13. The Seal of God and the Mark of the Beast

14. Sunday vs. the Lord's Day, and the Scapegoat

#175 & #176: "However the keeping of the Sabbath from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday came to be of prime importance in determining who would receive the seal of God and be saved and who wouldn't."

#175: After the change to sunset, the Sabbath "came to be" understood as the seal. In actuality, the idea that the Sabbath is the seal of God was in print over six years prior to the change of the time to keep the Sabbath: "The Sabbath then is a sign, or seal between GOD and his people forever." -Present Truth, July 1849, p. 3. Thus Mr. M___ has the timing reversed.

 #176: They think it's of prime importance in determining who would be saved and who wouldn't. It should be pointed out that Mr. M___ is using the term "saved" differently than he did under #143. There he definitely meant justification, pardon, and conversion, while here he means glorification and entry into heaven (see also #66).

So is the impression the viewer is left with true? Have Seventh-day Adventists since 1855 felt that the question of the Sabbath determines everyone's entry into heaven? Not according to the very next quotation used on the video (see #177): "When the final test shall be brought to bear upon men .... Unfortunately, the average viewer will not know enough about Adventist beliefs to rightly understand what this means. To put it simply, Adventists believe that this only becomes true at the very last moments of time when the mark of the beast is enforced. It isn't true today.

At least by 1852, Seventh-day Adventists were teaching far and wide that many Sunday keepers were children of God and would go to heaven, while many apparent Sabbath keepers would not. Sabbath keeping, therefore, was not considered the determining factor, and still is not. Consider the following which appeared in an issue of the Review in that year. Because the video makes such a major point of this subject, we quote it at length:

REMARKS IN KINDNESS.

We have received a letter from Bro. T of Broadalbin, N. Y., which we wish to notice, not only for the benefit of the writer, but others in a similar position.

T - I have no disposition to say anything disrespectful of the paper, or any of the writers.... If I rightly understand the Review, it teaches or judges thus: They that keep the seventh-day Sabbath have the Seal of the Living God. They that keep the first day as the Sabbath, and they that believe that the Sabbath is abolished, have the mark of the beast. I do not find that the Lord in his word judges thus....

Reply - We are far from believing that all Sabbath­keepers have the seal of the living God. The Jew that in his blindness rejects Jesus cannot have that seal, though he outwardly observes the fourth commandment. That there is to be a sign, distinguishing mark, or seal of God, that is to distinguish God's people in the time of trouble when the mark of the beast shall be enforced, is evident. And we are of the humble opinion that the despised Sabbath of the living God will be that very distinguishing sign. But let no one suppose that the "Review and Herald" teaches that those who embrace the Sabbath are now sealed and sure of heaven, for it teaches no such thing.

In that hour of conflict, the time of trouble such as never was, when the mark of the beast shall be enforced, none will be able to stand, and bear the distinguishing sign or seal of God, only those who are sanctified through the whole truth, and washed from all sin, by the blood of Christ. May the Lord prepare Sabbath-keepers to stand in that time, and bear the seal of the living God. After they keep all the commandments, and repent before God of past transgression of his holy law, their only hope of salvation is through faith in the atoning blood of Jesus.

A man may outwardly observe all ten of the commandments of God, yet if he is not benefited by the atonement of Jesus it will profit him nothing. But the doctrine that one may live in constant violation of the law of the Father, and still be saved through faith in his Son, is a heresy that we fear, will sink souls in perdition. The Jew may be tenacious for the law of the Father, and reject the Son; the professed Christian may boast of his faith in the Son and reject the commandments of the Father, but will not both sink in perdition together if they remain in unbelief. 0 Lord, help thy people to see that "here are they that keep the commandments of God AND** have the faith of Jesus." God forbid that we should make void thy law through faith.

We do not teach that those "that keep the first day as a Sabbath, and they that believe the Sabbath is abolished, have the mark of the beast." We have shown that there is no divine authority for observing the first day of the week, as the Sabbath. We have also shown that it is an institution of Papacy. And we have given some of our reasons for believing that the observance of the first day of the week is to constitute the mark of the beast, when the line shall be drawn between the worshipers of the beast and image, and the worshipers, or servants of God.

Says the third angel, "If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark," &c. This is a warning to those to whom the message is to be given not to receive the mark, consequently, they have not the mark now, in the sense it is yet to be received by the worshipers of the beast. Christians who have conscientiously observed the first day of the week, in time past, whose minds were never called to investigate the Sabbath question, certainly did not receive the mark of the beast. But after the true light on this subject shall be given, and that period of anguish when the mark of the beast shall be enforced shall have come, and the division made between the worshipers of God and the worshipers of the beast, then will be the danger of receiving the mark of the beast. In view of that decisive hour, the third angel gives his warning message, that we may be prepared to stand, and not receive the mark of the beast, instead of the seal of the living God. The burden, the loud cry of this message, is evidently future.

Our object is to give our views in the spirit of the gospel, and we know not why we should be charged with judging others, more than those who differ from us, and give their views of Bible truth. Some seem to forget that they differ from us as far as we do from them.

