Untash Gal .... conv. ca. 1260 BC
Untash Huban .... conv. ??

Abdi-Milkuti ............................................ time of Essarhadon
Tetramnestus, son of Anysus .................... ca. 480 BC ... (Herodotus)
Ešmun `azor ............................................ ??
Tabnit, son of Ešmun `azor ...................... ??
Ešmun `azor II, son of Tabnit ................... ??
Bod `aštart, grandson of Ešmun `azor ....... ??
Yatonmilk, son of Bod aštart ..................... ??
Ba Išillem I. ............................................. ca. 420-410 BC (?)
Abd' amon, son of Ba Išillem ................... ??
Ba' ana, son of Abd 'amon ....................... ??
Ba Išillem II., son of Ba 'ana .................... ??
Straton ..................................................... ??
[Thomas Kelly, Herodotus and the Kings of Sidon in ASOR Bulletin, No. 268, Nov 1987, p. 39-56.]

The Archaeology of Hasanlu, Iran, in the context of Ashurnasirpal II/ Ben Hadad/ Abdi Ashirta/ Tushrata/ Yuya

"Assyrian objects seem to outweigh North Syrian works at Hasanlu, not only in quantity but also in providing specific prototypes for elements on the breastplate. Furthermore, virtually all of the North Syrian objects found at the site occur also at the 9th century Assyrian capital of Nimrud, and at present there is not enough evidence to substantiate direct contact between North Syria and northwest Iran in this period. Rather, as noted by Young with regard to architectural forms, the Assyrians could well have acted as a link between the two areas, and been responsible for the distribution of North Syrian goods to Iran. ...
It will be remembered that a great number of the iconographic parallels for the breastplate came from the garment decoration on Assyrian reliefs, decorations generally thought to represent elaborately patterned embroidery. ... Thus it would not be untoward at all to postulate that Neo-Assyrian textiles, too, may have played a role in western Iranian art of the early 1st millenium.
....
Several objects found at Hasanlu in recent years reflect ties to the West, even if they cannot with assurance be demonstrated to have been imports. One such object is a conical bronze helmet found in Burned Building II. With its median ridge and curving bands at the front, it is virtually a model for the helmet worn by the central figure on the breastplate (of a horse). Helmets of this general type may be seen on Assyrian reliefs of the 9th century BC; however, whether the Hasanlu helmet must then be an import is not clear. ... this is not the only helmet found at Hasanlu level IVB. Some are quite distinct, with high crests and ear flaps, while others are very similar to the conical type but squatter and less pointed in shape. It is worthy of note that this squat type is closer to the helmet worn on the breastplate than the taller version, and reflects the distinction made in the Ashurnasirpal II relief which Barnett has suggested represents Iranians.

Additional Objects showing relations of Hasanlu with Syria

1. A large, fragmentary copper/bronze bowl showing a detail of holding an animal by its tail which is known from North Syrian and Assyrian contexts, e.g., on the

a) Tell Tainat frontlet,
b) on a North Syrian bowl of the 9th century found in the Kerameikos cemetery of Athens, and on
c) Assyrian garment decorations from the reliefs at Nimrud.

(01) E.A.W. Budge wrote about the now dated discovery of ancient Egyptian tombs by Major General F. Greenfell on the west bank of the Nile at the 1st cataract and a little below the Island of Elephantine. 250 steps led to the grave #25, that of a hereditary prince called `Mechu', the highest priestly, military, and civil dignitary in the whole district. Tomb #26, that of `BEN or BENA' had the name of `Ra-nefer-ka'/ Pepi of the 6th dynasty in its inscriptions. Another tomb, that of `Se-Renpu', 12th dynasty, was also found. [See PSBA, Feb 1887, p. 78-83.]

The list includes: De Sarec († 1901); L. Heuzey († 1922); F. Thureau-Dangin († 1944); G. Cros († 1915); H. de Genouillac († 1940); A. Parrot († ?) in A. Parrot, Tello, Paris, 1948, p. 33.

IN MORE RECENT TIMES
Edward Irving (1832)- rapturist
J.N. Darby (Plymouth Brethren) - pretribulation rapture

IN MORE RECENT TIMES
* Campegius Vitringa - said 2nd resurrection that of literal dead
* Daniel Whitby - Second Coming only after 1000 years (1703)
This view had a profound influence: `As men began to contemplate a great vista of peace and safety, they ceased to be eager for the second advent, and came to substitute the expectancy of death for Christ's return. This view was introduced in America by:
* Jonathan Edwards
* Samuel Hopkins

As it is today, so it was also during the formation of the early Christian church, all sorts of viewpoints arose, a rare one of which came down to us in written form. One of the designations coming to us from the 1st century A.D. is the term Gnostics. Who were they? The Gnostics taught that Jesus was not really the Son of God. In their thinking, all things of substance, matter and nature are evil, and only the spirit was good. Of course in their mind, influenced by the learning which came out of Alexandria - which came out of Greece and Egypt, man had a spirit soul which would go on living after a person dies. This was not Hebrew ancient believe, according to which, at death, all of a person decays in the grave and does not receive life until resurrection day. The Gnostics held, since God was good (and a spirit), He could not Himself, personally, create a material (evil) world, thereby completely ignoring the message of the Book of Genesis. They also argued that since spirit and matter could not intermingle, Jesus Christ and God could not have united in the person of Jesus.

Of course the Scriptures testify to the understanding that things, matter, are just that and there is no moral attribute associated to elemental substances except perhaps what people perceive. The iron atoms in a sword do not posses a quality like evil any more than those in an anvil, but the man swinging it may be evil. Their self imposed idea of what God could or could not do, becomes evident in Gnosticism.

Was Judas Iscariot really a hero?

The world has not yet had enough of Dan Brown's novel, The Da Vinci Code-40 million copies sold, and the paperback edition and the movie have not yet even been released-and out comes another potential blockbuster that supposedly threatens to undermine yet another traditional image in early Christianity. The newly publicized 'Gospel of Judas' - also, like The Da Vinci Code, Gnostically-based - would aspire to rehabilitate the historical image of Judas Iscariot, from traitor and betrayer of Jesus, to close confidant of the Messiah who specifically tasked him (Judas) to betray him to enable him (Jesus) to fulfill his messianic mission.

Whilst the 'Gospel of Judas' is certainly an ancient document, reliably dated it seems to less than 300 years from the Biblical era of which it speaks, it must be noted that it is still significantly pre-dated by the four traditional Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), which present a portrait of Judas that is totally at variance with the portrait of him given in the so-called 'Gospel of Judas'.

Prior to Easter 2006 we have had occasion again to reflect upon the Gospel narratives that tell of Judas, unequivocally, as the betrayer of Jesus (e.g. Mark 14:10), having none of the supposed 'higher' motives - or destiny - as claimed in the 'Gospel of Judas', according to which Jesus is said to have told Judas:

'Step away from the others and I shall tell you the mysteries of the kingdom. It is possible for you to reach it, but you will grieve a great deal … Let the perfect person in you step forward and approach me. Only Judas can understand … Your brilliance will eclipse the others. Your star will lead the way … You have been told everything. You will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me …'.

