"Paano Ginugulo ng mga Sabadista ang Roma 10:4: Christ is the End of the Law!"

TANONG: Claim ng isang Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) debater na sa Roma 10:4 ("Christ is the END of the law"), 'yung word na nomos (kautusan) ay tumutukoy lang sa ceremonial laws at hindi kasama ang Sampung Utos. Ginamit niya 'yung Hebreo 8:13 at Hebreo 9:1–3 para patunayan na 'yung "Lumang Tipan na lumipas" ay 'yung sanctuary at ceremonial practices lang. Tama ba 'yung kaniyang hermeneutics at exegesis?

SAGOT: Maling-mali. 'Yung argumentong ito ng SDA debater ay isang classic at hayagang halimbawa ng Proof-texting Fallacy, Arbitrary Bifurcation (Two-Laws Fallacy), at Deceptive Contextual Truncation (Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence).

Para pagtakpan 'yung malinaw na itinuturo ng author ng Book of Hebrews, pinutol niya 'yung pagbasa sa Hebreo 9 at sapilitang ipinasok 'yung hinalong philosophy ng SDA na may "dalawang magkaibang kautusan."

Narito ang point-to-point historico-grammatical at exegetical refutation sa kaniyang mga argumento.

1. Debunking the "Two Laws Theory": Ang Isang Buong Nomos (613 Mitzvot)

Ginamit ng SDA debater 'yung Greek word na νόμος (nomos) at sinabing "Hindi ito agad tumutukoy sa Ten Commandments… ito ay ang ceremonial laws."

Sa Jewish mindset at sa buong context ng Bagong Tipan, ang kautusan o Torah (תּוֹרָה) ay isang buong legal system na binubuo ng 613 mitzvot (commandments). Kabilang dito ang moral (10 Utos), civil, at ceremonial laws.

Wala kang makikitang chapter sa Bible kung saan hinati ni Pablo o ng mga Judio 'yung Law of Moses at Law of God sa dalawang magkahiwalay na legal code na gumagana nang hiwalay sa isa't isa. Hanggang ngayon, hindi pa rin nila nasasagot 'yung challenge ko na magpakita ng verse.

• Galacia 5:3: Malinaw na sinabi ni Pablo: "Pinatotohanan kong muli sa bawat taong tumatanggap ng pagtutuli, na siya'y may kautangang tumupad ng buong kautusan (holon ton nomon)."
  

• Santiago 2:10–11: "Sapagka't ang sinomang gumaganap ng buong kautusan, at gayon ma'y natitisod sa isa, ay nagiging makasalanan sa lahat." Sa lahat ng 613 laws na ito ng Mosaic Law, including the Ten Commandments.

Isipin mo 'yung isang employment contract na may 613 clauses. Ang Clause 1 hanggang 10 ay 'yung mga main rules. Kapag sinabi ng company na "Cancelled na 'yung lumang contract," puwede mo bang sabihin na: "'Yung clause 11-613 lang ang na-cancel, pero 'yung clause 1-10 ay hiwalay na contract kaya valid pa rin"? Hindi! Kapag na-nullify 'yung contract, 'yung buong package ang na-a-annul.

Ang paghahati sa nomos (613 commandments including the 10 commandments) para i-protect 'yung 10 Utos habang itinapon 'yung ceremonial law ay isang man-made division na walang exegetical foundation sa Roma 10:4.

2. Ang Deceptive Contextual Truncation: Huling Huli sa Hebreo 9:1–4!

Para mapatunayan na 'yung "Lumang Tipan na lumipas" (Hebreo 8:13) ay ceremonial law lang, binasa nung SDA debater 'yung Hebreo 9:1–3:

"Ngayon, ang unang tipan din ay nagkaroon ng mga palatuntunan ng pagsamba sa Diyos at ng kaniyang santuario, ang santuario ng sanglibutang ito. Sapagka't inihanda ang isang tabernakulo, ang una, na kinaroroonan ng kandelero, at ng dulang, at ng mga tinapay na handog; na siyang tinatawag na Dakong Banal. At sa likod ng ikalawang tabing ay ang tabernakulo na tinatawag na Dakong Kabanalbanalan." (Heb 9:1-3 Tagalog AB)

Pagkatapos basahin 'yung verse 3, bigla niyang itinigil at pinutol 'yung pagbasa! Bakit? Kasi kapag itinuloy mo sa Verse 4, mawawasak 'yung buong theology ng Seventh-day Adventist!

