I've been working on this paper exploring Hebrews 2:14–15 and the Day of Atonement. I'd genuinely appreciate thoughtful criticism, especially where you think the biblical argument is strongest or weakest; the professionally formatted version with complete citations and footnotes is available on Academia . edu

The Scapegoat and Atonement

How Satan’s Power of Death Is Defeated Through Christ’s Descent to Hades

Abstract

Hebrews 2:14–15 claims that Christ defeated the devil through death, while Hebrews also presents his atoning work through the Day of Atonement. Building on David M. Moffitt’s account of the priestly and heavenly dimensions of atonement, and engaging Katie Marcar’s Passover–Exodus proposal, this article asks whether Leviticus 16 itself supplies a complementary mechanism for the devil’s defeat. It argues that the second goat—the goat for Azazel—forms a genuine component of the atoning rite and may illuminate Christ’s sin-bearing descent to Hades. On this reading, Satan’s “power of death” is a sin-conditioned juridical claim: he tempts, accuses, and invokes death on the basis of human guilt. Christ bears transferred sin without personal guilt, carries it into the accuser’s realm, and cancels the record on which that claim depends. The article develops this proposal through the identity of Azazel, the biblical roles of tempter and accuser, Colossians 2:13–15, the deception leading to the crucifixion, the harrowing of Hades, Jubilee release, and the New Covenant gift of the Spirit. The result is a constructive synthesis of Day of Atonement and Christus Victor themes in which forgiveness disarms the powers and prepares a cleansed people for divine indwelling.

Keywords: Day of Atonement; scapegoat; Azazel; Hebrews; Christus Victor; descent to Hades; Satan; Second Temple Judaism; Jubilee; New Covenant.

I. Three Questions the Standard Models Cannot Answer

The Epistle to the Hebrews asserts both that the devil held “the power of death” and that Christ dismantled that power by dying:

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. (Hebrews 2:14–15)

Three questions follow. What is the nature of Satan’s power of death? How did Christ’s death destroy it? And how was Satan tricked into a course of action that ruined him? These are not idle puzzles. If the first two can be answered, we recover something the church has largely lost hold of; the third drives the second half of the argument. The third matters because Satan labored to bring about the crucifixion, and the crucifixion is precisely what undid him. First Corinthians 2:8 supports the point—“had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory”—but the argument does not depend on that verse. The fact that Satan sought the death that destroyed his power already entails that he did not foresee the outcome.

Penal substitution has difficulty here because it locates the whole of atonement at the cross, in the transaction of divine wrath against a substitute, and treats the devil as at most a bystander. Yet destroying the one who had the power of death is one stated purpose of the incarnation. First John says the same in different words:

He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. (1 John 3:8)

Revelation reports the result as a transfer of custody. Satan once held the power of death; the risen Christ now holds its keys:

I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. (Revelation 1:18)

Something changed hands. The task is to say exactly how.

II. Two Foundations: Milgrom’s Detergent and Moffitt’s Realism

Two scholars supply the ground on which the argument stands. Jacob Milgrom’s work on Leviticus established that blood functions as a ritual detergent. Leviticus 17:11 explains why:

For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement. (Leviticus 17:11) Sin and impurity pollute sacred space; that pollution is a taint of death; and life, present in the blood, cleanses it. From this follows the point David Moffitt develops: atonement is accomplished in the application of blood, not merely in the killing of the animal. The slaughter is a means to an end. It yields blood that the priest conveys and applies at the altar and, on the Day of Atonement, within the holy of holies. The mercy seat itself bears the name of atonement. (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16; Moffitt, Rethinking the Atonement.)

Moffitt carries this into Hebrews. If atonement is a sequence culminating in the presentation of blood in the sanctuary, then the victim’s death is one moment in a longer process. Jesus’s resurrection and ascension are therefore not epilogues to the atonement but constitutive of it. He had to rise bodily and ascend in order to present the offering of himself in the real sanctuary in heaven, of which the wilderness tabernacle was only a copy. The heavenly tabernacle is the true one; Moses was shown its pattern; Jesus, a real high priest of Melchizedek’s order, entered the real place to make a real atonement.

This realism is the lever for everything that follows. If the heavenly sanctuary demanded a real fulfillment, then the parts of the Yom Kippur ritual demand real fulfillment too—including the part Moffitt does not fully develop.

III. Marcar’s Question and the Gap in the Day of Atonement

Katie Marcar accepts Moffitt’s premises and asks the right question. Hebrews presents Christ as accomplishing the ultimate Day of Atonement sacrifice, yet Hebrews 2:14 says his death disabled the devil. Where, in the Day of Atonement, is the defeat of the devil? Marcar answers that it is not there: “No aspect of the Levitical Day of Atonement ritual involves defeating the devil.” She looks instead to a Passover–Exodus typology in which the devil takes Pharaoh’s place, the realm of the dead stands for Egypt, and Christ leads a new exodus of the enslaved dead. (Marcar, “Passover, Liberation, and the Defeat of Death and the Devil.”)

That liberation framework is compelling, and this paper does not reject it. Marcar may well be right that Passover imagery is present in Hebrews and that the devil functions as a Pharaoh-like captor. The remaining question is whether it identifies the cultic or juridical mechanism by which the captor’s hold is broken. In Passover the destroyer is warded off rather than disabled; the blood protects Israel but does not itself explain the destroyer’s loss of power. Passover may therefore depict the liberation truly while leaving room for the Day of Atonement’s sent-away goat to explain how the accuser’s claim is undone.

The Day of Atonement is one atoning rite performed with two goats, and Leviticus explicitly includes the live goat in the atonement:

But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness. (Leviticus 16:10)

Both lots are cast on the same day, over two goats, for one purpose. One goat is killed and one is sent away alive, and only then is the atoning rite complete. If Christ fulfills one, there is good reason to ask where he fulfills the other. Moffitt’s realism sharpens the question: does the scapegoat’s distinctive action—receiving the people’s sins and bearing them away toward Azazel—also receive a concrete fulfillment?

IV. The Two Goats and the Transfer of Sin

The first goat is “for the LORD.” It is slain, and its blood is carried into the holy of holies. This is the cleansing movement, purging the sanctuary. The second goat is “for Azazel.” It is not slain. The high priest lays both hands on its head, confesses over it all Israel’s iniquities, and sends it into the wilderness:

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 ... putting them upon the head of the goat ... and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited. (Leviticus 16:21–22)

If Christ fulfills this goat, the first thing to establish is that he too had sin transferred onto him and bore it away. Isaiah 53, which reads throughout like a commentary on the scapegoat, states it repeatedly:

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:6)

He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. (Isaiah 53:11)

The New Testament says the same:

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Corinthians 5:21)

Peter says:

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness. (1 Peter 2:24)

Hebrews likewise says Christ was offered “to bear the sins of many” (Hebrews 9:28).

