>>"Xtian" means Christian?<<

Yes, with a slight liberty taken...

Well, now you know my real name is Fausto and I'm a Xtian (for about 10 years at least as before that I thjought I was but I was actually far from it).

Next we could start some interesting exchange don't you agree?

Specially if you can help me with this slight dillema!

The Bible tells us that God commanded Moses to make a "holy place" and a "most holy place," after which Moses was also instructed by God to clearly divide these two apartments by a vail (Exodus 26:33). The first and largest apartment was made for the candlestick, the bread, and the altar of incense. The Most Holy Place was made to be the place where the Ark of the Covenant, containing the law of God, was to be kept.

Hebrews 9: 8, 9 says that the heavenly sanctuary could not go into service until the earthly sanctuary had fulfilled its purpose. This was shown by the fact that there was an endless round of yearly ceremonies which obviously had no power to make anyone "perfect as pertaining to conscience."

We know from Hebrews 8: 5 that the sanctuary service foreshadowed, or pointed forward, to the work of the Messiah, and its two apartments also illustrated the two-phased ministry of the Messiah in the heavenly sanctuary. In the heavenly sanctuary, there is a work of mediation for sinners, and, finally, a work of judgment, typified by the day of Atonement.




In Heb. 8: 2, speaking of the heavenly sanctuary, the author tells us that Jesus ministers in "the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord." It is important to note that the Greek word for "sanctuary" here is in the plural form, that is, "holies," meaning "holy places." It consists of two separate divisions, or rooms. Significantly, a few verses later, in verse 5, we are told that the earthly sanctuary is a "copy and shadow of what is in heaven."

Hebrews 9: 23, 24 also call the heavenly sanctuary "the heavenly things" and "holy places," respectively. These references clearly imply the existence of more than a single apartment in the heavenly sanctuary.

106 times the Greek translation of the Old Testament uses the same Greek word, ta hagia, which is plural, to refer to the entire sanctuary.

This is in complete harmony with Hebrews 8: 5 and Exodus 25: 40, that the heavenly sanctuary was the pattern for the one which Moses built.



The tearing of the veil did not do away with the distinction between the Holy Place and the Most Holy. What the tearing of the vail showed was that the Most Holy Place was no longer sacred and that animal sacrifices were no longer needed because the real Lamb of God had been slain. Thus all barriers between man and God were broken, and from then on, mankind could draw near boldly before God, because of the work of Christ. People thereafter no longer need a human priest or mediator to approach God.

The division of the two apartments does not depend on the existence of the veil alone. The fact of the two apartments is owing to the two phases in the ministry of the priest. There was the daily work of the priest, and there was the yearly ceremony (cf. Lev. 4 and Lev. 16). That is the essence of the division. It corresponds to two different phases in the heavenly ministry of Christ: (1) the first consists in Christ's mediation of His blood, which mediation has continued since His ascension; (2) the second consists in cleansing of the sanctuary, specifically, the judgment prior to Christ's return (Daniel 7: 26; Rev. 14:7).

In summary, then, the emphasis on the earthly sanctuary as a copy of the heavenly, together with the discussion of the two apartments of the earthly (9: 1-7), suggests that the author of Hebrews understood that the heavenly sanctuary is a structure consisting of two sections.



It is true that John the Revelator does not mention the veil by name, yet it could be argued that Rev. 11: 19 does imply its existence. However, verse 19 could also be understood to mean that in the context of the judgment prior to Christ's return, the attention of the universe is drawn to the ark of the covenant, which is the only thing in the Most Holy Place.

In any case, we cannot logically conclude that simply because it isn't mentioned by name in the book of Revelation, the veil therefore cannot exist.

Ellen White mentions a veil in the heavenly sanctuary, and while the NT does not say in so many words that the heavenly sanctuary has a veil, Ellen White is not contradicting the Bible by saying it was represented to her as existing in the sanctuary in heaven. (See Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, pp. 159-161; GC 414, 415.)

>>...we could start some interesting exchange don't you agree?<<

Well, perhaps with a few aspects.



>>Then yes, it actually does, although you will find it translated, but essentially that is what scape goat means.<<

For consideration only:

I’ve always had a problem with treating the ‘scapegoat as a Proper Noun – as there is no capitalization in the Hebrew script. Azazel-as-Proper – seems to be a thing inferred by expositors taking license. For it to have been inferred would have required an interpretive bias – to begin. I mean,

two goats were selected on the Day of Atonement – one to serve, by lot (read: chance) – as representing the Lord’s redemptive sacrifice. Selection by lot would mean that both goats would have had to have been without spot or blemish. That would have had the ‘scapegoat – representing other than either Satan or the angel Azazel. Without spot or blemish is not representative of either Satan or Azazel.

It seems that a more suitable exposition of the passage is required than that the – ‘scapegoat symbolized other than – a particular portrayal of the Mashiach/Redeemer.

1 Pet 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree,

>>So...to me, once you get the meaning of azazel,<<

The root of azazel seems to indicate a function of removal, as it were. The passage might be read, “one for the Lord and one for removal.”

>>Why would the Lord be sent into the wilderness,<<

Ahh, the supposed ‘wilderness of Azazel (Enoch’s contribution)’.

Speaking of ‘wilderness’, let’s consider:

1 Pet 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

This references the sojourn of Jesus Christ – in

the ‘wilderness/desolation of the grave’.

