Sometimes we place our selves in either or situations where the issue is not an either/or issue, we keep running into conflect with this as often both are the answer, and other times there are options that we have not considered yet. Also, there are 3 correct ways to use the Bible: Exegesis (what it meant to the original hearers) Analogy (Applying the principles from the exegesis over time to similar situations) and homoletical usage; the language just fits the stiuation even though it has nothing to do with the exegesis.

Examples of exegesis and analogy: Daniel 2 talks about 4 kings, Nebuchadnezzar is the first of these kings. The book of Danile mentions 4 kings: Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius and Cyrus. Deuteronomy 4 predicts that the exile could be the last days. In Daniel 7 by analogy it starts to be applied from the 4 kings to 4 kingdoms. In the time of Revelation the Flavian Emporers were doing things that sounded a lot like the book of Daniel, and later in the dark ages the Papacy was doing a lot of things that sounded like the book of Daniel that we still preach about. Daniel did not have the Flavian Emporers nor the pope on his mind, however we are correct to apply Daniel's prophecys to these situation.

Another exegesis and analogy application. In Isaiah a king was worried about a couple of other kings. Isaiah was trying to get this king to trust in God, and gave the king a prophecy that a child would be born indicating God with us (unclear whether with us for good or for bad results, depending on the condition of God's people) but that before the child was old enough to choose between right and wrong the other kings that this king worried about would no longer be an issue.

If Isaiah had Jesus in mind it would not make sense: "Your highness, I know that you are afraid of the king that are planing to have a war with us. But don't worry, in 500 years a baby will be born and before that baby can choose between good and evil these kings will no longer be an issue. So don't worry, in 500 years these kings will be history, just hold out for only 500 years king Ahaz and you won't have to worry any more."

No, Isaiah was talking about a child born in his day (probably his son that the text soon talks about)that was a child of promise (and based on the promises of Isaac to Abraham). However Matthew correctly draws analogy between those child of promises to the ultamate child of promise and applys it to the birth of Jesus.

As for the scapegoat, ultamately God takes care of our sins. He removes them as far away from us as the east is from the west (the two directions of the goats). The Canaanites celebrated the day of atonment centuries before Abraham. It was based on the agracultural cycle of the land of Canaan. Cities that were already in ruins by Abraham's day talks about it. Now they tended to include a lot of ugly things that were not taken over by the Bible, things people did to try to help out Baal and the gods of life gain victory over the gods of death and chaos. But they did other things that were taken over by the Bible including the two goats one going to the east into the most holy of the pagan temples and one to the west. God took this and made lessons to point the Hebrews into trusting him, that he will be with their agricultural cycles and that he will take care of the sin problem.

When we talk about the idea of the great controversy: The 3 aspects of God, the 3 lies Satan had developed against the 3 aspects of God and how this has played out through history, then it is approprate to apply the scapegoat to Satan. How all the questions are fully answered. Everyone has seen that God is correct and either choose to live with this type of God, or else choose to not live with this kind of God. Realizing that Satan's lies were responsible for the sin issue. Realizing that Satan played a part in all our sins. (How many people did Adolf Hitler kill? None that we know of, but yet he is responsible for the deaths of millions for the role he played in their deaths. How many people did Charles Manson kill? Non that we know of yet he is serving time for the role he played in what lead to people being killed.) So the great controversy ends with Satan bearing the cost for the role he played in the sin problem; raising the questions (that part was not sin) but insead of seeking for answers to his questions to just become proud of himself for having the ability to think up so clever questions and thus raisning the sin issue and playing a role in the sins we commit, not all correctly fall on him. So yes indeed, a proper application of the Scapegoat is Satan.

Yet, it is just as correct (not more correct, nor less correct, but equally correct) that it is God who has ultamately been delivering us from sin. God has been using the sin issue to answer Lucifer's questions. Isaiah has God in charge of weel and woe. God claims to be the God of milk and honey (they were ancient agracultural terms; honey, or preserved foods, being agriculturalble land, a perminant home, plenty of food -honey made from the left over food- a perminant house to live in, class distincitons of land owners and their workers, a life predictable, easy and exciting. Milk came from goats, out in the desert, moving around in tents, not knowing if you will harvest your garden or plow it under, everyone being poor. A life unpredictable, hard and lonely). God tells Job that He brought all those hardships on him. God also tells Job that it is God who tells the waves of chaos, pain and suffereing "thus far and no further" Jesus says that God pours out both the rain (showers of blessings) and sunshine (famine) upon both the just and unjust. God is in control of it all. Linguists have started to discover that when John the Baptist says "Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world." both the Hebrew (which it turns out not to have been a dead language in Jesus' day as so long thought and people with outdated information still think) and Aramaic, the only word that can be translated into the Greek as "Taketh away" is the word "Scapegoat" that John the Baptist said "Behold the Lamb of God that Scapegoats the sins of the world." (indicating that this occured on the Day of Atonement, and agreeing with our chronology of the 70 weeks of years).

Therefore we are having an inapproprate argument on this thread. When it comes to looking at the issues of the Great Controversy, it is approprate to apply the texts of the scapegoat to Satan. When remembering that it is God who is taking care of the sin problem them it is approprate to apply it to Jesus.

An interesting archaeological note from like the Mishna and I believe Dead Sea Scrools or other ancient soruses archaeologist have dug up: While in the wilderness and early years in the land, it was not a problem leaving the goat in the wilderness as they moved around. But once they settled in Jerusalem the goats had a tendency of returning (your sins will find you out???) so what the priests did from the Jerusalem temple did was take the goat to a clift, blind fold the goat and push it over.