This has prompted the suggestion that the 'Gospel of Judas' might be used as a basis for improving relations between Christians and Jews. For example, one reads in The Daily Telegraph (Sydney, Australia), in an article entitled "Ultimate traitor or agent of divine plan" (p. 52, 11 April 2006): "This new take on Judas [i.e. the 'Gospel of Judas'] could help Pope Benedict's drive to improve Christian-Jewish relations".

But the traditional four Gospels provide abundant reasons why Judas Iscariot would be the worst possible basis upon which to pursue any worthwhile charitable endeavours.

John the Evangelist for instance, who in fact, not Judas, was "the one whom Jesus loved" (John 13:23), has left us a chilling portrait of his co-Apostle. Judas it was who would protest against Mary of Magdalene's act of abundant love and generosity towards Jesus, just prior to his Death, when she anointed his feet with "costly perfume made of pure nard" (12:3-6):

But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was about to betray him), said, 'Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor?' (He said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it).

But some time before this incident, Jesus had uttered these terrible words about Judas (John 6:70): 'Did I not choose you, the twelve? Yet one of you is a devil'. To which John adds: "He was speaking of Judas son of Simon Iscariot, for he, though one of the twelve, was going to betray him".

Often the worst hypocrites and cheats are to be found within the Church, where they can best hide, for long undetected, under a veneer of goodness. Such was Judas. He is portrayed in the Gospels as a most sinister figure; one into whom Satan had entered (13:27) - a thief and a hypocrite. Immediately after Jesus had, at the Last Supper, identified Judas to Peter and John as the betrayer of whom He had spoken, Judas departed. John adds the dramatic words: "And it was night".

Judas would have been useful to the Jewish authorities as one who could have pinpointed Jesus for them amidst the large Passover crowds. After his having betrayed Jesus with a kiss in the Garden of Gethsemane, Judas "went and hanged himself" (Matthew 27: 5). "… and falling headlong", according to Acts 1:18, "he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out"; a fact that "became known to all the residents of Jerusalem" (v. 19).

Such was the destiny of Judas, as recorded by the Apostles, his contemporaries, well before the spurious 'Gospel of Judas' was written by the Gnostics to proclaim Judas as a hero in the story of salvation.

But let the Incarnate Word, Jesus Christ himself, have the last word on the tragedy that was Judas Iscariot:

'Woe to the one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that one not to have been born' (Mark 14:21).

"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect." Matthew 24:24.

Should we commit such ideas to our memory? In fact, it is our God given human memory which gives us the power to recall events which in turn can shape our convictions. `Oh, I have seen this before,' we may say. `I know its true,' we may conclude. But an atheist, one who wants it to be true that nature is all there is, will of course object to organized, conscientious awareness and turn it into animal instincts.

Older books tell that the Middle East was rich in wild animal fauna. Among them were: stag elks (Cervus Elaphus), Dammelk (Dama Platykeros), gazelles (Antilope dorcas), wild goats (Capra sinaitica), badgers (Hyrax syriacus), the Persian lion (Leo persicus), brown bears, striped Hyena (Hyaena striata), the oryx antelope (Antilope leucoryx), leopards (Felis pardus) and martins (Mustela vulgaris).

Fish Mitre
Fish Mitres were in use among pagan Assyrian priests in their mystery services and can at times be seen represented in their sculptures. The mouth of the fish opens up above their head, a feature symbolized by gaped mitres. Mitres are used everywhere by highly placed church officials.

Solar Blazes, Halos and Discs
The sun disc or wheels are a symbol of the sun and used for millennia during the hey days of paganism. Two solar wheels can be seen mounted on a crescent on a relief in the Louvre, Paris. Solar blazes can be seen in artful representations in connection with the god of happiness of Japan; behind the head of images of Buddhist and Krishna statues in India; behind the head of a typical statue in the Westminster Cathedral, London; many religious saints (Mary) are surrounded by stylized solar blazes. Often a solar blaze is composed of a combination of straight and wavy rays in which the straight rays represent phallic and wavy rays yonic aspects of human sexual conception. [Image shows halo of Japanese god of happiness, Krishna, a Hindu deity and a typical Roman Catholic Statue, Westminster Cathedral. They represent pagan, i.e. Satanic symbols.]

The Sun God
The Romans have a number of representations of human heads surrounded by lion like hair doe arranged in horns and rays representing their sun god. Such can be seen in Roman baths in Bath, England; as the face of Apollo, the Greek sun-god, on the facade of the Temple of Apollo in the Museum of Berlin. The face in the sun with horns represents the adoration of the horned sun god of Babylon.

Holding the Universal Globe
Figures holding the Universe, symbol of rulership of the universe, include a Romanized Egyptian statue of Isis, Hercules as the allegorical figure of the solar deity and the Persian sun-god Mithra. Images holding such a global Universe are not limited to temples of the pagan period but also in some churches representing a paganized christ holding such a globe in his hand, the black virgin of Montserrat and even the child jesus.

Enemies of truth The Ankh, Globe, Cross and Crucifix
Ancients saw a cross when squinting at the sun. The Egyptian cross is the Ankh sign, the symbol of life. This sign was also adopted by the Coptic Church of Egypt and can rarely be seen among their printed pages. Other reliquary was made showing the globe of the universe topped by a cross. An example of this was put on top of the St. Peter's Basilica in Rome and several other places as well as on top of a papal tiara.

Occasionally one can see a cross (not the cross of Christ) on cylinder seals of Mesopotamia, on Assyrian reliefs (BM). One is or was in the Museum of the University of Philadelphia in connection with a very old incised picture from Mesopotamia.

The crucifix among Christians is in reality a symbol derived from the Egyptian Ankh and other pagan cross symbols honoring the sun god. This can be seen in churches representations of such a version of a cross.

The Horoscope and Solar Wheel
Solar wheels can be seen together with ornaments representing the `Eye of Osiris' on a solar wheel, in Assyrian/Babylonian art, over Buddhist temples (Thailand), as well as a solar wheel depicting the zodiac in the temple at Kararak, India. In Christian countries solar wheels can be seen over the entrance at Notre Dame Cathedral, Paris, in the monastery of Loyola, Spain, in engravings of church art work, together with images of the Madonna.

The Sea Shell
A famous example of a sea shell symbol of the universe can be seen in the Louvre, Paris, in association with Poseidon, Venus, as a font to hold holy water, over the crypt of St. Paul's Cathedral in London and in St. Peters Basilica.

The All Seeing Evil Eye
The all seeing evil eye, the eye of Osiris, is associated with the Egyptian goddess Hathor and can be seen on a Roman sarcophagus at the national Archaeological Museum of Rome, as a Masonic pendant, on carved pulpits, inside a solar blaze and triangle on pendants, in cathedrals and Roman churches in large art glass windows. The `eye' has even found its way on the top of the pyramid of our American one dollar bill.

The Triple Crown Tiara
The crown of Sargon is found on a winged bull cherubim in the British Museum. Multiple crowns can also be seen on the head of a Babylonian deity, on Krishna, on a Jewish Cabalistic solar deity in the form of a human-headed dragon. On the tomb of popes calling themselves `Six...', i.e. Sixtus, of which there were five popes, the sacred serpent number of the mysteries. The serpents can be seen circling the crown on staffs underneath the tip. The assumed triple powers are imagined to be over all gods on earth, heaven and hell.

