Debate: Sabado Ba O si Cristo?

Q1: "Sabi ni SDA Bible Facts, magkaiba daw ang anapauō (Matthew 11:28) at sabbaton (Sabbath). Since anapauō ang ginamit ni Jesus, 'spiritual rest' lang daw ito mula sa kasalanan at hindi typological fulfillment ng Sabbath. Tama ba ang Greek exegesis niya?"

A: Mali. Ito ay isang classic case ng Root Fallacy at Selective Lexical Isolation. Hindi mo puwedeng i-isolate ang isang salita sa kaniyang New Covenant Old Testament (LXX) background.

Sa Septuagint (LXX), ang Greek translation ng Old Testament na ginamit ni Jesus at ng mga Apostol ang verb na ἀναπαύω (anapauō) at ang noun na ἀνάπαυσις (anapausis) ay ang exact formal Greek equivalents na ginamit para i-translate ang Hebrew Sabbath concepts:

Exodus 20:11 (LXX): kai katepausen / anepausato tē hēmera tē hebdomē (At siya ay nagpahinga sa ikapitong araw).

Exodus 31:15 (LXX): Ang Sabbath ay tinawag na "sabbata anapausis hagia tō kyriō" (Sabbath of holy rest to the Lord).

Kaya noong sinabi ni Jesus sa Matthew 11:28–29 na "I will give you rest (ἀναπαύσω)" at "you will find rest (ἀνάπαυσιν) for your souls," ginagamit Niya ang mismong prophetic imagery ng Isaiah 11:10 at Jeremiah 6:16. Ang Sabbath rest sa Lumang Tipan ay isang type (shadow), at si Cristo ang antitype (substance/reality).

Kung gagamitin natin ang lohika ng SDA Bible Facts na "dahil hindi 'sabbaton' ang salita, walang kinalaman sa Sabbath fulfillment," lalabas na ang Passover (Paskuwa) ay hindi rin inilalarawan si Cristo bilang Atoning Sacrifice! Bakit? Dahil sa 1 Corinthians 5:7, sinabi ni Paul: "For Christ, our Passover lamb (pascha), has been sacrificed." Pinalitan ba ni Cristo ang Literal Lamb? Yes! Siya ba ang Substance? Yes!

Halimbawa, may susi ka at isang kandado.

Parang ganito ang logic ni SDA Bible Facts: "Dahil hindi tinawag na 'kandado' ang susi, ibig sabihin, hindi iyan ang totoong kapares ng kandado."

Maling isipin 'yun, 'di ba? Kahit magkaiba ang pangalan at hugis nila, ginawa talaga ang susi para buksan ang kandado!

Ganyan din ang nangyari kay Jesus at sa Paskuwa (Passover):

1. Ang Lumang Larawan (Shadow): Noong araw, nag-aalay ang mga tao ng totoong tupa (lamb) tuwing Passover para mailigtas sila.
   
   
2. Ang Totoong Dumating (Substance): Nang dumating si Jesus, tinawag Siya ni Apostol Pablo na "Passover lamb" (1 Corinthians 5:7).

Kahit magkaiba ang salitang ginamit, tupa man o Jesus, si Jesus talaga ang dahilan kung bakit may Passover noong una. Si Jesus ang tumupad at pumatak sa role ng totoong Tupa! Kaya hindi dahil magkaiba ang salitang ginamit sa Greek, ay wala na silang kinalaman sa isa't isa. Si Jesus ang totoong laman at katuparan ng mga simbolo sa Biblia. Ang pagtangging si Cristo ang Substance ng Sabbath dahil lang sa word choice ay katulad ng pagsasabi na:

"Dahil ang kotse ay may gulong at ang bisikleta ay may gulong din, pero magkaiba ang spelling ng 'Car' at 'Bicycle', ang kotse ay walang kinalaman sa transportasyon."

Hindi ganun ang hermeneutics! Ang substance (Cristo) ang nagpapatotoo sa shadow (Colossians 2:16–17).

"Kaya nga, huwag na kayong padadala sa mga tao na nagsasabi sa inyo kung ano ang hindi dapat kainin o inumin, o kung ano ang dapat gawin tuwing kapistahan, Pista ng Pagsisimula ng Buwan, o Araw ng Pamamahinga. Anino lamang ang mga ito ng inaasahan noon na darating, at si Kristo ang katuparan nito." Mga Taga-Colosas 2:16-17 ASD

Q2: "Inargue niya na nangingilin naman daw si Jesus ng Sabbath sa Luke 4:16, at Siya ang 'Panginoon ng Sabbath' (Mark 2:28). Kung si Cristo ang fulfillment ng Sabbath, bakit Siya nangingilin noong nasa lupa Siya?"

A: Ang argumentong ito ay nagpapakita ng kawalan ng pag-unawa sa purpose kung bakit kailangang mangilin ng Sabbath si Jesus ayon sa Galatians 4:4.

"Ngunit nang dumating na ang takdang panahon, isinugo ng Diyos ang kanyang Anak sa mundo. Ipinanganak siya ng isang babae at namuhay sa ilalim ng Kautusan upang palayain ang mga nasa ilalim ng Kautusan, nang sa gayoʼy maging anak tayo ng Diyos." Mga Taga-Galacia 4:4-5 ASD

Sinabi sa Galatians 4:4, "Isinugo ng Diyos ang kanyang Anak sa mundo. Ipinanganak siya ng isang babae at namuhay sa ilalim ng Kautusan ." Ang tanong ngayon: namuhay ba at nangilin ng Sabbath si Jesus para maging modelo ng mga Sabadista, o para palayain sila mula sa ilalim ng kautusan? Ayon sa verse 5: “Upang palayain ang mga nasa ilalim ng Kautusan, nang sa gayoʼy maging anak tayo ng Diyos.”

Ibig sabihin, hindi nangilin si Jesus ng Sabbath para itali tayo sa kautusan, kundi para palayain tayo mula sa pagka‑alipin sa Kautusan, kasama na ang Sabbath‑keeping. Ang problema kay SDA “Bible Facts” ay binabaliktad niya ang salita ng Diyos imbes na sundin ang sinasabi talaga nito, kaya marami siyang nadadaya at kailangang ilantad.

Bakit kailangang palayain mula sa Sabbath observance ang mga Sabadista? Verse 5 mismo ang sagot: "Nang sa gayoʼy maging anak tayo ng Diyos."