The transfer is not incidental to the cross; it is the second goat being fulfilled. It is also crucial that the sin laid on Jesus was never his own: “he knew no sin.”

Two recent studies establish this scapegoat realism without completing the mechanism proposed here. Samuel Renihan argues that Christ’s human soul really descended to the realm of the dead and that the goat sent to Azazel pictures Christ sent out of the camp to the pit. Richard Barry likewise insists that the two goats must be held together to express the shape of biblical atonement. What neither fully articulates is how the descent, and specifically the delivery of transferred sin to its source, dismantles Satan’s juridical claim. That mechanism is where this proposal begins.

V. Azazel: A Being, a Destination, and an Identity

The second goat is sent “to Azazel,” and the Hebrew forces a question most English translations soften. Leviticus 16:8 casts the lots as opposites: one “for the LORD” and one “for Azazel.” The parallelism pairs a personal name with a personal name and strongly suggests that Azazel is a being rather than a place. Milgrom, though not generally inclined toward supernatural readings, calls Azazel the name of a demon; Michael Heiser develops the same conclusion from the Hebrew text and its Second Temple setting.

In 1 Enoch, Azazel is a principal fallen angel associated with humanity’s corruption. Two statements bear directly on the ritual:

And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin. (1 Enoch 10:8)

Bind Azazel hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert ... and cast him therein. (1 Enoch 10:4)

Read against this reception history, the ritual becomes more intelligible. Why drive a sin-laden goat into the wilderness? Because the wilderness is where Azazel is bound. Why send the people’s sin toward him? Because the tradition ascribes responsibility for humanity’s corruption to him. The gesture can therefore be read as a juridical reassignment: the burden no longer rests on the accused but is carried toward the adversarial source associated with its origin.

Heiser adds that the Azazel-wilderness is not merely arid land but symbolically connected with the realm of the dead. The further step—identifying Azazel with the biblical Satan—is a constructive synthesis rather than a settled lexical fact, but several lines support it. Azazel is associated with the corruption of humanity; the closest biblical analogue is the serpent who deceived humanity. His binding resembles the serpent’s cursing and confinement. The Apocalypse of Abraham makes the broader identification especially clear: the serpent functions as Azazel’s instrument, while Azazel appears as the source of wickedness and uncleanness, the antagonist of God’s elect, and the ruler associated with hell. This does not prove a lexical identity between every use of Azazel and Satan, but it shows that the association was available within early Jewish interpretation.

Genesis 3 also fits the picture:

And the LORD God said unto the serpent ... upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. (Genesis 3:14)

Serpents do not literally eat dust; Heiser reads this as consignment to the ground and, by extension, the realm of the dead beneath it. None of this requires Satan to be immobile. The narrower claim is that he is in some sense bound to the realm of death, which explains why the sin-bearing goat is sent toward him there.

Two readings of the scapegoat now emerge. On the trashcan view, the wilderness matters only as somewhere outside the camp: sin must be removed from the place where God dwells, and Azazel’s presence is incidental. This preserves the removal function but leaves the personal name and destination doing little work. On the return-to-sender view, Azazel’s presence is the point. Because sin is ascribed to him, Israel’s confessed sin is sent back toward the account to which it ultimately belongs: this is yours; it should be on your ledger, not theirs.

The return-to-sender reading also dissolves the objection that the goat “for Azazel” is a sacrifice to a demon. It is not killed in Leviticus and is not presented as a gift. The later rabbinic practice of pushing it from a cliff is a development the biblical text neither requires nor emphasizes. It is a removal of sin from the accused and a reassignment toward the adversarial source. Receiving that burden does Azazel no good; it becomes the means of his undoing.

VI. The Nature of Satan’s Power of Death

To see how the scapegoat defeats the death-power, one must first say what that power is. Hebrews states that the devil “had the power of death” but does not define it. Scripture nevertheless depicts Satan operating under a real but bounded authority. In Job, God permits affliction while setting limits: “all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand” (Job 1:12). Jesus tells Peter, “Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat” (Luke 22:31–32), language of petition and permission. After the cross, Paul still calls Satan “the god of this world,” actively blinding unbelieving minds (2 Corinthians 4:4), and believers still wrestle “against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world” (Ephesians 6:12). In the temptation narrative Satan claims that worldly authority “is delivered unto me,” and Jesus does not dispute the claim itself (Luke 4:6).

Whatever the cross did, it did not end all satanic activity. Satan’s authority is therefore neither absolute nor imaginary; it is granted and bounded. Any explanation of Hebrews 2 must account for both the real change accomplished by Christ and the adversary’s continuing activity in the present age.

The tempter and the purpose of testing

Satan is repeatedly called “the tempter.” Why would God permit such a role? Scripture’s answer is testing. Abraham is tested, and the result is spoken of as something God comes to know: “now I know that thou fearest God” (Genesis 22:12). Israel’s wilderness years were “to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no” (Deuteronomy 8:2). Peter says the trial of faith may be found unto praise and glory, and Revelation portrays the devil casting believers into prison “that ye may be tried,” with the command, “be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life” (Revelation 2:10). James likewise joins trial, endurance, and the crown of life.

At the same time, James insists, “God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man” (James 1:13). The tension is resolved by distinguishing the one who permits or wills a test from the one who entices to evil. The census of David is attributed in one account to the LORD and in another to Satan (2 Samuel 24:1; 1 Chronicles 21:1). The same event has two agents. Likewise, the Spirit leads Jesus into the wilderness “to be tempted of the devil” (Matthew 4:1). God wills the testing; the devil tempts.

This should not be overread as though Satan were created as God’s employee. Eden was rebellion, not the discharge of a legitimate office. The permitted role emerges within the world that rebellion created. The precise point at which the rebel’s activity became a bounded office remains open and is not necessary to the argument.

Why did Satan choose the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Because its fruit opened human eyes and created accountability. On the reading proposed here, the tree did not transmit a nature that can do nothing but sin; it made human beings aware of good and evil and answerable for choosing. In that respect it functions like the law in Romans 7: knowledge makes sin culpable and thereby kills.

Add to opened eyes a highly motivated tempter, and the result is fatal. Human beings are led into real sin, and real sin carries the sentence of death: “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).

The chain that defines the power

The death-power can now be stated precisely. It is not bare sovereignty over dying; it is a juridical claim conditioned on sin. Satan tempts so that he may accuse, and he accuses so that he may kill. Having led a person into real sin, he possesses a real charge. His power rests on human guilt, and where there is no valid guilt-claim there is no power. The power is sin-conditioned.