A so called a) Pope Sixtus (I) in the gray past (115-125 AD); b) Sixtus II, 257-258.; c) Sixtus III; The 44th pope according to Catholic history (remember the Apostle Peter was not a Pope), reigned from July 31, 432 to August 18, 440. He approved the results of the Council of Ephesus, corresponded extensively with Augustine of Hippo, fought Nestorianism and Pelagianism, defended the supremacy of the pope-bishop of Rome over local bishops. d) Sixtus IV, original name was Francesco Della Rovere, reigned 1471-1484.; e) Sixtus V, born 1521, original name was Felice Peretti, reigned (1585-1590).

[01] `The Story of the Eloquent Peasant' can be found in Alan H. Gardiner's `Notes on the story of the eloquent peasant' in PSBA, Dec. 1913, p. 264-276.
[02] The Babylonian story of `The shepherd Ennun-kati' and `King Paldaku of Susa' by A.H. Sayce, `Two Early Babylonian Historical Legends' in PSBA, Nov. 1915, p. 195-200.

The Greek word ("sphragisw") translated as "seal" is used in a number of closely related conotations. 1) to authenticate a document, 2) to certify something after examination, 3) to pledge, close up, 4) set a seal of approval. The overtone in all these seems to be the idea that God places His seal upon His people. Jesus used a form of the same word ("esphragisen o theos") in speaking of Himself in the 3rd person as "the Son of man." He said, "Him has God the Father sealed." John 6:27. The question is `seal' (noun) the same as being `sealed' (verb)? Answer: Seal (noun) is something tangible, being `sealed' is the process of interacting with something tangible. Ezekiel 9 makes it clear that God's seal is given on the basis of character qualifications, it was given to those "who sigh and cry". Who are these? `Sighing and crying' is a biblical expression for those who are God's people as they see unbelief and sins afflicting the people and see them forsake God for the world. While Ezekiel's vision relates primarily to the coming Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, it presupposes a second fulfillment in the last days. That is why Rev. 7, 15, and 16 parallel Ez. 9. In short, Adventists believe the seventh day `Sabbath' (tangible) to be the seal of God a) because that day points out most fully those who keep the Ten commandments.; b) If it was not for the fourth commandment, we would not know in written form who authored the Decalogue/Ten Commandments for it is the only one of the Ten which identifies the law giver. c) The fourth commandment is also the only law which distinguishes the God of this Law of the Commandments from false gods, because he is the true, living, everlasting and Creator God. The Sabbath is a sign of a Christian's spiritual experience, so it is the final test and indication that God's work of grace has been completed in the life. How is that? 1) It is God's appointed rest day and was used as a test of loyalty (collection of manna; Israel was not to labor constructing the tabernacle on that day); 2) The Sabbath law was never canceled, rescinded or abrogated in the Bible, 3) That day has been under constant attack by Satan and his agents and a counterfeit day has been installed without the blessing of God. 4) What church Fathers wrote is really irrelevant, only divine command could change something. 5) Sabbath will be the point of contention in the end time. 6) Those who observe the Sabbath then will have the kind of character God can receive into His kingdom. 7) Their relation to the Sabbath will indicate their character. 8) The seal of God is presented as something the angels but not man can read (Ex. 12:13), 9) Thus the `Sabbath' becomes the final basis for the final approval of God on the candidates for heaven. 10) Before Jesus comes again, His people must be sealable.
See also: Revelation 22:11, 12; 7:1-3, 13, 14; 8:2-5; Matthew 22:11; Luke 12:36; Genesis 7:7, 10; chs. 18 and 19; Exodus ch. 12:26-27; Leviticus ch. 16; Daniel 8:13, 14; 12:1; Isaiah 8:16; 55:7; Ezekiel 18:22, 24.

In this section we trace the meaning of Azazel. In the KJV the word used to designate the second goat in the ritual of the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:10) is called the "scapegoat"; in the RSV and ARV and in most other translations, the word is rendered "Azazel," which is the transliteration of the Hebrew word. [Legend: KJV=King James Version; ARV=American Revised Version; RV=Revised Version; NIV=New International Version; Vulgate=Catholic Latin Version; Syriac=Palestinian/ Syrian derived version; ZB=Zürcher Bibel (German)]

Etymology of the word not clear - The word "Azazel" has been the subject of much dispute and conjecture through the centuries. Many scholars agree that it is "a phrase of unusual difficulty" (Smith and Peloubet, A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 65); "the origin and meaning of the goat `for Azazel' are indeed obscure" (George B. Stevens, The Christian Doctrine of Salvation, p. 11); "that its etymology is not clear" (T. W. Chambers, "Satan in the Old Testament," Presbyterian and Reformed Review, Vol. 3, p. 26).

Note the following:

"Etymology, origin and significance are still matters of conjecture. The AV [KJV] designation scapegoat (i.e. the goat that is allowed to escape, which goes back to caper emissarius of the Vulgate) obscures the fact that the word Azazel is a proper name in the original, and in particular the name of a powerful spirit or demon." [A.R.S. Kennedy, Hastings Dictionary of the Bible (one volume), p. 77.]

How "Scapegoat" came into the KJV - The translation in the text of the KJV is "scapegoat." The dictionary meaning of this word is "scap," coming from the Old English - scapen. Chaucer used it in the expression "help us to scape." (Century Dictionary Encyclopedia.) "Scapegoat ... From Scape ... a mutilated form of escape." (W.W.Skeat, Etymological Dictionary in the English Language.)

This gives us the concept of a goat that escaped, the idea being that the goat was sent away into the wilderness, and allowed to go free. Later, "scapegoat" came to mean "a person or thing baring blame for others" (Webster's Dictionary).

Tyndale was evidently the first to use the word "scapegoat" in an English translation:

"Apparently invented by Tyndale (1530) to express what he believed to be the literal meaning of Hebrew ... Azazel, occuring only in Lev. 16:8,10 (in vs. 10 he renders: "The goote on which the lotte fell to scape."). The same interpretation is expressed by the Vulgate caper emissarius (whence the Fr. bouc emissaire), and by Coverdale's (1535) rendering "the fregoate," but is now regarded as untenable. The word does not appear in the Revided Version of 1884, which, which has "Azazel" (as a proper name), in the text, and "dismissal"in the margin, as an alternative rendering." [Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. 9, p. 180.]

Tyndale, however, so far as this chapter in Leviticus is concerned, was evidently influenced more by the Vulgate, the basis of Roman Catholic translations of the Scripture, rather than by the original Hebrew Scripture, which have been used by Protestants and others. The Latin Vulgate, which, after all, is a secondary source - being itself but a translation - renders the term "Azazel" by caper emissarius, which is used for "scapegoat," or "Azazel," in Lev. 16:8, and means the emissary goat or the goat that escaped.

