p. 152 | THE JUDGMENT OF THE GREAT DAY

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Tuesday, March 10, 1885.

FromThe Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Vol. 62, No. 10. Whole No. 1605.

THE JUDGMENT OF THE GREAT DAY.

(Continued.)

We have now traced the work of the Judgment, with its concomitant events, down to the close of the ministry of our High Priest in the most holy of the true tabernacle on high, when the cleansing of the sanctuary is finished, the atonement is made, and the sins of all God’s people are blotted out. This constitutes the first division of the Judgment, that part during which the Father sits as Judge, and before whom Christ, as advocate, opens the books of remembrance written for his people, confessing to him the names of all those who are found worthy from an examination of the records therein contained.

Much light, as we have seen, is thus far thrown upon the subject by the tabernacle service of the former dispensation. There was the sanctuary with its two apartments, and the ministry of the priests connected therewith. There sinners brought their offerings to the first apartment, through all the year till the day of atonement, when the ministry was transferred to the most holy place, the atonement was made, sins were put away, and thus the sanctuary was cleansed. All this, Paul says, was after the example and shadow of heavenly things. Heb. 8:5. Hence we have in this dispensation a long ministry by Christ in the first apartment of the sanctuary above, till the great antitypical work of atonement is reached, and the ministry is transferred to the most holy place, where Christ forever concludes his services as mediator, and the work of mercy for the world is ended.

But there was one peculiar service performed on the day of atonement, which cannot escape the notice of the careful student of this interesting subject. When the high priest, in the Mosaic service, made the atonement, when he sprinkled the blood upon the mercy-seat, and thus, in figure, blotted out the sins of the people, this did not finish his work in regard to those sins. He then bore them from the sanctuary, laid them upon the head of the scape-goat, and sent away the goat by the hand of a fit man, to perish in the wilderness. And these sins were not considered as finally disposed of, till the goat, bearing the execrable load, had ceased to exist.

Tracing out the substance by this shadow, we must conclude that when sins are finally blotted out in the sanctuary above, that is not the end of them. And the query then arises, when this portion of the Judgment is finished, what is done with the sins thus blotted out? There must be an antitypical scape-goat who is to receive them, be sent away and perish beneath the load.

Who is this scape-goat? now becomes an interesting inquiry. Let us see what light the Jewish type will shed upon this point. On the day of atonement two goats were presented before the Lord (see Leviticus 16), at the door of the tabernacle. Lots were then cast upon these goats to determine the use which was to be made of them respectively. One lot designated the goat receiving it to be a sacrifice to the Lord; the other set apart the goat upon which it fell to be the scape-goat. The goat upon which the Lord’s lot fell was then slain, and his blood was borne into the most holy place by the priest and sprinkled upon the mercy-seat to cancel the sins of the people and make atonement for them. This being done, the priest bore the sins from the sanctuary, and laying his hands upon the head of the scape-goat, confessed over him all those sins, and thus transferred them to the goat himself. He then committed this goat to the charge of some suitable person appointed for the purpose, by whom the goat, thus loaded with sin, was taken away into the wilderness, or land not inhabited, and there let go, or, as is generally supposed, was caused to perish.

The offices which these goats were to perform are thus clearly defined. The Lord’s goat was the atoning sacrifice; and the shedding of his blood preceded the ministry of the priest in his atoning work. But the scape-goat was not called into requisition at all till the work of atonement was done, so far as it pertained to the releasing of the people from their sins, and the cleansing of the sanctuary was finished. The expression, “to make an atonement with him,” found in Lev. 16:10, must refer simply to this part he has to perform in the final extirpation of sin.

As applied to this dispensation, and the antitypical work of our Lord, there would seem to be no occasion for any confusion here. Remember that as an antitype our Saviour acts in two capacities: First, he is antitype of the offerings; and, secondly, he is antitype of the priests. But he does not act in both capacities at the same time. His first work in connection with his ministry in the sanctuary was to offer himself as a sacrifice, by dying on the cross. This he did once for all. In this act he was the antitype of all offerings for sin, both the individual offerings through the year, and the great offering on the day of atonement. While suffering as a sacrifice, Christ was not acting as priest. But having by his crucifixion provided the effectual offering for all mankind, he was raised from the dead, and now ever liveth to intercede for men, and forgive the sins of all those who will seek such forgiveness through the merits of his blood. The virtue of his sacrifice continues, but he acts ever after his resurrection as priest, and not in any office typified by any animal.

