Unveiling the Scapegoat: Exploring the Investigative Judgment – Sermon Audio 2605

Jesus said in Matthew 28:19, Go, therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Welcome to Go Teach all nations, bringing you Christ's teachings through Australian and international speakers. And here is today's presenter, Edwin M. Cotto. Father in Heaven, thank youk so much for another opportunity to study deeper into youo Word. We ask that yout help us now to study into this next portion of the subject we're on, that it may be edifying for us and that through it we may be able not just to give an answer whenever asked, but more importantly, Lord, to draw closer to youo and to know youw more. We pray in Jesus name. Amen. So as part of. To continue the discussion on the investigative judgment, there is a section of that doctrine that we find in Leviticus 16. In Leviticus 16, we find a certain ritual called the scapegoat ritual. The Hebrew word behind the word scapegoat in our English translation is the Hebrew word azazo. Anybody ever heard that word before? Now, the goat for Azazo. The goat for Azazel. Right? Represented what Azazel was all about. Our question for this evening is who is Azazel? Who does he represent? Who is he biblically, historically? Let's see what the Bible has to say. Amen. Yes, We've got two camps. Some say Azazo represents another phase of the ministry of Jesus Christ. Others say that Azazo represents that individual upon whom the sins that have already been dealt with and atoned for, removed from the people because of the shed blood of the first goat would be placed upon so that he can finally pay the penalty for what he did and what he started. And that would be Satan. That's the majority view in our church. But there are some individuals who disagree, and we do have critics, of course, in most cases who disagree, although there are others that are outside the Seventh Day Adventist Church who do agree with our position on the scapegoat, AKA Azazel. What we're going to do this morning, this evening, pardon is we're going to go through a little bit of information in regards to Azazel, see what the Bible has to say by it, gather all the evidence, the biblical evidence, the historical evidence, and draw a conclusion. Can we do that? Amen. Do a little bit of an investigation, no pun intended. All right. Now, I'm not going to read all of Leviticus 16 for sake of time. It'll just be too much. I'll give you a Brief overview of what Leviticus 16 has to say in terms of Azazel. Here's what happened as part of the ceremony in verse 20, verse 20 of Leviticus 16, and we'll go there in just a few moments. But in verse 20, it says that the atoning process with the blood of the first goat out of the two that they were casting lots for came to an end by verse 20. What happened before verse 20? Before verse 20, God had told Moses and Aaron that they were to choose two goats from among the congregation. How many goats? Two goats. From those two goats, they were to cast lots. Upon the lot of the one goat would become the Lord's goats. Upon the lot that fell on the other goat would become the scapegoat. Both goats were sin offerings. Both goats in the beginning were sin offerings. But they were changed. Their roles were changed once the lots were cast. Are we following so far? Okay, now, once the lots were cast, the first goat, which was the Lord's goat. I'm giving you an overview. So we don't read the whole chapter. The first goat, who was chosen to be the Lord's goat, that blood of that animal, that goat was to be shed. He was to be killed and sacrificed. And the shedding of that blood was to represent the atoning upon the people of God at that time. All right, the second goat, his blood was not to be shed. Now, that's key, because the Bible says that without the shedding of blood, there is, what? No remission of sin. Amen. And so one of them was for the Lord, the Lord's goat. The other one was for. For Azazel. Now, in the Hebrew, I know, I don't know how many Hebrew scholars we have, but in the Hebrew, it tells you four. The Lamed is there for the Lord and the other one is for the scapegoat. They both can't be for the Lord. You catch that? Because it says one is for the Lord, the other was for the scapegoat. So it seems like there's two individuals here represented by two goats, and they can't be the same. Otherwise, why would it say for the Lord and then on the other hand, for the scapegoat? Does that make sense? Or the Ezo. Azazel. Right. All right, now let's start looking a little bit at some texts. Now, what I want to do as I go through this presentation, I'm going to show you on the screen an objection that we received at the Advent Defense League from an opponent of our doctrines. This is an individual Who I didn't feel the necessity to name this individual became an outspoken opponent of Seventh Day Adventist doctrine, converted to a different denomination, but decided to have a ministry attacking Seventh Day Adventism. He had produced a video about the scapegoat attacking. We came and said, oh, you want to attack or we're going to attack you back, right? So we went ahead and did our response. Okay. So we responded and we refuted his arguments and within the responses we were given prior to that, he, he has sent us this comment saying when you do your response, make sure that you refute each and every one of these objections against your understanding of the scapegoat. Here we have on the screen his comment. I'm going to read it to you. I will watch your response when I am able to. However, keep in mind that I'm not interested in the beating around of the bush, Jewish mythology and