It is not our work to judge and pass sentence upon any one. Some rash spirits have greatly erred here. We wish to speak the truth in the spirit of Jesus, with all boldness, and let that do its work, on the heart. But when we do this, we are at once "judged" as having a lack of charity and of judging others. But we cannot stop here. Let others plead charity, and we will preach the truth. Charity ever "rejoiceth in the truth." See 1Cor.xiii,6.-[James White], Review and Herald, March 2, 1852, p. 100,

#177 & #178: " 'The Sabbath will be the great test of loyalty... When the final test shall be brought to bear upon men, then the line of distinction will be drawn between those who serve God and those who serve him not... the keeping of the true Sabbath... is an evidence of loyalty... one class... receive the mark of the beast, the other choosing the token of allegiance to divine authority, receive the seal of God.' The Great Controversy p. 605. So, failing to keep the Sabbath resulted in one receiving the mark of the beast and losing one's eternal life."

#177: This quote says that failing to keep the Sabbath "resulted" in receiving the mark of the beast. No, it does not. The ellipses in the quote represent missing context that prevents such a mistaken view of Seventh-day Adventist beliefs. The entire paragraph reads thusly:

The Sabbath will be the great test of loyalty, for it is the point of truth especially controverted. When the final test shall be brought to bear upon men, then the line of distinction will be drawn between those who serve God and those who serve Him not. While the observance of the false sabbath in compliance with the law of the state, contrary to the fourth commandment, will be an avowal of allegiance to a power that is in opposition to God, the keeping of the true Sabbath, in obedience to God's law, is an evidence of loyalty to the Creator. While one class, by accepting the sign of submission to earthly powers, receive the mark of the beast, the other choosing the token of allegiance to divine authority, receive the seal of God.

Since Sunday observance and Sabbath breaking are not presently enforced by state law, the choice to keep Sunday does not now constitute receiving the mark of the beast. This is only something that will occur at the very end of human history.  

#178: They believe it "resulted" in receiving the mark of the beast. By choosing the past tense verb "resulted," Mr. M___ gives the false impression that Seventh-day Adventists believe Sunday keepers now have the mark of the beast. Nothing could be further from the truth, nor is any issue more clearly stated. And Mr. M___, a former Adventist minister, is most certainly aware of this fact. If perchance the unlikely occurred, and he forgot this point of Adventist theology, the quote he just cited would have refreshed his memory.

Even though the choice to break the fourth commandment does not today result in receiving the mark of the beast, it would be wise to consider something else Mr. M___ said: "Christians are to grow in grace and keep God's commandments out of a love for Him ..." (see #153). When the final test does comes, it will be much easier to choose the right if we have made a habit today of obeying God's commandments out of love. Don't you agree?

#179 & #180: "Today the view is equally severe. On page 167 of the Adventist publication Twenty-Seven Fundamental Doctrines it says, 'When this issue is clearly brought before the world, those who reject God's memorial of creatorship, the Bible Sabbath... choosing to worship and honor Sunday, in the full knowledge that it is not God's appointed day of worship, will receive the mark of the beast. This mark is a mark of rebellion.' "

#179: This view is severe. A rather strange conclusion. How can it be severe to believe that Christians ought to obey the commandments?

After all, the devil and his angels were kicked out of heaven for breaking the commandments of God. Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden of Eden for breaking the commandments of God. How can God take us to heaven when we are knowingly living in unrepentance and disobedience to one of His commandments, and at the same time not take the devil to heaven too?

Christians are to grow in grace and keep God's commandments out of a love for Him .... (M___ under #153)

If ye love me, keep my commandments. (Jesus in John 14:15)

So according to both Mr. M___ and Jesus, those who do not keep God's commandments reveal a lack of love toward God. Are these views of Mr. M___ and Jesus severe?

 #180: This quote says it's a mark of rebellion. The whole topic has been grossly oversimplified.

While enough context was quoted to catch the thought of the statement, enough was left out so that the average viewer will not comprehend what is really being said. First of all, the final period in the quote should actually be an ellipsis, for the remaining 71% of the sentence was omitted. The portion omitted makes clear what the Seventh-day Adventist position really is.

Also omitted is any explanation regarding the identity of the beast. Who is the beast anyway? Once this question is answered, it is pretty easy to see that Sunday just might have something to do with the mark.

The context of the quotation, as found in the documentation package under "Point 87," follows:

The beast described in Revelation 13:1-10 is the church-state union that dominated the Christian world for many centuries and was described by Paul as the "man of sin" (2 Thess. 2:2-4) and by Daniel as the "little horn" (Dan. 7:8, 20-25; 8:9-12 KJV). The image of the beast represents that form of apostate religion that will be developed when churches, having lost the true spirit of the Reformation, shall unite with the state to enforce their teachings on others. In uniting church and state they will have become a perfect image to the beast-the apostate church that persecuted for 1260 years. Hence the name image of the beast.-Seventh-day Adventists Believe, p. 167.

Let's pause for a moment. The first one that we know of to identify the little horn in this way was a Catholic Archbishop, Eberhard II of Salzburg, around 1240 AD (Froom, Prophetic Faith, vol. 1, pp. 796-806). Why would he want to identify the little horn as being the papal power, you ask? It isn't hard to understand if we remember some of the controversies of yesteryear.

One such controversy was whether the final authority in the church should be a single man accountable to no one, or a council of representatives from churches around the world. Another one was whether the pope should be just a spiritual leader, or a political ruler too.

