Section 12. The Sanctuary
---===---
18. The Scapegoat and the Atonement
The Charge that Seventh day Adventists make Satan their vicarious substitute and savior is based on the fact that we believe the scapegoat represents Satan. The Scripture passage that bears directly on this point is Leviticus 16, which gives the Atonement Day ritual.
Those who bring against us the charge of making Satan our savior hold that the scapegoat represents Christ as truly as does the slain goat. Following are the main reasons they set forth for this belief:
1. That the Hebrew word Azazel, which is translated "scapegoat" in our King James Version, should be translated "goat of departure," deriving Azazel from two Hebrew words meaning "goat" and "to depart."
2. That the Azazel goat is a sin offering, even as is the Lord's goat that was slain.
3. That the bearing away of the sins by the Azazel goat is a type of Christ's bearing away our sins.
4. That the slain goat represents Christ's death on Calvary, and the live goat directs attention to the risen and living Savior (emphasis being placed on the fact that the resurrection as well as the death is needed in the plan of salvation). And that the live goat's being accompanied by someone to a desert place symbolizes the impossibility of the return of the sins.
Incidentally, those who bring against us the charge concerning the scapegoat, and who hold that this scapegoat represents a phase of Christ's work, quite generally in their attacks seem willing to allow the impression to be created that the view they hold is the practically universal orthodox belief of Christendom. Thus in the most pronounced and heinous sense of the word, Seventh day Adventists are made to stand forth as preachers of strange, heretical doctrines. Let us examine these four reasons:
First Reason Examined
1. The basic claim as to the meaning of the word Azazel cannot be proved, as we shall discover from an examination of the etymology of the word later in this chapter.
Second Reason Examined
2. We do not believe the Bible teaches that Azazel is a sin offering. If we were confined to the fifth verse of Leviticus 16, we might conclude that both goats were a sin offering. But the Scriptures immediately inform us that a unique procedure took place. When the two goats were brought to the door of the tabernacle, lots were cast upon them. Nowhere else in the sacrificial service is there a parallel to this. The obvious idea to be obtained from the use of the lot throughout the whole Bible is that of deciding between two or more. For example, there were
two candidates selected for the office of apostle ship, to fill the place of Judas. The casting of the lot determined which of the two should function in that capacity. That this is the correct understanding of the problem before us seems clearly to be borne out by the fact that after the lot was cast, the reference to the sin offering is the word goats singular number. "Aaron shall bring the goat [not goats] upon which the Lord's lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering." Verse 9. Note also verses 15 and 27.
Those who hold that the scapegoat as well as the slain goat represents Christ, endeavor to find a parallel to this unusual Atonement Day procedure by reference to Leviticus 5:7-10. Here provision is made that a man who is too poor to bring a lamb may bring "two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, unto the Lord; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering." Verse 7. But:
a. The priest did not cast lots. Thus the most important point of comparison is lacking. b. Both of the birds were for the Lord, but only one goat.
c. Both birds were killed by the priest.
Reference is sometimes also made to the two birds brought for the purification of a leprous man (Lev. 14:4-7), but this reference may be disposed of by comments "a" and "b" above, and by the simple statement that we have here no reference to a sin offering or to the purging of sin. Lange's commentary discusses the dual offering of the poor, and then comments on the two birds for the leprous man's purification, remarking: "These last, however, were not a sacrifice." - Comments on Leviticus 16.
The way that these two goats were brought before the Lord is without a parallel in the Levitical service. This fact in itself should at least suggest that some essentially new and added truth was to be conveyed by the service. With this general statement doubtless our critics would agree, contending that it was necessary to have these two animals in order to represent rightly the work of Christ as a sin offering. But to make such a claim as this is equivalent to saying that all the rest of the Levitical ritual of the various sin offerings, including the Passover Lamb, which the Scripture tells us is the exact type of Christ's sacrifice for us (1 Cor. 5:7), is hopelessly deficient in its symbolism.
Furthermore, how could a live animal properly be considered a sin offering? In every other passage dealing with the sacrificial system, the sin offering was slain. Is this to be a lone case where a sin offering lives? If so, what becomes of the very explicit scripture that underlies the whole sacrificial system, 'Without shedding of blood is no remission" of sin? Heb. 9:22. Seeing that the priest does not take the life of the second goat, how can its relation to the sins of the people have any "remission" value? And if it has no "remission" value, how can it be properly described as a sin offering?
Indeed, what necessity is there for twice remitting the sins of the people? For the blood of the slain goat is taken into the sanctuary, to which the sins of the people have been transferred in type during the year, to "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." Lev. 16:16. And then when the priest "hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the
congregation, and the altar," he turns to the live goat. The idea of having the second goat atone again for the sins seems strange even to those who hold that theory.
