Old Paths Masthead

Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. Jeremiah 6:16

The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will show them his covenant. Psalm 25:14


Vol. 25, No.8 Straight and Narrow August 2016


Loggerhead turtles have surprised evolutionists by demonstrating,
against reasonable expectation, that they can clearly determine not
only latitude but also longitude, using the earth’s magnetic fields!
This is more like having a GPS than a compass.  “And God
saw that it was good” (Genesis 1:21).
In this issue:

Our Sacred Trust

WV Camp Meeting Presentations

The Shofar Sounds (part 1)

The Shofar Sounds (part 2)

Youth's Corner

Christy's Recipes . . .

Publisher Information


Our Sacred Trust

On April 8, 2003, then Chief National Security Advisor Condolezza Rice addressed the 911 Commission. The nation had been rocked by terrorist attacks nineteen months before, and the country was still reeling from those assaults. The people were wanting answers as to why the country was not better prepared. Had the executive branch of the government no warnings? Had they let down their guard? Dr. Rice addressed the commission to share with them some behind-the-scenes information on the matter. The administration’s credibility had been damaged, and Dr. Rice attempted to clarify and vindicate the work of her department and of the administration before the people.

God has, in effect, been called before the commission of the universe to stand trial.

And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. (Revelation 14:6, 7)

Not only is God having a judgment of humanity but he himself is on trial in the sense that his character must be vindicated before the universe to insure that sin will never rise a second time.

Satan had accused God of requiring self-denial of the angels, when he knew nothing of what it meant himself, and when he would not himself make any self-sacrifice for others. This was the accusation that Satan made against God in heaven; and after the evil one was expelled from heaven, he continually charged the Lord with exacting service which he would not render himself. Christ came to the world to meet these false accusations, and to reveal the Father. (Ellen G. White, The Review & Herald, February 18, 1890)

God’s answer to Satan’s charges and to the sin that followed is atonement!

Adventism was raised up to present atonement in its finality; to clearly reveal to the world the Day of Atonement, the atonement of atonements, the final atonement. In fact, the concept of a final atonement outside of the cross is uniquely Adventist. All contemporary Christians connect any concept of a final atonement to the work on Calvary. For example:

The summary in [Hebrews] 10:18 makes it clear that the new covenant is currently in force for Christians. The author concludes the entire lengthy theological section of Heb 8:1–10:18 with several astonishing affirmations. First, the repeated sacrifices of the Mosaic law have been forever rendered obsolete by the final atonement of Christ on the cross. (D. L. Allen, Hebrews, p. 505; all emphasis supplied unless otherwise noted)

This kind of theology was not a part of the Advent movement during the lives of James and Ellen White or of our other pioneers. However, a new theology on the atonement was introduced almost sixty years ago when the book Questions on Doctrine (QOD) was published in 1957. This book was the result of meetings (1955, 1956) between high-ranking Adventist and leading evangelical ministers, in which questions were presented to our men about our faith, with our men responding with answers. These conferences were entered into by our men with the hope of lifting the stigma of the Adventist Church being considered a cult by most Christians. If we could present our faith in a manner acceptable to the evangelicals, it was thought it would open the door to the ability to witness in a previously unavailable manner. However, many of these answers, and especially our answers on the atonement, betrayed our earlier biblical teachings.

Donald Barnhouse, one of the evangelicals with whom our brethren (Roy A. Anderson, W. E. Reed, and L. E. Froom) met, had begun publishing about these conferences in 1956. In his magazine Eternity, he wrote:

They [Adventist leaders] further explained to Mr. Martin that they had among their number certain members of their “lunatic fringe” even as there are similar wild-eyed irresponsibles in every field of fundamental Christianity. (Donald Barnhouse, Eternity, September 1956)

It should be noted that the term “lunatic fringe” was not the term that Barnhouse himself used, but rather an expression that the Adventists used to label those who held to older positions of theology that struck plainly against the new model that was being presented to the evangelicals.

To prepare the ministry for the arrival of Questions on Doctrine, LeRoy Froom, the principal writer of QOD, wrote an article for Ministry magazine, in which he stated the crux of the matter thusly:

That is the tremendous scope of the sacrificial act of the cross—a complete, perfect, and final atonement for man’s sin. (LeRoy Edwin Froom, “The Priestly Application of the Atoning Act,” Ministry, February 1957, p. 10.)

The dash (—) is a mark of punctuation used to set off a word or phrase after an independent clause or to set off a parenthetical remark. A dash interrupts the flow of a sentence and tells the reader to get ready for more. Elder M. L. Andreasen understood this and thus quoted Froom:

The “sacrificial act of the cross (is) a complete, perfect, and final atonement for man’s sin.” (M. L. Andreasen, Letters to the Churches, Series A, no. 2; emphasis by Andreasen)[1]

Froom was a good writer and knew English well. He knew exactly what he wanted to write. He meant Christ’s death on the cross was a final atonement for sin. This is clear also by the context just before the statement:

But this should be most carefully noted: Christ’s atoning death on Calvary provided redemption potentially for all mankind. That is, Christ died provisionally for every sinner in all the world, that the efficacy of His death might embrace all men in its sweep throughout all human history. (Froom, Ministry, February 1957, p. 10.)

However, apostate Adventist historian George Knight attempted to twist, or spin, the history in the annotated edition of QOD. There he noted:

Andreasen’s discontent had begun to surface with the September 1956 publication in Eternity, with its assignment of those who held his position on the sinful human nature of Christ to the “lunatic fringe” of Adventism. (Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine, Annotated Edition, pp. xviii)

As we noted, though, the actual quote is:

They further explained to Mr. Martin that they had among their number certain members of their “lunatic fringe” even as there are similar wild-eyed irresponsibles in every field of fundamental Christianity. (Barnhouse, Eternity, September 1956)

Knight puts the phrase “lunatic fringe” within one set of double quotation marks. This would indicate that the words were Barnhouse’s assessment. However, Eternity’s use of double quotation marks reveals that Barnhouse was quoting the words of Froom and Anderson and was not stating his own words! While Knight accuses Andreasen of misrepresenting Froom, it is Knight who is misrepresenting the truth both by his misuse of the quotation marks and by his misinterpretation of the dash, as we shall see. Knight continues:

That smoldering discontent broke out into the open when Froom published a February 1957 Ministry article on the atonement. Especially offensive to Andreasen was a sentence referring to Christ’s death for every sinner that read: “That is the tremendous scope of the sacrificial act of the cross—a complete, perfect, and final atonement for man’s sin.” What Froom meant by that sentence was that the sacrifice on the cross was a full and complete sacrifice (in terms of the sacrificial aspect of the atonement) for sin. But that is not the way Andreasen read it on February 15 when he misunderstood and misquoted Froom’s words. Andreasen repeatedly quoted Froom as saying that “ ‘the sacrificial act on the cross (is) a complete, perfect, and final atonement for man’s sins.’ ” But Andreasen’s rendering of Froom’s sentence changed his meaning. The word “is” is not in Froom’s original sentence. Rather, he followed the word “cross” with a mid-sentence dash, with the words following the dash functioning as an explanatory phrase to the several words that went before. (Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine, Annotated Edition, p. xviii; emphasis in original)

This is double speak at its best! Knight has attacked Andreasen for using the word is as an equivalent of an equal symbol but now admits that the dash in the sentence functions “as an explanatory phrase to the several words that went before.” Knight continues:

Thus Froom’s meaning was that the cross was a completed sacrifice (or the sacrificial aspect of the atonement). But Andreasen, in quoting Froom, removed the dash and supplied the word “is” in parentheses. With that one small stroke he changed Froom’s meaning from a completed sacrifice (or sacrificial aspect of the atonement) on the cross to a completed atonement on the cross. That interpretation, of course, put Froom and his colleagues out of harmony with traditional Adventism, which had often used atonement exclusively to refer to Christ’s heavenly, day-of-atonement ministry. (Ibid., pp. xviii, xix; emphasis in original)

But was Knight correct to imply that Froom and Andreasen were really in agreement? Neither Froom nor Andreasen ever agreed upon the atonement and further, we have the never-repudiated testimony of Froom, through Barnhouse.

Writing in the September 1956 issue of Eternity, Barnhouse said, concerning the sanctuary doctrine:

It is to my mind, therefore, nothing more than a human face-saving idea! . . . It should also be realized that some uninformed Seventh-day Adventists took this idea and carried it to fantastic, literalistic extremes. Mr. Martin and I heard the Adventist leaders say, flatly, that they repudiate all such extremes. This they have said in no uncertain terms. Further, they do not believe, as some of their earlier teachers taught, that Jesus’ atoning work was not completed on Calvary but instead that He was still carrying on a second ministering work since 1844. This idea is also totally repudiated. They believe that since His ascension Christ has been ministering the benefits of the atonement which was completed on Calvary. (Barnhouse, Eternity, September 1956)

Barnhouse is clear that the Adventists with whom he dialogued believed the atonement to be completed upon the cross, and this position was never denied by Froom nor by the leadership of that day.[2] Furthermore, this theology has been affirmed by the leadership at Andrews University to be the theology of the seminary.[3]

We have been given a trust

Writing to Timothy, Paul noted: “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, . . .” (1 Timothy 6:20). The Greek word for trust παρακαταθήκην (parakathēkēn) literally means something laid down or placed beside you. Paul had placed the truth of the gospel into Timothy’s hands and Paul encourages Timothy to keep, or guard, this truth.[4]

In his second epistle to Timothy, the last epistle he would write, Paul reiterates his command:

But continue[5] thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them. (2 Timothy 3:14)

Adventists have been given a sacred trust:

In a special sense Seventh-day Adventists have been set in the world as watchmen and light bearers. To them has been entrusted the last warning for a perishing world. On them is shining wonderful light from the word of God. They have been given a work of the most solemn import—the proclamation of the first, second, and third angels’ messages. There is no other work of so great importance. They are to allow nothing else to absorb their attention.

The most solemn truths ever entrusted to mortals have been given us to proclaim to the world. The proclamation of these truths is to be our work. The world is to be warned, and God’s people are to be true to the trust committed to them. (Ellen White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 9, p. 19)

Central to this sacred trust of the three angels’ messages is the sanctuary doctrine, for it alone truly sets us apart as a people.

The uniqueness of Seventh-day Adventism is not found in the belief of the second coming nor in the Sabbath. Other groups believe these doctrines. Our uniqueness is not even the message of the Father and Son, as taught in John 17:3. Our sacred trust is the sanctuary doctrine:

The scripture which above all others had been both the foundation and the central pillar of the advent faith was the declaration: “Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” Daniel 8:14. (Ellen White, The Great Controversy, p. 409)

The above statement says that the sanctuary is not only our foundation but is also our central pillar. Elsewhere, Ellen White expresses this, using the term temple of God . . . in heaven.