What added fuel to the fire of these debates was the papal see's all-too-frequent political corruption, intrigue, and immorality. It's embarrassing to say it, but not a few popes had children, as even papal writers admit. Then there was simony, the selling of church offices, like that of cardinal, to whomever could pay.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia spends more time pointing out the abuses the pontiffs suppressed than the abuses they perpetrated, for obvious reasons. Still, it says that Innocent VIII was elected to be pope through "shameless bribery." After becoming pope, "to raise money, Innocent created numerous new posts, which he sold to the highest bidders."-"Inno­cent VIII, Pope." Regarding Pope Alexander VI, New Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say:

Critical value is lacking in the pseudo-apologetic efforts made to deny Alexander's paternity of a number of children. The mothers of the first three children are unknown.... The other four children ... were born of Vannozza Cattanei.... It has not been proved that Alexander VI was the father of Orsino Orsini or Laura Orsini (b. 1492), daughter of Giulia Farnese, who was the mistress of [Alexander] at the end of his cardinalate.... However, it is certain that Alexander VI was the father of Joan de Borja .... Also sufficiently proved was Alexander's paternity of Rodrigo de Borja       Borgia."

Looks like we can't know for sure how many kids he had, but he had at least nine.

At any rate, Eberhard's views on the antichrist of Scripture struck a chord in many a Catholic's heart. Similar views were later adopted by Wycliffe, Luther, nearly all of the Protestant reformers, and the churches they founded. Even Abravanel, a Jewish expositor from Spain, identified the little horn this way in 1496 (Froom, vol. 2, pp. 55-57, 228, 229, 268).

Since the 1830's, the view that the beast and little horn are future instead of present has slowly gained ground, until today the standard views of old are largely forgotten.

Continuing with the quotation from Seventh-day Adventists Believe:

The third angel's message proclaims the most solemn and fearful warning in the Bible. It reveals that those who submit to human authority in earth's final crisis will worship the beast and his image rather than God. During this final conflict, two distinct classes will develop. One class will advocate a gospel of human devisings and will worship the beast and his image, bringing upon themselves the most grievous judgments. The other class, in marked contrast, will live by the true gospel and "keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus" (Rev. 14:9, 12). The final issue involves true and false worship, the true and the false gospel. When this issue is clearly brought before the world, those who reject God's memorial of creatorship-the Bible Sabbath-choosing to worship and honor Sunday in the full knowledge that it is not God's appointed day of worship, will receive the "mark of the beast." This mark is a mark of rebellion; the beast claims its change of the day of worship shows its authority even over God's law.-Seventh-day Adventists Believe, p. 167.

Arriving at such conclusions is quite understand­able, given the standard interpretation 150 years ago of the beast and the little horn being the papal power. Daniel 7:25 says that the little horn would "think to change times and laws." The only one of the Ten Commandments that has to do with time is the one about the Sabbath, and this is the only one that the papacy thinks it has changed.

Catholic writers have repeatedly used the change of the Sabbath as proof of Rome's absolute authority in spiritual matters. Some have even been so bold as to declare that Protestants are worshipping the authority of Rome by keeping Sunday. So it is only natural to connect worshipping the beast and receiving his mark with Sunday keeping, if one still holds to the standard view of prophecy taught for centuries from Protestant pulpits, and some Catholic pulpits as well.

Now let's utilize some of the phrases from the above quotation: Advocating a "gospel of human devisings," rejecting "God's memorial of creatorship," and "choosing to worship and honor Sunday in the full knowledge that it is not God's appointed day of worship," would not this constitute "rebellion"? All Bible-believing Christians should agree that the breaking of a command of God "in full knowledge" does indeed qualify as rebellion.

If this is severe, it isn't more so than what the apostle Paul wrote:

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. (Heb. 10:26, 27)

Oh, about those statements by Catholic writers. Perhaps you would like to read a few. The first ones below claim that the Church has changed one of the Ten Commandments, and that no basis for that change can be found in the Scriptures:

Q. Which day is the Sabbath day?

A. Saturday is the Sabbath day.

Q. Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday? A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.-Peter Geiermann, The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50.

Q. What warrant have you for keeping the Sunday, preferable to the ancient Sabbath, which was the Saturday?

A. We have for it the authority of the Catholic Church, and apostolical tradition.

Q. Does the Scripture anywhere command the Sunday to be kept for the Sabbath?

A. The Scripture commands us to hear the Church, St. Matt. xviii. 17. St. Luke x. 16, and to hold fast the traditions of the Apostles. 2 Thess. ii. 15. But the scripture does not in particular mention this change of the Sabbath.-Richard Challoner, Catholic Christian Instructed, p. 209.

The next ones use this change of the Sabbath as a proof, mark, or sign of Rome's authority:

Ques. - How prove you that the Church hath power to Command feasts and holy days?

Ans. - By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which the Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church.

Ques. - How prove you that?

Ans. - Because by keeping Sunday they acknowl­edge the Church's power to ordain feasts, and to command them under sin; and by not keeping the rest by her commanded, they again deny, in fact, the same power.-Henry Tuberville, Abridgment of Christian Doctrine, p. 58.

Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?

A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her;--she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no scriptural authority.-Stephen Keenan, Doctrinal Catechism, p. 174.

The Church is above the Bible; and this transference of Sabbath observance from Saturday to Sunday is proof positive of that fact.-London, Ontario, Catholic Record, Sept. 1, 1923, p. 4.

The next one claims that Sunday observance is an act of worship to the authority of Rome.

It was the Catholic Church which, by the authority of Jesus Christ, has transferred this rest to the Sunday in remembrance of the resurrection of our Lord. Thus the observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the Church.-Louis Gaston de Segur, Plain Talk about the Protestants of Today, p. 225.