Basahin at suriin natin 'yung kasunod na verse na sadyang iniwasan nung SDA debater sa kaniyang pagbasa:

Na may isang gintong dambana ng kamangyan at kaban ng tipan, at ang paligid ay nakakalupkupan ng ginto, na siyang kinaroroonan ng sisidlang-ginto na may lamang mana, at tungkod ni Aaron na namulaklak, at mga tapyas na bato ng tipan  (kai ai plakes tes diathekes)." (Heb 9:4 Tagalog AB)

Exegesis ng Hebreo 9:4

Ano ang ibig sabihin ng "mga tapyas na bato ng tipan" (tables of the covenant) na nasa loob ng Kaban ng Tipan (Ark of the Covenant)?

Ito ay walang iba kundi ang SAMPUNG UTOS!

"At kaniyang ibinigay kay Moises, pagkatapos na makipagsalitaan sa kaniya sa ibabaw ng bundok ng Sinai, ang dalawang tapyas ng patotoo, na mga tapyas na bato, na sinulatan ng daliri ng Dios." (Exo 31:18 Tagalog AB)

"Nang ako'y sumampa sa bundok upang tanggapin ang mga tapyas na bato, sa makatuwid baga'y ang mga tapyas ng tipan na ginawa ng Panginoon sa inyo, ay natira nga ako sa bundok na apat na pung araw at apat na pung gabi; hindi ako kumain ng tinapay ni uminom ng tubig." (Deu 9:9 Tagalog AB)

"Walang anomang bagay sa kaban liban sa dalawang tapyas na bato na inilagay ni Moises doon sa Horeb, nang ang Panginoon ay makipagtipan sa mga anak ni Israel, nang sila'y lumabas sa lupain ng Egipto."(1Ki 8:9 Tagalog AB)

Sa Hebreo 8:13, sinabi na ang Unang Tipan ay "tumatanda ay malapit nang lumipas."

"Doon sa sinasabi niya, isang bagong tipan, ay linuma niya ang una. Datapuwa't ang nagiging luma at tumatanda ay malapit ng lumipas." (Heb 8:13 Tagalog AB)

Sa Hebreo 9:1–4, inilista ng author kung ano-ano ang nakapaloob doon sa Unang Tipan. Kasama sa inilista niyang nakapaloob sa lumipas na Unang Tipan 'yung Kaban ng Tipan tsaka 'yung dalawang tapyas ng bato na naglalaman ng Sampung Utos!

Sa pagputol ng basa sa verse 3 at pag-iwas sa verse 4, gumamit 'yung debater ng dishonest proof-texting na methodology.

Kung gagamitin natin 'yung mismong logic nung SDA debater na "Ang inilista sa Hebreo 9 ang siyang Unang Tipan na lumipas," at kasama sa Hebreo 9:4 'yung mga Tapyas ng Sampung Utos, lumalabas sa kaniyang sariling argumento na 'yung Sampung Utos ay kasama sa Unang Tipan na lumipas na! Nahulog 'yung SDA debater sa sarili niyang bitag.

3. Ang Tunay na Kahulugan ng Telos sa Roma 10:4

Ginamit nung debater 'yung Greek word na τέλος (telos) at isinalin bilang "termination" para sabihing na-terminate 'yung ceremonial law.

