What is the name of the second goat in your Bible? In the KJV it is “Scapegoat.” In the original it is “Azazel,” and some of the modern translations will have that word. What does the word “Azazel” mean? In the Hebrew, words have meanings. What does the word mean? We do not know today because the Hebrew language changed in the ninth century and we do not know exactly what it means.

But here is what we have from the best of the scholars. According to the Hebrew scholars (these are not Christian scholars, but Jewish scholars), “Azazel” is the name of the devil. So the Hebrew scholars back us up. We do have not the Hebrew manuscript but we do have the Syriac manuscript, which is one of the oldest manuscripts. The Syriac manuscript for “Azazel” has this phrase “the angel that revolted.” Very interesting and a very reliable manuscript. Most Christian scholars interpret Azazel as the Scapegoat. What does scapegoat mean? If you looked it up in a dictionary, what does it mean? We use it in our English language.

Someone has to take the blame. That is the issue! When you deal with sin in a legal sense, as a transgression of the law, there are three things involved. First there is guilt. Then there is punishment. Then there is responsibility.

The thing is this: who is responsible for sin? One of the clear teachings of the Bible is the sovereignty of God. That means that nothing happens in the universe without the permission of God. That’s what it means. God is sovereign. Did God know that Lucifer would sin? Yes. Then why did He create him? That’s one of the big questions.

If God is sovereign, then He has allowed Satan to come in. He has allowed Satan to tempt Adam and Eve. This has created a problem and this was not solved on the cross. Let me give you an illustration. When Adam sinned and God came to visit him, what did he say to God when God asked why did you sin? He said, “This woman, whom You gave....” So upon whom was he putting the blame? On God. Today you will hear it all the time: “If God is love why is He allowing all the sicknesses and problems? If God is love, why is He allowing a drought in America?” These are the kind of questions that have to be solved if the great controversy is to come to an end.

So what does God do? God actually assumes the blame! He assumes the blame until the Day of Atonement. There is a text which I want you to look for, it’s in the Old Testament, where God is speaking. He says, “I have created evil.” You will find many texts in the Bible where God assumes the blame for many things. For instance God said, “I have hardened Pharaoh’s heart.” These texts cause a lot of problems to many Christians. You wonder why those texts are there. Well, it’s because God assumes the blame until the Day of Atonement. Because He’s sovereign and He allows things to happen, He has to assume the blame. Does He assume the blame for a good reason? Yes. But we will not know it until the judgment.

There is another text and I want you to look for this one too. I’ll give you a little more help, this in the Psalms. David says:

I will praise your name with uprightness of heart when I know of your righteous judgment.

Even in the minds of Christians, there are questions. Now we see through a glass darkly but then, face to face. When the Day of Atonement is over every knee will bow down, including Satan, and admit, “God you are right.” Every knee will confess. The purpose of the Day of Atonement is to put the blame where it belongs. And that is on Satan.

[Jack S.]

I agree with what you (or rather Jack S.) says about the scapegoat.

Some people use the verses you quote to show that all evil comes from Satan and never from God; that is to say, that God never takes the life of a human being.

Does God kill and does God destroy? Yes, he does, unless one wants to say the Bible writers said things that were not true about God. In that case, the prophets would prove we cannot depend on what they say. They say over and over again that God sent the flood to destroy the wicked, but we say that God did not send the flood nor did He send the fire down from heaven to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.

And if that is true, then what about the final destruction of the wicked?

QR frame:

I would not rush in where angels fear to tread.

I submit that Xtian expositors are able to understand the ancient texts as well as anyone. Moreover, those 'scholars' you reference are often steeped in Talmudic thought and hold to the very 'unusual'.

I don't think they have access to mss re the subject - that are not also available to our own Xtian scholars.

Disabuse me should I err, but is it not required to apply to the Book of Enoch to arrive at a Proper Noun Azazel? What does that book tell us re Azazel as proper noun?

I don't think one can legitimize a Satan-is-Azazel from the reading in the Book of Enoch, Jewish scholars, notwithstanding.

Then God's a devil....

Rob

Strong statement, Rob. I'm OK with it if God tells me that He didn't kill or destroy. But what would you say to God if He told you that the Bible tells it straight and that the prophets got it right?

John, like many SDA, tradition gets in your way.

Please explain the following:

"So Saul died for his unfaithfulness; he was unfaithful to the Lord in that he did not keep the command of the Lord, and also consulted a medium, seeking guidance, 14 and did not seek guidance from the Lord. Therefore the Lord killed him, and turned the kingdom over to David the son of Jesse." [1 Chronicles 10:13-14]


Saul said to his armorbearer, “Draw your sword, and thrust me through with it” . . . But his armorbearer would not. . . . Therefore, Saul took a sword and fell on it. . . . So Saul . . . died (1 Chron. 10:4, 6).

We've discussed this verse in relation to the same question many times before already. It is true that there are times when the Bible speaks of God's doing things that He actually merely allows Satan to do. But that does not explain away all the many clear references to God's destruction of wicked people, such as in the flood, Sodom, and many dozens of others.

I have no problem with your believing the way you do on this issue if you choose to think this.

Yes, but this time we need to stick only to one quote at a time. Let's look at this one closely.



Yes, like in Job..., but in my quote it didn't say anything about Satan killing. Let's look at it again:

"So Saul died for his unfaithfulness....the Lord killed him, and turned the kingdom over to David the son of Jesse." [1 Chronicles 10:13-14]


"Saul took a sword and fell on it. . . . So Saul . . . died" (1 Chron. 10:4, 6).

Okay, if you take the Bible just as it reads you have a contradiction. God says He killed Saul, but then God, through the Prophet, states that Saul killed himself.

What do you do with this contradiction? (Of course I don't see it as a contradiction at all once one understands God's love).

I believe the evidence shows that 1 Chron. 10: 4-6 gives us a description of the events as an objective observer would see them unfold. It tells us what happened from the human viewpoint.

Then in verses 13-14, the narrator explains why those objective events occurred: it was God's plan for David to take the place of Saul. Saul took his own life finally because Saul disobeyed and rebelled against God.

The way in which Saul died was immaterial. What was important is that God was behind it in the ultimate sense, and this is the chief meaning of the Bible writer at that point.

Given this relationship between the two explanations, I see absolutely no contradictions between them.

By the way, as you probably agree, that doesn't mean Saul had no choice in the matter.

If we take this a few steps farther we see that this illustration does not help in the argument against God's having destroyed wicked people in the past.

Those verses also describe what happened and then tell us that God did it, and there is no contradiction, any more than there is a true contradiction between 1 Chron 10: 4-6 and 10: 13-14.

For instance, in the story of the flood, God says He's going to destroy the wicked, and then it shows the wicked being destroyed, and repeats that God did it. There is no indication at all that Satan did brought the flood.

Besides, when we read Ellen White about the flood, it becomes obvious that Satan feared for his own existence during the flood. Obviously it does not make sense to say Satan brought the flood and also feared at the same time that he himself might be destroyed in it.