One of the landmarks under this message was the temple of God, seen by His truth-loving people in heaven, and the ark containing the law of God. (Ellen White, Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 30)

The huge relevance for the individual is that Christ is not idle today for believers but, rather, is actively ministering and making atonement now for the faithful.

Now Christ is in the heavenly sanctuary. And what is He doing? Making atonement for us, cleansing the sanctuary from the sins of the people. (Ellen White, The 1888 Materials, p. 127)

The Bible declares that God’s way is in the sanctuary: “Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary: who is so great a God as our God” (Psalm 77:13)? The ultimate purpose of the sanctuary was to make atonement, or an at-one-ment, with God and mankind, so that man could dwell with a holy God and not be destroyed. God told Moses:

And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them. (Exodus 25:8)

Atonement, or at-one-ment, is the goal. Atonement is what Adam needed, and it is what we need today. This is Adventism, and the only way to dwell with a holy God is to be holy, for God will not, and cannot, change for anyone.

But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. (1 Peter 1:15, 16)

The Bible says that “our God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:29). It is only logical, then, that Isaiah asks:

The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings? (Isaiah 33:14)

The answer comes shooting back to us!

He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from seeing evil. (Isaiah 33:15)

While the “just shall live by faith” (Romans 1:17), true faith brings vital action into our lives. It enables the believer to walk righteously and to speak uprightly. True faith keeps the believer from the gain of oppression and from the accepting of bribes and refrains his senses from evil.

The sanctuary is not the end of the means, but the means to the end of God dwelling in his people. For God to dwell in his people, he must have a way to free them from their sin, and that way is the sanctuary! The sanctuary has the whole message of redemption within it. It cannot be stated too strongly that the sanctuary doctrine is the truth that unifies all the principles of our faith.

The sanctuary in heaven is the very center of Christ’s work in behalf of men. It concerns every soul living upon the earth. It opens to view the plan of redemption, bringing us down to the very close of time, and revealing the triumphant issue of the contest between righteousness and sin. It is of the utmost importance that all should thoroughly investigate these subjects, and be able to give an answer to every one that asketh them a reason of the hope that is in them. (White, The Great Controversy, pp. 488, 489)

Satan is striving continually to bring in fanciful suppositions in regard to the sanctuary, degrading the wonderful representations of God and the ministry of Christ for our salvation into something that suits the carnal mind. He removes its presiding power from the hearts of believers, and supplies its place with fantastic theories invented to make void the truths of the atonement, and destroy our confidence in the doctrines which we have held sacred since the third angel’s message was first given. Thus he would rob us of our faith in the very message that has made us a separate people, and has given character and power to our work. (Ellen White, Special Testimonies, series B, no. 7, p. 17)

Two central points

All that was done in the wilderness tabernacle and later in the temples was done under shadows and examples of heavenly things. Paul clearly lays out the case for the typology in Hebrews:

Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. (Hebrews 8:1–5)

Notice that Paul speaks of shadows. A shadow is cast from something tangible. A shadow gives an outline or shows the form of something tangible. A shadow is not the thing of which it shows the outline. The shadow has no power of itself, but it can serve as a lesson about the tangible thing. The wilderness tabernacle and the temples were shadows and examples of heavenly things—a sanctuary and all that comprises it—the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

While there were many services within the sanctuary Paul says that they are all summed up by two main services (the continual, or the daily, sin offering and the Day of Atonement), which focused upon two main soteriological central points: justification and sanctification. Paul notes:

Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all; Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly. Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; (Hebrews 9:1–11)

Here again Paul teaches that the wilderness tabernacle and the temples were a figure for the time then present of a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands. Paul says that Jesus “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” (Hebrews 9:12 ESV).

These two main services are summed up in Leviticus chapters 4 and 16—the daily (always) and the annual Day of Atonement.

In Leviticus 4 there are four main sin offerings detailed. These were all for sins of ignorance. The first protocol was given for the high priest (v. 3). The second protocol was for the whole congregation (v. 13). The third protocol was for the rulers, which included the common priests (v. 22),[6] and the last protocol was for the common person (v. 27).

And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty; Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering. And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar. (Leviticus 4:27–30)

Notice the result that the protocol for the common person achieved:

And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the LORD; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him. (Leviticus 4:31)

The Bible declares that this offering, administered at the brazen altar, representing the cross, results in atonement that brings forgiveness (justification). But this was not the only atonement.

On the Day of Atonement the protocol was detailed and exact, but the results of the service were very clear:

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: For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD. (Leviticus 16:29, 30)

This is an atonement of cleansing that we can be clean (sanctified) from all our sins. Justification is necessary, and forgiveness is vital, but we cannot continue to sin and repent, sin and repent, and sin and repent until Jesus comes. We must experience the cleansing power to overcome the power of sin in our lives, if we expect to be among those translated when Jesus comes!

While there are other atonements mentioned in the Bible, the Day of Atonement is the atonement of all atonements! The Day of Atonement is called Yom Kippur. Yom is the Hebrew word for day and kippur is the Hebrew word for atonements. Kippur is the plural form of Kaphar. The word literally means to cover. Yom Kippur is the day for covering and removing sin. To show the superiority of this atonement, the Bible uses the majesty of plural, or the royal plural, in Leviticus 23:

Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement(s) [kippur]: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord. And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is a day of atonement(s) [Hebrew: kippur], to make an atonement [Hebrew: kaphar—to cover] for you before the Lord your God. (Leviticus 23: 27, 28)

The Bible teaches that the Day of Atonement is the atonement of all atonements.

Linguistics connections

The Adventist pioneers saw the connection between the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16 as the type and the cleansing of the sanctuary of Daniel 8:14 as the antitype, or the reality. While many evangelicals scoff at this connection, there is a clear linguistic connection between Daniel 8:14 and Leviticus 16:30.

In Daniel 8:14, the Hebrew word translated cleansed is tsadeq. It comes from tsedeq, and this family of words has a very broad concept in the Bible. Tsadeq can be used in the context of judgement, vindication of the righteous, and even the punishment of the wicked. Notice the following verses:

The LORD shall judge the people: judge me, O LORD, according to my righteousness (tsedeq), and according to mine integrity that is in me. Oh let the wickedness of the wicked come to an end; but establish the just (tsiddeq): for the righteous God trieth the hearts and reins. (Psalm 7:8, 9:)

For thou hast maintained my right and my cause; thou satest in the throne judging right (tsedeq). Thou hast rebuked the heathen, thou hast destroyed the wicked, thou hast put out their name for ever and ever. O thou enemy, destructions are come to a perpetual end: and thou hast destroyed cities; their memorial is perished with them. But the LORD shall endure for ever: he hath prepared his throne for judgment. And he shall judge the world in righteousness (tsedeq), he shall minister judgment to the people in uprightness. (Psalm 9:4–8)

Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified (tsadeq) when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. (Psalm 51:4)

Tsedeq and its variations is used in the context of salvation:

The LORD hath made known his salvation: his righteousness (tsedaqah) hath he openly shewed in the sight of the heathen. (Psalm 98:2)

Mine eyes fail for thy salvation, and for the word of thy righteousness (tsedeq). (Psalm 119:123)

He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify (tsiddeq) many; for he shall bear their iniquities. (Isaiah 53:11)

Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness (tsedaqah) and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed. In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified (tsadeq), and shall glory. (Isaiah 45:24, 25)

Tsedeq and its variations are also used in the context of purification and cleansing. Notice the following texts:

Shall mortal man be more just (tsadeq) than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker? (Job 4:17)

The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous (tsadaq) altogether. (Psalm 19:9)

Interestingly the name Melchizedek comes from the Hebrew word mele, meaning king, and from tsedeq. Melchizedek is the king of righteousness.

In summary, the Hebrew word tsedeq and its variations are associated with such concepts as judgment, vindication, righteousness, salvation, purification, and cleansing. All these concepts are exactly what the Day of Atonement is about.

Sadaq may convey the additional thought that God’s character will be fully vindicated as the climax to “the hour of his judgment” (Rev. 14:7), which began in 1844. (The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4, p. 845)

Now let us bring the Hebrew taher into the consideration. This is the word translated cleanse in Leviticus 16:30. The Hebrew words taher and tsadeq are sometimes used interchangeably throughout scripture, as seen in the following two verses:

Shall mortal man be more just (tsadeq) than God? shall a man be more pure (taher) than his maker? (Job 4:17)

The righteous (tsedeq) also shall hold on his way, and he that hath clean (taher) hands shall be stronger and stronger. (Job 17:9)

In these two verses we clearly see the Hebrew parallelism and the setting of tsadeq and taher as equivalents. The words tsadeq and taher are intimately connected in the word of God.

The Septuagint translators’ understanding

We should also take note that while translating the Hebrew Bible into the Greek language, the Jewish scholars chose to translate the Hebrew word tsadeq in Daniel 8:14 into the Greek word καθαρίζω (katharizō).[7] This same Greek word is used to describe the cleansing of the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16:30.

And he said to him, Evening and morning there shall be two thousand and three hundred days; and then the sanctuary shall be cleansed (katharizō). (Daniel 8:14: Brenton, L. C. L., 1870; The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament)

For in this day he shall make an atonement for you, to cleanse (katharizō) you from all your sins before the Lord, and ye shall be purged (katharizō). (Leviticus 16:30: Brenton, L. C. L., 1870; The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament)

Katharizō is also used to describe the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary in Hebrews 9:23:

It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified (Katharizō) with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

Conclusion

God established a sure foundation for his people in these last days. There can be no doubt that our biblical message was given to us by God and stands sure. Ellen White could boldly declare:

It is as certain that we have the truth as that God lives; and Satan, with all his arts and hellish power, cannot change the truth of God into a lie. While the great adversary will try his utmost to make of none effect the word of God, truth must go forth as a lamp that burneth. (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 4, p. 595)

God gave us truth especially on the sanctuary. This is our sacred trust and we are, like Timothy, to be true to the trust given to us. But we need to understand that the sanctuary message given to us by God has been changed. The main-line church is not teaching the same message given to our pioneers. To the untrained eye it looks the same, but remember we have been told:

The track of truth lies close beside the track of error, and both tracks may seem to be one to minds which are not worked by the Holy Spirit, and which, therefore, are not quick to discern the difference between truth and error. (Selected Messages, bk, 1, p. 202)

May we cherish the truth given to us. May we be true to the trust committed to us, a truth that brings sanctification and makes men and women “more precious than fine gold” (Isaiah 13:12).

Allen Stump

To be continued

Next Month: Our Sacred Trust Betrayed

 

[1]. Dr. Colin Standish commented upon this: “Andreasen changed the dash after the word “cross” to the word ‘(is)’. The opponents of Andreasen quickly made capital of this modification. Yet it is difficult for me to discern that this alteration changed the intent of what Froom had written to any significant extent. Indeed it appears to me that Froom’s original presentation is more impactful with the dash rather than (is). Either way there is no ambiguity in this statement.” (Paper Presented at the 50th Anniversary Conference on Questions on Doctrine, p. 233 in conference binder.)

