Investigative Judgement and the Scapegoat

Posted on May 9, 2017 by

In “Kingdom of the Cults”, Dr. Walter Martin explains Seventh Day Adventist doctrine of the Scapegoat and the Investigative Judgement. We have reproduced some of the content here:

X. The Scapegoat Teaching

  1. Two goats were obviously required, and used, on the Day of Atonement, because there is a twofold responsibility for sin—first, my responsibility as the perpetrator, agent, or medium; and second, Satan’s responsibility as the instigator, or tempter, in whose heart sin was first conceived.Now, concerning my sin, Christ died for my sins (Romans 5:8). … He assumed my responsibilities, and His blood alone cleanses me from all sin. … The atonement for my sin is made solely by the shed blood of Christ.And concerning Satan’s sin and his responsibility as instigator and tempter, no salvation is provided for him. He must be punished for his responsibility. There is no savior, or substitute, to bear his punishment. He must himself “atone” for his sin in causing men to transgress, in the same way, that a master criminal suffers on the gallows or in the electric chair for his responsibility in the crimes that he has caused others to commit. It is in this sense only that we can understand the words of Leviticus 16:10 concerning the scapegoat, “To make an atonement with him.”Under criminal law, the instigator, or mastermind, may be punished more severely than his agents. … Satan is the responsible mastermind in the great crime of sin, and his responsibility will return upon his head. The crushing weight of his responsibility for the sins of the whole world—of the wicked as well as the righteous—must be rolled back upon him. Simple justice demands that while Christ suffers for my guilt, Satan must also be punished as the instigator of sin (397, 399).
  2. Satan makes no atonement for our sins. But Satan will ultimately have to bear the retributive punishment for his responsibility in the sins of all men, both righteous and wicked. Seventh-day Adventists, therefore, repudiate en toto any idea, suggestions, or implication that Satan is in any sense or degree our sin bearer. The thought is abhorrent to us and appallingly sacrilegious. Such a concept is a dreadful disparagement of the efficacy of Christ and His salvation and vitiates the whole glorious provision of salvation solely through our Saviour.Satan’s death a thousand times over could never make him a savior in any sense whatsoever. He is the arch-sinner of the universe, the author, and instigator of sin. … Only Christ, the Creator, the one and only God-man, could make a substitutionary atonement for men’s transgressions. And this Christ did completely, perfectly, and once for all, on Golgotha (399–400).

The Sanctuary, the Investigative Judgment, and the Scapegoat

The foundation of Seventh-day Adventism is its view of prophecy, which is the historicist school of interpretation, a school that maintains that prophecy is to be understood in the light of consecutive fulfillment in history. The exaggeration of this idea led William Miller and his followers to teach that the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14 were actually 2300 years. Figuring from 457 BC., the now verified time of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25), the Millerites thought that AD. 1843 would be the date of the second advent of Jesus Christ. Miller and his followers, among whom were James and Ellen G. White and other prominent Seventh-day Adventists, understood “the sanctuary” of Daniel 8:14 to be the earth that would be cleansed by Christ at the “great and terrible Day of the Lord,” which they interpreted as the second advent of Christ. We have seen, however, that the Millerites were bitterly disappointed; and when Christ did not appear, Miller himself renounced the system and all resultant movements, including Seventh-day Adventism. But the early Seventh-day Adventists, relying upon the “vision” of Elder Hiram Edson, transferred the location of the sanctuary from the earth to heaven, and taught that in 1844 Christ went instead into the second apartment of the sanctuary in heaven (which contemporary Seventh-day Adventists term the second phase of His ministry), there to review the cases of those deemed to be worthy of eternal life. This phase of our Lord’s ministry the Seventh-day Adventists call the “investigative judgment.” This unique theory is intended, I believe, to discipline Christians by the threat of impending judgment and condemnation upon those whose cases are decided upon unfavorably by our Lord. When concluded, the investigative judgment will usher in the second advent of Jesus Christ, according to the Seventh-day Adventist theology, and the devil, prefigured by the second or scapegoat of Leviticus 16 (Azazel), will bear away unto eternal destruction or annihilation his responsibility for causing sin to enter the universe.