"Scapegoat" Obscures the Thought - Many scholars feel that the word "scapegoat" does not properly convey the thought of the Hebrew text; some even feel it is misleading. The critical scholar Dr. S.R. Driver comments:

"An evil spirit, supposed to dwell in the wilderness. The word occurs only here in the OT. ... The rendering Scape-goat derived through Jerome from Symmachus, is certainly incorrect; it does not suit v. 26, and implies a derivation opposed to the genius of the Hebrew language, as though Azazel were a compound word. ... Moreover, the marked antithesis between for Azazel and for JHVH, does not leave it open to doubt that the former is conceived as a personal being." [Book of Leviticus, p. 81. JHVH = Hebrew derived consonants for Jehovah]

A scholar of the evangelical school declares, in the Sunday School Times, that to render "Azazel" by the word "scapegoat" is misleading:

"The goat for Azazel, the Scapegoat, as it is sometimes misleadingly translated, typifies God's challenge to Satan. (John 1:8; Eph. 3:10)" [J. Russell Howden, in Sunday School Times, Jan. 15, 1927.]

The Name "Azazel." - The testimony of many scholars of the past, both Jewish and Christian, as well as many of the present, is to this effect:

a. That Azael refers to a person.

The Jewish authority Dr. M.M. Kalisch. - "There can be no doubt whatever that Azazel is a personal, a superhuman, and an evil being - in fact a wicked demon. ... It was approved of by early Christian writers who identified Azazel with Satan (Origen. C. Cels. VI 43, p. 305 ed. Spencer: Iren. Adv. Haer. I. 12; Epiphan. Haeres XXXIV. 11), and by many later and modern scholars." [A Historical and Critical Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 2, pp. 328,329.]

"International Standard Bible Encyclopedia." - By the use of the same preposition ... in connection with Jehovah and Azazel, it seems natural ... to think of some personal being." ["Azazel", Vol. 1, p. 343.]

b. That Azazel Refers to Satan.

J. Russell Howden (Church of England)

"The goat for Azael, as it is sometimes misleadingly translated typifies God's challenge to Satan.

Of the two goats, one was for Jehovah, signifying God's acceptance of the sin-offering; the other was for Azazel. This is probably to be understood as a person, being parallel with Jehovah in the preceeding clause. So Azazel is probably a synonym for Satan." [Sunday School Times, Jan. 15, 1927.]

Samuel M. Zwemer (Presbyterian)

"The devil (Sheitan, or Iblis) has a proper name - Azazil. He was expelled from Eden." [Islam, a Challenge to Faith, p. 89.]

E.W. Hengstenberg (Lutheran)

"The manner in which the phrase "for Azazel" is contrasted with "for Jehovah," necessarily requires that Azazel should designate a personal existence and if so, only Satan can be intended. If by Azazel, Satan is not meant, there is no reason for the lots that were cast. We can then see no reason why the decision was referred to God, why the high priest did not simply assign one goat for a sin offering, and the other for sending away into the desert." [Egypt and the Books of Moses, pp. 170,171.]

J.B. Rotherham (Disciples of Christ)

"`And one lot for Azazel' (Lev. 16:8). It seems impossible to dissent from the opinion that "Azazel," instead of being a name for the (e)scape goat, is the name or title of an evil Being, opposed to Yahweh, to whom the live goat on the great Day of Propitiation was sent. Admitting so much, it still remains to inquire into the meaning of this very peculiar but impressive ceremony of sending the living goat to Azazel. Assuming that Satan is represented by Azazel - and there does not appear anything else which biblically we can assume - it is most important to observe that there is here no sacrifice offered to the evil spirit." [The Emphasized Bible, Vol. 3, p. 918.]

William Janks (Congregationalist)

"Scapegoat. See different opinion in Bochart, Spencer, after the oldest opinions of the Hebrews and Christian, thinks Azazel is the name of the devil, and so Rosenmuller, whom see. The Syriac has Azazel, the "angel (strong one) who revolted." [The Comprehensive Commentary of the Holy Bible, p. 410.]

"Abingdon Bible Commentary" (Methodist)

"On the goats lots are to be cast, one for Jehovah, and the other for Azazel. The translation dismissal in the RV mg. here (cf. removal in ASV mg.) is inadmissible, being based on a false etymology. What the word meant is unknown, but it should be retained as the proper name of a wilderness demon." [Page. 289.]

The Luther Bible - Margin to Lev. 16:8.

"`Asasel' is a little mysterious, not yet clarified word. Since opposite to `Asasel' stands `Jehovah Lord,' it is most likely that a personal being is thought of, an unclean spirit dwelling in the desert."

---

« † »

---

Our Human Nature

One View

Your Christian neighbor wants to know whether you are "saved." He has been taught that what is needful for salvation can be addressed in a simple list of acknowledgments:

You are a sinner.

As a sinner, you are condemned to death and eternity in hell.

Because of the Father's love for you, He sent Jesus to bear your sin and die in your place.

You must repent, which means agreeing that you are a sinner and agreeing that Jesus addressed all this by dying on the cross.

You must believe in Jesus—accept these facts—and may then consider yourself "saved."

The Other View

We do not doubt the sincerity of those who thus believe. They certainly have some truth. And yet, such presentations distort the facts. The plan of salvation is equally simple, but significantly different. Try this instead:

You, through no decision of your own, are a being born with a disordered human organism.

Before you were equipped to make informed, intentional choices, you chose to act in harmony with the clamors of your disordered humanity. This is how you came to nurture attitudes of self-indulgence. Eventually you matured to a situation of moral accountability. But you trained yourself to be the consummate rebel; you chose to disobey. This is the situation of every human attaining to moral accountability—except Jesus—who has ever lived. Unless you act to break solidarity with these chosen inclinations, you will not be equipped to function in heaven and the new earth when the creation is restored to its intended order. Rather, you will be justly punished, your existence ended.

Because of God's love for us, a divine plan to restore the human race was put into operation. Jesus came in a humanity like your own so that He could present before fallen man an Example to pattern after, and die as a Substitute for you thus receiving the penalty that in justice would otherwise forever end your existence.

You must repent, meaning to choose to make a complete and persistent change of direction. You acknowledge that you had chosen to become a sinner, a rebel, and now, in Christ's strength, you will persist in choosing, hour by hour, to exercise faith in Him, accepting all His provisions for your restoration, both at the cross and His present work wrought by the person of the Holy Spirit whom you have invited to indwell you. This is what it means to believe in Jesus.

Different Approaches

Notice a few things about the conventional approach. First, it is not about processes; it is about events. It is not about a long flow of character development through a lifetime; it is about a brief list of acknowledgments. It is not about a thought-through understanding of what God has revealed in the Bible; it is about making a hasty decision under coercive pressure. How different is it to demand "say the right words or I will break your arm," than to say "acknowledge Jesus as your personal Savior or burn in hell (for eternity)"? Finally, the conventional position is about making a deal that gets you into the kingdom; the biblical position is about becoming a fully realized human being and in the process giving one's life as evidence that vindicates the character of God.

The biblical position thus deals with the issues of the Great Controversy; it is God-centered, while the conventional position could never offer any serious insights into the Great Controversy, and maintains an inevitable "man"-focus. Now let's work our way through the biblical plan, idea by idea, Scripture by Scripture, and see how it gives us so much more help, yet remains simple.

