be a type of Satan when an atonement was made with him? does Satan have anything to do in making the atonement? Assuredly not; and we do not think such an idea is presented in the text. It does not read that the goat should be presented alive before the Lord that he might make an atonement for the sins of the people, or to assist in making the atonement. But the goat shall be "presented alive before the Lord," by whom? By the priest. "To make an atonement with him." Who to make an atonement? The priest. Then the atonement is all made by the priest. No one shares with him in this work. But in making the atonement, or in carrying out, or completing, the work of the atonement, the high priest has something to do with the scape-goat, and that is to heap upon him the foul load of the sins of the people and send him away to the waste wilderness.

So, as the antitype, Satan has nothing to do of himself in making the atonement. He has no share in the work; but our High Priest has something to do with him in carrying out the result of his work, by making him bear away the sins which have been taken from the sanctuary, that he may perish with them, and thus a final disposition be made of both them and him. So far, therefore, as concerns the relation which Satan bears to the atonement, no objection exists to the view here advocated.

While Satan is passing his thousand years upon this desolate earth, bound, that is, restrained by the very circumstances of his position from carrying forward his nefarious work, the righteous being in Heaven, and the wicked in their graves, and so all being beyond his power, the saints are accomplishing that work of judgment which they perform in connection with Christ in Heaven, 1Cor.6:2; Rev.20:4, that is, apportioning to the wicked the punishment due to each one, to be inflicted upon them at the end of the thousand years.

This work being accomplished, the thousand years expire, the wicked dead are raised, Satan is loosed, for he now has something to do, and he goes out to deceive those wicked multitudes that are brought out of their graves. Having gathered them around the holy city, which has then come down out of Heaven, fire descends from God and devours them all, root and branch, Satan and all his followers. Here the wicked receive in their own persons the punishment due to their sins, while Satan suffers under the accumulated load of the sins of all the righteous, which, at the beginning of the thousand years, were laid upon him as the antitypical scape-goat.

[Guest]

Very good Akintunde, and a very thorough presentation. This re-affirms the way I have always understood it, and leaves no doubt, in my mind anyway, that Satan will be the scapegoat. Also EGW agrees:

As the priest, in removing the sins from the sanctuary, confessed them upon the head of the scapegoat, so Christ will place all these sins upon Satan, the originator and instigator of sin. The scapegoat, bearing the sins of Israel, was sent away "unto a land not inhabited;" so Satan, bearing the guilt of all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit, will be for a thousand years confined to the earth, which will then be desolate, without inhabitant, and he will at last suffer the full penalty of sin in the fires that shall destroy all the wicked. {FLB 213.4}

[Maschil]

Lol, its actually straight from Uriah Smith's book on the sanctuary. The pioneers laid the foundation for us. If there are questions, they normally provide that answers. I'm so happy that EGW agrees with the Biblical account of the scapegoat!

[Guest]

LOL, me too. No wonder it was thorough. Perhaps you should have put his name on it when you posted it.

[Kevin H]

Some of what needs to be included here is ancent thought, Hebrew thought compaired to Greek and ancient cycles. We are reading into the text too much Greek thinking and either or thinking which is unfair to the text!!!!

The imediate context is that God is taking care of the sin problem removing our sins from the east to the west.

John the Baptist said about Jesus "Behold the Lamb of God who Scapegoates the Sins of the World"

If we were to stick to a simple key text mentality, there is no argument, John the Baptist clearly applys it to Jesus! (in our western translations it tends to be translated "Taketh away the sins of the world" but the word for "Taketh away" is the world for scapegoat.)

No matter how much of our official Adventist dance that we do (the Adventist side step) this is a text that is glearing us in the eye saying that Jesus is the scapegoat.

However being free from mere proof texting and being aware of ancient cycles, we can see how this text can have multiple applications. In talking about Jesus bearing our sins John the Baptist is right, Jesus does scapegoat our sins.

However at the end of time when we see how Satan's deceptions have been answered and the issues fall back on him, and how he refuses to let Jesus scapegoat his sins, the foundation of sin is banished into the wilderness, and thus it is a propper application to apply it to the context of Satan at the end of the thousand years.

By the way, seeing that John the Baptist proclaimed Jesus as the Lamb of God indicated that it was the Day of Atonement that Jesus started his ministry and agrees with our interpetation of the 70 weeks prophecy and supports our understanding of the 2300 evenings-mornings.