James White, a stalwart Seventh-day Adventist leader, when first confronted with the doctrine of the investigative judgment, opposed it en toto, giving in substance the very arguments put forth by all subsequent ex-Seventh-day Adventists. And it was only after considerable time that James White finally acceded to the doctrine of the investigative judgment. There are many critics of Seventh-day Adventism who, when approaching the sanctuary, investigative judgment, and scapegoat concepts, deride and mock the early Adventists and their descendants for accepting such unsupported, extra-biblical theories, but derision is not the answer, and it should be remembered that Adventists hold these doctrines in sincerity. Therefore, if they are ever to be persuaded of the mistaken nature of their faith, in these areas at least, only the facts of Scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit will bring it about.

The view of Hiram Edson is, so far as this writer is concerned, an attempt to escape the terrible calamity that befell the Millerite movement and the disappointment and embarrassment that must have followed the failure of the Millerite prophecies and their interpretations of the book of Daniel. We shall confine ourselves in this short analysis to the salient points of the theological issues raised by these special teachings or doctrines of the Advent message. In the matter of prophetic interpretation, this writer is convinced that the Holy Spirit has wisely veiled from the prying eyes and intellect of man many great truths that will doubtless be revealed toward the end of the age. It is not for us to judge whether the preterist, historicist, or futurist schools of interpretation are correct, and we ought not to overly concern ourselves with when Christ is coming, whether before, during, or after the Great Tribulation. Rather, we ought to be concerned that He is coming, because His coming is indeed “the blessed hope” of the Christian church (Titus 2:13), which hope Adventists and non-Adventists alike who share the Christian message and faith anticipate with joy.

The heavenly sanctuary and investigative judgment teaching is still an integral part of foundational Adventist doctrine. It is described in point twenty-three of the “Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists” in the following words:

There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle, which the Lord set up and not man. In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. He was inaugurated as our great high priest and began His intercessory ministry at the time of His ascension. In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry. It is a work of investigative judgment, which is part of the ultimate disposition of all sin, typified by the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. In that typical service, the sanctuary was cleansed with the blood of animal sacrifices, but the heavenly things are purified with the perfect sacrifice of the blood of Jesus. The investigative judgment reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to have a part in the first resurrection. It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom. This judgment vindicates the justice of God in saving those who believe in Jesus. It declares that those who have remained loyal to God shall receive the kingdom. The completion of this ministry of Christ will mark the close of human probation before the Second Advent. 61

I. The Sanctuary

Since the Seventh-day Adventists believe that the sanctuary to be cleansed is in heaven (Daniel 8:14), which the Millerites identified as the earth (a regrettable early mistake), we might ask, What is the purpose of the heavenly sanctuary and its cleansing? What are the Adventists really teaching?

The book of Hebrews definitely sets forth a “heavenly sanctuary” of which Christ is the minister (Hebrews 8:1–2), and the writer of the epistle repeatedly contrasts the Lord Jesus Christ, our risen high priest, with the Aaronic priesthood. He shows that as a priest after the order of Melchizedek, Christ derives His authority from the power of “an endless life” (Hebrews 7:16), and that He was both high priest and an offering on Calvary. 62 And this Adventists also emphasize.

It is futile, therefore, to argue that the word “sanctuary” does not apply to heaven or something of a heavenly nature since the Scriptures teach that it does. But the Adventists’ error is that they draw from the Scriptures’ interpretations that cannot be substantiated by exegesis, but rest largely upon inference and deduction and are taken from theological applications of their own design.

In their sanctuary teaching, the Adventists do indeed declare, in the words of Ellen G. White:

As anciently the sins of the people were by faith, placed upon the sin offering and through its blood transferred in figure to the earthly sanctuary, so in the new covenant the sins of the repentant are by faith placed upon Christ and transferred in fact to the heavenly sanctuary. And as the typical cleansing of the earthly was accomplished by the removal of the sins by which it had been polluted, so the actual cleansing of the heavenly is to be accomplished by the removal or blotting out of the sins that are there recorded. 63

Here we have the very heart of Seventh-day Adventist teaching relative to the expiation of sin, which is that the sins of believers have been transferred, deposited, or recorded in the heavenly sanctuary, and are now being dealt with in the investigative judgment.