[2]. To give one a better understanding of the theological mind of Barnhouse, we note that in a recorded phone conversation with Al Hudson on May 16, 1958, Barnhouse stated: “I hate Saturday as a Sabbath religious day. I hate it because Christ hates it.” (The Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences of 1955–1956, p. 28; published by the Adventist Laymen’s Foundation)

[3]. Public statement of Dennis Fortin, former dean of the SDA Theological Seminary during the 2007 QOD 50th anniversary conference.

[4]. The Greek word translated keep is φύλαξον (phylaxon). Paul used a form of this word, when testifying that he “kept the raiment of them that slew” Stephen (Acts 22:20).

[5]. From μένω (menō), as used in John 15:4, 6, 7, 10 for abide.

[6]. The same Hebrew word translated ruler in Leviticus 4:22 (ansi) is used in Numbers 3:32 to refer to the common priests.

[7]. Strong’s #2511


2016 West Virginia Camp Meeting Presentations Available

The 2016 presentations from the 2016 West Virginia camp meeting are available in three ways. They are on our YouTube channel in the playlist for the 2016 WV camp meeting (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsE-5c918fZEfkUFOsaxzZwZYht5kx3n). There are also DVD and CD versions available for those who wish to request them by using the names and titles listed below.

R. Akens/C. Whitehurst Healthy Food Preparation

Elvis Alberto Walking through the Sanctuary

Michael Brown What Do We Believe and Why?

Demario Carter The Atonement of Suffering

Ed Cyrus Time of the Jubilee

Onycha Holt The Trespass Offering

Onycha Holt The Shofar Sounds

S. T. Lewis Can You See?

S. T. Lewis Following the Voice of the Spirit

Elaine Nailing Medical Missionary Work

Dennis Robertson A More Sure Word of Prophecy

Allen Stump The D. of A., Historical Developments

Allen Stump The Day of Atonement, Our Trust

Allen Stump The Final Atonement in You

Andy Whitehurst Daniel 8:14

Andy Whitehurst Before a Holy God

Michael Woodward Moving Through the Sanctuary

Allen Uhl From Creation to Jericho Part 1

Allen Uhl From Creation to Jericho Part 2


The Shofar Sounds

Part 1—Background Issues

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. (Isaiah 53:3–7)

Alexander Bolotnikov stood before a famous Jewish work of art which portrays the nation of Israel as the suffering servant of Isaiah 53, of whom we read above. A well-known rabbi, whom Bolotnikov recognized, quietly joined him. After a few moments of silence, the rabbi softly spoke: “Do you think the suffering servant is Israel?” Bolotnikov knew this question had been hotly debated among Jewish leaders for centuries, and he did not want to start another debate and risk a scene; so, I am sorry to say, he responded in a neutral way. Silence settled again as they continued to contemplate the work of art. Then the rabbi slowly said, “I wish I knew; I wish I knew,” and turned and walked away. You see, the Jewish people have no saviour. The beautiful verses in Isaiah 53 of the suffering Messiah who bears our griefs is not understood by them. In fact, they are forbidden, under a terrible curse of blasted bones, to even calculate the seventy weeks of Daniel 9 predicting the Messiah.[1]

So, when the shofar sounds its mournful tones on Rosh Hashanah, the first day of the Jewish new year, the Jewish heart is sad and empty, for the shofar signals judgment is near. Yom Kippur arrives in ten days, and its plaintive cry resonates with the Jewish heart anticipating judgment. One year has faded into history and a new one has begun, but the Jewish people know no saviour who can cleanse their hearts from sin, and they know no intercessor who can stand between them and Yahweh.

Rabbi Nosson Scherman explains it this way:

The shofar represents an inarticulate cry from the heart, a cry from someone who has no words, because his sins may have become so indelibly ingrained, the barrier so firmly enclosing his heart, that he cannot even mouth the words of repentance. But there always remains a spark of aspiration in the Jewish heart, no matter how lifeless the spark has become . . . even where there seemed to be no hope.[2]

And the Jewish people have no hope, no messiah, and no assurance of forgiveness of sins.

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . . your house is left unto you desolate. (Matthew 23:37, 38)

Divine pity marked the countenance of the Son of God as He cast one lingering look upon the temple and then upon His hearers. In a voice choked by deep anguish of heart and bitter tears He exclaimed, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” This is the separation struggle. In the lamentation of Christ the very heart of God is pouring itself forth. It is the mysterious farewell of the long-suffering love of the Deity.

Pharisees and Sadducees were alike silenced. Jesus summoned His disciples, and prepared to leave the temple, not as one defeated and forced from the presence of his adversaries, but as one whose work was accomplished. He retired a victor from the contest.

. . . Israel as a nation had divorced herself from God. The natural branches of the olive tree were broken off. Looking for the last time upon the interior of the temple, Jesus said with mournful pathos, “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. . . . Hitherto He had called the temple His Father’s house; but now, as the Son of God should pass out from those walls, God’s presence would be withdrawn forever from the temple built to His glory. Henceforth its ceremonies would be meaningless, its services a mockery. (Ellen White, The Desire of Ages, p. 620; all emphasis supplied in this article unless otherwise noted)

And now you understand the desolation that resonates with the sad cry of the shofar. It is devastating to see a people who are so religious, so conservative, and so orthodox, and who can devoutly pray at the wall of the ancient temple to be so destitute of salvation and dependent only upon their works for acceptance with God. It is a terrible burden to be religiously inclined and yet have no saviour, and so when Yom Kippur comes, the Jewish people feel an especial sadness, for they only have their works to commend them to God and because they never know if their good works outnumber the bad; therefore, Rabbi Scherman says they cry out like the plaintive shofar. They do not know that God has said a “mysterious farewell” to their system of beliefs and services. They will find no redemption in it. Rabbi Scherman, however, seeks to comfort his fellow believers and tells them that God shadows them, that God follows after them, seeking them; and this is true—God is seeking them—but they have no assurance in the Jewish faith that they are found and are accepted by God.

Leaving Babylon

Then I separated twelve of the chief of the priests, Sherebiah, Hashabiah, and ten of their brethren with them, And weighed unto them the silver, and the gold, and the vessels, even the offering of the house of our God, which the king, and his counsellors, and his lords, and all Israel there present, had offered: I even weighed unto their hand six hundred and fifty talents of silver, and silver vessels an hundred talents, and of gold an hundred talents; Also twenty basons of gold, of a thousand drams; and two vessels of fine copper, precious as gold. And I said unto them, Ye are holy unto the LORD; the vessels are holy also; and the silver and the gold are a freewill offering unto the LORD God of your fathers. Watch ye, and keep them, until ye weigh them before the chief of the priests and the Levites, and chief of the fathers of Israel, at Jerusalem, in the chambers of the house of the LORD. So took the priests and the Levites the weight of the silver, and the gold, and the vessels, to bring them to Jerusalem unto the house of our God. Then we departed from the river of Ahava on the twelfth day of the first month, to go unto Jerusalem: and the hand of our God was upon us, and he delivered us from the hand of the enemy, and of such as lay in wait by the way. And we came to Jerusalem, and abode there three days. Now on the fourth day was the silver and the gold and the vessels weighed in the house of our God by the hand of Meremoth the son of Uriah the priest; and with him was Eleazar the son of Phinehas; and with them was Jozabad the son of Jeshua, and Noadiah the son of Binnui, Levites; By number and by weight of every one: and all the weight was written at that time. Also the children of those that had been carried away, which were come out of the captivity, offered burnt offerings unto the God of Israel, twelve bullocks for all Israel, ninety and six rams, seventy and seven lambs, twelve he goats for a sin offering: all this was a burnt offering unto the LORD. And they delivered the king’s commissions unto the king’s lieutenants, and to the governors on this side the river: and they furthered the people, and the house of God. (Ezra 8:24–36)

Ezra left Babylon with twelve priests and with gifts and with the vessels of gold, of silver, and of copper that had been taken from Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Chronicles 36:7) and placed in his temple in Babylon.

We do not have today the temple of old, we are not present in Jerusalem, and we do not have the holy vessels of silver, of gold, and of copper, but we do have something. We have the pure gold of truth, and we are to be the precious vessels of the Lord who have come from a different kind of Babylon, a Babylon of theological error and confusion. We have all come, not carrying the vessels and the offerings of old, as did Ezra and the twelve priests, but bearing the great truths given us by God himself—the pillars of faith that he gave his people over one hundred fifty years ago, truths more precious than the gold, silver and copper of Ezra’s time, and we have been charged to keep these truths. Just as Ezra measured his treasures when they left Babylon and again when he arrived at Jerusalem, so we are to earnestly strive for the faith given us and not lose one jot or tittle of it. But we are having a hard time of it. The sanctuary, for example, is under attack.

The Judean understanding of the Day of Atonement

“In my corner of the world there has not been the slightest interest for decades in” the topic of Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, stated Dr. Milton Hook, a Seventh-day Adventist, who has been a pastor, a mission director, and a teacher of religion within the denomination. He then listed seven problems with the Adventist doctrine of Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, two of which were that we do not understand “the true function of blood in the earthly sanctuary” nor “the Judean understanding of the Day of Atonement,” and to gain this understanding, he referred his readers to what Rabbis Nosson Scherman and Hersh Goldwurm have written in the Artscroll Tanach Series.[3] So let us consider the function of blood in the earthly sanctuary and the Judean understanding of the Day of Atonement, for they have a bearing on our topic of the scapegoat. In his introduction to the Day of Atonement, Rabbi Nosson Scherman states:

Rambam (Hil. Teshuvah 3:1–3) writes that on Rosh Hashanah everyone’s deeds are weighed in the heavenly scales of judgment. Those with a preponderance of good deeds are inscribed for life; those with a preponderance of sins are inscribed for death. (Scherman, p. 16; first emphasis in original)

At first one might think that Rambam means that the names of the people who were judged are recorded in the Book of Life or in a book of death or that the judgment determined is recorded beside each person’s name, since Rambam uses the term inscribed, but this is not so. Scherman explains:

But there is a third category of people facing the judgment of Rosh Hashanah: Those who are evenly balanced between virtues and sins. Of such people Rambam writes: As for one who is evenly balanced, his fate is suspended until Yom Kippur. If he repents, he is sealed for life, and if not he is sealed for death. (Ibid., p. 17)

On Rosh Hashanah or on Yom Kippur, the Jewish people are sealed, and the account of the previous year is settled. If one’s record has a preponderance of good works on Rosh Hashanah or on Yom Kippur, then that person is sealed for heaven for the new year, and if that person dies at any time during the forthcoming year, he or she remains a citizen of heaven forever, regardless of the behavior during the new year. It does not matter how you behave during the three hundred sixty-four days of the new year if you were sealed for heaven on the previous Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur. Regardless of your current trend of behavior, you will live forever in bliss, for you have been sealed.