Governed by this fact, it is impossible to understand the scape-goat as a type of Christ, as so many do. For, as we have seen, the scape-goat is not brought into action till the atonement in the most holy place is completed, which finishes the round of the sanctuary service, and then he is brought alive before the priest, and from his hands is forced to receive the load of the sins of the people, under which load, in charge of a fit man, he is sent away by the priest and away from both the priest and people to perish in the wilderness. But when Christ makes the atonement, he is finishing his mediation for the world; he is acting as priest; he cannot therefore be at the same time the scape-goat to be forcibly encumbered with the sins of the people transferred by himself from himself to himself, and then to be sent away by himself from himself and from his people to perish forever!

That any one should attribute to Christ a position involving such movements, betrays a remarkably confused conception of his position and work. Because it is said of the scape-goat that he “shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited” (Lev. 16:22), and John said of Jesus, “Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29), and Peter, speaking also of Jesus, adds, “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree” (1 Pet. 2:24), many, certainly without due thought, adopt the conclusion that Christ is the scape-goat.

One simple inquiry respecting the time when the declarations above quoted apply would have completely barred the way to such a conclusion. Thus, to what time did John refer when he spoke of Christ as the Lamb which taketh away (Gr. αἴρω, bears) the sin of the world? To that time certainly when he was acting in the capacity of the antitype of the sacrificial lamb. And Peter states expressly that he bore our sins in his own body “on the tree,” or on the cross. This is the only time when Christ did bear, or was to bear, the sins of all the world; for as priest he acts only in behalf of those who seek his help. But on the cross he bore the sins of the world as victim, as sacrifice, not as priest. This was before his ministry as priest in the sanctuary above had even commenced. But when does the scape-goat act his part in bearing away the iniquities of the people? Not till Christ’s ministry as priest in the sanctuary above is entirely finished; and then the scape-goat bears not the sins of all the world, but only the sins for which atonement has been made in the sanctuary, sins which then cling to him as an ineradicable curse, till they work the utter extinction of his being. Surely no one should take expressions which refer to Christ before his priesthood begins, to prove that he acts in another capacity and under to him impossible circumstances, more than eighteen hundred years later, after his priesthood ends. As the scape-goat can by no possibility, according to these considerations, be our Lord Jesus Christ, we must look elsewhere; for some being must, according to the type, be found to act this part in the ultimate disposal of the sins of the world.

The very term itself would seem to indicate the direction in which we are to look. In the common acceptance of the word, the name “scape-goat” is about synonymous with scape-goat, any worthless creature who has forfeited all claim to esteem or confidence; and while it is revolting to all our conceptions of the character and glory of Christ, to apply such a term to him, our minds instinctively turn to an opposite character, whom the Scriptures style the “accuser,” “adversary,” “Beelzebub,” “Belial,” “dragon,” “enemy,” “evil spirit,” “prince of devils,” “serpent,” “tempter,” “seducer,” “the father of lies,” and a “murderer from the beginning.”

But we are not left merely to infer that the scape-goat was a type of Satan; there is direct and conclusive evidence that such was the case. The Hebrew name as given in the margin of Leviticus 16:8 is “Azazel;” and we have testimony that the ancient people of God, both Hebrew and Christian, regarded this word as the name of the Devil.

The Comprehensive Commentary speaks of the scape-goat as follows: “Scape-goat. . . . Spencer, one of the oldest opinions of the Hebrews and Christians, thinks Azazel is the name of the Devil; and so Rosenmüller, whom see: ‘The Syriac has Azazel, the strong one, who revolted.’”

Cassell’s Illustrated Bible speaks thus of the scape-goat: “We offer the following exposition as much more likely, and much more satisfactory: that Azazel is a personal denomination for the evil one.”