Let us again listen to White:

In the sin offerings presented during the year, a substitute had been accepted in the sinner’s stead; but the blood of the victim had not made full atonement for the sin. It had only provided a means by which the sin was transferred to the sanctuary. By the offering of the blood the sinner acknowledged the authority of the law, confessed the guilt of his transgression, and expressed his faith in Him who was to take away the sin of the world; but he was not entirely released from the condemnation of the law. 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 table of the law. Thus the claims of the law that 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, confessed over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel and all their transgressions and all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat. And as the goat bearing these sins was sent away, they were with him regarded as forever separated from the people. 64

White further stated, “Not until the goat had been thus sent away did the people regard themselves as freed from the burden of their sins. 65

The Adventist teaching is that Christ as our high priest transferred the sins of believers (i.e., the record of sins, in Adventist thinking) to the heavenly sanctuary, which will be finally cleansed at the conclusion of the great Day of Atonement, the investigative judgment having been concluded. Then the cases of all the righteous having been decided, their sins will be blotted out, followed by the return of the Lord Jesus Christ in glory. White made it clear that the sin transferred to the sanctuary in heaven would remain there until the conclusion of the investigative judgment and the subsequent cleansing of the sanctuary.

The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel the sin; it would stand on record in the sanctuary until the final atonement; so then the type, the blood of the sin offering removed the sin from the penitent but it rested in the sanctuary until the day of atonement. 66

To substantiate this particular position, Adventists quote Acts 3:19 in the King James Version: “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.”

The chief difficulty with the Adventist contention is that the Greek of Acts 3:19 does not substantiate their teaching that the blotting out of sins will take place as a separate event from the forgiveness of sins. According to modern translations (the Revised, the American Standard, the Revised Standard, and the New International Versions), the text should read “Repent therefore and turn again that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord.” Peter was urging his listeners to repent, to turn from their sins, in order to receive the forgiveness that comes only from the presence of the Lord. This text gives our Adventist brethren no support for their “heavenly sanctuary” and “investigative judgment” teachings.

II. The Investigative Judgement

The Bible explicitly declares that when one accepts Christ as Lord, God freely forgives all his sins and ushers him from spiritual death to spiritual life solely on the merits of the perfect life and death of the Lord Jesus Christ. To this Adventists fully agree, and this makes their teaching on investigative judgment inconsistent. In John 5:24 the Greek deals a devastating blow to the Seventh-day Adventist concept of investigative judgment: “He that hears my word and believes him that sent me has everlasting life and shall not come under judgment but is passed from death to life” (literal translation).

Christians, therefore, need not anticipate any investigative judgment for their sins. True, we shall all appear before the judgment seat of Christ to receive the deeds done in the body (2 Corinthians 5:10), but this has nothing to do with any investigative judgment. It is a judgment for rewards. Several judgments are mentioned in the Bible, but it is my opinion that not one passage substantiates the “investigative judgment” theory—for theory it truly is, relying upon out-of-context quotations and supported by the “Spirit of prophecy.” They are welcome to this dogma, but faithfulness to New Testament teaching forbids the idea that “the blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel the sin; it would stand on record in the sanctuary until the final atonement” or “until blotting out of all sins.” The Scriptures clearly teach, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). Further evidence of the completeness of the forgiveness of God and the cleansing power of the blood of Christ is found in the first chapter of the book of Hebrews, where the Holy Spirit informs us that Christ as “the image of God” “upholds all things by the word of his power” and that on Calvary He by himself purged our sins (Hebrews 1:3).

For the word translated “purged” or “purification” the Holy Spirit chose the Greek word katharismon, from which we derive cathartic. Hence it is said of the Lord Jesus and His sacrifice that He alone, “by himself,” gave to our sinful spiritual natures the complete catharsis of forgiveness and purification on the cross. Christians may now rejoice that the Lord Jesus Christ is not engaged in weighing our frailties and failures, for “He knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust” (Psalm 103:14). We cannot, therefore, accept the Adventist teaching on the investigative judgment since we are convinced that it has no warrant in Scripture. We must reject what we believe to be their unbiblical concept that the sins of believers remain in the sanctuary until the day of blotting out of sins.

Our Adventist brethren, in teaching this doctrine, are overlooking the fact that “the Lord knoweth them that are his” (2 Timothy 2:19), and it was no less an authority than the Lord Jesus Christ who declared, “I … know my sheep” (John 10:14). The apostle Paul declares that “Christ died for the ungodly … while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us … we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son” (Romans 5:6, 8, 10). This does not balance with the Seventh-day Adventist teachings of the heavenly sanctuary, the transfer of sins and the investigative judgment. In his epistle to the Colossians, the apostle Paul further declared, “Having made peace through the blood of his cross … you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight” (1:20–22). Once again the Holy Spirit declares that we are now reconciled through the death of Christ, having been forgiven all our trespasses through the blood of the cross (Colossians 2:13–14).