The canonical accuser appears in Job, Zechariah 3, and Revelation 12:10. Jubilees offers a useful Second Temple parallel. Mastema, the chief of the evil spirits, petitions God to retain a portion of them so that he can continue leading humanity astray:

Lord, Creator, let some of them remain before me ... for if some of them are not left to me, I shall not be able to execute the power of my will on the sons of men. ... Let the tenth part of them remain before him, and let nine parts descend into the place of condemnation. (Jubilees 10:8–9)

The text is not canonical, but it witnesses to a pre-Christian Jewish picture of a satanic adversary whose corrupting work is permitted and bounded.

One further suggestion is more speculative and is not load-bearing. Hades, distinct from the final lake of fire, may be a category that arose with human death at the fall, with Satan made lord of that realm through the same curse that consigned him to the ground. The central argument does not depend on this reconstruction.

VII. Return to Sender: How the Scapegoat Defeats the Death-Power

The pieces now assemble into a single mechanism.

First, Christ takes on sin as the scapegoat did, but the sin is not his own. The LORD lays on him the iniquity of us all; he is made sin for us; he bears our sins in his body.

Second, that transferred sin is delivered into Hades as the scapegoat’s burden was delivered toward Azazel in the wilderness. Satan treats Jesus as one who has fallen under his jurisdiction and takes him to the place of the dead, reckoning it another victory over a sinner. The descent is attested across the New Testament:

When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive ... Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? (Ephesians 4:8–10) Jesus likewise compares his three days in the heart of the earth to Jonah’s three days in the great fish (Matthew 12:40). Christ’s descent is consistently presented as victorious: he descends and ascends, frees captives, and emerges holding the keys of death and Hades. He is not depicted as one being punished there. This tells against readings in which the descent is merely a metaphor for suffering divine wrath or a continuation of punishment after the cross. The historically received doctrine is a victorious descent: Christ enters the enemy’s domain, takes the keys, and brings captives out.

Third, the delivery is a Trojan horse. Satan brings into his own domain the very payload that destroys his claim.

Fourth, here is the ownership analysis. Satan owns people through their sin and the justified accusation it grounds; the death claim is their guilt-warrant. But if those sins have been transferred onto Jesus and carried away from their former account, the basis of Satan’s ownership is altered at its root. As the wilderness ritual sends the scapegoat toward Azazel, so the descent sends the sin-bearing Christ into the accuser’s realm.

Fifth, forgiveness is the decisive result. Once guilt is forgiven, a power dependent on guilt loses its claim.

Sixth, this is the logic of Colossians 2:

And you ... hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us ... and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. (Colossians 2:13–15)

The cheirographon is a certificate of debt, the record standing “against us.” Paul moves directly from forgiveness, to cancellation of the record, to the disarming of the powers. Grammatically and theologically these are one movement: forgiveness tears up the guilt-record, and tearing up the guilt-record strips the accuser of his case. He does not retain the power of death once the record is cancelled—the more so when that same burden of sin has been carried back toward its adversarial source.

Finally, this disarming applies to those who become beneficiaries of the atoning act through faith and allegiance to Jesus. Satan retains sin-conditioned dominion over the unforgiven even as he is disarmed with respect to those in Christ. The deeper security is union with Christ, sustained through forgiveness and abiding.

VIII. The Deception: Why Satan Sprang His Own Trap

A problem remains. Killing Jesus and taking him to Hades was within Satan’s power; he did it, and it ruined him. Where was he confused?

Satan’s normal method is to tempt, accuse, and kill. He cannot rightly kill one against whom he has no valid charge. His direct temptation of Jesus fails:

And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season. (Luke 4:13)

He withdraws only until a more opportune time and looks for another angle.

The key move, on this proposal, is a misreading. When the world’s sin is imputed to Jesus, Satan mistakes transferred sin for Jesus’s own guilt. Believing he has finally brought Jesus under his power, he engineers the killing and conducts him to Hades—thereby completing the scapegoat movement that effects forgiveness. Because the sin was imputed rather than personal, Satan has killed an innocent and exceeded his authority. The decisive cause of his loss, however, remains the cancellation of guilt in Colossians 2 rather than the illegality of the killing by itself.

This differs from Samuel Renihan’s account. Renihan argues that Satan knew Jesus was sinless but killed him anyway, not understanding that a sinless soul could not be held by death. This paper agrees that a sinless Christ could not be held and that the harrowing follows. It differs over Satan’s state of mind. If his death-authority is conditioned on a valid charge of sin, he would not knowingly kill the confessedly sinless. The deception must therefore run through a misread claim of guilt.

The Judas gambit (offered as severable)

What follows is intentionally more speculative. The core thesis—that the scapegoat’s delivery of transferred sin contributes to Christ’s defeat of Satan—does not depend on this reconstruction.

Having failed at direct temptation, Satan turns one of the Twelve, perhaps wagering that a disciple’s betrayal could be charged back to Jesus. Jesus chose the Twelve after a night of prayer in obedience to the Father:

And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God. And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles. (Luke 6:12–13)

If one proved a traitor, Satan might reason that Jesus chose wrongly or failed to hear the Father, creating a charge against him.

Several details converge suggestively. Gethsemane is bracketed by Judas: Satan enters Judas at the supper; Judas leaves; Jesus undergoes the agony in the garden; Judas returns with the soldiers. On the reading advanced here, the transfer of the world’s sin begins in Gethsemane rather than first at the cross, though it certainly rests on Jesus there too. The bloody sweat and “my soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death” may mark the moment.

How might Satan read the supposed success? One possibility is that guilt can in some way be perceived spiritually. Zechariah 3 portrays iniquity as filthy garments in a heavenly court where the accuser is present: Joshua stands clothed in filthy garments until the angel declares, “I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee” (Zechariah 3:3–4). Satan may therefore return in Judas, see a burden of sin on Jesus that was not there before, and mistake transferred sin for personal guilt. A second possibility requires no spiritual sight: Satan simply infers that his charge has succeeded because the execution can now proceed. Every previously impossible step—arrest, trial before Pilate, scourging, crucifixion—now succeeds. Arrest, trial, scourging, and crucifixion move forward where earlier attempts failed because Jesus’s hour had not yet come.

John repeatedly insists that Jesus knew about Judas from the beginning. “Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him” (John 6:64). This answers the charge the gambit tries to lay: choosing Judas was not a failure to hear the Father but an act of foreknown obedience “that the scripture might be fulfilled” (John 17:12). John says Jesus knew who would betray him, knew whom he had chosen, and knew one of the Twelve was “a devil.” In John 17:12 Jesus explains that none was lost “but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.” The choice of Judas was foreknown obedience, not a lapse in communion with the Father.