The next one criticizes the use of certain Bible verses in support of Sunday observance by some Protestants:

The word of God commandeth the seventh day to be the Sabbath of our Lord, and to be kept holy: you [Protestants] without any precept of scripture, change it to the first day of the week, only authorized by our traditions. Divers English Puritans oppose against this point, that the observation of the first day is proved out of scripture, where it is said the first day of the week. Acts xx,7; lCor.xvi,2; Rev.i,10. Have they not spun a fair thread in quoting these places? If we should produce no better for purgatory and prayers for the dead, invocation of the saints, and the like, they might have good cause indeed to laugh us to scorn; for where is it written that these were Sabbath days in which those meetings were kept? Or where is it ordained they should be always observed? Or, which is the sum of all, where is it decreed that the observation of the first day should abrogate or abolish the sanctifying of the seventh day, which God commanded everlastingly to be kept holy? Not one of those is expressed in the written word of God.-An Antidote, or Treatise of Thirty Controversies.

This is but a sampling. Many similar statements could be cited.

#181 & #182: "So, even today, Seventh-day Adventists have made salvation ultimately dependent on which day of the week one worships."

#181: They've made salvation ultimately dependent on which day ... Since Seventh-day Adventists for the last century and a half have taught that there are Sunday keepers who are bound for heaven and Sabbath keepers who are bound for hell (see #176), how can this possibly be true?

#182:... of the week one worships. Notice Mr. M___'s use of the present tense for the word "worship" when talking about an event that he knows Adventists consistently place in the future (see #176 and #178).

#183 & #184: "Several New Testament Scriptures clearly identify the seal of God as a work of the Holy Spirit, not the keeping of a Sabbath day. For example Ephesians 4:30 plainly says, 'And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.' Mrs. White has no support at all for linking the seal of God with Sabbath keeping."

#183: Several New Testament Scriptures say that the seal is the work of the Holy Spirit, not the keeping of the Sabbath. It isn't that simple. Does Ephesians 4:30 say that the Holy Spirit is the seal, or does it say that the Holy Spirit is the one who applies the seal? This distinction is potentially crucial.

First of all, let's look at the passage upon which the whole discussion is based, where the end-time seal is likened to an object held in the hand rather than the Holy Spirit:

And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads. And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel. (Rev. 7:2-4)

Of course, this seal isn't merely the Sabbath, as made clear by James White under #176, as well as the following:

Just as soon as the people of God are sealed in their foreheads-it is not any seal or mark that can be seen, but a settling into the truth, both intellectually and spiritually, so they cannot be moved Last Day Events, pp. 219, 220.

To put it another way, the seal of God has something to do with sanctification, an idea sup­ported by the following Scripture: "And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads" (Rev. 14:1). Those sealed have the Father's name in their fore­heads. This signifies that they fully belong to God and reflect His righteous character. They are sancti­fied, and the Holy Spirit is the active agent in that process:

But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor. 6:11)

Because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: (2 Thess. 2:13)

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. (1 Pet. 1:2)

While the Holy Spirit is the active agent in the work of sealing God's people, He Himself may not be the end-time seal. The last verse cited said that we are sanctified by the Spirit "unto obedience."

Obedience to what?

The seal of God is in opposition to the mark of the beast. In chapter 13 of Revelation we have a descrip­tion both of the beast and of the enforcement of his mark. Next comes Revelation 14:1, already quoted, which mentions those who are sealed with the seal of God. Then comes the warning of the three angels, the last of which warns the world against taking the mark of the beast. All this is sandwiched between the following two verses:

And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. (Rev. 12:17)

Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. (Rev. 14:12)

These two verses suggest that the end-time struggle between the mark and the seal has something to do with God's commandments.

The seal is to go in the forehead. The mark may go in either the forehead or the hand. This is imagery taken from Deuteronomy where, after Moses repeats the Ten Commandments in chapter 5, he says, "And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes" (Deut. 6:8). Since Moses said to put the Ten Commandments in the forehead and hand, this suggests that the seal has something to do with obedience to the Ten Commandments. Isaiah 8:16 indicates the same: "Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples."

So God wants to place His law in our minds, which is the promise of the New Covenant, and the beast wants to place a counterfeit there instead, If the beast can't get us to believe his counterfeit with our minds, if he can't put the mark in our foreheads, then he is satisfied if he can get us to do it with our hands, to go along with the flow.

Now let's get a little more specific. A seal shows ownership or authority. It shows who the ruler is who gave the law in question, and typically contains both his name and his title. Looking through the Ten Commandments, we find that eight or nine of them might be given by just about any god on the planet. Various gods command their adherents to be good moral people, not killing, not stealing, and not committing adultery. But the fourth commandment is different from the rest. It identifies the God who gave this holy law:

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Ex. 20:8-11)

Only the God of heaven, the Living God, could make this claim of being the creator of all. The fourth commandment is thus the only one of the ten that contains His seal and identifies who the great Law Giver is.

Interestingly, the italicized words are quoted in the warning of the first angel of Revelation 14: "Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters" (Rev. 14:6, 7).

The fact that language found in Revelation's description of the seal-mark issue is taken from the fourth commandment is evidence that the seal has something to do specifically with the fourth com­mandment.

Consider what Paul said:

And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also. (Rom. 4:11)

Here the words sign and seal are used interchange­ably in reference to circumcision, which at that time symbolized righteousness by faith. The Sabbath has likewise been a sign of righteousness by faith, or sanctification (Ex. 31:13; Ezek. 20:12). God intended

for the Sabbath to bring His people into a closer relationship with Himself: "And hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the LORD your God" (Ezek. 20:20).