Dahil nasa ilalim pa ng Kautusan ang mga Sabadista, hindi pa sila tunay na mga anak ng Diyos, kasi hindi pa nila nakikilala ang totoong misyon ni Jesus. Kaya para maging anak ng Diyos, kailangan nilang lumaya mula sa ilalim ng Kautusan at tumanggap ng freedom na dala ni Cristo.

Habang si Cristo ay nabubuhay noon sa lupa bago ang Kaniyang Krus at Muling Pagkabuhay, ang Lumang Tipan (Old Covenant) ay umiiral pa. Si Cristo ay kinakailangang tumupad sa lahat ng kahilingan ng Mosaikong Kautusan, kasama ang pagpapatuli (Luke 2:21), paghahain sa Templo, pagtupad sa mga Feasts, at pag-obserba ng Seventh-day Sabbath, upang maihanda ang Active Obedience na ibibilang sa atin sa pamamagitan ng pananampalataya.

"Kung dahil sa pagsuway ng isang tao ay marami ang naging makasalanan, ganoon din naman, dahil sa pagsunod ng isang tao ay marami ang ituturing na matuwid." Mga Taga-Roma 5:19 ASD

The Lord of the Sabbath Argument:

Noong sinabi ni Jesus na Siya ang "Panginoon ng Sabbath" (Mark 2:28), hindi Niya pinagtitibay ang walang-hanggang pangingilin ng tao sa araw ng Sabbath. Sa halip, inihahayag Niya ang Kaniyang Divine Authority OVER the Sabbath. Ang May-ari ng bahay ang may karapatang magbago, mag-alis, o mag-fulfill ng patakaran sa bahay.

Ang argumento ni SDA Bible Facts ay isang Category Error. Katumbas ito ng pagsasabi na:

"Bakit nagpa-tuli si Jesus? Bakit Siya pumunta sa Templo? Bakit Siya kumain ng Passover Lamb? Di ba ibig sabihin kailangan din nating magpa-tuli sa ilalim ng Mosaikong kautusan, mag-alay ng tupa, at magpunta sa Templo sa Jerusalem hanggang ngayon?"

Mali! Tinupad ni Jesus ang Kautusan hindi para manatili tayo sa ilalim ng Old Covenant shadow, kundi para dalhin tayo sa New Covenant reality bilang mga anak ng Diyos.

Q3: "Paano naman 'yung Colossians 1:16? Sabi ni SDA Bible Facts: Si Cristo ang Creator ng Sabbath, kaya 'Creator of Sabbath' Siya at hindi Siya ang Sabbath mismo. Tama ba ito?"

A: Ito ay isang False Dilemma Fallacy (Either/Or Fallacy). Si Cristo ang Creator ng lahat ng bagay (Colossians 1:16). Siya ang Lumikha ng Passover Lamb, Siya rin ang Lumikha ng Tabernacle, Siya ang Lumikha ng High Priesthood, at Siya ang Lumikha ng Sabbath.

Nangangahulugan ba na dahil Siya ang Lumikha ng Passover Lamb ay hindi puwedeng baguhin niya ang kautusang ito upang maging "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29)? Of course not! Si Cristo ang parehong Creator of the Symbol at Substance of the Fulfillment.

Colossians 2:16–17 Exegesis:

Sa mismong sulat ni Paul sa Colossians (kung saan nanggaling ang Colossians 1:16 na ginamit ni SDA Bible Facts), tahasang sinabi sa Colossians 2:16–17:

...  (σκιά) 

"Kaya nga, huwag na kayong padadala sa mga tao na nagsasabi sa inyo kung ano ang hindi dapat kainin o inumin, o kung ano ang dapat gawin tuwing kapistahan, Pista ng Pagsisimula ng Buwan, o Araw ng Pamamahinga (Sabbaton). Anino (skia) lamang ang mga ito ng inaasahan noon na darating, at si Kristo ang katuparan (soma) nito." Mga Taga-Colosas 2:16-17 ASD

Ang Greek word na ginamit sa Colossians 2:16 para sa Sabbath ay σάββατον (sabbaton), ang mismong salitang ipinaglalaban ni SDA Bible Facts! Malinaw pa sa sikat ng araw: Ang weekly Sabbath ay tinawag ng Banal na Kasulatan na SHADOW, at si CRISTO ANG SUBSTANCE. Ang katangian ng anino (shadow) ay pansamantala lamang, hindi pangmatagalan, at hindi ang mismong katunayan o realidad, ayon sa Hebreo 10:1.

'Sapagka't ang kautusan na may isang anino ng mabubuting bagay na darating, hindi ang tunay na larawan ng mga bagay, kailan pa man ay di maaaring magpasakdal." Mga Hebreo 10:1 TLAB

Q4: "Binanggit din niya ang Isaiah 66:23. Prophecy daw na ipangingilin pa rin ang Seventh-day Sabbath sa langit at sa Bagong Lupa. Paano natin sasagutin ito gamit ang Historico-Grammatical Hermeneutics?"

A: Ang paggamit sa Isaiah 66:23 ay isang halimbawa ng Anachronistic Wooden Literalism (pagpilit ng Old Covenant imagery sa New Covenant / Eschatological reality).

Tingnan natin ang buong talata ng Isaiah 66:22-23:

"Sapagka't kung paanong ang mga bagong langit at ang bagong lupa, na aking lilikhain ay mananatili sa harap ko, sabi ng Panginoon, gayon mananatili ang inyong lahi, at ang inyong pangalan. At mangyayari, na mula sa bagong buwan hanggang sa panibago, at mula sa isang sabbath hanggang sa panibago, paroroon ang lahat na tao upang sumamba sa harap ko, sabi ng Panginoon." Isaias 66:22-23 TLAB

Kung gagamit tayo ng literalistic interpretation ng SDA:

• Kasama sa Isaiah 66:23 ang New Moon (Rosh Chodesh) festivals! Bakit hindi ipinangingilin ng Seventh-day Adventist ang New Moon Feast buwan-buwan kung literal pala itong dapat sundin sa Bagong Lupa?
  
  "At mangyayari, na mula sa bagong buwan hanggang sa panibago, at mula sa isang sabbath hanggang sa panibago, paroroon ang lahat na tao upang sumamba sa harap ko, sabi ng Panginoon." Isaias 66:23TLAB

• Sa Isaiah 66:21, sinabi rin na kukuha ang Diyos ng mga Levitical Priests. Nagha-hire pa ba ang Diyos ng Levitical Priests sa Bagong Lupa kung si Cristo na ang ating Eternal High Priest (Hebrews 7)?
  
