Seventh-day Adventists affirm "sola scriptura testing" AND The 1Cor 12 gift of prophecy

[tall73]

Is this the main issue?

I mentioned that ultimately the main issue is who bears our sins, taking the penalty, Christ or Satan.

To my mind there is no question that it is Christ, and this is reiterated throughout the Scriptures. But here are the details. Some of this is a repeat from my discussion with LGW:

The scapegoat is not, that I am aware of, explained in any New Testament text. So we will have to look at the type and try to draw conclusions, but can't be overly dogmatic.

However, there is enough information to be quite clear that the the scapegoat does not represent Satan. The scapegoat is showing another aspect of Jesus' work in removing sins.

Both the Lord's goat and the goat for azazel are for a sin offering:

Lev 16:5 And he shall take from the congregation of the people of Israel two male goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering.

The two goats were both ceremonially clean sacrificial animals. Satan is in no way capable of being a sin offering, nor is he ceremonially clean. He is not interchangeable with Christ in any respect. Jesus is God, and sinless, and Satan is a sinful created being.

Rather, the clean animal always pointed to Jesus in the type. So the two goats appear to show aspects of Jesus' one atonement. So the reason for confessing the sins and placing the hands on the goat for azazel is that it is a part of the sin offering, and the atonement.

Lev 16:7 Then he shall take the two goats and set them before the LORD at the entrance of the tent of meeting.
Lev 16:8 And Aaron shall cast lots over the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other lot for Azazel.
Lev 16:9 And Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the LORD and use it as a sin offering,
Lev 16:10 but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the LORD to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel.

The above text tells us that the goat for azazel is used to make atonement. Satan can in no way make atonement for the sins of the people of God. He will experience the lake of fire for his own sins. His sin of rebellion and his temptation of others are all his sins to bear. The wicked still die for their own sins. And the righteous would bear their sin the same as the wicked except Christ died for them as a substitute. Jesus was sinless, and He bore our sin.

But as a sinful creature Satan cannot bear sin for others. He cannot be a substitute. He can only bear his own sin.

Moreover, the text says the goat is "for azazel." The meaning of this term is debated. Three main views have been proposed, based on different etymology.

The first is the meaning of total removal.

The second, which seems a bit more based on later tradition but is a possibility, is that it refers to rough ground or a mountain that it is cast down from. But this casting down or killing is not mentioned in the text. It is referred to in later practice.

The third is that azazel is a demon in the wilderness. In this case Azazel would be a proper name, and as one goat is for the Lord and one for azazel. This view became more prominent after the book of Enoch which mentions a demon named azazel. But it is not stated in the text either. And the LXX translation has more the concept of removal.

And if you interpret azazel as a demon, then the goat is not the demon, but is FOR azazel, or sent to him.

But if it just means goat for removal, then the goat is pictured as carrying sins completely out of the camp.

Since this happens after the high priest leaves the sanctuary that would place it at the second coming. As the high priest sent the sins from the camp, Jesus will remove everything from the earth and universe, from His kingdom, everything that defiles. And in this case that includes the effects of the sins of the people who now are trusting in Him. All things associated with sin will be removed, even the old heavens and earth, and a new heavens and earth will be the home of righteousness:

2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.
2Pe 3:11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness,
2Pe 3:12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn!
2Pe 3:13 But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

This same reality is seen in other figures in Revelation, where no mark or trace of sin is left in the dwelling place of God and His people:


Rev 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.
Rev 21:2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Rev 21:3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.
Rev 21:4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”
Rev 21:5 And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”

Rev 21:27 But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Rev 22:3 No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him.

The sins are not only atoned for, but all trace of sin and rebellion is removed from His kingdom by Christ.

Sinners go to the lake of fire for their sins
Satan goes to the lake of fire for his sins

And all trace of sin, even for God's people, is dissolved with that old world.


And even someone sees the goat for azazel as going TO azazel, as in a demonic entity, then everything contaminated with sin would go to the same place that Satan is already at--the lake of fire.

Either way, Satan doesn't make atonement at all for us. He can only bear his own sin. He is not sinless, and cannot be a sin offering, a substitute, or in anyway like Christ.


So looking at the above, the sins are confessed over the goat for azazel because the two together are a sin offering and it represents some aspect of the atonement. Hence, the transfer happens for both animals, as both are involved.

To summarize the Adventist system, they essentially reduce the work of Christ to transferring sin around:

Sinner => sacrifice => priest =>sanctuary => high priest => scapegoat (Satan)

But Jesus does more than that. He takes on the sin of the sinner and dies for it and His blood makes atonement. He is also the one to completely remove sin, sinners, and all the effects of sin from the universe. Jesus paid for our sins.

Eph 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,
Eph 1:8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight

 

[tall73]

Your response here...

Actually no that is not true at all as shown in the very quote and scriptures you are quoting from. Leviticus 4:5-7; 18; Leviticus 4:27-35; Numbers 15; Leviticus 6:25-30 show that all animal sacrifices and sin offerings needed for blood atonement needed to be brought into the Sanctuary under ministration and intercession of the Levitical Priesthood

We agree that the offerings were brought to the sanctuary, and the priesthood.

But the result was blood atonement, not just shuffling sins around. Jesus died for our sins. Satan is not your sin-bearer.

The yearly ministration also involved the cleansing of the Sanctuary and transferring of the sins of God's people to the scapegoat

I notice you didn't explain how Satan can be a clean animal, identical to Jesus in the type.

Or how Satan, a sinner, can make atonement for our sins. He must pay the price of his own sin. He cannot bear ours. And Jesus already did.

These are of course all Gods' Words not my words dear friend that to disagree with your words that are not Gods' Word which you keep telling yourself. The daily ministration of the Priesthoods sacrifice of sin and blood atonement were brought into the Sanctuary in order for God's people to seek and receive Gods' forgiveness of sins. That is what it means when it is said that the sin are transferred to the Sanctuary

You didn't show ANY text that said: "sin are transferred to the Sanctuary" by the sin offering. Unless you mean Ellen White's statement. And she is not Scripture. And this is a Scripture testing thread.

Transferring sins around until you get to Satan is not atonement. Satan cannot atone for any of your sins.

Jesus taking on our sins in His body and paying the price for us, and cleansing us with His holy blood is atonement.

The daily ministration of the Priesthood throughout the year, for God's people, involved the bringing of animal sacrifice (usually a kid of the goats, a female without blemish) into the courtyard of the Sanctuary where the sacrifice was taken to the Priesthood. The person who sinned would then need to place their hands on the live animals head confess their sin to God and kill the animal sacrifice with their own hands (wages of sin is death). The blood was collected by the Priest who with his finger, put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and then poured out the rest of the blood at the bottom of the altar. All animal sacrifice and sin offerings for blood atonement throughout the year for the sins of God's people under the old covenant were to be brought inside the Sanctuary before the Lord and the Levitical Priesthood in order for the sinner to receive God's forgiveness (atonement) for specific sins.

Agreed, atonement, and forgiveness.

But not transfer of sin to the sanctuary. The wages of sin is death, and Jesus paid it. But you have the sin still there after His death, after the price was paid, and even claim His blood carries the sin.

As the sins of the people were anciently transferred, in figure, to the earthly sanctuary by the blood of the sin-offering, so our sins are, in fact, transferred to the heavenly sanctuary by the blood of Christ. 4SP pg. 266

And you have Satan as your sin bearer instead of Christ!

It was seen, also, that while the sin offering pointed to Christ as a sacrifice, and the high priest represented Christ as a mediator, the scapegoat typified Satan, the author of sin, upon whom the sins of the truly penitent will finally be placed. Great Controversy

Your theology is so turned around you have the precious blood of Christ transporting sin instead of cleansing it!

(Lord's goat cast by lot between two goats one for atonement and the other for the scapegoat)

How can Satan be represented by a clean sacrificial animal? How can that sinner possibly bear your sins?

Jesus is your substitute, the perfect sinless Son of God who died for you. He bore your sins on the tree, and died for them to give you life.

 

[tall73]

The yearly ministration of the Priesthood and blood atonement

Unlike the daily ministration of the Priesthood the yearly ministration of the Priesthood on the great day of atonement was made through blood sacrifice for the Priest and his family (a bull) and Gods' people as a collective whole (one of the lot cast goats which was called the Lords goat) by bringing in the blood of these sin offerings into the most holy place, the holy place and the courtyard of the Sanctuary where these offerings were applied to the mercy seat in the most holy place, the alter of incense in the holy place and the alter of burnt offering in the courtyard. This was done as a final atonement and cleansing of the sanctuary from all the sins

Now coming back to what we started to discuss earlier before looking at the sacrifices, Jesus already entered as High Priest, ONCE FOR ALL, by means of HIS OWN BLOOD, compared to the blood of bulls and goats in the type, and the result was securing eternal redemption.

Heb 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)
Heb 9:12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

He already made purification in the heavenly:

Heb 9:23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
Heb 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.

He already made purification for sins, in the first century, by His blood atonement:

Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high

You claim that making "purification for sins" or "cleansing for sins" was only about the death. But that is not the case. Because He entered by means of His blood as High Priest into God's presence on our behalf. The cleansing happened not just from the death but from the priestly ministration. And Jesus did that.

