REFUTING An Adventist Pastor’s BOMBSHELL Scapegoat Challenge

So, let’s go ahead. I’m gonna go to the screen and let’s get into this challenge. Um, so, okay, here we go. Can y’all got Can you see my screen? The 24hour goat challenge. What is that challenge? Can you find from the moment you see this video? From the moment you see this challenge, can you answer the challenge within 24 hours? I believe that if what you have is truth, it shouldn’t take you 24 hours to find the answer to a challenge to something that’s challenging what you what you believe. All right. So, um what is the challenge? In order to understand the challenge, we

Need to see what our critics are saying. So, let me go back. We’re going to go back to the screen. I’m going to lay the challen the claim of our critics. And here is the particular claim that I’m looking at tonight. Number one, the Lord’s goat and the scapegoat make one single sin offering. All right, the Lord’s goat and the scapegoat, they are really h a a a type. They’re both a type of Jesus because they’re just serving in different functions, right? showing a different aspect of the plan of salvation. So they both make one single sin offering. Okay, that’s point number

One. Point number two, both goats were required to show the forgiveness of sin by the death of the Lord’s goat and the expeation of sin, the removal of sin through the scapegoat. All right, so put a one in the chat if you understand the claim. thus far. Just go ahead and put that one in the chat. This is the claim of our critics. The scapegoat and the lord’s goat are not two different uh don’t represent two opposing symbols. They are the same. They’re different coins or different sides of the same coin. Good evening. Thank you for being here, especially if this is your first time

With us, Adventist or otherwise. What you just heard is a clip from uh Adventist critic of Christianity, Ivor Meyers. And tonight, we’re going to be taking his 24-hour scapegoat challenge, even though it’s been more than 24 hours, because believe it or not, everyone doesn’t operate on his timeline or at his beck and call. Now, for those that may have seen his video already, answering Adventism was mentioned a couple of times. He played a couple of clips to let people hear the claims I’ve made regarding what the scapegoat in Leviticus 16 represents.

And good on him for that. But we don’t do halfbaked turnarounds on this platform. And truth does not have an expiration date. I want to say that again. Truth does not have an expiration date. I put a lot of time into my preparation for my responses and presentations. So, if he thought he was going to get this halfbaked immediate response, he was sorely mistaken because Ivor, since I know that you’ll watch this, not only am I going to take your challenge, but we’re also going to critically examine your challenge and its premises along with a number of

Adventist presuppositions and a lot of source documentation. This was the perfect opportunity by the way and uh works as a case study for us to talk a little bit about internal versus external critiques, how to analyze someone’s arguments for consistency and so on. Now, I want to give credit where credit is due. He did correctly present one of the claims that Christians make about the day of atonement sin offering generally speaking. And I emphasize that for a reason. We will see why I say generally once we get into it and I will explain why that is

Uh partially a summation statement meaning it is said as a result of a number of other things in the text besides simply Leviticus 16:5 and he didn’t mention those other things. When Christians point to Leviticus 16:5 to say that the scapegoat and the Lord’s goat function as one singular sin offering yes the grammar of that text does indeed say that. But there’s more in the text that proves that. And he did not get into those things. At least not in that intro clip. We will see if he gets into it later on. But before we get into that, as always,

If you like what we’re doing here and you feel called to support us, consider becoming a YouTube member where you will gain access to our growing library of membersonly videos, including membersonly live streams. The next of which will be next week on Friday. Next week on Friday, if you are a member, make sure to head over to the community page section on our channel where you will see the membersonly post where we are taking submissions for questions to answer. It helps if you send those through ahead of time. That way, I can be more prepared than on the fly. Some

Questions are fine for on the fly, but others require some in-depth um preparation to show up and give you the best answer possible. So, if you are a member, head over there and make sure you get your question in. To uh I want to give a thank you to all of our members. Because of your generous support, we are able to fulfill our mission to the best of our ability to equip as many Christians as possible to reach as many Seventh Day Adventists as possible. And I am super grateful for all of you. So, thank you, thank you, thank you. So, before we start listening

To Ivor, let me lay out a couple of foundational clarifiers. I have shown a quote on answering Adventism numerous times before from professor El Michael Morales and we’re going to look at that again because he points out why the sin offering in Leviticus 16 includes both the Lord’s goat and the scapegoat both functioning as a single sin offering. Single sin offering and it’s more than just verse 5. It is a plethora of reasons. Notice this is from his book, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain? Which is a seminary textbook on the book of Leviticus. I highly, highly recommend this for all of

You theology nerds that always ask me about books. Get this book. Quote, “The scapegoat’s role should be understood in conjunction with that of the goat that is sacrificed.” As an elimination right, the Aazil goat ritual is often probed in isolation from a redactional and/or comparative religion approach within the context of Leviticus 16. However, the right is fully integrated as part of one complete ceremony associated particularly with the young goat that is sacrificed. For example, while two rams are also used on the day of atonement as ascension offerings for the priestly

House and for Israel respectively, yet these two animals are not brought together in the same fashion as are the two goats. The text is quite careful to portray the goats as a set. The high priest takes them both from the congregation of Israel, presents them both together before Yahweh at the door of the tent of meeting, and then cast lots for them both. The instructions for the high priest in Leviticus 16:5, moreover, refer to both goats together as a single purification offering. To be sure, the expulsion right is not an offering in the technical sense.

I’m going to let that marinate for a second. To be sure, the expulsion right is not an offering in the technical sense. Nevertheless, in removing sin, the scapegoat’s function fits the precise significance of sin as purification. And combined with the blood manipulation of the sacrificed goat completes the picture of atonement. Indeed, there is historical precedent for understanding these goats to be identical in appearance and chosen expressly because of this likeness as if it were one goat accomplishing two different aspects of atonement, purification and expeation,

Cleansing from sin’s pollution and the removal of sin’s guilt. Close quote. So notice what Dr. Moris highlights regarding the text. Within the context of Leviticus 16, the scapegoat right is fully integrated as one single ceremony with the Lord’s goat. Part of this is evidenced in the fact that the two rams that are used in the day of atonement as ascension offerings for the priest’s house and for the nation of Israel, they are not brought together in the same fashion as the Lord’s goat and the scapegoat. The text presents the goats as a set. Both

Are taken from the congregation. Both are presented before the Lord at the door of the tent. Both have lots cast over them. And both are referred to as a singular sin offering, which is what Leviticus 16:5 says. He even recognizes that the scapegoat isn’t an offering in the technical sense, meaning it wasn’t sacrificed. But within the singular sin offering, its function is significant to purification in that combined with the blood from the goat that was sacrificed, both goats together, picture the atonement. Now, there’s an issue here tonight and we’ll get into this some and

We’ve looked at this I don’t know how many times before. This movement when they use the word atonement mean the investigative judgment as is stated in their new supposed failsafe uh scholastic work uh salvation contours of avenous otiology. But one pictures purification from sin by way of paying the penalty for such. The other pictures the removal or expedation of that sin, removing its guilt and stain. But we also see that same sort of thing two chapters prior in Leviticus 14 in the ritual to cleanse leprosy. Notice the similarity which evidence uh

Evidences this isn’t a one-off concept within the Levitical law. Leviticus 14:1-8 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “This shall be the law of the lepous person for the day of his cleansing. He shall be brought to the priest, and the priest shall go out of the camp, and the priest shall look. Then if the case of lepous disease is healed in the lepous person, the priest shall command them to take for him who is to be cleansed two live clean birds and cedarwood and scarlet yarn in hissip. And the priest shall command them to kill one of the birds in an earthnware

Vessel over fresh water. He shall take the liveb bird with the cedarwood and the scarlet yarn and the hissup and dip them and the liveb bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water. And he shall sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed of the lepous disease. Then he shall pronounce him clean and shall let the living bird go into the open field. And he who is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes and shave off all his hair and bathe himself in water. and he shall be clean and after that he may come into the camp but live outside his tent seven

Days and thus the reading of God’s holy word. So just like with the day of atonement ceremony, a person that was cleansed from leprosy was to take two live clean birds along with cedarwood, scarlet yarn, and hissup. They were to then kill one of the birds over a vessel of clean water and then take the live bird along with the other elements and dip them in the blood from the bird that was killed. They were then to sprinkle the lepous person seven times, pronounce him to be clean, and then release it into the field uh release the live bird into the field that was dipped in the

Blood. The living bird dipped in the blood, picturing the disease being taken away from the individual. This is the same picture we have going on two chapters later in Leviticus 16 with the day of atonement. Leprosy is like representative of sin. Two goats, single sin offering, both functioning to complete the picture of being cleansed for the sinner. One paying the penalty, the other removing the guilt and stain from their sight. We will look at more of this chapter a little bit later on. But the last thing we need to establish before getting into

Mr. Meer’s challenge is that Jesus is the fulfillment of all of the laws, sacrifices, and offerings. I cannot emphasize this enough. I talk about this periodically. We haven’t gotten into it too in depth on the channel before. We’ve looked at a variety of them. But the law required a large swath of offerings and sacrifices. The grain offering, sin offering, guilt offering, wave offering, burnt offering, etc. Jesus is the antitypical fulfillment of all of them. When one understands this, one also understands why Jesus is pictured by the scapegoat which was part

Of the sin offering. So let’s look at a couple of these, shall we? Notice, for example, the burnt offering which was around before national Israel and the Levitical priesthood work. Genesis 8 20-22. This is after Noah gets off the ark. Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and took some of every clean animal and some of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever

Again strike down every living creature as I have done.” While the earth remains, sea time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night shall not cease. And thus the reading of God’s holy word. So after Noah and his family get off the ark, the Lord commands Noah to build an altar and take some of the clean animals along with some of every clean bird and offer them as a burnt offering on the altar. Noah does does this and that burnt offering sends up a pleasing aroma to the Lord and upon doing so God’s anger was appeased. So simply flooding the earth did not

Appease his wrath. The flood was simply a demonstration of that. But the burnt offering sent up a pleasing aroma and that appeased the Lord’s anger and he promised to then never flood the earth again because of it. Got it? Well, now notice what Paul tells us in Ephesians 5. Therefore, be imitators of God as beloved children and walk in love as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. Ah, the sacrifice of Christ was that pleasing aroma that when offered up to God, it appeased his wrath towards his people. And it’s why part of the promise

In the new covenant can be that he remembers our sins no more. Jesus was the true burnt offering and pleasing aroma. Just like Isaiah 53 tells us, it pleased the Lord to crush the sun. Paul here understood the Old Testament. He’s not just using flowery language. Jesus is the antypical burnt offering. And there are many other places we could look at to show this. Now, let’s look at the guilt offering. I mentioned Isaiah. Isaiah 53:10-11. Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him. He was he has put him to grief. When his soul makes an offering for

Guilt, he shall see his offspring. He shall prolong his days. The will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul, he shall see and be satisfied. By his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. Thus the reading of God’s holy word. So this chapter is a prophecy about the Lord’s suffering servant who would come redeem his people and suffer for them. In that flow we are told it was the will of God to crush him putting him to grief and that he made an offering or what?