If during the past year, your bad deeds have outweighed your good deeds and remain that way on Yom Kippur, you are sealed for hell for the future twelve months, until the next judgment on Rosh Hashanah/Yom Kippur. Should you die at anytime during the new year, you would suffer in hell for eternity, with no hope of escape; therefore, the Day of Atonement for the Jewish people was/is very serious. One is not left without hope immediately before Yom Kippur, however, for the shofar sounds and gives warning of the coming Day of Atonement, and each person enters what is known as the ten days of awe, or the ten days of repentance, when the Hebrew people, with reverence and prayer, seek forgiveness of all sin, knowing that when the Day of Atonement arrives, he or she will be sealed again, either for heaven or for hell, if sealing has not already taken place on Rosh Hashanah. Sealing for the Jewish people occurs one year at a time, and it is a sealing for the future year.

But how can the Day of Atonement be important to the Jewish people, when there is no longer a high priest and no longer a temple and when there is no goat for the Lord and no goat for Azazel?

The high priest is replaced by the theology that all Jews are united as one, since they are the offspring of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and that the righteous achievement of one individual in the nation exalts everyone else in the nation, doing what the high priest did for the nation anciently. The achievements of godly people draw the whole nation closer to God, and these people can even intercede for others in need, as we shall see. Since Israel is one and its essence is good, an individual who genuinely repents is considered a blessing to the whole nation and elevates it closer to God (Ibid., p. 33).

Jonathan Stern lived[4] in Takoma Park, Maryland, and worked at Gavi, an international organization founded by Bill and Melinda Gates in 2000 to benefit children in poor countries, but in 2015 Mr. Stern experienced a seizure so severe it ripped the tendons from the bones in his left shoulder. A little more than a week later, he was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer, a glioblastoma, to be exact, a terribly aggressive form of cancer. But Mr. Stern’s religious faith was a great support to him. During his illness he developed a deep vein thrombosis and had to keep his legs elevated. Of this experience, he wrote:

I kept my legs elevated nearly 24 hours per day. But I also did something my late grandfather, Rabbi Baruch (Rabinowitz) Robbins urged if I ever was in extreme need. I am a ninth-generation descendant of Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov, the 18th-century founder of the Hasidic movement of Judaism, and I am descended from other dynastic lines as well. Given this lineage, my grandfather told me I could draw on the collected good deeds of our ancestors in asking for intercession. A religious person, I did this by praying nightly.[5]

Rabbi Scherman, Mr. Stern, and Mr. Stern’s grandfather all believe(d) that Jewish people who genuinely repent do for the nation what the High Priest did in times past—intercede for man—and that their good deeds turn the mind of God to the needs of his people today, but what replaces the goats and the other sacrifices?

The function of blood in the earthly sanctuary

Jewish theology teaches that the individual sinner, not the sacrificial animal, is the offering of choice:

. . . the truest offering is when the owner brings himself as the offering . . . the owner negates himself to God, making himself and his desire subservient to the teachings and guidelines of the Torah.[6]

And this is true, especially portrayed in the burnt offering. God wants our hearts and takes no delight in the sacrifice of innocent animals.

And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, As in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to hearken than the fat of rams. (1 Samuel 15:22)

But the Jewish system has perverted the meaning of the sacrificial system:

Everything in the Jewish service had been misinterpreted and misapplied. The purpose of the sacrifice offerings had been perverted. They were to symbolize Christ and His mission, that when He should come in the flesh, the world might recognize God in Him, and accept Him as the world’s Redeemer. (Ellen White, The Signs of the Times, July 14, 1898)

While affirming the need for the surrender of one’s heart and mind to God, the Jewish faith denies the death of the Son of God as the antitypical sin offering. No Lamb of God was represented by the sin offering, only the person and his total surrender to God were symbolized, just as the animal demonstrated total surrender on the altar. The denial of the antitype is an unbelievable error, but it still does not explain why God required a blood offering in the first place. Surely total surrender could have been demonstrated in a way that did not involve the death of animals. For this the Jewish theologians have no explanation:

. . . as Ritva writes, the reason for the offerings is so profound that, in its entirety, it is beyond human comprehension and the best efforts of our greatest thinkers can yield only a drop in the ocean of God’s intent. (Scherman, Ibid., p. 28; emphasis in original)

And so, the Jewish person is bereft of an understanding of the substitutionary death of the true suffering servant of Isaiah 53, of the true Lamb brought to the slaughter, and is only left with trying to make himself better to gain salvation. In fact, he is taught that he “must make himself better” and this “is his mission of earth” (Ibid.), yet he never knows if he has made himself good enough to be accepted by God. How poignant.

An Adventist view of the Day of Atonement

Let us now consider a current Seventh-day Adventist theologian’s view of the typical Day of Atonement. Dr. Martin Pröbstle is the principal author of The Sanctuary, the Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide (ASSBSG) for fourth quarter 2013, and was professor of Hebrew Bible at the Seventh-day Adventist Schloss Bogenhofen Seminary in Austria at the time of his writing. In addition to writing the study guide and its companion book, he recorded video introductions for each lesson of the guide. In the video introduction for the lesson on the Day of Atonement (Lesson 6), he stated:

So, there are four aspects of the Day of Atonement. #1—The forgiven sinner who received forgiveness during the year and who is loyal on the Day of Atonement, he will be justified. In fact, his justification will be fixed and secured for eternity. #2—The forgiven sinner who has received forgiveness during the year but who is not loyal on the Day of Atonement, he will be cut off from the people. #3—The originator of sin will receive the sin and he will be punished forever. And #4—God himself will be justified in all of his dealings he does during the second phase of that atonement process. The rituals at the Day of Atonement foreshadow what God will do at the end of time, and this we will study in week number 9 and 10.[7]

Pröbstle is referring to the typical Day of Atonement in this quotation and not to the antitypical day. This is clear by the context of the video and by the use of the phrases during the year and the rituals at the Day of Atonement, but how can it be that an Adventist theologian would think that on the typical Day of Atonement a person’s justification was fixed and secured for eternity? Such a doctrine denies the freedom that one has to walk away from God at any time, in which case all the sins previously confessed by that person and justified for him or her will return to the person’s own shoulders to bear in the judgment. It is as we read in Ezekiel 18:24:

But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

And it is as we read in the Spirit of Prophecy:

Pardon was written against the names of those who made thorough work, but if they again fall into a like snare and pursue an evil course, all their past evil is remembered against them. (Ellen White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 2, p. 373)

But worse than teaching that on the typical Day of Atonement a person’s justification was fixed and secured for eternity, Pröbstle also teaches that “the originator of sin will receive the sin [on the Day of Atonement] and he will be punished forever.” Satan is not and never has been our sin-bearer; Jesus is. Satan does not save us and has shed no blood for us. 1 Peter 2:24 says:

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

Ellen White affirms this:

There is a great work to be done, and every effort possible must be made to reveal Christ as the sin-pardoning Saviour, Christ as the Sin Bearer, Christ as the bright and morning Star . . . (Ellen White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 6, p. 20)

Satan does receive something on the great day of all atonements, symbolized in the typical Day of Atonement, which we will address soon, but it is not the sins of the righteous or of the unrighteous. Jesus bore them for us, paying the penalty, so that we might inherit eternal life.

Another issue to consider in the current Adventist Day-of-Atonement theology is that Aaron was told to take a young bullock on the Day of Atonement for a sin offering (Leviticus 16:3) in order to make an atonement for himself and for his house (v. 6). He was also told to offer the Lord’s goat for a sin offering (v. 9) for the people (v. 15), but Dr. Pröbstle, as well as Dr. Richard Davidson, who wrote the teacher’s components for the lesson, do not agree that the offering of the Lord’s goat was actually a sin offering:

Because there was neither confession of sin nor laying on of hands involved with the goat for the Lord, its blood was not a carrier of sin. Thus, it did not defile; rather, it cleansed. (Martin Pröbstle, ASSBSG, Fourth Quarter 2013, Teacher’s Edition, p. 66)

No hands were laid on the head of the Lord’s goat (vss. 9, 15), and hence, no sin was transferred to it; its blood was “sin-free.” As “sin-free” blood, its function when applied to the sanctuary was not to defile but to cleanse it. (Richard Davidson, Ibid., p. 74)

But the Bible says:

But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the errors of the people. (Hebrews 9:7)

Let us remember that no hands were laid on Aaron’s bullock and that no confession was made over it, but it was a sin offering. It was not a sin-free offering to cleanse, as Pröbstle and Davidson say the Lord’s goat was to do. Both Aaron’s bullock and the Lord’s goat for the people were the same kind of offering, for they were both applied in the same way and were called the same thing. Either they were both not sin offerings (though the Bible says they were) and were offerings only to cleanse the sanctuary, or they both were actual sin offerings, which resulted in cleansing. A question to be asked is: Was any offering in the sacrificial service ever called a cleansing offering? The answer, of course, is no. Only blood from a sin offering was ever taken inside the sanctuary (Leviticus 4:6, 7, 17, 18). Blood from the burnt offering, for example, was never taken into the sanctuary, for it was not a sin offering. All sin offerings resulted in forgiveness and ultimately in cleansing, but no offerings were ever instituted for the purpose of cleansing only. Why Davidson and Pröbstle seek to redefine the sin offering of the Lord’s goat as a cleansing offering we cannot say. Doing so, however, is one of the main ways to biblically tie the Lord’s goat (the type) with Christ’s death on the cross (the antitype), a tying together with which we agree, for the Lord’s goat is representative of Jesus, but the fact that hands were not laid on the goat and the fact that no confession was made over the goat does not make it a sin-free offering because Aaron’s bullock was treated in exactly the same way.

In conclusion, the excerpts from Rabbi Scherman briefly illustrate the historical and current Judean understanding of the typical Day of Atonement—that it was/is a day of sealing, based on good or evil works. Many Adventists believe that our historical understanding of the typical Day of Atonement as a type which illustrates the work of Jesus in the heavenly sanctuary from October 22, 1844, onward is wrong. This may be because the Judean understanding of the Day of Atonement places no stress on sanctification, but only on the review of the record of one’s deeds, with the appropriate sealing, and, therefore, we also should place no emphasis on it today.

Our justification is vital, it is salvational, we are indebted beyond measure for this great gift of God, and it is for eternity, unless we walk away from God. We will thank and praise him for our justification throughout the ages, but if do not choose to allow God to also sanctify us, if we are not willing to deny self, through the power of God, to the point that we would rather be hungry, thirsty, and in need than sin,[8],[9] then we make a mockery of justification and of the God who provides it.