Even in New Testament times, the Sabbath is a sign of righteousness by faith, if we believe what the apostle Paul wrote:

For we which have believed do enter into rest .... For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.... There remaineth therefore a rest [Greek: a keeping of a Sabbath] to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. (Heb. 4:3-10)

So just as in Old Testament times, the Sabbath is to be a sign today that the believer is ceasing from his own works, that he is seeking to be saved and sanctified by faith through the Holy Spirit. That makes the Sabbath a sign of salvation by faith, not salvation by works.

Consider also the fact that the papal power has claimed that the change of the Sabbath to Sunday is her mark of authority (see #180). Now if Eberhard, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and all the rest were correct in who they said the antichrist of prophecy is, would not the seal of God have to contrast with the beast's mark in some way? If the beast claims that a day of worship is his mark, would not the seal also have to have something to do with a day of worship? Of course.

Besides the allusion to Deuteronomy 6:8, Revela­tion 13 contains another helpful allusion: "And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed" (Rev. 14:15). This refers to Daniel 3, where we have a law enforcing false worship at a particular time:

That at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up. (Dan. 3:5)

Therefore at that time, when all the people heard the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and all kinds of musick, all the people, the nations, and the languages, fell down and worshipped the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up. (Dan. 3:7)

Thou, 0 king, hast made a decree, that every man that shall hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, shall fall down and worship the golden image. (Dan. 3:10)

Now if ye be ready that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the image which I have made; well: but if ye worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands? (Dan. 3:15)

The fact that Revelation 13 makes an allusion to this story implies that the seal-mark issue has to do not only with the commandments but also with the time of worship, the same idea suggested by Daniel 7:25. And the only one of the ten that has anything to do with the time of worship is the fourth.

Shall we look at just one more allusion from Revelation? "And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed" (Rev. 13:12). Notice how it says that he causes both the "earth" and its inhabitants to worship the first beast. How might the earth, the land, the ground, the dirt, the soil worship? We have a single passage in Scripture that identifies an act of worship on the part of the land, and it too should be considered in this discussion:

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land which I give you, then shall the land keep a sabbath unto the LORD. Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof; But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for the LORD: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard. (Lev. 25:2-4)

So the allusion to Deuteronomy 6 tells us that the seal-mark issue has something to do with the Ten Commandments, and the allusion to Daniel 3 tells us it has something to do with a legislated time of worship. This last allusion to Leviticus 25 completes the picture, telling us it must have something to do with a sabbath of some sort.

Lastly, consider what Ezekiel says:

And he brought me into the inner court of the LORD'S house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east.... And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house. (Ezek. 8:16-9:6)

So the imagery of Revelation is also taken from here, where we have sun worshippers being slain by God after not receiving His sign in their foreheads.

Sun worship? What does that have to do with Sunday? It is an historical fact that the religion of sun worship infiltrated the Christian church in the early centuries, and it was this infiltration that gave us Sunday as a day of worship. At least, this is what a journal published by the largest church in the world has said, a church that existed at the time the infiltration was taking place:

The church ... took the pagan Sunday and made it the Christian Sunday.... Hence the church in these countries would seem to have said, "Keep that old, pagan name. It shall remain consecrated, sanctified." And thus the pagan Sunday, dedicated to Balder, became the Christian Sunday, dedicated to Jesus. The sun is a fitting emblem of Jesus. The Fathers often compared Jesus to the sun; as they compared Mary to the moon, the beautiful moon, the beautiful Mary, shedding her mild beneficent light in the darkness and night of this world. . .Catholic World, March 1894, p. 809.

This article's primary purpose was explaining how Easter used to be a pagan festival in honor of the sun, but how it was eventually Christianized. When this writer was in Hungary the fall of 1999, he visited some of the old cathedrals there and saw emblems of the sun above many of the altars. Evidence abounds that fragments of sun worship did indeed infiltrate the Christian church.

#184: Mrs. White has no support at all for linking the seal with the Sabbath. That this statement has no support at all can be seen from what appears immediately above.

And if that weren't enough, the papacy in recent years has called upon its followers to promote Sunday legislation in their respective countries (Dies Domini, May 31, 1998, sect. 65-67). What will it take before such efforts succeed? Why, it will take the pressure of the greatest nation on earth. And this is precisely what Adventists foretold, based solely on Bible study, long before America ever gained the position of world dominance that it has today (The Great Controversy, pp. 439-449).

In the 1880's some states in this nation used blue laws to harshly persecute those who kept the Bible Sabbath. At the same time, Sunday keepers who worked on Sunday were treated mildly (Alonzo Jones, The Two Republics, pp. 786-796).

Adventists have been predicting for a century and a half that the United States would lead the world in enforcing Sunday rest. Such a prediction is definitely not without historical precedent.

14. Sunday vs. the Lord's Day, and the Scapegoat

#185, #186, #187, #188, #189, & #190: "Christ's followers met on the Lord's Day resurrection day, for their worship and breaking of bread, not on the Jewish Sabbath."

#185: The Lord's Day is the resurrection day. Since the video apparently is trying to uplift the Bible as the authority for Christians, it may be assumed that Mr. M__ is using the Bible as his authority for this statement. Yet the Bible does not teach what he just said. The first time that an authentic, extant document equates the Lord's Day with the day of the resurrection is the last half of the second century (Samuele Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday, p. 17). That's fifty years or more after the apostle John's death, and over a century after the death of our Lord.

What does the Bible say?

