Boy, so many things to comment on! Wish I had 2 good hands.

Just a quick comment now. More later.

Scripture ascribes Christ's death to multiple causes. It is true that Christ died of a broken heart, but also true that Scripture ascribes his death to men:



Satan is also given credit. Our sins are said to have caused His death as well.

In spite of this, many think God was responsible, that God kill Him.

Dying with the weight of the sins of the world was precisely experiencing death (not "sleep" as Christ referred to the first death). We can't really say He "died" the second death, since that's an eternal death. But Scripture says He "tasted" it.

Similarly the SOP says He "suffered" the death which was ours. What is this referring to? It's referring to what would have been our experience if we had not been freed from sin.

Also, there's this:



This explains the death of the wicked in terms of what Christ experienced. By understanding one, we can understand the other (one being Christ's death, the other being the death of the wicked).

I talked to one of my 'wise men' last night, and he felt that Adventist preach the the penalty of man's transgression was the 2nd death. I disagreed and told him, the wages of sin is just plain death which Adam and Eve would have never experienced except for sin, but the 2nd death is the result of a final judgement, in which Christ our Advocate will present each case before God the Father at the Heavenly Tabernacle to judge, where the sins of the chosen who have accepted Christ as Saviour and Lord are covered, Christ assumes their sins and accountability. They are freely forgiven and covered by Christs righteousness. That sin then goes through the process much like the sin going to the scapegoat—Azazel, and will have the sin passed on to the perputrator of all sin, Satan. The wicked hold on to their sin, so they will suffer the 2nd death and I told him it would be along with Satan and his angels, but he felt that wasnt supported, so I will give some study to that....


Here is the part on sin going to the scapegoat—Azazel...
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-23.htm

"...The heavenly sanctuary is the great command center where Christ conducts His priestly ministry for our salvation. He is able "to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He ever lives to make intercession for them" (Heb. 7:25)..... In the earthly sanctuary the priests carried out two distinct ministries—a daily ministry in the holy place, or first apartment (see chapter 4 of this book) and a yearly ministry in the Most Holy Place, or Second Apartment. Those services illustrated Christ's priestly ministry.9

2. The ministry in the holy place. The priestly ministry in the holy place of the sanctuary could be characterized as a ministry of intercession, forgiveness, reconciliation, and restoration. A continual ministry, it provided constant access to God through the priest.10 It symbolized the truth that the repentant sinner has immediate and constant access to God through Christ's priestly ministry as intercessor and mediator (Eph. 2:18; Heb. 4:14-16; 7:25; 9:24; 10:19-22).

When the penitent sinner11 came to the sanctuary with a sacrifice, he laid his hands on the head of the innocent animal and confessed his sins. This act symbolically transferred his sin and its penalty to the victim. As a result, he obtained forgiveness of sins.12 As The Jewish Encyclopedia states: "The laying of hands upon the victim's head is an ordinary rite by which the substitution and transfer of sins are effected." "In every sacrifice there is the idea of substitution; the victim takes the place of the human sinner."13

"In this ritual parable the sanctuary assumed the penitent's guilt and accountability—for the time being at least—when the penitent offered a sin offering, confessing his errors. He went away forgiven, assured of God's acceptance. So in the antitypical experience, when a sinner is drawn in penitence by the Holy Spirit to accept Christ as his Saviour and Lord, Christ assumes his sins and accountability. He is freely forgiven. Christ is the believer's Surety as well as his Substitute."15

In type and antitype the holy place ministry primarily centers on the individual. Christ's priestly ministry provides for the sinner's forgiveness and reconciliation to God (Heb. 7:25).......

The ministry in the holy place brings about the believer's justification and sanctification.

The Final Judgment. The events on the Day of Atonement illustrate the three phases of God's final judgment. They are (1) the "premillennial judgment" (or "the investigative judgment") which is also called the "pre-Advent judgment"; (2) the "millennial judgment"; and (3) the "executive judgment" which takes place at the end of the millennium....