And we also know that because the terminology is a reference to the purification with the blood of the sin offering, on the Day of Atonement from the type, in the sanctuary, upon the altar of incense, as you just referenced.

In the LXX type it refers to the blood of καθαρισμοῦ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν " cleansing from sins", which is used to make atonement once per year.

Exo 30:10 And Aaron shall make atonement on its horns once a year, with the blood of cleansing of sins of atonement, once in the year he shall cleanse it, throughout you generations: it is most holy to the Lord.

Exo 30:10 καὶ ἐξιλάσεται ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸ Ααρων ἐπὶ τῶν κεράτων αὐτοῦ ἅπαξ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ· ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν τοῦ ἐξιλασμοῦ ἅπαξ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ καθαριεῖ αὐτὸ εἰς τὰς γενεὰς αὐτῶν· ἅγιον τῶν ἁγίων ἐστὶν κυρίῳ

It uses the same terminology as found in 1:3.

Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making cleansing of sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high

Heb 1:3 ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ καθαρισμὸν ποιησάμενος τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς,

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Hello @Leaf473

I will respond to the above posts written after my last post to you a little latter as I have some other real life work to attend to at the moment. I believe many of the claims and statements being made in the posts above this going back to my first post to you, are not accurate, or what I believe or have said and many of the claims made in these posts above are not biblical and simply repetition already addressed, seeking to disregard the ministrations of the work of the Great high Priest in the daily and yearly atonement for sin and their application under the new covenant that is reflected in the change of the Priesthoods from the old to the new covenants to the heavenly Sanctuary and Christs new role as our great high priest and superior sacrifice for all sin once and for all, but I will show why once more from the scriptures when I have some more time.

God bless

 

[tall73]

I am now going back to respond to some of your earlier points as I indicated that I would, after we looked in more depth at the sin offerings.

I thought you were trying to claim earlier that you believe that the type of the great day of atonement was fulfilled in the 1st century making the heavenly great day of atonement a non-event.

No, the once for all sacrifice, and once for all entry into God's presence by means of blood, the purification for sins, already happened. That corresponds to what the high priest did in the sanctuary in the day of atonement type. This was accomplished in the first century.

But the elements relating to the scapegoat, the cutting off of those who do not afflict themselves, etc. that happens after the high priest leaves the sanctuary, as in the type, and corresponds to the fall feast timing.

It is not just the Feast of Passover or unleavened bread that never happens again in the Heavenly Sanctuary as it was fulfilled in Christs death on the cross as the true Passover once and for all *1 Corinthians 5:7-8; Hebrews 10:10 but none of the annual Feasts have on going yearly application.

Yes, I am not arguing yearly application. I am arguing that the parts that only happened once, once for all, in the first century, already happened. The rest happens when He leaves the sanctuary.

So the roles of the Priesthood are not exactly the same as the roles of the earthly Priesthood which was simply a copy of the heavenly. Jesus is the man/God and God is our not only our sinless sacrificial sin offering for daily sin for the forgiveness of God's people, but God is our sin offering for the removal of sin from God' presence for the great day of atonement. Jesus as God is not only our sin offering but is also our great high Priest, our King and our Judge all in one under the ministration of the heavenly Sanctuary.

We agree that He is High Priest, King, and Judge, and He is after the order of Melchizedek.

So it is indeed very accurate to claim that the God Priest in Jesus removed all sin from Gods' presence and before this happens Judgement is required as the great day of atonement and the Feast of trumpet represented a time of judgement for Gods' people.

The application of blood in the sanctuary was for cleansing, and it was already done.

You mixing up the covenants, the Priesthoods between the covenants that have been changed and the daily and the yearly applications of atonement. Hebrews 9:7 is not saying that the great day of atonement has already taken place it is simply making a comparison between the earthly ministration and the heavenly and showing the superiority of Christs Priesthood over the Levitical Priesthood of the old covenant *see contexts of Hebrews 9:1-27.

9:7 is describing the earthly type, which was purification with blood. Ellen White, and the Adventist fundamental belief are the ones who say that the IJ is the fulfillment of the type, not me. But that is incorrect. The type of the high priest activity on the Day of Atonement in the sanctuary was to present atoning blood.

I think what you are missing here is that Jesus fulfilling the blood sacrifice does not mean Jesus has fulfilled all the duties of the anti typical duties of the heavenly Sanctuary. I have already told you many times now that I do agree that the blood sacrifice of Jesus is fulfilled. If that was not the case Jesus would have to continue making sin offerings. I believe where we are in disagreement is that you think that Jesus sacrifice for sins deletes the ministration of the annual removal of sin from the great day of atonement from the heavenly Sanctuary.

The ministration of blood fulfilled the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, not deleted the ministry. The type showed cleansing blood application, and that is what happened. He made purification for sins.

 

[Leaf473]

@tall73

@LoveGodsWord

My thanks to each of you for your explanations so far.
And yes, anyone is welcome to explain more, if they wish.

For me, the practical application or "where the rubber meets the road" is in the idea of sin in the end being all borne by Satan. If I were Satan, that's just the kind of thing I'd like to have said about me. It makes it sound like I have these really broad shoulders, capable of bearing the sin of the whole world.

Which brings up the idea of prophecy, one of the subjects of this thread.

Years ago I read some sections of The Great Controversy. My impression at the time was that it was not a message from God.

These latest details about the final bearer of the sins of the world confirm that feeling.

 

[tall73]

LoveGodsWord said: ↑
Actually no. Danial 8:14 deals with both the defilement of the little horn as well as the sins of Gods' people as the cleansing of the Sanctuary is the removal of all sin from the presence of God.

tall73 said: ↑

Hezekiah cleansed the sanctuary from external defiling in 2 Chronicles 29, and it had nothing to do with the Day of Atonement.
Daniel 8 shows defiling and casting down the sanctuary. Then it is restored.

Dan 8:13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to the one who spoke, “For how long is the vision concerning the regular burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled underfoot?”
Dan 8:14 And he said to me, “For 2,300 evenings and mornings. Then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state.”

Nothing is stated about the atonement for sins of the whole world in Daniel 8. And the purification for sins is stated to be in the past by the time Jesus sits down.

Your response here...

Red herring. Daniel 8:14 deals with both the defilement of the little horn as well as the sins of Gods' people as the cleansing of the Sanctuary is the removal of all sin from the presence of God. The defilement of the little Horn is in the casting of the truth to the ground (e.g. Daniel 8:12). The Great day of atonement is the cleansing of the Sanctuary and the removal of sin from the presence of God *see Leviticus 16.

It is your assertion that it is the Day of Atonement. But the whole context is about the activities of the Ram, the Goat, and the little horn, and the restoring/cleansing is from the activities of the little horn.

And Hezekiah's cleansing is a closer parallel than the Day of Atonement, because it is a cleansing from defilement caused by activity against the sanctuary.

Since you have not demonstrated that the context is about the Day of Atonement, and the cleansing is already seen as complete in the first century, per Hebrews, there is no reason to conclude this is what you claim. Restoring from external defilement is not the same as ritual cleansing of all sins.

 

[tall73]

My thanks to each of you for your explanations so far.
And yes, anyone is welcome to explain more, if they wish.

Thank you for reviewing it with us. And if you have any further observations about the type and antitype let us know. There is always more to learn, as it is a big topic!

 

[tall73]

Sin offerings for blood atonement for the daily ministration of the Priesthood for individual common people for specific sins was only ever done in the court yard where the alter of burnt offering was located. Blood atonement was sprinkled and applied to the alter of burnt offering and the remaining blood was poured out before the alter (see Leviticus 4:22, 25, 30-34). There was no blood atonement made inside the holy place for the individual sins of the individual common person who was seeking Gods' forgiveness of their sins through blood atonement in the daily ministration of the Priesthood.

Ellen White references both those where blood was brought into the sanctuary, and those where it was not. Because two instances were brought into the sanctuary, including those for the earthly high priest, who was not a commoner, but was a man.

And it says it made atonement in the holy place, just as it did in the yearly. It does not say sin was transferred to the sanctuary in any of the texts.

And for the commoner there was also atonement for sin, made by the blood of the sin offering, not shuffling of sins to eventually land on Satan.

Jesus is the sin bearer. He died for our sins. He paid the penalty.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said: ↑

And transfer without the sin offering was demonstrated in multiple texts.

Lev 15:28 But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean.
Lev 15:29 And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
Lev 15:30 And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.
Lev 15:31 Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle that is among them.

Leviticus 15 here is in context to physical uncleanness and in this case is of a menstruating woman. We are in discussion about sin and the daily ministration of the Priesthood with the yearly ministration of the Priesthood in regards to sin atonement. The sin offering here is not for her menstruation it is for her sins and physical uncleanness.

Technically it is a discharge outside the time of her normal menstrual impurity:

Lev 15:25 “If a woman has a discharge of blood for many days, not at the time of her menstrual impurity, or if she has a discharge beyond the time of her impurity, all the days of the discharge she shall continue in uncleanness. As in the days of her impurity, she shall be unclean.

But she does have to offer a sin offering for her unclean discharge.