Guilt. He bore our iniquities and like the chapter says back uh uh in previous verses, this happened by way of God laying on him the iniquity of us all. And it’s on account of this that his people can be accounted righteous. Jesus is the true guilt offering. Let’s look at one more. Jesus being the antityypical wave offering. We will see the wave offering mentioned in Leviticus 14 later, but notice Leviticus 23 9-14. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, when you come into the land that I give you and reap its harvest,

You shall bring the sheath of the first fruits of your harvest to the priest, and he shall wave the sheath before the Lord, so that you may be accepted. On the day after the Sabbath, the priest shall wave it. And on the day when you wave the sheath, you shall offer a male lamb, a year old, without blemish, as a burnt offering to the Lord. And the grain offering with it shall be two tenths of an ea of fine flour mixed with oil, a food offering to the Lord with a pleasing aroma. And the drink offering with it shall be of wine, a fourth of a hen. And you shall eat neither bread nor

Grain, parched or fresh until the same day until you’ve brought the offering of your God. It is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings. So, the feast of first fruits required that the Israelites were to gather the first crop of their labors, which were the best of the best, and put them in a sheath, which is a wrapping, and then give them to the priest. The priest is then to wave that sheath before the Lord. And this was to take place when? the day after the Sabbath, which would be the first day, the eighth day that

The chapter is already mentioned numerous times in the chapter. Well, that was Jesus in the resurrection. He was the antitypical first fruits, Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15, the first fruits of the resurrection. He was the first fruits of the new creation, which is what the first fruits are also a picture of, a picture of new creation. So Jesus’s body was put in a wrapping like a sheath on the day before the Sabbath just like the first fruits were required to be. Then he remained in that wrapping until the day after the Sabbath where he then came out of them and

Presented himself before God, waved himself before God and was accepted. So Jesus was both the priest and the offering as we’ve looked at numerous times before. And this is what the feast of first uh first fruits along with the wave offering was a picture of. We even see the burnt offering and the pleasing aroma mentioned once again. So the point of all of this is to say Jesus fulfills all of the laws, sacrifices, and offerings and to ascribe any portion of them to anyone else is to take away from the perfect work of Christ. With that in mind, let’s begin listening

To the challenge. The argument basically what they’re saying is that the Lord’s goat and the scapegoat represent two different aspects of the sacrifice of Christ and that it could not be done with one goat. It could not be done with one goat. So you have to have two goats in order to to show uh one the death of Christ and then two the removal of sin. All right. So that’s the claim. That’s what we’re going to be dealing with tonight. And let’s go ahead and go back to the screen and I’m going to put up here Levit Leviticus 16:5. This is the text that is used. Uh the Bible says

Here, “And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel, two kids of the goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering.” So the argument here once again is see Leviticus 16:5 clearly states that both goats were for the sin offering and so there should be no argument because both of the goats are making up this multi-dimensional aspect of the sacrifice and experation of sin and you needed two goats to do that. You couldn’t use one. Okay. So he’s correct like I said in the general point that one of the claims made is that both goats pictured a

Singular action but that is the summation statement Ivor that’s not all of the reasons for why that summation statement is made meaning we don’t simply just point to Leviticus 165 and that’s it what Dr. Morales pointed out needs to be reiterated throughout the entire chapter, the entire presentation in Leviticus 16. The two goats are referred to as a set. Both are taken from the congregation. Both are presented before Yahweh. Lots are cast over both of them with the instructions in Leviticus 16:5 being that they are to function as a singular sin offering.

Ivor only highlights that single aspect, not realizing that it’s simply one component of an entire flow and chain of the narrative. And again, this is looked at in conjunction with other ritual aspects of the Levitical law, namely the cleansing of leprosy, for example, like we saw two chapters prior in Leviticus 14. Both doves functioned as a singular cleansing ritual. What were the biblical rules for a sin offering? Let’s go back to the screen. What were the biblical rules for a sin offering? In other words, what constitutes a sin offering? We need to

Know that. Um, and to to find this out, we just go back to the Bible. And what we’re going to see is uh the sin offering is mentioned uh in a couple places. So, let’s begin with Exodus 29:10. Notice what it says. And thou shalt cause a bulock to be brought before the tabernacle of the congregation. And Aaron and his son shall put their hands upon the head of the bulock, and thou shalt kill the bulock before the Lord by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. Verse 12, and thou shalt take of the blood of the bullock, and put it upon the horns of the altar with thy finger,

And pour all the blood beside the bottom of the altar. Reading on verse 14. But the flesh of the bulock and his skin and his dung shalt thou burn with fire without the camp. Without the camp. It is a put that put those two words in the chat for me. It is a sin offering. Okay. So based on what we just read, the Bible tells us what a sin offering is. Like if I were to come up and say, “Hey, a sin offering is when someone, you know, um, ties their shoe and then jumps up and down three times and then, you know, blah blah blah.” And I just make up a whole

Bunch of crazy stuff and I say, “Biblically, that’s what a sin offering is.” You would know, “Yeah, you’re crazy.” That’s not what a sin offering is. The Bible tells us what a sin offering is. Now, that was Exodus 29, but the Bible is going to tell us again, and it’s actually found in Leviticus chapter 4, where the heading of the chapter is called the law of sin offering. So, let’s go there. Let’s go back to the screen. The law of sin offering. What was this law of sin offering? Let’s look at this once again. The law of sin offering, Leviticus chapter 4, beginning with verse three.

If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people, then let him bring for his sin, which he has sinned, a young bulock without blemish unto the Lord for a sin offering. And he shall bring the bulock unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord, and shall lay his hand upon the bulock’s head, and kill the bulock before the Lord. So number one, a sin offering required the animal to be killed. Verse five, and the priest that is anointed shall take of the bulock’s blood and bring it to the tabernacle of the

Congregation. And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle the blood seven times before the Lord before the veil of the sanctuary. So the blood also had to be utilized to qualify as a sin offering. Let’s keep reading. Verse 11. and the skin of the bulock and all his flesh with his head and with his legs and his inwards and his dung. Even the whole bulock shall he carry forth without the camp without the camp unto a clean place where the ashes are poured out and burn him on the wood with fire. Where the ashes are poured out shall he be burnt.

Okay. So, what we see here is that a sin offering had to have there had to be certain things done to qualify as a sin offering. What were those things? Let’s once again go back to the screen. And before I show I we we uh recap those things, I just want you to note this term without the camp. Nice. media, I see you asking the question, what is without the camp? Okay, so according to Adam Clark’s commentary on Leviticus 16 or Leviticus 4:12, here’s what he says regarding without the camp. This was intended figuratively to express the enormity of this sin and

The availableness of the atonement. The sacrifice as having the sin of the priest transferred from it from himself to it by his confession and impositions of hands was become unclean and abominable and was carried carried as it were out of God’s sight. And thus its own offensiveness was removed. Put that word in the chat for me please. removed with the sin of the person in whose behalf it was offered. So the the the the burning of the body of the very same animal that was slain to forgive sin, the the fact that the body was removed from the temple, from the camp,

Signified the removal of sin. Yes. and Ivor. Notice what the same Adam Clark says when commenting on Leviticus 16 and the two goats on the phrase, “And he shall take the two goats.” Quote, “It is allowed on all hands that this ceremony taken in all its parts pointed out the Lord Jesus dying for our sins and rising again for our justification, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the spirit. Two goats are brought, one to be slain as a sacrifice for sin and the other to have the transgressions of the people confessed over its head and then to be

Sent away into the wilderness. The animal by this act was represented as bearing away or carrying off the sins of the people. The two goats made only one sacrifice, yet only one of them was slain. One animal could not point out both the divine and human nature of Christ, nor show both his death and resurrection. For the goat that was killed could not be made alive. The divine and human natures in Christ were essential to the grand expeation. Yet the human nature alone suffered, for the divine nature could not suffer. But its presence in the human nature while agonizing unto

Death stamped those agonies and the consequent death with infinite merit. The goat therefore that was slain prefigured his human nature and its death. The goat that escaped pointed out his resurrection. The one shows the atonement for sin as the ground of justification. the other Christ’s victory and the total removal of sin in the sanctification of the soul. Close quote. Whoops. Adam Clark didn’t believe the scapegoat represented Satan and recognized that the text makes clear that both goats functioned as a singular sin offering despite only one of them dying.

Iver’s use of Clark to try and bolster the SDA position creates contradictions in Clark’s own theology because notice what he did. The claim was essentially made that sin offerings according to the Bible always had to die. He then appealed to Adam Clark, a Methodist commentator, to try and add legitimacy to his claim. Yet, the same Adam Clark says that both goats in Leviticus 16 functioned as a singular sin offering despite only one of them being slain. He believed, and I don’t necessarily agree with him on this in terms of the the picturing the death and the

Resurrection. I think that’s interesting. I’d need to study that more, but this is just the facts. He believed both goats pictured the two natures of Christ, both his human and divine. One showing the penalty for sin and the other the removal of sin. So, according to Ivormey, Clark was apparently correct and reliable on sin offerings in Leviticus 4, but completely wrong when talking about the sin offering in chapter 16. No. If you’re going to try and apply to him to support your claim regarding sin offerings, then your use of him shouldn’t create contradictions within

His own belief. Besides the faulty appeal to Clark, the fundamental error here is that none of the texts that he read state that a sin offering can never include a second animal which doesn’t die alongside the one that does. The point being, Adam Clark’s theology is not a friend to this movement, despite their ardent insistence that they’re firmly in the Methodist tradition. I can assure you of this. Adam Clark did not have a great controversy worldview. Adam Clark did not believe in the SDA church’s novel seven steps through the sanctuary model

Of redemption, of which the scapegoat is only a sliver of. And the reason this issue is such a hot topic in Adventism is because they have to be correct on this for the entire framework to remain intact. If this is false, their entire system crumbles. Then he cited Leviticus 4 to try and support the idea that sin offerings required blood to be used in the temple. Folks, pay very a very close attention here. For those that have been riding with us for a while, you already know where this is going. Ivor specifically cited from one of the various requirements for

Various sin offerings and has now turned a specific requirement into a universal one. Leviticus 4 gives various requirements for various sin offerings and not all of them were involved with taking the blood into the temple. Did you notice Leviticus 4:3 when he had it on the screen?

Leviticus 4 1-6. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, ‘If anyone sins unintentionally in any of the Lord’s commandments about things not to be done, and does any one of them, if it is the anointed priest who sins, thus bringing guilt on the people, then he shall offer for the sin that he has committed a bull for the herd without blemish to the Lord for a sin offering. He shall bring the bull to the entrance of the tent of meeting before the Lord and lay his hand on the head of the bull and kill the bull before the Lord. And

The anointed priest shall take some of the blood of the bull and bring it into the tent of meeting. And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle part of the blood seven times before the Lord in front of the veil of the sanctuary. And thus the reading of God’s holy word. Ivor cited from a specific requirement for when who sins? The priest. Verse three, when the priest sinned, these were the instructions to be carried out. And he cites this turning it into a universal for all sin offerings to claim that the blood of all sin offerings was to be used in the

Temple. He will reiterate this again later, by the way. Except if you actually read the chapter, you’ll see there are instances where sin offerings were carried out and the blood was not used in the temple. Notice Leviticus 4, same chapter 22- 26. When a leader sins doing unintentionally any of all the things that that by the commandments of the Lord his God ought not to be done and realizes his guilt or the sin which he has committed is made known to him, he shall bring as his offering a goat, a male without blemish, and shall lay his hand on the head of

The goat and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the Lord. It is a sin offering. Then the priest shall take of the blood, some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and pour out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar of burnt offering. And all its fat he shall burn on the altar like the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings. So the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin, and he shall be forgiven. And thus the reading of God’s holy word.

So this is just one example. But when the leader sinned unintentionally, not the priest, not the individual penitent Israelite, the leader was to bring a blemishfree, notice both the instances, blemish free, he was to bring a blemishfree goat to the priest as a sin offering. And he was to lay his hands on the head of the goat and kill it in the place of the burnt offering before Yahweh. Then the priest would take some of the blood from that sin offering and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering. then dump out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar,

Burning all the fat on the altar. This then made atonement for the leader and he was forgiven. All of this took place outside of the sanctuary. At the beginning, we looked at the cleansing of leprosy in Leviticus 14. Notice later in that chapter, Leviticus 14 11-20. You guys better buckle up tonight. We are just getting started, folks. Get out your notepad. Start taking notes. It is about to get. And the priest who cleanses him shall set the man who is to be cleansed and these things before the Lord at the entrance of the tent of meeting where.