tangentials that USDA's latch onto and always use. Quite the attitude problem, huh? Reasonably demonstrate from the text that Satan makes one sin offering, verse 5 with the other goat, that Satan makes atonement, verse 10, that he bears the sins and iniquities, verses 18 through 20, that he cleanses verses 30, and that the day of atonement is a shadow of Christ and Satan according to Colossians 2, 16, 17. Now, now, if you receive this kind of response, how would you reply? What text would you go to? When you receive things like this, it's important to do one thing prior. The first thing you need to do is analyze carefully the comment, the objection, and from there find a couple of things. First of all, find what may be the presupposition that's coloring his comment. Okay? Doesn't matter how much you attack the comment, if you don't attack the presupposition and clear that it's just going to be just back and forth, right? Deal with the presupposition. The second thing is find if they are committing what's called a strawman fallacy. You guys know what a straw man fallacy is? So a straw man fallacy basically means somebody tell me what is a straw man fallacy? Say it out loud. Attaching an argument to your opponent that they didn't make. There you go. Good job. So attacking. Very good. Attacking an argument we did not make. So it creates this. It seems like they're attacking and winning the argument, but what they're doing is they're attacking an argument you didn't make. And so what you need to do first, you need to identify, and that actually happens in this comment, identify that fallacy and then clear that before you attempt to make a response and say, I didn't say that. That's not what we believe, right? Yes, that's what we're going to do. As we delve into this comment and try to respond. What I'm going to do is you're going to see the comment consistently placed on my left. Your right? Yes, my left. You're going to see it consistently placed there. And I'm going to highlight in red the first sections as we reply. Okay. And then you're going to see on the other side information replying to that section. And as we go on, I'm going to unhighlight that portion, then highlight the other portion and and reply consistently till we make it to the end. Can we do that? Yes. All right. The first part says, I will watch your response when I am able to. However, keep in mind that I'm not interested in the beating around the bush Jewish mythology and tangentials that USDA's latch onto and always use. What he's saying here is basically, oh, you Seven Day Adventists, you use non biblical sources to support your position, like Jewish folklore. Why does he say that? Because in Jewish folklore, in Jewish beliefs, and in Jewish doctrine, in many cases they actually interpret Azazel to mean a demon, a wilderness demon. So because they interpret it that way and because in other scholarly circles, apart from the Jewish religion, they interpret Azazel to mean a demon of some sort or an enemy of God, he's saying you can't use that. That's not Bible make sense. Now, to a certain extent I agree we should have based everything on Scripture. Yes. So to a certain extent I agree. But is it wrong to look at what history has to say on something? After all, when you study Daniel chapter seven, Daniel chapter two, Daniel chapter eight, you got to look to history, right? In order to draw a conclusion and find where it matches. Does that make sense? So there's nothing particularly wrong about that. But you know what I find interesting? I went ahead and I said, okay, let me go ahead and go to the Jewish sources. Because honestly, before I even read this comment, I never went to the Jewish sources because I'm very biblically orientated. My mind is like, let's see what the Bible says, right? But when he mentioned that and said that SDA do that, I said, SDA do that. I wonder why they do that. Let me go ahead and look it up. So I went to a Jewish source, the Jewish online Encyclopedia, and I found this comment all Right. It says here most modern scholars is talking about Azazel. Most modern scholars, after having for some time endorsed the old view, have accepted the opinion mysteriously hinted at by Iba Ezra and expressly stated by naamanides of Leviticus 16:8 that Azazel belongs to the class of seriim goat. Like what's it say? Demons, jinn haunting the desert to which the Israelites were wont to offer sacrifice. And look what their commentary does. It's pointing to what? To Leviticus. You saw what happened. So I looked at it and I said okay, I'm not going to go to a non biblical commentary to, to support my belief. But let me see what they say when I go there. Guess what they do? Go to the Bible. So I'm like, all right, let me go see what the Bible has to say then. So let's go to go open up your bibles to Leviticus 17:xv, 11:17. So go to Leviticus 17. Let's see what text they point to to help interpret that Azazel is representative of a demon. Are you there? Leviticus 16:17. This is one chapter after Leviticus 16. You saw that one chapter? Now you know what's interesting about this and I'll show it on the screen in a moment. The whole Chapter 17 has multiple illusions pointing back to Chapter 16. This means that Chapter 17 helps us understand a little bit more of what's happening in chapter 16. Does that make sense? I'm going to show you that in a moment. Now watch this. Verse 7. Let me know when you're there by saying Amen. You shall no more offer sacrifices to what? Ah, now it depends on what translation you're looking at, right? Who's got the new King James? Raise your hand. What does it say there? Who's got the King