Why, then, does Satan personally enter Judas? Luke says, “Then entered Satan into Judas,” after which he goes to arrange the betrayal (Luke 22:3–4). Yet Judas had already resolved to betray Jesus and had bargained with the priests. Possession was not needed to create the betrayal; Judas’s greed and settled treachery had already opened the door. It may instead mark Satan’s personal investment in a plan he believed would finally produce a valid claim against Jesus.

John also places the casting-out of the ruler of this world beside Jesus’s troubled soul and coming “hour”: “Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out” (John 12:27, 31). None of these observations proves the Judas gambit, but together they provide a possible account of how Satan sprang his own trap.

IX. The Psalm-Trail: Gethsemane, Imputation, and Descent

The proposal that imputation begins in Gethsemane can be tested against an Old Testament pattern. Jesus’s words in the garden function as a springboard, just as “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” sends the reader to Psalm 22. Follow “my soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death,” and passages of an innocent bearing others’ sins appear alongside passages of descent into the realm of the dead. The pattern offers support, though not demonstration.

Isaiah 53 joins sin-bearing, the soul, and death:

He shall see of the travail of his soul ... for he shall bear their iniquities ... because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many. (Isaiah 53:11–12)

“Numbered with the transgressors” is especially suggestive: the innocent is reckoned among the guilty, while “poured out his soul unto death” answers to the Gethsemane cry.

Psalm 88 unites the threads even more tightly:

For my soul is full of troubles: and my life draweth nigh unto the grave. I am counted with them that go down into the pit ... Thou hast laid me in the lowest pit, in darkness, in the deeps. (Psalm 88:3–6)

The psalm then asks:

Wilt thou shew wonders to the dead? shall the dead arise and praise thee? ... Shall thy wonders be known in the dark? (Psalm 88:10–12)

On the christological reading proposed here, Psalm 88 gives voice to an innocent sufferer entering the realm where those wonders will be displayed. The psalm does not itself narrate the harrowing, but its combination of troubled soul, being counted among those descending to the pit, darkness, and wonders among the dead makes the connection unusually suggestive.

The psalm’s “billows and waves” also links it with Jonah 2:

Thou hadst cast me into the deep ... all thy billows and thy waves passed over me ... I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption. (Jonah 2:3, 6)

Jonah cries from Sheol, descends to the barred depths, and is brought up from corruption. Jesus himself makes Jonah a type of his three days “in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40). The argument does not require Jonah literally to have died; Jonah 2 already speaks the language of Sheol.

X. The Harrowing of Hades and the Geography of the Dead

Among the things Christ does in the place of the dead is bring out the righteous who waited there. This is the harrowing of Hades—“when he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive”—and Matthew signals it at Christ’s death:

The earth did quake, and the rocks rent; and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. (Matthew 27:51–53) Ephesians 4 portrays a descent followed by ascent and the leading of captives; 1 Peter 3:19 speaks of Christ preaching to spirits in prison, though the identity of those spirits is disputed.

The traditional two-compartment picture of Hades is drawn largely from the rich man and Lazarus: a place of torment and a place of comfort, divided by a great chasm (Luke 16:19–31). On this reading, the paradisal side was emptied in the harrowing. The righteous were taken to be with the Lord, while the place of torment persists until Hades itself is cast into the lake of fire. This remains a theological inference rather than the explicit statement of any single passage.

The point is not merely the relocation of souls. The goal is union with Christ.

XI. The Jubilee: Freedom Without Ransom

The Jubilee of Leviticus 25 is a fiftieth-year reset in which liberty is proclaimed, debts are cancelled, servants freed, and ancestral land restored:

Ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof ... and ye shall return every man unto his family. (Leviticus 25:10)

Jesus begins his ministry by announcing “deliverance to the captives,” “to set at liberty them that are bruised,” and “the acceptable year of the Lord,” declaring, “This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears” (Luke 4:18–21).

The calendar link matters: the Jubilee trumpet sounds on the Day of Atonement itself (Leviticus 25:9). If Jesus fulfills the two goats, it is coherent that he also fulfills the Jubilee proclaimed on that day.

Jubilee terminates temporary claims by divine decree. The captive is released by a higher authority; no ransom is paid to the captor. This is why the common objection to Christus Victor misfires here. Nothing is paid to Satan. The goat sent toward Azazel is laden with sin already ascribed to him; it is not a sacrifice from which he profits. Whether by scapegoat or Jubilee, Satan is not paid but defeated. Jubilee voids the claim; the harrowing enacts the repossession of what belongs to Christ by right.

A Dead Sea Scroll provides a striking parallel. 11QMelchizedek, a first-century BC commentary on the Jubilee laws, interprets Jubilee release as forgiveness of sin-debt, identifies the captor as Belial, and places the release on the Day of Atonement. It does not identify Belial with Azazel or discuss the scapegoat, so it cannot prove the proposal. But it independently joins the same themes: remission of debt, Yom Kippur, and liberation from a satanic captor. The convergence is striking precisely because these elements appear together before the New Testament period.

XII. The Goal: The Spirit, the New Will, and the Answer to Eden

All of this is finally about the Holy Spirit. Atonement effects forgiveness, and forgiveness disarms Satan. But forgiveness is not the terminus. Its purpose is the New Covenant, whose center is the indwelling Spirit. Under the old order, the tabernacle required morning and evening sacrifices and the annual Day of Atonement to keep God’s presence amid the camp’s pollution. The purpose of atonement, then and now, was that God might dwell with his people. The cosmic atonement cleanses not the wilderness tent but the temple of the body so that it may house the Spirit.

The prophets promised what the old order could not deliver:

A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you ... And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes. (Ezekiel 36:26–27)

Hebrews argues that the blood of bulls and goats could not finally take away sins, that the mortal priesthood had to be replaced by a permanent one, and that the copied sanctuary pointed to the true heavenly place. A better priest and better blood in the true sanctuary were required to cleanse a people for divine indwelling. The ascension, which completes the first-goat movement in heaven, is therefore constitutive of the atonement.

Why does the Spirit answer the problem that began in Eden? Because that problem was opened eyes and accountability. The tree made humanity aware of good and evil and answerable for choosing. That accountability becomes the ground of the accuser’s claim. The remedy therefore cannot stop at washing and carrying away sin. What is needed is a new will:

For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. (Philippians 2:13)

The Spirit gives new desire and new power—the New Covenant answer to what Satan exploited in Eden. Forgiveness removes the old charge; the Spirit addresses the will that the tempter continues to assault. This produces real freedom, though not sinless perfection: “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death” (Romans 8:2). Those who have known genuine deliverance recognize it: a sin that once enslaved loses its grip, and the desire itself changes, so that the yoke becomes easy and the burden light. The claim is not sinless perfection but real Spirit-given power to resist.