Sa Roma 9:30–10:4, ang topic ni Pablo ay kung paano itinuturing na matuwid ang tao sa harapan ng Diyos:

Ang Israel ay nagsumikap na magkaroon ng righteousness sa pamamagitan ng pagtupad sa Kautusan (nomos), pero nabigo sila.

"Datapuwa't ang Israel sa pagsunod sa kautusan ng katuwiran, ay hindi umabot sa kautusang iyan. Bakit? Sapagka't hindi nila hinanap sa pamamagitan ng pananampalataya, kundi ng ayon sa mga gawa. Sila'y nangatisod sa batong katitisuran." (Rom 9:31-32 Tagalog AB)

Si Cristo ang telos ng Kautusan. Ang telos dito ay may dalawang kahulugan sa Greek:

1. Goal/Culmination (Layunin/Kasukdulan): Ang buong Kautusan (kasama ang 10 Utos) ay pointing to Christ. Siya ang katuparan nito (Mateo 5:17).
   
   
2. Termination (Pagtatapos): Si Cristo ang katapusan ng Kautusan bilang paraan o sistema para makakuha ng righteousness para sa sinumang sumasampalataya.

Kapag ang isang student ay nakagraduate na at nakuha na 'yung kaniyang Diploma, 'yung mga rules nung elementary at high school ay nakarating na sa kaniyang telos (layunin at pagtatapos). Hindi na siya sakop ng lumang school handbook kasi nasa ilalim na siya ng rules ng kaniyang profession.

Hindi sinasabi ni Pablo sa Roma 10:4 na hiwalay 'yung 10 Utos sa ceremonial law. Ang itinuturo niya:  Ang Kautusan bilang isang tipan at sistema ng righteousness ay nagwakas na kay Cristo!

Knockout Cross-Examination Questions:

Eto ang tatlong matitinding tanong na maglalantad sa maling hermeneutics nung SDA debater:

1. Ang Tanong sa Binalaktad na Verse (Hebreo 9:4)

"Sa iyong pagtalakay sa Hebreo 8:13 at Hebreo 9:1–3, sinabi mo na 'yung Lumang Tipan na lumipas ay tumutukoy lang sa sanctuary at ceremonial laws. Bakit mo hininto at sadyang HINDI BINASA 'yung Hebreo 9:4, kung saan malinaw na sinasabi na sa loob ng Kaban ng Tipan ay naroroon 'yung 'mga tapyas na bato ng tipan' (tables of the covenant) o 'yung Sampung Utos? Kung 'yung buong context ng Hebreo 9 ang naglalarawan sa Unang Tipan na 'tumanda at lumipas,' paano mo masasabing hindi kasamang lumipas 'yung Sampung Utos na mismong nakasulat sa verse 4?"

2. Ang Tanong sa Unbreakability at Unity ng Nomos

"Saan sa buong Bagong Tipan hayagang sinabi ni Apostol Pablo na kapag ginamit niya 'yung Greek word na nomos, ay hinahati niya ito sa dalawa, na 'yung 10 Utos ay hiwalay sa natitirang 603 na utos ng Mosaic Law? Kung sinabi sa Galacia 5:3 na 'ang bawat taong nagpapatuli ay may tungkuling tuparin ang BUONG kautusan (holon ton nomon)', paano mo maipagtatanggol 'yung 'Two Laws Theory' mo gayong ang Bible mismo ang nagsasabi na ang Kautusan ay isang buo at hindi puwedeng paghihiwalayin?"

3. Ang Tanong sa Nakaukit sa Bato (2 Corinto 3:7–11 Parallel)

"Sa 2 Corinto 3:7–11, sinabi ni Pablo na ang ministry of death na 'nakatala at nakaukit sa mga BATO' (engravē en lithois) ay 'LUMIPAS' (katargoumenon) para palitan ng mas dakilang glory ng Bagong Tipan. Alam natin na 'yung ceremonial laws ay isinulat sa balat ng hayop/paper at HINDI sa bato, 'Yung 10 Utos LAMANG ang isinulat sa BATO. Paano mo gagamitin 'yung 'Two Laws Theory' para sabihing hindi lumipas 'yung 10 Utos, gayong 'yung mismong nakaukit sa BATO ang hayagang sinabi ng Bible na LUMIPAS NA?"