In an article entitled "The Meaning of 'Azazel,'" in the Moody Bible Institute Monthly, Grant Stroh inquires:
"Since the sins of 'all the congregation of Israel' had already been atoned for by the death of the first goat, what is the significance of confessing and placing them upon the head of the live goat that was to carry them away with him?" - March, 1932.
But he endeavors to prevent this fact from giving any aid to our view, by adding immediately:
"If these sins already had been atoned for, it certainly is incongruous to explain this ceremony as an act of judgment. This much ought to be clear."
As to whether the judgment idea is incongruous will be discussed later. But surely this much ought to be clear, that if the sins of the Israelites had already been atoned for by the death of the first goat, it is incongruous to view the second goat as a sin offering.
Mr. Stroh goes on to support his belief that the 9ive goat directs our attention to the risen and living Savior," by remarking that "in the New Testament the death and resurrection of our Lord are indissolubly joined together." Paul's statement is then quoted: "If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; you are yet in your sins." 1 Cor. 15:17. But if "the sins of 'all the congregation of Israel' had already been atoned for by the death of the first goat," and this represented Christ's death on the cross, why must the freeing of believers from sin, in the antitype, await a further act, namely, the resurrection?
In order to have the live goat also represent Christ, those who hold this view of Azazel must blur over, if not contradict altogether, the proposition they elsewhere set forth so dogmatically, that complete atonement for sin was made on the cross.
Third Reason Examined
3. To attempt to find a parallel between the act of the second goat in bearing away the sins, and that of Christ in bearing our sins, is to go contrary to the explicit statements of Scripture. We read of Christ, "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree." 1 Peter 2:24. The margin reads, "to the tree." The American Revised Version reads: "Who his own self bare our sins in his body upon the tree," and the margin reads, "carried up ... to the tree." It is said that the live goat was needed to supply a feature that the slain goat could not, that is, the bearing away of the sins. But John the Baptist (John 1:29) used the symbol of the Lamb (which to the Jews would convey the thought of the sacrificial lamb, whose blood was poured out) to convey the truth of Christ's bearing our sins. Evidently John the Baptist viewed Christ's bearing of sins in the way Peter did (1 Peter 2:24), and not in the way these theologians do, who view the scapegoat as Christ.
Surely the Scriptures are so clear that the bearing, or carrying, or taking away, of sins is from us to the "tree," that they quite demolish the most Plausible-sounding parallel between Christ and
the second goat, the parallel built on the word bear. Evidently the live goat's bearing of sins must have a different significance from that of Christ's bearing them.
Fourth Reason Examined
4. Those who teach that the live goat "directs our attention to the risen and living Savior," must, to be consistent in their symbolism, believe that Christ rose from the dead loaded with the sins that He had borne up to the tree. The ritual shows very plainly that the second goat was to be regarded as a thing so unclean that the man who led it away into the wilderness must "wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water" (Lev. 16:26) before coming again into the camp. Do the advocates of this doctrine we are examining really believe they find in this picture of the second goat a parallel to the glorified Christ rising from the tomb and commanding Mary, "Touch me not"?
Biblical Authorities Cited
So much for an examination of the main reasons brought forth in behalf of the interpretation that views the live goat as well as the slain goat as representing Christ. Note now the testimony of a representative group of Biblical authorities, Jews and Christians, liberal and conservative, regarding Azazel. These quotations will reveal further evidence against the interpretation we have been examining, and will afford the reader an opportunity to judge for himself whether Seventh day Adventists are preachers of strange and anti-Christian doctrines in holding that Azazel represents Satan. 18
M'Clintock and Strong's Encyclopaedia
"Scapegoat (Hebrew, Azazel) is the name given in the A.V. to one of the two goats used in the sin offering for the entire community of Israel on the great Day of Atonement, the goat which was to be sent away into the wilderness. ... There can be no doubt that this has the appearance of being some sort of personage, or interest personified, standing over against Jehovah, or somehow contradistinguished from Him. But opinions have front early times been divided on the subject.
"1. The one followed by our translators, which regards it as a name for the goat itself, is of great antiquity, and has numbers on its side....
"2. By others it has been taken as the name of a place. ...
"3. Others, again, have taken the word as a pealpal form of the Arabic verb to remove,... so that the meaning comes to be for a complete removing or dismissal (Tholuck, Steudel, Winer, Bshr). Grammatically, no objection can be urged against this view; and it undoubtedly accords well with the general import of this part of the rite. 'The true expiation,' to use the words of Bahr, 'was effected by the blood of the first goat, which was set apart for Jehovah; on the other hand, the ceremony with the other goat appears as a mere addition made for special reasons, a kind of complement to the wiping away of the sins which had already been effected by means of the sacrifice.' ...