And the priest shall take one of the male lambs and offer it for a guilt offering along with the log of oil and wave them for a wave offering before the Lord. And he shall kill the lamb in the place where they kill the sin offering and the burnt offering in the place of the sanctuary. For the guilt offering, like the sin offering, belongs to the priest. It is most holy. The priest shall take some of the blood of the guilt offering, and the priest shall put it on the lobe of the right ear of him who is to be cleansed, and on the thumb of his right hand, and on the

Big toe of his right foot. Then the priest shall take some of the log of oil, and pour it into the palm of his own left hand, and dip his right finger in the oil that is in his left hand, and sprinkle some oil with his finger seven times before the Lord. And some of the oil that remains in his hand, the priest shall put on the lobe of the right ear of him who is to be cleansed. And on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot, on top of the blood of the guilt offering. And the rest of the oil that is in the priest’s hand, he shall put on the head

Of him who is to be cleansed. Then the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord. The priest shall offer the sin offering to make atonement for him who is to be cleansed from his uncleanness. And afterward he shall kill the burnt offering. And the priest shall offer the burnt offering and the grain offering on the altar. Thus the priest shall make atonement for him and he shall be clean. And thus the reading of God’s holy word. So after the lepous person was cleansed from their leprosy, the priest still had to follow through with a ceremony of a guilt offering, a

Wave offering, a burnt offering, a grain offering, and a sin offering. The tail end of the end of the ceremony involved the priest making atonement before the Lord, offering the sin offering for the individual that had been cleansed of leprosy, followed by afterward killing the burnt offering. And all of this was to take place where? At the entrance of the tent of meeting. Not inside the sanctuary. Outside. Which again proves no, not all sin offerings were required to have their blood taken into the sanctuary. And there are more we could look at, but this suffices for

That point. Again folks, it is vital to understand that Jesus is the fulfillment of all of the laws, sacrifices, and offerings in one. And yes, the scapegoat is a part of sacrifices and offerings. It’s not just some standalone thing off to the side. And then everything else is a sin offering, guilt offering, burnt offering, etc. He’s the true guilt offering, the wave offering, the sin offering, the burnt offering, the grain offering, etc. The Advenist position wants to steal some of Jesus’s work and fulfillment and credit it to Satan. So Ivormeers’s Ivormeer’s premises are

Badly flawed and his challenge is predicated upon them being correct. What this shows is that there is nuance to some of these things. It’s not always universally the same, which is why you can have sin offerings that involved two animals, but only one of them was sacrificed. It also shows why it’s dangerous to handle the Bible this way, the way that Adventists do, which involves bringing their already preconceived ideas to the text to then try and hunt around to find things they think they think support their already preconceived beliefs. They do not come to the text and derive

Out of it what the author is intending to communicate and then simply um you know a agree with that. But also notice, what did we read in Leviticus 4:23? Ivor is trying to make the case that the scapegoat wasn’t a part of the singular sin offering. Yet, it very clearly was. Sin offerings had to be without blemish. Is Satan without blemish? No. But Jesus is. Now again, they’re going to try and get around this by essentially saying, “Well, no, the scapegoat wasn’t a part of the sin offering.” And be prepared for some of the crazy gymnastics you’re going to get from SDAs

On this. I’ve heard all sorts of stuff. I mean, I’ve heard stuff like, “Well, Satan originally was blemish free before he fell, so therefore he qualifies.” And other crazy ideas like that. All of this to say nothing he has said thus far proves that Satan is the scapegoat. Nor does it present any problems for the Christian position. He did however shoot himself in the foot multiple times. But we need to verify this. Let’s just go back. We’re going to go back to the screen and let’s look at what Matthew Henry says about this very verse. Matthew Henry’s commentary. When God pardons

Sin, he quite abolishes it, casts it behind his back. the iniquity of Judah shall be sought for and not found. So, here’s another Bible scholar who is saying, yes, when the when the animal was taken out of the temple and the body burned, it signified the removal of sin. Not just the forgiveness of it, but the removal. Okay. once again appealing to another commentator regarding sin offerings when the individual being appealed to doesn’t even agree with your claims about Leviticus 16. Ivor, again, notice, folks. This is one of my spiritual ancestors.

This is Matthew Henry’s conclusion of the chapter in his commentary on Leviticus 16 where he says, “Let us see what there was of gospel in all of this.” So he’s concluding like any good Bible student, he seeks to show how one can see Jesus foreshadowed in Leviticus 16. What does he say? Here are typified two great gospel privileges of the remission of sin and access to God. Both which we owe to the mediation of our Lord Jesus. Here then let us see one the expeation of guilt which Christ made for us. He is himself both the maker and the matter of the atonement.

For he is one, the priest, the high priest that makes reconciliation for the sins of the people. Hebrews 21:17. He and only he is par negotio fit for the work and worthy of the honor. He is appointed by the father to do it. Who sanctified him and sent him into the world for this purpose that God might in him reconcile the world to himself. He undertook it and for our sakes sanctified himself and set himself apart for it. John 17:19. Close quote. Ah. So, Matthew Henry believed Jesus represented both goats. Which means that he clearly didn’t agree

With the point Ivor is trying to make, which is that sin offerings exclusively and always died. Again, none of the texts that he has cited thus far state that sin offerings can never include a second animal alongside the one that dies such that both function as a singular offering. Nothing that he has cited has proven this yet. On top of that, the same Matthew Henry recognized something I’ve pointed out numerous times on this platform, which is that Jesus functioned as a high priest while on earth. Contrary to the SDA church’s claim that Jesus was

Inaugurated as a priest at his ascension, Henry rightly recognizes that Hebrews 21:17 as well as elsewhere refutes this. Jesus functioned as both the sacrifice and the priest that offered the sacrifice up to God. The SDA church agrees that the day of atonement sacrifice took place at Calvary. And Ivor was just going on about the law’s requirements for sin offerings. Well, the law required that the day of atonement sacrifice be offered up by who? just anyone that came along and wanted to do so. No, exclusively the high priest. Jesus was that great high priest

That offered up himself as the sacrifice, which encompassed all of the laws, sacrifices, and offerings, not just the sin offering. And Hebrews 9:26 makes it clear that sin was put away at the cross. And if you understand the Old Testament sacrificial system, you will understand what the author is getting at when he mentions this. Let’s quickly look at Hebrews 9 because I want to make sure those who haven’t seen this see it. So in Hebrews 9, the author is continuing his compare and contrast between Jesus and the Levitical priests, explaining why Jesus is superior. In

Chapters 7-10, he’s explaining the superiority of Jesus’s Malkisedcian priesthood over and against the Levites, as well as the new covenant over and against the old Mosaic covenant. Hebrews 9:23-26. Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rights, but the heavenly sacrif or the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices plural than these. For Christ has entered not into holy places made with hands like a building, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of

God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own. For then he would have had to have suffered repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And thus the reading of God’s holy word. So something to notice verse 23 says sacrifices plural. The single sacrifice of Christ functioned as a multiplicity of sacrifices. And this is what I was saying about Jesus being more than

Simply the sin offering. He was also the antityypical guilt offering, burnt offering, etc. And instead of entering into an architectural building like the earthly priests which were simply a shadow of the true thing, Jesus entered into heaven itself to appear in the presence of God. But catch this. This is pivotal, folks. You have to ask yourself, why is the author bringing this stuff up? Why is he saying this? Before the Levitical priest could enter into the presence of God, what did he have to do? He had to make a sacrifice for himself. Leviticus 16:6 says that Aaron had to

Offer a bull as a sin offering for himself and he shall make atonement for himself and for his house. Since Aaron and the Levites were sinners, they had to make atonement for their own sins before they could enter into God’s presence inside the temple. Well, Jesus wasn’t a sinner, which means that part of the ritual must not have pointed to Jesus, right? Because it wasn’t just the two goats that are mentioned in a sin offering in Leviticus 16, but also the bull for the priest. But since Jesus wasn’t a sinner and the bull for a sin offering was to

Be offered for the priest on behalf of his sins, the bull must have not pointed to Jesus. Right. wrong. What does Peter tell us in his first epistle? 1 Peter 2:24, Jesus bore our sins in his body on the tree. Isaiah says the same thing. We heard it earlier. Isaiah 53, God the Father laid upon Christ our iniquities. Same thing by Paul in 2 Corinthians 5. He made him who knew no sin to be sin so that we might become the righteousness of God. Which means that just like the Levitical priest that was a sinladen criminal in God’s sight and had to have sin removed

Before he could enter into God’s presence. So too Jesus having our sins placed on him had to put that sin away before he could enter into heaven into the presence of God. That’s the author’s point in Hebrews 9:26 when he says that Jesus put sin away at the cross. And he goes on to say that this is why when he returns, it’s not to deal with sin, but to save his people. The work of dealing with sin was done at Calvary, not in heaven in a building starting in 1844, almost 2,000 years after the cross. Unlike the Levitical priest who did this ritual, entered in, completed the day of

Atonement ritual, and then exited only to have the process again the following year, Jesus performed the work once and for all, entered into the presence of God once and for all to sit down on his throne, showing that the work of dealing with sin is finished. A point the author of Hebrews has made multiple times up to this point in the book. And this is also what Matthew Henry taught and believed on this, by the way. Like I said, Matthew Henry is one of my spiritual ancestors. I can assure you his theology is not a friend to Adventism, folks. I can assure you of

This. It’s like when I saw him citing Henry, I’m thinking to myself, dude, you are out of your depths. You are fishing. You’re fishing. All of this rich theology refutes this movement’s claim that Satan is the scapegoat and that Jesus is up in heaven still dealing with sin in the investigative judgment to eventually transfer it on to Satan who will then cleanse the universe of sin. The simple fact that it was put away at Calvary refutes their entire framework. We are still waiting to hear a challenge to accept or something presented that poses problems for the position that I

Put forth or those that hold to the same one. So to recap, to recap, let’s look at our overview, a sin offering required three things. Number one, the animal was to be killed. Number two, the blood was to be used in the temple in the in the tabernacle. And number three, the dead body was taken outside of the camp to signify the removal of sin. Put a eight in the chat if you are already like, I see the challenge already. I haven’t stated the challenge yet. I’m just saying put a eight in the chat if you’re already like, oh snap. You know, like we used to say in the old

Days. Yeah, I know where this is going and I knew where it was going on my first watch through before even hearing the rest of the video because Adventists have been making the same arguments and claims for 180 years as if we haven’t heard them 5 million times. What he’s trying to put forth is that the scapegoat can’t be a part of the sin offering because scripture allegedly teaches that all sin offerings universally had to have those three things happen to them. They had to be killed, their body used in the sanctuary, and their body taken outside

Of the camp. And since that stuff doesn’t happen to the scapegoat, it can’t therefore be a part of the sin offering. Again, his overview and premises are flawed. Regarding point two, like I said, and we saw, there are sin offerings either in Leviticus 4, a mere 10 verses after where you tried citing that didn’t involve the blood being taken into the sanctuary, which proves that not all sin offerings were universally the same. nor can they all be looked at and treated the exact same way. This is horrible handling of the Bible. It’s a very narrowed again, they’re just

Looking for stuff to to try and support their already preconceived belief. His other premises simply beg the question. For those that don’t know what that fallacy is, it’s when you assume what needs proven. He has just assumed what he’s failed to prove because he didn’t prove that universally speaking, all sin offerings can never include a second animal that accompanies the one that was slain but isn’t killed itself. Where did any of the texts say that he read that every sin offering universally can only include one single animal, never a second one?

And if that isn’t proven, 3 is nullified, de facto, because the body being taken outside of the camp has to do with being killed. So all three of his premises are flawed here. But I want to highlight something else. Even if we granted 0.1 for example, they believe in annihilationism and that Satan will eventually be blotted from existence and killed, which would mean that Satan is killed as the scapegoat in their model. So if Satan can be the scapegoat and he eventually gets killed, then it’s inconsistent for Ivor to claim that Jesus can’t be the scapegoat because the

Scapegoat wasn’t killed, only the Lord’s goat was. which is precisely one of the arguments they try and put forth to say Jesus can’t be the scapegoat as he’s trying to build his case for. Just an interesting observation there. But that’s where he’s trying to go with this and present a deductive argument to prove that the scapegoat can’t possibly be be a part of the sin offering. Despite the text verbatim saying two goats were to be taken as a pair for a singular sin offering, they have to argue against the plain thus sayeth the Lord. Despite people

Like Ted Wilson telling us that the only accepted hermeneutic in the Seventh Adventist Church is the historical grammatical method of interpretation and a plain thus sayeth the Lord. Right? Unless it foils the entire system, then it is Olympic level mental gymnastics and scripture twisting. Okay. So, let’s go back and now we’re going to check out what did this what did these bodies outside of the camp signify? Does the New Testament say anything about the bodies that were burned outside the camp? Let’s go back to the screen and let’s look at Hebrews 13:1.