Seventh-day Adventists, relying upon Daniel 7:9–10; 8:14; and Revelation 14:7; 11:18, which refer to “judgment” and “books,” attempt to “prove” that the investigative judgment is meant, but examination of each of these texts in context reveals the paucity of the claim. None of these texts has anything to do with any judgment going on now. Neither the grammar nor context supports such a contention. One can only base this interpretation by acknowledging the Adventist premise that the historicist school of prophetic interpretation is the only accurate one, and by accepting the Adventist definition of the sanctuary and judgment. It is significant that non-Adventist biblical scholars have never allowed these so-called “investigative judgment” interpretations because there is no scriptural warrant for them apart from implication and inference.

As mentioned previously, James White at first categorically denied the teaching of the investigative judgment and gave good reasons for his rejection. Although he later embraced this doctrine, his objections are still valid:

It is not necessary that the final sentence should be given before the first resurrection as some have taught; for the names of the saints are written in heaven and Jesus and the angels will certainly know who to raise and gather to the New Jerusalem. … The event that will introduce the judgment day will be the coming of the Son of Man to raise the sleeping saints and to change those that are alive at that time. 67

Relative to the time for the beginning of the great judgment, James White quoted, “I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at [not before] his appearing in his kingdom” (2 Timothy 4:1). 68

Asked when he expected the judgment of Daniel 7 to take place, James White stated,

Daniel in the night vision saw that judgment was given to the saints of the most high, but not to mortal saints. Not until the ancient of days comes will the little horn cease prevailing, which will not be until he is destroyed by the brightness of Christ’s coming. 69

We see by this that James White at the beginning rejected the investigative judgment with good reasons. But two more of his statements are quite revealing:

The advent angel, Revelation 14:6–7, saying with a loud voice, “Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come” does not prove that the day of judgment came in 1840 or in 1844, nor that it will come prior to the Second Advent. … Some have contended that the day of judgment was prior to the Second Advent. This view is certainly without foundation in the Word of God. 70

At that time, James White was on good biblical ground, but he later forsook this position for the theories and prophetic speculation promulgated by his wife and other influential Adventist leaders. The Lord Jesus Christ himself placed the judgment after His second advent when He said, “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: and before him shall be gathered all nations” (Matthew 25:31–32). One need only read the following passages to see that the judgments of God upon believers and unbelievers are future events. Notice the language employed:

  1. “The quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom” (Acts 10:42; 1 Peter 4:5 and 2 Timothy 4:1).
  2. “When the Son of Man shall come in his glory … he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left” (Matthew 25:31–33).
  3. The wheat and the tares: “The harvest is the end of the world” (Matthew 13:24–30, 36– 43).
  4. “For we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body … whether it be good or bad” (2 Corinthians 5:10).
  5. “So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God” (Romans 14:10–12).
  6. “Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it” (1 Corinthians 3:13).

In addition to these verses, which unmistakably indicate future judgment, the writer to the Hebrews declares, “As it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). This, to any non-Adventist, is conclusive evidence that there is no investigative judgment now going on for believers to fear.

Hebrews 4:13 also exposes the faulty concept of investigative judgment: “Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.” Since our Lord knows the disposition of “cases” allegedly being reviewed in heaven, what need is there for “investigative judgment”? We believe the Scriptures decidedly do not warrant such a doctrine.

Concluding our comments on the investigative judgment, note that rewards for believers will be meted out after the second coming of our Lord, or at “the resurrection of the just,” for the resurrection of life (John 5:29 and Luke 14:14). Even the Adventists concur in believing that the judgment of the wicked will not take place until the end of the millennial age (Revelation 20:11–12 and Matthew 25:31–46). Once again the investigative judgment theory conflicts with the biblical teaching on judgment regarding both believer and unbeliever. To this writer’s mind, the great error of the sanctuary and investigative judgment teachings is the premise that sins confessed by Christians are not fully dealt with until the conclusion of the investigative judgment, a position Scripture will not allow.

