This last Sabbath, CGI's Tony Buchert delivered yet another sermon which attempted to prove the ACOG's traditional understanding of the Torah rituals surrounding the Day of Atonement. For those who may not be familiar with those teachings, Herbert Armstrong and his followers have taught for many years that the Azazel of Leviticus 16 represents Satan the Devil. In his sermon, Buchert expressed his dismay with anyone in the Church who might reach a different conclusion about what the Azazel represents. For him, this is just another instance of how that very powerful and cunning old Serpent can deceive God's people and rob them of their salvation! (Satan has always occupied way too much space in the theology and thinking of the ACOGs.) According to Mr. Buchert, one only needs to do a thorough study of the "Laying on of Hands" to establish that the Azazel HAS to represent Satan.
Now, in times past, this blog has addressed many aspects of the profound symbolism surrounding the Day of Atonement. We have discussed how the High Priest portrayed the role that Jesus Christ would later play/fulfill in God's plan. We have pointed out how the author of the book of Hebrews explained the symbolism of Atonement from a Christian perspective, and how that ceremony pictured Jesus' role in reconciling Christians to God - making them at one with him. Likewise, we have explained how the two goats of Leviticus assisted the High Priest in portraying Christ's work. It's NOT that the two goats represented Christ (as Mr. Buchert suggests is the position of folks who do not accept their identification of the Azazel), it's that one goat provided the blood that the human High Priest himself could not supply, and that the "Goat of Removal" (the literal sense of the Hebrew "Azazel") symbolized the removal of the people's sins from their and God's presence! We have also talked about how Satan will be held accountable for "his" sins, and that each one of us will be held responsible for our own sins. And, recently, this blog has examined what Scripture actually reveals about the real fate of Satan the Devil (that the "wages of sin" really is DEATH - NOT eternal life in Gehenna).
So, what about the laying on of hands? Does a proper understanding of this foundational teaching of the Church conclusively demonstrate that Armstrong and his followers were right about the Azazel?
In his sermon, Mr. Buchert quoted the twenty-fourth chapter of Leviticus to prove that the Azazel had to represent Satan. We read there about a man who had blasphemed God's name and was held in custody until the Lord had decided his fate (verses 10-12). Next, we are informed that the Lord said: "Take the blasphemer outside the camp and tell all those who heard the curse to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who curse their God will be punished for their sin. Anyone who blasphemes the Name of the Lord must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any native-born Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the Name of the Lord must be put to death." (Verses 13-16) According to Buchert, this demonstrates that the laying on of hands can symbolize God's judgement or assignment of guilt.
Unfortunately, this is a good example of how one passage (taken in isolation from others which deal with the same subject) can be twisted and employed to "prove" something that isn't true! In other words, what is the full Scriptural context of this notion of the laying on of hands? Wasn't this portrayed in other passages as a means of: conveying God's blessing (Genesis 48, Matthew 19:13-15)? healing the sick (Mark 5:23, 16:17-18, Luke 4:40, 13:13, etc.)? ordaining or setting people apart for some purpose? (Deuteronomy 34:9, Numbers 8:10, 27:18-23, Acts 6:3-6, 13:3, I Timothy 4:14, etc.)? causing someone to receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17, 19:6, etc.)? And, before continuing, we should note that what happened in the twenty-fourth chapter of Leviticus could certainly be interpreted to fall within the broader category of setting someone apart for some purpose (In this case, that this man was chosen to represent God's judgement on the sin of blasphemy)!
However, there is one other important use for the laying on of hands which we haven't yet mentioned, and it is a much better fit for what is described in the rituals surrounding the Day of Atonement. I'm speaking of the transference of human sin onto a sacrifice, and there is abundant Scriptural evidence supporting this use for the laying on of hands (Exodus 29:19, Leviticus 1:4, 3:2, 8, 13, 4:15, etc.). Indeed, one could even reasonably interpret this act as setting apart the animal for the task of bearing the sins of the people! To be clear, Aaron laying his hands on the head of the live goat (Leviticus 16) is much more consistent with this understanding. Indeed, the very language of the passage itself supports this interpretation! We read there that: "He will lay both of his hands on the goat’s head and confess over it all the wickedness, rebellion, and sins of the people of Israel. In this way, he will transfer the people’s sins to the head of the goat." (Verse 21)
Does all of that bring anything to mind relative to Jesus Christ? It should! In an Old Testament prophecy that is universally recognized by Christians as pointing to Christ, we read that: "All of us, like sheep, have strayed away. We have left God’s paths to follow our own. Yet the Lord laid on him the sins of us all." (Isaiah 53:6) And, in the Gospel of John, we read: "The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" (1:29) It is our sins that have separated and alienated us from God (Isaiah 59:2 and Colossians 1:21), and it is their removal which makes reconciliation with God possible!
Before concluding this subject, we should also note that Tony Buchert sees Satan in the very image of the goat. According to him, even Satanists and our popular culture equate Satan with the likeness of a goat. In other words, how ignorant can these folks be who don't see Satan in the Azazel? Of course, the obvious response to Mr. Buchert on this point is to ask him about that other goat - you know the one that was designated "for the Lord." In other words, just because it's a goat, it does NOT automatically follow that it is analogous to Satan! And I would think that that observation is much more obvious than Mr. Buchert's connection!