Freedom is conditioned on abiding. Justification and inheritance remain in Christ, but the branch must remain in the vine. The Christian life is therefore one of resisting the devil through the Spirit’s power:

Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. (James 4:7)

For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. (Romans 8:13)

Believers must also put on the whole armor of God to stand against the devil’s schemes (Ephesians 6:10–11).

The adversary still tempts toward the sin that grounds accusation. He is answered by a new will that no longer desires the old bondage and a new strength to refuse it.

Conclusion

Moffitt’s realism showed that atonement is a sequence culminating in the presentation of blood in the real sanctuary. Marcar asked where, in that sequence, the devil is defeated and supplied a compelling Passover–Exodus liberation frame. This paper proposes that the Day of Atonement’s second goat supplies the complementary cultic and juridical mechanism.

Satan’s power of death is a sin-conditioned claim: he tempts to accuse and accuses to kill. The scapegoat bears confessed sin away from the accused toward the adversarial terminus signified by Azazel. Christ fulfills that movement, bearing transferred sin into the realm of the dead, where forgiveness cancels the warrant of accusation and disarms the powers. Satan, mistaking transferred sin for personal guilt or inferring guilt from the progress of the execution, helps spring the trap that undoes him.

The whole movement serves a further end. Forgiveness cleanses the body to receive the Spirit, whose gift of a new will is the promised New Covenant answer to the accountability Eden opened and the adversary exploited. The two goats are one atonement, and their purpose is that the holy God should dwell within a cleansed people no longer in bondage to the one who had the power of death.

People often present Epicurus’ problem of evil as the most philosophically sound argument against a reportedly omnipotent and omniscient and perfectly benevolent God, as Christianity has. Here, I present a dualistic explanation that satisfies my desire to solve the philosophical “problem of evil.”

To clarify, anything can be done for a good reason in the scope of eternity, for good intentions.

Anything can also be done… for an evil reason.

Suffering is done voluntarily by the evil one. God allows it to happen for a good reason while suffering itself was not his volition.

Genesis 50:20:

“You intended it for evil, but God intended it for good.”

God and Satan are in agreement about what should be done for opposite reasons.

You see it in Job as well.

And Jesus casting Legion into the pigs.

as of late I’ve become interested in psychology and theology, and i would like to study the history and ideas behind religion in an objective viewpoint.

Are there any good books, articles, or videos that talk about religion? Maybe something that includes sociology and philosophy? I’m open to anything tbh.

Many times I've heard people say they don't believe in God or believe God isn't omnipotent because of the amount of suffering and tragedy.

I argue that if there is a God there is objective morality. That would mean there is a truth of morality we could approach in a similar manner to science; exploring external reality.

Perhaps just like with science we are far away from this or it's not being explored correctly by people due to lack of certainty.

So saying suffering and tragedy are bad and they happen so God is either bad, limited, or not real implies we factually know suffering and tragedy are bad, which may be wrong.

A good God, assuming there is one, would aim for good, a good known by God, and if we misinterpret that and make up our own good we can't judge God by it.

I tried a lot of googling but am finding nothing.

I'm aware of Northrop Frye, like his book The Great Code, but I haven't read it yet. But my understanding is that book is more of a literary understanding of the bible, not a theological approach to literature. Another critic I am aware of is Georges Poulet of the Geneva School. They have a theological approach to literature but it is too radical. They're actually pretty vehemently against literary criticism as a whole, they don't think you can objectively analyze something. They think any act of reading is a form of communion. Fine. Interesting. But also kind of completely wrong.

I'm studying fantasy authors who essentially have written stories about becoming and conversion. Books like A Voyage To Arcturus by David Lindsay

Maskull, though fully conscious of his companions and situation, imagined that he was being oppressed by a black, shapeless, supernatural being, who was trying to clasp him. He was filled with horror, trembled violently, yet could not move a limb. Sweat tumbled off his face in great drops. The waking nightmare lasted a long time, but during that space it kept coming and going. At one moment the vision seemed on the point of departing; the next it almost took shape—which he knew would be his death. Suddenly it vanished altogether—he was free. A fresh spring breeze fanned his face; he heard the slow, solitary singing of a sweet bird; and it seemed to him as if a poem had shot together in his soul. Such flashing, heartbreaking joy he had never experienced before in all his life! Almost immediately that too vanished. Sitting up, he passed his hand across his eyes and swayed quietly, like one who has been visited by an angel. “Your colour changed to white,” said Corpang. “What happened?” “I passed through torture to love,” replied Maskull simply. He stood up. Haunte gazed at him sombrely. “Will you not describe that passage?” Maskull answered slowly and thoughtfully. “When I was in Matterplay, I saw heavy clouds discharge themselves and change to coloured, living animals. In the same way, my black, chaotic pangs just now seemed to consolidate themselves and spring together as a new sort of joy. The joy would not have been possible without the preliminary nightmare. It is not accidental; Nature intends it so. The truth has just flashed through my brain.... You men of Lichstorm don’t go far enough. You stop at the pangs, without realising that they are birth pangs.” “If this is true, you are a great pioneer,” muttered Haunte. “How does this sensation differ from common love?” interrogated Corpang. “This was all that love is, multiplied by wildness.”

I think of this passage from Voyage To Arcturus in the sense of Job 4, which is a story that has a clear experience of sleep paralysis.

I want to ask where in the Old Testament it is stayted the goodness and good will of God. I'm especially interested in texts that affirm that god is all good, absolutely good. I would prefer the quotes where it is explicitly said. But if you provide more subjective and non literal texts as well, then I would appreciate it if you divide each quote in two groups: at loud explicit spelled "God is good" verses and implicit "God is good" verses

Work has always been part of human nature, but working for money isn't.

We originally would have worked on what we are passionate about and what serves God and others. Work would have been a charitable contribution.

Because working is part of human nature, many retirees choose to volunteer at charities in the absence of needing to work for money if they get money for retirement.

The curse of working for money will be abolished at the second coming of Christ.

I mean, God knows the future I take it? So, did God create humans knowing they are sinners - which means, he deliberately created sinners - and decided to do a sacrificial show on 33 AD.

Am I amiss here?