Charles Beecher in his work, “Redeemer and Redeemed,” pp. 66–70, says:—

“Two goats were to be presented before the Lord by the high priest. They must be exactly alike in value, size, age, color,—they must be counterparts. Placing these goats before him, the high priest put both hands into an urn containing the golden lots, and drew them out, one in each hand. On the one was engraven, LA YEHOVAH (for Jehovah); on the other, LA AZAZEL (for Azazel). The goat on which the LA YEHOVAH fell was slain. After its blood had been sprinkled in the holy of holies, the high priest laid hands on the head of the second goat, confessed the sins of the congregation, and gave him to a fit man to lead away and let go in the wilderness; the man employed being obliged to wash his clothes and bathe before returning to the congregation.”

After examining two views respecting the meaning of the word “Azazel,” which he shows to be incorrect, Mr. Beecher proceeds to state his own view as follows:—

“The third opinion is that Azazel is a proper name of Satan. In support of this the following points are urged. The use of the preposition implies it. The same preposition is used on both lots, La Yehovah, La Azazel; and if one indicates a person, it seems natural the other should, especially considering the act of casting lots. If one is for Jehovah, the other would seem for some other person or being; not for Jehovah, and the other for the goat itself.”

“What goes to confirm this is, that the most ancient paraphrases and translations treat Azazel as a proper name. The Chaldee paraphrase and the targums of Onkelos and Jonathan would certainly have translated it, if it was not a proper name, but they do not. The Septuagint, or oldest Greek version, renders it ἀποπομπαῖος, a word applied by the Greeks to a malign deity, sometimes appeased by sacrifices.”

“Another confirmation is found in the Book of Enoch, where the name Azazel, evidently a corruption of Azazel, is given to one of the fallen angels, thus plainly showing what was the prevalent understanding of the Jews of that day.”

“Still another evidence is found in the Arabic, where Azazel is employed as the name of the evil spirit.”

“In addition to these we have the evidence of the Jewish work, Zohar, and of the Cabalistic and Rabbinical writers. They tell us that the following proverb was current among the Jews: ‘On the day of atonement, a gift to Sammael.’ Hence Moses Gerundensis feels called to say that it is not a sacrifice because it is only done because commanded by God.”

“Another step in the evidence is when we find the same opinion passing from the Jewish to the early Christian church. Origen was the most learned of the Fathers, and on such a point as this, the meaning of a Hebrew word, his testimony is reliable. Says Origen, ‘He who is called in the Septuagint ἀποπομπαῖος, and in the Hebrew Azazel is no other than the Devil.’”

“Lastly, a circumstance is mentioned of the Emperor Julian, the apostate, that confirms the argument. He brought as an objection against the Bible that Moses commanded a sacrifice to the evil spirit; an objection he never could have thought of, had not Azazel been generally regarded as a proper name.”

“In view, then, of the difficulties attending any other meaning, and the accumulated evidence in favor of this, Hengstenberg affirms with great confidence that Azazel cannot be anything else but another name for Satan.”},{

“The meaning of the term, viewed as a proper name, was stated in 1677, by Spencer, Dean of Ely, to mean ‘Powerful Apostate, or Mighty Receder.’”},{

Prof. Bush is also referred to by Mr. Beecher on p. 16 of his work, as another authority for considering Azazel a proper name for Satan.

Gesenius, the great Hebrew lexicographer, says:—

“Azazel, a word found only in the law respecting the day of Atonement. Lev. 16:8, 10, 26. . . . By this name is probably to be understood originally some demon that was appeased with sacrifices, as Saturn and others; but afterward, as the names of idols were often transferred to demons, it seems to denote an evil demon dwelling in the desert, and to be placated with sacrifices, in accordance with this very ancient and Gentile rite. This name Azazel is also used by the Arabs for an evil demon.”

Milton represents Azazel as one of the fallen angels and the standard-bearer of Satan:—

“That proud honor claimed Azazel as his right, a cherub tall; Who forthwith from the glittering staff unfurled The imperial ensign.”—Paradise Lost, b. 1.

These testimonies certainly show conclusively that the scape-goat was a type of Satan; from which it follows that when the investigative Judgment in the close of the heavenly sanctuary shall be finished, he will receive upon himself all the sins for which atonement has been made in the sanctuary, and which the High Priest bears out from thence, and under that load will be sent away into a “land not inhabited.” The consistency of supposing that these sins will fall upon the head of Satan, and the guilt of them cleave to him like an ineradicable curse, together with the event by which the sending away of this antitypical scape-goat is plainly brought to view, will demand consideration.

(To be continued.)