Lev 15:30 And the priest shall use one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. And the priest shall make atonement for her before the LORD for her unclean discharge.

And if she does not do so it defiles the tabernacle. It was not by the sin offering that the defiling happened, but if it was not offered, rejecting the provision.

Lev 15:31 “Thus you shall keep the people of Israel separate from their uncleanness, lest they die in their uncleanness by defiling my tabernacle that is in their midst.”

So we see the sin of refusing cleansing defiling the sanctuary, with no sin offering involved, because it was the sin offering that was rejected which resulted in the defiling of the tabernacle.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said: ↑

Sin offerings were brought for uncleanness. And if they were not the person defiled the sanctuary.

Indeed but was are not discussing physical impurities. The uncleanness of the Sanctuary and why it needs cleaning is because of sin and the yearly ministration of the Priesthood in the great day of atonement cleanses the Sanctuary from all sin that has been brought into it by the Gods' people throughout the year and removes it from the presence of God to the scapegoat according to Leviticus 16.

Physical impurities also needed sin offerings. And the yearly atonement, which pictures Jesus' once for all atonement with blood, dealt with both uncleanness and transgression:

Lev 16:16 Thus he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleannesses of the people of Israel and because of their transgressions, all their sins. And so he shall do for the tent of meeting, which dwells with them in the midst of their uncleannesses.

You wish to exclude them. But they were so serious that someone was cut off for not purifying when available. When it defiled the sanctuary if they didn't accept purification that is obviously serious. That is a sin, refusing the purification, that resulted in defiling, without any sin offering.

Not a single scripture supports your view here. Leviticus 15:29-31 is talking about physical uncleanness of menstruating women and her defilement through menstruation and what must be done for her physical uncleanness after her time has been finished. This is not a reference to saying that only physical uncleanness is being represented in Gods' people. As shown in the application of the daily and yearly ministration of the Priesthood earlier sin is the cause of all uncleanness and defilement of the Sanctuary (see Isaiah 6:5-7; compare Matthew 15:7; 18-19; Isaiah 64:6 etc).

No one stated ONLY uncleanness is represented. It is uncleanness and sin. Both required cleansing by blood. Blood cleanses, not transfers.

You may want to go and revisit this one. Numbers 19:19-20 is in regards making ceremonial waters for purification of sins and uncleanness. It is not the same as a sin offering that is made inside the Sanctuary under the Levitical Priesthood in the daily and yearly ministration of sins. The waters of purification had a different purpose to sin offerings. They were for ceremonial and physical uncleanness.

They have a specific purpose, but they are still a sin offering for cleansing.

Num 19:9 And a man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer and deposit them outside the camp in a clean place. And they shall be kept for the water for impurity for the congregation of the people of Israel; it is a sin offering.

Numbers 19:20 [20], But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the LORD: the water of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him; he is unclean.

Notice that this person who didn't receive cleansing has now resulted in defiling the sanctuary, with no sin offering involved. This sin of not submitting to the purification process transfers sin to the sanctuary.

We were not discussing ceremonial uncleanness caused by physical uncleanness but sin atonement by breaking Gods' law and uncleanness caused by sin.

We are discussing both. Because failure to be cleansed was a violation of the law punishable by being cut off. But that violation of the law caused defilement in the sanctuary, without a sin offering.

So your appeal to change the topic and subject matter of discussion is noted but simply a distraction to our topic of conversation. Taking what a text says out of context to our discussion does not really help your position in my view but only shows that your position is not supported by scripture.

It is very much on topic when violating what is commanded in the law is seen to defile the sanctuary without any sin offering being made.

See also here:

Lev 20:2 “Say to the people of Israel, Any one of the people of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech shall surely be put to death. The people of the land shall stone him with stones.
Lev 20:3 I myself will set my face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given one of his children to Molech, to make my sanctuary unclean and to profane my holy name.

The sin of sacrificing children to molech made the sanctuary unclean. But it was not by a sin offering. No sin offering was permitted for such activity, because it was a death penalty crime.

 

[ChetSinger]

Essentially yes, but because of its implications. And it leads up to a bigger headline.

Most Christians see Jesus as bearing our sins, and dying for them to atone for them. Jesus is the one who paid the penalty for us, our sin bearer, and by His stripes we are healed. The Lord laid on Him all our iniquity etc.

But Adventist see Jesus role as transferring sins from one place to the next until finally transferring them to Satan.

In other words, in the Adventist view, Satan is the one who bears the sins of the people of God. This is expressed by Ellen White in the Great Controversy.

It was seen, also, that while the sin offering pointed to Christ as a sacrifice, and the high priest represented Christ as a mediator, the scapegoat typified Satan, the author of sin, upon whom the sins of the truly penitent will finally be placed. When the high priest, by virtue of the blood of the sin offering, removed the sins from the sanctuary, he placed them upon the scapegoat. When Christ, by virtue of His own blood, removes the sins of His people from the heavenly sanctuary at the close of His ministration, He will place them upon Satan, who, in the execution of the judgment, must bear the final penalty.

To me this is completely missing the point of what Jesus did. He didn't just shuffle sins around. He died for them and paid the penalty.

1Pe 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

Satan is sinful, and cannot atone for anyone else. He will be punished in the lake of fire for his own sin (including temptation of others), but each is still responsible for their own sin. The wicked still go into the lake of fire for their sin. Satan being the instigator of sin does not excuse them. And the righteous would suffer that fate except for Jesus taking on the penalty of death for us, and redeeming us. We have a substitute, which is what the sin offering pointed to. He didn't just transfer sins, He died for them and paid the price.

Rom 5:8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Rom 5:9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

The idea of Satan bearing our penalty detracts from what Christ did.

Now, in addition to that larger picture, the issue you pinpoint is really a key piece of evidence in deciding between two totally different views of the sanctuary "system", with a lot of related questions involved. So I will try to spell some of that out in the next post.

Thanks for this. It surprises me. And disturbs me. I didn't realize the Adventist view of the atonement is so different from the Orthodox one. I thought the only real differences were the insistence on sabbath observance and some idiosyncratic dietary views. Imo this is bigger.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

@Leaf473 here is a response to the misinformation provided to you earlier.

So let me start with where the two systems agree. Both see the sanctuary as being, for lack of a better term, contaminated by the sins of the Israelites. But the timing and means of that contamination differ in the two views. As I spelled out to you in response to your earlier question my view is that sin contaminates by its presence. Hence the sanctuary is stated to need cleansing because it dwells in the midst of the sins and uncleanness of the Israelites. And we see Scriptures that describe abominations committed defiling the sanctuary, etc. So in my view contamination happens when the sin is committed, because the sanctuary is in the midst of the sinful people. Their sin or uncleanness is upon them. They "bear" their sin as the text says. The sin offering is then the solution to this contamination, making atonement, or paying the price of the sin, cleansing it with the blood.
In LGW's view the means of sin getting to the sanctuary is the sin offering. In other words, he sees the sin offering making atonement by transferring the sin from the sin offering to the sanctuary, as a sort of holding tank. Thereby it separates the person from the sin. But then the sins of the people throughout the year which are transferred to the sanctuary wait until the Day of Atonement for all the sins to be removed from the sanctuary, placed on the high priest, and then placed on the scapegoat. So yes, a key difference is what we see the blood of the sin offering doing. I see it as cleansing already present defilement from the person, and the sanctuary. He sees it as transferring the defilement to the sanctuary for later cleansing.

I believe you are misrepresenting what I have posted to you here despite me telling you exactly in earlier posts what I believe our main differences are. Firstly, no. As posted earlier to you I believe in context to the scriptures already shared with you that the cleansing of the Sanctuary and the yearly atonement as shown through the scriptures in Leviticus 16 that the sins of God's people that are brought into the Sanctuary for blood atonement is the reason why the Sanctuary needs cleansing. It is sin that causes uncleanness and defilement of the Sanctuary. According to the scriptures, it is because of the sins of Gods' people that have been brought into the presence of God in the Sanctuary that the sanctuary is cleansed on the great day of atonement (Leviticus 16).

This ministration of the Priesthood is different to that of the daily ministration and atonement for sin. As shown through the scriptures already this includes the cleansing of all apartments of the Sanctuary from the most holy place, the holy place and the courtyard. This ministration also includes the final atonement for the collective sins of Gods' people through "the Lords goat" before the final work of removal of all sin from Gods' presence which according to the scriptures is transferred to the scapegoat which is then taken out by a strong man into the wilderness. As pointed out to you many times now I believe our main area of difference is in the understanding of the ministration of the High Priest and what his work is on the great day of atonement and the ministration of the Priesthood between the daily and yearly removal of sin from the presence of God. Your trying to disregard the yearly ministration of the Great high priests work in the cleansing of the Sanctuary on the great day of atonement. This is where the main area of difference is.

Now the place where we both see there is transfer is from the person to the sin offering, when the hands are laid on it. So we both see sin being placed on the offering. And this is in line with Jesus bearing our sins. But my view is that the sin offering is a picture of the atonement of Jesus, and that the death of the offering pays the price of that sin, and then the blood, which is holy, makes atonement and cleansing. It does not carry the contagion of sin into the sanctuary, because it represents Jesus, and His blood shed for us, which does not carry sin, but cleanses sin by His death.