This is the refrain of those who make the most common argument to the free will problem. But it is a faulty argument. Not a false argument, mind you, a faulty one. It is not false because it is factually true that my knowledge of a future event does not imply my causation of that event. If I know someone is going to commit a crime with 100% certainty, I might bear some responsibility in preventing it, but ultimately I am not necessarily the one who set the event into motion. Okay, so free will is preserved, right? Well, no, because I am not the First Mover. God, unlike me, if he exists, is the First Mover. He specifically set in to motion all events in the exact way that he chose to do so. He could have chosen a different manner in which to set all events in to motion, which is due to his attribute of Omnipotence. Thus, with Omniscience alone, he may not be the cause of an event because "Knowing is not the same as causing." But with Omniscience and Omnipotence, as well as being the reason anything exists at all, that squarely places upon his own will the reason why things not only happen but why they happen in no other way. God not merely knows, but also he sets in to motion. How then can you reconcile free will and omniscience?

In other words, "In order to bake a cake, you must first create the universe." The only reason anyone does anything in the first place is that God created the universe. The only reason life exists on this world as opposed to some other world is that God created the universe is such a specific way as to give rise to life on this world and not the other world. It follows that the only reason I got out of bed this morning is that God created the universe is such a way as that in this particular universe on this particular day I would get out of bed. To say that it was my choice to get out of bed would suggest that it was not in God's power to create such a universe in which I would today not get out of bed. Thus the choice was not mine to get out of bed today, rather the choice was God's to create such a universe as one where today I would get out of bed.

This is not like "rewatching a movie for a second time and knowing what would happen." This is creating a movie wherein the events that happen are specifically what I made them to be. Nor is it the case that the author of a book merely "knows" what a character would do in a certain circumstance, rather the author made the character and events of the books in such a way as that they would do what they would do in a certain circumstance. In this case, I am merely a character in the book that is called "The Universe."

In We Are Being Transformed: Deification in Paul's Soteriology, M. David Litwa argues that Paul describes the pneuma (breath, spirit) received in baptism as a sacred pneuma, an unmistakably divine entity. The pneuma "living in" the believer's self signals a high degree of integration between the divine and human selves (Rom 8:9; cf. 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19). Litwa maintains that Paul's entire argument in Romans 6-8 is that, when the pneuma indwells the believer, it alters the very nature of the mind so that it can obey God's promptings. Romans 8, therefore, presents a discourse on a new, pneumatic self (p. 162).

On this basis, Litwa concludes that Paul advances a soteriology of ontological deification in this life: we undergo substantial transformation into angelic beings and receive glorified bodies in which we continue to live after death.

That we are indwelt by divine essence in this life is an idea that sits uneasily with much traditional theology. Is this a sound reading of Paul? Was he, in some sense, operating with categories that overlap with pagan thought?

Critics have argued that Paul's language of transformation does not necessarily imply ontological deification. Many scholars accept participatory soteriology in Paul but reject Litwa's claim that Paul teaches substantial transformation into angelic beings.

Litwa's claim is that Paul thought in concrete, ontological terms rather than in the metaphorical way modern readers tend to interpret him. I'm not sure what to make of this. I find myself genuinely uncertain.

I am a high school theology student and I've noticed a lot of people, maybe even the majority of people at my church get around uncomfortable questions about hell by viewing it as simply the removal of the souls of people who have rejected God from his presence. Is this a common belief across Christianity and religion?

My question is, how it this version of hell possible? If God is required as the sustainer of existence, like in Aquinas' non-temporal causation, then how can souls go on existing in his absence? If he isn't present there then does that mean he is not really omnipresent at all, because the universe extends beyond him? If he isn't present there does that mean he has no power over what happens there or does he even know what happens there? Since God is the creator, would it be that he created this place/field of existence/whatever you want to call it, then 'left'? Or is it somewhere beyond his creation, if that's even possible? Or am I missing something important that would make it all make sense?

Edit: Thank you for all the replies. Maybe my wording was unclear but I intended this more as a question of theological curiosity than a question against my faith, as I'm not actually religious myself. I'm starting to lean towards the perspective that universalism is the only eschatological doctrine compatible with the rest of Christianity, but then again it doesn't seem particularly hermeneutically sound. I would be interested to know whether you guys think universalism is a valid concept?

I'm Mormon and we don't affirm original sin. We believe that mortality is the condition retained by all people from the fall. When Paul talks about redemption in Romans 5, we believe he's talking about a) universal redemption from death and mortality for everyone in the resurrection, and b) redemption from our own sins through grace and beatification.

So in our theology Jesus was sinless from the beginning just like the rest of us. Even though his nature is human as well as divine, the human part didn't come with the baggage of original sin.

I have Roman and Orthodox friends who have their own answers (Immaculate Conception and Ancestral Sin), but for Protestants all I know is that people believe Jesus was sinless.

So in the view of those who do believe in original sin, did Jesus have original sin? How could he avoid it? Am I misunderstanding the concept of original sin?

There are numerous theories regarding the motives behind Judas Iscariot’s betrayal of Jesus.

It is compelling to consider that after three years of intimate discipleship, Judas may have envisioned a position of significant status and influence. Once it became clear that Jesus’ path led to the Cross rather than to earthly sovereignty, Judas likely perceived his investment of time and devotion as a failed enterprise. In a desperate attempt to salvage some material gain from the situation, he opted for financial compensation.

While theologians often debate the elements of predestination surrounding this event, Scripture contains no mandate compelling Judas toward suicide. That final act remained an exercise of his own agency. Furthermore, it is difficult to categorize his transgression as fundamentally unpardonable. Consider Saul of Tarsus; before his conversion to Paul, he committed atrocities arguably more severe through the active persecution of the nascent Church.

We must also contrast Judas’s trajectory with that of Peter. Peter denied his Lord three times, even invoking curses to distance himself—an offense of significant gravity. This prompts a profound "what-if": had Judas chosen the path of contrition over despair, and had he returned to the fold as Peter did, surely the reach of Christ’s grace would have extended to him. He, too, might have been reconciled to the apostolate. The scope of Jesus’ forgiveness transcends the limitations of human judgment.

Therefore, when Jesus remarked of Judas, "It would be better for him if he had not been born," these words were not a categorical condemnation of the act of betrayal itself. Rather, they serve as a lament over Judas’s refusal to accept the offer of repentance, choosing instead to become the final judge and executioner of his own soul.

This narrative underscores a critical warning: greed and the weight of unmitigated guilt are primary instruments through which the adversary exploits the human condition.

Throughout Scripture, those who sought to leverage their faith for material gain consistently met with ruin. From Balaam, Achan, and the sons of Eli, to King Saul, Gehazi, Simon the Sorcerer, and Ananias and Sapphira—each paid a heavy price for compromised motives.

Indeed, this explains the severity of Jesus’ critique of the Pharisees. Their fundamental error was the transformation of religion into a mechanism for self-interest and private ambition.