"4. But there is still another class of writers who are disposed to claim for the word a more distinctly personal existence, and who would refer it directly to Satan. This view is certainly of high antiquity. ...
"It was very common with the rabbins, as in later times it has the support of many authorities- Spencer, Ammon, Rosemniffier, Gesenius, etc., who hold it to be equivalent to the Roman averruncus, or evil demon, which was supposed to inhabit desert places, and who needed to be propitiated. But adopted also, though purged of this idolatrous connection, by Witsius, Meyer, Alting, Hengstenberg. Also quite recently by Vaihinger and Kurtz. These writers hold that the view in question best preserves the contrast between the two goats, one for Jehovah, and one for the great adversary Azazel. The latter a being as well as the former, and a being who (as demons generally) was supposed to have his peculiar dwelling in the desert. The goat, however, that was sent to this evil spirit-emphatically the removed or separate one-was no sacrifice, but rather a witness that the accepted sacrifice had been made. It proclaimed, as it were, 'that the horrible wilderness, the abode of impure spirits, is alone the place to which the sins of the people, as originally foreign to human nature and society, properly belong. That Azazel, the abominable, the sinner from the beginning (John 8:44), is the one from whom they have proceeded, and to whom they must again with abhorrence be sent back, after the solemn atonement and absolution of the congregation have been accomplished' (Vaihinger). No doubt, as thus explained, the leading import of the transaction with this goat is in proper accordance with the service of the day. But it cannot appear otherwise than strange that, in the most sacred rite of the old covenant, Satan should be so formally recognized as, according to this view, he must have been." - M'Clintock and Strong, Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, vol. 9, pp. 397, 398, art. "Scapegoat."
Encyclopedic Dictionary
"Azazel.-1. In Scripture: A word occurring in Leviticus 16:8, 10, and 26, where it is translated 'scapegoat'. But the antithesis which makes the one goat be for Jehovah and the other for Azazel, is best preserved by supposing Azazel to he such a being as Satan or some other evil spirit." - The Encyclopedic Dictionary, Volume 1, 397.
Hastings' Bible Dictionary
'Etymology, origin, and significance [of Azazel] are still matters of conjecture. The A. V. designation scapegoat... obscures the fact that the word Azazel is a proper name in the original, and in particular the name of a powerful spirit or demon supposed to inhabit the wilderness or 'solitary land' ([Lev.] 16:22, R.V.)." - Hastings' Bible Dictionary, p. 77, art. "Azazel."
Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia
"The meaning of the word [Azazell has occasioned much discussion. Starting from the fact that 'for Yahweh' and 'for Azazel' stand in opposition (verse 8), many think that it is the name of a being opposed to Yahweh,-a desert monster, a demon, or directly Satan. Such as attempt an etymological interpretation then explain it as characterizing the demon or Satan as removed or apostatized from God, or a being repelled by men (averruncus), or one which does things apart and in secret (from azal, 'to go away'). Others conceive of Azazel, not as a proper name, but as an
appellative noun and modified reduplicated form of a root 'azal,' 'to remove, retire.' ... The contrast between 'for Yahweh' and 'for Azazel,' however, in verse 8 favors the interpretation of Azazel as a proper noun, and a reference to Satan suggests itself. ... A definite explanation, satisfactory to all, can hardly be looked for." - The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 1, p. 389, art. "Azazel."
Smith's Bible Dictionary
"In regard to the Hebrew word Azazel ('scapegoat,' A.V.), the opinions most worthy of notice are: 1. A designation of the goat itself. The old interpreters in general, the Vulgate, Symmachus, Aquila, Luther, the A.V., etc., supposed it to equal the goat sent away, or let loose. But the application of Azazel to the goat itself involves the Hebrew text in difficulty. ... 2. The name of the place to which the goat was sent. But the place is specified in Leviticus 16:10, 21, 22 (Gesenius). 3. A personal being to whom the goat was sent. (a) Gesenius makes Azazel equal averter, expiator, and supposes it to be some false deity who was to be appeased by a sacrifice of the goat. (b) Others have regarded him as an evil spirit, or the devil himself. ... 4. An explanation of the word which seems less objectionable, if not wholly satisfactory, would render the designation of the lot (Lev. 16:8, etc., 'for the scapegoat,' A.V.) 'for complete sending away. ..... - Smith's Bible Dictionary, p. 83, art. "Atonement, the Day of."
Jewish Encyclopedia
"Azazel (scapegoat, Leviticus 16, A.V.): The name of a supernatural being mentioned in connection with the ritual of the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16). After Satan, for whom he was in some degree a preparation, Azazel enjoys the distinction of being the most mysterious extra human character in sacred literature. Unlike other Hebrew proper names, the name itself is obscure. . .. Most modern scholars ... have accepted the opinion mysteriously hinted at by Ibn Ezra and expressly stated by Nahmanides to Leviticus 16:8, that Azazel belongs to the class of 'se'irim,' goat like demons....