Let's look at this in some detail. You agree with me that all sin offerings for God's people were to be made inside the Sanctuary as shown already though the scriptures in Leviticus 4:5-7; 18; Leviticus 4:27-35; Numbers 15; Leviticus 6:24-30. In the daily ministration of the Priesthood the sinner was to bring a sin offering to the Sanctuary and inside the Sanctuary you agree that the sinner transferred their sin by placing their hands on the sin offering in the presence of the Priest and the Lord transferring the sin from the sinner to the sin offering correct? From here the scriptures tell us that the sinner after transferring their sins to the sin offering had to kill the sin offering with their own hands (which is what we have done to Jesus) and at this time the Priest collected the blood of the sin offering to make atonement for the sinner by the sprinkling of blood on the alter of burnt offering and the remaining blood was poured out at the base of the alter. This in turn resulted in the atonement and cleansing of sin from the sinner and is also reflected in 1 John 1:9. Now note: Where was the sin transferred to inside the Sanctuary? The sinner transferred their sins to the sin offering. We are in agreement. Now where the sin offering pays the penalty of sin (death) in order to atone for sin and the cleansing of sin happens with the sprinkling of the blood on the alter of bunt offerings. This is the cleansing of the individual from their sins that takes place in the daily ministration of the Priesthood. The yearly ministration of the Priesthood is the cleansing of the sanctuary and the removal of all the sins from God's people from the presence of God which are transferred to the scapegoat which is led by a strong man into the wilderness.

[8], And AARON SHALL CAST LOTS UPON THE TWO GOATS; ONE LOT FOR THE LORD, AND THE OTHER LOT FOR THE SCAPEGOAT [עֲזָאזֵל that is ʻăzâʼzêl].
[9], And AARON SHALL BRING THE GOAT UPON WHICH THE LORD'S LOT FELL, AND OFFER HIM FOR A SIN OFFERING.

Note: The Lords goat is for sin atonement for Gods’ people, while the other goat is the scapegoat. Also, please note that the Hebrew word used for the English translation to “scapegoat” is עֲזָאזֵל that is ʻăzâʼzêl.

Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Unabridged - H5799

H5799. azazel
עֲזָאזֵל noun [masculine] entire removal (reduplicated intensive (Ges§ 30 n. Sta§ 124 a), abstract, √ [עזל] = Arabic remove, see BährSymb. ii. 668 Winii. 659 ff. Me SchenkelBL. i. 256; > most, proper name of spirit haunting desert, Thes Di DrHastings, DB [a fallen angel, Lev 16:8ff. being late, according to CheZAW xv (1895), 153 ff., Ency. Bib., who derives from עזזאֿל; compare BenzEncy. Bib.], as in Jewish angelology, where probably based on interpret. of 16:8ff.; name not elsewhere); — ׳ע 16:8, 10 (twice in verse); 16:26 in ritual of Day of Atonement, = entire removal of sin and guilt from sacred places into desert on back of goat, symbol of entire forgiveness.

Note: while the daily ministration of the Priesthood removes all sin from God's people in the Sanctuary through the ministration of transference of the sin of the sinner to the sin offering the sin remains inside the Sanctuary where it is applied to the alter of burnt offering and at the base of the alter through animal sacrifice where the remainder of the sin offering is prepared and eaten by the Priests.

According to the scriptures in Leviticus 16 is the the yearly ministration of the Priesthood that is responsible for the removal of all sin from the presence of God and the cleansing of the Sanctuary from all the sins of Gods' people brought into the Sanctuary and the presence of God through blood atonement which is then transferred in the same manner that the sinner transferred their sins to the sin offering but this time to the live scapegoat.

[10], But THE GOAT, ON WHICH THE LOT FELL TO BE THE SCAPEGOAT [עֲזָאזֵל that is ʻăzâʼzêl], SHALL BE PRESENTED ALIVE BEFORE THE LORD, TO MAKE AN ATONEMENT WITH HIM, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

Note: God is making the final atonement through the cleansing of the sanctuary and removal of sin from His presence, by sending all sin from Gods’ people back to the originator of all sin Azazel (scapegoat) Satan. Leviticus 16:11-14 then talks about the High Priest offering sin atonement for himself and his family and using the censor of incense and continues in verse 15...

[15], Then shall HE KILL THE GOAT OF THE SIN OFFERING, THAT IS FOR THE PEOPLE, AND BRING HIS BLOOD WITHIN THE VAIL, AND DO WITH THAT BLOOD AS HE DID WITH THE BLOOD OF THE BULLOCK, AND SPRINKLE IT UPON THE MERCY SEAT, AND BEFORE THE MERCY SEAT:

Note: It is "the Lords goat" that is the sin offering that is killed for the people (not the scapegoat Azazel) and it is "the Lords goat" whos blood is used for final sin atonement and the cleansing of the Sanctuary while "the scapegoat; Azazel" remains alive.

[16], And HE SHALL [the Lords goat] MAKE AN ATONEMENT FOR THE HOLY PLACE, BECAUSE OF THE UNCLEANNESS OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, AND BECAUSE OF THEIR TRANSGRESSIONS IN ALL THEIR SINS: AND SO SHALL HE DO FOR THE TABERNACLE OF THE CONGREGATION, THAT REMAINETH AMONG THEM IN THE MIDST OF THEIR UNCLEANNESS.

Note: it is "the Lords goat that is used for making atonement and cleansing of the Sanctuary and Gods' people. Scripture defines sin as the cause of uncleanness and defilement which is why the Sanctuary was to be cleaned once a year on the great day of atonement (see Isaiah 6:5-7; compare Matthew 15:7; 18-19; Isaiah 64:6 etc).

[17], And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in TO MAKE AN ATONEMENT IN THE HOLY PLACE, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel.
[18], And HE SHALL GO OUT UNTO THE ALTAR THAT IS BEFORE THE LORD, AND MAKE AN ATONEMENT FOR IT; AND SHALL TAKE OF THE BLOOD OF THE BULLOCK, AND OF THE BLOOD OF THE GOAT, AND PUT IT UPON THE HORNS OF THE ALTAR ROUND ABOUT.
[19], And HE SHALL SPRINKLE OF THE BLOOD UPON IT WITH HIS FINGER SEVEN TIMES, AND CLEANSE IT, AND HALLOW IT FROM THE UNCLEANNESS OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL.
[20], And WHEN HE HATH MADE AN END OF RECONCILING THE HOLY PLACE, AND THE TABERNACLE OF THE CONGREGATION, AND THE ALTAR, HE SHALL BRING THE LIVE GOAT:

Note: blood sacrifice is used here for the cleansing of the Sanctuary and Gods people on the Great day of atonement in the yearly ministration of the Priesthood.

[21], 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:

Note: The great high Priest on the day of atonement was to lay his hands on the scapegoats head just like the sinner did in transferring his sin to the sin offering under the daily ministration of the Priesthood. The high Priest was to confess all the sins of the children of Israel brought into the Sanctuary throughout the year and transfer them to the scapegoat (Azazel). So we see here there is a contradiction in your teachings. If the sins of Gods people were no longer inside the Sanctuary throughout the year then there would be no need to transfer them to the scapegoat.

[22], And THE GOAT SHALL BEAR UPON HIM ALL THEIR INIQUITIES UNTO A LAND NOT INHABITED: AND HE SHALL LET GO THE GOAT IN THE WILDERNESS.

Note: Just as the scapegoat who bares all the sins returned to it from the yearly ministration alive to the wilderness, Satan the originator of all the sins of the people of God have their sins returned to him and led away by an angel bound 1000 years in a bottomless pit (Revelation 20:1-3).

[23], And Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there:
[24], And he shall wash his flesh with water in the holy place, and put on his garments, and come forth, AND OFFER HIS BURNT OFFERING, AND THE BURNT OFFERING OF THE PEOPLE, AND MAKE AN ATONEMENT FOR HIMSELF, AND FOR THE PEOPLE.
[25], And the fat of the sin offering shall he burn upon the altar.
[26], And he that let go the goat for the scapegoat shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward come into the camp.
[27], And the bullock for the sin offering, and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in TO MAKE ATONEMENT IN THE HOLY PLACE, shall one carry forth without the camp; and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung.
[28], And he that burneth them shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp.
[29], And THIS SHALL BE A STATUTE FOR EVER unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you:

His view is that the sin offering blood carries the contagion of sin to the sanctuary for storage until the Day of Atonement where that sin, stored up throughout the year, is then removed by the rites of the Day of Atonement.

My view is shown above through the scriptures outlined in the daily and the yearly ministrations of the Priesthood.

From a big picture, systemic standpoint, the Adventist view does not make sense to me. God continually wants to remove contamination from the sanctuary, whether by sin or uncleanness. This means either purifying the person when possible in the case of uncleanness, or if they are not cleansed when possible, cutting them off. In cases where cleansing was not possible (leper still having leprosy, etc.) the person had to go out of the camp.

This is not difficult when viewed through the scriptures as seen in the daily and yearly ministrations of the Priesthood. Both have a different purpose in the Sanctuary service and Gods' plan of salvation for all mankind. Your view here is combining the daily and yearly ministrations of the Priesthood into the daily only. This is not biblical or is it supported anywhere in the scriptures.