[Kevin H]

I'm wondering who the "scapegoat" is in the Bible. Was it Satan (if he will bear the sins of everyone at the end of time)? Or was it Jesus (when He was crucified, I understood it to mean that He was the one who carried the sins of the world)?

Which one is it?

The answer is YES!!!

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

I'm wondering who the "scapegoat" is in the Bible. Was it Satan (if he will bear the sins of everyone at the end of time)? Or was it Jesus (when He was crucified, I understood it to mean that He was the one who carried the sins of the world)?

Which one is it?

The answer is YES!!!

If BOTH goats represent Christ, THEN the Day of Atonement service has not answered the FINAL disposition of sin, i.e. what happens to Satan, the instigator and originator of sin. And one would therefore conclude that God or Christ was, after all, the REAL originator and instigator of all that is evil!!!

IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kevin H]

Oops, Gerry, I don't think that you caught what I was saying. Rudywoofs was asking if a question was either / or when it is not an either / or question. There are many questions where both are correct. Are we still or in motion? What is important, faith or works? Is God inside of time and space or outside of time and space? Is God just or merciful? Is Jesus God or man? Does an Ansel Adams photo have surface or depth, light or dark? Do drawings use lines that are curved or straight?

I believe that with in each context both John the Baptist and Ellen White are both correct in their application of the scapegoat. Jesus takes our sins from us and for the role of God as the creator and almighty ruler of the universe, and Lucifer is symbolized for his role in the Great Controversy as the instigator and originator of sin.

That is why when someone asks "Does the scape goat represent Jesus or Satan?" the answer would be things such as "Yes" or "Both"

[Guest]

While it can be said by John the baptist that Jesus taketh away the sin of the world, and by Isaiah that "He was wounded for our transgressions". In other words our sins were layed upon him. That in no way means that the scape goat represents both Christ and Satan. That would be impossible. It represents Satan, and him only. Christ was not the one lead into the wilderness never to return. Christ was the one sacrificed on the alter.

Christ and Satan have never, not even once, in scripture, been represented by the same thing. It's not like it was in the movie Star Wars, where the force represented both good and evil, and both sides used the same thing. Far from it.

Go back and read what Maschil posted on page 1. (formerly known as Akintunde) Uriah Smith had it right, and so did Ellen White. Which in no way makes John the baptist wrong in what he said. He never said Christ was the scape goat, he only said that Jesus would take away the sin of the world. Which is true.

As the priest, in removing the sins from the sanctuary, confessed them upon the head of the scapegoat, so Christ will place all these sins upon Satan, the originator and instigator of sin. The scapegoat, bearing the sins of Israel, was sent away "unto a land not inhabited;" so Satan, bearing the guilt of all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit, will be for a thousand years confined to the earth, which will then be desolate, without inhabitant, and he will at last suffer the full penalty of sin in the fires that shall destroy all the wicked. {FLB 213.4}

[Guest]

To simplify, these two little texts make it clear who the scapegoat does NOT represent. Hint: It does not represent the Lord.

Lev 16:8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat.

Lev 16:9 And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD'S lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering.

[teresaq]

the king james version mistranslates here for some reason. the original word is "azazel", considered a proper name.

Leviticus 16:8

And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats;

one lot for the LORD,

and the other lot for the scapegoat, (azazel).

azazel has been considered to mean satan, or a wicked demon, by many of various denominations.

Jesus will return without sin the second time, so what did he do with the sins He was carrying?

Hebrews 9:28

So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

[Gerr]

Quote:

Christ and Satan have never, not even once, in scripture, been represented by the same thing.

How about the serpent and the brazen serpent on a pole?

[Gerr]

the king james version mistranslates here for some reason. the original word is "azazel", considered a proper name.

I just finished consulting over a dozen commentaries re: azazel. KJV, NASB, NIV render it "scapegoat". ESV, RSV, TEV, NAB, NJB, DARBY, HCSB, GNT, NET, NRSV, NLT render it "Azazel".

Five views are brought out re: Azazel:

1. Personal being in opposition to Jehovah

a. desert demon, "most popular & most likely" fr. Handbook to Leviticus by Peter-Contesse & Ellington.

b. Satan, the ruler of the kingdom of demons, fr. Commentary of OT by Keil & Delitzsch.

c. Azazel is the ring-leader of demons mentioned a number of times in the Book of Enoch.