The cleansing of the sanctuary required two goats—the Lord's goat and the scapegoat (Azazel in Hebrew). Sacrificing the Lord's goat, the high priest made atonement for "the Holy Place [actually the Most Holy Place in this chapter], the tabernacle of meeting [the holy place], and the altar [of the court]" (Lev. 16:20; cf. 16:16-18).

Taking the blood of the Lord's goat, which represented the blood of Christ, into the Most Holy Place, the high priest applied it directly, in the very presence of God, to the mercy seat—the cover of the ark containing the Ten Commandments—to satisfy the claims of God's holy law. His action symbolized the immeasurable price Christ had to pay for our sins, revealing how eager God is to reconcile His people to Himself (cf. 2 Cor. 5:19). Then he applied this blood to the altar of incense and to the altar of burnt offering which on every day of the year had been sprinkled with the blood representing confessed sins. The high priest thereby made an atonement for the sanctuary, as well as the people, and brought about cleansing of both (Lev. 16:16-20, 30-33).

Next, representing Christ as mediator, the high priest took upon himself the sins that had polluted the sanctuary and transferred them to the live goat, Azazel, which was then led away from the camp of God's people. This action removed the sins of the people that had been symbolically transferred from the repentant believers to the sanctuary through the blood or flesh of the sacrifices of the daily ministry of forgiveness. In this way the sanctuary was cleansed and prepared for another year's work of ministry (Lev. 16:16-20, 30-33).17 And thus all things were set right between God and His people.18

The Day of Atonement, then, illustrates the judgment process that deals with the eradication of sin. The atonement performed on this day "foreshadowed the final application of the merits of Christ to banish the presence of sin for all eternity and to accomplish the full reconciliation of the universe into one harmonious government under God."19

2. Azazel, the scapegoat. "The translation 'scapegoat" (escape goat) of the Hebrew azazel comes from the Vulgate caper emissarius, "goat sent away" (Lev. 16:8, RSV, KJV, margin).20 A careful examination of Leviticus 16 reveals that Azazel represents Satan, not Christ, as some have thought. The arguments supporting this interpretation are: "(1) the scapegoat was not slain as a sacrifice and thus could not be used as a means of bringing forgiveness. For 'without shedding of blood is no remission' (Heb. 9:22); (2) the sanctuary was entirely cleansed by the blood of the Lord's goat before the scapegoat was introduced into the ritual (Lev. 16:20); (3) the passage treats the scapegoat as a personal being who is the opposite of, and opposed to, God (Leviticus 16:8 reads literally, 'One to Yahweh and the other to Azazel'). Therefore, in the setting of the sanctuary parable, it is more consistent to see the Lord's goat as a symbol of Christ and the scapegoat—Azazel—as a symbol of Satan."21......"

Richard, I think you may be making things overly complicated. Let's start with the scapegoat:



The idea of the sins being transferred to the scapegoat is simply communicating the truth that Satan bears the responsibility for that which he has caused. Please note that his suffering is not limited to the sins of the righteous he has caused. Indeed, that's not such a big deal, since they've been forgiven. His greater responsibility will be regarding those he has caused to be lost.

Sins are not literally transferred as if they were loaves of bread. Sin is in our character. We must be freed from sin in order to abide in God's presence, because God is good, and sin is bad. The problem is sin.



Note the same thing that slays the wicked gives life to the righteous. What causes the problem? The revelation of God's character (aka the "light of the glory of God"). Why? Because of sin.

Those who cling to sin cannot bear the revelation of God's character, as EGW explained. Therefore the entire work of the Gospel is the revelation of God's character that we may be set right with God and thus freed from sin, and saved from death.

Thanks, Richard, for highlighting the point that the scapegoat represents the devil, and plays no part in atoning for believers. What of Jesus, our substitute for sin's penalty of eternal death, not suffering @ Calvary the 2nd death of the final judgement against sin he himself saves us from by his death for sin, in the sacrifice of the atonement in the 'real' sanctuary service of God? How could his mortal death make Jesus the world's Saviour from eternal death, for which he is the substitute??...