'Far from involving the recognition of Azazel as a deity, the sending of the goat was, as stated by Nahmanides, a symbolic expression of the idea that the people's sins and their evil consequences were to be sent back to the spirit of desolation and ruin, the source of all impurity. The very fact that the two goats were presented before YHWH [Jehovah] before the one was sacrificed and the other sent into the wilderness, was proof that Azazel was not ranked with YHWH, but regarded simply as the personification of wickedness in contrast with the righteous government of YHWH....
"Azazel would therefore appear to be the head of the supernatural beings of the desert.... The fact that such a ceremony as that in which he figured was instituted, is not a contravention of Leviticus 17:7, by which demon worship was suppressed. For Azazel, in the instance, played a merely passive part. Moreover, as shown, the symbolical act was really a renunciation of his authority. Such is the signification of the utter separation of the scapegoat from the people of Israel." - The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 2, pp. 365-367, art. "Azazel'
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
"By the use of the same preposition le in connection with Jehovah and Azazel, it seems natural to regard the expressions as entirely parallel and to think of some personal being. Some interpret this word as referring to a demon of the wilderness. ... and explain the term as 'one who has separated himself from God,' or 'he who has separated himself,' or 'he who misleads others.' But a demon of this kind could not possibly be placed in contrast to Jelinvah in this way. ... In later times the word Azazel was by many Jews and also by Christian theologians, such as Origen, regarded as that Satan himself who had fallen away from God. In this interpretation the contrast found in verse 8, in case it is to be regarded as a full parallelism, would be perfectly correct. But it must be acknowledged that in Holy Scripture, Satan is nowhere called by the name of Azazel. ... It is accordingly advisable to interpret Azazel adjectively, i.e., to forgo finding a complete parallelism in verse 8, and to regard the preposition in connection with Jehovah as used differently from its use with Azazel. ... With this interpretation a certain hardness yet remains for our linguistic sense, because we cannot find a good translation for the adjective. ...
"Both goats, according to verse 5, are to be regarded as a single sin sacrifice, even should we interpret Azazel as demon or Satan, and we are accordingly not at all to understand that a sacrifice was brought to these beings.... In the personal interpretation, we could have, in addition to the idea of the removal of the guilt, also a second idea, namely, that Azazel can do no harm to Israel, but must be content with his claim to a goat which takes Israel's place." - The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 1, pp. 343, 344, art. "Azazel."
Kitto's Encyclopaedia
"The only difficulty here, and that is a great one, is with respect to the meaning of the word Azazel, which our translators, in common with a large class of modern commentators, regard as applied to the goat itself, and render it by 'scapegoat.' Others produce reasons, not easily answered, for showing that the word must be taken as a proper name. Then arises the question. What is the name? Several of the rabbinical writers regard it as the name of the place to which the scapegoat was conducted.... A step further, however, brings it more within the range of our recognition-this is, that Azazel is but a name for Satan as was the opinion of most of the Jewish writers and of the early Christian church. And that the meaning of the ceremony is, that while the remission of sin is effected by the sacrificed goat (for without shedding of blood there was no remission, Heb. 9:22). The other was laden with the sins already, through the other goat, pardoned, by way of symbolically notifying the fact of Satan, and of triumphing in his discomfiture.... There is another more common explanation, which, if correct, forms a very beautiful interpretation of the typical rite. This view recognizes the substantial typical identity of the two goats, and in the victim goat sees Christ dying for our sins, and in the liberated goat views Him as rising again for our justification. But it must be admitted that the whole subject forms one of the greatest difficulties of Scripture.' - John Kitto, Encyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, p. 363, art. "Goat, Scape."
Lange's Commentary
"In regard to the meaning of Azazel: in the great variety of etymologies given for the word by scholars of the highest standing, it may be assumed as certain that nothing can be positively determined by the etymology. ... Not only the roots themselves are varied, but their signification also, and still further the signification of the compound. Little light can be had from the ancient
versions. The Sam., and the Targs. of Onk., John., and Jerus., retain the word unchanged: so also does the Syriac.... The Jewish authorities differ, ... many of them explaining the word of the devil.... The great majority of modern commentators agree with Spencer and Rosenmuller in interpreting the word itself of the devil, although Bahr, Winer. and Tholuck contend for the sense complete removal.' - Lange's Commentary, Notes on Leviticus 16.
New Standard Bible Dictionary
"Azazel must... be the name either of the act of sending the goat away into the wilderness or, preferably, of the person to whom it was sent, possibly a demon in the wilderness. ...