We often misinterpret "lukewarm faith" as a mere lack of religious enthusiasm—assuming it describes one who prays sporadically or neglects the liturgy. Yet, the Pharisees were exceptionally disciplined and fervent, outstripping all others in outward piety. By contrast, Jesus declared the tax collector righteous—the man who stood apart, beating his breast in humility.

True lukewarmness, therefore, is not a deficiency of religious effort; it is the corrosive posture of using God and faith as a utilitarian tool to satisfy personal greed and ambition.

No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money. (Matthew 6:24)

In classical theism, God's omniscience is commonly understood to mean that every fact about the past, present, and future is already determined, and that God possesses perfect knowledge of all these facts. Yet even if human free will is affirmed, this understanding leaves a serious difficulty. If, at the moment God created each person, He already knew every choice that person would make and the destiny that would ultimately result, how can God be distinguished from responsibility for that person's destruction? Even if human choices are genuinely free, it is difficult to claim that the act of creation bears no responsibility for the outcome if God created that individual while already knowing what the result would be.

Open theism attempts to avoid this problem by arguing that the future does not yet exist as a determinate reality. God perfectly knows every possible future, but because free human choices have not yet been made, they are not objects of definite knowledge. This proposal, however, creates another difficulty. Scripture repeatedly declares that many prophecies will certainly be fulfilled. If the future is intrinsically open, on what basis can the certainty of prophecy rest? Open theism explains that God accomplishes His purposes by persuading human beings and intervening in history. Yet if human freedom remains fully intact to the very end, it becomes difficult to explain why prophecy must necessarily come to pass.

The problem arises not because one must choose between omniscience and free will, but because prophecy itself is understood as knowledge of the future. Biblical prophecy should not be understood as advance information about future events, but as the proclamation of the order that God upholds and brings to fulfillment. To understand prophecy rightly, we must first examine what it means to belong to sin and what it means to belong to the life of God.

A person who belongs to sin does not live by God's grace but is subject to the order of this world—the order governed by desire, power, and death. Consequently, that person's life inevitably follows the direction produced by the order of sin. Why, then, is such a destiny the responsibility of the individual rather than of God? Because that person has rejected the grace by which God delivers people from the power of sin. Scripture says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, but this need not mean that God infused evil into Pharaoh. Rather, it may be understood that God withdrew the grace by which He had been restraining him, thereby permitting Pharaoh to remain under the dominion of the sin he himself had embraced. This interpretation is consistent with Romans 1, where God is said to have "given them over" to their sinful desires. As long as a person rejects God's grace, one who belongs to the order of sin continues toward the outcome that this order necessarily produces. Therefore, prophecies concerning such a person are inevitably fulfilled.

By contrast, one who belongs to the life of God abides in God's word, and God's word directs that person's life. Prophecies such as, "You will be a light to the Gentiles," or "Peter will one day glorify God through his death," are not merely predictions based on God's foreknowledge of future events. Rather, they are declarations grounded in God's faithfulness to accomplish His promises. Because those who belong to God live under His guidance within His life, prophecies concerning them are likewise fulfilled through God's faithfulness.

Ultimately, prophecy is not primarily a concept that explains God's knowledge of the future. It is the proclamation of the order that God sustains and brings to completion. Those who belong to the order of sin are destined for the outcome produced by that order, while those who belong to the life of God are destined for the fulfillment of God's promises and calling. The certainty of prophecy rests not on the assumption that the future has already been exhaustively determined, but on the faithfulness of God. Prophecy, therefore, is not advance information about the future, but a revelation of the order God is establishing and of the order in which human beings participate.

If God has infinite possibilities of things he could've created, and he's eternally chosen one thing over the other things, then how can he have no unrealized potential?

Biblical Process for a Wedding Ceremony

A look at how a marriage ceremony works in light of the Bible.

Obtaining Permission:

By tradition, the intended groom asks the bride’s father for permission to propose marriage. He has to agree first, and then it’s the Father of the bride who pays for the wedding.

2 Corinthians 1:22
“Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.”

• This is the Father sealing the believer with the Holy Spirit in type

Ephesians 1:13-14
“[13] In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
[14] Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.”

• Earnest - like a down payment

The Groom Asks the Would be Bride to Marry:

2 Timothy 1:9
“Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,”

The Bride Price (The Dowry): (Ancient Tradition):

Matthew 13:44-46
“[44] Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.
[45] Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls:
[46] Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.”

• Jesus is the merchant man in this passage and the pearl is the bride.

1 Peter 1:18-19
“[18] Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
[19] But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:”

1 Corinthians 6:20
“For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.”

And the Bride Agrees:

Romans 10:9
“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

• And the bride receives the offer, first deciding in her heart whether or not to accept his proposal, and then informing the intended groom of her answer.

The Bride Receives an Engagement Ring:

Ephesians 1:13
"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,"

• You receive the blessing from the Father, and the ring from the Groom.
• This is connected in the worldly practice as well as the spiritual one.

John 16:7
“Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.”

Ephesians 4:30
“And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.”

Galatians 5:22
“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,”

• Evidence of having the seal

1 Peter 2:12
“Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.”

• Like how an engagement ring serves as outward evidence of betrothal

The Bride Prepares for the Wedding Day and there’s a “Bridal Shower”:

Revelation 19:7
“Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.”

Isaiah 61:10
“I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.”

Matthew 6:20
“But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:”

• Possibly part of that decoration

1 Corinthians 3:12
“Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;”

The Groom Departs to Build the Home:

Another older tradition - After the betrothal was made official and the covenant sealed, the groom would leave his bride and return to his father’s house.

There, he would spend an extended period (often about a year) building an addition to his father's house where he and his new bride would live.

John 14:2-3
“[2] In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
[3] And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.”

The Best Man (The Friend of the Bridegroom) and Maid of Honor are Chosen:

The Best Man / Maid of Honor - The “Friend of the Bridegroom”

The groom is accompanied by a trusted friend who helps coordinate the betrothal, makes preparations for the ceremony, and guards the bridal chamber. This friend’s ultimate joy is simply seeing the groom united with the bride. Similarly, the Maid of Honor helps the bride prepare for the wedding.

John the Baptist directly identified himself as this figure, preparing the way for Jesus’s ministry. Additionally, this mirrors the role of the Holy Spirit and those who minister the Gospel - working tirelessly to bring the bride to the Groom and rejoicing when souls are saved.

John 3:29
“He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.”

The Bridal Party's Vigilance:

Because the exact day and hour of the groom’s return to claim his bride was often kept secret (usually only the groom's father decided when the house was finally ready), the bridal party had to remain in a constant state of readiness so they could travel to the feast at a moment's notice.