James? Raise your hand. What's it say there, huh? Devils. So they're both good then. So we're good. Why does it interpret it devil? Because the next clause of the sentence says after whom they have played the harlot. So it's interpreting the word. It's explaining that the word devil there has some association to do with sinful acts typically taking place around the nations of that time. You remember the story of the Midianite women? How they tried to seduce the Israelites? How did they try to do it? How did y' all do it? Tell me. Dancing. Through what music? Dancing. Okay. Through maybe sexual immorality? Can we say that there was at 1.2 of them an Israelite and a Midianiteish woman? That has made a sexual act. Right? Okay, so it says there, played the harlot. Right? Don't do what they did. Basically. Now, I want you to notice something here we have zooming in. Now, we're not using the E sword as our friend Jason likes to use. We're using. See, Pastor, I can throw jabs. I love that guy, though. We're going to use what's called blue letter Bible. It's, it's. It's a little better than the Easter. Okay, here's the verse. Leviticus 17:7. And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto what? Devils. The word devils in the Hebrew. Here it is. You guys, look. You guys see it there where the arrow is pointing? Now watch this. You see where it says I put it. I highlighted where it starts with the word as to the. You see that? So it's going to give you now an explanation. Literally, in the beginning, it means hairy or rough or number two, a he goat. Did you see that? Let's keep going. As to the idolatrous worship of the he goat among the Hebrews, definition three, A wood demon. A satyr. I'm going to show you. I'm going to explain what that is in a moment resembling he goats inhabiting deserts. Sounds like the scapegoat that was sent to where? To the wilderness. Right. Now watch this. I look this word up. This, a little Google search on it, and it says, one of a class of lustful, drunken woodland gods. A Greek. In Greek art, they were represented as a man with a horse's ears and tails. But in Roman representation, as a man with what? Goat's ears, tail, legs and horns. And you might say, well, Roman doesn't say. You know, Romans probably came in after the Israelites maybe. I don't know. Right, so let's go. Let's go here. In Greek art, they were represented as a man with a horse's ears and tails, but in Roman representation, as a man with a goat's ears, tail, legs, horns. In English translations of the Bible, the word is applied to the hairy demons or monsters of Semitic superstitions supposed to inhabit deserts. And it gives a Bible quotation when it says Semitic superstition. Semitic basically represents the Middle Eastern areas or languages. Hebrew was a Semitic language, Arabic, a Semitic language. You see that? In other words, it's connecting it to those times where in those times they worshiped a certain demon God that was shaped like a goat. Did you catch that? Let's keep going. Here we have the text again. Leviticus 17:7. You shall no more offer the sacrifices to demons. The Hebrew literally means male or he goats. Here are the allusions that I mentioned earlier in Leviticus 16 that point back to 17, that point back to 16. Leviticus 17, verse 11 points to the blood as what makes the atonement which Leviticus 16 is talking about. Verses 9 through 10 alludes to people being cut off, as in the day of atonement, which Leviticus 23, which talks about the. The. The day of atonement also speaks about. Verse 15 alludes to the changing of clothes and washing of the body, just like on the day of atonement, pointing back to Leviticus 16. And then verse 16 mentions bearing of guilt, just like the day of atonement ritual. Do you see how connected the two chapters are? So when you see how connected they are, you suddenly have more information in chapter 17 that can help us understand a little better. Chapter 16. Am I making sense so far? Very good context. All right, now let's conclude that first section. He said, I don't want to hear anything about Jewish mythologies. To help you interpret who the scapegoat is, I went to those Jewish mythologies, found their Bible, then went to Bible Amen and was able to prove the case with Scripture. What do you say? Let's go to the next section. Now, the next section says, reasonably demonstrate from the text that Satan makes one sin offering, verse 5, with the other goat. All right, Reasonably demonstrate from the text that Satan makes one sin offering. Satan makes one sin offering. That's a straw man fallacy. We don't say that Satan makes a sin offering. Okay? We don't say that. But what I did, I said, all right, let me say. Let me go back to the Scripture now. Let me read the text. Let me interpret. Let me understand what the text is saying. You know, in the Bible, when you study Scripture, right? Take note of the smallest words. Don't disregard the smallest words. Jesus says, not one jot or tittle. You see that Everything. And when he says one jot or tittle, I think the jot one represents the Hebrew yod, which is the smallest letter in the Hebrew Alphabet. Not even that is to be disregarded. What do you say? So let's look at these small words. Leviticus 16, verses 7 through 10. He shall take the two goats, present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of meeting. Then Aaron shall cast lots for the two goats, one lot for the Lord, the other lot for the scapegoat, and Aaron shall bring the goat on which the Lord's lot fell and offer. What's the word? It. So he was to take the one that fell for the Lord's goat and offer that goat. Go offer it