"The Adulterous God of Adventism: How SDA Turns God into an Adulterer?”

Let’s talk about relationship status, spiritually speaking.

In Filipino culture, we all know the drama that comes with a kabit (a third party). It creates confusion, destroys exclusivity, and breaks promises. But did you know that theological confusion can mirror this exact same dynamic?

When Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) theology tries to force Mosaic Law and Saturday Sabbath observance into the New Covenant, it creates a serious problem. It makes it look like God is trying to be married to two partners at once: Israel under Moses, and the Church under Christ.

In biblical terms, mixing covenants isn't just a minor mistake; it’s spiritual adultery.

Covenant as Marriage: God Doesn't Do Polygamy

Throughout Scripture, God uses marriage as the ultimate picture of His relationship with His people.

• In the Old Testament: God reveals Himself as Israel’s husband (Isaiah 54:5, Hosea 2:19–20). When Israel turned to idols or relied on other nations, God called it what it was: spiritual adultery (Jeremiah 3:14, Ezekiel 16).
  
  "For your Maker is your husband, the LORD Almighty is his name, the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer; he is called the God of all the earth." Isaiah 54:5(NIV)
  
  “Return, faithless people,” declares the LORD, “for I am your husband. I will choose you, one from a town and two from a clan, and bring you to Zion." Jeremiah 3:14(NIV)
  
  
• In the New Testament: The Church is revealed as the Bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:25–27, Revelation 19:7–9). It is a sacred, exclusive covenant bought with His blood.

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless." Ephesians 5:25-27(NIV)

"Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready. Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear.” (Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of God’s holy people.) Then the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!” And he added, “These are the true words of God.” Revelation 19:7-9(NIV)

There is no room for a third party. As evangelical pastor Dave Jenkins puts it, "Christ does not abandon His bride when she struggles. He remains faithful because His love is rooted in promise." Similarly, author Sarah Whitfield notes that marriage is "a living parable of the gospel, enacting in miniature the drama of Christ’s sacrificial love for His people."

Both highlight one undeniable truth: Christ’s covenant is exclusive.

Paul’s Warning in Romans 7: You Can’t Have Both

In Romans 7:1–4, the Apostle Paul uses marriage law to make a direct point about our relationship to the Mosaic Law:

"Do you not know, brothers and sisters, for I am speaking to those who know the law, that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives? For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man. So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God." Romans 7:1-4(NIV)

Paul’s logic is simple:

1. A woman cannot be legally married to two men at the same time.
   
   
2. Death must occur to break the original bond before she can belong to someone else.
   
   
3. Believers died to the Law through Christ so they could be united to Him.

If you try to hold onto the obligations of the Mosaic Law while claiming to belong to Christ, Paul says you are attempting to live in a state of spiritual bigamy.

The SDA Problem: Blurring the Lines

This is where SDA theology stumbles. Adventist scholars like Jiří Moskala argue that the covenant is essentially one seamless, continuous timeline where the Mosaic Sabbath remains a perpetual requirement. He insists that the Ten Commandments as given at Sinai, including the Seventh-day Sabbath, remain fully binding in the New Covenant.

“The biblical covenant is the legal establishment of a relationship between God and His people… rooted in God’s eternal covenant established within the Trinity before the foundation of the world… The new covenant is not a replacement but a continuation of God’s covenantal dealings, showing the unity and continuity of His plan.” (Jiří Moskala, “The Newness of the New Covenant”, Journal of the Adventist Theological Society Vol. 32, No. 1 (2021), pp. 65–66)

Moskala argues that the Sabbath, instituted at creation, remains a perpetual sign of God’s covenant, forming a seamless timeline from Eden through Sinai into the New Covenant. He stresses that the “better covenant” in Hebrews is not discontinuity but fulfillment in Christ.