  "At sa kanila rin naman ako kukuha ng mga pinakasaserdote at mga pinaka Levita, sabi ng Panginoon." Isaias 66:21TLAB

• Sa Isaiah 66:20, may binabanggit na mga kabayo, karwahe, at mga baka na pupunta sa literal na Mount Zion sa Jerusalem.
  
  "At kanilang dadalhin ang lahat ninyong mga kapatid mula sa lahat na bansa na pinakahandog sa Panginoon, na nasasakay sa mga kabayo, at sa mga karo, at sa mga duyan, at sa mga mula, at sa mga maliksing hayop, sa aking banal na bundok na Jerusalem, sabi ng Panginoon, gaya ng pagdadala ng mga anak ni Israel ng kanilang handog sa malinis na sisidlan sa bahay ng Panginoon." Isaias 66:20 TLAB

• Bukod dito, sinabi sa Isaiah 66:24 na may mga bangkay pa at walang-hanggang apoy na magiging kakilakilabot sa lahat:
  
  "At sila'y magsisilabas, at magsisitingin sa mga bangkay ng mga taong nagsisalangsang laban sa akin: sapagka't ang kanilang uod ay hindi mamamatay, o mamamatay man ang kanilang apoy; at sila'y magiging kayamutan sa lahat ng mga tao." Isaias 66:24 TLAB
  
  

Prophetic Picture Language:

Ginamit ng mga propeta sa Old Testament ang Old Covenant imagery, tulad ng mga kapistahan, bagong buwan, Sabbath, alay, at templo, para ilarawan ang patuloy at pangkalahatang worship ng mga ligtas na mananampalataya na pinalaya na ni Jesus mula sa ilalim ng Kautusan at ngayon ay mga anak na ng Diyos.

Ang mga karanasang ito, nararanasan na natin ngayon sa New Covenant Church, ang universal na katawan ni Cristo, at magkakaroon ng ganap na katuparan sa Bagong Langit at Bagong Lupa sa pagbabalik ng Panginoong Jesus. Pero tandaan: hindi ito literal na pagbabalik sa lumang 24‑hour Jewish calendar regulations!

Q5: "Ano ang totoong 'Danger' ayon sa Bagong Tipan: Ang hindi ba pagpangingilin ng Seventh-day Sabbath, o ang pagpilit sa mga believer na bumalik sa Mosaikong Kautusan?"

A: Baligtad ang banta! Ang totoong 'spiritual danger' ayon sa Bagong Tipan ay ang Legalism at Judaizing, ang pagpilit sa mga Bagong Tipang Mananampalataya na ipangilin ang mga Mosaikong Araw at Kautusan bilang requirements ng pagsunod at kaligtasan.

Galatians 4:9–11: Babala ni Apostol Pablo sa mga Gentil na gustong bumalik sa pagpangingilin ng mga araw:

"Subalit ngayong nakikilala na ninyo ang Diyos, o sa halip ay kinikilala na kayo ng Diyos, bakit muli kayong nagbabalik sa mahihina at hamak na mga panimulang aral, na sa mga iyon ay nais ninyong muling maging mga alipin? Nangingilin kayo ng mga araw, mga buwan, mga panahon, at mga taon. Ako'y natatakot na nagpagal ako sa inyo nang walang kabuluhan." Galacia 4:9-11ABTAG01

Hebrews 4:9–10 Exegesis:

Sa Hebrews 4, ang tunay na Sabbatismos (Sabbath-rest) ng Bagong Tipan ay hindi na isang 24-hour Saturday observance. Ang sabi sa verse 10:

"Sapagkat ang sinumang makakaranas ng kapahingahang mula sa Diyos ay makakaranas din ng kapahingahan sa kanyang mga gawain, tulad ng pamamahinga ng Diyos matapos niyang likhain ang lahat." Mga Hebreo 4:10 ASD

Ang Sabbath sa New Covenant ay ang pagpapahinga mula sa ating sariling gawaing makasalanan at self-righteousness, sa pamamagitan ng pagtitiwala sa natapos na gawa ni Cristo sa Krus (Tetelestai).

3 Questions for the SDA Arguments

Kung haharap ka sa isang Seventh‑day Adventist apologist, itanong mo agad ang tatlong eksaktong tanong na ito:

"Inamin mo na ang Greek word para sa 'Sabbath' ay 'Sabbaton'. Sa Colossians 2:16–17, ang salitang ginamit ni Pablo ay σαββάτων (sabbaton), at sinabi niyang ito ay 'SHADOW OF THINGS TO COME, BUT THE SUBSTANCE IS CHRIST.' Kung ang 'Sabbaton' sa Colossians 2:16 ay katulad ng 'Sabbaton' ng ikapitong araw, bakit mo ipinaglalaban na manatili sa Shadow, samantalang ang utos ng Apostol ay huwag hayaang hatulan tayo ng sinuman tungkol dito dahil natagpuan na natin ang Substance kay Cristo?"

"Ginamit mo ang Isaiah 66:23 para patunayan na ipapangilin pa rin ang Seventh-day Sabbath sa Bagong Langit at Bagong Lupa. Sa mismong talatang 'yan, nakasulat na dapat ding ipangilin ang 'New Moon' (Buwanang Pista). Nagse-celebrate ka rin ba ng New Moon Feasts tuwing lalabas ang bagong buwan buwan-buwan ngayon? Kung HINDI, bakit mo ginagawang 'selective' ang pagkuha mo sa hula ni Isaias, kukunin mo ang Sabbath pero itatapon mo ang New Moon?"

"Noong nagkaroon ng kauna-unahang Apostolic Council sa Acts 15 para talakayin kung ano ang mga utos mula sa Kautusan ni Moises na dapat ipatupad sa mga Gentil na nanalig kay Cristo, bakit HINDI isinama ng mga Apostol at ng Banal na Espiritu ang pagpangingilin ng Seventh-day Sabbath sa kanilang opisyal na utos (Acts 15:28–29)? Nagkulang ba ang Banal na Espiritu sa pagtuturo ng 'Present Truth' sa mga Gentil?"

“Daniel 7’s Little Horn: Nero, Not Papacy!”

If you’ve ever cracked open Daniel or Revelation, you know it gets wild fast: giant beasts, weird horns, and cryptic timelines. Naturally, the big question pops up: Who’s the Little Horn in Daniel 7?

