Who was the "Scapegoat"?

[Guest]

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."

That's interesting Gerry. I kinda thought that didn't sound right.

[RonP]

Hi folks,

Might I point out a fundamental type in the sanctuary service?

The sins which were confessed in the courtyard were from those who came within the walls of righteousness which surrounded it. They were NOT the sins of the world! In the service of the D of A the blood of the sinless LORD's goat (no confessions were made over it) was used to "pick up" the sins and then put them on the other goat. It was led away into the wilderness and released where it could quite comfortably live! (Goats can exist just about anywhere.)

So the symbol carries only the sins of repentant followers of the LORD.

The two goats were identical (as the cherubim in the most holy place were originally) and only the LORD could identify which was the loyal one and which was the rebel.

So the "blood" of Christ will be used to transfer the sins of His people from the sanctuary to the rebel who can then exist for 1000 years quite comfortably although unhappily.

As EGW makes plain that is Satan.

[Kevin H]

Gerry, you are looking in the to early written references. These are studies from the late 20th century (1980s and 1990s) comparing what the book of John says compaired to how other contemporary Jewish writings would use the terms.

What conserns me is that first this discovery gives evidence for what we have beleaved for a long time but only inferred and that there are hints towards that Jesus started his ministry in the fall. This new discovery that John the Baptist was using the day of atonement lanuguage indicates that our pioneers were right and that the Holy Spirit was leading them.

Also, trying to get us to see how we tend to think too much of an either/or mentality. Either/or mentality has a tendency to get us into trouble. Satan has a lot of strong either/or situations that he is planing to use to make of no effect the spirit of prophecy. I can live quite comfortable with both applications depending on their specific contexts and points that the prophets were trying to make.

But I fear that we prefer to only infer that the pioneers were right and not look at this evidence that indicates that they were indeed right. and we are too conserned about tradition to want to know what the Bible and Mrs. White actually say, even when they actually do not contradict our tradition.

[Robert]

Read me!

Here's a sample from the above website:

In the KJV it is “Scapegoat.” In the original it is “Azazel,” and some of the modern translations will have that word. What does the word “Azazel” mean? In the Hebrew, words have meanings. What does the word mean? We do not know today because the Hebrew language changed in the ninth century and we do not know exactly what it means.

But here is what we have from the best of the scholars. According to the Hebrew scholars (these are not Christian scholars, but Jewish scholars), “Azazel” is the name of the devil. So the Hebrew scholars back us up. We do have not the Hebrew manuscript but we do have the Syriac manuscript, which is one of the oldest manuscripts. The Syriac manuscript for “Azazel” has this phrase “the angel that revolted.” Very interesting and a very reliable manuscript. Most Christian scholars interpret Azazel as the Scapegoat. What does scapegoat mean? If you looked it up in a dictionary, what does it mean? We use it in our English language.

Someone has to take the blame. That is the issue! When you deal with sin in a legal sense, as a transgression of the law, there are three things involved. First there is guilt. Then there is punishment. Then there is responsibility.

[Gerr]

Ok, Kevin, give me your references. I would appreciate it.

No, I am not an "either or" person. I try my best to avoid that kind of thinking. On the other hand, I also try to avoid syncretistic thinking, being wary also of accommodating what may turn out to be error.

[Gerr]

Good, Robert!

The book of Enoch written about 200 B.C. a pseudopigraphical work, refers to Azazel as the chief of demons, yes, the one that revolted.

[Guest]

Ok, Kevin, give me your references. I would appreciate it.

No, I am not an "either or" person. I try my best to avoid that kind of thinking. On the other hand, I also try to avoid syncretistic thinking, being wary also of accommodating what may turn out to be error.

Zactly

[Kevin H]

I'll see if I can find a more exact and direct reference when I get home; but mine is indirect from a series on the Gospels and the Feasts of the Land, by Dr. Jim Fleming a professor from Hebrew University that I studied with.

Once again what I am conserned with is with both contexts I can see both ideas. I don't need to give up Mrs. White's application based on this, but I am fearful that too many who have only a superficial approach to scripture would take someting like this and run with it against one or both prophets. But for me the issue is similar to what Isaiah 7:14 meant to Isaiah and what it meant to Matthew.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

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

really? so what happens to the sins that have been confessed since then?

[Maschil]

I hope this answers your question. Jesus is bearing those sins right now in the Heavenly sanctuary.