"In Israel it [the Atonement Day ritual] ... was used to express the thought that sin belongs to a power or principle hostile to Jehovah, and its complete purgation must include its being sent back to its source." - New Standard Bible Dictionary, p. 85 (Funk and Wagnalls).
Teachers' and Students' Bible Encyclopedia
"To determine which of the two goats was to be slain, and which sent alive into the wilderness, ' it was ordered that the priest should cast lots upon the two goats. One lot for the Lord (Jehovah), and the other lot for the scapegoat,' Lev. 16:8, but literally for Azazel, a word nowhere else used. There can he no doubt that this has the appearance of being some sort of personage, or interest personified, standing over against Jehovah, or somehow contradistinguished from him. But opinions have from early times been divided on the subject" - Rev. Patrick Fairbairn, D.D., Teachers' and Students' Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 6, p. 109, art. "Scapegoat."
Encyclopedia Biblica
"The meaning of Azazel is much disputed; it is. of course, a subject closely connected with the inquiry' into the origin of the custom. It is at least certain that, as Azazel receives one goat while Yahweh [Jehovah] receives the other, both must be personal beings." - T. K. Cheyne, M. A., D. D., and J. Sutherland Black M. A., LL. D., Encyclopedia Biblica, vol. 1, p. 395, art. "Azazel."
Eadie's Biblical Cyclopedia
"A common opinion is, that the one goat which was slain represented Christ dying and dead for the sins of man, and that the other goat, which lived and was dismissed, symbolized Christ risen and pleading our cause. But it might be objected to such a view that the sins of the Hebrew nation were laid on the live goat after its fellow had been sacrificed. An arrangement which does not harmonize with the actual atonement of the Son of God, for our sins were laid, not upon the risen Savior, but upon Him before He died, and in His death. We incline to the oldest view of this subject-a view common in the church till the period of Julian the apostate, by whom it was abused and caricatured.
"The language in the original is precise and peculiar-It reads, 'And Aaron shall cast lots on the two goats-ONE FOR JEHOVAH, ONE FOR AZAZEL.' What we are to understand by Azazel has been much disputed. The language appears to us to imply the personality of Azazel-'one for Jehovah, one for Azazel.' By Azazel we venture to understand Satan, as do almost all the ancient
versions, which leave the word, as they do the names of other persons, un-translated. Satan is not here, as some allege against this opinion, put on an equality with God; for the two goats were both brought 'to Jehovah,' and were His. While the very casting of lots, which was in itself a solemn appeal to God, shows that Jehovah claimed the power of disposal. Neither can it be objected that this was in any sense a sacrifice to Satan, for the animal was not slain to him; it was only sent to him in disgrace. Bearing upon it sins which God had already forgiven, it was sent to, Azazel in the wilderness.
"The phrase 'scapegoat,' by which the strange term Azazel is rendered in our version, came from the 'hircus emissarius' of the Vulgate. The term Azazel may mean the 'apostate one' a name which Satan merits, and which he seems to have borne among the Jews. It was Satan that brought sin into the world; and this seduction of man adds to his guilt, and consequently to his punishment. Sin is now pardoned in God's mercy. The one goat was sacrificed as a sin offering; its blood was carried into the holy place, and the mercy scat was sprinkled with it. Guilt was therefore canceled; by this shedding of blood there was remission. But sin, though pardoned, is yet hateful to God, and it cannot dwell in His sight: it is removed away to a 'land not inhabited' severed from God's people, and sent away to man's first seducer. The sins of a believing world are taken off them, and rolled back on Satan, their prime author and instigator. Though the penalty is remitted to believers, it is not remitted to him who brought them into apostasy and ruin. The tempted are restored, but the whole punishment is seen to fall on the arch tempter." - Eadie's Biblical Cyclopedia, from the Original Text of John Eadie, D. D., LL. D., late professor of Biblical Literature and Exegesis to the United Presbyterian Church, art. "Scapegoat," p. 577. (Preface to the new edition written by A. H. Sayce, of Oxford, and bears date of 1901.)
Sunday School Times
"Of the two goats, one was for Jehovah, signifying God's acceptance of the sin offering; the other was for Azazel. This is probably to be understood as a person, being parallel with Jehovah in the preceding clause. So Azazel is probably a synonym for Satan. The goat for Azazel, the scapegoat, as it is somewhat misleadingly translated, typifies God's challenge to Satan (cf. Job 1:8; Eph. 3:10)." - J. Russell Howden, Notes on the Sunday School Lessons in Sunday School Times, Jan. 15, 1927.