Note what the Bible says here. for the bodies of those beasts whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin for sin are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also that he might sanctify the people with his own blood suffered without the gate. Let us go therefore unto him without the camp bearing his reproach. How interesting. In the Old Testament the the sin offering was a part of the daily services. So, so what the daily services were teaching was something very simple. Through the death of the animal, forgiveness of sin was attained. Through

The blood of the animal, there was it was also a symbol of forgiveness. But when that same animal’s body was removed and put outside the camp, it signified the removal of sin. So my question right now is did one animal symbolize both forgiveness and the removal of sin according to what we’ve just read according to Hebrews chapter 13 11-13. Did one animal signify both the the death of Christ as well as the expeation or the removal of sin? Yes or no? I’m talking about in the daily services. Yes or no? The sin offering. Yeah. Simple. The answer is no. And this

Is where they try and make the scapegoat be about responsibility, which is entirely foreign to Leviticus 16. A few weeks ago, we saw the same thing with Steven Boore. He just kept saying it over and over and over. The scapegoat represents responsibility. Responsibility. As if he says it, you know, five million times. That just makes it true. Despite Iver’s three earlier premises being flawed, he now adds another one to the pile. Nothing that he said about Hebrews 13 is a problem for Christians if you actually know what’s going on contextually. If you actually utilize the historical

Grammatical method of interpretation, which again Ted Wilson tells us is the only approved interpretive method within the SDA church. But what was he trying to claim about Hebrews 13? Well, he brought up his slide with a couple of verses and underneath it, it said the problem. Except there is no problem for Christians with this text. But then he said in the Old Testament, the sin offering was a part of the daily services. So his argument is that in the Old Testament daily service, a person was forgiven and their sin was removed all through the blood sacrifice of a

Single animal. Therefore, in the once a year day of atonement service, the same thing is true. And the single sacrificed animal both brings forgiveness of sins as well as expedates them away. Thus, the scapegoat doesn’t function as expeation for sin. That’s the argument in Hebrews 13 is supposed to support this. Except no, the point of the author in Hebrews 13 has nothing to do with proving that Jesus was only the Lord’s goat and that the single goat alone was the sin offering that functioned as both forgiveness and expeation. The point being made there is that like

The animals that were taken outside of the camp and burned, so Christ also suffered outside the camp. And the call, because there was a call in that verse, an exhortation for believers. The call is for us to follow after him, bearing our cross, which comes at a great cost. Bearing the same sort of reproach he did by bearing his own cross outside the camp. And I’m going to prove that in a moment because he isn’t going to put forth what he thinks it is. Uh uh because he’s going to put forth what he thinks it’s saying. Sorry. But the application he tries to make

With this text doesn’t work if you actually understand the context. But Ivor, you presented another problem for your system. Again, folks, we’re doing a lot of internal critiques tonight. It’s when you assume the belief system that you’re criticizing, not your own, and then point out internal holes within that framework based on claims that they’re making. He’s trying to argue that the Lord’s goat both paid the penalty for sin and died as well as expeated sins. Except experation isn’t transference to another location. Expeation is entire removal, blotting out. They’re gone.

It’s why one of the promises of the new covenant is that God remembers the sins of his people no more. Jeremiah 31, Hebrews 8:12, which cites Jeremiah 31. Their system doesn’t teach this. They teach that Calvary was only where the atoning sacrifice took place, just like the Lord’s goat. Notice

Ellen White, Christ in his sanctuary, page 180. The work of the investigative judgment and the blotting out of sins is to be accomplished before the second advent of the Lord. Since the dead are to be judged out of the things written in the books, it is impossible that the sins of men should be blotted out until after the judgment at which their cases are to be investigated. But the apostle Peter distinctly states that the sins of believers will be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord and he shall send

Jesus Christ. Acts 3:19 and 20. When the investigative judgment closes, Christ will come and his reward will be with him to give to every man as his work shall be. Close quote. Forgiveness and the removal of sin is what allegedly is happening in the investigative judgment where Jesus began cleansing the heavenly sanctuary of sin that he transferred there. They don’t teach that sin was removed in the sacrifice of Christ. There was allegedly an 1813-year gap between the antityypical Day of Atonement sacrifice and the process of it being removed starting. It’s not even

Finished yet. You’re talking 2,000 years removed from the sacrifice. And Jesus is currently working on expeation which will involve the transference of sin to Satan who will ultimately expedate it. Ellen White also twisted St. Peter’s words in her proof texting to try and support this. Folks, notice Acts 3. Acts 3 11-21. While he clung to Peter and John, we’ll get to who that is. All the people utterly astounded ran together to them in the portico called Solomon’s. And when Peter saw it, he addressed the people. Men of Israel, why do you wonder

At this? And why do you stare at us as though by our own power or piety we’ve made him walk? The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate when he had decided to release him. But you denied the holy and righteous one and asked for a murderer to be granted to you. And you killed the author of life whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses. And his name by faith in his name has made this man strong whom you see

And know. And the faith that is through Jesus has given the man this perfect health in the presence of you all. And now brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance as did also your rulers. But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets that is Christ would suffer i.e. Isaiah 53 he thus fulfilled. Repent therefore and turn back that your sins may be blotted out that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord and that he may send the Christ anointed for you Jesus whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the

Mouth of his holy prophets long ago and thus the reading of God’s holy word. So Peter begins preaching to Jews who were astonished at the apostles, namely Peter and John, because in the previous verses they had just healed a man. So the Jewish people chase after them and find them in Solomon’s portico where Peter begins preaching and he rhetorically asks them why they’re amazed because this power with which they healed was not of their own. He then transitions to saying it’s the God of our fathers that did this and that God glorified his son Jesus Christ who

They had handed over to Pilate to be killed. He then proceeds to rebuke them by saying in their rejection of Jesus they had the author of life killed. But it was faith in Jesus that gave the lame man his health not the apostles. He then transitions to an exhortation for them to repent and be saved. Verse 17, he says,”I know you did this in your ignorance. You handed over the author of life to be murdered and and accepted a murderer in his place. I know you did this in ignorance, but it actually fulfilled what God had foretold through the prophets in the Old Testament

Scriptures.” These scriptures you’re familiar with. They foretold that Jesus would come as the Lord’s suffering servant. We then get to verse 19 where Ellen White tried to proof text and support the investigative judgment. Peter says,”I know you killed Jesus in ignorance, but repent and be converted that your sins might be blotted out that times of refreshing might come upon you right now. You fellow Israelites standing before me, repent right now and have redemption applied such that your sins are blotted out right now. have redemption applied to you that the

The the author of life that you had killed accomplished. He accomplished the redemption of all things. He didn’t apply that redemption universally though when it happened. When you believe that accomplished redemption is applied to you, I’m getting ready to do a stream here in the future. We’re going to get into redemption accomplished versus redemption applied. This is such a a a an important subject that not even just within the context of Adventism. Christians have to understand the Christian faith is like anemic on this right now. You have to understand

The difference between redemption accomplished and redemption applied. But Peter’s giving them an exhortation. find relief for your sin for having the the author of life crucified. He can forgive you. Nothing to do with almost 2,000 years into the future. Jesus will begin blotting out your sins after he conducts a meticulous investigation to see if when you made your profession of faith, you were truly genuine, etc. Folks, I’m telling you, this woman did not know how to execute the Bible to save her life. The Bible is just a grabag for this lady.

And Desmond Ford tried bringing this up to the SDA church back when his massive work on Daniel 8:14 and the investigative judgment was published, but they wouldn’t have it. And this was coming from someone that tried to remain in fellowship with the organization and still felt that the idea of a pre-advent investigative judgment along with the great controversy wasn’t wrong. Notice I’m not a massive Dez Ford fan, but even he quote the whole argument about the sins of believers, though forgiven still requiring it to be blotted out, falls short of the teaching of scripture. The

Text we use, referring to Adventists in support, Acts 3:19, teaches nothing of the sort. One only needs to compare Acts 3:19, Acts 238, and Psalm 51:1-2 to see this. Note also that the Greek in Acts 3:19 does not teach a blotting out of sin during the falling of the latter reign, but as a precursor. Thus, as Acts 238 promised the gift of the Holy Spirit to all who come to Christ as penitence, so does Acts 3:19. That and no more. Not one of the texts that we use for the investigative judgment has any validity in that regard and will not stand up to what?

Grammatical historical exugesus. Close quote. Ah, that is an honest man, folks. I don’t care what you think about Dez Ford. I know Adventists hate Dez Ford. They’ve been brainwashed to think that he was this horrible apostate. Just wow. But that is exactly spot on. Which is why I constantly point out that when people like Ted Wilson say the only approved hermeneutic within Adventism is the historical grammatical method, it is only lip service. Dez Ford was honest enough to recognize this and say it and they tarnished his name and booted him from the movement

For it amongst a host of other honest recognitions that he made. But back to Christ in his sanctuary so people can see her claim isn’t a one-off. A couple pages later, quote, “At the time appointed for the judgment, the close of the 2300 days in 1844 began the work of investigation and blotting out of sins. All who have ever taken upon themselves the name of Christ must pass its searching scrutiny. Both the living and the dead are to be judged out of these things which were written in the books according to their works.” Close quote. So that is to say that Jesus uh paid the

Penalty for sin and removed it as only the Lord’s goat, not both the Lord’s goat and the scapegoat.

Does that jive with what I said that Jesus paid the penalty for sin and removed it as only the Lord’s goat? No, experation is not transference to another building or or to another location. So to say that Jesus paid the penalty for sin, get this folks, to say that Jesus paid the penalty for sin and removed it as only the Lord’s goat, not both the Lord’s goat and the scapegoat. Then in his model, he also has to say that when Jesus was killed and his body taken outside the camp, sin wasn’t removed until almost 2,000 years later where it still hasn’t been removed, but

It’s being worked on. They claim forgiveness can only take place in the sanctuary or rather the the actual expeation of the the the the work. Like Dez Ford pointed out, you can have forgiveness, but the actual blotting out of your sins takes place up in the sanctuary. Again, Ellen White, patriarchs and prophets, but also in Christ in his sanctuary. We’ve looked at this about 200 times. The blood of Christ while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law was not to cancel the sin. It would stand on record in the sanctuary until the final

Atonement. So in the type the blood of the sin offering removed the sin from the penitent but it rested in the sanctuary until the day of atonement. Close quote. No, they don’t teach that sin was removed or expedated when Jesus’s body was taken outside the camp and he was killed. Christians do because we can recognize that the antityypical day of atonement was the actual day of the crucifixion, not some huge gap from the sacrifice taking place and then a decadesl long process beginning, you know, 1813 years later. Just like on the typical day of

Atonement in Leviticus, the antityypical day of atonement was also a single day where Jesus functioned as the high priest offering up himself as the ultimate fulfillment of all of the laws, sacrifices, and offerings with the penalty for sin paid, the sin removed, and Jesus declaring it is finished. End of story. And again, like I said, I know what Adventists are going to say. If Jesus removed sin, then why is it still present in our world? And that’s a fair question. And it’s why I said earlier, if that’s you, you need to study redemption accomplished

Versus redemption applied. Redemption accomplished versus redemption applied. I will save getting into that for that presentation. But even in their model, folks, they have Satan functioning as expeation. So I don’t know why Ivor is trying to make this sort of argumentation. Satan will be the one that eventually has sin placed on him and he will then be annihilated and that’s how sin is ultimately removed in their model. Notice what the footnotes of the fundamental beliefs book says regarding this. This is the SDA church’s experation of their own or or expation.

This is the SDA church’s exposition of their own 28 fundamental beliefs. And this is in the footnotes on the chapter regarding the investigative judgment and the sanctuary. Quote, “If Azazil represents Satan, how can scripture connect him with the atonement?” As the high priest after having cleansed the sanctuary placed the sins of Azazil, who was forever removed from God’s people, so Christ after having cleansed the heavenly sanctuary, will place the confessed and forgiven sins of his people on Satan, who will then be forever removed from the saved.

Now begins the SDA Bible commentary which is coming from Ellen White. How fitting that the closing act of the drama of God’s dealings with sin should be a returning upon the head of Satan of all the sin and guilt that issuing from him originally once brought such tragedy to the lives of those now freed of sin by Christ’s atoning blood. Thus the cycle is completed. The drama ended. Only when Satan, the instigator of all sin, is finally removed, can it truly be said that sin is forever blotted out from God’s of God’s universe. In this accommodated sense,

Accommodated sense, we may understand that the scapegoat has a part in the atonement. Leviticus 16:10. with the righteous saved, the wicked cut off, and Satan no more. Then, not till then will the universe be in a state of perfect harmony as it was originally before sin entered. Close quote. So, did you get that? SDA scholarship knows they have to account for Leviticus 16:10 saying that the scapegoat is a part of the atonement. So if they are saying the scapegoat represents Satan, then they are saying Satan is a part of the atonement, which would mean that Jesus and Satan together

Accomplish a person being made right with God because that’s what atonement is. So they try and defend their position by saying, well, it’s only in an accommodating sense. Only in an accommodating sense. Jesus uses Satan to place the sins on him since he was the originator of sin and is responsible for such. So that’s how Satan can be part of the atonement. And like I said earlier, this is where they try and weasel in that the scapegoat, well, it pictured responsibility, even though the text says nothing of the sort. He’s used by Jesus to truly remove sin

From the universe. Meaning Jesus and Satan together accomplish the atonement. Utter blasphemy. But make sure you caught the inconsistency for what Ivor said. He tried claiming that Jesus being taken outside the camp represented both the penalty for sin being paid and the removal of sin to try and say, well, so the scapegoat has to represent something else because expeation was a part of what the Lord go Lord’s goat did. It died and expeated the sins. So therefore, the scapegoat has to represent something else. Yet in their model, sin was not removed at