If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: (Is. 58:13)

So the Sabbath is the LORD's Day, but is that the Lord Jesus, or God the Father. Throughout these last chapters of Isaiah, sometimes it is clearly Jesus Himself that is speaking:

The LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment. And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him. (Is. 59:15, 16)

Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the winefat? I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment.... And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me. (Is. 63:3-5)

Now compare this with the following description of Jesus in the book of Revelation: "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.... and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God" (Rev. 19:13-15).

So the "LORD" in Isaiah 59:15 must be Jesus. Then would not the "LORD" in Isaiah 58:13, just sixteen verses previous, also be Jesus? Therefore, the Sabbath must be the Lord Jesus' special day, according to His own words. And really, there is no biblical basis for calling any other day but the seventh-day Sabbath the Lord's Day.

So was this the day of the resurrection? Not at all. Christ rose on the first day of the week, not the seventh (Mark 16:9; Luke 24:1,13,20,21). Even today we identify the day of the crucifixion with Good Friday and the day of the resurrection with Easter Sunday. The Lord's Day Sabbath was the day between the two (Luke 23:54-56).

The documentation package describes "Point 89 & 89a" in the index in this way: "Christ's followers met on the 'Lord's day' (Sunday--resurrection day) according to the Bible for their fellowship and communion. (On the Jewish Sabbath Christ preached in the synagogue.)"

Turning to "Point 89" and "Point 89a," one finds a two-page tract by MacGregor Ministries. Amidst its many assertions, this tract makes no attempt to prove from the Scriptures that the first day of the week rather than the seventh day is the Lord's Day.

#186: Christ's followers met regularly on the resurrection day for their worship. In all the New Testament, out of a grand total of eight references to the first day of the week, we have only one explicit mention of the disciples meeting on the first day of the week for worship. How can anyone then assume that this means they met regularly for worship on that day?

Let's consider the eight references. Five of them merely mention the fact that Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week (Mat. 28:1; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1). In the sixth reference, on the day of the resurrection, the disciples were "assembled for fear of the Jews," not for worship (John 20:19). We have but two references left to go.

In the seventh reference Paul wrote, "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God bath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come" (1 Cor. 16:2). Nothing about worship services here. It tells each of the believers at Corinth to "lay by him" the offering he felt he could give when Paul next came through town. Everyone must have had some place in his house where he could "lay by him" the offering he wanted to set aside. If he had put his offering into the offering plate at church, it would no longer be "by him."

Thus, instead of being evidence in favor of regular Sunday church services, this text is evidence against such a practice. The believer was to determine on Sunday what he could give from his profits from the previous week. Why not calculate it on the Sabbath? Because he was resting on that day and was at church.

Now for the eighth and final reference:

And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together. (Acts 20:7, 8)

This is the only New Testament reference to a meeting for worship on the first day of the week. Yet notice that it was the night of the first day of the week. Since the biblical days begin at sunset, as Mr. M___ emphatically told us under #164, this would have to be Saturday night rather than Sunday night. Thus Paul met with the disciples on the first day of the week, Saturday night, and he was ready to depart on the morrow, Sunday morning. In other words, he resumed his journey on Sunday morning instead of going to church (see Acts 20:13, 14).

It is therefore utterly impossible to make a biblical case for the early church keeping Sunday as a regular day of worship.

#187: They did not meet for worship on the Sabbath. The book of Acts tells us differently.

While there is only one explicit reference to the disciples meeting for worship on the first day of the week, there are a number of explicit references to their worshipping on the Sabbath. Take for example this one: "But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down" (Acts 13:14).

No, they didn't just meet with Jews on the Sabbath, and Paul explicitly connected such Sabbath worship services with the grace of God:

And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. (Acts 13:42-44)

If Sunday was the regular day of worship, why didn't Paul say, "Come back tomorrow. I will be preaching on Sunday"? Why did the Gentiles have to wait until the following Sabbath to hear the Word of God preached? And if keeping the Sabbath is so legalistic, why did Paul say that the Sabbath keepers were "in the grace of God"?

Paul even worshipped upon the Sabbath when there was no Jewish synagogue in town: "And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither" (Acts 16:13).

The only Bible writer who was a Gentile was Luke, who wrote the Gospel called by his name and the book of Acts. He must have felt Sabbath keeping was important, for notice how particular he was to tell us that both Jesus and Paul habitually worshipped upon the Sabbath, something no other Bible writer tells us:

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. (Luke 4:16)

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures. (Acts 17:2)

And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. (Acts 18:4)

So the statement that Christ's followers did not meet for worship on the Sabbath is simply not true.

#188: They usually broke bread on the resurrection day. There is no biblical basis for such a claim. True, they met to break bread on Saturday night according to Acts 20:7, but the Bible says they broke bread "daily":

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.... And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart. (Acts 2:42-46)

That being so, they could just as well break bread on Saturday morning, the seventh day of the week, as on Saturday night, the first day of the week.

 #189: Christ's followers did not break bread on the Sabbath. As just noted above, the disciples broke bread daily. Since the Sabbath is one of the days of the week, the disciples must have broken bread on that day as well.

So on which day did they usually break bread? Though it's easy to assume that the answer is probably the biblical Lord's Day, the seventh day of the week, it should be noted that the Bible is silent on that question.

 #190: The Sabbath is Jewish. Even if this were true, which it isn't, what would it prove? Our Savior is Jewish, and 64 of the 66 books of the Bible are too. If we must reject the Sabbath for such a reason, how can we remain Christians?

If the Sabbath is Jewish, why did Jesus say, "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" (Mark 2:27)? He didn't say that the Sabbath was made just for Jews. He said it was made for man.