2. Goat that departs - scapegoat

3. A Place of Dispatch, "The Precipice" - favored by NEB.

4. Describes function.

5. Describes two phases of Christ's atoning work - favored by Easton dictionary and some others.

Quote:

Jesus will return without sin the second time, so what did he do with the sins He was carrying?

Hebrews 9:28

So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

2 Cor 5:21 "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin,..." Took our sins to the grave.. Buried. Sin/law loses any claim to one who is dead, per Rom 7:1-6. The Man Jesus Christ "died to sin." The life He lives after His resurrection, "He lives to God." Rom 6:10

[Kevin H]

While it can be said by John the baptist that Jesus taketh away the sin of the world, and by Isaiah that "He was wounded for our transgressions". In other words our sins were layed upon him. That in no way means that the scape goat represents both Christ and Satan. That would be impossible. It represents Satan, and him only. Christ was not the one lead into the wilderness never to return. Christ was the one sacrificed on the alter.

Christ and Satan have never, not even once, in scripture, been represented by the same thing. It's not like it was in the movie Star Wars, where the force represented both good and evil, and both sides used the same thing. Far from it.

1. The problem is that linguists have pointed out that John the Baptist used the technecal language for the scapegoat. The actual translation should read "Behold the lamb of God who scapegoats the sins of the world." He calls Jesus both the lamb of God and the scapegoat thus scholars are saying that Jesus started his ministry on the day of atonmemt (mmm... I wonder where I heard that before). Also, right after John the Bapist calls Jesus the scapegoat, the Holy Spirit drives Jesus into the wilderness.

2. Graham Maxwell points out some places where texts in different applications apply to both Christ and Satan. One is that both of them was called the lighbearer, but one changed form being the light bearer the other became the must complete bearer of the true light.

3. You are so western and Greek in your thinking that you can't see what I'm trying to say. It is the way the text is applied by John the Baptist and applied by Ellen White which is correct in both contexts and that in the eastern and Hebrew thought process they would not have trouble making the two different applications according to their context. You want it to be only one or the other. Sadly if you have to choose one or the other then John the Baptist would have the upper hand, and so you have to try to make John the Baptist say something else than he actually said so that you can accept what Mrs. White has to say. This is NOT true historicism, this is NOT the method of inter biblical exegesis, but just a wanting to defend modern tradition. You can defend Mormonism with your logic. You can defend Darbyism with your logic. However you cannot defend Adventism, Ellen White, nor historical historicism .

John the Baptist would have been understood by the first readers of John of saying "Behold the lamb of God who Scapegoates the sins of the world." and both John the Baptist and Ellen White are correct in their application as based on their specific lesson that they are drawing on from the text. We don't need to change John the Baptist's words and we don't need to call Ellen White a false prophet. We need to honestly read and understand the world of the Bible. Satan has a whole list of similar problems that he wants to trip you up on to make of no effect the spirit of prophecy.

[Guest]

Quote:

The actual translation should read "Behold the lamb of God who scapegoats the sins of the world."

Ok, I can deal with that. John simply meant that Jesus would be the one to transfer the sins onto Satan. Just like when the high priest scapegoated the sins of Israel onto the scapegoat. One is the scapegoat-er and one is the scapegoat-ee, or scapegoat. lol

[Kevin H]

Fair enough; We just need to be fair to both prophets and to understand the contexts of their applications of the text.

[Gerr]

Quote:

1. The problem is that linguists have pointed out that John the Baptist used the technecal language for the scapegoat. The actual translation should read "Behold the lamb of God who scapegoats the sins of the world."

Azazel [ESV, NCV, DARBY, ASV, NLT, GNT, RSV]/scapegoat [KJV,NKJV, NASB]/goat of departure [YLT] is a Hebrew word that occurs ONLY in Lev 16 in the Bible. The Apostle John was writing in Greek, I'd like to see where "takes away" [Gk airo] is related to the Heb. Azazel, when scholars cannot agree on how to translate it.

Quote:

2. Graham Maxwell points out some places where texts in different applications apply to both Christ and Satan. One is that both of them was called the lighbearer, but one changed form being the light bearer the other became the must complete bearer of the true light.

This might be the reason why both goats were to be unblemished, because Satan was at one time without blemish.

[Gerr]

PS

I consulted over a dozen commentaries re: Jn 1:29. NOT A ONE even alluded or gave a hint of "takes away the sin of the world" as "scapegoating."