Calvary. It was transferred to heaven and it allegedly stands on record in books up in a building in heaven where an angel is documenting down every individual sins for Jesus to then look over those books in the investigative judgment. Okay, we will get into without the camp in a moment. Okay, good. Good. We’re on the same page. We see that according to the daily services, the same animal who died for the sin offering, his blood was also used and his body taken outside the camp, which Paul says, hey guys, the body’s being taken out of the camp is a

Symbol of Jesus. But please note that it was a body that was taken out of the out of the camp, not a living thing. Did y’all catch that? In the sin sacrifice, the thing taken out of the camp was dead. It died. That was the whole thing about the sin offering. It was dead. It wasn’t taken alive out of the camp. It was dead out of the camp. So, if I would just do a study on what is a sin offering, let’s just look at the Bible. What is a sin offering? Well, oh, the Bible tells us this is what a sin offering is. And anything that does not fit in that

Category of a sin offering cannot be a sin offering. Right? And I already refuted your entire premise by showing how you didn’t examine widely enough to see that certain aspects of different sin offerings had different nuances. He has yet to prove that the law anywhere states or required that all sin offerings universally could only ever include one single animal. One doesn’t even need to proceed any further because the entire foundation for the, you know, for this is badly broken. But let’s keep listening because now he’s going to put forth what he thinks

The phrase he bore the reproach means in Hebrews 13:13. And this is why I wanted to wait on talking about without the camp. Okay, let’s go back to the screen. And what does it mean that Jesus bore the reproach? Let’s look at s few verses. We’re going to look at Psalm 69:7. The Bible says here, “Because for thy sake I have borne reproach.” I have borne who bore reproach. Who bore the reproach? Because for thy sake I have borne reproach. Shame has covered my face. Y’all understand that this is a reference to Jesus. who bore our shame. Isaiah 50:6, I gave my back to the

Smiders and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair. I hid not my face from shame and spitting. I need y’all to understand that the word reproach is synonymous with shame. Hebrews 12:2, “Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross, the place where he died outside the gate of Jerusalem, who endured the cross, despising the shame. He endured shame on our behalf.” How interesting. Isaiah 53:4, “Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows. Yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten

Of God and afflicted, not escaped of God, not set free, but smitten of God and afflicted, meaning killed.” He was wounded for our transgression. Was the scapegoat wounded? No. No, the scapegoat was not Was the scapegoat afflicted? No. The scapegoat was not afflicted. He was wounded for our transgression. He was bruised for our nick. Was the scapegoat bruised? No. No. No. The chastisement of our peace was upon him. And with his stripes did the scapegoat get in his stripes. We are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray. We have turned everyone to his

Own way. And the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. Beloved,

The the daily services well amplified, well well symbolized forgiveness of sin as well as the blood having the power to remove the sin. Our sins were put upon Jesus and he bears them.

That’s right. He He bears what should have been what what we should have borne. He does that. That’s what he does for us. That’s why it’s called a sin offering. the goat, the animal, the bulock died. Its blood taken into the temple, taken into the tabernacle, and its body removed outside the camp. Okay, so notice he didn’t actually deal with the phrase bear the uh reproach other than to say Jesus bore reproach. The scapegoat didn’t, so therefore Jesus isn’t the scapegoat. but no actual exogesis of the text. You know, utilizing the historical grammatical method and explaining what

Is even going on in Hebrews 13. Jumping to Isaiah and the psalter isn’t how you exedute Hebrews 13. It’s one thing to make a a parallel reference as you are executing the text, but not just citing a a cornucopia of proof text to then just say, see, so therefore, now I’ll show why this application of the text is badly flawed in a moment, but first he rhetorically asked if the scapegoat wasn’t wounded, and since it wasn’t, it can’t be representative of Jesus either. If Jesus is both the Lord’s goat and the scapegoat because the Day of Atonement sin offering involved two

Animals, not just one, then this is a situation of a both and, not an eitheror. Yes, Isaiah is describing the Lord’s suffering servant. I mentioned this earlier when I was talking about Hebrews 9:26, but what’s fascinating about this is he didn’t catch how Isaiah uh uh uh 15:16 backfires on his position. Ivor, where in Leviticus 16 does it say that the first goat, the Lord’s goat, had sins placed on it? Not Isaiah 15:16. Sorry, 53. Isaiah 53:6. Sorry, there’s a lot of numbers here going on. I I crossed some wires there. He didn’t even catch how Isaiah 53:6

Backfires on his position because where in Leviticus Ivor in Leviticus 16, where does it say that the first goat, the Lord’s goat, had sin placed on it? It doesn’t. And he’s going to try and show this later, so I’m not going to get ahead of myself. But only the scapegoat had sin placed on it. Leviticus 16:21-22. Yet Isaiah 53 says that sin was placed on him, which is something that was exclusive to the scapegoat. Isaiah 53 literally has what both goats did being said of Jesus, being stricken and bruised for sin while also having sin placed upon him.

In fact, notice at the end of Leviticus 16 where it talks about the animals being taken outside the camp, the phrase Ivor keeps referring to. Leviticus 16:23-27. Then Aaron shall come into the tent of meeting and shall take off the linen garments that he put on when he went into the holy place and shall leave them there. And he shall bathe his body in water in a holy place and put on his garments and come out and offer his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people and make atonement for himself and for the people. And when the fat of the sin offering he shall burn on

The altar, and he who lets the goat go to Aazil shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water, and afterward he may come into the camp. and the bull for the sin offering and the goat for the sin offering whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place shall be carried outside the camp. Their skin and their flesh and their dung shall be burned up with fire. And thus the reading of God’s holy word. And here’s why this gets even worse for his position. Hebrews 13 and Leviticus 16 both say that the body of the Lord’s goat was to

Be taken outside of the camp along with the bull that was to be used for the priest and they were to be what? Burned. Uh-oh. So that has to mean Jesus wasn’t the sin offering either by Ivor’s own standard of argumentation because Jesus’s body wasn’t literally burned outside of the camp. Yet the day of atonement sin offering was the Lord’s goat was. Since Jesus wasn’t literally burned outside the camp, I guess that means he can’t be the Lord’s goat either then. This is an example of an internal critique, by the way. But folks, this is the problem with

Trying to look for 100% exactness on every single parallel. It’s an abuse of typology and it causes the Adventist position to try and prove too much, which is what Ivor ended up doing there. No one is claiming the scapegoat was bruised or killed. It was a part of the single sin offering. It was still a part of the single sin offering though. And you haven’t proven anything thus far to the contrary. Jesus is that single sin offering. The picture being painted for Israel in the day of atonement sin offering is the penalty and wages of sin along with their sin

Being taken away. Jesus does both. A mere animal could not be killed, bruised, etc. And then also picture for them their sin being taken away. That animal was dead. That’s why two were needed. Jesus is superior to mere animals. And he is able to be all of the laws, sacrifices, and offerings in one. and complete all of what those types and shadows pictured. All of them pointing to him. He was both bruised for our iniquities and taken away with sin taken away as John the Baptist heralded in John 1, behold the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the

World. And and if you’re an Adventist that tries to use this silly argument when that’s brought up that right, a lamb, not a goat. Okay, so he’s not the Lord’s goat either. The law allowed for certain circumstances, folks, for law, for lambs and goats to be interchanged. It’s really that simple, though. Jesus is both. Now, executing Hebrews 13:13. For starters, Ivor read a couple of verses that are imploring Christians to go and do something themselves, but is busy focusing on trying to make it about whether or not the scapegoat was a part of the Day of Atonement singular sin

Offering. That’s not at all what is in focus in this paricopy. Verse 13 says, “Let us go therefore unto him outside the camp bearing his reproach.” Why is the author saying this? Again, I always ask this question. Why is he saying this? That’s what matters. That’s what will determine if I’s usage of this passage is sound. Hebrews is a sermon that’s being preached to Jewish converts to the faith. These folks were tempted to go back to the types and shadows of the old and forsake Christ in the process because to do such is to trample underfoot the

Blood of Christ. So he covers in chapter 6 and chapter 10 clearly they were tempted to go back to the temple and start doing animal sacrifices again. Think about how hard it would have been, folks, for a Jewish convert who their whole life it’s just been blood and gore just slaughtering animals after one one after another over and over and then to be told that’s all done. The the one sacrifice of Christ. I I mean that would have the temptation would have still been there of I got to keep doing this. There’s no way it can just be one. The author is then informing them and

Educating them that no, Christ is the end of all of that. He’s the fulfillment of all of it. Literally all of it. And like I said, he warns them specifically with regards to sacrifices in chapter 6 and 10 that to do so, to go back to those things is to trample underfoot the blood of Christ because there are no more sacrifices for sins. That’s actually what’s being said by that text, by the way, not what the Adventist church tries to say is being said. But nevertheless, by the time he gets to what we call chapter 13, because chapter and verse divisions are an

Addition in the 1500s, he’s already laid out a bunch of truths using Old Testament imagery that the original hearer would have been very familiar with. This verse then, verse 13, is an exhortation in the benediction of the sermon that the author includes amongst a number of other final exhortations before signing off. Notice from the beginning,

This is the final chapter. He’s giving the final sign off here. We’re going to read Hebrews 13 1-16. Yes, I know we’re doing a lot of reading, but that’s what this requires, folks. not this little cherry-picking here and there. You can sometimes make points that way. I understand that. But when you’re going to try and make some application like he’s doing, you better make sure that your application is consistent with an exogetical walkthrough of the text. Let brotherly love continue. Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have

Entertained angels unawares. Remember those who were in prison as though in prison with them and those who are mistreated since you also are in the body. Let marriage be held in honor among all and let the marriage bed be undefiled. For God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. Keep your life free from love of money and be content with what you have. For he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.” So we can confidently say, “The Lord is my helper. I will not fear. What can man do to me? Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God.

Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods which have have not benefited those devoted to them. We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat. For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. So Jesus also suffered outside the gate

In order to sanctify the people through his own blood. Therefore, so because he did that, let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured. For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come through him. Then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have for such sacrifices are pleasing to God. And thus the reading of God’s holy word. So it’s a number of final reminders being made to encourage the hearer of

The sermon they just heard. The conclusion of the presentation, continue to love one another as the body of Christ. Be hospitable. remember those that are being persecuted for the faith that have been thrown into prison, instructions about marriage, not loving money, and so on. In that list, we get the exhortation in verses 11 through13, which is what Ivor referenced. With regards to verse 13, we must ask four things. One, what is the camp? Two, how are we to go forth from it? Three, how do we go to him? And four, in what way? He didn’t address any of this. He tried

Focusing on the parallels the author’s making between Jesus and the sacrificed animals of old. But why is the author making this parallel? That is what matters. Ivor never explained this. The author is consistent with his theme throughout the whole sermon, comparing and contrasting what makes Jesus superior. But by answering those four points, we can understand and assess what is being said by these verses that he cited. And we’re going to utilize a little bit of John Owen from the shelf behind me back there to help us out. And I always preface

Before citing Owen when it comes to the book of Hebrews. Folks, you can like or not like the Puritans. I don’t really care. But Owen’s work on the book of Hebrews is the gold standard. It is the largest volume of work. And the man’s Greek prowess was at the next level. To get your masters of divinity in that day, in that with that crowd, you didn’t just have to know Greek. You had to be able to debate in Greek. You had to use Greek. And that’s why I often reference him when discussing Hebrews because I do actually care about the historical grammatical method, not just paying lip

Service to it. And John Owen uses it properly. Pay very close attention to how he answers these four questions regarding verse 13. Quote, one, the apostle in all this epistle hath respect unto the original institution of the Jewish church state and worship in the wilderness. Therefore, he confines his discourse to the tabernacle and the services of it without any mention of the temple or the city wherein it was built, though all that he speaks be equally applicable unto them. Now the camp in the wilderness was that space of ground which was taken up by the tents of the

People as they were regularly pitched about the tabernacle. Out of this compass the bodies of the beasts for the sin offerings were carried and burned. Here unto afterwards answered the city of Jerusalem as is evident in this place. For whereas in the foregoing verse Christ is said to suffer without the gate, here he is said to be without the camp. These being all one and the same as to the purpose of the apostle. Now the camp in the city was the seat of all the political and religious converts of the church to the Jews. To be in the camp is to have a right

Unto all the privileges and advantages of the commonwealth of Israel and the whole divine service of the tabernacle. For if any lost that right by any means, though but for a season, they were removed out of the camp. See Leviticus 13:46 24:23, Numbers 52 and 12:15. So Owen starts by rightly pointing out that the Jewish hearer would have understood what being in the camp meant. Remember they are being exhorted by the author to leave the camp and go to where Jesus is. Yet within the camp is where they understood all of their privileges were. The camp was the seat of political and

Religious convocation of the people of God. So already there is an exhortation to give something up for Christ. Owen continues two. How were the Hebrews on the account of the sacrifice of Christ and the sanctification of the people by his own blood to go out of this camp? For it is all one whether we read the word go out of the camp unto him or go forth unto him without the camp, namely who there suffered. Now is not uh now it is not a local departure out of the city where is intended in the first place. Though I am apt to think from the next verse that

The apostle had some respect also there unto for the season was now approaching wherein they were soed depart out of the city before its final destruction. This the apostle may now prepare them for. But that which principally is intended is a moral and religious going forth from the camp. Close quote. So basically Owen says here he thinks the book of Hebrews was written before AD70 when the temple was destroyed and Jerusalem had you know the the the Jewish Roman wars. He thinks that because well if it had already been destroyed the temptation to

Go back to the old way wouldn’t have been there anymore. So he basically points out that there’s also a seemingly imminent call to the original audience to get out of the camp, the city before the destruction of the temple comes. So he basically points that out to say in conjunction with what else I’m saying, that would have been an immediate application that also could have been valid to the original audience. But he continues, “There was nothing that these Hebrews did more value and more tenaciously adhere unto that political and religious interest in the commonwealth of Israel.