The same was seen in the text I referenced with blood shed where the sin contaminated the land in which God dwelt in their midst. And the person had to be killed to make atonement with his own blood to remove the defilement of bloodshed, because no substitute offering was accepted for murder, as it was a capital offense. God does not want unresolved sin contaminating His dwelling place. But the Adventist system has all of the sins piled up there.

This of course was simply a distraction and a change of subject matter to something we were not discussing earlier. We were discussing the process of sin atonement under the old covenant Sanctuary system in context to the daily and yearly ministration of the Priesthood in application to the heavenly Priesthood under the new covenant with Jesus as our great high Priest ministering on our behalf based on better promises. Your claims fall apart here when viewed in light of the yearly ministration of the Priesthood as shown in our discussion and the cleansing of the Sanctuary on the great day of atonement and the removal of all sin from the presence of the Lord.

more to come...

 

[LoveGodsWord]

(Now interestingly we see in the case of David and in Ezekiel 18, etc. that God still forgave murder and adultery, also a capital offense, but no sacrifice is referenced).

You may want to consider here that the death penalty was applied under civil law of Israel for nearly everyone of God's 10 commandments to any person who was caught unrepentant, openly and publically breaking them. (e.g. 1st Commandment (Exodus 20:3), Thou shalt have no other gods before me (Deuteronomy 17:1-5; 14:6-10; Exodus 22:20); 2nd Commandment, (Exodus 20:4) Thou shalt not make unto thee any idols (Exodus 20:4; Deuteronomy 27: 15); 3rd Commandment (Exodus 20:7), Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain (Leviticus 24:16); 4th Commandment Sabbath (Exodus 20:8-11) see Exodus 31:14-15; 35:2; 5th commandment (Exodus 20:12) honor your father and mother see Exodus 21:15-17; 6th commandment thou shalt not kill (Exodus 20:13) see Leviticus 24:17; Numbers 35:31-33; 7th commandment thou shalt not commit Adultery (Exodus 20:14) see Leviticus 20:10; John 8:3-5; 8th Commandment thou shall not steal (Exodus 20:15) but only applied to man stealing or kidnapping (Exodus 21:16); 9th commandment (Exodus 20:16) thou shall not bear false witness see Deuteronomy 19:15-21 and the 10th commandments thou shall not covet (Exodus 20:17) see Joshua 7:21-25). This was to teach God's people that the wages of sin is death.

Now at the more detailed level I have noted that LGW has not pointed to any text that says that the sins are transferred from the sin offering to the sanctuary. He has said this is seen in bringing the sacrifices to the sanctuary, but the rationale given for that in the text is that they bring it there because it is God's sanctuary, His dwelling place, and they are to bring gifts to Him. And they are not to offer sacrifices elsewhere to demons (ie other gods, idols). The sacrifices are brought to the sanctuary, but not to transfer, but to make atonement. I see this atonement as paying the price of the sin by the death, and the blood cleansing, as referenced above. And LGW sees this atonement as a multi-stage transfer process going from the sin offering, to the temple, being pulled from the temple on the Day of Atonement, then placed on Satan.

This is absolutely not true whatsoever and absolutely a false claim that has no truth in it. So lets deal with these claims in a detailed scripture response. You were provided a detailed scripture response showing from the scriptures that under the daily ministration of the Priesthood throughout the year, in order for Gods people to receive God's forgiveness for their sins they needed to bring themselves and a sin offering into the Sanctuary. In the presence of a Priest and the Lord the sinner was to put their hands on the head of the sin offering transferring their sins to the sin offering. Once this was done they were to kill the sin offering and the blood was collected. This was because the sin offering pays the penalty of death for the sinners sin (representing Christs sacrifice).

The blood of the sin offering was then collected by the Priest to make atonement by sprinkling the blood of the sin offering onto the alter of burnt offering with the rest of the blood being poured out at the base of the alter (see Leviticus 4:22-35). The rest of the sin offering was then prepared by the Priest and could be eaten or consumed as a burnt offering. At this point there was no more sin with the sinner who was forgiven and cleansed from their sins typified in Christ daily ministration in 1 John 1:9. So the sins of Gods people under the daily ministration of the Priesthood remained through both the death of the sin offering and blood atonement on the alter of burnt offering inside the Sanctuary.

It was then shown through the scriptures in Leviticus 16 that the yearly ministration of the Priesthood on the great day of atonement that was responsible for the cleansing of the Sanctuary and the removal of all the sins of the people of God accumulated throughout the year that was then removed from the presence of God to the scapegoat. Now all of the above here is simply taken from the scriptures as outlined in the both the daily and yearly ministration of the Priesthood.

Now think about it. If sin contamination was not in the Sanctuary their would be no need for the Sanctuary to be cleansed on the great day of atonement. If there was no sin in the Sanctuary brought into the Sanctuary from Gods' people throughout the year then there would be no need for the removal of all the sins of the people of God throughout the year from the presence of God being transferred to the scapegoat (Leviticus 16). This alone which is all supported by scripture you do not say exists shows your teachings and claims here are not biblical. Your view here is seeking to link the two ministrations of the daily and yearly work of the Priesthood into the daily. This is simply not biblical or supported in the scriptures as shown above.

If the sin offerings during the year are completely different than the sin offering on the Day of Atonement, such that these sin offerings during the year store up sin in the sanctuary, and the Day of Atonement sin offering then removes them, then we would expect to see that reflected in the language.

Well that is not true. As shown through the scriptures already, of course the daily and the yearly ministration of the Priesthood for sin atonement for God's people is different. This is shown in detail for the daily ministration of the Priesthood and sin atonement for the common person in Leviticus 4:22-35 and Leviticus 4 in general with slight variations to sin offerings for the Priest and the rulers of the people as well as collective sin for God's people.

Where as the yearly ministration of the Priesthood is outlined in Leviticus 16. The daily ministration of the Priesthood is for atonement for individual people for seeking God's forgiveness for specific sins that they become aware of. While the yearly ministration of the Priesthood as outlined in Leviticus 16 was for the final collective atonement of all of God's people and the High Priest before the new year and the cleansing of the Sanctuary from all the sins of God's people brought into it throughout the year and the removal of all the sins of God's people throughout the year from the presence of the Lord being transferred to the scapegoat who was led by a strong man into the wilderness.

But the reason I posted a couple of texts so often is that in some sin offerings during the year (for the anointed priest, or a single sin of the whole camp, etc.) the blood went further into the sanctuary than usual. As has been noted by both LGW and me the sin offering for the common person was killed by the person, but the priest took the blood to minister it for atonement at the altar, which is in the courtyard. But for certain sin offerings (a greater offense involving the anointed priest or the whole camp), the blood was taken inside the sanctuary.

This was simply a distraction to our discussion and an argument that no one was arguing about and something that I already pointed out very early in our discussion. The focal point of our discussion however was in regards to sin atonement in the daily and the yearly ministration of the Priesthood to the individual common people for specific sin (not collective) and it's application to the new covenant and Christ as our great high Priest in the heavenly Sanctuary that the Lord pitched and not man who now ministers on our behalf based on better promises *Hebrews 7:1-25; Hebrews 8:1-13; Hebrews 9:1-27 and Hebrews 10:1-22.

Because there is a text that describes what that blood taken into the sanctuary does it is a key piece of evidence in deciding whether the sin offerings remove sin from the sanctuary, or transfer sin to the sanctuary. In other words, it is a test case to see which system explains it better. It is also helpful because it is speaking of the same thing Ellen White referenced in her comment I quoted earlier: As the sins of the people were anciently transferred, in figure, to the earthly sanctuary by the blood of the sin-offering, so our sins are, in fact, transferred to the heavenly sanctuary by the blood of Christ. 4SP pg. 266 So Ellen White sees Jesus' blood as transferring or transporting sin into the sanctuary, whereas I see it the blood as cleansing sin from the sanctuary.

This has been demonstrated in the scriptures above already in the daily (Leviticus 4:22-35) and the yearly (Leviticus 16) ministrations of the Priesthood. The daily is the removal and cleansing of sin from the sinner while the yearly is the final atonement for God's people and the cleansing of the sanctuary from all the sins of the people of God brought into it throughout the year and the removal of all sin from the presence of God to the scapegoat. If your version of the truth of God's Word was correct there would be no need for the great day of atonement. Just the fact that there is shows your teachings are not biblical and proves your view is not biblical.

more to come...

 

[LoveGodsWord]

The text in Lev. 6 shows what happens when blood goes in, and we can see what is pictured. Lev 6:30 But no sin offering shall be eaten from which any blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the Holy Place; it shall be burned up with fire. So what happens is atonement is made IN the holy place. It doesn't state transfer of sin. But more to the point, it is the same thing that is seen when the blood goes into the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement: Lev 16:17 No one may be in the tent of meeting from the time he enters to make atonement in the Holy Place until he comes out and has made atonement for himself and for his house and for all the assembly of Israel. In both cases atonement is made in the holy place. So LGW's assertion that one offering transfers sin to the sanctuary, and the other pulls it out, is not supported by what is described as happening.

