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 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)
QUESTION 4: What did Justin Martyr teach about the two goats?
ANSWER:
“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)
“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)
QUESTION 5:What about Tertullian?
ANSWER:
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." (
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
"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, 'Rep
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
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
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
"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?
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
QUESTION 11: So was there actually a unanimous Church-Father interpretation?
ANSWER:
No. And I wouldn't claim that. We need to be historically responsible. There were different interpretations.The strongest point isn't: "Every Church Father believed the exact same thing." That's simply too broad.
The better argument is:
There is a strong early Christological tradition identifying the two goats with complementary aspects of Christ, while the demonological interpretation represents another stream of interpretation.
That's much more defensible historically. And that's important because sometimes apologetics becomes weaker when we overstate the evidence. We don't need to exaggerate. The actual evidence is already interesting enough.
Comparative Synthesis of Patristic Scapegoat Exegesis
The following structured comparison illustrates how major Church Fathers across the first four centuries interpreted the two goats of Leviticus 16, detailing their theological motivations and key exegetical characteristics.
| Church Father / Text | Historical Period | Primary Source Works | Identification of Slain Goat (la-YHWH) | Identification of Scapegoat (la-Azazel) | Core Theological Purpose |
| Epistle of Barnabas | c. 100 A.D. | Epistle of Barnabas, Ch. 7 | Christ’s sacrificial death as a burnt sin offering | Christ bearing sins outside Jerusalem; mocked, spat upon, and arrayed in scarlet wool | To show that Jewish ritual types directly prefigured Jesus' Passion and physical abuse |
| Justin Martyr | c. 100–165 A.D. | Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. 40 & 111 | Christ’s Second Coming in power and glory to Jerusalem | Christ’s First Coming in suffering, rejection, and condemnation outside the city | To prove to Jewish polemicists that Mosaic law foretold two distinct Advents of the Messiah |
| Tertullian | c. 160–230 A.D. | Adversus Marcionem III.7; Adv. Judaeos 14 | Christ’s priestly death on the cross | Christ bearing human curses in His identical physical flesh (consimilar) | To refute Docetism and Gnosticism by proving Christ’s real, single human incarnation |
| Hippolytus of Rome | c. 170–235 A.D. | Catenae on Proverbs (Fragments) | Christ slaughtered as the universal sin offering | Christ sent out into the "desert" of the Gentile nations after rejection by Israel | To ground the universal Gentile mission within Levitical ceremonial prophecy |
| Origen | c. 185–254 A.D. | Homilies on Leviticus 9–10; Contra Celsum | Christ, the pure and spotless sin offering to the Father | Satan / Demonic forces receiving the spiritual portion of the impenitent | To construct an allegorical, cosmic framework of final judgment and demonic banishment |
| Jerome | c. 347–420 A.D. | Homilies on the Psalms; Letters | Christ immolated at the altar as propitiation | The Devil or the non-elect banished into outer darkness | To illustrate the absolute separation between the saved elect and the reprobate |
| Cyril of Alexandria | c. 376–444 A.D. | Glaphyra on Leviticus; Scholia; Ep. 41 | Christ’s human nature (flesh) suffering real death on the cross | Christ’s divine nature (Word) remaining alive, carrying human sin into total oblivion | To defend Orthodox Christology and the Hypostatic Union against Nestorianism |
QUESTION 12:Does the early Christian evidence prove the Adventist interpretation is impossible?
ANSWER:
It certainly creates a major historical and theological challenge for it. Because the idea that: "The scapegoat has always been understood by Christians as Satan" is simply not historically accurate. We have early Christian writers who clearly interpreted the scapegoat Christologically.
And even where writers such as Origen move toward a demonological interpretation, that doesn't produce the Adventist Investigative Judgment doctrine. So the Adventist claim needs much more than: "Origen believed in Satan as Azazel." That's not enough. The question is: Where is the historical evidence for the entire Adventist sanctuary system? That's a much harder question to answer.
Here's my conclusion. If we're asking what the early Christian Christological tradition did with the imagery of Leviticus 16, there is substantial evidence that the two goats were interpreted as complementary pictures of Jesus Christ.
The slain goat points toward Christ's sacrificial death. The live goat points toward Christ bearing away sin, rejection, suffering, and the removal of guilt. There was also a demonological interpretation, particularly associated with Origen and later writers influenced by that tradition.
So we shouldn't pretend there was absolutely no Christian interpretation connecting Azazel with Satan. But here's the important distinction:
That is not the same thing as the Adventist Investigative Judgment doctrine.
The early Christian demonological interpretation did not establish the Adventist concept that Satan ultimately receives the sins of the redeemed and thereby participates in the final atonement process. And that's the crucial point.
The gospel doesn't need Satan to finish what Jesus started.
- Christ alone saves.
- Christ alone atones.
- Christ alone bears the sins of His people.
And the cross doesn't need an upgrade in 1844. It was finished at Calvary.
No comments:
Post a Comment