as the. So both of them may have started as a sin offering, but they didn't remain as a sin offering. This is the only sister saying. Amen. You know why this is important? It's because the critics like to say, well, how can you say that? The two goats, one of them can represent Satan as a say so when they're both sin offerings. You're saying a sin offering is being done by Satan. And I'm telling him that when you read the text, they may start as a sin offering, but they don't end up as sin offerings. At least one of them doesn't. What happens? This is why context is important. Right? Keep reading. After it says to pick these sin offerings. So the Lord's goat, it becomes the sin offering. Now if that one becomes a sin offering, what does the other one become? Then you only got another option. One is for the Lord, one is for the scapegoat. So if that one is a sin offering, what's the other one? Let's keep reading. Verse 10, key. But the goat on which the lot fell. Now what's the two words to be? See how important the smallest words are. But the goat on which the Lord's lot fell to be the what? Scapegoat. So even though the two start in the beginning as in offerings, obviously they have to start as in offerings, because one of them is going to become the Lord's goat. So they have to start as a sin offering because the sin offering was blemish free. And you're not going to start off with two that are not blemish free because one of them is going to become this lord's goat. And that lord's goat can't be blemished. You see that? So it's logical. It's got to start as sin offerings. However, the roles change. Did you see that? When the lots were cast. And then it says, but the goat upon which the Lord's lot fell to be the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement upon it and and to let it go as a scapegoat into the wilderness. So Azazel is not a sin offering. Even though both goats began as a single sin offering, they both didn't end up as a sin offering. Did we catch that? Context is very important. We got one famous critic who says context is king. Boy, does he take Things out of context, the irony. So we changed it. At adl, we say, Jesus is king. Context is key. Amen. All right, now the casting of lots. Let me give you another Bible example. Because the Bible says out of two or three witnesses, let every word be established. Amen. I'm going to give you a second witness of how casting of lot changes roles. Okay. When the disciples realized that they wanted to keep the number 12. Out of the 12 disciples, but one was gone. He hung himself for being a traitor, right? He hung himself and he died. Yes. They are down to 11. So the apostles get together, have this conversation. They're like, well, listen, this is what the Bible says was going to happen to him. Let's go ahead and choose somebody to take his place. What do they do? They cast lots between two individuals. One individual called justice, the other one called what? Matthias. You can see on the screen here the parallel between the two. Two individuals to take part in the ministry of the apostles, just like in Leviticus 16, to take part in the ministry of the sanctuary, both had to fill in the role as the sin offering. Both had to fill the role as an apostle. They were not apostles prior. They were two regular individuals. They were disciples, you might say. Is that okay? Yes. However, the roles changed when lot were cast. One then became the apostle, the other one remained the disciple. Does that make sense? That's what you're getting here. As you. As you see these parallels. All right, I am very long winded, so I got to make sure I don't take too long here. Okay, let's go to the next section. Satan. That Satan makes atonement. Atonement. Now go to Leviticus 16. Let's read verse 10. This is the verse that causes lots of confusion. And I wrestled a lot with this text. For a long time, I wrestled with this text. Leviticus 16. 10. Let me know when you're there by saying amen. Here we go. But the goat on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement upon it or with it, the King James says, and to let it go. I'm going to show you why the King James does not do justice to this verse. And actually, neither does the new King James. I'm going to be honest. If I'm going to be honest. Okay, I'm not going to read all this. I'm going to explain it, then I'll read it. Okay? I want you to know something very, very important. All right? The word atonement, like the Word? Bear or bearing. Like any word, depends on context. Give you an example. Who do I pick? Sister who's been saying amen mostly. What's your name? Okay, if I tell you, if I. If I tell you, if I say the word trunk, first thing that comes to your mind? I say her. What's the first thing come to your mind? Yes. A car trunk. I'm not thinking of a car trunk. I'm thinking of the trunk of an elephant. No, I'm not thinking of a tree trunk either. I'm thinking an elephant because I preached a sermon on the elephant. If I tell you I bought some groceries, I'm gonna put it in the trunk. Am I thinking of an elephant at that moment? Thinking of the car. Right. If I tell you I bought some groceries, but the trunk shot a lot of water at me, what am I thinking? Probably the elephant sucked up some water and. Right. All over me. Right. Words depend on context. Yes. What's the first thing that comes to your mind if I say the word frog? Water. Huh? Pond water. Frog. You're thinking of an amphibian. A frog? Yeah. F, R, O, G. Okay, well, think of this. Think of this. If I say frog, think of an amphibian. You know what an amphibian is, right? The animal with the legs? Yes. You know, my