As shown through the scriptures already your interpretation of Leviticus 6:30 and Leviticus 16:17 does not support your position. Atonement for the holy place in Leviticus 6:30 is in context to the daily ministration of the Priesthood but application here is in context to either sin committed by the Priest or the collective specific sin of Gods' people (e.g. idolatry) not individual sin atonement for the common person! In the context of Leviticus 6:30 which is to the daily ministration of the Priesthood if the Priest or collective Israel sinned a specific sin to make atonement and seek God's forgiveness the Priest had to bring specific sin offerings (bull) and once killed by the Priest the blood was collected and sprinkled seven time on the curtain vale of the holy place and also applied to the horns of the alter of incense inside the holy place for the Priest (see Leviticus 4:2-21) or the alter of burnt offering for God's people.

Under both situations unlike the individual sin offerings of the common people Leviticus 6:30 says under these situations the sin offering cannot be eaten but must be burnt. These were specific sins applied to the Priesthood and God's people collectively not individually for specific sin. The atonement being made here is not for the holy place but for the sins of the Priest or Gods' people collectively for specific sin. The cleansing of the sanctuary according to the scriptures for all the sins of Gods people did not happen until the great day of atonement as shown in Leviticus 16. Of course sin is transferred to the holy place in the case of the sin of the Priest in the daily ministration of the Priesthood as it is transferred there from the sins of the Priest of Gods' people collectively being transferred by the Priest to the sin offering which is used to make atonement for the Priest or God's people.

Leviticus 16:17 is simply saying no one could be in the Sanctuary while the yearly ministration of the cleansing of the Sanctuary was being conducted. As posted earlier these scriptures do not support your view. Your disregarding scripture context and mixing up the application of the daily and yearly ministrations of the Priesthood in regards to the common people.

And Leviticus 6 also notes that the sin offering is so holy that when its flesh touches something it doesn't transfer sin, but transfers holiness:

Lev 6:25 “Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering. In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the LORD; it is most holy.
Lev 6:26 The priest who offers it for sin shall eat it. In a holy place it shall be eaten, in the court of the tent of meeting.
Lev 6:27 Whatever touches its flesh shall be holy, and when any of its blood is splashed on a garment, you shall wash that on which it was splashed in a holy place.

This makes sense to me from both a detail view, the blood makes atonement, not transfer, it conveys holiness, not contamination. And it makes sense from a big picture view because the sin offering represents Jesus who died for us, and His blood does not carry sin into the sanctuary, but cleanses and makes holy. He paid the price for sin. He made atonement for the broken law.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
25-28. This is the law of the sin offering—It was slain, and the fat and inwards, after being washed and salted, were burnt upon the altar. But the rest of the carcass belonged to the officiating priest. He and his family might feast upon it—only, however, within the precincts of the tabernacle; and none else were allowed to partake of it but the members of a priestly family—and not even they, if under any ceremonial defilement. The flesh on all occasions was boiled or sodden, with the exception of the paschal lamb, which was roasted [Ex 12:8, 9]

The scriptures you have provided here are in application to the laws of the sin offering. The context here is that of the flesh being considered holy and could only be eaten by the holy Priest in the Sanctuary under normal circumstances (see Leviticus 6:29-30). The flesh has nothing to do with blood atonement and the cleansing of the Sanctuary on the great day of atonement, inside the Sanctuary accept payment of the penalty of sin that is transferred from the sinner to the sin offering as shown earlier through the daily ministration of the Priesthood in Leviticus 4:22-35. It is the blood atonement that brings God's forgiveness of sins and transferring the sin from the sinner to the sin offerings and it's death that pays the penalty for sin.

Now I should also point out what this means from a systemic point of view. Adventists see sin being transferred like this:
sinner-----sin offering----high priest----sanctuary----high priest---scapegoat.
Which they see as translating to this:
sinner---Jesus----Jesus----sanctuary in heaven----Jesus----Satan.

Actually no. We see two ministrations of the Priesthood as already shown through the scriptures. This includes the daily ministration of the Priesthood which atones for all the individual sins of the people of God on a daily basis as shown in Leviticus 4 and the yearly ministration in the great day of atonement as shown in Leviticus 16 which is the final atonement and the cleansing of the Sanctuary and the removal of all sin from the presence of God to the scapegoat.

Where as I see sin on the person contaminating everything in the camp, including the sanctuary. And the sin is transferred from the person to the sin offering. That is the only transfer. Then the sin offering dies for the sins, and its blood brings holiness and cleansing, both to the holy place, and to the person.

And the fulfillment of that would be sins are placed on Jesus, who dies for them, and presents His sacrifice before the Father, which then cleanses sin, paying the price, both in the person, and atoning for sin in the universe.
In the Adventist view the sins spoken over the scapegoat are those that were transferred around, to the sanctuary, then back out of the sanctuary, and then onto the scapegoat.

But in my view all of these are just different pictures of Jesus' atonement, and each sin offering represents a part of that.

The sin offering for the individual pictures the cost of each sin, as the life had to be given for it, and the animal died for their sin.

The sin offering on the Day of Atonement where the blood went into the sanctuary shows that Jesus' one Sacrifice and presentation before God were for all sin.

The scapegoat also has all the sins placed on it because both it and the Lord's goat are said to be a sin offering. It illustrates yet another aspect of the work of Christ in atonement. I will spell that out in the next post.

If that were true there would be no need for the cleansing of the Sanctuary and the removal from all the sins of the people of God committed throughout the year that are transferred to the scapegoat. Just the fact that there is a yearly ministration of the Priesthood proves that your teachings here are not supported in the scriptures as both the daily ministration of the Priesthood and the yearly ministration of the Priesthood prove your claims here are not true.

Take care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

@tall73

@LoveGodsWord

My thanks to each of you for your explanations so far.
And yes, anyone is welcome to explain more, if they wish.

For me, the practical application or "where the rubber meets the road" is in the idea of sin in the end being all borne by Satan. If I were Satan, that's just the kind of thing I'd like to have said about me. It makes it sound like I have these really broad shoulders, capable of bearing the sin of the whole world.

Which brings up the idea of prophecy, one of the subjects of this thread.

Years ago I read some sections of The Great Controversy. My impression at the time was that it was not a message from God.

These latest details about the final bearer of the sins of the world confirm that feeling.

Sadly that is simply a claim that is being made that is a distortion of what is being said and a distortion of the truth of Gods' Word. This is because if anyone understands the yearly ministration of the Priesthood they would know that there are two goats in the final atonement for the people of God one in the scriptures is called the "scapegoat" and the other is called ''the Lord's goat'' at which time the High Priest cast lots to determine which is the Lords and which is the scapegoat.

Note: only sin offering and blood atonement pays the price of sin from the sinner paying the penalty of sin which is death. In the yearly ministration of the Priesthood only the "the Lords goat" was used for the final sin atonement and was sacrificed to pay to penalty of the collective sins of people of God. As well as this the yearly ministration of the Priesthood is different to the daily. The daily ministration of the Priesthood was for sin atonement among other things through blood sacrifice so sin atonement through blood sacrifice was made in the daily ministration of the Priesthood and the yearly and it is only blood atonement and the death of the sin offering that could pay the penalty of sin and atone for sins giving the sinner God's forgiveness.

The yearly ministration of the Priesthood is different to the daily in that the yearly ministration of the Priesthood on the great day of atonement was not only the final atonement for God's people through he death of the sin offering and blood atonement but also it was made for the cleansing of the whole sanctuary and the removal of sin from the presence of God to the scapegoat that does not die for the sins of God's people so it cannot be an atonement like some are claiming here. Only "the Lords goat" was the sin atonement for God's people not the scapegoat.

Jesus represent "the Lord's goat" that is sacrificed as a blood offering for sin representing Jesus as Gods true sacrifice dying for the sins of the world. The scapegoat represents satan because he is the instigator of all sin and temptation to sin so he in turn bears the ultimate responsibility and final punishment from God for all the sins atoned for Gods' people by Jesus as well as all the sins of the world.

This is why in the yearly ministration of the Priesthood the great High Priest after cleansing the Sanctuary and making the final atonement for all of God's people places his hands on the scapegoat transferring all the sins to the scapegoat and removing it from God's presence into the wilderness by a strong man (Leviticus 16).

This is fulfilled as the last act and final removal of all sin from the presence of God at the second coming as shown in Revelation 20:1-3 where it is written; [1], And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. [2], And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, [3], 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: and after that he must be loosed a little season. And again after the final atonement for God's people and the heavenly Sanctuary is cleansed; "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." - Revelation 22:11-15.

So this claim that we believe that Satan here as the scapegoat is an atonement for sin is a misrepresentation of what is being shared here through the scriptures that could not be further from the truth.

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I mentioned that ultimately the main issue is who bears our sins, taking the penalty, Christ or Satan.

To my mind there is no question that it is Christ, and this is reiterated throughout the Scriptures. But here are the details. Some of this is a repeat from my discussion with LGW:

The scapegoat is not, that I am aware of, explained in any New Testament text. So we will have to look at the type and try to draw conclusions, but can't be overly dogmatic.