Adventists, in the opinion of conservative biblical scholars, not to mention the liberal wing of Protestantism, are only speculating with their sanctuary and investigative judgment theories. Actually, most are agreed that they have created doctrines to compensate for errors in prophetic interpretation. But the very doctrines intended to solve their theological problems have in turn only increased their dilemma—a dilemma which they have yet to solve! Romans 8:1 declares, “There is therefore now no condemnation [i.e., judgment] to them which are in Christ Jesus” (bracketed added); and here every Christian’s case must rest. We can never be indicted again for our sins or convicted for them because Christ has fully paid the penalty. For those who believe in Jesus Christ, there is no judgment for the penalty of sin, i.e., eternal separation from God. However, as 2 Corinthians 5:10 teaches, we shall be judged for how we live as Christians. Seventh-day Adventists, we believe, needlessly subscribe to a doctrine that neither solves their difficulties nor engenders peace of mind. Holding as they do to the doctrine of the investigative judgment, it is extremely difficult for us to understand how they can experience the joy of salvation and the knowledge of sins forgiven. Of course, this is true of so-called Arminian theology on the whole, which teaches that eternal life, given by God to the believer, is conditioned by the sustained faith of the believer in the grace of God.

There is, however, clarification and summary of the doctrine of investigative judgment in Questions on Doctrine.

It is our understanding that Christ, a high priest, concludes His intercessory ministry in heaven in a work of judgment. He begins His great work of judgment in the investigative phase. At the conclusion of the investigation, the sentence of judgment is pronounced. Then as judge, Christ descends to execute, or carry into effect, that sentence. For sublime grandeur, nothing in the prophetic word can compare with the description of our Lord as He descends the skies, not as a priest, but as King of kings and Lord of lords. And with Him are all the angels of heaven. He commands the dead, and that great unnumbered host of those that are asleep in Christ spring forth into immortality. At the same time those among the living who are truly God’s children are caught up together with the redeemed of all ages to meet their Saviour in the air, and to be forever with the Lord.

As we have suggested, Seventh-day Adventists believe that at the second coming of Christ the eternal destiny of all men will have been irrevocably fixed by the decisions of a court of judgment. Such a judgment obviously would take place while men are still living on the earth. Man might be quite unaware of what is going on in heaven. It is hardly to be supposed that God would fail to warn men of such an impending judgment and its results. Seventh-day Adventists believe prophecy does foretell such a judgment, and indeed point out the very time at which it is to begin.

When the high priest in the typical service had concluded his work in the earthly sanctuary on the Day of Atonement, he came to the door of the sanctuary. Then the final act with the second goat, Azazel, took place. In like manner, when our Lord completes His ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, He, too, will come forth. When He does this, the day of salvation will have closed forever. Every soul will have made his decision for or against the divine Son of God. Then uponSatan, the instigator of sin, is rolled back his responsibility for having initiated and introduced iniquity into the universe. But he [Satan] in no sense vicariously atones for the sins of God’s people. All this Christ fully bore, and vicariously atoned for, on Calvary’s cross. 71

It is apparent, then, that for Adventists the investigative judgment is something very real, and they believe that the final blotting out of their sins depends upon the results of that judgment, culminating in the final destruction (annihilation) of the wicked and of Satan, typified by the scapegoat of Leviticus 16.

III. The Scapegoat

Perhaps no doctrine of Seventh-day Adventism has been more misunderstood than the teaching concerning the scapegoat (Leviticus 16). Because of certain unfortunate choices of words by a few Adventist writers, the impression has been given that Adventists regard Satan as a partial sin bearer for the people of God. This may be accounted for by the fact that in the early days of Adventism they built much of their theology on the typology of the Mosaic sanctuary, using almost exclusively the phraseology of the King James Version. Hence they got into difficulty when dealing with such involved Old Testament concepts as the scapegoat. Not a few scholars, however, support the Seventh-day Adventist concept that Azazel represents Satan. Be that as it may, the important thing is the place of the scapegoat with regard to the atonement of Christ. Do Seventh-day Adventists believe that Satan eventually becomes their vicarious sin bearer? Not at all! This writer is convinced that the Adventist concept of the scapegoat in connection with the Day of Atonement, the sanctuary, and the investigative judgment is a bizarre combination of prophetic interpretation and typology; but it is by no means the soul-destroying doctrine that many people think it is. Let the Adventists speak for themselves:

We take our stand without qualification on the gospel platform that the death of Jesus Christ provides the sole propitiation for our sins (1 John 2:2 and 4:10); that there is salvation through no other means or medium, and no other name by which we may be saved (Acts 4:12); and that the shed blood of Jesus Christ alone brings remission for our sins (Matthew 26:28). That is foundational.