Ask our SDA friends, and they’ll say it’s the Roman Catholic Papacy. They’ll argue that “3.5 times” equals 1,260 literal years in the Middle Ages, and that “changing times and laws” means shifting the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. Sounds neat and elaborate, but once you stack it against the actual biblical context and history, the whole framework collapses.

From a Partial Preterist and New Covenant lens, Daniel 7 isn’t some medieval code or day‑for‑a‑year math puzzle. It’s pointing straight to the real Roman Empire of the first century, specifically, the brutal reign of Nero Caesar.

1. Setting the Scene: The Four Beasts

To really get Daniel 7, you’ve got to zoom out and see the big picture. Daniel sees four massive beasts rising out of the sea:

• Babylon = The Lion

• Medo‑Persia = The Bear

• Greece = The Leopard

• Rome = The Terrifying Fourth Beast

That fourth beast is pagan Rome. Out of it grow ten horns, and then comes a “Little Horn” that rises up, talks big with blasphemies, and goes to war against God’s people.

2. Who’s the “Little Horn”? Meet Nero Caesar

While Historicists (like the SDAs) jump straight to the Middle Ages, Daniel 7 actually keeps us anchored in the pagan Roman Empire of the first century.

The ten horns represent a lineup of Roman emperors, from Julius Caesar all the way through the messy chain leading to the Flavian dynasty. The “Little Horn,” the one that rises among them, stands out as brutal and blasphemous, and it fits Nero Caesar (AD 54–68) perfectly.

Why Nero Fits the Script

• Unmatched Cruelty: Nero was vicious even by Roman standards.

• First State Persecutor: After the Great Fire of Rome in AD 64, Nero launched the first empire‑wide persecution of Christians.

• Martyrdom of Apostles: Under his rule, Peter was crucified, and Paul was beheaded. Historian Tacitus records that Nero used Christians as human torches to light his gardens.

• Blasphemous Ego: Nero demanded divine worship, calling himself Apollo and Dominus et Deus “Lord and God.”
  
  

3. Breaking Down Daniel 7:25

Let’s unpack the key phrases in Daniel 7:25 and see how they line up perfectly with first‑century history.

A. “He will speak against the Most High…”

Nero didn’t just reject God; he claimed to be one. He demanded worship across the empire, forcing people to honor his image and authority above every divine power.

B. “He will oppress his holy people…”

The empire’s war on the early Church started under Nero around late AD 64. Christians were torn apart by wild dogs, sewn into animal skins, and burned alive, pure horror sanctioned by the state.

C. “He will try to change the set times and the laws…”

In prophetic language, this means a tyrant trying to wreck civil order, justice, and the spiritual rhythm of God’s people. Nero flipped Roman law upside down with his Institutum Neronianum, making Christianity itself a crime punishable by death.

D. “For a time, times, and half a time…”

That phrase equals 3.5 years (or 42 months / 1,260 days).

History shows Nero’s persecution began around November AD 64 and ended when he took his own life in June AD 68, exactly 3.5 years.

4. Where the SDA Historicist View Misses the Mark

The Seventh-day Adventist take leans on Historicism. They stretch prophetic timelines across centuries, using the “Day‑Year Principle” to turn days into years. But here’s why evangelical scholarship increasingly pushes back:

1. Pulling Scripture Away from Its Audience

If Daniel 7:24–25 is about medieval popes or 19th‑century calendar debates, then it meant nothing to the first‑century believers who were actually being slaughtered. Apocalyptic texts were written to comfort believers in their immediate trials, reminding them that Christ reigns even in chaos.

2. Misreading “Times and Laws”

SDAs say this means the Papacy switched the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. But under the New Covenant, believers aren’t bound to Mosaic Law, including the Saturday Sabbath (Colossians 2:16–17). The early Church gathered on Sunday, the Lord’s Day, to celebrate the resurrection. Forcing an Old Covenant Sabbath debate into Daniel 7 misses both the covenant shift and the historical context.

3. Stretching the 1,260 Timeline

SDAs turn 1,260 “days” into 1,260 years (AD 538–1798). But Daniel 7 gives no basis for that stretch. The text points to 3.5 literal years, and history nails it: Nero’s persecution lasted exactly 3.5 years, lining up with the prophecy with striking precision.

5. What Evangelical & SDA Scholars Say

Evangelical scholars warn that dragging Daniel’s fourth beast into medieval or modern church history twists the ancient text out of shape.

Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry Jr. explains the first‑century fulfillment like this:

“The 1,260 days, forty‑two months, or three and one‑half years… represents the intense, specific period of Neronian persecution against the Church, beginning in late AD 64 and concluding with Nero’s death in June AD 68.” (Before Jerusalem Fell (1989), p. 254)

Even within Adventism, some scholars have admitted the problems with forcing Daniel into rigid historicist timelines. Former SDA theologian Dr. Desmond Ford famously challenged the traditional view:

“Historicism, as applied by traditional Adventist eschatology, frequently violates the immediate grammatical and historical context of the Old and New Testaments by projecting fulfilled first‑century realities into far‑distant centuries.” (Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment (1980), p. 485)

The Takeaway

When we let the Bible explain itself in its own historical setting, the fog lifts. Daniel 7 isn’t some secret code predicting medieval papal decrees or modern worship schedules. It’s a victory message: even Rome’s fiercest tyrants, like Nero, only get a short leash (3.5 years!) before God shuts them down.

Jesus Christ reigns on His throne, His New Covenant kingdom keeps advancing across the earth, and no empire or dictator can ever stop His Church.

Real Talk Reflection

Daniel 7:25

“He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and a half time.”

Call to Action

Don’t let clever historical twists steal the clarity and victory in God’s Word. Fix your eyes on Jesus, the High Priest of the New Covenant, and rest in the fact that He rules over every tyrant, past and present.

"Breaking the Adventist Two Laws Myth!"

A lot of folks often ask me: 'Pastor, why do you keep bringing up the Sabbath and the Law?'

That's a fair question! At Former Adventists Philippines, we've covered this topic tons of times in our podcasts, Bible studies, and fellowship groups. But here’s the thing: it keeps coming up as a huge issue. For many people transitioning out of Adventism, this isn't just about theology; it's deeply personal and emotional.