Bible Translations
Following is a partial list of the translations of the Bible that retain the original word Azazel in the text: English Revised Version, American Revised Version, American Baptist Improved, Rotherharn's, Moulton's, Moffatt's, Darby's, Smith's, (J. Powis), Leeser's (Jewish translation of the Old Testament) Jewish Publication Society translation, 1917. (The Old Testament by a committee of Jewish scholars. Probably the most authoritative translation among English- speaking Jews.)
Conclusions From Quotations
From the foregoing quotations we may draw the following important conclusions:
1. The meaning of the word Azazel is so obscure that no doctrine may properly be built upon an attempted translation of the term. Special significance attaches to the fact that so many translations of the Bible, including the Jewish, leave Azazel untranslated. In fact, with but two or three exceptions, all our Bible translations either follow the King James Version and use the word scapegoat, or else leave Azazel untranslated. The retaining of the original term Azazel indicates either that the translators felt that the meaning of the word was too obscure, or else they considered Azazel a proper name, which would therefore not call for translation. But of course if Azazel is a proper name, then it must stand for some being in contrast to Jehovah.
2. A wide divergence of interpretation of the meaning of the Atonement Day ritual has existed from earliest times.
3. The view which regards Azazel as symbolizing Satan has been held through the centuries by many theologians, both Jewish and Christian. Lange's commentary, which is perhaps the most exhaustive and reliable of such works, affirms that "the great majority of modern commentators" view Azazel as Satan. (Comments on Leviticus 16.)
4. This view, which makes Azazel a personal being in antithesis to Jehovah, finds strong support in the very construction of the Hebrew itself. One goat is "for Jehovah," the other "for Azazel." To prevent the natural conclusion of opposing personalities, implied by the similar preposition ("for"), requires the doubtful expedient of understanding the preposition "in connection with Jehovah as used differently from its use with Azazel." - The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. But even then, as this Bible encyclopedia admits, there remains a "linguistic" difficulty. This procedure, while technically violating no law of grammar, may properly be viewed as questionable. Certainly a heavy burden of proof rests upon those who maintain that a preposition (for) used in two apparently parallel and immediately joined phrases, should be given a different value in one phrase from the other. Evidently the proof produced has not been sufficient to convince a large part of the theologians through the years, as is witnessed by the great number who have held that Azazel represents a personality in antithesis to Jehovah.
5. Even among theologians who do not allow Satan in the picture and who thus restrict the symbolism of both goats to Christ, the position is set forth (and by one of the most able exponents of that view, Bahr) that "the true expiation was effected by the blood of the first goat" and that the "ceremony with the other goat appears as a mere addition made for special reasons. A kind of complement to the wiping away of the sins which had already been effected by means of the sacrifice." (See quotation from M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclopaedia.) Certainly under this view of the matter, the functions of the "risen and living Savior," if He is the Azazel goat, are reduced to a rather purposeless "mere addition."
6. The many theologians, from the ancient rabbins down to a recent contributor to the Sunday School Times, who have held that Azazel represents Satan, have not found it necessary to view him as a substitutionary sacrifice, a savior. On the contrary, they repudiate the thought.
7. Among the theologians who view Azazel as representing Satan, there is prominent the idea of judgment, the returning to their satanic source of the pardoned sins of God's children. (See quotations from M'Clintock and Strong, Jewish Encyclopedia; Kitto, New Standard Bible Dictionary; and Eadie's Biblical Cyclopedia.) Evidently the introducing of the thought of
judgment into the Atonement Day ritual does not seem "incongruous" to a wide group of both Jewish and Christian theologians. On the contrary, the idea of judgment seems vital to many expositors.
A Brief Survey of the Adventist Position
We would not for a moment attempt to prove that our belief concerning Azazel is correct simply because many Christian leaders through the centuries have held that belief. But when our critics endeavor to give strength to their attack on us by creating the impression that we teach strange, unchristian doctrine in this matter, we may rightly introduce as most relevant the evidence of the extent to which this doctrine about Azazel has been held from earliest times.
It is hardly within the scope of this chapter to go into an extended discussion of our teachings as to the sanctuary, which provide the proper background for our belief regarding Azazel. Extended discussions of the sanctuary doctrine are easily obtainable in various of our works. But the following brief outline may appropriately be given:
In the slaying of the Passover lamb we see Christ, our Passover, slain. (1 Cor. 5:7.) We see in the round of the Levitical service, with its priests ministering the spilled blood of the various sin offerings, our great High Priest in heaven, ministering His blood for those who accept His sacrifice. In the Atonement Day service, which was the culminating event in the Levitical cycle, and was the day when the sins that had been confessed throughout the year were finally disposed of, we see the type of the last work which Christ performs in His priestly ministry for repentant sinners.
We believe that when Christ completes this final work of cleansing the heavenly sanctuary, the fate of all is determined for eternity, and that then will go forth the edict: "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still. And he which is filthy, let him he filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still." Rev. 22: 11.