Controversy over the function of blood

Let us now consider why the function of blood in the earthly sanctuary is argued. The issue is encapsulated in the following quotation from The Great Controversy:

Important truths concerning the atonement are taught by the typical service. A substitute was accepted in the sinner’s stead; but the sin was not canceled by the blood of the victim. A means was thus provided by which it was transferred to the sanctuary. By the offering of blood the sinner acknowledged the authority of the law, confessed his guilt in transgression, and expressed his desire for pardon through faith in a Redeemer to come; but he was not yet entirely released from the condemnation of the law. On the Day of Atonement the high priest, having taken an offering from the congregation, went into the most holy place with the blood of this offering, and sprinkled it upon the mercy seat, directly over the law, to make satisfaction for its claims. Then, in his character of mediator, he took the sins upon himself and bore them from the sanctuary. Placing his hands upon the head of the scapegoat, he confessed over him all these sins, thus in figure transferring them from himself to the goat. The goat then bore them away, and they were regarded as forever separated from the people. (Ellen White, The Great Controversy, p. 420)

It is very important to understand the offering of the Lord’s goat. It is a sin offering, but Pröbstle and Davidson both deny this. If we are not clear on this, we will be in a grave situation. Broadly, two things happen when we sin, repentance and forgiveness (represented by the daily sin offering) and judgment, when our individual cases come up before the Father (Daniel 7:9, 10). During the second process, the blood of the sin offering is applied again, when Christ, as our celestial high priest, pleads for us. Repentance, forgiveness, and sealing are all represented by the blood of the sin offering in type and antitype.

Jesus was clothed with priestly garments. He gazed in pity on the remnant, then raised His hands, and with a voice of deep pity cried, “My blood, Father, My blood! My blood! My blood!” . . . I asked my accompanying angel the meaning of what I heard . . . He said . . . the merciful eye of Jesus gazed on the remnant that were not sealed, and He raised His hands to the Father, and pleaded with Him that He had spilled His blood for them. Then another angel was commissioned to fly swiftly to the four angels, and bid them hold, until the servants of God were sealed with the seal of the living God in their foreheads. (Ellen White, Life Sketches, p. 119)

And this pleading is represented by the offering of the Lord’s goat on the Day of Atonement and by its blood being sprinkled upon the mercy seat. The Bible says the goat is the Lord’s goat (Leviticus 16:9), but that it was for the people (Leviticus 16:15). God’s people are both forgiven (daily sin offering) and sealed (represented by typical Day of Atonement) through the merits of the blood of the Lamb. It is a beautiful illustration.

The Jewish people have no concept of this true meaning of blood in the sanctuary service, but we do, praise God.

That the sanctuary was symbolically defiled with sin by the sprinkling of blood, and thus was in need of cleansing, is another point that is often debated, as we consider the true function of blood in the sanctuary services. Many who disagree with the Adventist doctrine of the sanctuary believe that sin was symbolically washed away (cleansed) by the blood of the sacrificial animal (which represented Christ) and this, of course, occurred in the courtyard. Since the sin was washed away in the courtyard service, it was gone, and could not be symbolically brought into the sanctuary. The sprinkling of the blood within the sanctuary, therefore, did not symbolize anything that defiled the sanctuary, but if it had nothing to do with the symbolic transference of sin, with what did it have to do? Many of those in disagreement with the Adventist doctrine of the sanctuary say the sacrificial blood always cleansed, or washed away, sin. It justified and it cleansed at the same time, and this is what the sacrificial ceremony was all about. In this line of thinking, the symbolic blood of Jesus was brought into the sanctuary as evidence, or proof, that the sinner had been justified and that the sin had been washed away, all of which happened in the courtyard. The process was completed in the courtyard and nothing further was needed for the sinner.

The belief that the sacrificial blood in the daily services brought about cleansing leads to the belief that the atonement was completed at the cross, for no further cleansing is needed, and this is where the problem lies with Judaism. Although the Jewish people do not accept the death of Christ as an atonement, they do take seriously Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, for they believe they are sealed (year-by-year) on the annual Day of Atonement and because they are sealed, no future investigation and cleansing are needed. Here also is where the problem lies with Seventh-day Adventists who do not accept 1844 as a theologically-sound date and who do not accept the cleansing of the sanctuary and the investigative judgment as bibically-based doctrines. There is no need of them, since all was accomplished at the cross. And here also lies the problem with Pröbstle, who teaches, as we saw earlier, that justification was fixed and sealed for eternity for the individual on the typical Day of Atonement. Such Adventists are left with the most-holy-place theology of Question on Doctrine, which states that what Jesus is doing for us now in the heavenly sanctuary is applying the benefits of the atonement accomplished at the cross, i.e., performing a ministry of justification, and is not cleansing us from sin and perfecting us as the gold of Ophir.

With this background in mind, let us turn our attention to the scapegoat.

Onycha Holt

[1]. Alexander Bolotnikov, True Believer, page 132

[2]. Rabbi Nosson Scherman, “An Overview/Yom Kippur—The Day and Its Essence,” in Yom Kippur—Its Significance, Laws, and Prayers, by Rabbi Nosson Scherman, Rabbi Hersh Goldwurm, and Rabbi Avie Gold, p. 25; emphasis in original

[3]. Comments by Milton Hook on July 1 and 2, 2015, in response to “What Do the Proposed Changes in the Sanctuary Doctrine Mean?” by Ranald McLeish, H. Ross Cole, and Mel Trevena, Adventist Today, July 1, 2015; http://atoday.org/what-do-the-proposed-changes-in-the-sanctuary-doctrine-mean.html

[4]. Mr. Stern died June 18, 2016.

[5]. Jonathan Stern, “I support Obama’s cancer ‘moonshot.’ Unfortunately, it won’t save me.”, The Washington Post, February 29, 2016; accessed at https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/i-support-obamas-cancer-moonshot-unfortunately-it-wont-save-me/2016/02/29/b736be8a-ca8f-11e5-a7b2-5a2f824b02c9_story.html on 6–2–16.

[6]. Rabbi Nosson Scherman, “An Overview—The Eternal Offering Service,” Vayikra, Leviticus/A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized from Talmudic, Midrashic, and Rabbinic Sources, vol. 1, p. 24

[7]. Martin Pröbstle, introductory video for Lesson 6 of the Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide for fourth quarter 2013; minute 05:47; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBzU54-52co&index=4&list=PLjmTs4btwCjLyH085cQJ5KWxsS1HFjta8; accessed 1–24–16

[8]. But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway (1 Corinthians 9:27).

[9]. “It is better to die than to sin; better to want than to defraud; better to hunger than to lie” (Ellen White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 4, p. 495).


The Shofar Sounds

Part 2—The Scapegoat

Chapter 16 of Leviticus outlines the services on the Day of Atonement to be as follows:

The scapegoat

The Hebrew word translated scapegoat is לזאזע, azazel, and azazel is only used in Leviticus 16. The concept of the scapegoat is found nowhere else in the Bible. Azazel is composed of two smaller Hebrew words—aze, which means goat, and azal, which means, in simple terms, gone. Azazel is literally the gone or the departed goat, i.e., the goat taken into the wilderness.

The scapegoat has nothing to do with man’s atonement and is not a representative of Christ. We know this because the sanctuary and the altar were cleansed (Leviticus 16:18, 20) before the scapegoat was brought to the high priest, and we know this also because atonement had already been made for the holy sanctuary, for the tabernacle of the congregation, for the altar, for the priests, and for the congregation. The scapegoat had nothing to do with providing atonement for man or with providing his cleansing. Instead of doing the work of Christ and instead of representing him, the scapegoat represents Satan.

Some have mistakenly concluded that if the sins of Israel are finally placed on Satan, he must have some part in the atonement. This is a great error. Satan has no part whatever in the vicarious atonement; the saints are in no way indebted to him; his bearing of sin is in no way related to salvation; his work is evil and only evil.

As the Lamb of God, Christ bore the sin of the world. (John 3:16.) All the accumulated sins of men were placed upon Him. He is “the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.” 1 Tim. 4:10” (M. L. Andreasen, The Sanctuary Service, p. 195; 2006 edition)

The scapegoat is symbolic of Satan

As the earthly high priest confessed the sins of the Israelites upon the scapegoat, so Jesus, the heavenly high priest, will remove the guilt of these sins from the heavenly sanctuary and place them upon Satan (the sins themselves have been blotted out, never to be remembered). The whole scene is a concrete representation of something invisible and intangible. As we have often heard, a picture is worth a thousand words.

As the priest, in removing the sins from the sanctuary, confessed them upon the head of the scapegoat, so Christ will place all these sins upon Satan, the originator and instigator of sin. The scapegoat, bearing the sins of Israel, was sent away “unto a land not inhabited” (Leviticus 16:22); so Satan, bearing the guilt of all the sins which he has caused God’s people to commit, will be for a thousand years confined to the earth, which will then be desolate, without inhabitant, and he will at last suffer the full penalty of sin in the fires that shall destroy all the wicked. (White, The Great Controversy, p. 485)

Just as Ellen White used the word church in different ways, and understanding what she means can be confusing at times, so we find a couple of different ways she explains what is placed on the scapegoat. In most places she says the sins of the righteous are placed on the scapegoat, and this is what Pröbstle is reflecting when he said the originator of sin will receive the sin on the Day of Atonement, but we know Jesus is the sin-bearer, so how can we reconcile this? The Bible says that the High Priest confessed all the iniquities, the transgressions, and the sins of the children of Israel onto the head of Azazel and that Azazel then bore these inquities into a land not inhabitated (Leviticus 16:21, 22). We also know that only the sins of the righteous—those who had confessed their sins and had offered an offering—were transferred to the sanctuary and the sins of the wicked were not. Let us consider a few more issues, and I think the answer will be clear.

Let us start with guilt. Ellen White says the scapegoat carries the guilt of all the sins of the righteous. We read this in the quotation above:

. . . so Satan, bearing the guilt of all the sins which he has caused God’s people to commit . . . (Ibid.)

Another author explains it this way:

Azazel is a symbol of the devil. When the whole work had been completed in type, the guilt was laid upon him.

We use the word “bear” to describe Azazel’s part. He was to “bear” the guilt into the wilderness. We say too, “Christ bore our sins.” The words are used accurately. But the connotation we place on each is different. Unless he is careful, the superficial reader may think that we Adventists make Azazel our sin-bearer. But that is silly! Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Azazel never died in the ritual! “The wages of sin is death.”Azazel did not die. In the wilderness he was to adumbrate [represent] Satan during the millennium. For a thousand years Satan will be in a land not inhabited. The universe will look down and say, “Is this the man that made the earth to tremble?” (Isaiah 14:16). (Leslie Hardinge, Shadows of His Sacrifice: Studies in the Sanctuary, pp. 72, 73)

Now let us consider what the high priest symbolically placed on the scapegoat—the evil itself, the breach it caused, and the penalty it incurred. We read this in Leviticus 16:21:

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. (Leviticus 16:21)

The Hebrew word translated iniquities is ןוע (‘avon) and often means a perversity or a moral evil. The word translated transgressions is עשׁפ (pesha) and often means a breach between two parties, and the Hebrew word for sin is האטח (khat-tawth´) and can mean an offense and its penalty but has many nuances in scripture. For example, Judah agreed to be khat-tawth´ if he did not return Benjamin to his father after Benjamin’s trip to Egypt; in other words, Judah would be responsible for the offense of not returning him and would bear the penalty (Genesis 43:9; 44:32).