When you grow up Adventist, from Sabbath School as a kid all the way to Pathfinder campouts, you're conditioned to believe that keeping the Sabbath is the ultimate test of true faith. So when you start seeing the light of the New Covenant, every single question about the Sabbath triggers a domino effect. Answer one, and another fear or doubt pops right up.

We want to be super clear: if some brothers and sisters want to rest or worship on Saturdays because they want to set aside a day for God, there is nothing wrong with that. As the Apostle Paul says in Romans 14:5, everyone is free to hold their own convictions about special days.

"In the same way, some think one day is more holy than another day, while others think every day is alike. You should each be fully convinced that whichever day you choose is acceptable." Romans 14:5(NLT)

The real issue starts when keeping the Sabbath is turned into a requirement for salvation, or when it's used as a measuring stick to say, 'We're the only Remnant Church with the Seal of God, and Sunday worshippers have the Mark of the Beast.' That’s where we run into a major problem with the true Gospel.

If you're seeking real freedom in Christ, we need to break down the core foundation of this mindset: the 'Two Laws Theory.'

The SDA Blueprint: The 'Two Laws' Distinction

If you’ve done Bible studies with SDAs or watched their prophecy seminars, you're probably familiar with this teaching. Ellen G. White, the prophetess of the SDA Church, wrote over 200 times about two supposed distinct laws: the Moral Law and the Ceremonial Law.

In their official handbook, Principles of Life, there’s an entire chapter titled 'The Two Laws.' They even use a famous two-column chart to draw the line:

The constant pitch is: 'The law nailed to the cross was just the Law of Moses (Ceremonial Law), but the Ten Commandments (Moral Law) are still binding forever.'

But if we’re being honest with Scripture: Is this two-law split actually in the Bible?

Spoiler alert: Nope. There isn't a single verse in the Old or New Testament that teaches this kind of division. 

What the Bible Actually Says: Just One Law

When you read the Bible without Adventist doctrinal lenses, you see that the whole legal system given to Israel, moral rules, civil laws, family guidelines, and ceremonial rituals, is called by one single collective term: 'The Law' (Torah).

Look at how Scripture itself describes it:

- Exodus 12:49 – 'There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger...'

- Numbers 15:16 – 'One law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger...'

- Deuteronomy 1:5 – 'Beyond the Jordan... Moses undertook to explain this law (singular)...'

When Moses repeated all the commandments before entering Canaan in Deuteronomy, he included the Ten Commandments in Chapter 5 along with over 20 chapters of civil and ceremonial laws. Yet at the end, Moses still called the whole package 'this one law.' He never said, 'Here are two separate laws you need to keep.'

'Law of Moses' vs. 'Law of God': Are They Really Different?

A favorite line from Sabbatarian apologists is: 'The Law of God is different from the Law of Moses.' But in reality, the Bible uses these two phrases interchangeably!

Check out how Scripture merges them together:

- Nehemiah 8:1 – They told Ezra to bring 'the Book of the Law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel.'

- Ezra 7:6 – 'Ezra was skilled in 'the Law of Moses, which the Lord, the God of Israel, had given.'

- 2 Chronicles 31:3 – '...as it is written in the Law of the Lord, and in the Law of Moses.'

Even in the New Testament, when Mary and Joseph brought baby Jesus to the Temple in Luke 2:22–24, 39, they did everything 'according to the Law of Moses' (for purification) and 'according to the Law of the Lord' (sacrificing two birds). Which part belonged to Moses and which to God? Both! There's no hierarchy. The Law of Moses is the Law of God because God commanded Moses to write it down.

Double Standards in SDA Hermeneutics

There's a huge inconsistency in how SDA theology handles the Bible:

1. When dealing with Prophecy (like Daniel 7:25 or Isaiah 24:5), whenever they see the words 'law' or 'statutes,' they quickly claim: 'See? That's the Ten Commandments! The Papacy changed the Sabbath!'

2. But when they hit Paul's letters (like Ephesians 2:15 or Colossians 2:14) where Paul says Christ 'abolished' or 'set aside the law with its commands and regulations,' they suddenly pivot and say: 'Oh, that doesn't include the Ten Commandments! That's just the ceremonial law!'

That's called convenient interpretation, switching definitions whenever it fits the doctrine.

Praise God, even Malachi 4:4 clears this up: 'Remember the law of my servant Moses, the statutes and rules that I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel.' The Lord Himself confirms that Moses' law came directly from Him.

Beyond Stone: The True Moral Standard in the New Covenant

Many people assume the Ten Commandments written on stone are the highest or most complete moral standard. But in New Covenant Theology (NCT), we recognize that the Decalogue was part of a specific contract (the Old Covenant) given strictly to national Israel.

In fact, there are commands in the Old Testament with even deeper moral weight than what's explicitly stated in the Ten Commandments:

- Leviticus 19:18 – 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' (This is in Leviticus, what they call the 'ceremonial law'!)

- Deuteronomy 6:5 – 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart...'

- Exodus 22:22 – 'Do not mistreat the widow or the fatherless.'

- James 2:2–9 – Showing favoritism to the rich over the poor is called breaking the 'Royal Law' by James. It's not in the Ten Commandments, but it's still a binding moral command!

When Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7), He didn't just repeat the Ten Commandments; He raised the bar: 'You have heard that it was said... But I tell you...' Anger in your heart is murder. Lust in your mind is adultery. Jesus showed that the entire Law points to Him. He is the fulfillment of all its moral essence and shadow!

The Heart of the New Covenant: Jesus is Our Rest

For many former Adventists, stepping away brings heavy family tension. Relatives might say, 'Are you turning your back on God by leaving the Law?'

But friend, walking away from the Old Covenant Law doesn't mean becoming lawless or living in sin. We are no longer under the old law written on stone tablets (2 Corinthians 3:6–11). We are under the Law of Christ (Galatians 6:2; 1 Corinthians 9:21). Under the New Covenant, the Holy Spirit Himself writes His law directly on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33).

What is the core standard for a New Covenant believer?

1. Faith in Jesus Christ as Savior.

2. Loving one another just as Christ loved us (1 John 3:23; Romans 13:8–10).

When Paul wrote in Romans 10:4 that 'Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes,' it means Jesus perfectly fulfilled every requirement of the Law, moral, civil, and ceremonial.

And as Hebrews 10:9 puts it: 'He sets aside the first to establish the second.'

True Sabbath in the New Covenant isn't a day on the calendar anymore (whether Saturday or Sunday). True Sabbath is a Person, Jesus Christ Himself! He invites us in Matthew 11:28: 'Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.'