However, there is enough information to be quite clear that the the scapegoat does not represent Satan. The scapegoat is showing another aspect of Jesus' work in removing sins.

Both the Lord's goat and the goat for azazel are for a sin offering:

Lev 16:5 And he shall take from the congregation of the people of Israel two male goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering.

The two goats were both ceremonially clean sacrificial animals. Satan is in no way capable of being a sin offering, nor is he ceremonially clean. He is not interchangeable with Christ in any respect. Jesus is God, and sinless, and Satan is a sinful created being.

Rather, the clean animal always pointed to Jesus in the type. So the two goats appear to show aspects of Jesus' one atonement. So the reason for confessing the sins and placing the hands on the goat for azazel is that it is a part of the sin offering, and the atonement.

Lev 16:7 Then he shall take the two goats and set them before the LORD at the entrance of the tent of meeting.
Lev 16:8 And Aaron shall cast lots over the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other lot for Azazel.
Lev 16:9 And Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the LORD and use it as a sin offering,
Lev 16:10 but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the LORD to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel.

The above text tells us that the goat for azazel is used to make atonement. Satan can in no way make atonement for the sins of the people of God. He will experience the lake of fire for his own sins. His sin of rebellion and his temptation of others are all his sins to bear. The wicked still die for their own sins. And the righteous would bear their sin the same as the wicked except Christ died for them as a substitute. Jesus was sinless, and He bore our sin.

But as a sinful creature Satan cannot bear sin for others. He cannot be a substitute. He can only bear his own sin.

Moreover, the text says the goat is "for azazel." The meaning of this term is debated. Three main views have been proposed, based on different etymology.

The first is the meaning of total removal.

The second, which seems a bit more based on later tradition but is a possibility, is that it refers to rough ground or a mountain that it is cast down from. But this casting down or killing is not mentioned in the text. It is referred to in later practice.

The third is that azazel is a demon in the wilderness. In this case Azazel would be a proper name, and as one goat is for the Lord and one for azazel. This view became more prominent after the book of Enoch which mentions a demon named azazel. But it is not stated in the text either. And the LXX translation has more the concept of removal.

And if you interpret azazel as a demon, then the goat is not the demon, but is FOR azazel, or sent to him.

But if it just means goat for removal, then the goat is pictured as carrying sins completely out of the camp.

Since this happens after the high priest leaves the sanctuary that would place it at the second coming. As the high priest sent the sins from the camp, Jesus will remove everything from the earth and universe, from His kingdom, everything that defiles. And in this case that includes the effects of the sins of the people who now are trusting in Him. All things associated with sin will be removed, even the old heavens and earth, and a new heavens and earth will be the home of righteousness:

2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.
2Pe 3:11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness,
2Pe 3:12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn!
2Pe 3:13 But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

This same reality is seen in other figures in Revelation, where no mark or trace of sin is left in the dwelling place of God and His people:


Rev 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.
Rev 21:2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Rev 21:3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.
Rev 21:4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”
Rev 21:5 And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”

Rev 21:27 But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Rev 22:3 No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him.

The sins are not only atoned for, but all trace of sin and rebellion is removed from His kingdom by Christ.

Sinners go to the lake of fire for their sins
Satan goes to the lake of fire for his sins

And all trace of sin, even for God's people, is dissolved with that old world.


And even someone sees the goat for azazel as going TO azazel, as in a demonic entity, then everything contaminated with sin would go to the same place that Satan is already at--the lake of fire.

Either way, Satan doesn't make atonement at all for us. He can only bear his own sin. He is not sinless, and cannot be a sin offering, a substitute, or in anyway like Christ.


So looking at the above, the sins are confessed over the goat for azazel because the two together are a sin offering and it represents some aspect of the atonement. Hence, the transfer happens for both animals, as both are involved.

To summarize the Adventist system, they essentially reduce the work of Christ to transferring sin around:

Sinner => sacrifice => priest =>sanctuary => high priest => scapegoat (Satan)

But Jesus does more than that. He takes on the sin of the sinner and dies for it and His blood makes atonement. He is also the one to completely remove sin, sinners, and all the effects of sin from the universe. Jesus paid for our sins.

Eph 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,
Eph 1:8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight

See post # 456 linked

 

[LoveGodsWord]

We agree that the offerings were brought to the sanctuary, and the priesthood. But the result was blood atonement, not just shuffling sins around. Jesus died for our sins. Satan is not your sin-bearer.

According to the scriptures your disregarding here between the daily ministration of the Priesthood in sin atonement through animal sacrifice and blood atonement that is brought inside the Sanctuary and the yearly ministration of the Priesthood which is the final atonement for the sins of Gods' people brought into the Sanctuary throughout the year and the cleansing of the Sanctuary and the removal of all the sins of Gods' people brought into the Sanctuary throughout the year which are transferred to the scapegoat your position here is not biblical as shown and demonstrated in the daily and yearly ministrations of the Priesthood in the Sanctuary in Leviticus 4:22-35 and Leviticus 16. Your claims to Satan being a sin bearer for atonement is a misrepresentation of what has been shared with you and a disregard of the scriptures showing the role of "the Lords goat" and "the scapegoat" as shown in Leviticus 16.

I notice you didn't explain how Satan can be a clean animal, identical to Jesus in the type. Or how Satan, a sinner, can make atonement for our sins. He must pay the price of his own sin. He cannot bear ours. And Jesus already did.

Read Leviticus 16. "The Lords goat" does not identify to "the scapegoat". Neither does "the scapegoat atone for our sins. If you understood the above you would not be asking these questions which is a misrepresentation of what I have been sharing here between the daily and the yearly ministration of the Priesthood and how they apply under the new covenants application and the work of Jesus as our great high Priest in the heavenly Sanctuary that the Lord pitched and not man.

You didn't show ANY text that said: "sin are transferred to the Sanctuary" by the sin offering. Unless you mean Ellen White's statement. And she is not Scripture. And this is a Scripture testing thread.

That is not true. I respectfully disagree. You were already given a detailed scripture response showing that the daily ministration of the Priesthood brings all the sins of God's people into the Sanctuary through sin offerings and blood sacrifice in Leviticus 4:22-35.

You were also shown that difference between the two ministrations of the Priesthood in the daily sin atonement for the people of God and the yearly collective atonement for the people of God and the cleansing of the sanctuary and the removal of all the sins of God's people throughout the year to the scapegoat.

If your view were true it deletes the yearly ministration of the Priesthood because there would be no sin to atone for no cleansing of the Sanctuary from all the sins of God's people that were brought into it through out the year and not sin to transfer to the scapegoat. Yet there it all is written before you disagreeing with your teachings in Leviticus 16 as the yearly ministration of the Priesthood in the Sanctuary service for sin atonement. Leviticus 16 and the yearly ministration of the Priesthood proves that your claims and teachings here are not biblical.

Your remaining posts are repetition that have already been addressed in some detail through the scriptures already. I did not see the need to re-address them or cut and paste content already shared with you again that has already been addressed in earlier posts from the scriptures so might leave it here for now.

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I mentioned that ultimately the main issue is who bears our sins, taking the penalty, Christ or Satan.

To my mind there is no question that it is Christ, and this is reiterated throughout the Scriptures. But here are the details. Some of this is a repeat from my discussion with LGW:

The scapegoat is not, that I am aware of, explained in any New Testament text. So we will have to look at the type and try to draw conclusions, but can't be overly dogmatic.

However, there is enough information to be quite clear that the the scapegoat does not represent Satan. The scapegoat is showing another aspect of Jesus' work in removing sins.

Both the Lord's goat and the goat for azazel are for a sin offering:

Lev 16:5 And he shall take from the congregation of the people of Israel two male goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering.

The two goats were both ceremonially clean sacrificial animals. Satan is in no way capable of being a sin offering, nor is he ceremonially clean. He is not interchangeable with Christ in any respect. Jesus is God, and sinless, and Satan is a sinful created being.

Rather, the clean animal always pointed to Jesus in the type. So the two goats appear to show aspects of Jesus' one atonement. So the reason for confessing the sins and placing the hands on the goat for azazel is that it is a part of the sin offering, and the atonement.

Lev 16:7 Then he shall take the two goats and set them before the LORD at the entrance of the tent of meeting.
Lev 16:8 And Aaron shall cast lots over the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other lot for Azazel.
Lev 16:9 And Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the LORD and use it as a sin offering,
Lev 16:10 but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the LORD to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel.

The above text tells us that the goat for azazel is used to make atonement. Satan can in no way make atonement for the sins of the people of God. He will experience the lake of fire for his own sins. His sin of rebellion and his temptation of others are all his sins to bear. The wicked still die for their own sins. And the righteous would bear their sin the same as the wicked except Christ died for them as a substitute. Jesus was sinless, and He bore our sin.

But as a sinful creature Satan cannot bear sin for others. He cannot be a substitute. He can only bear his own sin.

Moreover, the text says the goat is "for azazel." The meaning of this term is debated. Three main views have been proposed, based on different etymology.

The first is the meaning of total removal.

The second, which seems a bit more based on later tradition but is a possibility, is that it refers to rough ground or a mountain that it is cast down from. But this casting down or killing is not mentioned in the text. It is referred to in later practice.