Over the scapegoat were confessed the evil itself (‘avon), the breach it caused (pesha), and the penalty it incurred (khat-tawth´), which was a demonstration of Satan’s role in influencing the righteous to sin. It was not an illustration of Satan bearing our sins because no blood was shed. Jesus is our only sin-bearer. After this confession by the high priest, the goat was sent into a land uninhabited. Likewise, Satan will be bound in a land uninhabited for one thousand years, after which he will be completely and fully destroyed. We know this from several verses we will consider in a moment, but first let us consider the scapegoat and its definition in the book Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine (QOD) because it involves guilt.

Questions on Doctrine

We read in The Great Controversy that Satan bears “the guilt of all the sins which he has caused God’s people to commit” (White, The Great Controversy, p. 485), and he does, but in Questions of Doctrine, we read that the justice of God demanded that Jesus suffer for our guilt and that Satan be punished for being the instigator of sin:

Simple justice demands that while Christ suffers for my guilt, Satan must also be punished as the instigator of sin. (QOD, p. 399)[2]

Let us be very clear. Jesus bore our sins to the cross—the wages of sin is death. Even though the word guilt can mean sin itself, this is not what QOD is saying in this passage, for just a few sentences later we read that Jesus “bore our sins, with all the guilt and punishment entailed. Thus he made a complete atonement for our sins.” (Ibid.). Forensically speaking, atonement involves sin and the payment of its penalty; it never involves the guilt that is experienced as a state of being. Atonement, however, is broader than forensic demands. Jesus heals our experience of guilt, our broken-heartedness, also (Luke 4:18). Our understanding of the concepts of guilt and of sin can be hazy, and their usages can overlap. At times Ellen White uses the two words interchangeably. For example, she uses guilt in the following reference to the rich young ruler to mean sin:

To a great degree his outward life had been free from guilt; he verily thought that his obedience had been without a flaw. (Ellen White, Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 391)

And she says Jesus had a load of guilt resting upon him:

When Christ gave His disciples the promise of the Spirit, He was nearing the close of His earthly ministry. He was standing in the shadow of the cross, with a full realization of the load of guilt that was to rest upon Him as the Sin Bearer. (Ellen White, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 47)

This load of guilt is also described as the sins of the world:

It was not merely agony of body which Christ endured; the sins of the whole world were upon Him. (Ellen White, Early Writings, p. 176)

Even though she sometimes uses the terms interchangeably, Ellen White also makes a difference between the two. For example, she says: “Although they [the people of God] have sinned, Christ has taken the guilt of their sins upon His own soul.” (White, Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 169). This is an important statement. Not only is she making a difference between the two concepts—sin has guilt and is, therefore, not a synonym of guilt—but she is also telling us the very soul of Jesus was involved when he bore our sins on the cross. (See also Isaiah 53:10, 12.) First, let us consider the definition of guilt used in her day. It was used primarily as “that state of a moral agent which results from his actual commission of a crime or offense, knowing it to be a crime . . . the guilt of a person exists, as soon as the crime is [knowingly] committed” (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary). The word guilt was also used in her day to be the crime or the offense itself, but this was not the primary meaning. So, the word guilt in Ellen White’s day referred either to the crime itself or to the state of being one was in after one knowingly committing a crime.

Now why is this important? The Bible tells us that Jesus bore our iniquity (Isaiah 53:6; 1 Peter 2:24), and the Hebrew word translated iniquity in Isaiah 53:6 is never translated guilt (or any form of the word) anywhere in the KJV. When someone was punished for his iniquity, he was never punished for his state of being guilty; he was, instead, punished for his transgression of the law. Jesus died on the cross not because of our state of guiltiness but because of our sins. Death was what the law demanded. His soul, however, carried a heavy burden.

The second and the most profound part of her statement is the depth of Christ’s involvement. We know the mental agony of Jesus on the cross far outweighed his physical agony, for he bore every sin—past, present, and future—of every person to the cross. The sheer number of sins would be enough to bow any human being to the ground, even the spiritually strong Son of God, but this is not what Ellen White is talking about. You may have thought it was the weight of the number of sins that broke the sinless heart of Jesus—but this is not so. We are talking about his soul. Recall some horrible deed you have done—we all have them in the recesses of our memories—recall how you hurt someone deeply, how terribly you felt afterwards, and how your selfish actions cause you pain even to this day. That pain is soul pain. Soul pain is not a mental assessment of your actions, as deep and terrible as the assessment might be, but it is the anguish of your body and your mind combined. You hurt so much that you physically and mentally cave in. Now imagine being a repentant Stalin (or a repentant lesser despot), a repentant slave-trader, or a repentant serial killer and imagine how much soul pain you might feel over your actions, and this, with an exponent I cannot compute, was the soul pain of Jesus on the cross. His heart burst. He carried our sins to the cross, forensically speaking, so that we can be justified and finally sealed, yes, but he also carried the anguish of our grief and sorrow over every sin in his soul—that state of being called guilt by Webster above. It crushed him.

During his thirty years of life on earth his heart was wrung with inconceivable anguish. The path from the manger to Calvary was shadowed by grief and sorrow. He was a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief, enduring such heartache as no human language can portray. He could have said in truth, “Behold and see if there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow.” Hating sin with a perfect hatred, he yet gathered to his soul the sins of the whole world. Guiltless, he bore the punishment of the guilty. Innocent, yet offering himself as a substitute for the transgressor. The guilt of every sin pressed its weight upon the divine soul of the world’s. Redeemer. The evil thoughts, the evil words, the evil deeds of every son and daughter of Adam, called for retribution upon himself; for he had become man’s substitute. Though the guilt of sin was not his, his spirit was torn and bruised by the transgressions of men, and he who knew no sin became sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (Ellen White, The Signs of the Times, December 5, 1892)

The guilt Jesus bore is not like the guilt Satan will bear. Satan will bear a forensic guilt, legally and justifiably applied to him, but he will have no soul pain, no repentant anguish, over the hurt he has caused others. He is, above all others, a most malignant creature, and the difference between the two guilts borne—the one by Jesus and the other by Satan—is what QOD fails to make. We are left hanging, and we wonder how Jesus could bear our “sins, with all the guilt and punishment entailed” (QOD, p. 399), while Satan bears “the responsibility [guilt] for all the sins he has caused others to commit” (Ibid.) Guilt and responsibility in this passage are equivalent. QOD presents a confusing picture of what Azazel will bear and what Jesus bore and blends the two into a bearing of the same thing—guilt. The end result of guilt is not death; only sin results in death. To believe guilt results in death is to believe that sin, instead of being a transgression of the law, is a break in one’s relationship with Jesus. Separation from Jesus is not sin; it is the result of sin:

But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, And your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear. (Isaiah 59:2)

And guilt, in this usage, is not sin; it is the result of sin.

One more concept we need to clear up is QOD’s use of the word responsibility: Satan bears “the responsibility for all the sins he has caused others to commit” (QOD, p. 399). Responsibility is another word describing a state of being—it is the state of being accountable or answerable.[3]

So, when we read “in like manner, Satan is the responsible master mind in the great crime of sin, and his responsibility will return upon his own head” (Ibid.), what does it mean? The state of being accountable returns to his own head? Has his accountability ever left him? This is illusive talk, using words to skirt the issue that sin is sin and being is being and the concepts are not interchangeable. Worse than skirting this issue is the fact that such talk instills the idea in our minds that our state of being is what is wrong with us, that our nature, our being, is what is sinful and not the actions we do or the things we think. Again, QOD states:

. . . Satan, who is eventually to have rolled back upon his own head, not only his own sins, but the responsibility for all the sins he has caused others to commit. (Ibid.)

I ask again, where or to whom did Satan’s responsibility and his sins go, from which they are to be rolled back?

Let us now consider Azazel and the uninhabited land to which he is sent. The antitype of this illustration is the millennium. We know this from the following references:

Revelation 20:1–3

And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, 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. (Revelation 20:1–3)

The revelator foretells the banishment of Satan and the condition of chaos and desolation to which the earth is to be reduced, and he declares that this condition will exist for a thousand years. After presenting the scenes of the Lord’s second coming and the destruction of the wicked, the prophecy continues [Revelation 20:1–3 quoted]. (White, The Great Controversy, p. 658)

Genesis 1:2 and Jeremiah 4:23–26

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:2)

I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger. (Jeremiah 4:23–26)

That the expression “bottomless pit” represents the earth in a state of confusion and darkness is evident from other scriptures. Concerning the condition of the earth “in the beginning,” the Bible record says that it “was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” Genesis 1:2. Prophecy teaches that it will be brought back, partially at least, to this condition. Looking forward to the great day of God, the prophet Jeremiah declares: “I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down.” Jeremiah 4:23–26.

Here is to be the home of Satan with his evil angels for a thousand years. Limited to the earth, he will not have access to other worlds to tempt and annoy those who have never fallen. It is in this sense that he is bound: there are none remaining, upon whom he can exercise his power. He is wholly cut off from the work of deception and ruin which for so many centuries has been his sole delight. . . .

For six thousand years, Satan’s work of rebellion has “made the earth to tremble.” He had “made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof.” And he “opened not the house of his prisoners.” For six thousand years his prison house has received God’s people, and he would have held them captive forever; but Christ had broken his bonds and set the prisoners free. (White, The Great Controversy pp. 658, 659)

Isaiah 14:18–20

All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house. But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned. (Isaiah 14:18–20)

Even the wicked are now placed beyond the power of Satan, and alone with his evil angels he remains to realize the effect of the curse which sin has brought. “The kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, everyone in his own house [the grave]. But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch. . . . Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people.” Isaiah 14:18–20.

For a thousand years, Satan will wander to and fro in the desolate earth to behold the results of his rebellion against the law of God. During this time his sufferings are intense. Since his fall his life of unceasing activity has banished reflection; but he is now deprived of his power and left to contemplate the part which he has acted since first he rebelled against the government of heaven, and to look forward with trembling and terror to the dreadful future when he must suffer for all the evil that he has done and be punished for the sins that he has caused to be committed. (White, The Great Controversy, p. 660)

During the thousand years between the first and the second resurrections, the saints will judge the world:

During the thousand years between the first and the second resurrection the judgment of the wicked takes place. The apostle Paul points to this judgment as an event that follows the second advent. “Judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts.” 1 Corinthians 4:5. Daniel declares that when the Ancient of Days came, “judgment was given to the saints of the Most High.” Daniel 7:22. At this time the righteous reign as kings and priests unto God. John in the Revelation says: “I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them.” “They shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.” Revelation 20:4, 6. It is at this time that, as foretold by Paul, “the saints shall judge the world.” 1 Corinthians 6:2. In union with Christ they judge the wicked, comparing their acts with the statute book, the Bible, and deciding every case according to the deeds done in the body. Then the portion which the wicked must suffer is meted out, according to their works; and it is recorded against their names in the book of death. (Ibid., pp. 660, 661)

The saints will judge the world, in union with Christ, and together they will judge Satan and his evil angels:

Satan also and evil angels are judged by Christ and His people. Says Paul: “Know ye not that we shall judge angels?” Verse 3 [1 Corinthians 6:3]. And Jude declares that “the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” Jude 6.