If you want to worship on Saturday, do it freely in Christ! But don't ever think that day makes you righteous before God. Your righteousness, salvation, and rest depend solely on what Jesus accomplished at the cross. You are free in Christ, friend. Live in the true grace and freedom of the New Covenant!

---

Former Adventists Philippines

“Freed by the Gospel. Firm in the Word.”

For more inquiries, contact us:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Website: formeradventistph.blogspot.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/formeradventistph

VIDEO & ENGLISH OUTLINE: PART 2: SCAPEGOAT IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY: SI SATAN BA O SI JESUS?

 

PART 2: SCAPEGOAT IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY: SI SATAN BA O SI JESUS?

OPENING

Welcome back, everyone, to another episode of Investigating Adventism LIVE Q&A.Tonight, we're going to tackle one of the most controversial issues in Adventist theology:

SCAPEGOAT IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY: SI SATAN BA O SI JESUS?

Now, I know the standard Adventist answer. They'll say:

"The goat for the LORD represents Jesus, while the scapegoat represents Satan."

And that interpretation is extremely important to Adventism because it becomes part of the whole Investigative Judgment and Final Atonement system.

LAST WEEKS RECAP: PART 1: SCAPEGOAT IN EARLY JUDAISM

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.
  
• Azazel as scapegoat in Jewish Mythology

So tonight, we're not just asking, How did early Christians understand Leviticus 16?

And here's where this gets interesting.

---

QUESTION 1: Did the early Christians really teach that the scapegoat was Satan?

ANSWER:

Not according to the dominant early Christian interpretation. When we look at early Christian writings, especially the Church Fathers, we find something very different from what modern Adventism teaches. A number of early Christian writers understood both goats as representing Christ, but in different aspects of His redemptive work.

The idea was basically this:

• The slain goat pictures Christ's sacrificial death.

• The living goat pictures Christ bearing away sin, rejection, suffering, and removal from the community.

So the two goats aren't necessarily: Jesus vs. Satan. Rather, they're two complementary pictures of the one Redeemer. And this is important because the two goats were deliberately selected to be alike. That becomes a major argument in early Christian interpretation.

---

QUESTION 2:What is the earliest Christian interpretation we have?

ANSWER:

The earliest extant Christian exposition of Leviticus 16 is found in Chapter 7 of the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 100 A.D.). Writing in an Alexandrian environment characterized by intense Jewish-Christian dialogue, the author constructs a detailed typological parallel between the Day of Atonement ritual and the historical Passion of Jesus.

Barnabas highlights a specific ritual requirement not explicitly detailed in the Masoretic Text of Leviticus 16 but prominent in Second Temple Jewish tradition and later codified in the Mishnah (Yoma 6:1): that the two goats must be identical in appearance, size, and value. 

According to Barnabas, the command to make the goats "fair and alike" was intentional, signifying that both animals prefigured the same person. The author writes:

"Attend now to what He commands: Take two goats, fair and alike, and offer them, and let the priest take one for a burnt offering for sins. And what do they do with the other? The other is accursed. Observe how the type of Jesus is revealed. And all of you spit upon it, and pierce it, and place the scarlet wool around its head, and thus let it be cast into the wilderness... And this is done that the type of Jesus might be made manifest, that He should suffer for us." (Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter 7, ca. 100 AD)

The exegesis in Barnabas integrates extra-biblical Levitical customs, such as the mistreatment of the scapegoat, which was spat upon, jabbed with goads, and crowned with a strip of crimson or scarlet wool with the narrative details of Christ's trial and crucifixion. The scarlet wool bound to the head of the scapegoat is correlated with the scarlet robe placed upon Jesus by Roman soldiers, as well as the crown of thorns. 

Furthermore, the driving of the live goat into the desert prefigures Christ being led outside the walls of Jerusalem, bearing human sin in His own body. Barnabas notes that when Christ returns in His kingdom, those who pierced Him will be astonished to recognize that the glorified King is identical in likeness to the abused scapegoat of the wilderness. 

"The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore." Hebrews 13:11-13(NIV)

Thus, in the earliest post-apostolic literature, the scapegoat is unambiguously identified as Jesus Christ in His capacity for suffering and sin-bearing.

---

QUESTION 3:But wasn't the scapegoat called "accursed"? Doesn't that prove it's Satan?

ANSWER:

Not necessarily. That's where we have to be careful. Something being associated with curse, rejection, banishment, or sin-bearing doesn't automatically mean that the figure represents Satan. In fact, Christians already understood Jesus as the one who became a curse for us. Paul says in Galatians 3:13:

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” Galatians 3:13(NIV)

So the argument: "The scapegoat is cursed, therefore it must be Satan" doesn't logically follow. That's a classic case of assuming the conclusion from one characteristic of the symbol.

The real question is: "What does the entire ritual do with the goat?" The goat carries away the sins of Israel. And early Christians saw that imagery as perfectly compatible with Christ's sin-bearing work.

---

QUESTION 4: What did Justin Martyr teach about the two goats?

ANSWER:

Writing mid-second century, Justin Martyr expanded the dual-goat typology in his Dialogue with Trypho (c. 150 A.D.), utilizing Leviticus 16 as an apologetic tool to demonstrate to Jewish interlocutors that the Hebrew Scriptures predicted two distinct appearances of the Messiah.

In Chapters 40 and 111 of the Dialogue, Justin constructs a temporal-eschatological typology:

1. The Scapegoat (First Coming): The live goat sent away into the wilderness, bearing curses, spat upon, and rejected, symbolizes Christ's First Coming in humility and suffering. During this advent, Jesus was seized by the Jewish elders and priests, condemned as accursed, and driven outside Jerusalem to be crucified.

“The two goats which were commanded to be offered during the fast, of which one was sent away as the scapegoat, and the other was sacrificed, were declared by the Spirit to be types of the two appearances of Christ: the first, in which the elders and priests of your people laid hold of Him and condemned Him, and sent Him away as accursed, and the second, in which He shall come again, glorious, and you shall recognize Him whom you pierced, and your nation shall mourn for Him, acknowledging Him as the sin‑offering for all who repent.” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chap. 40, p.216)

2. The Sacrificed Goat (Second Coming): The goat slaughtered at the altar as a sin offering prefigures Christ’s Second Coming in power and glory to Jerusalem. Justin argues that upon His return, the Jewish nation will recognize Him whom they pierced and acknowledge that the once-rejected sufferer was Himself the true sin offering for all repentant sinners.

