Mr. Bandenhorst’s “absentmidedness” (or worse)
What we find special in Mr. Chris Bandenhort’s article, “Who is your scapegoat?”, (Proclamation! maganize, April-June edition, p. 6-10) is an evidence of either absentmidedness on his part or, worse, pure dishonesty. He quotes from the book Question on Doctrines [QOD] in different points but makes statements regarding certain notions “forgetting” what the book he quotes from also says about. For example, he says at a certain point:
“Satan-as-a-scapegoat was an entirely new concept to evangelicals. . . . Jewish scholars have stated that this term (Azazel) refers to some evil power, and therefore they interpret Azazel to represent the devil. Based on this Jewish understanding (instead of the teaching of Scripture, especially the New Testament) Crosier interpreted the scapegoat to be Satan. Ever since, Adventists have used this Jewish interpretation to validate their belief that the scapegoat is Satan.”
Not only Jews
The problem is that NOT ONLY JEWS say that, but CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS as well. These are listed in the QOD book which Mr. Bandenhorst used in his “research”, but strangely skipped the parts that mention such scholars. On page 393, for example, there is a subtitle that reads, “The Name ‘Azazel’”, followed by these words:
“The testimony of many scholars of the past, both Jewish and Christian, as well as many of the present, is to this effect” [i.e., that ‘Azazel’ is a proper name]. In the Sunday School Times an evangelical author declares that to render ‘Azazel’ as ‘scapegoat’ is misleading:
‘The goat for Azazel, the Scapegoat, as it is sometimes misleadingly translated, typifies God’s challenge to Satan. (John 1:8; Eph. 3:10)’--J. Russell Howden, in Sunday School Times, Jan. 15, 1927.”
Then there is ONE Jewish scholar quoted, followed by a quotation from The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, confirming that “it seems natural . . . to think of some personal being.”-- “Azazel”, vol. 1., p. 343.
Following that, the QOD quotes the following CHRISTIAN authorities who accept that Azazel refers to Satan, indicating their respective church affiliations: J. Russell Howden (Church of England); Samuel M. Zwemer (Presbyterian); E W. Hengstenberg (Lutheran), J. B. Rotherham (Disciples of Christ); William Jenks (Congregationalist); Abingdon Bible Commentary (Methodist).
Additionally there is this paragraph, with more names:
“Mention might be made also of William Milligan, James Hastings, and William Smith, of the Presbyterian Church; Elmer Flack and H. C. Alleman, of the Lutheran Church; Charles Beecher and F. N. Peloubter, of the Congregational Church; George A. Barton, of the Society of Friends, John M’Clintock and James Strong, of the Methodist Church; James M. Gray, of the Reformed Episcopal Church; and a host of others who have expressed themselves in the same way. Adventists, during the years, have been in full accord with the expressions of such eminent theologians and scholars on this matter.”
Wow, that is more than I ever imagined. . . But I did my own research, and see what I came across with:
Undeniable significance of the proper name Azazel
“The best modern scholars agree that [Azazel] designates the personal being to whom the goat was sent, probably Satan. This goat was called the scapegoat.” -- Smith’s Bible Dictionary (Atonement Day).
“Azazel is the pre-Mosaic name of an evil personal being placed in opposition to Yahweh.” -- Albert Barnes Bible Commentary.
“The words, one lot for Jehovah and one for Azazel, require unconditionally that Azazel should be regarded as a personal being, in opposition to Jehovah. . . The Septuagint rendering is correct, . . . ‘averruncus, a fiend, or demon whom one drives away’ (Ewald). We have not to think, however, of any demon whatever, who seduces men to wickedness in the form of an evil spirit, as the fallen angel Azazel is represented as doing in the Jewish writings (Book of Enoch 8:1; 10:10; 13:1ff.), like the terrible . . . Shibe, whom the Arabs of the peninsula of Sinai so much dread (Seetzen, i. pp. 273-4), but of the devil himself, the head of the fallen angels, who was afterwards called Satan; for no subordinate evil spirit could have been placed in antithesis to Jehovah as ‘Azazel’ is here, but only the ruler or head of the kingdom of demons. The desert and desolate places are mentioned elsewhere as the abode of evil spirits (Isa_13:21; Isa_34:14; Mat_12:43; Luk_11:24; Rev_18:2). The desert, regarded as an image of death and desolation, corresponds to the nature of evil spirits, who fell away from the primary source of life, and in their hostility to God devastated the world, which was created good, and brought death and destruction in their train.” -- Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament.
In English versions, the R.V and A. R. V. have the word rendered as “Azazel”, a transliteration of the Hebrew proper name. Of others among the most important Bible translations that have Azazel as a proper name, rather than translated for ‘scapegoat’, we could quote the Spanish Reina Valera, the French Louis Segond, the Italian Nuova Riveduta and the translation into English from the American Jewish Publication Society for Lev. 16:8.