Romans 3:25

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

God forgives the sins that we have committed only in the past. But as you study the book of Hebrews we learn that Jesus is going to blot out our sins, but while He is doing that the believers will be experiencing the new covenant of heb 8 or 10, and will no longer be sinning. Therefore He won't have to bear them anymore and he will come back.

[Gerr]

Quote:

really? so what happens to the sins that have been confessed since then?

REALLY!!!

Rom 6:10 "For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God."

Heb 7:27 "He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself."

Heb 9:26 "for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.."

Heb 10:10 "And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

[Maschil]

So prevision has been made if we sin.

1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

[Gerr]

Christ's offering on the cross was for ALL time, for past, present, and future sins. That's what makes His sacrifice so infinitely superior to the old system, where animals had to be sacrificed over and over again.

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Ok, Kevin, give me your references. I would appreciate it.

No, I am not an "either or" person. I try my best to avoid that kind of thinking. On the other hand, I also try to avoid syncretistic thinking, being wary also of accommodating what may turn out to be error.

Zactly

Just an update, I got back home Sunday night but this is a busy week of work, if I get a chance today if not then next week I'll try to fing a more exact reference for you.

[Gerr]

So prevision has been made if we sin.

1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

YES!!! That's how efficacious that Sacrifice is!

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Maschil

So prevision has been made if we sin.

1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

YES!!! That's how efficacious that Sacrifice is!

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

Who amongst us have not sinned willfully – after having received “the knowledge of the truth”?—Hebrews unequivocally states that there “remaineth” no more sacrifice... for that one who sins willfully.

Given that caveat, it seems that the blood of Jesus Christ does not obtain for him or her who – has "trodden under foot the Son of Gd" (Heb 10:29).

I have, after receiving “the knowledge of the truth”, willfully sinned on more occasions than I am able to recall. Is there then, according to Hebrews 10:26, no failsafe ensuring my salvation?

[Gerr]

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,...

I have, after receiving “the knowledge of the truth”, willfully sinned on more occasions than I am able to recall. Is there then, according to Hebrews 10:26, no failsafe ensuring my salvation?

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 1 Jn 2:1 ESV

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 Jn 1:9 ESV.

Therefore, Heb 10:26 must mean that a willful sin that we would not confess?

[jasd]

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully (#1596) after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

Strong’s #1596; hekousiōs

1) voluntarily, willingly, of one's own accord

a) to sin wilfully as opposed to sins committed inconsiderately, and from ignorance or from weakness

>>My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 1 Jn 2:1 ESV

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 Jn 1:9 ESV.

Therefore, Heb 10:26 must mean that a willful sin that we would not confess?<<

Hebrews 10:26 could as well depend upon the definition of the knowledge of the truth (note usage of the definite articles re “knowledge” and “truth”) and whether it, in fact, is apprehended, yes?—otherwise, text turns upon [a front-loaded] “willfully” – rather than upon an [retroactive] inferred “confession”.

Is Hebrews 10:26 saying that there will be only the few who are ‘elected’ to receive “the knowledge of the truth”?—or, is it really saying that “the knowledge of the truth” is easily received and understood – and,

that the vast majority of Xtians, who’ve “willfully” sinned, receive their salvation ultimately – by other, or extenuating means? Should that be so,

upon what condition(s), or at what point, would the mechanics of salvation be predicated or terminated?

Or, are there other aspects of salvation that we’ve not touched upon in our doctrinal understanding?

[Kevin H]

Fleming has a good bibliography on works the Jewish backgrounds on Jesus. He talks some more about this in his lectures on the Bible and the feasts of the land. I am going to quote from his notebook for this series page 19:

--At the baptism of Jesus, we have a clue that the First Century readers would have thought of the solemn day of Atonement:"Behold the lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world." Anyone who knew Aramaic or Hebrew in the First Century knew that "azazel," scapegoat, is the word "takes away." They would have read that verse on the lips of John, "Behold the sacrifice of God who scapegoats the sins of the world." You see, here is another one of the festivals that the First Century readers may have made a connection with Judaism that the last 1800 years of commentaries have not been making.