“The offering of the two goats, which was enjoined to be made during the fast, was a symbol of the two comings of Christ: the one, in which He appeared suffering, and the other, in which He shall appear glorious. The one goat, which was sent away, was a symbol of His first coming, when He was rejected by you, and the other, which was sacrificed, was a symbol of His second coming, when you shall know Him as the sin‑offering, and shall repent.” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chap. 111, p.259)

Justin’s interpretation demonstrates that Second Century Christianity did not view the scapegoat as a demonic adversary, but as a prophetic portrait of the Messiah undergoing human rejection and judicial banishment for the redemption of Israel.

---

QUESTION 5:What about Tertullian?

ANSWER:

In North Africa, Tertullian (c. 160–230 A.D.) reiterated and solidified this dual-goat Christology in his treatises Adversus Marcionem (III.7) and Adversus Judaeos (14). Tertullian focused heavily on the physical resemblance of the two animals, using the Latin term consimilar ("identical in form or nature") to counter Marcionite docetism and dualism:

"The two goats of the ancient law were consimilar, because they represented one and the same Lord, appearing in identical flesh. The one sent away, laden with curses, prefigured Christ bearing the sins of men in His body; the other, offered for sin, signified His death as a priestly sacrifice." (Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem III.7, ca. 207 A.D)

Tertullian recognized that if one goat represented Christ and the other represented a different entity (such as Satan), the Mosaic requirement for absolute structural resemblance (consimilarity) would be broken. The identical nature of the animals was necessary to demonstrate that the Redeemer who died on the cross (the slain goat) is identical in substance and person to the Redeemer who bore human guilt into the wilderness of death (the live goat).

---

QUESTION 6: Did Hippolytus also connect the scapegoat with Christ?

ANSWER:

Yes. Hippolytus of Rome also interpreted the live goat in relation to Christ. He connected the wilderness imagery with Christ being rejected by Israel and the Gospel extending into the Gentile world. So again, we're seeing this recurring Christological interpretation. The scapegoat isn't functioning as some kind of second redeemer. The emphasis remains on Christ and His redemptive mission.

"And a goat as leader of the flock. Since it says, this is who was slaughtered for the sins of the world and offered as a sacrifice and sent away to the Gentiles as in the desert and crowned with scarlet wool on the head by the unbelievers and made to be a ransom for the humans and manifested as life for all." (Hippolytus of Rome, Fragmenta in Proverbia (Fragments on Proverbs), commenting on Proverbs 30:31 (LXX),  ca. 200–235 A.D.)

---

QUESTION 7: Okay, but didn't some Church Fathers identify the scapegoat with Satan?

ANSWER:

Yes. And this is where we need to be honest with the historical evidence. There was a divergent interpretation. Origen is the major example discussed in this material. Origen interpreted the goat for Azazel in a demonological direction. He associated Azazel with demonic powers and ultimately connected the scapegoat imagery with the Devil.

So an Adventist could potentially say:

"See! Early Christians taught that the scapegoat represented Satan."

But hold on. That's where we need to slow down. Because Origen's interpretation is not the same thing as the Adventist sanctuary doctrine. That's a very important distinction.

---

QUESTION 8:Did Origen teach that Satan completes Christ's atonement by receiving the sins of the saved?

ANSWER:

No. And this is where the Adventist appeal to Origen can become misleading. Even if Origen interpreted the scapegoat in a demonic way, that doesn't mean he taught the nineteenth-century Adventist sanctuary model.

"Further, the averter in Leviticus, which the Hebrew text called Azazel, is none other than he [the devil]. The goat upon whom the lot fell had to be sent forth in the desert so that it should avert evil. For all who, on account of their sin, belong to the portion of the evil power and who are opposed to the people of God's inheritance, are deserted by God." (Origen of Alexandria, Contra Celsum (Against Celsus), Book VI, Chapter 43, ca. 248 A.D.)

Origen’s interpretation was heavily influenced by Second Temple Jewish apocalyptic literature, specifically texts like 1 Enoch and the Apocalypse of Abraham, in which "Azazel" is personified as a fallen angel, demonic ruler, or the chief antagonist of God. Reading Leviticus 16 through this apocalyptic lens.

"And again the Lord said to Raphael: 'Bind Azazel hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dudael, and cast him therein... And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin.'" (1 Enoch (Book of the Watchers), 10:4, 8. 3rd Century B.C. (Pre-Christian Jewish literature).

"And the angel said to me, 'Abraham!' And I said, 'Here am I, your servant.' And he said, 'Reprove him who is the tempter...' And he said to him, 'Depart from me, Azazel! For your portion is in the desert, and the earth is where you will abide and make your dwelling...'" (Apocalypse of Abraham, 13:6, 13:14.  Late 1st Century to Early 2nd Century A.D. (ca. 70–150 A.D.)

It proves that Origen was borrowing from Jewish mythology about fallen angels, rather than discovering a hidden "Adventist" sanctuary truth in Leviticus.

Origen posited:

• The Goat for YHWH: Represents Jesus Christ, the spotless sin offering sacrificed to God.

• The Goat for Azazel: Represents the Devil or demonic forces.

According to Origen’s allegory, sending the second goat to Azazel in the desert signified returning sin to its original author, the Devil, who is banished to the uninhabited places of spiritual death.

Crucially, however, Origen did not view the scapegoat as an expiatory sin-bearer that made atonement for humanity. In Origen's framework, the scapegoat was an accursed, rejected creature that received the portion of the wicked, devoid of redemptive efficacy. Origen writes that Christ is exclusively identified with the slain goat whose blood cleanses the sanctuary, whereas the fallen world and impenitent sinners are abandoned to the domain of Azazel.

Origen is evidence that some Christians interpreted Azazel demonologically. But Origen is not evidence for the Adventist sanctuary doctrine. Origen did not teach:

Jesus carries our sins into the heavenly sanctuary → Investigative Judgment → sins transferred from Christ onto Satan → Satan ultimately bears those sins as the final atonement.

For early Church Fathers like Origen, Christ’s sacrifice is completely sufficient for salvation.

"God taught the people of the old covenant how to celebrate the ritual offered to him in atonement for the sins of men. But you have come to Christ, the true high priest. Through his blood he has made God turn to you in mercy and has reconciled you with the Father. You must not think simply of ordinary blood but you must learn to recognize instead the blood of the Word. Listen to him as he tells you: 'This is my blood, which will be shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.'" (Origen of Alexandria, Homilies on Leviticus, Homily 9.10 (Specifically commenting on the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16).