An answer and some questions
The opponents of our position point out that both goats had to be “perfect”, which would prove that they both represented Christ. But everything related to the Sanctuary service had to be perfect, no matter what their objective was. The people of Israel would not bring a totally defective, handicapped animal to these solemn services only because in the end it would symbolize Satan. That was contrary to the general mindset of everything pertinent to the Sanctuary services.
But now, we have our own questions: The Talmud established that the goats should be the most similar to each other possible (Talmud - Yoma 62a), and so that there was no error of which was the goat “for the Lord” and the one “for Azazel” they put a red string on the horn of the one for Azazel, and another around the neck of the goat “for the Lord.” What reason was there for this careful markings, since they had the same final symbolism--Christ’s atoning work?! Why to “cast lots” if both covered the same basic symbolism, representing the same Person--Jesus Christ? Doesn’t this attitude by itself show that they were put in antithesis, with different symbolic purposes?
For the Lord in contrast with for Azazel
The QOD book also brings a note that in the Review and Herald magazine, dated July 7, 1868, Irineo (c. 185 A.D.) is quoted characterizing Azazel as “that fallen and powerful angel“ (Against Heresies 1. 15).
A friend of mine, Pastor Théo Mário Rios, who is a Brazilian SDA pastor working in London and who went to Israel for a time to study Hebrew, gives this interesting explanation:
In the Hebrew text the same expression is used both as a reference to the goat for the Lord (laYehowah) and to the goat for Azazel (la’aza‘zel). The inseparable preposition la (“for, to”) has a directional function or one of belonging. In modern Hebrew this type of structure still remains in reference to something being addressed to someone. If you write a document, as you send it you identify the addressee with the preposition la. For example, if I have two objects to send to the same person, it wouldn’t make sense to say, “this is for John and this is for John.” But, if the addressees are different, I would say, “this is for John and this is for Joseph.”
And he continues with a very profitable analysis of the question:
In I Kings 3:25 we find something interesting. The story of the two women who came to Solomon debating about whose child a certain baby really was, each claiming to be the real mother, is well known. In the face of that tremendous problem, Solomon, resolving the issue of who would be the true mother, expresses the following decision: he asks that a sword be brought in (v. 24), which was promptly done. Then he says that, in order to solve the question, he would divide the child in two, and half of it would be to one woman, and the other half to the other lady (v. 25). Thus, the pending matter would be resolved. In the face of that, the true mother pleads to him that he do not do that, rather deliver the baby to the other woman, but let the child to live. At this point, Solomon realized that the pleading woman was the true baby’s mother. Translated literally that sentence, as is the language at the last part of v. 25, we would have it as: “. . . and give a half to the one and a half to the one.” Obviously, even being the same word (”one”) we can see that “half to the one” and “half to the one” are in antithesis, i.e., “the one” of the first part is not the same “the one” of the second part. It would not make sense that Solomon asked to divide the child to deliver both halves to the same woman. If the two halves were for the same “the one”, the sentence would make no sense. Thus, it was duly translated, “and give half to the one and half to the other.
Let’s suppose that we had a sentence in the Bible that stated literally that it would be “a part for elohim” and “a part for elohim.” Even under such circumstance we would know, by the clear antithesis, that the elohim of the first part is not the same of the second. They would mean two different elohims. In Lev. 16:8 there is a clear difference of whom the goats are supposed to be a representative of--one for the Lord, another for Azazel.”
Regarding Ellen White’s quotations
Mr. Badenhorst invests the most he can in a few quotes from Early Writings, not taking into consideration other clear statements that give a clearer picture of what she meant, which NEVER was to deny the completetion of expiation on the cross. And he implies that the authors of the QOD don’t quote Ellen White in their discussion of the subject, when they refer to a whole section of the book containing Ellen White’s statements regarding it. How could Mr. Badenhorst have missed it? It is at the end of the book, Appendix C.
On page 354 the Adventist understanding of the atonement question is explained in a nutshell like this:
“When, therefore, one hears an Adventist say, or reads in Adventist literature--even in the writings of Ellen G. White--that Christ is making atonement now, it should be understood that we mean simply that Christ is now making application of the benefits of the sacrificial atonement He made on the cross; that He is making it efficacious for us individually, according to our needs and requests. Mrs. White herself, as far back as 1857, clearly explained what she means when she writes of Christ’s making atonement for us in His ministry:
“‘The great Sacrifice had been offered and had been accepted, and the Holy Spirit which descended on the day of Pentecost carried the minds of the disciples from the earthly sanctuary to the heavenly, where Jesus had entered by His own blood, to shed upon His disciples the benefits of His atonement’. -- Early Writings, p. 260 (Italics supplies).”