By failing to see that the Old Covenant reached its fulfillment and end at the Cross, SDA theology creates a "Kabitan"(3rd party) scenario. It forces believers to remain legally tied to Sinai while trying to enjoy the benefits of Calvary.

The Clash: Bible Truth vs. SDA Claims

Topic	Biblical & Gospel View	SDA View
Covenant Exclusivity	Exclusive, like marriage. Death to the Old Covenant is required before union with Christ.	Continuous; claims ongoing obligation to Old Covenant signs (Sabbath).
The Bride	The Church belongs solely to Christ, free from the Law (Romans 7:4).	Insists the Bride must still keep Mosaic law imperatives.
Mixing Covenants	Mixing the Old Law with New Covenant Grace is spiritual adultery.	Blends Sinai obligations into New Covenant faith.

The Bottom Line

Basically, the SDA system acts like a mistress, forcing itself into God’s covenant and dragging along the old law, even though that covenant has already been fulfilled in Christ.

Paul makes the boundary line crystal clear: You died to the law so that you may belong to Another. There’s no such thing as having two spouses at the same time. You cannot be under the law of Moses and under the grace of Christ at the same time.

Christ’s true Church is His purified, single-minded Bride, not a system clinging to the shadows of an old law that has already been fulfilled.

VIDEO & ENGLISH OUTLINE: PART 1: "THE SCAPEGOAT IN EARLY JUDAISM & EARLY CHRISTIANITY: SI SATAN BA?

Understanding how the Jews interpreted the Day of Atonement before Christianity existed is one of the most important keys to interpreting Leviticus 16 correctly. If the original audience never believed the scapegoat represented Satan, then any theology assigning the scapegoat to Satan bears a significant burden of proof.

Why This Question Matters

One of the most debated subjects in the doctrine of the Day of Atonement is the identity of the live goat commonly called the "scapegoat" or the goat "for Azazel" in Leviticus 16.

This issue is far more than an academic discussion. It directly affects how one understands the gospel, the sufficiency of Christ's atoning work, and the biblical doctrine of salvation.

Throughout nearly two thousand years of Christian history, the overwhelming majority of theologians understood both goats in Leviticus 16 to typologically represent different aspects of Christ's one atoning work. By contrast, Seventh-day Adventist theology uniquely assigns the live goat to Satan, arguing that he ultimately bears the sins of God's redeemed people after Christ completes the heavenly phase of the atonement. Our research identifies this as a major point of divergence between historic Christianity and Seventh-day Adventist doctrine.

Before evaluating either position, however, we must first ask an essential historical question:

Q1: HOW DID THE JEWS WHO ACTUALLY PRACTICED THE DAY OF ATONEMENT UNDERSTAND THE RITUAL?

If the original custodians of the Mosaic Law never interpreted the scapegoat as Satan, that historical fact does not by itself settle the theological debate, but it does establish an important interpretive starting point.

The Historical Setting of Yom Kippur

Leviticus 16 records Israel's most sacred annual ceremony: Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement.

Unlike the daily sacrifices, this ceremony occurred only once each year. On that day, the high priest entered the Holy of Holies to make atonement for:

• the sanctuary,
• the altar,
• the priesthood,
• and the entire covenant community.

The ceremony emphasized not merely forgiveness but the complete purification of God's dwelling place and the removal of Israel's accumulated ceremonial uncleanness.

This annual ritual dramatized two complementary truths:

1. Atonement requires the shedding of blood.
   
   
2. The forgiven sins are completely removed from God's covenant people.

These themes later find their ultimate fulfillment in the once-for-all work of Jesus Christ (cf. Hebrews 9–10), though that christological connection belongs to a later stage of the discussion rather than to the Jewish interpretation itself.

One Sin Offering: Two Goats

One of the most frequently overlooked observations appears near the beginning of Leviticus 16.