wife, she hates frogs so much she can't even see a picture of it. She freaks out. She getting nauseous. She's looking at a frog. So, you know, I'm the happiest husband all day trying to scare her with frogs. It's one of the highlights of my marriage. She still loves me, though. All right, let's think of an amphibian. Okay, If I tell you, if I say the word frog, if I use the word frog 59 times to mean an amphibian, but on the 60th time, I say I have a frog in my throat. Am I using it as an amphibian? On the 60th time, what am I saying? On the 60th time? I got a sore throat. I want you to compare verse 10 to verse 20. Verse 20 says, and when he has made in. What's the word? An end. Of what? Of atoning for the holy place. The tabernacle meeting, the altar, he shall bring the what? The life goat. That's the scapegoat. Now pause. Notice what happened in verse 20. By the time the aspect of the scapegoat, that ritual comes into the picture, the atoning ended. Did you see that? What does that tell you about the word? Atoning now, in verse 10, probably it has a different meaning or in a different sense, you might say, what could it mean? Now, I'm not in the habit of changing words, but I am in the habit, though, of reading words in context. Yes. So when I look at that. When I look at that, I ask myself, could it be that an atonement is happening upon. And I'm saying upon on purpose, upon the scapegoat. In a different sense, could that be the case? I want you to notice something. Let me read this. Okay, let's see. That's the paper. Okay. Okay, so let's read point number three and four. Those atoned for sins are thrown back upon Azazel like garbage. Meaning. All right, if you who likes McDonald's raise your hand. Hopefully you don't, but we got one. Okay. That was quick. Sorry I gotta pick on you. All right, so McDonald's, right? One time I was eating fries. I'm not good at. All right? I try not to eat that stuff. Stuff is not good for you. But if I do, I might eat the fries. One time, I'm eating fries, I had these goats. Oh, yeah? We talking about goats. I didn't even think about that. I had three goats in my property. I'm on two acres back in Florida, right? I'm eating my fries and I'm thinking, these goats are gonna love these fries. You know, I'm throwing the fries at them. You know what they do? They not eating the fries. They come to me to eat. Eat the little basket that the fries are in. What you eat in my basket for when you. When you eat those fries. Right? That little basket there? Except if it's a goat eating it, that's garbage, right? True or false? Yes. The sins that have been atoned for, removed from the people, from the altar and the tabernacle, they've been dealt with already by the blood of the first goat. By the time it reaches the live goat, they don't need to atone for those sins anymore. They've been atoned for already. Does that make sense? Okay, here's an example of atonement being used in somewhat of a different sense. You guys know the story. I mentioned it earlier, numbers, chapter 25. When the Israelites rebelled against God and they were seduced by the Midianitish women. One of them, in open rebellion, took one of those Midianiteish women, went and walked right in front of Moses and Aaron. All the congregation went into a tent and started doing unmentionables. Phinehas received the spirit of God. And at that moment of zeal, he goes in with a dagger and goes right through both of them. God is pleased because his anger was satisfied by an instrument at that time, which was Phineas. The text says, phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron. The priest has turned back my wrath upon the children of Israel because he was zealous with my zeal among them. So that I did not consume the children of Israel in my zeal. Therefore say, behold, I give to him my covenant of peace. And it shall be to him and to his descendants after him a covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he was zealous for his God and made what? Atonement for the children of Israel. I want you to note the difference. Atonement in Leviticus 16 is being done by sacrificial blood. Atonement here is in a different way. True or false. You see that? I want you to notice the parallel between the first verse that says, turn my wrath from the children of Israel and the last verse made atonement for the children of Israel. You see the parallel? So the atonement that was done here was for the purpose of turning wrath away from the people. Did you see that? Whereas in Leviticus 6:16, atonement is for the purpose of cleansing the people from sin. You see the difference? It's atonement in both cases. But in both cases it's being used in different senses. Did we catch that? Now watch this. Where'd I put it? Here it is. All right. When you look at the new American Standard Bible, I went ahead and went back to the Hebrew. The reason why I mentioned the Hebrews. I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but I. The last two years I've been delving deep into Hebrew. I've taken some courses on Hebrew. And so I'm always interested in seeing what the text says in its literal language. And I found that the NASB is actually closer does better to the justice to the text here. And it actually says, but the goat upon which the lot of the lot for the scapegoat fell shall be presented alive upon the Lord to make atonement. Now here it says upon it, whereas the King James, the new King James says with it. With it seems to give the wrong impression, doesn't it? Like as if Azazel is doing the atoning, but upon it now places the atoning work not on the scapegoat, but on the priest who's doing it upon him. Did you see that? So now we see that the priest is Doing an atonement upon the scapegoat for a different reason. Not to cleanse the people from their sins, which already happened with the blood of the first goat, but to remove from the camp that garbage that has been dealt with. That make sense to everybody? Let me see if I skip something here that's important. All right. Notice this. Satan bears their own sins. Sinners, pardon me, bear their own sins. Here's a couple of texts. Ezekiel 44:12. Because they ministered to them before their idols, caused the house of Israel to fall in iniquity. Therefore I raised my hand as an oath against them, saith the Lord, that they shall bear their iniquity. 