They could not understand how all the glorious privileges granted of old unto that church and people should so cease, as they had ought to forsake them.” Here on the most continued in their unbelief of the gospel, many would have mixed the doctrine of it with their old ceremonies, and the best of them found no small difficulty in their renunciation. But the apostle shows them that by the suffering of Christ without the gate or camp, this they were called unto. Close quote. So get that, friend. Like Christ who suffered, we are to also suffer for him.

It would have been comfortable and easy for a Jewish convert to return to the types and shadows versus remain being a Christian, which was at that time basically signing up for a death sentence. Before the author closes off the book, he gives them this final exhortation to cling to Christ. Don’t return to the shadows like Christ who bore reproach and shame and and mockery and scorn by dying a grueling humiliating death on a cross. So you need to follow after him and also face scorn, ridicule, and even potentially death if the Lord so calls you to it.

Owen continues drilling in on the text. Three, they were thus to go forth unto him. He went forth at the gate and suffered. And we must go forth after him and unto him. And it denotes one, a relinquishment of all the privileges of the camp and the city for his sake. Leave them and go to him. Two, a closing by faith with his sacrifice and sanctification thereby in opposition unto all the sacrifices of the law. Three, the owning of him under all that reproach and contempt which were cast upon him in his suffering without the gate, not being ashamed of his cross.

And four, the bet ourselves unto him in his office as king, priest, and prophet of the church and unto our acceptance with God and in his worship as the apostle directs. Verse 15, the sum of all is that we must leave all to go forth unto crucified unto a crucified Christ. Close quote. So back in Hebrews 7:1, when the author first began explaining Jesus being after the order of Melkisedc and not the Levites, he states that Melkisedc was a priest, king, simultaneous role. In passing, as I’ve shown numerous times, this is a serious problem for the

SDA church’s model and does indeed cause problems for their claims about the scapegoat. They have Jesus ceasing to be a priest at a point in the future when the investigative judgment ceases. Contrary to the same Hebrews 7 telling us that Jesus is a priest forever, as was foretold of the psalter in Psalm 110, and it’s cited by the author of Hebrews multiple times. I’ve addressed this problem in depth on our website uh in other videos, so you can go check that out. But also, next week, we’re doing our first ultimate biblical decimation, and that is starting with

The investigative judgment, where we will look at that one in particular. But that also poses serious problems for their sanctuary claims, which their belief about the scapegoat is only a small part of. But it’s all a chain, and they need it all for their capital T theory to work. But all in all, no. Hebrews 13:13 does not prove the point that Ivor tried to prove because unfortunately he didn’t track with the author and understand why the parallel was being made. He abused the parallel to try and make it appear like it supports his point when it doesn’t.

It doesn’t. To reiterate, the point of the author has nothing to do with proving that Jesus was only the Lord’s goat and that single goat alone was the sin offering that functioned as picturing both forgiveness and expeation. The point being made is that like the animals that were taken outside the camp and burned, so Christ also suffered outside the camp. And the call is for us to follow after him, bearing our cross, which comes at a great cost, bearing the same sort of reproach he did by bearing our cross like he did outside the camp. But on top of that, Ivor, the same

Author told you back in chapter nine that the sin offering again put sin away at the cross. And I already explained what this is talking about. But I’ve done an exogetical walkthrough of that as well using the historical grammatical method. It’s not talking about sin being transferred to a sanctuary building in heaven to then be stored and investigated to eventually be transferred again onto Satan. The SDA church appeals to Leviticus 4, specifically the verses that Ivor read earlier to try and prove this. And we’ve dealt with that uh a hundred times at

This point. There’s an article addressing it on our website. Blood wasn’t taken into the sanctuary during the daily ministration for individual penitent Israelites. Remember, Ivor read the requirements for when the priest sinned. That was one of the occasions when the blood was taken into the sanctuary. The other is in the verses right after that when the entire community of Israelites sinned unintentionally. But only on those two occasions was blood taken into the sanctuary. Aside from the day of atonement, the SDA church needs the text to say

That for individual penitent Israelites in the daily ministry, blood was taken in uh when the individual sinner came and was penitent. But it doesn’t because blood wasn’t taken into the sanctuary on those occasions. But that’s what they claimed the new covenant was pictured to be. Jesus would enter the real temple, the heavenly one, and take his blood into there to begin cleansing the sanctuary like on the day of atonement. And since their parallels break down in this area as well, so does their teaching on the scapegoat. If there was no blood transferred to heaven

To then be transferred to Satan, that’s the key, to then be transferred to Satan. Jesus did go up and present his once-for-all offering. It’s by his blood, Hebrews 10, that we’re able to enter in. Unlike in the old when only one priest once a year could enter into the presence of God. Hebrews 10:1 19-20. We’re going to get into that next week as well. But if there was no blood transferred to heaven to then be transferred to Satan, then their scapegoat claims also fall with it. So, I’m not sure what he thought he presented. That is a challenge for my position thus far.

So now we need to go back and we need to say, okay, check this out. By the way, one more verse, then we’re going to then we’re going to get then we’re going to get into the challenge, y’all. So, so John chapter 19, this title then read many of the Jews, for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city and was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. So, let me break this nigh down for a moment. This nigh to the city represents outside the camp. So, so the nigh to the city would would be the parallel to outside the camp. Now remember, the scapegoat is taken out into a

Desolate place where there are no inhabitants. But the Lord’s goat, the body, was removed just outside the camp, nigh to the city. Jesus died right outside the gates of Jerusalem. H notice that the scapegoat is not taken, it doesn’t use the term without the camp. It uses the term into the wilderness, a desolate place. All right. So clearly you can see how Ivor has no concept of Jesus being a fulfillment of all of the laws, sacrifices, and offerings in one. The Adventist pretext of assuming the scapegoat is Satan keeps him from being able to see that this isn’t a problem

Whatsoever for Christians. This is just a long form version of begging the question. He is assuming what he has not demonstrated. I want to remind everyone, it has not been demonstrated that the law said sin offerings every single time, no matter what, no questions asked, can only include one animal. Remember, his initial claim was to refute that Leviticus 16:5 is saying that both goats functioned as a singular sin offering. He then claimed three premises that were all flawed like I showed. Then went on to say the scapegoat wasn’t stricken and bruised for our iniquities yet ignored

That Isaiah also says sin was laid on him which was exclusive to the scapegoat. And we haven’t even gotten into Leviticus 16:10 which says the scapegoat had atonement made on it and the horrendous presentation the SDA church tries to put forth to justify Satan having atonement made over him for sinners. Aside from looking at what the footnotes said in the fundamental beliefs book just so you could see it, we could do a whole night on that and the problems with that. But now he appeals to John 19:20 to say Jesus isn’t the scapegoat because the scapegoat was

Taken into the wilderness and Jesus wasn’t. He was taken outside the camp. Yes. And Ivor utilizing your own standard of argumentation. I already showed how Jesus can’t be the Lord’s goat then either because the bodies of the animals taken outside the camp were literally burned and Jesus wasn’t. If you’re going to do this hyper literal one to one and miss the forest for the trees, you end up proving too much. It’s like at this point you may as well use the argument that well Jesus isn’t a goat. The scapegoat was a goat but Jesus isn’t a goat. It’s like

Notice the problem, folks. Again, if he’s going to utilize this hyperliteralism and say Jesus wasn’t literally taken into the wilderness, but the scapegoat was, therefore Jesus can’t be the scapegoat. Then to be consistent, he has to also say Jesus’s body wasn’t literally burned outside the camp, yet the Lord’s goat was. Therefore, Jesus can’t be the Lord’s goat either. This is inconsistent and bad argumentation. Do not fall for their abuses of typology like this. Typology is a picture for you of a particular point, dimension, or aspect of a greater reality. It’s not an

Exhaustive parallel for every single minute thing. such such that because Jesus wasn’t literally taken out into the wilderness, he can’t be the scapegoat. No, the wilderness simply showed Israel that their sin was gone into a desolate place. Gone. Removed. We’re still waiting on anything that is problematic for the Christian position. Oh, sorry. Got to find my place here again. I accidentally clicked off. Okay. Okay, let’s go back to the screen. Jesus, 1 Peter chapter 2:24, the Bible says of Jesus, who in his own self bear our sins in his own body on the tree,

Outside the gap, outside the gates of Jerusalem. He bare our sins. That’s what the Lord’s goat did on the day of atonement. But we’re not going to get into that yet. I just want you to see that when that body was burned outside the gates and Paul says, “Hey, the body’s burned outside the gates is a symbol of Jesus who died outside the gates.” What did Jesus do outside the gates on the cross? He bear our sins. All right. Nope. You’re wrong, Ivor. You’re wrong. Like I said and showed earlier, Leviticus 16 never says that sin was placed on the Lord’s goat and then

Transferred to the scapegoat by means of blood. And I showed earlier Adam Clark, who Ivor tried to cite to support his claims regarding all sin offerings having to be killed. He said this same thing. The priest laid hands upon the scapegoat and the sins were then placed on it. The text does not say the sins were placed on the Lord’s goat first and then transferred. They were exclusively placed on the scapegoat, which is another reason that it points to Jesus. So, 1 Peter 2:24 backfires on the SDA position and proves my position in conjunction with understanding this

Text in light of what was explained in Hebrews 9, specifically verse 26. Like the Levitical priest who had to put sin away before he could enter into the presence of God. So too Jesus after having sin placed on him such that he was like the fallen earthly sinladen priest had to put sin away before he could enter back into the presence of God. That was part of the work of the suffering servant. And Hebrews 9 plainly says he did this at Calvary. Not that he transferred them into heaven by means of his blood to begin a second phase of the atonement in 1844

To eventually then transfer sin once again to Satan who will have atonement made on it. And I have to reiterate once again, notice he says Hebrews says the body of the sin offering was burned outside the camp. Yet Jesus’s body wasn’t literally burned outside the camp. So don’t be inconsistent, Ivor. If you’re going to claim Jesus only fulfills the stuff that’s an exact 100% onetoone parallel, then Jesus can’t even be the Lord’s goat since his body wasn’t literally burned outside the camp. Now, he’s going to finally get to what’s supposed to be the challenge. Pay very

Close attention here. I think y’all are following this. Now, we need to get to the Day of Atonement. So, let’s go to the Day of Atonement. Let’s go back to the screen and uh we’re about to wrap this up, you guys. The Day of Atonement. Here we go. Here goes the challenge. Here goes the challenge. Okay, so on the day of atonement, here’s what the Bible says about this Lord’s goat. And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the Lord’s lot fell and offer him for an for a sin offering. H offer him for a sin offering. So that offering symbolizes that the

That the Lord’s goat was to die. Okay. So far that fits the definition of a sin offering. And notice how it says you shall offer him for a sin offering. Not offer them for a sin offering as in both goats, but offer him for a sin offering. Let’s keep reading verse 15. Then shall the then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people and bring his blood within the veil and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bulock. Oh wow. There we go. We look the sin offering was not only killed but as we learned his blood was

Taken into the tabernacle sprinkled upon a mercy seat and before the mercy seat. Okay. Is that it? Uhoh. So that proves it right folks. He started with verse 9 which is after verse five which already told us that both goats function as a single sin offering. He made a big deal saying Leviticus 16:9 doesn’t say them but him. Singular. It only refers to to one goat. Right. Yeah. After verse 5 already told you that both goats were to be taken as a pair for a singular sin offering. Nothing about verse 9 is exclusive. Such that now four verses later after verse

5, the sin offering only involves a single goat. Now, it’s like, “Hey, Moses, tell Levi to take a pair of goats from the congregation for a single sin offering and then cast lots over them to see which one will be the sin offering. Thanks, God.” Yeah. No, that’s not what’s going on here. When you don’t do hopscotch exesus where you just pick and choose verses and jump around, you see that the entire process involves both goats as a set and they both then function together as a complete picture of various aspects. Then he just jumped to verse 15 and

Tried connecting it back to where he referred to in Leviticus 4 and the instructions for when the priest sinned which he made universal instructions for all sin offerings. We already saw how this is refuted by simply reading in the same chapter of Levitic Leviticus 4. No, not all sin offerings involve blood being taken into the sanctuary. That’s not a universal rule. But what Ivor failed to mention is something taking place in the grammar of Leviticus 16:5, specifically with the phrase, “Sprinkle it upon the mercy seat,” or rather verse 15, 16:15, like you see

Still on screen. something that creates a serious problem for their sanctuary salvation model. The Greek word for propitiation has to do with well, notice what it refers to.