Born With a Disordered Humanity

You, through no decision of your own, are a being born with a disordered human organism.

You have crooked teeth; one arm is longer than the other; your vision is better in your left eye than your right; you're not good at mathematics; and you have trouble staying on pitch when you sing. This description, or one very similar to it, describes virtually every one of us. In these ways we are very much alike. But these are only superficial, surface. Our humanity is far, far more disordered than what has just been described.

Adam and Eve committed very serious acts of rebellion. As a result, they were not able to pass on to us God's likeness in the way that it was originally granted. They were made in God's image, but their children inherited from them only the image of fallen humanity (Genesis 5:1, 3). Their original moral, intellectual and physical endowments were impacted. Their children and all who descended from them received a vitiated humanity, a bent nature, a decided inclination to self-indulgence, one so great that without intervention from God, although still desiring to do right, they would be unable to do right. God created our race very good (Genesis 1:31), upright (Ecclesiastes 7:29), but we sought out many inventions, we intentionally went astray (Isaiah 53:6). The result is that our humanity is disordered from the first, our faculties are scrambled, they do not function the way they were supposed to. Our very humanity clamors at us and screams to us and presents to us a feeling of great discomfort if we withhold from it that self-indulgence for which it pleads. Our own humanity is in opposition to us every minute, so that our life is an expression of madness (Ecclesiastes 9:3). We are part of the distorted world, and our lives testify to the dreadful destructiveness of sin and its results.

Our situation is like the blind man of Luke 18:37, 38. Jesus draws near, and when the blind understands that Christ is close by, he cries out, "Jesus, Thou Son of David, have mercy upon me!" It was not this man's fault that he was born blind. But there is One who can cure his blindness. Not based upon any works he might do, not because he might parrot back set phrases as if by magic incantations—but simply on the basis of God's mercy. The human race on its own has nothing to offer God. But He has something to offer us. He is passing by. Our plea is presented only on the basis of trust in His great mercy.

You Became a Sinner By Choice

Before you were equipped to make informed, intentional choices, you chose to act in harmony with the clamors of your disordered humanity. This is how you came to nurture attitudes of self-indulgence. Eventually you matured to a situation of moral accountability. But you trained yourself to be the consummate rebel; you chose to disobey. This is the situation of every human attaining to moral accountability—except Jesus—who has ever lived. Unless you act to break solidarity with these chosen inclinations, you will not be equipped to function in heaven and the new earth when the creation is restored to its intended order. Rather, you will be justly punished, your existence ended.

Some people think that the New Testament teaches a new insight about sin, namely that before we have intentionally chosen to transgress, we are already condemned for our very humanity. John Calvin is the most influential voice in the last 500 years who has taught this. He said:

All are originally depraved.… Guilt is from nature.… Even infants bringing their condemnation with them from their mother's womb suffer… for their own defect.… Men are born vicious.… We are all sinners by nature." (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, ch. 1, #5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 27)

Is this biblical? Do we bring our condemnation with us from our mother's womb? Paul, who supposedly teaches this, actually says that unborn children have done neither good nor evil (Romans 9:11). If they do neither good nor evil before they are born, can they bring either righteousness or guilt with them from the womb? No. Children are born with a disordered human organism but they are not responsible for that—or guilty for it.

How then do we become condemned? We choose to separate ourselves from God. Isaiah 59:2 is as clear as any text: "But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid His face from you, that He will not hear." Our choice to become rebels condemns us. Eventually, when we attain to a situation of moral accountability, we need not—but all do—choose to follow the inclinations already nurtured. We join ourselves in solidarity, we agree with, we second, we affirm, we grant our allegiance to, the clamors of the flesh, the relentless pull of our disordered human organism toward selfishness. Jesus is the only exception. As for us, Romans 3:23 declares our situation: "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." We all, then, need salvation.

Jesus, Our Example, Our Substitute

Because of God's love for us, a divine plan to restore the human race was put into operation. Jesus came in a humanity like your own so that He could present before fallen man an Example to pattern after, and die as a Substitute for you thus receiving the penalty that in justice would otherwise forever end your existence.

We did not launch the plan to save the human race. God did. But just as we differ radically with the conventional approach concerning what the problem is, here we differ radically from them about what the solution is.

They see the human problem as your having a guilty nature;

we see the problem as choosing to be a rebel.

We disagree. Genesis 3:15 contained a promise. The Father would send the "Seed of the woman" (the later God's church), His Son. Jesus would be a descendent of the woman, He would enter the human situation in the same kind of disordered human organism received by everyone downstream from Adam and Eve. Jesus would be wounded but would prevail. In our humanity He would live without sinning. While we were without strength, while we were unrepentant rebels, Jesus would come, a legitimate Substitute for us, and die on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins. But the only way He would have a legitimate offering there at the cross would be by living a sinless life, doing so in the same bent humanity as our own. Again to Paul as he explains:

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

The law written on stone could never save us [nor do], (but) [what] the law written in flesh and blood, written in the humanity of Jesus Christ, could give for us. God's law was a thumbnail description of Himself, but Jesus is God. The Father sent the Son for sin and condemned sin in the flesh. But how could He condemn sin in the flesh unless He overcomes it in the very flesh where it makes its home? What is His goal in all this? The example part. "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us." With men this is impossible. But with God, all things are possible. When we receive the help of His Holy Spirit, we are healed and He is glorified.

God made Him to be sin for us. Jesus knew no sin, that is, He never consented to it, never joined Himself to it, never coddled or played with it, never toyed with it or dabbled in it. On every—absolutely every—occasion of temptation, Jesus resisted, refused, declined to give His consent. Only because this is true do we have a Savior.

Faith Moment by Moment

You must repent, meaning to choose to make a complete and persistent change of direction. You acknowledge that you had chosen to become a sinner, a rebel, and now, in Christ's strength, you will persist hour by hour to exercise faith in Him, accepting all His provisions for your restoration, both at the cross and by the person of the Holy Spirit whom you permit to indwell you. This is believing in Jesus.

Repentance is more than mere acknowledgment. Of course, if your theological system says that your very nature is guilty, then you will have to change your definition of repentance. Unfortunately, this is exactly what many Christians have done. They have decided that repentance means stating, or even feeling, sorry for having sinned. Biblical repentance is far more. Biblical repentance means not only acknowledging having sinned, not only feeling sorry that you have sinned, but biblical repentance means actually to turn around and to forsake your sin and to do a "U-turn" going back in exactly the opposite direction than you had been going. When you disobeyed God you were moving in exactly the opposite direction from Him. When you actually repent you forsake your sin and you turn around and now you are moving exactly toward Him.

Because this has been so poorly understood, it is important to explain it further. Men are caught between two opposing powers.

On one side is the power of Satan, and he, with our consent, has trained us, in self-indulgence. The unconverted man is used to fulfilling the clamors and cravings of his distorted humanity. Born with a disordered humanity in which the various faculties do not function as designed, feeling trumps intellect, desire trumps reason. Where reason says there are no shortcuts, the man ruled by his own spirit fools himself into thinking that he can escape consequences. He has the equipment he needs to think with clarity, to choose morally, but it is in an awful mess from disuse, misuse, and self-deception. For all intents and purposes, man left to himself embraces a satanic, adversarial orientation towards that which is just and right.