1917 of Leviticus. You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor and not bear sin because of him. Ezekiel 18:20. The soul who sins shall die. The Son shall not bear the guilt of the Father, nor the Father bear the guilt of the Son. What does that imply? That if the Son is not bearing the guilt of the Father, he's not going to bear his guilt. The Father is going to bear his own guilt. In fact, you can confirm that at the end it says, the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. You see that? He bears his own sin. You see that? So sinners who decide that they don't want the blood of the first goat to cleanse them, they will bear their own sin. Now let me ask you a question. Who originated sin? Satan. Sin belongs to him. We've captured it and used it for ourselves, and it's killing us. That's why we need the blood of Christ. Amen. But originally, though, it belongs to Him. How do we know? Well, Jesus said it. Jesus said, you are of your Father, the devil, and the lust of your Father you shall do. He was a murderer from when? A murderer from the beginning. And abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar and the Father of it. You see that sin belongs to him. What do you say? Praise God for that. It don't belong to you. You dabbling in that thing, you better stop. Jesus says that hell was not made for us. It was made for the devil and his angels. Amen. Amen. Don't get me preaching. I already did that this morning. All right, what's my time? Joel 3, 4. Interestingly, I found out a little bit about this this morning. Still delving into this A little bit, but thought I'd just at least throw it in here for your thinking. Joel 3 says, Indeed, what have you to do with me, O Tyre and Sidon and all the coast of Philistia? Will you retaliate against me? But if you retaliate against me, swiftly and speedily, I will return your retaliation upon your head. His retaliation will be placed upon his head. Tyre has lots of symbolism in the Bible. Have you ever read Ezekiel 28, the king of Tyre? Who does he represent there? Satan. See that? All right, that point being settled, I'll give you a quick summary of it and move on to the next portion. Atonement is made upon Azazel. Not with a zazel. Atonement is made upon Azazel by the priest. Keep in mind that the priest and the first goat represent Christ. Christ is the lamb and Christ is the priest. Amen. So we forget when we read these things, we say, oh, the Lord's go, yeah, that's Jesus. Guess what? The high priest is, is also Jesus. Amen. He's the one doing the atoning. He does it upon the scapegoat and places upon the scapegoat so that he can bear the sins that he originated out of the camp, straight into the wilderness. You know what? If you're not convinced, just hold on, because I got a text that's so powerful you're going to say, yep, it's Satan. In fact, that text is going to say the word Satan in it. You want it now? No, not yet. All right, here we go. The next portion of his comment says that he bears sins and iniquities according to verses 18 and 20. All right, I want you to notice this parallel in context. Azazel bears sins. Where? Where does Azazel bear sins? To an uninhabitable land or the wilderness. From verse 22, says, the goat shall bear on itself all the iniquities to an uninhabitable land, and he shall release the goat in the wilderness. However, Jesus doesn't bear sins to an inhabitable land. Where does Jesus bear sins? To the cross. Amen. First Peter 2:24 says, who himself bore our sins? See, the same word, bore. Bear. Bore our sins in his own body. On what? On the tree. What do you say? Did he die on the tree? Which animal died out of the two? The Lord's goat. Amen. Yeah. So that's the one that represents Jesus. That's the one that represents him bearing our sins. Amen. All right, let's keep going. Let's get Some more. The critics like to use a big fancy schmancy term, expiation. Now, expiation in their context, what they mean by that is the removal of sin. Their logic is, who's removing sin can't be the devil who's removing sin? Because the one who removes sin is Jesus. And they're right. The one who removes sin is Jesus Christ. How does he do it, though? The Bible says the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us of all unrighteousness. It takes the shedding of blood for the remission of sins. Amen. That's what removes sin. Notice what it says in Hebrews chapter 9, beginning in verse 25. Not that he should offer himself often as the high priest enters the most holy place every year. The Greek text actually says hagia in the Greek tahagia, which is basically just sanctuary. I digress. Verse 26, he then would have not. He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world. But now, once in the end of the world, he has appeared to put away sin. Expiation. How does he put away sin? By the. By the what? So what does expiation then? The sacrifice. Which One of the two were sacrificed in