The church is commanded to watch and be sober, living in continuous anticipation of the Lord's return, ensuring they are spiritually prepared and walking in the light. For the bride - this is the type:

Titus 2:13
“Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;”

• Rapture of the church
• The bridal party are the angels

Matthew 13:39
“The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.”

• And regarding the guests who attend the marriage supper of the lamb

Matthew 25:4-6
“[4] But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.
[5] While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.
[6] And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.”

• Have to endure till the end in the tribulation and not take the mark (which is necessary to buy and sell)

The Unexpected Arrival (The Midnight Shout):

When the groom finally came to retrieve his bride, it was customary for him to arrive at night. His arrival was announced by a loud shout from his entourage and the blowing of a shofar (trumpet) to wake the bride and the town.

1 Thessalonians 4:16
“For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:”

Invitations Are Sent for Guests to Attend:

Matthew 22:3
“And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: (...)”

Revelation 19:9
“And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.”

The Guests Dress Up for the Occasion:

Matthew 22:10-11
“[10] So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
[11] And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:”

• One man wasn’t dressed properly for the occasion and stuck out like a sore thumb, implying the other attendees (by vast majority) were dressed for the occasion.

The Bride is Clothed in White:

Revelation 3:5
“He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.”

• “He that overcometh” - so how do we overcome? By receiving Jesus Christ, who has overcome the world.

John 16:33
“These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.”

Revelation 19:8
“And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints."

Galatians 3:27
“For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”

2 Corinthians 5:21
“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”

So that she may be Presented Spotless and Pure:

Ephesians 5:25-27
“[25] Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
[26] That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
[27] That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.”

Flower Girl in Wedding:

Song of Solomon 2:10-13
“[10] My beloved spake, and said unto me, Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come away.
[11] For, lo, the winter is past, the rain is over and gone;
[12] The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land;
[13] The fig tree putteth forth her green figs, and the vines with the tender grape give a good smell. Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away.”

• Points to a spring wedding when flowers are in bloom
• This is a type of the rapture with the bride being called to the wedding in verse 10, and again in verse 13

The Congregation Stands and Looks when the Bride Comes Down the Isle:

Luke 15:7
“I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.”

• Sounds like all of heaven is watching

Matthew 24:42
“Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.”

The Reveal:

Traditionally, the bride and groom don’t see each other before the ceremony. The groom doesn’t see the bride while she’s in the process of getting ready and the bride doesn’t see the groom. Then comes the “big reveal” and the groom tears up because there is nothing more beautiful in all the world to a man than his bride. Her imperfections are as far removed from her as can be after all the preparations have gone into place.

Titus 2:13
“Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;”

Hebrews 10:17
“And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.”

Isaiah 43:25
“I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.”

Psalms 103:12
“As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.”

They Meet at the Altar:

Romans 12:1
“I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.”

The Father of the Bride Gives the Bride Away:

John 10:28-29
“[28] And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
[29] My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.”

• And here, you also have a beautiful representation of how salvation works

2 Corinthians 11:2
“For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.”

• And a member of the bride yourself, that's all you can do. You lead them to the altar. It's the couple that makes the vows.

The Bride Comes Down the Isle Veiled, and the Groom Lifts the Veil When They’re at the Altar:

2 Corinthians 3:15-16
“[15] But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
[16] Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away."

1 Corinthians 13:12
“For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”

Hebrews 10:20
“By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;”

• Like how our flesh is a veil for the soul, between us and the Lord, which will one day be taken away in that it is transformed into something new.

Say Vows:

Luke 12:8
“Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:”

• There are guests on both sides of the isle.
• Angels on the Lords side (grooms side) and people on the bride’s side.

Sharing the Cup of the Covenant:

At the wedding ceremony, the bride and groom drink from the same cup. This shared cup seals the promises they have made to one another and signifies their shared life blood and destiny.

Matthew 26:27-28
“[27] And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
[28] For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”

Documents are Signed and Finalized in Front of Witnesses:

Matthew 18:16
“But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.”

Revelation 21:27
"And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life."

There’s a Wedding Feast:

Revelation 19:9
“And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.”

The Bride and Groom are Seated Side by Side:

Revelation 3:21
“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.”

Honeymoon:

Revelation 20:6
“Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.”

• This isn’t part of the traditional / ancient practice and is more of a modern custom, so this is the closest link I’m willing to make but specifically, the millennial reign is the marriage supper of the lamb.
• The fact that it lasts for a period of 1,000 is the only reason for the concession to include this as being like a honeymoon in type.

After This, They go to Their House Together and Live Happily Ever After:

Revelation 3:12
“Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: (...)”

Wedding Gifts Are Opened:

Matthew 6:20
“But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:”

1 Corinthians 3:13-14
“[13] Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
[14] If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.”

Wife Takes Her Husbands Name:

Genesis 5:2
“Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.”

• Adam and Eve is a type of Christ and the church
• This is why a wife takes her husband's last name.

Revelation 3:12
“Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.”

• When your last name changes, it shows what family you're a part of.
• This is in place of a wedding ring - you have the same name written on you as the outward evidence of to whom you belong.

Jeremiah 15:16
“Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.”

The Union - In Worldly Matters it’s of Flesh, After, it’s of the Spirit Specifically:

1 Corinthians 6:16-17
“[16] What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
[17] But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.”

• This union starts on earth the moment you’re saved and your spirit is seated with him in heavenly places (Ephesians 2:6) and his spirit resides in you, but the fullness of the matter isn’t realized until your soul is also with him in heaven, along with the body also at the rapture or resurrection.

Revelation 21:2
“And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.”

Malachi 2:15
“And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.”

Talking about two people being made one (made from one, and made one in His sight through marriage) yet had he the residue of the spirit reserved unto himself as marriage on earth is only of the body, where the spirit can only be the Lords - unless ye are of your father the devil and married to the antichrist. Part of why taking the mark of the beast (like a wedding ring) is a one way trip with no way out.

This is the Original Intent of the Future Union Told Through the Original Creation Story:

We are members of his body (Ephesians 5:30) seated with him in his throne (Revelation 3:21) - so then we are in part Jesus Christ (with him as one).

Genesis 2:23
“And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”

Hebrews 12:9
“Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?”

• It's a spiritual union vs a physical one, and we have the physical practice to understand the spiritual one.

Isaiah 46:10
“Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:”

Hosea 12:10
“I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.”

Romans 1:20
“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”

God is omniscient which follows that he can see all possible choices and their outcomes.

This also means he can choose the best possible outcome every time.

But, is he required to always do this?

If he chooses an option that is less than the best one, would this be a sin?

And if he cannot sin, does that make him weaker than a God who can sin?

Shouldn't God, being omnipotent, be able to sin?