On the other side is the power of God [500], the Holy Spirit who works to bring man to where he may exercise the option of choosing freedom. And yet, the choice always remains that of the man. Whereas our trained-to-indulgence nature ever seeks to force itself upon us, the Holy Spirit is a person, and He refuses to use force to make men do what is right. He leads, He encourages, He prompts, but never compels the believer. He has power to give us in our moment of need, but He will not force us to take it. Man finds himself prompted and provoked by these two powers. The choice remains his own.

How we value sin and how we value righteousness are crucial. Every decision means acting to embrace the values of Satan's government or acting to embrace the values of God's government. There is a scale of values held by each person. On one side is the act of sin with its attendant satisfaction; on the other, the act of righteousness with its attendant satisfaction. Part of the effective exercise of repentance involves the tearing down of self-deceptions. The process of thought we tend to engage in when we are weighing these potential acts, is to focus exclusively on the immediate satisfactions without including in the equation the other attendants that accompany our sins. For when we sin, we incur also to ourselves an awful sense of self-disgust, loathing, self-hatred, personal devaluation, censure, condemnation, guilt, hopelessness, self-hatred, and self-destruction. These are incurred on a very personal basis. We become our own accusers. And we know we are justly accused.

But we must train ourselves also to the habit of weighing the blessedness of the good we may choose instead. For when we are tempted to do wrong and instead choose the good, then the satisfaction we receive includes peace, contentment, a sense of harmony with God, a satisfaction that we have pleased Him, a sense of humble growth and maturity. It is when we choose Heaven's ways that we understand Paul who said, "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things" (1 Corinthians 13:11). When we view all of the transaction of sin and all of the transaction of righteousness, when we have learned to put away our self-deceptions and look on things as God looks on them, then our sense of personal satisfaction will be beyond description. In humility we enjoy that in some tiny, unique way, we have acted a part in the conflict between good and evil; through the power of God we have demonstrated that creatures of fallen flesh may serve Him, even have part in His vindication. And yet, all the glory is His own, for there is in this no merit for us, only the knowledge that we acted for righteousness because He was merciful to us, granting to us His grace that we might so act.

Repentance means choosing a different way than we have inclined ourselves to. It means something very different from the conventional view. One of the best passages helping us with repentance is found in Ezekiel 18:26-32.

When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal [fair]. O house of Israel, are not My ways equal [fair]? are not your ways unequal [unfair]? Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord God. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

Repentance is turning. It becomes obvious here that there is no falsification of repentance with God. He is not mocked. What a man sows he will also reap. God is no respecter of persons. He is unerringly fair. He will empower us to turn but it remains we who must act to embrace His strength. It is we who must turn, otherwise there is no free choice, no free will, and the sin problem as God has chosen to address it means absolutely nothing. Then it is a 6,000 year sham, a play in which we are all marionettes, puppets, wax figures and robots, wind up toys for Deity. No! Rather, He grants us free choice and then enlists our free choice. Will we serve Him because of the mercy and justice of His character? The watching universe wants to know. And they will know. Our lives are the test case. Earth is the laboratory.

Jesus and His disciples also preached that God was calling on all men everywhere to repent (Mark 6:12). So how do you live by faith? It is as simple as 1 John 1:9: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." We must bring our failures to God. We must approach Him when we have sinned and tell Him what we have done. He already knows that we have done it, but for our own psyche it is important for us to tell Him that we have sinned, to acknowledge that we are guilty for it, condemned, and to choose to forsake utterly the sin. And He will answer. His forgiveness is no merely legal matter. When we confess and when our heart is pleading for true deliverance, He gives it. His forgiveness does not come as a half-measure. When He forgives, He cleanses us from sin—completely. He cleanses us from not some, but all unrighteousness. It is only on these terms that His forgiveness is available.

So here we can see how the only real kind of repentance is the confess and forsake kind. The Proverb is unerringly correct: "He that covereth his sins shall not prosper; but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy" (Proverbs 28:13). Ezekiel 18 and 1 John agree together. Man may repent. Man may turn. Man may receive cleansing, not only his chosen guilt but from all His chosen unrighteousness.

How can this be true? We feel so weak! Just here we remember the case, not only of Jesus passing by the blind man who pled, "Jesus Thou Son of David, have mercy upon me," but also the case of the man with the demon possessed child.

Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth. And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help Thou mine unbelief. (Mark 9:23, 24).

Isn't this an important text for us? After all, we believe. But we know we need help in believing. It is not really God that many of us doubt; it is ourselves.

If in yourself you see the weakness, know that this simple plea is for you: "I believe; help my unbelief!" Our God wants you in the kingdom (Luke 12:32). It makes the Divine Being happy, it gives Him pleasure, when you come toward Him.

One Last Problem

Some of us have long histories of rebellion and sin and failure. Violation of conscience warps our thinking so that we feel as if despite God's assurances to us, we cannot be sure of His salvation. But that is not the question. As long as we have free will we will always be able to choose righteousness or sin, God's way, or Satan's. It is the wrong question. Nor need we ask whether or not God loves us. We know He loves us. What we need to remember is that He does love us this way. Two texts especially help us.

And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. (1 John 4:16)

If our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. (1 John 3:20)

You need to come to the place where you know and believe God's love for you. In the beginning there will be doubts. But when you dwell upon the simple stories of Jesus in the gospels, you will know that His care is for you, His love reaches out to you, that, were you in the same situations as those He met in the gospels, that He would act the same way towards you. Then there is the fact that you feel tainted by your past sins. Your heart condemns you. Even when you have sought forgiveness—and received it—Satan will press upon your soul a sense of guilt. But you need to learn to trust His love and His faithfulness more than you distrust yourself. He is greater than us. His weighing of the situation is never wrong. He never forgets your plea for forgiveness and He never forgets that He has granted it. Feelings of self-condemnation do not overrule facts of God's forgiveness.[700] If you have addressed a matter with the Lord and He has forgiven you, then believe because He has promised and go forward. This is all you need. You have a Savior who embraces you. You have, as Luther said, the right Man on your side. You have all the hope that is in Christ.

Conclusion

Are you "saved"? You can know you are walking with God right now and that you have eternal life right now. But being "saved" is not about saying `yes' to a list of faulty propositions someone wrote out long ago. It is not even about saying `yes' to a list of accurate propositions, although that never hurts. The real question is not, am I standing with, but, am I walking with Jesus? It is not, am I doomed because of Adam and by saying magic words I win the heavenly lottery, but whether I am willing to choose to resist my distorted humanity and let God remake me into a fully realized human in His image.