Ask the SDA defender: “Where did Origen ever teach that Christ’s atonement was incomplete without Satan finally bearing the sins of the saved?” They won't be able to find a quote, because Origen never taught that Satan plays a cooperative role in finalizing human redemption.

Origen never said:

• Jesus entered a heavenly sanctuary in 1844, 
• never taught an Investigative Judgment, 
• never claimed sins are transferred to Satan, and 
• never made Satan the final sin‑bearer.

The knockout question is simple: show me one early Christian writer who taught the full Adventist sanctuary model, heavenly sanctuary, investigative judgment, sins recorded then transferred to Satan, Satan as final sin‑bearer. They can’t, because it isn’t there. And if they try to lean on Origen, you can point to Barnabas, Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyril, all of whom gave Christological readings of the goats. The evidence is diverse, not monolithic, and none of it supports the SDA system. 

So the real debate isn’t “Did anyone ever call Azazel Satan?” but “Does Scripture teach that Satan bears the sins of God’s people?” 

The New Testament is crystal clear: Christ alone bears our sins, ransoms us, sheds His blood, and redeems us. That’s where the SDA argument collapses. Concede the narrow historical fact, then press the bigger point: Origen’s Satan is not Adventism’s scapegoat doctrine, and the Bible never makes Satan the final sin‑bearer.  

---

QUESTION 9:What about Jerome?

ANSWER:

Jerome (c. 347–420 A.D.), who translated and adapted many of Origen’s homilies into Latin, echoed Origen’s dualistic framework in certain works, such as his Homilies on the Psalms and Easter addresses. Jerome occasionally identified the scapegoat with the devil or the non-elect who are cast out of the kingdom of God.

"They have rejected Christ, but accept the Antichrist; we have recognized and acknowledged the humble Son of God, that afterwards we may have the triumphal Savior. In the end, our he-goat will be immolated before the altar of the Lord; their buck, the Antichrist, spit upon and cursed, will be cast into the wilderness. Our thief enters Paradise with the Lord; their thief, a homicide..." (Jerome, Homily 93 (Homily on Psalm 108 [109] ca. 392–420 A.D.)

However, this Origenian-Jeromian minority view remained an allegorical outlier in early patristic theology. Mainstream authors such as Cyril of Alexandria directly critiqued and corrected this demonological reading, re-establishing the older, apostolic tradition that both goats represented Christ

If SDA defenders use Jerome (or the broader demonological tradition) to validate their specific scapegoat doctrine, the best approach is to point out the Anachronism Fallacy, the error of reading a 19th-century theological system backward into a 4th-century text.

Here are the main arguments you can use to effectively dismantle this claim:

• Distinguish Between "Symbol of Banishment" and "Sin-Bearer" Jerome and others in this specific tradition saw the scapegoat being sent to the wilderness as a picture of the devil's final defeat, isolation, and judgment. However, they never taught that Satan acts as a vicarious sin-bearer who helps complete the atonement. For these early Christians, Satan receives God's wrath and punishment, not the transferred sins of the redeemed.

• The Missing Sanctuary Framework The SDA doctrine does not exist in a vacuum; it requires a very specific multi-step process: the cross, a two-phase heavenly sanctuary ministry, the 1844 Investigative Judgment, and finally, the transfer of sins onto Satan. Jerome held absolutely none of these views. Just because they share one matching symbol (Scapegoat = Devil) does not mean Jerome supported their entire atonement theology.

• The Sufficiency of Christ: In historic orthodox Christianity, Christ’s work on the cross is fully sufficient. You can challenge them on the mechanics of salvation: Jerome firmly believed that Christ alone is the Savior. Satan does not play a functional role in the cleansing of the sanctuary or the final disposition of the believers' sins.
  
  "Sin is a burden, as the psalmist affirms... This burden the Savior bore for us, teaching by his life what we ought to do." (Jerome, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (Commenting on Galatians 6:2).
  
  "He bore our sins, that is, He assumed our body of sin, but was Himself sinless. He was sent in the likeness of the flesh of sin, bearing sin indeed in His flesh but our sin. So too He felt pain for us..." (Theodoret’s Eranistes (Dialogues), preserving the theology of the orthodox Fathers including Jerome, commenting on the suffering servant of Isaiah 53)

But again, we have to distinguish between:

"Some Christian writers used a Satanic interpretation of Azazel"

and

"Early Christianity taught the Adventist doctrine of Satan as the final sin-bearer."

Those are two completely different claims. The first has historical support. The second does not follow from the first.

---

QUESTION 10: What did Cyril of Alexandria do with the two goats?

ANSWER:

By the fifth century, as Christological controversies shifted toward defining how divinity and humanity united in the person of Jesus Christ, Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376–444 A.D.) formulated an advanced exegesis of Leviticus 16. In his Glaphyra on Leviticus, Scholia on the Incarnation, and Letter 41 to Acacius, Cyril utilized the two-goat rite to illustrate the mystery of the Hypostatic Union.

"The mystery of Christ is typified for us in the two goats... The one was sacrificed for sin, the other was released and sent away into the wilderness. The sacrificed goat was a type of the flesh that suffered death, while the living goat signifies the Divine Word who remained alive in the impassibility of His nature even while suffering in the flesh." (Cyril of Alexandria, Scholia on the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten (Scholia de incarnatione Unigeniti), Section 37.)

Cyril confronted an exegetical dilemma: how could a single person be portrayed as dying as an atoning sacrifice while simultaneously remaining alive to conquer death and remove sin? Cyril argued that a single animal was physically incapable of symbolizing both mortality and immortality at once. Therefore, the Mosaic Law mandated two distinct goats to represent the dual dynamics of Emmanuel’s single work:

• The Slain Goat: Symbolizes Christ’s human nature (flesh), which suffered real, physical death on the cross as a propitiatory sin offering.

• The Scapegoat (Scape-Goat / Sent-Away Goat): Symbolizes Christ’s divine nature (Word), which remained impassible and immortal during the crucifixion, enabling Him to bear away the sins of the world into non-existence or oblivion.

Cyril explicitly opposed any exegesis that attempted to detach the scapegoat from the person of Christ, warning that dividing the two goats into two separate moral beings violated the unity of the incarnate Word.