The third is that azazel is a demon in the wilderness. In this case Azazel would be a proper name, and as one goat is for the Lord and one for azazel. This view became more prominent after the book of Enoch which mentions a demon named azazel. But it is not stated in the text either. And the LXX translation has more the concept of removal.

And if you interpret azazel as a demon, then the goat is not the demon, but is FOR azazel, or sent to him.

But if it just means goat for removal, then the goat is pictured as carrying sins completely out of the camp.

Since this happens after the high priest leaves the sanctuary that would place it at the second coming. As the high priest sent the sins from the camp, Jesus will remove everything from the earth and universe, from His kingdom, everything that defiles. And in this case that includes the effects of the sins of the people who now are trusting in Him. All things associated with sin will be removed, even the old heavens and earth, and a new heavens and earth will be the home of righteousness:

2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.
2Pe 3:11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness,
2Pe 3:12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn!
2Pe 3:13 But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

This same reality is seen in other figures in Revelation, where no mark or trace of sin is left in the dwelling place of God and His people:


Rev 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.
Rev 21:2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Rev 21:3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.
Rev 21:4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”
Rev 21:5 And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”

Rev 21:27 But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Rev 22:3 No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him.

The sins are not only atoned for, but all trace of sin and rebellion is removed from His kingdom by Christ.

Sinners go to the lake of fire for their sins
Satan goes to the lake of fire for his sins

And all trace of sin, even for God's people, is dissolved with that old world.


And even someone sees the goat for azazel as going TO azazel, as in a demonic entity, then everything contaminated with sin would go to the same place that Satan is already at--the lake of fire.

Either way, Satan doesn't make atonement at all for us. He can only bear his own sin. He is not sinless, and cannot be a sin offering, a substitute, or in anyway like Christ.


So looking at the above, the sins are confessed over the goat for azazel because the two together are a sin offering and it represents some aspect of the atonement. Hence, the transfer happens for both animals, as both are involved.

To summarize the Adventist system, they essentially reduce the work of Christ to transferring sin around:

Sinner => sacrifice => priest =>sanctuary => high priest => scapegoat (Satan)

But Jesus does more than that. He takes on the sin of the sinner and dies for it and His blood makes atonement. He is also the one to completely remove sin, sinners, and all the effects of sin from the universe. Jesus paid for our sins.

Eph 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,
Eph 1:8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight

@Leaf473

I will just touch on this a little and make this the last response for now. I think what your not considering here is that there is two goats here in the yearly ministration of sin atonement. Of the two goats listed above cast by lots it was only "the Lords goat" that was used for blood atonement. "The scapegoat" was not used for sin atonement for the people of God so your claims of Satan being the atonement for sin is misleading as he does not atone for anyone's sin in context to sin atonement through blood sacrifice. The only way the sins of God's people could be atoned for was always and only through blood sacrifice to atone for the sins of God's people. Therefore it is impossible for "the scapegoat" to atone for the sins of God's people because it wad kept alive once the sins of God's people are transferred to it. At this time however the sins of God's people had already been atoned for through the blood sacrifice of "the Lords goat". (Leviticus 16).

Now let's apply the types now and see if in your view "the scapegoat represents Jesus in the new covenant as applied in the Heavenly Sanctuaries application to the yearly ministration of the Priesthood. We agree that Jesus represents Gods true sacrifice for the sins of the world once and for all through blood atonement. Therefore Jesus represents "the Lords goat". We also agree that in the heavenly Sanctuary our great High Priest also represents Jesus who makes intercession before God on our behalf.

So this is where your dilemma starts if your applying "the scapegoat" to Jesus....

1. In the great day of atonement as applied in the new covenant Jesus being our great high Priest and the Lords goat. How can Jesus represent "the scapegoat"? This does not make any sense because in your view of Jesus being "the scapegoat" you have Jesus as our Great high Priest, who is also our sin offering for blood atonement (the Lords goat), laying His hands on His head confessing all the sins of all God's people and re-transferring all the sins of God's people to himself where he then is led out from the presence of God to remove all sin from the presence of God? If you think this through to new covenant application it just does not work.

2. You also run into further problems here by making Jesus "the scapegoat". By making Jesus the scapegoat your saying that blood atonement is inadequate for God's people to receive forgiveness of sins. The problem arises for your view here because by the time this final part of the Day of Atonement ritual had arrived, all blood sacrifices had been completed. The "Lord's goat" had been slain and its blood sprinkled before the mercy seat. This sacrifice atoned for all the sins of the people. This expiation in your view that Jesus is "the scapegoat" makes Christ's blood atonement inadequate, partial, incomplete, needing further remediation from the scapegoat. Christs sacrifice however and blood atonement however was complete, finished. No supplement, no other sacrifice, could be required. "When he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place, the tabernacle of meeting and the altar, he shall bring the live goat" (Leviticus 16:20).

3. If a scapegoat represented Christ bearing away, finally and for all, the sins of His people, we have the erroneous situation as outlined above. The high priest was to lay his hands (in this case, and this case only, both hands) upon the scapegoat, thus ritually transferring confessed sins to that animal. To make this application to the great anti-typical service unfolded in the book of Hebrews, we would have Christ (the High Priest) placing believers' sins upon Himself (the scapegoat). Not only does this not make any sense; you have the further problem of it thus appearing as though the Calvary sacrifice was deficient, that Christ did not there complete His work of expiation, or that some other figure was necessary to illustrate its sufficiency.

In examining the transferal of sin to the scapegoat, it is significant to note that the goat was not treated as all other animal sacrifices were — slain as atonement for sin. A sacrifice was valid as an atonement for transgressions only as it died, as there was spilled blood. Thus, Jesus was "set forth to be a propitiation [for us] by his blood" (Romans 3:25). It is "through his blood" that we have redemption (Ephesians 1:7). Preserving the goat alive tells that Azazel had another purpose because shed blood was necessary for a sin offering, in what way could an animal kept alive be considered such an offering? In what respect would it represent Christ? - It cannot. To say that the scapegoat, which played a part only after the atonement was complete, represented Christ is to blur the atonement, to suggest it is not sufficient, that something else was needed to complete it and make it effective. Such an idea as having Jesus representing "the scapegoat" is simply not biblical. (Source: The scapegoat)

Take Care.

 

[tall73]

Years ago I read some sections of The Great Controversy. My impression at the time was that it was not a message from God.

These latest details about the final bearer of the sins of the world confirm that feeling.

Thanks for this. It surprises me. And disturbs me. I didn't realize the Adventist view of the atonement is so different from the Orthodox one. I thought the only real differences were the insistence on sabbath observance and some idiosyncratic dietary views. Imo this is bigger.

I agree, this is a huge issue.

LGW asserts that the scapegoat is not used for atonement.

Only "the Lords goat" was the sin atonement for God's people not the scapegoat.

However, the text says:

Lev 16:10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

Nor has LGW described how Satan can bear anyone else's sins, since he bears his own.

And he claims I am misrepresenting his view. But Ellen White is considered inspired by the Adventist church, and she says the following in the Great Controversy:

It was seen, also, that while the sin offering pointed to Christ as a sacrifice, and the high priest represented Christ as a mediator, the scapegoat typified Satan, the author of sin, upon whom the sins of the truly penitent will finally be placed. When the high priest, by virtue of the blood of the sin offering, removed the sins from the sanctuary, he placed them upon the scapegoat. When Christ, by virtue of His own blood, removes the sins of His people from the heavenly sanctuary at the close of His ministration, He will place them upon Satan, who, in the execution of the judgment, must bear the final penalty.

This quote makes it plain that Ellen White sees the sins placed on Satan, who must "bear the final penalty".

Satan cannot bear the sins of God's people. He bears his own sins.

LGW claims I am misrepresenting his view. But we will see what Ellen White says again, since the SDA consider her inspired.

LGW says:

In examining the transferal of sin to the scapegoat, it is significant to note that the goat was not treated as all other animal sacrifices were — slain as atonement for sin.

But Ellen White says:

The wicked receive their recompense in the earth. Proverbs 11:31. They “shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts.” Malachi 4:1. Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished “according to their deeds.” The sins of the righteous having been transferred to Satan, he is made to suffer not only for his own rebellion, but for all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit. His punishment is to be far greater than that of those whom he has deceived. After all have perished who fell by his deceptions, he is still to live and suffer on. In the cleansing flames the wicked are at last destroyed, root and branch—Satan the root, his followers the branches. The full penalty of the law has been visited; the demands of justice have been met; and heaven and earth, beholding, declare the righteousness of Jehovah. GC 673.1

She states clearly that all the sins of the righteous are transferred to satan, which he suffers for, until he is destroyed, and that this is the satisfying of the law.

But it is Jesus who satisfied the law for us. satan never did.

Now if Ellen White does not represent LGW's view, then I would be happy to say that his view is not the same as hers. But her view does make satan bear the sins of the people of God. And that is completely wrong. Satan bears his own sin. The wicked bear their own sin.

And Jesus bore our sins, died for them, atoned for the sins, and totally removed every element of sin from the dwelling of His people. He is the one who makes atonement, and certainly not satan.