When Satan tempted our first parents to take and eat of the forbidden fruit, he as well as they had inescapable responsibility in that act—he the instigator, and they the perpetrators. And similarly, through the ages—in all sin, Satan is involved in responsibility, as the originator and instigator, or tempter (John 8:44; Romans 6:16 and 1 John 3:8).

Now concerning my sin, Christ died for my sins (Romans 5:8). He was wounded for my transgressions and for my iniquities (Isaiah 53). He assumed my responsibilities, and His blood alone cleanses me from all sin (1 John 1:7). The atonement for my sin is made solely by the shed blood of Christ.

Concerning Satan’s sin, and his responsibility as instigator and tempter, no salvation is provided for him. He must be punished for his responsibility. … He must himself “atone” for his sin in causing men to transgress, in the same way that a master criminal suffers on the gallows or in the electric chair for his responsibility in the crimes that he has caused others to commit. It is in this sense only that we can understand the words of Leviticus 16:10 concerning the scapegoat, to make atonement with him.

Satan is the responsible mastermind in the great crime of sin, and his responsibility will return upon his own head. The crushing weight of his responsibility in the sins of the whole world—of the wicked as well as of the righteous—must be rolled back upon him. Simple justice demands that while Christ suffers for my guilt, Satan must also be punished as the instigator of sin.

Satan makes no atonement for our sins. But Satan will ultimately have to bear the retributive punishment for his responsibility in the sins of all men, both righteous and wicked.

Seventh-day Adventists therefore repudiate en toto any idea, suggestion, or implication that Satan is in any sense or degree our sin bearer. The thought is abhorrent to us, and appallingly sacrilegious.

Only Christ, the Creator, the one and only God-man, could make a substitutionary atonement for men’s transgressions. And this Christ did completely, perfectly, and once for all, on Golgotha. 72

To be sure, the Seventh-day Adventists have a unique concept of the scapegoat, but in the light of their clearly worded explanation, no critic could any longer with honesty indict them for heresy where the atonement of our Lord is concerned. The Adventists have stated unequivocally that Jesus Christ is their sole propitiation for sin and that Satan has no part whatsoever in the expiation of sin. This writer agrees that Satan is the master criminal of the universe and that it is axiomatic, therefore, that he should suffer as the instigator of angelic and human rebellion. There are, of course, many interpretations of Leviticus 16 set forth by learned scholars, the great majority of whom are most certainly not Adventists; so at best the question is quite open. The Abingdon Bible Commentary (Methodist) relative to Leviticus 16 and the scapegoats’ states,

On the goats lots are to be cast, one for Jehovah and the other for Azazel. The translation “Dismissal” in the Revised Version margin here (cf. removal in asv margin) is inadmissible being based on a false etymology. What the word meant is unknown but it should be retained as a proper name of a wilderness demon.

To this statement could be added the opinions of Samuel Zwemer, E. W. Hengstenberg, J. B. Rotherham, and J. Russell Howden, the last of whom wrote in the Sunday School Times of January 15, 1927:

The goat for Azazel as it is sometimes misleadingly translated, typifies God’s challenge to Satan. Of the two goats, one was for Jehovah signifying God’s acceptance of the sin offering; the other was for Azazel. This is probably to be understood as a person being parallel with Jehovah in the preceding clause. So Azazel is probably a synonym for Satan.

Although Seventh-day Adventists have no exegetical support for their sanctuary and investigative judgment theories, one thing is certain: They have more than substantial scholastic support for assigning the title “Satan” to Azazel in Leviticus 16 concerning the scapegoat. Nevertheless, where the Scripture does not speak specifically it is far wiser to withhold comment. Many critics, in their zeal, to shred Seventh-day Adventism and classify it as “a dangerous non-Christian cult,” lay much stress upon the scapegoat teaching. In the light of current Adventist statements concerning their concept of the scapegoat, the misunderstandings of the past have at last been brought out into the open, clarified, and presented in a plausible manner.

Much, much more could be written concerning the Seventh-day Adventist concepts of the sanctuary,

investigative judgment, and the scapegoat, since they are inseparably linked together. But such writers as W. W. Fletcher (The Reasons for My Faith) and other ex-Seventh-day Adventists have exhaustively refuted the position of their former affiliation. The reader is urged to consider the bibliography for additional information on this subject. The saving grace of the entire situation is that the Adventists, fortunately, deny the logical conclusions to which their doctrine must lead them; i.e., a negation of the full validity of the atonement of Christ, the validity of which they absolutely affirm and embrace with considerable fervor—a paradoxical situation at best!