Of Jesus it is said, "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made" (John 1:3). Since He's the one who made the Sabbath for man, He ought to know what He's talking about.

Interestingly, the name Adam is also one of the Hebrew words for "man." Thus Jesus in Mark 2:27 is referring to the making of both the Sabbath and Adam in Genesis 2.

More than this, the Greek of Mark 2:27 says that the Sabbath was made for "the man", not "the man" for the Sabbath. Why did Jesus say "the man" instead of just "man"?

In the first eleven chapters of Genesis, the Hebrew word adam occurs 52 times, always in the singular, and is translated "Adam," "man," and "men." In 43 of these 52 times, adam occurs with the definite article "the." In 7 of the remaining 9, from Genesis 4:25 to 5:5, adam is used as a proper noun, and so the definite article is omitted. Only in 1:26 and 2:5 does the word adam appear neither as a proper noun nor with the definite article.

First the Hebrew phrase "the man" means either Adam or both Adam and Eve. Then, beginning with Genesis 6:1-7, the phrase begins to mean not just Adam but his descendants as well, or in other words, all mankind. Therefore, when Jesus said that He made the Sabbath for "the man," He meant that He made it for Adam and all his descendants, since that is precisely what "the man" means. How then can anyone declare the Sabbath to be merely "Jewish"?

Paul uses similar language when talking about the woman: "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man" (1 Cor. 11:9). If the Sabbath that was made for the man is really Jewish, then the woman that was made for the man is really Jewish as well. Essentially, that would mean that marriage is only for the Jew, not for the Gentile.

Adam took but two things out of the garden with him: the Sabbath and marriage. Both are under attack today. Even though the Lord blesses and sanctifies but one woman per man on wedding day, there are those who declare it doesn't matter what woman you keep. And though Jesus blessed and sanctified but one day for us, there are those who will say that you can keep any day you want.

#191: "Adventists further deviate in their salvation doctrine by teaching that Satan ultimately becomes the sin-bearer. They teach he bears away the sins of the world. 'As the priest in removing the sins from the sanctuary, confess them upon the head of the scapegoat, so Christ will place all these sins upon Satan, the originator and instigator of sin...' Great Controversy p. 485."

#191: Satan becomes the sin-bearer. Though the term "sin-bearer" appears in Mrs. White's published and released writings at least 186 times, she not once said that Satan is our "sin-bearer." She consistently taught that Christ is our "only sin-bearer":

In His intercession as our advocate, Christ needs no man's virtue, no man's intercession. He is the only sin-bearer, the only sin-offering.-Signs of the Times, June 28, 1899.

How hard poor mortals strive to be sin-bearers for themselves and for others! but the only sin-bearer is Jesus Christ. He alone can be my substitute and sin-bearer. The forerunner of Christ exclaimed, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."-Review and Herald, June 9, 1896.

Proclaim remission of sins through Christ, the only Sin-bearer, the only Sin-pardoner. Proclaim the remission of sins through repentance toward God and faith in Christ, and God will ratify your testimony. -The Voice in Speech and Song, p. 340.

Now if Jesus is our "only sin-bearer," how can Satan be one too?

Mr. M___ quote from Great Controversy appears in its entirety under "Point 90" in the documentation package, the only "proof" given for the charge. Notice carefully what even the part quoted in the video says: "As the priest in removing the sins from the sanctuary... Now if the high priest, representing Jesus Christ, removes the sins by carrying them in his own person, must he not be the sin-bearer?

Mr. M___ refers to what Seventh-day Adventists believe that the closing ceremonies of the services of the Day of Atonement represent. This has nothing to do with who the sin-bearer is. Consider carefully the following verses:

And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat [the Hebrew reads "for Azazel"]. (Lev. 16:8)

And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat: 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 in all their sins, putting them upon 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 go the goat in the wilderness. (Lev. 16:20-22)

Notice that the goat for Azazel has the sins put upon him only after the high priest has made an end of reconciling. Since the word for "reconciling" is the Hebrew word for "atoning," this means that the sins are only put upon him after the end of the atonement.

The high priest represents Jesus. Whom would Jesus put the sins of God's people upon after He has finished the atonement? Himself? If so, why would He need to have sins placed upon Himself after the atonement is finished?

If the only atonement that ever was or ever shall be occurred at the cross, why would Jesus place sins upon Himself after He had already died for sin?

The Adventist position that Azazel is Satan makes more sense and raises less questions: After the atonement is finished, Jesus our high priest, the great Sin-bearer, will place all our sins upon Azazel, Satan, since he is the cause and instigator of all sin.

Let's deal with several points one at a time. First of all, how do we know that Azazel is a name for Satan? We already saw that the book of I Enoch identifies Azazel as being a fallen angel. Consider also the following discussion by John N. Andrews, and his citation of scholars who were not Adventists:

Mr. [Charles] Beecher states two views respecting the meaning of this term Azazel, each of which he shows to be manifestly untrue. He then gives his own view, as follows:­

"The third opinion is, that Azazel is a proper name of Satan. In support of this, the following points are urged: The use of the preposition implies it. The same preposition is used on both lots, La Yehova, La Azazel; and if the one indicates a person, it seems natural the other should, especially considering the act of casting lots. If one is for Jehovah, the other would seem for some other person or being; not one for Jehovah, and the other for the goat itself.

"What goes to confirm this is, that the most ancient paraphrases and translations treat Azazel as a proper name. The Chaldee paraphrase and the targums of Onkelos and Jonathan would certainly have trans­lated it if it was not a proper name, but they do not. The Septuagint, or oldest Greek version, renders it by apopompaios, a word applied by the Greeks to a malign deity, sometimes appeased by sacrifices.