Notice the usage. Hill eststerion propitiation. A sin offering by which the wrath of the deity shall be appeased. a means of propitiation or b the covering of the ark which was sprinkled with the atoning blood on the day of atonement. And then notice under the section word studies the place of propitiation the lid of the golden ark the mercy seat where the blood of a vicarious lamb appeased God’s wrath on sin. So what Leviticus 16:15 is referring to is propitiation. Remember what it said. Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people and

Bring its blood into the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull sprinkling it over the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat. So the question becomes when was propitiation made? Well thankfully scripture tells us. I feel like we look at Romans 3 every week but here we are again. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law. Although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there’s no distinction. For all have sinned and fall short of

The glory of God and are justified by his grace as a gift through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. And thus the reading of God’s holy word. So God the Holy Spirit tells us that propitiation took place at Calvary when Jesus was put forth. What is pictured in

The Levitical Day of Atonement, specifically Leviticus 16:15, is at the cross. Christ’s sacrifice at Calvary was the true antitypical propitiation that the earthly sanctuary service foreshadowed. Folks, this is all we, you know, we’ve looked at all of this stuff before. Again, Hebrews 2:14-17, Matthew Henry referenced this earlier, who Ivor also cited from. Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise parttook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is the devil, and deliver all those who through

Fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore, he had to be made like his brothers in every respect so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God to make propitiation for the sins of the people. Thus, the reading of God’s holy word. So in light of what we read in Romans 3, propitiation taking place when Jesus was put forth at Calvary. Here the author is explaining how Jesus didn’t come to save angels but humans which shouldn’t be shocking that he is

Called our brother because he added unto himself human nature. But he had to take on a human nature in our likeness so that he could what? be a faithful and merciful high priest for his brothers and make propitiation for the sins of his people. Again, Romans 3 said this took place at Calvary when he was put forth. And here we see he functioned as a priest in doing so, just like the law required. The day of atonement sacrifice had to be put forth by who? The high priest. which further disproves their scapegoat teaching because the investigative judgment is necessary for their

Scapegoat theology and their belief on the investigative judgment says Jesus wasn’t uh Jesus was inaugurated as a priest at his ascension. Yeah, that’s after Calvary. Notice what even Adventist scholarship recognizes. This is from a paper titled substitutionary atonement by an Adventist scholar who is an Adventist professor. Quote, “Caporet was rendered in the Septuagent as hilsterion, a term from the same root as hiliscomi, to make gracious, to plate. The same root appears in the uh Septuagent’s translation of kipper as exaliscomi and helosmos

Often in sacrificial context. You’ll have to ignore my irraspian pronunciation of the uh Greek and the Hebrew. In the New Testament, Helasmos propitiation or expeation appears in the phrase propitiation for our sins in 1 John 2:2 and 4:10. And in the case of most abstract nouns, those words ending in meant or shun, atonement, expeation, and reconciliation may designate the atoning reconciling action itself or its effects, meaning consequences. Also, when pointing to the action itself, they may express a function or more concretely, the means by which the

Function is performed. All these possible uses of the term the terms may be exemplified in biblical passages. Close quote. So quickly before moving forward, notice the correlation between atonement and expation which is even recognized by SDA scholarship. The Bible tells us that propitiation happened at Calvary. It’s not happening up in a building in heaven now in a long drawn out process. But that doesn’t stop them from trying to make it so because of course he continues to try and make this compatible with their sanctuary model. Quote, “Though Jesus did act as our high

Priest by offering sacrifice, he did so by the sacrifice of himself through whom we have now received reconciliation.” Romans 5:11. Jewish and Gentile sinners are equally justified by faith through the grace of God who set forth Christ as a propitiation or sacrifice of atonement. Hill eststerion equals caparet. Romans 3:25. Hill eststerion is the term which in the earthly sanctuary designated the ark cover, the mercy seat. Hebrews 9:5. This represented the throne of God as intimated by images of cherubim which were integral to the artifact of one

Piece with it. Exodus 37 uh 377 and 8. The ark cover was the place of revelation where the Lord would meet Moses and speak to him and where the cloud of God’s glorious shakina presence appeared. Leviticus 16:2. Towards this artifact, the Yam Kapour ritual was addressed. Leviticus 16 1-16. So the Caparet by taking uh by itself came to connotate the work of atonement. The New Testament is well aware that as prefigured in the mercy seat in Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily being the image of the invisible God and that God has spoken to us

Through him. But he is hilsterion not primarily as the sight of God’s indwelling or revelation but fundamentally because he is the propitiation hilosmos experation itself 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 this was a propitiation by his blood Romans 3:25 in atonement by blood sacrifice the blood of his cross quote folks this is what I mean by there are people in this movement that are smart They’re not all dumb. You know, I get we get people that ask us, you know, are are how could smart people fall for this? Because folks, there are smart people all over the

Place that believe all sorts of errors. Don’t fall for the lie that all people in this movement are are stupid people. They’re not. It’s why we’re trying to get engagements with some of these individuals, but they don’t like engaging that way. They’d rather stay in their theological ivory towers and whatever. That’s on them. But nevertheless, what he put forth here is spoton. Aside from the misdefining of words in order to uphold the great controversy worldview, which creates inconsistencies, he doesn’t get into any of those because again, what they mean

By the word atonement is the investigative judgment. We’ve looked at that, I don’t know how many times from scholarly sources. This is from a section of this paper where he’s trying to explain how propitiation fits within their sanctuary model. He started off by saying Jesus did act as our high priest by offering himself. Well, in their sanctuary model, they claim he was inaugurated to be a priest at his ascension. The word inaugurated literally means to begin or start. Notice, just so you can see, folks, there is a sanctuary in heaven, the true

Tabernacle that the Lord set up and not humans. In it, Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of his atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. At his ascension, he was inaugurated as our great high priest and began his intercessory ministry, which was typified by the work of the high priest in the holy place of the earthly sanctuary. So he was already a priest on earth and then as at his ascension he was inaugurated to be a high priest or a priest again in some different manner. It’s like that’s the only way to make

Sense of this. No. Hebrews 21:17 says that he functioned as a high priest when propitiation was made. That was at the cross. So they can’t try and be like well it says great high priest on earth. He was a priest but his his inauguration as the great high priest was at his ascension. No. Nevertheless, that Adventist scholar recognizes what I showed you about the Greek word hill eststerion as it pertains to Romans 3. He recognizes its connection to the mercy seat and what took place there. When that happened, it wasn’t almost 2,000 years into the future that the

Work then continued, which is what their position has to say. Catch that because Romans 3 says propitiation occurred when Jesus was put forth as a sacrifice. That was at Calvary. He recognizes that the New Testament uses this term in such a way that also means Jesus expedates sin when propitiation is made. when the SDA position is is what they’re trying to put forth specifically this scholar’s paper is that propitiation includes both the sacrifice taking place and the point at which the work is actually applied to the sinner. Therefore, that’s supposed to justify

Their sanctuary teaching because they claim the atoning sacrifice happened at Calvary. But the application of that work take takes place in the heavenly sanctuary uh when a person comes to the advent Jesus and both of those things are atonement but only one happened at Calvary. That’s essentially what he’s trying to put forth. And like I said, this is why understanding redemption accomplished versus redemption applied is so important. And it’s why I’m going to be putting a presentation together on that subject because what he is arguing here is very close to the truth. But then

There’s a slight twist to try and Trojan horse in their entire entire novel framework. No, the atonement was accomplished in full at Calvary. Jesus was inaugurated as a king at his ascension to take his throne to rule and reign over all of the cosmos after accomplishing the redemption of all things, redeeming the creation that fell and making it new. The benefits of this are indeed applied at the point of a person truly believing and being regenerated. But that’s not atonement. The application of redemption is not atonement. Atonement is when blood is shed. There’s

Blood shed when atonement occurs. And by the way, when I came across this paper not too long ago, for all the Adventists that have been telling me the new creation’s not biblical, show me that in the Bible. Same scholar in that same paper. Quote, as mentioned before, reconciliation is presented in the New Testament in 2 Corinthians 5:18 and 19. Here, God has reconciled us to himself through Jesus Christ and has given us the ministry of reconciliation or committed to us the word of reconciliation. Such a word not only proclaims that God was in Christ reconciling the world to

Himself, when he made him who had no sin to be a sin offering for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. But it also announces that this act of God has inaugurated a new creation. One in which those who are in Christ have already entered. But that will not be fully realized until the escaton. Revelation 21:1. This is the final effect of the atoning work which involves a process described in the Bible with sanctuary language. the exact thing that I’ve said I don’t even know how many times in front of this microphone except for that last sentence

And this is how SDA theology will scramble your brain theologically. This paper by this scholar is very close to the truth. Very, very close. But he is trying to filter all of this through a lens to support their sanctuary model. He recognizes that Jesus inaugurated a new creation by virtue of his death, burial, and resurrection. And he cites 2 Corinthians 5 to support his claim, which is exactly where you have heard me point to this on I don’t know how many occasions. And the fact that the new creation is here presently proves that the atonement

Is finished. The application of its benefits being made in full, for example, like being resurrected, having glorification applied, etc. That stuff isn’t atonement. That’s not atonement happening. Again, there is bloodshed when atonement occurs. All of this to say, Ivor, you you shouldn’t just breeze over these verses, making assertions without seeing the bigger picture. I mean, there is a lot more going on here than just rattling off a couple proof texts and thinking you have some anvil that can wear out any hammer in doing so. That everything. No, we got another

Verse here. Leviticus 16:18. And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the Lord, and make an atonement for it, and shall take of the blood of the bulock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about. Now notice verse 27. And the bulock for the sin offering, and the goats for the sin offering. Is that what the text says? Does the text say the goats for the sin offering? If there were to be two goats for the sin offering, why does the text say the goat for the sin offering? Why does it not say the goats for the sin

Offering? The goat for the sin offering whose blood was brought in to make an atonement in the holy place. Let’s go back to this. Can y’all see it? shall one carry forth without the camp, and they shall burn in their fire the skins and their flesh and their dung. So, here’s what I want y’all to see, y’all. Number one, the goat for the sin offering, the Lord’s goat, was killed. Number two, its blood was used. And number three, its dead body was taken outside the camp. Just as we read, hey, that’s what a sin offering is. That’s what a sin offering is.