IV. Author’s note on “The Scapegoat”

We could wish that some of the earlier nonrepresentative Seventh-day Adventist statements on the scapegoat teaching had not been made or, better yet, that they were not still circulated in some quarters. However, to ignore their honest current declarations is, I believe, fundamentally unfair. It appears to me to be little more than blind prejudice. One review of the book Questions on Doctrine contains an error frequently found in critical writings. Imputing to their account a position the Adventists do not hold, the review then proceeds to destroy it as if, in the final analysis, it had both exposed and refuted a pernicious error. While it is true that the Seventh-day Adventists do believe that Azazel, in Leviticus 16, does represent Satan, their interpretation of it is far removed from this reviewer’s straw man. After quoting the Seventh-day Adventist statement: “Seventh-day Adventists repudiate en toto any idea … that Satan is in any sense our sin bearer,” this review states, “but then two entire chapters are devoted to proving that Satan did bear our sin.” It goes on to describe the Adventist position as “repulsive blasphemy” and “unholy twisting of the Scripture. If the Seventh-day Adventists were sound in everything but this and still held this one gross error, we would still have to consider them as an unscriptural cult.” 73

Now, with some other portions of this review, we are in agreement. But many of the statements show a marked predisposition toward removing various statements from context and placing them together to prove contradiction without respect to their setting. It ignores all the Seventh-day Adventist statements that contradict these out-of-context criticisms. The very chapter alluded to clearly shows that Adventists repudiate the meaning the reviewer has attached to the scapegoat concept. As we have noted, it is regrettable that this teaching has been so stated in some Adventist writings as to give the impression that the scapegoat represents Satan in the vicarious role of sin-bearer, but the Adventists have clarified this beyond a reasonable doubt in the large majority of their publications.

Questions on Doctrine clarifies the concept of the scapegoat in Seventh-day Adventist theology. For Adventists, when the Lord Jesus Christ returns He will place upon Satan the full responsibility for his role of instigator and tempted to sin. Since Satan caused angels and man to rebel against their Creator, Adventists reason that Azazel, the scapegoat of Leviticus 16, is a type of Satan receiving the punishment due him. However, as we have seen, Adventists repudiate the idea that Satan is their vicarious sin-bearer in any sense. They point out, and rightly so, that in Leviticus 16 only the first goat was slain as the vicarious offering. The second goat was not killed but was sent into the wilderness to die. Satan similarly bears the weight of guilt and final punishment culminating in annihilation as the master criminal who has promulgated sin during the period of God’s grace toward lost men. To quote the Adventists again:

Satan’s death a thousand times over could never make him a savior in any sense whatsoever. He is the archsinner of the universe, the author and instigator of sin. … Only Christ, the Creator, the one and only God-man, could make a substitutionary atonement for men’s transgressions. And this Christ did completely, perfectly and once for all on Golgotha74

FOOTNOTES

  1. Seventh-day Adventists Believe: A Biblical Exposition of Twenty-Seven Fundamental Doctrines
    (Washington, D.C.: Ministerial Association, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1988), 312. (These twenty-seven doctrines were published earlier in a special edition of the Adventist Review, 1981.).
  2. Hebrews 7:2, 4–7, 14, 16, 22, 25–26; 8:1–2, 6–8, 10; 9:2–12, 14, 23–24, 26–28; 10:1–10, 12, 19–21.
  3. The Great Controversy, 421–422.
  4. Ibid.
  5. Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing
    Association, n.d.), 355–356.
  6. Ibid., 357.
  7. A Word to the Little Flock (1847), 24.
  8. James White in the Advent Review (August 1850); the brackets are his.
  9. Ibid.
  10. Ibid.
  11. Questions on Doctrine, 422–423, 444.
  12. Ibid., 396, 398–400.
  13. The King’s Business (March 1958): 22–23.
  14. Questions on Doctrine, 400.
2 Comments
  1. Mike Manea 1 week ago

    Hi,

    Interesting article. Appreciate the fair treatment of the scapegoat issue.