Hence, I would encourage all ACOG members to reexamine this subject with fresh eyes and an open mind and ask yourselves: "Which narrative/interpretation/perspective is a better fit with ALL of the Scriptural passages which relate to the laying on of hands?" If you do, I think that you will find that understanding this ritual through the lens of Christ's work on our behalf is a much better fit than Tony Buchert's special pleading related to the events surrounding the stoning in the twenty-fourth chapter of Leviticus! And those folks may also wish to ask themselves: "Why are ACOG leaders so reluctant to acknowledge that the Day of Atonement has NOTHING to do with Satan the Devil?" After all, Jesus Christ has already defeated Satan and reconciled us to God! Could it be that an all-powerful Satan who is really responsible for all of our sins is an essential component of their heretical theology? What do you think?
The following comment by Vance Stinson of the Church of God International is reprinted here (in two parts) with his permission:
ReplyDeleteSeveral of us within the CGI ministry do not hold the view that the
second goat represents Satan. This subject has been debated exhaustively by the ministry in times past. I have argued that the high priest (Aaron, originally) is a type of the true, permanent High Priest (Christ), and the goats are agents he (the high priest of the Old Covenant) uses to make atonement for the sanctuary and the people. (Christ, the true High Priest, needs no agents to accomplish the work of Atonement!) The sin offering provides the blood necessary for making atonement for (decontaminating) the holy place and the people, and the sending away of the second goat symbolizes the *effects* of the sin offering, thus depicting the fulfillment of God's promise to remove the people's sins from them as far as east is from west. It served as a *powerful* picture of the New Covenant promise that God will "remember their sins no more."
Further, the KJV refers to the second goat as "Azazel." I believe this
is a poor translation. The better translation (in my opinion) describes
the goat as being *sent to* the place where "Azazel" (whether the name of a desert demon or the name of a particular place in the
wilderness--Jewish interpretations have varied) was believed to
be--i.e., far outside the camp and therefore far removed from the
people. If "Azazel" was a desert demon, then the idea here is that the sins of the people were sent to the place where Azazel dwells (the habitation of evil), not as an offering to Azazel, but because that's where sin and evil belong. Several modern English translations reflect this understanding of "Azazel" as the destination of the goat, not the goat itself.
The notion that Azazel means "goat of departure" is entirely speculative and is one of several possible meanings based on interpretations of presumed root terms of the word. It is possible (but far from certain) that the later belief that Azazel was a desert demon may reflect a much earlier understanding. But, again, if that's the case, then the best translation (in my opinion) shows the second goat being sent to the habitation of evil, the place where Azazel (Satan) dwells. The goat, in other words, is *not* a type of Satan, but is sent (with the sins of all the people) to the place where Satan dwells. This simply means that God, through the work of the High Priest, disposes of all sin and wickedness.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I'm not overly concerned about my fellow ministers' "goat
theology" is because all of us agree that *Christ alone* accomplishes
the work of Atonement. It's just that some (perhaps most?) among us
believe that Christ will ultimately dispose of all those sins (which,
all agree, have *already* been removed from us) by placing them on
Satan. Presumably this means that the *record* of our past sins, now
covered by the blood of Christ, will be somehow attached to the Devil, who will be destroyed along with the record of our sins. If this is the idea, I can't see making such a big deal of it. I don't agree with it, but I am not willing to make an issue of it, as it does conflict with
what we all believe: that *Christ alone* accomplishes the work of
Atonement.
My view is that the one true Offering for sins has, for all who are in
Christ, *already* resulted in our past sins being removed from us as far as east is from west, so there is *no record of sins* to be destroyed. As High Priest, Christ presently serves as our Mediator, making it possible for us to come with confidence before the Throne of Grace to find the help we need when our faith is put to the test, so His cleansing and purifying of us is continuous. And then there's a future aspect. When Christ comes, He and His army will defeat the beast, the false prophet, the beast's army, and Satan. If the Feast of Trumpets pictures the Second Coming, as we have always believed, I would place the binding of Satan under Trumpets, not Atonement. It is only after the overthrow of the present system (represented by the beast, false prophet, and Satan) that Christ's work of reconciliation (Atonement) with the world that remains will occur.
A friend also pointed out to me this sermon by Mr. Jim Bald which was delivered to the Big Sandy Church of God this past Day of Atonement:
ReplyDeletehttps://cogbs.sermoncloud.com/#
What about the controversy surrounding the Hebrew word Azazel? First, while I find Jewish apocryphal writings, legends, and traditions to be fascinating, I am suspicious of anyone who would assign to them the same weight and respect which most of us reserve for canonical Scripture. In short, the book of Enoch is a very interesting piece of literature, and I believe that it can give us some legitimate insights into some of the material which is included in the canon. However, there are very good reasons why that book was excluded from the canon. Hence, just because one of the evil angelic characters in the book is named Azazel, it does not follow that the goat in Leviticus refers to Satan or some other demon of note.
ReplyDeleteAlso, while it is certainly true that the Jews anciently had a tradition of leading the one goat to a particular place and making sure that it fell to its death, we should also note that this was NOT part of the instructions specified in the canonical book of Leviticus! Moreover, as I and other folks here have noted, Satan is responsible for his sins, and we are all responsible for our own (personal responsibility is a well-established biblical principle. And, in this connection, the Bible makes very clear that God's aim was to remove our sins "as far as the east is from the west." In other words, there was NO particular place assigned for those sins to go.
Finally, once again, I think that the etymological evidence is very convincing. Please see Blue Letter Bible's entry for the Hebrew word "Azazel." For those who might be interested in exploring this topic on your own, please see: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h5799/kjv/wlc/0-1/