Yeah. Except it’s already been shown that your three rules or premises were all flawed and false on multiple fronts. I’ve lost track of how many errors and fallacies I’ve highlighted tonight. But he asked why Leviticus 16:27 doesn’t say goats plural, but only goat singular. Because Ivor, you’re reading from a portion of the instructions where it’s talking about the Lord’s goat, which is a part of the singular sin offering. This is after the authors already told you in verse 5 that both goats were for a singular sin offering. It makes me wonder if he actually

Understands the position he’s criticizing at a granular level. Like it only mentions one goat there because it’s talking about one goat. That doesn’t say that the sin offering though is only the one goat. I don’t know why he thinks this is some brain buster. Nothing that he has put forth proves that both goats aren’t involved in one singular sin offering. None of the verses that he has read anywhere in the Bible prove that all sin offerings universally can only include one animal. The point is that both goats paint a picture of the atonement. Part of

Atonement includes the scapegoat which took place uh uh you know which took the sin away from the people as a visible sign to their eyes. The sin offering was a part of accomplishing atonement and Leviticus 16:10 already told you that the scapegoat was involved in the atonement. And we already saw where the SDA church blasphemously tries to explain how Satan can be a part of the atonement in an accommodated sense. But the answer is simple. It doesn’t say the goats plural because you’re reading from a portion of the instructions that have to do with the goat that was sacrificed,

Not the scapegoat. And the verse doesn’t say the Lord’s goat is a singular sin offering to the exclusion of the scapegoat. It’s not an exclusionary statement. This is not sound biblical exesus, my friends. There is a reason he isn’t reading through the chapter verse by verse or even attempting any sort of contextual pretext. All right. Now, he’s going to get into the SDA appeals and claims to the term Azazil. Pay very close attention. Well, let’s talk about Aazel. Let’s go to the screen. Aazel. And as you all learned in my previous presentations,

Aazel meaning the goat of departure, meaning the goat of fa, the goat who fails, who who who witches and and and and and new wagers and and demon worshippers all say without fail Aazelle represents Satan who Jews say Aazelle represents the a goat of demons. Let’s see what happened to this Aazelle. Leviticus 16:21. And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, and all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a

Fit man into the wilderness. And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited. and he shall let the goat go in the wilderness. Okay, y’all. Let’s come back. Let’s come back. So, here is the problem. Here is the problem. In fact, go back to the screen. I need y’all to see the problem on the screen. The scapegoat is not killed. The scapegoat sheds no blood. The dead body of the scapegoat is not taken without the camp. The living body of the scape of the scapegoat is taken out into a desolate place. In other words, the scapegoat does not

Fit the requirement of the sin offering and therefore it is not part of a single sacrifice. Let me say it again. And we’re going to issue the challenge right now. We’re going to issue the challenge right now. So here, let me say it again. If the Lord’s goat takes care of both the death of Christ and the removal of sin by having its body taken outside the camp, which Hebrews says this is the fulfillment in Christ, the sins placed on him through his death, his body taken outside the camp signifies the removal of sin. So if all that is done in one goat, then my

Question is what is this other goat for? What is the purpose of the scapegoat? What does the live goat do? Are we using him to to symbolize the same thing that the sca that the living go that the that the Lord’s goat just did? Why would the Lord do that?

Did Jesus die outside the gates of the camp or was he sent into the wilderness as a living goal?

Here’s a challenge. Here’s a challenge. Y’all got 24 hours from hearing this this this this presentation. So, put it I’ll put it up on the screen. Since the death since the death and expeation of sin is typified in one sacrifice as is demonstrated in the daily services of the sin offering. Do y’all see this on the screen? Okay, there we go. Since the death and expeation of sin is typified in one sacrifice, one symbol, as is demonstrated in the daily services of the sin offering, a second goat would not have been needed to typify what was already typified in the Lord’s goat,

Namely that it died for sin and bore away our sins. Since the goat for Aazel does not fit the description of a sin offering, what then was the purpose of the goat for Aazel?

Y’all got it? Do y’all have the Do y’all get the challenge? Is the Bible using the Lord’s goat and the scapegoat to do the exact same thing? No. Because the Lord’s goat isn’t picturing both the penalty for sin being paid and expeation. All of your fundamental premises are flawed as I have demonstrated. The scapegoat functions like I and other Christians have been saying for a long time. It pictured sin being taken away and nothing that you have presented proved this to be false because your attempts to prove what what you needed regarding the Lord’s goat functioning as both the

Penalty for sin and expeation was badly flawed. Notice at the beginning of the clip he said witches, newagers, and demon worshippers all say Aazil represents Satan. So a bunch of pagans all say Aazil is Satan. So that proves Aazil is Satan. He said, ‘The Jews believe it represents a demon. Oh, you mean the same Jews that don’t believe Jesus was the Lord’s goat. Okay. It’s always interesting the context in which Adventists agree with pagans or Roman Catholics, etc. Conveniently, it’s whenever the party they fundamentally disagree with agrees with them on

Something they need for their system to work. The party they disagree with knows what they’re talking about in those instances, but only on the thing that they need affirmation for. It doesn’t matter if all the world’s highest IQ individuals agree that Azil is Satan. What matters is the Hebrew grammar. And for anyone that does a deep dive on this subject, they will see that the SDA position is at the bottom of the scholarly opinions because it requires support from pagan and pseudapigful works such as the book of Enoch. Pseudapigal works, folks, is just

Writings that people don’t know who the author actually was. When I debated this with an Adventist pastor, I dug into this as thoroughly as I was able, which was a pretty decent amount. Ivor states his position like it’s just a matter of fact when the actual facts are this is a grammar issue and his side’s position is one of the four main ones and it’s at the bottom of the pile because it primarily is supported through tradition whether it be from pagans or Jewish folklore. But notice for example what the Jewish virtual library says on this under the word aazil.

Quote the exact meaning of oazil was a point of dispute already in the times of talmudic sages. That’s just referring to the the interpreters of of the old testament. That’s what the talmutic sages were. Some held that it is in the name uh it is the name of a place to which the goat was sent. While others believed that it was the name of some power. According to the first opinion, the word aazil is a parallel to a land which is cut off. Leviticus 16:22 meaning according to the rabbitic interpretation an area of rocks and cliffs i.e. it was inaccessible.

The word Azil is also interpreted as meaning strong and hard as though it were written namely hardest of the mountains as can be seen in the Tarums which is what it then lists there. The Targums are essentially that same thing. They are if I remember correctly Aramaic commentaries on Old Testament scriptures. So you can see they’re in Yoma and and Tarum Jonathan etc. It does appear, however, that this is an attempt to reconcile the meaning of the word Aazil with the actual usage in the time of the second temple, namely to bring the goat to a cliff and to push it

Over. The interpretation does not quite fit the written form of the word. Close quote. momentarily. Notice even in the days of the Talmudic sages, which like I said, they were Jewish rabbis that lived from around 250 BC to 6 somewhere around 600 AD. There was dispute over this word. Some believed that it was the name of a place. Others believed it was the name of a power, not the devil specifically, but a power. It continues, “The second opinion which sees Azil as a supernatural power also treats the word as though it were written, this opinion

Is based on Leviticus 16:8. One lot for the Lord and the other lot for Aazil. I.e. just as the first goat is set aside for the Lord, so the second is set aside for Aazil. Aazil being a parallel to the Lord, God gets a burnt offering while Aazil gets a sin offering. This view is reinforced by the widespread belief that the wilderness was the habitat of demons. The demonic identification would indicate that the original purpose of the ritual was to get rid of the evil by banishing it to its original source. Close quote. This is the idea that the SDA position

Tries to seek accordance with. And there are a couple of others. One being that Azazil represents a function, the goat of escape. That’s why modern translations will translate it as scapegoat versus Azazil. The point being, this isn’t just a matter of fact as he presents it. We’ve already refuted basically everything he has said up to this point and shown why it’s faulty on multiple accounts. Now, if the argument hinges on this, despite all of that, it hinges upon ambiguity where there’s been long-standing debate over what exactly the term Aazil means.

But then once again, we heard the argumentative claim that the scapegoat isn’t killed. Yeah, we know that isn’t the argument. And even in the introduction, we looked at El Michael Morales’s Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord where he states this specifically. It wasn’t a standard, but he also recognized it wasn’t the general way that a sin offering was offered. This was a unique one. And we still have yet to see anything that proves exhaustively that no sin offering could include two animals and only one of them dies. I’ve already refuted his requirements

For the sin offering claims, so I’m not going to repeat myself. Ivor, you need to demonstrate that Leviticus 16:5 doesn’t say what it says. That’s the challenge for you. But then we finally heard the formal issue of the challenge. If all those things are as he said up to the point, if all the things he said up to that point are true, which he believes he demonstrated that the Lord’s goat alone pays the penalty for sin and removes it outside the camp, then what is the other goat for? Yes. and Ivor, I already demonstrated all three of your premises are flawed,

Which means the question is nullified. I already showed that none of the texts that you provided state that all sin offerings universally can only include one animal. I already showed where you cited from Leviticus 4 and the requirements for it being the priest sinning and then you made universal application of that to all sin offerings that the blood had to be taken into the sanctuary which is false because in the same chapter there are sin offerings that don’t involve taking blood into the sanctuary. I already showed that the sins were never placed on the Lord’s

Goat, only the scapegoat. And how first Peter 2:24 and Isaiah 53 backfire on your position. In conjunction with that, I already showed how Hebrews 9:26 says that Jesus put sin away at the cross, just like the Levitical priest had to put sin away before he could enter into God’s presence. So too, Jesus, after having the sins of his people placed upon him on the cross, also had to put that sin away before he entered back into the presence of God as the God man. And that putting away wasn’t a transference to heaven, folks. It was an actual removal.

I already showed that you guys can’t have Jesus removing the sin by virtue of being taken outside the camp because you guys don’t even teach that sin has been put away today in 2024. It’s currently in the process, which is what the investigative judgment is supposedly for. And it will be expedated by Satan when it’s transferred to him at the close of the investigative judgment. Which means you can’t believe sin was expedated when Jesus was taken outside the camp. I already showed how that was done in Leviticus 16:15. Propitiation took place at the cross, which the ex

Which the SDA church has taken place over a long drawn out span of time starting in 1844, which is a you know a massive gap from when the blood was shed to when the actual removal process would start. And I could, as a bonus, have also shown how Hebrews 9:22 cites Leviticus 17:11, which says that without the shedding of blood, there’s no uh remission or removal of sins, and that Jesus only shed his blood one time. Yet, you guys say sins are being removed starting in 1844, but Jesus isn’t up in heaven shedding his blood. That happened 2,000 years ago at Calvary, and only at

Calvary. But I will save an in-depth analysis to that point for next week. Like I said, when we do our first total biblical decimation episode, we won’t be looking at any video, by the way, folks. We will just be going through a whole boatload of scripture. The first one is going to be focused on the sanctuary and the investigative judgment. The living goat didn’t symbolize both things like he claimed because his claim is built on faulty premises. He goes on to claim that same thing that Adventist scholarship does like we’ve seen before that the scapegoat

Represented responsibility for sin despite the fact that the text does not say this or even mention anything close to the idea that the scapegoat represented responsibility. Remember folks, this whole thing was started out by him taking umbrage with Leviticus 16:5, which plainly says two goats were to be taken for a single sin offering. They were both taken from the congregation. Both had to be blemish free. Both had to be presented before the tent of the Lord. Both had to have lots cast over them. They are a set. Nothing he presented proved that they

Aren’t. All that was demonstrated is that Adventist theology is a mess. This challenge was like the bunny slopes at the, you know, at the ski resort. Folks, it’s important to understand that Adventists have been making the same arguments for 180 years. Nothing he said here is unique or problematic except to their own position. Folks, Christians have been studying scripture for a long time, thousands of years. Christians have been pondering and studying what scripture says about the atonement for 2,000 years. None of what he presented was fresh,

New, or challenging. And since he thinks it was, it shows he doesn’t actually understand what he criticizes. I I appreciate him playing clips from this platform before he got into his talk to try and steal man the position, but he needs to listen more closely. He was correct in the generals, but he doesn’t understand the specifics. You know, Adventists can say what they want about me in this platform, but I stand by my homework all day, any day. Does that mean I’m never wrong? Of course not. But one thing I can say is I’ve studied and learned the SDA system enough to be

Able to analyze it at an advanced level. I sat and listened to Adventists teach for two decades. I’ve also listened to Christians teach now for over a decade. I’m able to analyze and put my great controversy worldview back on what I presented tonight is not unique to me. I didn’t originate this stuff. I’m simply a messenger. I’m a servant of Christ. I want to be a service to the body of Christ as best I best I can be. So, Ivor, nice swing, but no contact. Got to study up better and get outside of the SDA programming. Start basing your arguments off of entire sections of

Scripture where you capture entire thoughts and what’s going on contextually, not this hopscotch exesus all over the Bible in small little sound bites with preconceived beliefs and proof texts that use certain words to then try and make all sorts of assertions based on those words. All that is is word association fallacy. Words mean what they mean in the context in which they are used. You know, a perfect example of this is where Jesus describes the kingdom of heaven. Like a little levan that a woman kneads into dough. Yet in other places, levaven is described as sin

Means words don’t have a universal meaning across the board. They have a semantic range. It depends the context in which they’re being used in. And we unfortunately did not hear any breakdown of of that from him. But credit where credit’s due. Regardless of what you might think about him as an individual, he at least attempted to build and present a deductive argument, albeit one that’s been put forth by SDA theologians for 180 years and presents zero problems for the Christian position. But thanks for being here, folks. Hopefully, this was beneficial for you.

May Christ richly bless you in the grace and peace won by Jesus Christ and his vicarious death on the cross for sinners. Hallelujah. Amen. Marinatha come Lord Jesus.