    If I may, can I suggest that the article might be missing the forest because of the trees regarding the Investigative Judgment? Would it be possible to set aside for a second what E.G. White says, the exegesis of Hebrews or the attempt to save face after the disappointment of 1844? Maybe, just maybe, this Adventist idea has something to contribute to Christian theology.

    The Protestant Reformation brought to the forefront the idea that salvation is by grace through faith. But historically, this concept has been understood in three different ways within Protestantism depending on whether one believes in Free Will or not:

    Calvinism – Salvation is offered only to the elect who are predestined to believe, repent and persevere. There is no free will. (Presbyterians, Reformed etc.)

    Once Save Always Saved Arminianism — Salvation is offered to everyone freely but we have the free will to accept it or reject it. However, having accepted salvation, we can no longer choose to turn away. (Most Baptists, non-denominational)

    Regular Arminianism – We have free will to accept Christ and free will to turn away later after having accepted Him. (Methodists, Free-will Baptists)

    Protestants have been debating these three positions for hundreds of years before there ever was a concept of an Investigative Judgment(IJ). And, the arguments used against the IJ apply to the Regular Arminian position as well. For example, one of the texts used in the article is,

    “He that hears my word and believes him that sent me has everlasting life and shall not come under judgment but is passed from death to life.”

    This text is not only a problem for Adventists but for all Regular Arminians. Someone can hear God’s word, believe, have everlasting life, but then later lose their salvation, according to non-OSAS Arminians. So that person must then pass back from life unto death and most likely get judged anyway. In other words, let’s not single out Adventist soteriology when the exact same soteriological debate predated Adventism by centuries.

    But what exactly does the IJ have to contribute to the development of Christian theology?

    Within the non-OSAS framework, Arminians have always struggled with assurance. If salvation can be lost, what if I’ve already gone too far? What if my latest sins have caused me to fall away so much that it is now impossible to renew me to repentance again?

    The IJ resolves this dilemma using the Sanctuary model. The sanctuary had two compartments, the holy and the most holy. Throughout the year, intercession took place in the Holy and on the day of Atonement, judgment took place in the Most Holy. The idea here is that Jesus as our high priest plays two distinct roles. He has the ministry of being our intercessor and, on the day of judgment, our Judge. However, He doesn’t take up His role as judge until the day of judgment. For now His entire focus is on intercession and salvation.

    In other words, the non-OSAS Arminian can come boldly to the throne of grace knowing that Jesus is not judging him right now for His sin but only interceding on his behalf. This doesn’t mean that he can continue carelessly in his sin since there will eventually be a judgment. But the judgment will not happen until later after his death. As long as he lives, he can have the assurance that no matter what he does, his Saviour is still extending him mercy and interceding on his behalf. Basically, the IJ doctrines provides the theological basis for assurance under a non-OSAS Arminian framework.

    But what good is a doctrine of assurance that is exegetically wrong?

    The basis for the IJ is not actually the book of Hebrews, Leviticus or the Daniel 8:14. Rather, the IJ has it’s basis in Arminianism, as mentioned, and in another Adventist doctrine, the doctrine of Soul Sleep. Almost all other Arminians believe that people go to heaven or hell immediately at death. Therefore, if there is to be a judgment before they receive their punishment, this judgment must happen throughout their life or immediately after death. Because Adventists believe people rest in their graves and don’t receive their rewards until the second coming, the IJ does not need to happen until shortly prior to the second coming. So again, the basis for the IJ is not any of the things mentioned in the article but Arminianism & Soul Sleep.

    Moreover, the reason as Adventists we believe in Free Will and Soul Sleep is because we reject the influence of Greek ontology on Christian theology. From a very early period through church fathers with Patonic/Neoplatonic leanings (ex. Clement, Origen, Augustine) ideas about God and Man, Classical Theism and Dualism, were superimposed on Christian theology. We believe that when someone truly adopts the Sola Scriptura principle and reads Scripture without this bias, a different picture of both God and man emerges from Scripture. The Calvinist concept of predestination stems from Greek notions of a timeless God and not from Scripture taken in its entirety. The same goes for the idea of a disembodied soul going to heaven or hell at death.

    In any case, since I’ve already gone too long, the article’s critique of the IJ misses the boat because it misunderstands the systematic reasoning behind the doctrine.

    God bless.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

CONTACT US

Questions, comments, encouragements & condemnations welcome.

Sending

©2017 Bible Thumping Wingnut Network | A Ministry of Striving For Eternity

or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account