Before any lots were cast, God instructed Aaron:

"And he shall take from the congregation of the people of Israel two male goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering." Leviticus 16:5(ESV)

Notice the grammar.

• The text does not introduce two different sacrifices.
• It introduces one sin offering consisting of two goats.

This observation is significant because the two animals function together within a single divinely ordained rite. Although they perform different ceremonial roles after the lots are cast, they remain parts of one unified atonement ritual. The Bible presents the Day of Atonement as a single, unified purification rite for the covenant community rather than two competing acts of redemption.

The Two Goats Had to Be Identical

According to the Mishnah (Tractate Yoma), the two goats had to be remarkably alike.

“The mitzva of the two Yom Kippur goats, the goat sacrificed to God and the goat sent to Azazel that are brought as a pair, is as follows, ab initio: That they will both be identical in appearance, i.e., color, and in height, and in monetary value, and their acquisition must be as one, i.e., they must be purchased together. And even if they are not identical, nevertheless, they are valid. And similarly, if he acquired one today and one tomorrow, they are valid.” (Mishnah Yoma 6:1 (ca. 200 CE, Tractate Yoma, Seder Moed)

Rabbinic tradition required them to be identical in:

• appearance,
• size,
• color,
• age,
• and monetary value.

Only after the goats stood together before the Lord did the high priest cast lots.

One lot read:

"For Yahweh."

The other read:

"For Azazel."

This requirement demonstrates that the distinction between the goats did not arise from their nature but from God's sovereign designation through the casting of lots.

In other words, the ritual began with two indistinguishable animals that became differentiated only by divine appointment, underscoring that both remained integral parts of the same sacred ceremony.

Unified Ritual: This underscores that both goats are part of the same sacred ceremony, representing two aspects of atonement: sacrifice and removal of sin.

Rabbinic Tradition: Later commentaries (e.g., Bartenura) emphasize that “appearance” meant both goats should be the same color (either both white or both black).

The Scarlet Thread and the Journey into the Wilderness

The Mishnah further describes how the live goat was prepared for its final role. A scarlet thread was fastened to the goat, after which a designated escort led it far into the wilderness.

“What did he do? He divided a strip of crimson cloth; one end of it he tied to the rock, and one end he tied between [the scapegoat’s] two horns. He pushed it backward [over the cliff until] it was tumbling down. By the time it was halfway down the mountain, its body was dislocated. [The one who led the goat] came and sat in the final booth until it was dark. And from what time were his clothes ritually unclean? From when he exited completely through the wall of Jerusalem. Rabbi Shimon says, from the time that he pushed it over the cliff.” (Mishnah Yoma 6:6, ca. 200 CE)

At a remote precipice, the scarlet thread was divided, half attached to a nearby rock and half left between the goat's horns.

The animal was then pushed backward over the cliff to ensure that it died and could never return to the camp. 

This detail highlights an important symbolic function: the ritual portrayed the irreversible removal of Israel's sins from the covenant community. The emphasis falls on the sins being carried away, not on the goat making an independent sacrifice.

The Crimson Thread Turned White

The Babylonian Talmud preserves a tradition associated with the priesthood of Simon the Righteous.

According to Tractate Yoma 39a, the crimson thread sometimes turned white, symbolizing God's acceptance of the atonement and echoing the promise of Isaiah 1:18. 

“During all the days of Shimon the Righteous, the lot for the Lord always came up in the right hand, and the crimson thread always turned white. But after his death, sometimes it turned white, and sometimes it did not.” (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yoma 39a)

Whether one treats this report as historical memory or later rabbinic tradition, it illustrates how Jewish interpreters understood the ritual: the focus remained on God's gracious forgiveness of His covenant people.

Q2: WHAT DID "AZAZEL" MEAN?

The Hebrew term עֲזָאזֵל (ʿAzāzēl) has generated extensive debate.

