EXPOSING SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM
THE SCAPEGOAT: ARTICLE
Home
9. SDA PATTERN FULFILLMENT, HEBREWS 8 AND 9
WHAT IS THE SANCTUARY? A REBUTTAL
4. DANIEL 8:8-14 LAUNCHING SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM REVISED 2017
7. THE CLEANSING OF THE SANCTUARY REVISED 2017
14 REASONS WHY THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST DOCTRINE OF DEATH IS WRONG
ARTICLES
SDA DOCTRINAL STATEMENT AND COMMENTS
122 Errors in GC Intro, 317-408 (1 of 3)
The Sabbath Has Benn Changed Many Times
1. My Testimony and Introduction
2. Seventh-day Adventism in a Nutshell
3. Biblical Inspiration and Ellen G. White
4. Daniel 8:8-14: Launching Seventh-day Adventism
5. The Sanctuary in Daniel
6. The 2300 Day Prophecy and the Year-Day Principle
7. The Cleansing of Daniel 8:14
8. The Daily Sacrifice
9. Pattern-Fulfillment
10. Sin Transfer into the Sanctuary
Chapter 11: INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT BASIS EXPOSED
11. The Truth about the Biblical Sanctuary
12. Books of Heaven
13. Rooms in the Heavenly Sanctuary
14. Inside the Veil
THE SCAPEGOAT: ARTICLE
15. The Day of Atonement and the Scapegoat
16. Antiochus IV Epiphanes; 164 B.C.
17. Creation Sabbath
18. Weekly Sabbath
19. Shadow Sabbaths
20. Greater and Lesser Sabbaths
21. Jesus and the Sabbath
22. The Sabbath in Acts
23. Christian Liberty and Holy Days
24. The United States, Roman Catholicism and the Mark of the Beast
25. Two Different Three Angels' Messages
SHEOL: CONSCIOUS SOULS; ARTICLE
Appendix 1: Sheol, Abaddon and the Soul
Appendix 2: Hades and the Soul
Appendix 3: Jewelry, Dress Code and Deceit
103 QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SOUL AND SHEOL
160 QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SABBATH
214 QUESTIONS ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT
165 ERRORS FROM GC P411-444 (2 OF 3)
50 Errors in GC P563-678 (3 of 3)
1260 YEARS OF INEPT POPES
Achilles' Heel of Seventh-day Adventism: Daniel 8:8-13
BATCHELOR, DOUG; SDA AMAZING FACTS
BRIEF DIALOG WITH AMAZING FACTS
Ben Carson, Dishonest Seventh-day Adventist
BOOK INDEX: SUBJECT-TEXT-GC-BOOK PAGE
Book Reviews and Endorsements
Dialog with SDA Scholar on the Law, 2014
Hell: After-Death Punishmetn
"LAW" IN THE BIBLE
LAW-UNITY TEXTS WHICH DESTROY SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM
PAPAL WEAKNESSES
Questions on Daniel from an Andrews University Scholar
Marc Rasell and Russell Kelly dialog, Oct 2009
Marc Rasell and Russell Kelly dialog-2, Oct2009
MILLENNIUM: BIBLE VERSUS GREAT CONTROVERSY
SABBATH-BREAKING IS NOT ON SIN LIST AFTER CALVARY
SITE INDEX: TEXT, NAME, WORD
Sunday Blue Law Paranoia of SDAs
TEN COMMANDMENTS ARE NOT FOR ALL MANKIND
UNCLEAN FOOD HISTORY AND LAWS

cover-sda.jpg

Exposing Seventh-day Adventism
Russell Earl Kelly, PHD

Chapter 11 completely destroys the investigative judgment argument and is the most important chapter in this book. Newly improved July 2008. http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/sda/id51.html

A Closer Look at the Scapegoat

By: Russell Earl Kelly, PHD

russell-kelly@att.net

June 18, 2008

 

 

LEVITICUS 16: THE SCAPEGOAT REPRESENTED JESUS CHRIST

 

1. Leviticus 16:1: The chapter begins with a reminder that two of Aaron’s sons had been killed because they offered “strange fire” on the altar. This unclean defiled fire reminds us of the extreme holiness required of every thing and every person associated with the sanctuary. The most holy high priest could not physically touch Satan himself on the most holy day of the year and remain undefiled.

 

2. Leviticus 16:5 “And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering.”  Both goats were to constitute one sin offering. Both goats had been chosen by the congregation from among the most spotless sacrificial animals which were all types of Jesus Christ. And both goats had been ritually cleansed by washing before being present “before the LORD” at the doorway of the sanctuary. This could not be said of Satan.

 

3. Leviticus 16:8 “And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat.” Either goat could have been chosen because both were equally qualified. This is not true of Satan. It is unfortunate that the Authorized Version (KJV) guessed and translated the obscure Hebrew word rather than leaving it un-translated. The RSV leaves it as Azazel. Many linguists prefer to interpret the term as merely “complete removal.”