However, quoting..., “But I guess that is just me!”

>>...and if you use parallelism you see it happening again to Satan, after the second coming, he is thrown into the abyss, a desolate earth...pretty much wilderness to me!<<

Parallelism might work – except, one has to first embroider the scenario with the fact that your and my sins are laid upon Satan - rather than upon Jesus Christ. I’ve not found in Writ that our sins are borne by other than Jesus Christ, have you? That still leaves the question of

– the Biblical location of the saints immediately “after the second coming” – obtaining.

>>Its like a "no-brainer", right?<,

It’s, at least, individual, yes?

Consider several important points:

1) Azazel was not slain as a sacrifice. Why is this important? Because it is SOLELY by the shedding of blood that we have remission, or forgiveness. Heb. 9: 22. Therefore the "scapegoat" is not, nor ever was, a means of bringing anyone forgiveness. That only comes through the shed blood of Jesus Christ.

2) The sanctuary was not cleansed at all by the death of Azazel. The sanctuary was cleansed on the Day of Atonement by the blood of the Lord's goat (representing Christ), and that occurred BEFORE Azazel was brought into the ceremony. (See Lev. 16: 20).

I believe that Satan is simply shown at the end to be the one responsible for sin, and he is finally punished as the instigator of sin. He is merely a created being, and therefore, even if he had never sinned, Satan could not possibly save anyone. ONLY Christ could be a substitutionary atonement for human beings, and ONLY He bears our sins-- completely, perfectly, and once for all-- in order that we might be saved.

Simply because both goats must be perfect should not be interpreted to mean that both goats represent perfect beings. As you point out, either goat could be selected by lot to be the Lord's goat or Azazel. The difference did not lie in the condition of the goats. Everything related to the sanctuary service was supposed to be perfect on account of God's holiness.

It makes sense that since the Lord's goat represented a person, the other goat would also represent a person rather than an abstract idea, etc. The way it is expressed, in marked antithesis between "for Azazel" and "for YHWH" does not leave any doubt that both have reference to a personal being.

It is of interest to note that both early Jewish and Christian scholars understood Azezel to refer to a personal, evil being, or demon.

Also, J. B. Rotherham, translator of the Emphasized Bible, says, "It seems impossible to dissent from the opinion that Azezel... is the name or title of an evil Being, opposed to Yahweh."

Consider several important points:

>>1) Azazel was not slain as a sacrifice.<<

Absolutely not. The azazel was the means by which our sins were delivered to that Far Country.

>>Why is this important? Because it is SOLELY by the shedding of blood that we have remission, or forgiveness. Heb. 9: 22.<<

Agreed, in part. I would qualify SOLELY. Consider:

Lev 16:10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, [and] to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

>>Therefore the "scapegoat" is not, nor ever was, a means of bringing anyone forgiveness. That only comes through the shed blood of Jesus Christ.<<

Agreed, again, in part. Re Lev 16:10.

The Atonement ritual was, by nature, duo-fold.

>>2) The sanctuary was not cleansed at all by the death of Azazel. The sanctuary was cleansed on the Day of Atonement by the blood of the Lord's goat (representing Christ), and that occurred BEFORE Azazel was brought into the ceremony. (See Lev. 16: 20).<<

Agreed. However, note that the demise of the Lord’s goat occurred BEFORE... Why?

What then may have been the function of the azazel goat?

1 Pet 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

>>I believe that Satan is simply shown at the end to be the one responsible for sin, and he is finally punished as the instigator of sin.<<

And you are proposing that a goat [typifying him] delivering the sins of the congregation into the wilderness accomplishes that?

>>ONLY Christ could be a substitutionary atonement for human beings, and ONLY He bears our sins-- completely, perfectly, and once for all-- in order that we might be saved.<<

Ahh, another kettle altogether...

>>It makes sense that since the Lord's goat represented a person,<<

The Person, Jesus Christ.

>>...the other goat would also represent a person rather than an abstract idea, etc.<<

Again, the Person, Jesus Christ together with the “abstract idea”...

The two goats would have served a duo-fold function: one sacrificial, one bearing the sins of the congregation. The duo-fold symbology could hardly have obtained were there only the one goat – and it already sacrificed. I mean,

how then, without the ‘scapegoat, could the aspect of Jesus Christ bearing the sins of the congregation to that Far Country – have been represented?

>>The way it is expressed, in marked antithesis between "for Azazel" and "for YHWH" does not leave any doubt that both have reference to a personal being.<<

That is why I proffered for consideration...



>>It is of interest to note that both early Jewish and Christian scholars understood Azezel to refer to a personal, evil being, or demon.<<

Jewish ‘scholars’ believe Lilith was Adam’s first wife.


Strong’s #1593 –azazel
1) entire removal, scapegoat
a) refers to the goat used for sacrifice for the sins of the people
b) meaning dubious


>>Also, J. B. Rotherham, translator of the Emphasized Bible, says, "It seems impossible to dissent from the opinion that Azezel... is the name or title of an evil Being, opposed to Yahweh."<<

Per Azezel: The Book of Enoch concurs. Otherwise,

the three times azazel is mentioned in Writ contributes more to numinosity than to Rotherham, et al.

Great to see your posts on this thread, JASD. Just wondering if you want to edit out all the repetition in your post #174926. It's up to you of course. I tried to send a PM about it but couldn't.

Thanks. Dinner call. :-o