7th Day Scapegoats

 This was from a discussion I had with a 7^th Day Adventist on e-mail. This was after he and his buddy attended a bible study we were having with a few friends and they accused us of getting some of our doctrine from the Egyptian book of the dead!  I slightly altered the conversation to condense it.

Mick,
 Thanks for sending the material to clarify 7th day teaching on the scapegoat. You make a good attempt at correcting one of the founders of your church. Ellen G. White was clear that Satan bears the sins of the righteous. You believe she is inspired. This is obviously the driving factor in your attempt to reconcile the problem with what she taught versus what most every other church teaches. Why not just say she was wrong, that is so much easier (or is it)?

 The writer you sent tries to clean up after Ellen Whites teaching here:
"The other goat, we believe, stood for 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."

As we read from her own pen and she was very clear, and i quote "the sins of God's people will be placed upon Satan". And again in another place "The sins of the righteous having been transferred to Satan" (pg.371, 380 The Great Controversy). Obviously her blasphemy was recognized by this present writer who attempts to clarify.

 I quote the author again here "Seventh-day Adventists therefore repudiate in toto any idea, suggestion, or implication that Satan is in any sense or degree our sin bearer."

That is good to hear. However this doesn't quite help the doctrine align with the scripture in Lev. 16. The scapegoat very clearly made atonement and bore our sins (hence could not be Satan):

Lev. 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.

Lev. 16:20-21 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: And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

Thankfully the King James translators and most other translators could see that to interpret this as Satan would be a great blasphemy. Obviously also God would be unrighteous were he to punish the devil for that which we are guilty. But I find it also interesting that the writer you sent admits this:

"Etymology of the Word Not Clear.—The word "Azazel" has been the subject of much dispute and conjecture through the centuries. Many scholars agree that it is "a phrase of unusual difficulty" (Smith and Peloubet,  A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 65); "the origin and meaning of the goat 'for Azazel' are indeed obscure" (George B. Stevens,  The Christian Doctrine of Salvation, p. 11); "that its etymology is not clear" (T. W. Chambers, "Satan in the Old Testament,"  Presbyterian and Reformed Review, vol. 3, p. 26). Note the following: Etymology, origin and significance are still matters of conjecture. "

 This is of course why the context determines the translation. And since a goat was sent into the wilderness to bear our sins away from Gods presence (as Psa.51:9, 103:12, Isa.38:17, Heb.10:17), 'scapegoat' is a good translation and has since become a very common phrase to this day. 

 Further problems with claiming Satan is the scapegoat is seen in this quote from the writer:

"Satan must also be punished as the instigator of sin." The scapegoat is not punished. Seems like if it typifies Satan as in 7th day Adventist teaching it would be taken out into the wilderness and burned in the presence of people. But instead it is not killed and it is allowed to escape with no one around to see. 

 Wouldn't it be alot easier to just say Ellen White was in error, than to read into Leviticus an obviously faulty interpretation and try to validate it by calling into question the judgment of all major translators of English bibles over hundreds of years and by their use in all the English churches? This is behavior inconsistent with a group of people anxious to identify themselves with the Protestant reformers. A group whose ‘church’ was started by people deluded about the Lord returning in 1844 and their followers to the present (7th day Adventists). Imagine that- the foundation of 7^th Day Adventism was an admitted erroneous teaching- therefore not the Holy Ghost.

Thanks again,

Todd

Mick,
 Your pastor did send it; i assumed you read it also. To answer your question- No i do not believe the word means evil spirit. Perhaps it has some root reference to sin and evil which would make sense since Christ was made sin for us and God laid upon him the iniquity of us all and he took our sins away.
 But for the reasons i gave (see my first e-mail on this subject) i reject these assertions being added into the bible; and as the information your pastor sent states this:
 "Etymology of the Word Not Clear.—The word "Azazel" has been the subject of much dispute and conjecture through the centuries. Many scholars agree that it is "a phrase of unusual difficulty" (Smith and Peloubet,  A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 65); "the origin and meaning of the goat 'for Azazel' are indeed obscure" (George B. Stevens,  The Christian Doctrine of Salvation, p. 11); "that its etymology is not clear" (T. W. Chambers, "Satan in the Old Testament,"  Presbyterian and Reformed Review, vol. 3, p. 26). Note the following: Etymology, origin and significance are still matters of conjecture. "

Here are some more references:

Azazel [ə-ˈzā-zəl] or Azazael or Azâzêl (Hebrew: עזאזל, Azazel) is a term used three times in the Hebrew scriptures, and later in Hebrew mythology as the enigmatic name of a character. The meaning of Azazel is that of "who God strengthens".^[1]

The ESV provides the footnote "16:8 The meaning of Azazel is uncertain; possibly the name of a place (maybe the wilderness?) or a demon, traditionally a scapegoat; also verses 10, 26". Most scholars accept the indication of some kind of demon or deity,^[3] however Judit M. Blair notes that this is an argument without supporting contemporary text evidence.^[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azazel

 You are allowing the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to be spoken against because of one word that has an uncertain meaning. Basically you would have more evidence trying to prove Lilith is the female demon of Jewish mythology. You will have more success with that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith

 I'll resend my original e-mail if you would like to read it. 

Thanks,

Todd