Azazel Enters Picture After Atonement is Made
In the typical high priest's coming out to the Azazel goat after having "made an atonement... for all the congregation of Israel," having indeed 'made an end of reconciling". We see Christ's leaving the sanctuary after finally completing His work of atonement, and rolling back upon the head of Satan, the instigator of all sin, the primary guilt, which is his alone, for the sins of the now-pardoned and eternally saved believers.
Finally, we see in the scapegoat being led off into the wilderness, a type of Satan, the scapegoat of the universe, being taken by a strong angel and cast into the "bottomless pit." (Rev. 20:1-3.) 19 We believe that this view of the sanctuary service provides an interpretation of the function of Azazel that is both rational and Scriptural.
Far from the idea of a judgment's being "incongruous" as a conclusion to the work of atonement, the very opposite is true. There is no fact more striking in the Scriptures than that Christ, when He has finished His work of pleading for men, will put on the garments of vengeance to execute judgment.
Only one objection remains to be considered. It is based on Leviticus 16: 10. "The goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him." Our critics quote this verse and declare to us, "If you believe the scapegoat typifies Satan, then you believe that Satan is your savior." We answer emphatically, "No," &rid add, "If you believe that the scapegoat typifies Christ, then you believe in a savior we cannot find anywhere in the Bible." Note the following facts:
1. We stand squarely on the solemn declaration that without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. As already stated, the scapegoat's blood was not shed. Therefore this goat could not typify the work of a Being who could. give to us remission of sins. Others may believe that they see the work of atonement for our sins typified by an animal that is not slain, whose blood is not poured out. But, standing on the Scripture, we cannot.
2. Earlier in this chapter the fact was established that only one goat , the Lord's goat," is offered up for a sin offering. Therefore we must base our hope of salvation on the Being typified by the goat that was offered up for sin. That is the only kind of Savior that the Bible describes. Those who would make a savior of one who was not offered up, teach an un-Scriptural view of salvation.
Therefore we do not, we cannot, view the live goat as typifying Christ, who saves us from our sins.
3. The blood of the slain goat made atonement "for all the congregation of Israel" for "all their sins." Verses 17, 16. And when the priest had finished ministering its blood, he had "made an end of reconciling." Verse 20. These statements are so plain that, as we noted at the beginning of this chapter, our critics frankly admit that "the sins of 'all the congregation of Israel' had already been atoned for by the death of, the first goat when the high priest came out to the live goat. Thus the people had already been freed from their guilt, and accordingly were no longer in need of a Savior from their sins, when the high priest came out of the sanctuary. The Savior described in the Bible came to our rescue "while we were yet sinners." (Rom. 5:8) Poor sinners do not stand in need of a savior who makes no contact with their sins until after those sins have been atoned for. Where is the text that gives even the semblance of support for the belief that sins which have been atoned for are then laid upon Christ? Yet that is the kind of savior we would have if we viewed the scapegoat as a type of Christ. We find no such Christ in the Scriptures. Therefore, believing that Azazel represents a personal being, we are logically compelled to view the scapegoat as typifying Satan.
Explain a Hard Passage by Simpler Ones
We willingly admit, as theologians have admitted through all the years, that Leviticus 16: 10 is a perplexing passage. In dealing with it we have endeavored to follow the approved principle of Bible interpretation, that is, of understanding a difficult passage by other and clearer passages. The various other texts in Leviticus 16 regarding the function of the two goats, and the texts elsewhere that deal with the work of Christ for sinners, surely prohibit us from viewing the scapegoat as Christ. And by a parity of reasoning they prohibit us from understanding the word atonement in verse 10 as signifying the performance of a work similar to that performed by the slain goat.
We repeat here an illustration given under objection 98, to show the relation of Satan, the archfiend, to the plan of salvation:
A group of men have been arrested, tried, and convicted of certain crimes. A heavy fine is imposed upon them. They are in a hopeless state, for they are penniless. But their hopelessness is changed to joy; a rich philanthropist offers to pay their fine. They accept, and are free. The case is apparently settled. But no; the court, continuing its investigations, discovers that a person of fiendish cunning has really dominated these poor men, and has seduced them into their course of wrongdoing. He is captured, and judgment is meted out to him. He is made to pay a heavy fine much heavier even than that from which the poor men have been freed by the gracious act of the philanthropist; for the court reasons that the fiend is doubly guilty.
Now, it may truly be said that the philanthropist atones, or makes satisfaction, for the crimes of these poor men. Yet in another sense we could speak. of the archfiend's atoning for those very crimes. There is no confusion of meaning, even though each gives satisfaction to justice in a basically different way. Nor by declaring that the archfiend gives satisfaction for those crimes do we minimize in the slightest degree the adequacy and sufficiency of the philanthropist's gracious act toward the penniless men.