Do not pity the man who comes to you and wants you to make an instant decision to "be saved." Rejoice that he loves God and aims to serve him. But God has shown you more. God calls you to a biblical understanding. You need not agree with John Calvin, friend, in order to be "saved." You need to agree with Jesus. You do not need one super-sized, irreversible event, one one-time-for-all choice in which you choose Christ and lose for eternity free will. God does not take away your free will, but educates you in how to exercise it. Day in and day out you learn to choose to serve God. Becoming a sinner is a process, and becoming a righteous person is a process too. Keep near your Bible. Neglect not prayer. In the helping strength of God exercise kindness toward others. Turn from sin, learning to measure the whole package of destruction against the whole package of peace. Soon you will realize that there is no profit in sin whatsoever. Purify yourself even as He is pure, and you will know the peace of God which cannot be described in words. Jesus says shalom to you. And smiles. [ GCO]

Back to Top of Article | A Quiz

"As he (the High Priest) begins the service the high priest receives from the congregation two goats for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering, which, together with his own sin offering, a bullock, are presented before the Lord. (Lev. 16:3,5) He kills the bullock, which is for himself, and with it he is to make `an atonement for himself, and for his house.' Verse 11.

After the bullock is killed, but before any of the blood is ministered, the high priest is to `take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the veil.' There he puts the incense upon the fire he has brought, and the cloud of incense covers "the mercy seat that is upon the testimony, that he die not.' Verses 12,13.

The high priest is now ready to minister the blood of the bullock, which he does by sprinkling "It with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward; and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle the blood with his finger seven times.' Verse 14.

Before the bullock is killed, another ceremony has taken place. Lots are cast over the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other for the scapegoat. (Verse 8) The goat upon which the lot falls for the Lord is to be offered as a sin offering. The other, the scapegoat, is to be presented alive before the Lord `to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.' (Verse 9,10) Of both these goats it is stated that Aaron shall `present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.' (Verse 7) This means that both of them were taken near the door of the tabernacle and tied to rings placed in the ground or pavement, and left standing there while the other part of the service with the bullock went forward. They were thus presented `before the Lord,' to await the conclusion of the services of the incense and the bullock.

After the high priest came out of the most holy place, having performed the ritual with the blood of the bullock, he killed the goat of the sin offering which was for the people. He then entered the most holy place and sprinkled the blood of the (Lord's) goat, as he had sprinkled the blood of the bullock, upon the mercy seat and before the mercy seat. (Verse 15) By this act he made atonement for the most holy place `because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins.' (Verse 16) He then did the same thing for the tabernacle of the congregation, that is, the holy place.

....

When Aaron offered the bullock, he made `an atonement for himself, and for his house.' (Verse 6,11) On the other hand, the goat of the sin offering was for the people. (verse 8,15) However, in the administration of the goat's blood Aaron is not said to have made atonement for the people, but `for the holy place,' and `for the tabernacle of the congregation.' (verse 16).

....

Most sins admit of shared responsibility. The person committing the sin is often mostly to blame, though this is not always the case. ... Responsibility for sin is not traceable to one person only. This is true of all sins except the personal sins of Satan. `When lie speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.' John 8:44.

We come now to a consideration of the sins which Satan bears, the sins which men bear, the sins which Christ bears. It is to be kept in mind, however, that only Christ bears sins in substitutionary atonement. Men and Satan bear sins by way of desert and punishment.

That Satan should suffer for his personal sins is axiomatic. He is a murderer from the beginning and the originator of sin. If sin is to be punished at all, Satan cannot escape." [M.L. Andreasen, The Sanctuary Service, pp. 62-69.]

"Since the whole ritual economy was symbolical of Christ, it had no value apart from Him. When the Jews sealed their rejection of Christ by delivering him to death, they rejected all that gave significance to the temple and its services. Its sacredness had departed. It was doomed to destruction. From that day sacrificial offerings and the service connected with them were meaningless. ... When Christ was crucified, the inner veil of the temple was rent in twain from top to bottom, signifying that the great final sacrifice had been made, and that the system of sacrificial offerings was forever at an end." [DA, p. 165.]

But Jewish beliefs also minimize a man's time spent on reading the written law, the Halakkah. The Talmud outlines to spend one third of the time to read the law, one third to read the Mishna, and one third the Gemara. But to this the rabbis add: "What has been said refers only to the beginning of a man's learning, but as soon as a man becomes great in wisdom, and has no need of learning the written law, or of laboring constantly in the oral law, let him at fixed times read them, that he may not forget any of the judgments of the law, but let him devote all his time to Gemara."

The student is not in reality called upon to give even the third of his time to the study of the word of God. What is demanded of him is merely to review those Sacred Writings periodically, that he may not entirely lose them from his mind, but his burden should be what the Sages taught. Man is to be exalted; the Lord is to be minimized. The human is placed above the divine. When Jesus spoke to the Pharisees and Scribes the words, "... joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth" (Luke 15:7) he turned the Jewish saying around which said, "Joy is in heaven over each sinner who gets obliterated". Harsh and unloving words indeed. Sadly Israelites today and for centuries are encouraged to forget their maker.

Differences

The orthodox Jewish people claim that the Bible forbids the use of meat and butter at the same meal. To use them together is regarded as a great sin. The rabbis claim that such a procedure is entirely foreign to the Scriptures. For support of this position, the Talmud offers the text, "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk." [Exodus 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21] The rabbis maintain that it is necessary to have separate utensils for these two kinds of food products. It is not permissible to drink milk or use butter with food for at least five hours after meat or fat has been eaten. The reverse is equally true. Separate dishes must be used for milk products and meat. To mix these foods is a great sin. If a drop of milk would accidentally fall on the table among the meat dishes in use, the meal must not be eaten, until the rabbi has been inquired of. Should the rabbi decide that a sin has been committed, the family must destroy the meal as of no value.[812]

Over the ages some Jews practiced asceticism which included cult practices in the form of the way they ate some meals and drinking, in the form of festivals, new moon and Sabbath observances whereas real religion [814] is setting ones affections on things above, not on things on earth by having fellowship with Christ.

Other religious tendencies in Judaism inlude reform movements, kabbalah, their dualistic deity `Ein Sof' and its mysticism all of which distort the meaning of scripture and oppose the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Canaanites worshipped "Baal" as a local fertility deity, but each community had their own version of a "Baal." That is why we have place names like Baal-zephon, Baal-peor, and Baal-hermon, all in the Mt. Hermon area, and we find these names in the Old Testament (Ex. 14:2; Num. 25:5; Judg. 3:3). In the ancient Near East, official religion was oriented to the state, while popular religion was oriented to geographical locations. Ancient people saw no inconsistency between believing in gods "up there" and another god "down here" - all competing for his attention and servitude. This was a partial recognition of the ultimate problem of immanence and transcendence.

In Mesopotamia, "Justice" and "Righteousness" appear as minor deities in the retenue of Utu/Shamash, the sun god: they were called "Nig-gina and "Nig-sisa", respectively. Their boss god was "Shamash", the god of law. Ancient thinkers conceived of these abstract ideas as gods, rather than dealing with the ideas themselves.

The Egyptians did this more than anyone else. Some of the major Egyptian gods fell into this category. For example, Atum expresses the concept of universality. The name Amon means "hidden" - the Egyptians thought he was a formless, unseen being who might be anywhere, and anyone could worship him. For that reason, they later grafted the idea of `Amon' on to `Re,' and the god became `Amen-Re,' "the king of eternity and guardian of the dead." The most massive temples of Egyptian history were built in honor of Amen-Re at Karnak. The goddess Maat was another Egyptian idea-become-god. She was supposed to personify truth and justice, and was the cosmic force of harmony and stability.