This isn't based on any pagan theory of substitution: this is the just wrath of God against sin needing meting out and God himself providing the propitiation in Christ's sacrifice. The pagan version has the human worshipper appeasing the "wrath" of the heathen idol, only there is no wrath in the heathen definition of appeasement, better called expiation: heathen expiation omits divine wrath against sin, and is offered by humans. Biblical propitiation involves just wrath against sin and God himself giving his only begotten Son to propitiate for our sins by his blood. How can Christ's propitiation by his blood not involve dying the 2nd death of sin as our substitute???...

I'm quoting this only to highlight the legal issue of Christ's death which is off topic here but features in "The meaning of his DEATH", where Tom is on topic with this point.

This post is just to point out the other thread due to the disagreement with the issue here.

It's not off topic. One can't possibly discuss whether Christ died the second death or not without a consideration of the meaning of His sacrifice. For example, I keep bringing up DA 764 for this very reason, although no one seems to have been paying attention to it. I think this brings out one of the key reasons for Christ's death. Apart from Christ's death, a doubt could have remained when Satan dies, which she explains in the DA quote.

It's interesting that this disagreement transcends the legal issues, however. For example, it appears that you, Arnold and I agree regarding the question of Christ's tasting the second death, although we disagree as to why. I know of others who basically agree with the view of the atonement I hold to (which is what Ty Gibson teaches, btw, in case one is familiar with that) but who do not agree that Christ's death involved the second death (which isn't to imply Ty doesn't; Ty agrees regarding the 2nd death with the position I've been sharing).

Yes, how quaint that all aspects of the Gospel iter-relate. Still, one thread at a time, hey.

Your brief point of order on DA 764...: WE DON'T DISPUTE that point, since it's part of all the truth, yet you don't allow - 'pay no attention' - to our arguments and SOP & Bible quotes stating a legal necessity for forgiveness.

We allow your part of the truth but you don't allow the other side, the rest, of the truth: you DO have the problem on that topic...that thread.

Here it is the case that salvation's substitutionary Saviour is such because he did not have the Spirit assuring him of his resurrection when he expired. Ie. he died without execting to rise again, thus experiencing the awfulness of the 2nd death. This enunciation is for others who may be less sure about it.

Tammy (and Richard), how do ye understand Christs death to be substitutionary, given also what I've just written re this thread??

1.You say you don't dispute the point (regarding DA 764), but it's not at all clear to me that the point has even been understood. What do you think the point is?

2.Regarding there being a legal necessity for forgiveness, I don't have a problem with that. What I have been arguing against is the idea that Christ had to die in order for God to have the legal right to pardon. Also, I would dispute the idea that it is the law that *causes* anything to happen. The law *recognizes* what happens, so to speak (since the law can't "do" anything, it not having a brain or a will, these expressions involving the law are all metaphors) but even without considering the law, Christ would died, and for the same reasons as there are considering the law. The law does not create any new realities or demands that were not already existing.

3.Regarding the "Here is" "substitutionary" paragraph, I agree. Christ is our substitute in that had He not experienced death (not "sleep" but death), we would have. As Sister White put it, "He suffered the death that was ours that we might live the life that was His."

Well Scott, I guess I would say that the 2nd Death is the result of the need to wipe out all sin and sinners, and to ensure that sin never rises again. Those who die the 1st Death and who are translated, have been proven "safe to save".

Here is a description of those who will die in the 2nd Death - I honestly don't understand how anyone can put Christ in with this class of people...it is a mystery to me. And then, we have this text, This text clearly connects the "first resurrection" with Christ. No one who dies the 2nd Death, rises in the first resurrection. All the texts in the Bible that reference the 2nd Death, none of them even hint that Jesus died that death.

I think you are right, Scott, when you said,

We give Protestants a real reason to question our doctrines, when we teach that Jesus died the 2nd Death.