At the close of the thousand years the second resurrection will take place. Then the wicked will be raised from the dead and appear before God for the execution of “the judgment written.” (White, The Great Controversy, p. 661)

There are three phases to judgment:

The punishment of Satan

The sins of the righteous are cast into the proverbial depths of the sea and are remembered no more—they will cease to exist at the bar of justice, when the cases of the righteous are sealed for eternal life. Jesus bore their sins on the cross and paid the penalty, but Satan will bear a partial punishment for all sins of the righteous, for he led each person into committing each sin. He has had an influence in every fall from grace, moment by moment and day by day, although the sin itself has been forgiven and forgotten. Andreasen explains it this way:

No Christian wishes to sin. He abhors it. But Satan tempts him. A thousand times the man resists, and a thousand times Satan comes back. At last the man yields; he sins. But he soon repents; he asks forgiveness. The sin has been recorded in heaven. Now forgiveness is placed against it. The man is happy. He is forgiven. He has placed his sin upon the great Sin Bearer, who willingly takes it upon Himself, pays the penalty, and suffers the punishment due the sinner.

Then comes the final judgment. The sin is blotted out. The man’s record is clear. But what about Satan’s part in causing him to fall? Has that been atoned for? It has not. Satan must pay for it himself with his life. (Andreasen, The Sanctuary Service, p. 193; 2006 edition)

Satan will also be declared worthy of a partial punishment for every sin of every wicked person. The wicked will bear the punishment of their own sins, for they did the sinning, but Satan snared them into sin. He enticed them, he deceived them, and he will be punished for his influence on them. He will be punished for his part in causing the performance of every wicked deed ever performed by them, and this includes his part in influencing all the sins of the fallen angels.

Satan will also bear full punishment for his own sins. Upon no one else can a partial responsibility be placed. He is totally and completely responsible for his sins. No one led him into sin, no one enticed him, and no one deceived him; and the amazing thing is, he will bow before the King of Kings and confess his sentence is just.

In other words, Satan will suffer for his own sins and for his influence in causing others to sin. It is important to understand that we also have an influence on others for which we are responsible, and we will be held accountable for how we use this influence:

The punishment of the sinner will be measured by the extent to which he has influenced others in impenitence. (Ellen White, The Youth’s Instructor, May 9, 1901)

Just as Satan is punished for his own sins and partially for the sins he influenced others to perform, so the unrepentant sinner will suffer for his own sins and partially for the sins his influence persuaded others to commit.

An illustration from Andreasen

A sinner repents, seeks God earnestly, and receives forgiveness. In the day of judgment, the sin is blotted out, and even the record is no more. The sinner stands before God as if he had never sinned, clad in a robe pure and white, a new creature. His sin is washed away.

What has happened? The death penalty which hung over the sinner has been removed. Christ has died for the sinner, died in his place. He has taken upon himself the punishment which was due the sinner. He has suffered for the sinner’s sake, and by his stripes the sinner is healed. Christ has taken his sin with him into the grave; there he paid the penalty; there he made “an end of sin.”

What did become of the sinner’s sin? It simply ceased to exist. When he, by the grace of God, gave up his sin, when he received forgiveness and cleansing, when he heeded the admonition, “Go and sin no more,” sin came to an end. There was no more sin, no more uncleanness, no more transgression. It had all vanished. Christ had done a complete work. At the conclusion of the judgment, even the record is blotted out, and the sin can no more come to mind.

What happened in this case happens in the case of every truly converted person: Christ takes entire charge. He takes the sin and its punishment, he forgives and cleanses, he creates a new heart and mind, and the sinner becomes an entirely new creature. (Andreasen, The Sanctuary Service, pp. 203, 204; 2006 edition; slightly edited)

Another illustration

Why is it that the guilt is put upon Azazel or Satan? The reason may be simply illustrated something like this: This auditorium may grow very warm. I ask one of the ushers to open a window. He takes a pole to push it up. As he is passing a foot darts out, a mischievous foot, and he is tripped. He plunges the end of the rod through the window and it is broken! Who broke the window? Why, we all saw that the usher broke the window, of course! But we did not see that darting foot. So, with the sinner, we see him sin, but we do not always see the foot that has tripped him. The tempter must be exposed to the universe, when all his work is completed. Oh, yes, we’ve all sinned! We must die! But Christ died for us, for everyone. He does not only bear the sins of the righteous. Christ has borne every sin of every man that ever came into the world. The purpose of the ceremony with Azazel is to point out to the universe that Satan is the instigator of all sin. (Hardinge, Shadows of His Sacrifice: Studies in the Sanctuary, p. 73)

But, how does the ritual of Azazel illustrate to the universe that Satan is the instigator of all sin? It is illustrated when the high priest lays his hands on the head of the scapegoat and confesses all the iniquities of the Israelites, all their transgressions in all their sins. This is a complete package of all sins—everything—but confession is not made to gain atonement for sin because atonement has already been made for them by the blood of the bullock and by the blood of the Lord’s goat. What the high priest placed on the head of the scapegoat was the burden of the guilt for all the iniquities, all the transgressions, and all the sins:

On the Day of Atonement the high priest, having taken an offering for the congregation, went into the most holy place with the blood and sprinkled it upon the mercy seat, above the tables of the law. Thus the claims of the law, which demanded the life of the sinner, were satisfied. Then in his character of mediator the priest took the sins upon himself, and, leaving the sanctuary, he bore with him the burden of Israel’s guilt. At the door of the tabernacle he laid his hands upon the head of the scapegoat and 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.” (White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 355)

Now do you understand what Jesus bore and what Azazel bore? Jesus bore the sins of the world to the cross and satisfied the demands of the law for its transgressions, but only the righteous accept this salvation and only their sins are eventually cast into the depths of the sea, to be remembered no more. Wicked men and women are punished for their transgressions of the law, as well as for the influence they exerted to cause others to transgress the law. The evil angels are punished for their transgressions of the law and for their influence in causing others to sin, and Satan himself is punished for his own sins, as well as for his influence in causing every sin ever committed by every being, angelic and human. None of us can begin to comprehend Satan’s record, but one day he will face it, and that is why he will be after God’s people in the last days with a vengeance never before seen, except that shown Jesus. It is his desperate plan to rid the world of every godly person, so that there will be no righteous person left alive on the face of the earth, and then Jesus cannot come! There will be no 144,000, and the world will be filled with a people who prove Satan’s claim that no one can keep the law. We know that will not happen, but he thinks we are deluded and do not understand his power to deceive and coerce. His power is great, but the power of our Saviour is greater. We may not now understand the great pressure that will be brought to bear against us—greater than at any other time in Earth’s history and greater than that faced by any other person except Jesus—but God is faithful and will not allow us to be tempted above that which we are able to bear (1 Corinthians 10:13). Not only has Jesus wounded the head of Satan, but the faithful ones who stand in defense of the law of God do so also:

The Lord said concerning Satan, that old serpent, that he should bruise the heel of Christ, but Christ would bruise his head. Thank God, he cannot touch the head. “With the mind I myself serve the law of God” (Romans 7:25), said the prophet. The mind and heart are enlisted in the service of Christ, while Satan has enlisted men and fallen angels to join in his company to league against good. They can only bruise the heel, while in the very act, when Satan seems to have triumphed in putting them to torture and to death, the faithful who stand in defense of the law of Jehovah are wounding the head of the great rebel. (Ellen White, Ms55–1886.31)

A terrible, very terrible, battle is soon to break before us, and we must be ready.

It was by self-surrender and confiding faith that Jacob gained what he had failed to gain by conflict in his own strength. God thus taught His servant that divine power and grace alone could give him the blessing he craved. Thus it will be with those who live in the last days. As dangers surround them, and despair seizes upon the soul, they must depend solely upon the merits of the atonement. We can do nothing of ourselves. In all our helpless unworthiness we must trust in the merits of the crucified and risen Saviour. None will ever perish while they do this. The long, black catalogue of our delinquencies is before the eye of the Infinite. The register is complete; none of our offenses are forgotten. But He who listened to the cries of His servants of old, will hear the prayer of faith and pardon our transgressions. He has promised, and He will fulfill His word. (White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 202)

The removal of both the guilt of the sins of the righteous and the record of their sins is the most significant event in the history of the universe. When the high priest brought the censer of incense out of the most holy place, it “meant that intercession had ceased and probation had closed. . . . In this ritual of the two goats, the completion, the climax of all the ceremonies of the plan of salvation was reached. Azazel is a symbol of the devil. When the whole work had been completed in type, the guilt was laid upon him” (Hardinge, Shadows of His Sacrifice: Studies in the Sanctuary, p. 72).

The atonement of the scapegoat

The Bible is clear that the scapegoat does makes an atonement. We read about it in Leviticus 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. (Leviticus 16:10)

How can this be, for the blood of the scapegoat is not shed and “without shedding of blood is no remission” of sin (Hebrews 9:22)? It is so because the atonement made by the scapegoat is of a different nature than that made for the remission of sins, even though the same Hebrew word for atonement (רפכ kaphar) is used.

We know the bullock and the Lord’s goat were offered as sin offerings—to effect kaphar—and Leviticus 16:20 tells us an end was made of reconciling (kaphar again) before the scapegoat was brought to the high priest.

The difference in the atonements is that the one made by the scapegoat was made with the LORD (Leviticus 16:10); whereas, the atonement procured by the sin offerings was for the people (Leviticus 16:34):

And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the Lord commanded Moses. (Leviticus 16:34)

Even though the same Hebrew preposition is used in verses 10 and 34, which is translated with and for, the translators of the King James version of the Bible realized there is a difference in the atonements depicted, and we agree. The scapegoat represents Satan, and in no way can he offer an atonement for our sins, but he will make an at-one-ment with God, when his knee is bowed before the Lord and when his voice confesses that just and true are God’s ways. Satan will have capitulated, restoring harmony to the universe.