I private messaged some of you, and put in a thread here about websites, but you might find this useful for this study. 2 nights ago I came across this website. I don't know who put it out but I thought you might like it. Different speakers on Ellen White, talking about correct ways of using her writings and what her core message was, please listen to all these speakers and I think it will make our discussions here a lot clearer. On the page I see is Jon Pauliene (althought I don't recognize him from my memories of meeting him) George Knight, and John Wood-McCall.

http://www.channels.com/episodes/5086006#/episodes/5086006

I hope this helps!

I agree with your potential double identity view Kevin H. I see this implied in the casting of lots for the roles of these goats. However I am currently seeing the wider Theological reason to be because, until Jesus was victorious it was not certain how this final sin bearing would antitypically work out. (That’s just my observational working thesis. I have not yet studied it through.) My view is that had Jesus failed, then God’s justice would concede that a Man could not fully obey God’s Law and with this demonstrative evidence, He would have allowed for the first covenant to atone for the sins of man. That is why I also so that so much care and detail was given for that covenant as it potentially be the prevailing one to redeem man. Ezekiel’s temple was also supposed to elevate that covenant service until Jesus came. And if Jesus had failed it would have been the system that would continue and prevail. However Israel was not even mindful to listen to Ezekiel and implement his revealed Temple plans.

In regards to your exegesis, analogy and homoletical approach (the latter being really “sermonic license”) = “midrash”, I think it is best and safest to make doctrinal understanding and future predictions/interpretation using the scientific approaches of exegesis and analysis. Only when an event has concretely transpired as with the advent of Jesus could “sermonic license” be taken. That is what I see Matthew retrospectively did. But it is not the forward looking rule.

Yes, Kevin I agree. This interpretation of the scapegoat by ascribing that Satan takes away our sins is gravely erroneous and definitely not in harmony with other scriptures.



I agree with the above. To sum it up “God is in control of it all”. I believe G-d never lost control for the Lamb was “slain from the foundation of the world”. A plan was in place and the fall was in the plan before creation.

It is not righteous for a Sovereign G-d to put all the blame on Satan, when G-d has created him. The ultimate fault of sin has to go on the owner as according to His laws. If a bull gores someone, then the owner of the bull is responsible of what happened. G-d created Satan whcih makes Him the full owner of him; therefore G-d is ultimately responsible for all of Satan's actions and the repercussion of it. Plus G-d was aware of Satan's dangerous dispostion as he had already made some angels fall before sending him to Adam's field(the earth). This makes G-d reliable for the fall of man.

I’m glad you brought up Job. Job understood that all this hardship came from G-d and never did he blame Satan for it, nor did G-d blame Satan for it. Job chapter 41 tells us that G-d is in total control of Satan. Other scriptures tells us that Satan cannot do anything unless G-d allows him first. So really, Satan is G-d’s servant, not a willing servant, but G-d knows how to handle him(Job 41).



This is very interesting linguistic observation. “taketh away” is from the Greek word airo which means “to lift up” which correlates to the root word ‘alah (H5927 – lift/ascend/go…up) of the Hebrew word ‘olah (H5930--burnt offering). Jesus was indeed the burnt offering that lifted up the whole world. However I don’t see the correlation with the Hebrew word ‘azal (h235 – to go away). I have further elaborated on this below.

Please look at the Mesoretic text in the Tenakh and Scripture4all interlinear tool. Both shows the same literal translation.

1. Basically Jesus is not the scapegoat or Azazel – Jesus(the live goat) was for Azazel to be sent to Azazel in the desert/wilderness.

2. The Hebrew word “aza’zel” is best translated as “Azazel” and not as “goat of departure”.

• i) Strong has erroneously defined it as deriving from ‘ez (h5795 – she goat ) and ‘azal (h235 – to go away). Please note that ‘azal does not mean “to take away” but “to go away” which are two different meaning. azal-ez does not fit together well and does not make up azazel.
  
  
• ii)It better derives from ‘azaz (h5810 -- to be stout ) and ‘el (h410 – god) -- fitting together perfectly azaz-el meaning a goat god also known as Pan, by which the Isreaelites where worshipping also in all their high places.
  
  So Azazel is the goat god which represent Satan and also anyone who are stout and wants to take the place of god. We all fall in that category. So Jesus is sent to us all little goat-gods to take away our sins. This is the second work of Jesus which is known as SANCTIFICATION. The work of sanctification is based on his first work --JUSTIFICATION done at the cross.
  

3. Jesus fulfilled this Type at the Day of Atonement when he got baptized (submission = death = the first goat died) in the river, then the Holy Spirit(the fit man) led Jesus(the live goat) in the desert to Azazel(Satan). This Type was not fulfilled at the cross as many says. For at the cross the Passover Type was fulfilled then. G-d fulfills the Type prophesied in the Law exactly on prophesied appointed time.

Sorry to disagree. "Bear sins" means assuming responsibility for sins. This does not mean at all that it is only for purposes of salvation; in fact, in most of the cases it meant the opposite. Those who disobeyed the Lord willfully should bear their own sin and die for it: Lev. 5:1, 17; 7:18; 17:16; 19:8; 20:17, 19, 20; 24:15, etc.

Besides, airo is not the verb used by the LXX to translate nasa. The LXX uses lambano.

It's interesting that Lev. 19:17 says, in the JPS (a Jewish) version:
Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart; thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbour, and not bear sin because of him.

Also the Darby version:
Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart; thou shalt earnestly rebuke thy neighbour, lest thou bear sin on account of him.

IOW, one could share in the sin of another, or be responsible for the sin of another, and, thus, "bear sin because of him."

The sheep will be separated from the goats.

I don't recall a goat being used to represent something good.

Elle, Why do you hyphenate God?

Kland you haven't figure it out the obvious yet?? If not then send me a PM and I will spell it out for you.

??? I never mentioned anything about "bear sins"

??? see scripture 4 all

??? same comment as first above ???