 

4. Leviticus 16:9-10 “And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD's lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. 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.” For the second time the live goat was presented “before the LORD.” Since verse five says that both goats were for one sin offering, it also means that both goats were for different aspects of one and the same atonement.

 

5. Leviticus 16:19 “And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it [the whole sanctuary] with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.” There is absolutely no difference between the sin offering of the Day of Atonement and the sin offering on other days. This is the same most holy blood of the perfect most holy sinless sin offering which has been offered throughout the year. Whatever the sin offering touches becomes most holy (Lev 6:18, 27).

 

6. Leviticus 16:20-21 “And when he has made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat: And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness.” a) The text does not state that the high priest must first wash his hands before laying them upon the live goat. His hands were still wet with the blood of the bullock and goat which had just cleansed the Most Holy Place and the remainder of the sanctuary. And, since both the touch of the most holy high priest and also the blood of a most holy sin offering confers “most holiness” then it must be concluded that the live goat was also “most holy” (Lev 6:17-18, 25-27; Num 18:9). Unless this can be disproved, then the SDAs have no grounds to state that the live goat represented Satan himself.  b) The sins were those of ignorance, omission and inadvertent sins which “remain” un-confessed and un-atoned at the end of the year. They were not pre-meditated high-handed sins which were punishable by the judges through cutting off from Israel. c) There are two precedents for allowing sin-offerings to live after they have participated in atonement. In Leviticus 14:1-7 two clean birds were used to cleanse a leper and one of the birds was released alive. Also in 14:49-53 two birds were taken to “cleanse” a house from mold or mildew. Leviticus 14:52-53: “And he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird, and with the running water, and with the living bird, and with the cedar wood, and with the hyssop, and with the scarlet: But he shall let go the living bird out of the city into the open fields, and make an atonement for the house: and it shall be clean.” Since only one chapter separates the living birds and the living goat, it is extremely likely that both refers to the freedom and release resulting from cleansed sin.

 

7. Leviticus 16:22 “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.” a) Once a year for a very brief time Israel could be assured that their sins had been removed from even the records and memory of God –until the very next sin offering and the cycle began all over again! (Compare Heb 10:1-3). b) Jesus Christ is the ultimate sin-bearer and is even responsible for creating Lucifer and allowing Lucifer to become Satan. Compare Isa 14:12-15; 53:6, 12; Mt 26:42; Jn 1:3; Rom 3:25; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 2:9; Heb 1:3. Hebrews 9:28 “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.” Isa 53:6 “… and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” The wording of Isaiah 53:6 and Hebrews 9:28 is comparable to the high priest’s laying on of hands and confessing all sin over the living goat on the Day of Atonement. c) The living goat functioned as the second part of the one sin offering and atonement. The goat was for “complete removal” of sins in the view of the sinners. Prior to entering the blessed kingdom, it symbolized God’s final act of cleansing even the records of atoned sin. God chose to no longer remember atoned sin. The complete removal of sin by the living goat was the proto-type of the New Covenant promise of Jeremiah 31:34 and Hebrews 8:12; 10:17.

 

“As both goats were intended for a sin-offering, the sins of the nation were confessed upon both, and placed upon the heads of both by the laying on of hands; though it is of the living goat only that this is expressly recorded, being omitted in the case of the other, because the rule laid down in Lev 4:4 ff. was followed” Keil and Delitzsch Commentary.

 

Conclusion:

 

The holiness code proves the SDA doctrine of Satan as the sin-bearer to be wrong. (1) Both goats were chosen for one sin offering. (2) As usual both goats had been ritually cleansed before being brought out. (3) Both goats were presented “before the LORD” at the doorway as a sin offering and that conferred “most holiness” upon both. And (4) the most holy high priest still had the blood of the most holy sin offering upon his hands when he touched the living goat which conferred more holiness to it.

 

On the one hand, if the high priest believed that the living goat was a co-sin-offering with the first goat, placing his hands upon the live goat conferred even more “most holiness.” This is true because the high priest, the furniture of the sanctuary and the blood of the sin-offering which was still on his un-washed hands were all “most holy” and conferred even more “most holiness” to the live goat. Compare Ex 29:37; 30:26-29; Lev 6:17-18, 25-27; 10:3; 12:8; Rev 1:5; 7:14.

 

Lev 22:3 Say unto them [the priests], Whosoever he be of all your seed among your generations, that goes unto the holy things, which the children of Israel hallow unto the LORD, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from my presence: I am the LORD.

 

And on the other hand, if the high priest believed that the living goat represented Satan and willfully touched him while ministering, he would have committed an un-atoneable sin and would have been put to death for pre-meditated uncleanness. Priests were very strictly forbidden to willfully handle any manner of uncleanness while ministering. Compare Ex 30:19-21; Lev 15:31; Num 19:3 and especially Lev 22:3.

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enter content here

Enter supporting content here

Russell Earl Kelly, PH. D., 316 Aonia Road, Washington, Ga 30673