For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. (Romans 14:11)

Satan sees that his voluntary rebellion has unfitted him for heaven. He has trained his powers to war against God; the purity, peace, and harmony of heaven would be to him supreme torture. His accusations against the mercy and justice of God are now silenced. The reproach which he has endeavored to cast upon Jehovah rests wholly upon himself. And now Satan bows down and confesses the justice of his sentence. (White, The Great Controversy, p. 670)

At his second coming, the scene is changed. He is acknowledged by all as the King of glory. At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Lord of heaven and earth, to the glory of God the Father. The angels bow in adoration before him. His enemies see the mistake they have made, and every tongue confesses his divinity. (Ellen White, The Youth’s Instructor, July 25, 1901)

Every living creature throughout the universe is now in agreement with God.

Peace and harmony are restored.

The atonement is complete!

Onycha Holt

[1]. The blood of sin offerings for the high priest and for the congregation was always sprinkled before the veil separating the holy place from the most holy place,* but on the Day of Atonement the blood of Aaron’s sin offering was sprinkled within the veil, directly upon and before the mercy seat. Why was there such a significant change in procedure on this day? It is because Jesus is both the sacrifice for sin and the mediator of that sacrifice. The bullock of Aaron and the goat of the Lord (which was sacrificed for the people) represent these two beautiful aspects of Christ—his sacrifice and his priesthood. Through his sin offering, Aaron illustrated again to the people the necessity of confessing sin and of obtaining forgiveness, and through the sin offering of the Lord, Aaron illustrated the great work of Christ’s intercessory pleading of his blood on behalf of his people.** The death of Christ gives the right for pardon to be written beside the record of every sin that is confessed and repented of and also allows the blotting out of those sins at the times of refreshing, and both of these essential works of Christ are illustrated in the sin offerings on the Day of Atonement. Following these two events, the holy place, the tabernacle, the altar, the priests, and the people receive atonement, after Aaron leaves the most holy place,*** and then the guilt**** of all the sins, iniquities, and transgressions blotted out for God’s people during the times of refreshing is carried from the scene of judgment and placed upon Azazel. It is a beautiful and complete illustration of the plan of salvation—the perfect life and the death and resurrection of our Saviour on our behalf, the great gift of God’s mercy in the remission of our sins, the great atonement and reconciliation obtained for us with God, in which our sins are blotted out and remembered no more, and finally the placing of the guilt for all our sins upon Satan. We can only marvel at such a plan!

* Leviticus 4:6, 7, 17, 18; Editor’s note #6, Patriarchs and Prophets, page 761

** “My blood, Father, my blood,” Ellen White, Life Sketches, p. 119

*** This points to the time when Jesus will leave the most holy place and because sin in his people will be no more, there will no longer be a need for the services of the sanctuary. The objects of the sanctuary are cleansed and atoned for, never to be contaminated with sin again.

**** White, The Great Controversy, p. 485

[2]. This thought is similar to this quotation: “Since Satan is the originator of sin, the direct instigator of all the sins that caused the death of the Son of God, justice demands that Satan shall suffer the final punishment” (Ellen White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 358)

[3]. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary and Webster’s 1953 Dictionary


Youth’s Corner — A “Wolf’s Passport”

(This installment is the first part of chapter 12 of Escape from Siberian Exile by John Godfrey Jacques, published by Pacific Press in 1921.)

BETWEEN my fair young guardians—who were wholly unaware of their office —I crossed the gangplank, chatting busily, as if quite unobservant of surroundings; although I certainly was not forgetful of the policemen ranged along either side. On deck, we continued our ostensibly merry conversation until the whistle gave warning of the steamer’s departure; but I was careful to stand where I was not conspicuous.

As the unsuspecting misses, having returned to the wharf, saw the steamer head toward Ufa instead of in the opposite direction, their faces told that they were puzzled; but I waved them a reassuring good-by, then went into my stateroom.

Scarcely ten minutes passed before there was a rap at my door; and when I opened it, the purser stood before me. He asked to see my ticket. His request would have caused me no concern, but that the Russian word he used for ticket was one that is sometimes used to indicate a passport. In my confusion, I produced my “wolf’s passport.” The purser, after glancing at it, questioned whether it entitled me to free transportation.

I understood, then, that he had meant to call for my ticket; and I handed it to him, which was all he required. He may not have observed that the place designated in my “wolf’s passport” was one we were leaving farther behind us each moment; or perhaps he surmised my intentions, but was not disposed to hinder me.

The next morning, we arrived at Ufa. I almost expected that officers would be waiting at the wharf to apprehend me; but I was not molested. I went direct to the railway station. To my chagrin, I learned that no train would leave for the west till late in the afternoon. Putting my baggage in a corner of the waiting room, I concealed myself in the manner that I believed to be most effectual; that is, walking boldly about the streets. This I did till time to board the train.

I bought a ticket for Samara, whence I thought to travel by boat to Tsaritsyn. To lessen expense, I would have traveled third class, except for the greater privacy afforded by the second-class coaches. In these, a person could have a compartment to himself, and shut himself in, if there were not too many passengers; but the third class coaches were not divided into compartments. I refrained from leaving the train at stations, as to be seen by any of the gendarmes on duty there might be disastrous for me.

I reached Samara the next morning, but had not quite enough money to pay my passage on the steamer to Tsaritsyn. It was at Samara that a minister of our church had visited me in jail when I was on the way to Siberia, and I now determined to hunt him up; but the city is a large one, and I did not know what part of it he lived in. When persistent inquiry for him and for our church brought no reward, I decided to find, if possible, a church of some of the other sects, as I might in that way learn of the whereabouts of our own.

I met an old woman carrying a basket of vegetables, and I asked her if she knew where the Baptist church was. She did not; but she pointed to a chapel near, which she said belonged to another sect. It was our very own! In connection with this building was the home of the minister I sought, whose visit to Gorelic and me in jail had been so great a comfort to us. He and his family received me hospitably; and the little time spent with them was a season of refreshment to me, spiritually and physically. He lent me the few rubles lacking to pay my passage on the steamer—which amount I sent back to him a few days later.

On a better steamer than I had thought to see in that part of the country, I proceeded down the Volga. “Mother Volga” this river is called, as it has its source in the region where the Russian nation was cradled.

I felt more secure on the boat than on land. I had a stateroom alone; and though nearly two days on board, I hardly spoke with one person. Indeed, there were few passengers, as travel on the Volga is limited chiefly to summer, when many pleasure seekers make the long journey down to the Caspian Sea.

During those early October days, the clouds were dark and foreboding, as was the outlook before me. Still I was grateful to the Father who had brought me thus far.

On the second night, we reached Saratov, where the steamer was to stop a number of hours. Our denominational headquarters for all of Russia were then located in Saratov. I went ashore in search of them; and having the address, I succeeded in finding the place.

There I learned that the work of the mission was advancing, though many of our workers had been exiled, and others had been called into the army.

Before leaving to go back to the steamer, I drew most of the money the mission held to my credit. This would meet the expense of the rest of my journey homeward, and also repay the amount borrowed of our minister at Samara.

After another day of slow travel by boat, I landed at Tsaritsyn. To avoid the distressing self-consciousness that I could not easily throw off when alone, I made companions of two Armenians who had been with the army in the Caucasus.

Two more days by train took me, utterly intoxicated with joy, to the town of my birth, where most of my relatives lived. My parents’ home was a little farther on.

At the station, I pulled my cap low over my face, and thought that sufficient precaution against detection, as I did not suppose I should be readily recognized after having been absent for years. Indeed, so free did I feel, away from all the reminders of exile, that I did not fully sense the need of caution.

As I was leaving the station, I met an old man, who addressed me by name. I was in consternation. This might mean that I should be cast back into Dante’s inferno just when I was about to enter Paradise.

The delight of my relatives on my appearance at the old homestead, was eclipsed by grief when they learned that I came to them a refugee. As for myself, I was weary in body and in spirit. My sweet aged grandmother perceived this; and after a time, she took me authoritatively by the arm—though she was a wee body in comparison with my six feet one—led me to her quiet apartments, and left me there to sleep.

It is said of the disciples of Christ, that as they waited for Jesus in Gethsemane, they slept “for sorrow.” (Luke 22:45.) I slept in the ancestral home, whether “for sorrow” or from exhaustion, or both.

I woke at the sound of footsteps in the hallway. One of our ministers who was in the village at the time, had come, by request of my uncle and grandmother, to consider with me plans for my future. Behind locked doors, we discussed the question.

To remain in the home of my relatives would jeopardize not only my own safety, but also theirs, and even that of the church. The course I had had in mind from the first —that of seeking concealment with a friend who lived in the foothills not far away—was declared to be impracticable. The suggestion was made that I cross the Caspian into Persia; but I had no ear for such a scheme, as I knew of the revolutionary spirit prevalent in Persia, the taking over of control of that country by Russia, and Turkish invasions of the territory. To be continued


Recipes by Christy Whitehurst from the Camp Meeting Cooking Class

PARSLEY HU “MM-MM” US

2 cups sprouted garbanzos

1/4–1/2 cup extra virgin olive oil, optional. If leaving out, add another source of moisture, as the hummus is thick.

1/2 teaspoon cumin

1/2 teaspoon freshly squeezed lime juice

1/4 cup freshly squeezed lemon juice

1/2 cup chopped parsley

1/4 cup pitted black olives

1 tablespoon pressed garlic

1 1/2 teaspoons sea salt

WHIZ all ingredients in blender.

REFRIGERATE overnight.

CHRISTY’S EASY HUMMUS

1 15–ounce can black beans or 2 cups cooked black beans

1 clove garlic

Juice of one lemon

1/2 teaspoon sea salt

1/2 heaping teaspoon cumin

2 tablespoons extra virgin olive oil, optional. If leaving out, add another source of moisture, as the hummus is thick.

2 tablespoons sesame seeds

WHIZ all ingredients in a blender.

SPROUTED BUCKWHEAT GRANOLA

2 cups buckwheat, soaked for 6 hours and sprouted for 24 hours

2 cups sunflower seeds, soaked for 6 hours and sprouted for 24 hours

2 cups sesame seeds, soaked for 6 hours and sprouted for 24 hours

2 cups soaked almond slices

1 1/2 to 2 cups honey, to taste

Dried unsulfured fruit, to taste

RINSE sprouts and almonds and drain.

ADD honey to drained ingredients, mixing evenly, and place on solid dehydrator sheets.

DEHYDRATE 95–105 degrees F until mixture is dry.

ADD dried fruit and store in a container with a lid.


Old Paths is a free monthly newsletter/study-paper published by Smyrna Gospel Ministries, 750 Smyrna Road, Welch, WV 24801–9606 U. S. A. The paper is dedicated to the propagation and restoration of the principles of truth that God gave to the early Seventh-day Adventist pioneers. Duplication is not only permitted, but strongly encouraged. This issue, with other gospel literature we publish, can be found at our website. The url is: http://www.smyrna.org. Phone: (304) 732–9204. Fax: (304) 732–7322.

Editor Allen Stump—editor@smyrna.org
Associate Editor Onycha Holt—onycha@smyrna.org