The Canaanites represented truth and justice with the gods `Sedeq' and `Mishor,' who were supposed to serve under the god Shemesh. But even though pagan thinkers could deal with these ideas more easily this way, few of the gods lived up to their ideals, according to legend. Canaanite religion continued the ancient desire for sexual harmony with nature, and it encouraged particularly obscene rituals.

The god of Pharaoh Akhnaton. Akhnaton/Amenhotep IV, being a contemporary of King Ahab, championed a single deity which became known as `Aten' whose name he made his own. In his names the Egyptians called their sole god by that name. This had far reaching political effects, yet, Akhnaton's religion fell far short of being able to say, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one" (Deut. 6:4). In his time, enter `Nefertiti. If she indeed was Queen Jezebel as we try to show, Jezebels more than likely attempted to introduce her `Baal' and its ceremonies and mingle them with Egyptian views.

The Ugaritic, Ras-Shamra god Baal was molded in bronze and clay as holding in his left hand as waving a spear and in his right a club or mace.

The Phoenicians, home of Jezebel, were on the mind of King Ahab. He married the daughter of Ethbaal of Sidon, better known as Zezebel. To the Phoenicians, Ball was their sun-god (2.Kings 23:5; Zeph. 1:4,5) and they worshiped him on their high places, including on the roofs of houses (Jer. 32:35,29). Baal was thought to have power over crops, flocks, and fertility, the `golden-calf' was linked with him. Baal rites were lascivious. They included human sacrifices, self-torture, and kissing the image.

The pagan astrological new age tauroctony of `Mithra slaying the bull' arch at Heddernheim, Germany, also shows the Zodia Signs of the raven, dog, scorpion, snake and bull. Represented to are cup and a lion. The sun god is shown to kneel before Mithra, intending to show the immense power of Mithra. Included is also a map of Europe showing locations were artifacts/ and / or temples having to do with Mithra were found - from the Black Sea to Scotland and the borders of the Sahara - wherever Roman soldiers went. Rome is full of artifacts of Mithraism, sun worship. Images of `sun bursts' and the like can be found in many places. An image is shown of the 1st century BC vault of Herod the Great, which was used in the 3rd cent. AD as a `mithraeum' probably by Roman legionaires stationed at Caesarea. In mithraism, a god with a lion's head, human body, entwined by a snake (Satan), atop a small globe surrounded by two bands forming an `X' where they cross. This X symbolizes the entire cosmos, meaning Satan wants to unseat the only true God. In Roman times, Mithra (Satan) would assume the role of the Greek Atlas, carrying the whole universe on his shoulder. [See David Ulansey in BAR, Vol. 20, No. 5, Sep/Oct 1994, p. 40-53.]

Scientists Debate Blending Species: In Minnesota, pigs are being born with human blood in their veins. In Nevada, there are sheep whose livers and hearts are largely human. In California, mice peer from their cages with human brain cells firing inside their skulls. ...
Biologists call these hybrids chimeras, after the mythical Greek creature with a lion's head, a goat's body and a serpent's tail. They are products of experiments in which human stem cells were added to developing animal fetuses ...
"With no federal guidelines in place, an awkward question hovers above the work: How human must a chimera be before more stringent research rules should kick in? ....
"In one ongoing set of experiments, someone at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., has created human-pig chimeras by adding human-blood-forming stem cells to pig fetuses. The resulting pigs have both pig and human blood in their vessels. And it is not just pig blood cells being swept along with human blood cells; some of the cells themselves have merged, creating hybrids.
"It is important to have learned that human and pig cells can fuse, a Mayo rep said, because he and others have been considering transplanting modified pig organs into people and have been wondering if that might pose a risk of pig viruses getting into the patients cells. Now scientists know the risk is real, he said, because the viruses may gain access when two cells fuse." [Rick Weis, The Journal Gazette, Fort Wayne, Ind., November 21, 2004, p. 6A.]
The Biblical Perspective: "But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere." [SoP, Vol. 1, p. 69.]
"The swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you." Leviticus 11:7-8.

Regions like Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Mongolia are in the news on matters ancient history. Take for instance Kazakhstan, located just north of the Iranian border within the limits of the old Soviet Union, and place names like Anau, Gonur, the Amu Dar Ya (Oxus) River and the Murgab River. Here ancient civilizations and kingdoms are discovered which had been completely forgotten. For more see Andrew Lawler, Central Asia's Lost Civilization' in Discover, November 2006, p. 42-49; Images included are: An aerial view at dusk of Gonur, its apparent royal burial site, Viktor Sarianidi, excavations at Anau in the foot hills of the Kopet Dag Mountains along the border with Iran.

The information in this book is an abreviated overview of Andrey O. Bolshakov's, Studies on Old Kingdom Reliefs and Sculpture in the Hermitage, Vol. 67, Harrassowitz Verlag.

Most pages talking about reliefs have also a map where they can be found.

01.) The 5th dyn. relief of Hw(j)-w(j)-nfr. No attempt is made to write out the name.
02.) The relief of `N(j)-m3.t(w)
03.)
04.)

Notes & References

[500] We just read of the power of God. The Bible speaks of the power that Jesus gave his disciples in the Greek as `exousia' which means privilege or authority, whereas for the power of Satan the Greek word `dunamis' is used which means ability or power. "Behold, I give unto you power (exousia) to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power (dunamis) of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you." Luk. 10:19 KJV. Another translation says, "I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy: nothing will harm you." Lk. 10:19 NIV. From this we can say that God gives men the authority over all of Satan's ability but He retains the ability and authority over Satan in His own control. Through Christ all the power of Satan is broken for he is a defeated foe.

[0700] Through a misunderstanding and misuse of God's law, Israel of old was held in Satan's control for centuries of time. It was God's plan that His law, as written and revealed at Sinai, would be a schoolmaster to bring His people to Christ, Gal. 3:24. Satan had other plans. That very law of liberty he would use to enslave. How? By focusing all our efforts on one function of the law - its ability to convict us of sin. Paul wrote, "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemn ..." Rom. 5:18. Here is Satan's focal point and his power over men. He seeks to blind our eyes to the rest of that same verse, "... even so by the righeousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." Satan has always magnified the condemnation and then presented strict obedience to the law as the only acceptable solution to the problem. The truth is that Jesus death on the cross did not change the law but that man's record the moment he accepts Christ as His Saviour and surrenders his life to Christ's control. It is not by condemnation but by looking to the cross that we are brought to true repentance.

[1000] 1) At first the Sages said the law could be interpreted in 4 different ways. Later this was changed from 4 to 8, and 13 different ways. Here are 7 examples: 1. light and heavy; 2. a decision adduced from an agreement or equality of text; 3. from the principal constitution contained in one verse, and principal constitution deduced from two verses; 4. from comparing a general description with its specified particulars; 5. from a particular text followed by a general one; 6. precepts treated first in general, then in particular, then again in general; thou must not adjudge but according to that which is similar to the particluar; 7. from a general description that requires a particular or specified text to explain it; and from a general text that requires a particular one...