The word is "Lamb" of God; it it didn't say "'goat' of God, who takes away." The world "Lamb" in rabbinic writings connotes sacrifice. You can call a ram a "lamb of God," an ox a "Lamb of God,"... It is a broad phrase which speaks of a "sacrifice of God which scapegoats the sins of the world" A common mistake of Christians is seeing teh paschal sacrifice [of passover] as atoning. Paschal, at passover, is entirely different-- speaking, as we'll see later, of liberation. Atoning for the depth of our sin is the azazel, the scapegoat, the sacrifice of God.--

I'm back, I hope you afind this useful. I wish that I had time to copy page 20, but Fleming goes on to say that it is remarkable that Joh's gospel begins calling tJesus the sacrifice of God at the begining of his ministry, while we tend to limit this to the end of his ministry. That there is a wholeness in the idea of sacrifice and servant Messiah that could be understood not only in Jesus' death but in his relation to the people: His attitude and the way he dealt with people. That it was like in sports where someone sacrifices for the sake of the team, that the servant sacrifice, who Jesus was from the begining of his ministry is what really takes away sin. When you see someone in pain, you want to take that pain yourself. You want to take it from them. This is the way Jesus related to his followers all along.

I find this very useful in understanding that Jesus started his ministry as Daniel predicted on the day of atonemtnt of the 70the week, that atonement is not cross only there are different aspects of atonement, and insightful in the investigative atonement. I hope you find this useful.

[Gerr]

That's one man's opinion. The pseudepigraphical book of Enoch that was written 2nd c. BC has Azazel as a demon, the leader of the demons that rebelled. So it seems to me that Fleming would be way off to claim that a person hearing John the Baptist saying, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world," would be thinking of Azazel. I would have to see more evidence than just Fleming's. As I have already mentioned, I have consulted about a dozen commentaries, two of those were written after 2000, none of them ever mentioned that connection.

[Kevin H]

1. Feel free to check out Dr. Fleming's qualifications to make this comment.

2. A rule of thumb about commentaries, the day they are published they tend to be 30 years out of date. (This came from 3 opions: The Homoletics professor at AUC, our classes at the Seminary, and Dr. Fleming)

[EaglesWings]

I think the term "willful sin" means premeditated, willfully not letting go of known sin in one's life. That doesn't mean we don't struggle because it is a spiritual warfare. It does mean that we are to believe and depend upon God's Word and his promise to deliver us from sin. Keep moving forward, overcoming daily. When we fail, having it in our spiritual selves to overcome, the blood of Jesus is applied and in repentance we are forgiven. Overcoming is a process of learning how to depend upon God and learning how to apply his promises and his Word, essentially learning how to fight the spiritual battle having put on the full armour of god. There are some who are attempting to live this way, although perhaps not a high percentage.

If one is still not willing to let go of sins in one's life, they have not been converted yet. That doesn't mean that a converted person doesn't find an obstacle in his/her path when God shows him/her the sin. It means that ultimately he/she follows God's leading.

Baptism doesn't mean conversion unless there has been fruit worthy of repentance along with the mental assent to accept Jesus as one's saviour.

[Woody]

I willfully sin rather often. Most of the sin I do is willful and takes some planning to accomplish. That is unless I have someone holding a gun to my heard ... which is not very often.

Now, don't get me wrong ... Woody doesn't go around sinning willy-nilly. But he does choose to sin at times.

[jasd]

>>I think the term "willful sin" means premeditated, willfully not letting go of known sin in one's life.<<

I agree with the first part of the statement above; however, “willfully not letting go...” does not seem to fit the parameters of the following:

Strong’s #1596; hekousi&#333;s

1) voluntarily, willingly, of one's own accord

a) to sin wilfully as opposed to sins committed inconsiderately, and from ignorance or from weakness

It remains as the text reads: willful sin deprives the one committing that sin – a primary application to Jesus Christ’s sacrifice. [/paraphrased]

Further, what does one make of, “And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him [be] glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.” (Rev 1:6)

What does Writ teach re the function of a King?—of a priest? Why does Jesus Christ make Kings and priests of Xtians? Kings and priests?—to what purpose? Moreover,

the Xtian is surely made a priest after a new, Melchisedecian order, which disannuls the old commandment

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Heb 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

It is inconceivable that the Xtian should be made Levitical priests, yes? It is probable that the Xtian is made a priest after the Melchisedecian order. So...,

how might the “change also of the law” affect the salvific process of those who’ve bereft themselves of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ’s blood? (Heb 10:26) Or, is there indeed,

a mechanism by which they, as others, might be ‘saved’ other than by the primary shedding of Jesus Christ’s blood? If so, when?

>>Baptism doesn't mean conversion unless there has been fruit worthy of repentance along with the mental assent to accept Jesus as one's saviour.<<

Indeed. However, can not baptism signify other than “conversion”.