The QOD book also gives details of what was in the minds of the SDA pioneers in greater detail on p. 347, 348:
“Some of our earlier Seventh-day Adventist writers, believing that the word ‘atonement’ had a wider meaning than many of their fellow Christians attached to it, expressed themselves as indicating that the atonement was not made on the cross of Calvary, but was made rather by Christ after He entered upon His priestly ministry in heaven. They believed fully in the efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ for the salvation of men, and they believed most assuredly that this sacrifice was made once for all and forever, but they preferred not to use the word ‘atonement’ as relatring only to the sacrifical work of Christ at Calvary. We repeat, they believed as fully as we do that the sacrificial work of our blessed Lord on Golgotha’s hill was full and complete, never again to be offered, and that it was done once and for all. Their concept was that the sacrifice of Jesus provided the means of the atonement, and that the atonement itself was made only when the priests ministered the sacrificial offering on behalf of the sinner. Viewed in this light, it will be seen that the question after all is a matter of definition of terms. Today, not meeting the same issues that our earlier writers had to meet, we believe that the sacrificial atonement was made on the cross and was provided for all men, but that in the heavenly priestly ministry of Christ our Lord, this sacrificial atonement is applied to the seeking soul.
“Stressing this wider concept, however, in no way detracts from the full efficacy of the death of the Son of God, once for all for the sins of men. It is unfortunate that a lack of definition of terms so often leads to misunderstanding on the greates theme of the Christian message.”
For Seventh-day Adventists, the source of salvation is solely Christ Jesus, as topics 9 and 10 of our “Fundamental Beliefs” confessional document states and our opposers NEVER refer to. There is no way to circumvent our conviction that man’s salvation was secured on Calvary through Jesus’ shed blood.
Now, we read in Hebrews 9:22 that “without shedding of blood [there] is no remission”. Let’s always have in mind that no blood from the goat for Azazel was shed, even though it was one of the actors in the symbolic drama on the Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement).
The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary explains that only placing these factors in due order we can understand that the “goat for Azazel” had no part in the atonement itself. Only when the redeemed ones are guaranteed in heaven, the reprobates are cut out and Satan doesn’t exist anymore, then it could be said that the entire universe is in perfect harmony and unity as it was originally before sin entered it. At that moment we can certainly say in absolute terms that the Plan of Redemption was concluded.
Differences between two goats
The SDABC shows the immense difference in treatment and meaning between both goats:
1) The goat for Jehovah was killed (v. 15); the one for Azazel was not (v. 10).
2) The blood of the first was taken within the Sanctuary and made part of the atonement ritual (vv. 15 e 16); the blood of Azazel was not shed at all, since it was left alive.
3) After the service in the Sanctuary the fat of the sacrificed animal was burnt on the altar (v. 25); evidently the same didn’t happen to the second goat.
4) The blood of the one who belonged to the Lord was capable of cleansing (vv. 15 e 16); whoever carried away Azazel was contaminated (v. 26).
5) Atonement occurred with the first animal; only after that the second was introduced in the scenario (v. 20).
6) It was only the first “whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place” (v. 27); the second, for Azazel, wouldn’t even enter there.
The goat who through lot casting was attributed “for Azazel” was left to die in the desert. There is no parallel in the Redemption History with Jesus’ experience of atoning for our sins. He was not left in a desolate place until dying after His sacrifice on the cross. This was already typified in the first goat that was sacrificed by the high priest. Obviously it would be inadmissible to think of a second death to Christ Jesus!
The two goats involved in the Day of Atonement show responsibility vis-à-vis sin. First, the sinner’s responsibility as the agent; secondly, Satan’s responsibility and instigator and tempter, he who harbored sin in his own heart and won by tempting our first parents, causing them to receive severe punishment (Gen. 3:16-19). Such punishment would not result only in decadence of human nature, but also would bring with it consequences upon the entire world, both of living and non-living elements of this planet.
This concept of God’s final restauration not only for the human being, created by Him, as well as to nature itself is expressed in the words of Paul, “we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now” (Rom. 8:22).
Thus, the Plan of Redemption aims also at restoring everything that was destroyed by sin. Paul, who believed firmly that “there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1) also stressed that he was “. . . waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our bodies” (Rom. 8:23). And he adds “. . . we are saved by hope . . .” (Rom. 8:24) and that “. . . with patience [we] wait for it” (Rom. 8:25). That is the hope he details in 1 Corinthians 15, the “blessed hope” of Jesus’ second coming (Titus 2:13; I Tess. 4:13-18).
We can say that Christ’s entire work doesn’t end at the cross, but from it depends its complete realization!
As we can see, Mr. Badenhorst is another voluntary builder of big strawmen in the Ratzlaff’s team.
Author
Topic: THE SCAPEGOAT QUESTION: RATZLAFF’S BIGGEST ANTI-SDA STRAWMAN (Read 6682 times)