Adventists believe that this explains the statement in Leviticus 16:10. The people's sins are atoned for by a Substitute, typified by the slain goat. Then these atoned for sins are thrown back on the head of the archfiend, Satan, typified by the Azazel goat, who must bear the guilt of primary responsibility for their sins. In the words of Dr. John Eadie:
"The sins ... are ... rolled back on Satan, their prime author and instigator. Though the penalty is remitted to believers, it is not remitted to him who brought them into apostasy and ruin. The tempted are restored, but the whole punishment is seen to fall on the arch tempter." - Eadie's Bible Cyclopedia, p. 577.
There is another objection, which is scarcely worthy of even passing notice. It is said that even if Azazel represents Satan, the goat itself did not represent Satan, that instead it was simply "for Azazel." But those who raise this quibble believe that the slain goat, chosen "for the Lord," represents the Lord Jesus Himself. Therefore it is but consistent to affirm that the goat "for Azazel represents Satan himself.
Why are we Singled out for Attack?
In view of all the evidence in this chapter, especially the evidence as to the widespread belief among stalwart Protestant theologians that Azazel represents Satan, what is to be thought of the unspeakable charge brought against us by a certain class, that we make Satan our savior. Because we, along with this great company of theologians, believe that Azazel represents Satan? But those who bring these charges against us because of our views concerning Azazel, have never brought any like charges against any others who believe similarly. This is indeed the most singular fact in connection with the whole matter. We therefore decline to give further serious consideration to these indictments against us until those who bring them are willing to level the same charges against the long and impressive list of Christian leaders who have held that Azazel represents Satan.
One Writer Retracts Charge
In fairness, it should be stated that one writer who had charged us with teaching that Satan is our savior, afterward withdrew it. In the Moody Bible Institute Monthly of November, 1930, Grant Stroh, editor of the 'Practical and Perplexing Questions" department, made this charge. In response to a letter written to the Moody Monthly, Dr. Stroh published this statement in the February, 1931, issue of that journal.
"The chief exception taken to our statement concerned their doctrine of the atonement. We said: 'Seventh day Adventism denies the atoning sacrifice of Christ as the only means of man's salvation, and declares instead that Satan is our savior, sin bearer, and vicarious substitute.'
"This seems to be an extreme statement, and having read some of the writings of the Seventh day Adventists since it was made, we find it could be proved from them that such is not their belief. I am sure that most of these people are saved, in spite of their unscriptural teachings, and that most of them probably do not hold any such view of the atonement. It is only fair to truth, however, that we read not only a popular statement on their beliefs, such as in the booklet Belief and Work of Seventh day Adventists, but also examine the way of salvation as set forth by their acknowledged prophet, Mrs. E. G. White. In The Great Controversy, upon which the statements in 'Heresies Exposed' were based. Even then we apologize for the baldness of the statement in our November issue, and beg forgiveness of these good people for any misstatement of their doctrines."
Mrs. E. G. White Describes the Function of the Scapegoat
This retraction is given unique weight by the candid admission that it is the result of "having read some of the writings of the Seventh day Adventists since" the charge was made. Might it not be proper to suggest to others that they likewise read carefully some of our standard works before hastening forth to broadcast the hideous charge that we make Satan our savior? It is true that Dr. Stroh further in his article expresses distress at the statements made in The Great Controversy, because they permit Satan to be introduced at all into the picture. But does he set forth anything from Mrs. E. G. White that warrants his withdrawing his retraction? No! How could he, when Mrs. White states unequivocally on page 658 of that work:
"Now the event takes place, foreshadowed in the last solemn service of the Day of Atonement. When the ministration in the holy of holies had been completed, and the sins of Israel had been removed from the sanctuary by virtue of the blood of the sin offering, then the scapegoat was presented alive before the Lord. And in the presence of the congregation the high priest confessed over him 'all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat.' Lev. 16:21. In like manner, when the work of atonement in the heavenly sanctuary has been completed, then in the presence of God and heavenly angels and the host of the redeemed, the sins of God's people will be placed upon Satan. He will be declared guilty of all the evil which he has caused them to commit. And as the scapegoat was sent away into a land not inhabited, so Satan will be banished to the desolate earth, an uninhabited and dreary wilderness." (Italics ours.)
Our critics, who have examined so critically Mrs. White's writings in an attempt to find some stray phrase on which to base. a charge, must surely have read this statement in The Great Controversy, for it is the climax to her description of the sanctuary service. If they had been willing to publish this quotation, the appalling indictment that we make Satan our savior would have been exposed as false. Why have they failed to do so? We must leave that question for them to answer.