"Another confirmation is found in the Book of Enoch, where the name Azalzel, evidently a corruption of Azazel, is given to one of the fallen angels, thus plainly showing what was the prevalent understanding of the Jews at that day.

"Still another evidence is found in the Arabic, where Azazel is employed as the name of the evil spirit.

"In addition to these, we have the evidence of the Jewish work, Zohar, and of the Cabalistic and Rabbinical writers. They tell us that the following proverb was current among the Jews: 'On the day of atonement, a gift to Sammael [a Jewish name for Satan].' .. .

"Another step in the evidence is when we find this same opinion passing from the Jewish to the early Christian church. Origen was the most learned of the Fathers, and on such a point as this, the meaning of a Hebrew word, his testimony is reliable. Says Origen: 'He who is called in the Septuagint apopompaios and in the Hebrew Azazel, is no other than the devil.'

"Lastly, a circumstance is mentioned of the Emperor Julian, the apostate, that confirms the argument. He brought as an objection against the Bible, that Moses commanded a sacrifice to the evil spirit. An objection he never could have thought of, had not Azazel been generally regarded as a proper name.

"In view, then, of the difficulties attending any other meaning, and the accumulated evidence in favor of this, Hengstenberg affirms with great confidence that Azazel cannot be anything else but another name for Satan....

"The meaning of the term, viewed as a proper name, was stated in 1677, by Spencer, Dean of Ely, to be Powerful Apostate, or Mighty Receder."

Mr. Beecher, on the seventy-second page of his work, states that Professor Bush considers Azazel to be a proper name of Satan.

Gesenius, the great Hebrew lexicographer, says:­

"Azazel, a word found only in the law respecting the day of atonement. Lev.16:8,10,26.... it seems to denote an evil demon dwelling in the desert and to be placated with victims .... This name Azazel is also used by the Arabs for an evil demon."

Milton represents Azazel as one of the fallen angels, and the standard-bearer of Satan .... Paradise Lost, book 1.

The "Comprehensive Commentary" has the following important remarks:­

"Scape-goat. See different opinions in Bochart. Spencer, after the oldest opinions of the Hebrews and Christians, thinks Azazel is the name of the devil; and so Rosenmuller, whom see. The Syriac has Azzail, the angel (strong one) who revolted."

"Cassell's Illustrated Bible" speaks thus of the scape-goat:­

"We offer the following exposition as much more likely, and much more satisfactory: That Azazel is a personal denomination for the evil one."-J. N. Andrews, The Judgment, Its Events and Their Order, pp. 78-81.

Now for our next point. Leviticus 16:22 said that "the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited." If this goat is Satan, is he not a sin-bearer, even if the atonement is already over, since he is bearing sin? And what about when Andrews said:

To show the reasonableness of that act which rolls back upon Satan the sins of the people of God, and also to define the nature of the act, let us carefully state the case. Every sin committed by men is instigated by Satan. This part of the transgression is the sin of Satan alone, and belongs solely to him, whether men repent or not. But consenting to the tempter, and obeying him, is the sin of the one tempted. This part of the transgression will, in the case of all who avail themselves of the work of our High Priest, be placed upon the antitypical scape­goat, Satan, and he will have to bear the full punishment of all such sins.

One of the most important events, therefore, in the opening of the great day of judgment, is that of placing the sins of the overcomers upon the head of the great author of sin.-Mid., pp. 81, 82.

So what about it? If Satan bears "the full punishment" of certain sins after the atonement is over, does that not make him a sin-bearer? Not at all.

Every Bible-believing Christian knows that those who do not place their sins on the great Sin-bearer Jesus Christ will have to bear the full punishment of their own sins. Does then the unsaved person become his own sin-bearer? Of course not. Even though he has to bear the full punishment of his own sins, he does not become a sin-bearer.

The term "sin-bearer" carries the connotation of Savior, substitute, and mediator. This the unsaved can never be.

How Jesus can transfer sin to something after the atonement is finished is not the only thing Adventist theology explains. The first gospel promise said that Satan's head would be crushed under the feet of the "seed," which Paul identifies as both Christ and his followers (Gen. 3:15; Gal. 3:16, 29). Paul also says that "the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly" (Rom. 16:20). While it is easy to see how Christ will crush Satan's head, what part do the redeemed have in all this? If after the atonement is over, Christ were to place their sins upon Satan, and Satan were to suffer punishment for those sins, then the redeemed would indeed have a part to play in the crushing of his head.

Placing sins upon the scapegoat after the atone­ment is over has nothing to do with our salvation. It has everything to do with the punishment of the great rebel who has caused so much misery on planet earth.

#192: "How different this is from the clear message of Scripture which says of Jesus that He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross. The apostle John exclaimed, 'Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.' Truly salvation must be centered on Christ alone."

#192: Christ bore our sins on the cross, so Satan can't be our sin-bearer. The point is irrelevant, for Seventh-day Adventists believe wholeheartedly that Christ bore our sins on the cross, and that salvation is centered in Christ alone. It really is inappropriate to use a verse that says Christ bore our sins on the cross to prove that Satan cannot be the scapegoat after the atonement is finished (see #191).

According to Holy Scripture, the sins are placed on the goat for Azazel by the high priest after the atonement is finished. Therefore, Christ our high priest will place the sins on someone after salvation is completely over. If this be not Satan, then who is it?