Three major proposals have historically been advanced:

1. Azazel is the name of a wilderness demon.
   
   
2. Azazel refers to a rugged, inaccessible cliff.
   
   
3. Azazel denotes the destination of complete removal.

Some Second Temple literature, such as 1 Enoch 10:8, personified Azazel as a fallen angel, while also emphasizing that the functioning temple ritual itself treated the live goat as a consecrated instrument within God's appointed means of expiation rather than as an unholy rival sacrifice.

“And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin.” (1 Enoch 10:8, ca. 3rd–1st century BCE, preserved in Ethiopic manuscripts; English translation from R.H. Charles, The Book of Enoch, 1912, p. 31)

In 1 Enoch, Azazel is depicted as a fallen angel who corrupted humanity by teaching forbidden arts (weapon-making, cosmetics, sorcery). This is a personification of the name “Azazel” found in Leviticus 16, where one goat is sent “for Azazel” on Yom Kippur.

Despite Azazel’s portrayal as a demonic figure in 1 Enoch, the Mishnah and Temple practice treated the live goat not as a rival sacrifice but as a consecrated instrument within God’s appointed ritual of expiation.

“For all transgressions that are in the Torah, whether one repented or did not repent, the goat that is sent [to Azazel] makes atonement for them, for all Israel, as it is said: ‘And he shall make atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting, and for the altar; he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the congregation’ (Leviticus 16:33).” (Tosefta Shevuot 1:6, 250 AD (Palestinian redaction, Vol. 1, p.682)

Jewish thought in the Second Temple era wasn’t all the same; some writings painted Azazel as evil, while the Temple ritual itself treated the goat as holy and part of God’s plan. The ceremony showed that both goats, the one sacrificed and the one sent away, worked together in the same system of atonement, not as competing offerings. Later on, Christian writers like Barnabas and Justin Martyr re‑read the goats as symbols of Christ’s mission, giving the ritual a new meaning through a Christ‑centered lens.

Q3: How Did First-Century and Rabbinic Sources View the Function of the Scapegoat?

The first-century Jewish historian Josephus described the goat sent into the wilderness as serving for the expiation of the sins of the people.

“On the tenth day of the same lunar month, they fast till the evening; and this day they sacrifice a bull, and two rams, and seven lambs, and a kid of the goats, for sins. And, besides these, they bring two kids of the goats; the one of which is sent alive out of the limits of the camp into the wilderness for the scapegoat, and to be an expiation for the sins of the whole multitude; but the other is brought into a place of great cleanness, within the limits of the camp, and is there burnt, with its skin, without any sort of cleansing.” (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 3, Chapter 10)

Likewise, the Tosefta affirms that the goat sent to Azazel "makes atonement" for Israel's transgressions, citing Leviticus 16:33. Second Temple Judaism viewed the scapegoat as an integral element of God's atoning ritual rather than an alternative payment for sin.

“The goat that is sent to Azazel makes atonement for Israel’s transgressions, as it is said: ‘And he shall make atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting, and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests, and for all the people of the assembly’ (Leviticus 16:33).” (Tosefta Yoma 4:13, 3rd century CE (compiled after the Mishnah, expanding rabbinic traditions)

Second Temple Judaism consistently treated the scapegoat as part of the same sacred system of atonement. Josephus confirms its expiatory function for the whole community, while the Tosefta ties it directly to Leviticus 16:33, underscoring that the goat’s role was consecrated, not pagan.  Both sources highlight that the scapegoat was not an alternative sacrifice but an integral part of God’s appointed means of atonement.

Key Observations:

The evidence surveyed in our study supports several important historical conclusions:

• The Day of Atonement was understood as one unified purification ceremony.
• The two goats belonged to a single sin-offering rite.
• The goats were intentionally matched before the lots were cast.
• The live goat functioned within God's appointed ritual of cleansing and removal of sin.
• Jewish sources emphasized the corporate purification of Israel through the ceremony.

These observations establish the historical backdrop against which later Christian interpretation developed.