Leviticus 16? The Lord's goat. Are we understanding so far? Yeah. So therefore, if the putting away of sin was done by the sacrifice of the Lord's goats, then the removal that's happening by Azazel is not in the same sense. Those sins have been atoned for already. Now we got to do something with them. What are we going to do with them? Keep them. Get rid of it. Take it to the wilderness. That makes sense. All right, watch this. The next section, as you can see, I highlighted that he cleanses. Verse 30. That he cleanses. Sounds like another strawman. We don't teach that Satan cleanses, do we? You better tell me if we do. Is that in all 28 fundamental beliefs. All right, straw man. The cleansing was done by the blood of the sacrificed goats, Leviticus 16, not by the scapegoat. What does the text say? It says he shall take some of the blood and of the bull and some of the blood of the goat and put it on the horns. If it says some of the blood. The goat was sacrificed. Yes. It's talking about the first goat. Then he shall sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times. And what's he going to do? Cleanse it. Now when you go to verse 20, it says, and when he has made an end of atoning. So the atoning Stopped. It ended right when he had made an end of atoning of the holy place, the tabernacle meeting and the altar. Then it says, he shall bring in the live goat. You saw what happened there. The cleansing is not done by the scapegoat. The critic said, you got to prove to me it's done by a scapegoat. And I'm saying, we never believe that. Let's see what the Bible says. It was done by the Lord's goat. Compare that to 1 John 1:7. But we walk in the light as he is in the light. If we walk in the light as he is, that word, it's extremely important we have fellowship with one another. And the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin. It takes blood to cleanse. And only out of the two, the only one that shed his blood was which one we're drawing to a close. The last portion, he says, and that the day of atonement is a shadow of Christ and Satan with this comment. What he's trying to say is that these seven feasts, they can't represent Jesus. And something else. They can only represent Jesus. It's an honorable thing to say. You ever heard somebody say, jesus is my Sabbath? Oh, that sounds so sweet. Is there a Bible for it? Now Jesus says, I come to give you rest. Come unto me all ye right, I give you rest. But it simply doesn't say, he is the Sabbath. It's an effort for people to get rid of the Sabbath. When they say that. When people say, absent from the body is to be present from the Lord. Is that biblical? That's not in the Bible. But the Bible does say, I am willing rather to be absent from the body and present with the Lord. Paul and to the Corinthians. He's just expressing what he would rather have at the moment. You see what happened, how people change things, right? The Bible teaches that each of the seven feasts does have multiple meanings. The fundamental meaning, though, the most fundamental, most basic, the most important thing out of all of them is, is Jesus Christ. But Jesus himself brings into the equation that these things have some other things that are also represented by them. Let's look at that. So Pentecost typifies the Holy Spirit. Acts, chapter two. You remember what happened there when Pentecost took place? What came down from heaven? Fire came down from heaven. Upon who? Upon the disciples. Looked like flame upon their heads. Right. And what did they start doing? Speaking in tongues. That's not what you. That's not what we're hearing in Pentecostal churches. Okay. It's real languages. All right. Okay. First fruits. Yeah. First Corinthians 15 says it typifies Christ, but guess what? James 1:18 says that it also typifies who? The redeemed. Tabernacles typifies Christ. John 1:14 says that the word dwelt among us. Some translations will be more faithful to the Greek and says that the word tabernacled among us. However, it also represents the save in the new Jerusalem according to Revelation 21:3. You see what's happening here? These feasts can have multiple meanings as long as you keep it in your mind that Christ is the most fundamental thing out of all of them. Amen. I'm not going to read this whole thing for sake of time, but I would like to read at least one more. The candlesticks. Jesus says I am the light of the world. Yes. However, he says you are lights in the world. Remember that. Revelation 1:20 says that the seven churches. The seven candlesticks represent the seven churches. You see, that could have multiple meanings. Oh, fine. I'll do one more. The incense is a type of the saved according to 2nd Corinthians 2:15, but it's also a type of the prayers of the saved according to Revelation 8. So if all these things can have multiple meanings, multiple symbolize multiple things, why can't the day of atonement represent multiple things? Multiple things. You see what happened there? Let's go deeper. We're going to go into that a little bit more by way of Revelation chapter 20. Remember I told you earlier, you want that one power text. Remember that? All right, you want to go to it now? Go to Revelation chapter 20. Revelation chapter 20. And we will draw to a close in just a few moments. Revelation chapter 20, beginning in verse one. Let me know when you're there by saying Amen. I'm going to read from 1 to 3. Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the keys to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. He laid hold of the dragon, that old serpent who is the what? And. And bound him for how long? And he cast him into the bottomless pit and shut him up and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things, he must be released for a little while. Why am I saying that this is a power text that connects Azazel to Satan? Why? Here's the thing I do whenever I'm studying the Scriptures when I can't figure something out. You know what I do? I go to the antitype. Now you guys know what type and antitype means. So for those of you who know, I'll quickly explain it. Type means the literal thing, the antitype, or the service or ritual. The antitype is the fulfillment of that ritual. So, for example, the earthly sanctuary was a type, a type of the heavenly sanctuary. You see that? The heavenly sanctuary, the bigger, the more the reality is represented by that small structure called the sanctuary on earth. You see that type of an antitype. Everybody got that? The type is Leviticus 16. Ao. What does the antitype say? Because if I go to the antitype, I get my answer. Does that make sense? Do you want to go to the antitype? All right, let's go to the antitype. The scapegoat, the goat for Azazel in the day of atonement is not a shadow of Satan, but a shadow of the banishment of Satan when Christ overcomes him and finally destroys him for what he has done. I'm going to read that again. The scapegoat, the goat for Azazel in the day of atonement is not a shadow of Satan, but a shadow of the banishment of Satan. When Christ overcomes him and finally destroys him for what he has done, it represents that Christ will be the victor. Here it is the parallel between the type and the antitype. If you wanted to take a picture, that's the one. In the type, you've got the fit man which leads the scapegoat away. You guys remember the story, right? When you go to Leviticus 16, there's what's called the fit man. It's an individual. I kind of do imagine him fit, although the Hebrew doesn't say it, but I kind of imagine that. But he takes the scapegoat and drags him on. And takes him where? To the wilderness. You see that? Guess what happens to Satan in Revelation 20? A fit man comes or a strong angel. Obviously stronger than him because he binds him, right? An angel come and drag him away. You saw that? The fit man drags him away to a wilderness. In Revelation chapter 20, the angel drags him away, Satan, through the bottomless pit. You see that? For 1000 years in Leviticus 16. Where is he taking him? To the what? To the wilderness. In Revelation 20, he's taking him to, you might say, the wilderness of the earth. You know why? Because we're going to be a thousand years in heaven. Ain't nobody going to be here. You see that? Only ones who are going to be here. If you've studied this eschatology, is Lucifer and his minions. That's it, right? Yes. You can read that for yourself when you have time. In Jeremiah chapter 4, the earth is completely desolate. During this time, Jeremiah has a momentary vision of it. Do you see the parallel here between the two? Now, who does this parallel identify the scapegoat as? Let's read it again. Then I saw an angel come down from heaven having the keys to the bottomless pit. Great chain was in his hand, and he laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old. Who is the. Say it with me and Satan. By way of the parallel, the connection is made between the azazel in Leviticus 16 and Satan in Revelation 20. Did everybody see that? I want you to keep in mind, as we draw to a close, that the whole point of the Azazel ritual, the whole point of it, the whole point of it is this. To demonstrate the kind of victory that Jesus is going to have. Not only is he going to cleanse the people from their unrighteousness. Not only is he intending on removing sin from the hearts and minds of the people, but he's going to demonstrate to the world who it was who really deserved those sins and its results. You don't deserve it now, if you cling to sin, you have earned something that God does not want you to have. But sin was not made for us. The devil invented that thing. Amen. We fell into it, unfortunately, but we don't have to stay into it. What do you say? The whole purpose of this thing is to show the victory that Jesus will have in the end. He will remove sin from his people, place it where it belongs, banish him away from all of us. And when the moment comes, when we come back down from heaven within the new Jerusalem, he is going to pay for what he had done. Let us not be among those who will be outside the city when that takes place. Let us be among those who are inside. What do you say you want to do that? You want to be inside the city? Amen. Raise your hand if you want to be inside the city. Amen. Amen. Let's make sure that we're in it. But let's start with Jesus today, our true Lord's goat, who shed his blood and cleanses us of all unrighteousness. Amen. Amen. We're going to have a word of prayer, and then we're going to take a. What is that? I can't see. From eight minutes. Eight minutes to answer. Wow. Maybe two questions. Let's pray. Father in Heaven, thank youk so much for the opportunity to have this study. I pray now, Lord, that as we conclude that these things that have been said may be of benefit to the people, help us to be fully armed and ready for the battle when we have to defend you'd word. But let us do it in a way that is winsome, not combative, but winsome, and in meekness and fear, help us to win souls that people may see Jesus in everything we say and do. We pray in Jesus name name. Amen. This message was made available by the Waitara Seventh Day Adventist Church. For more resources like this, visit waitarachurch.org.au SPEAKER B This program has been brought to you by 3 ABN Australia radio.