What did Christ know and when did He or does He know it

I’m not interested in the unbiblical work of others when we have the clear teaching of the Bible on the scapegoat.

hope this helps !!!
 
civic said:
I’m not interested in the unbiblical work of others when we have the clear teaching of the Bible on the scapegoat.

hope this helps !!!
Click to expand...
And I'm not interested in the unbiblical Catholic site you have posted without reading the responses TO that post.

I stand by what I have posted, biblically sound, and don't need your approval or disapproval.

J.
 
Johann said:
And I'm not interested in the unbiblical Catholic site you have posted without reading the responses TO that post.

I stand by what I have posted, biblically sound, and don't need your approval or disapproval.

J.
Click to expand...
I gave you 10 biblical reasons Jesus is not the scapegoat .

Next fallacy
 
Johann said:
All answered.

Does the Bible say Jesus was our Scapegoat? (More Problems with Penal Substitution)

In a recent post where I discussed the Mercy Seat as it relates to Romans 3:25, a Calvinist named Michael objected by saying that I had neg...
catholicnick.blogspot.com catholicnick.blogspot.com

Read the responses or go to Got Questions.

J.
Click to expand...
Nope not interested in the cut n paste but sola scripture which does not call Jesus a scapegoat.

Next fallacy
Next dodge.

Maybe you will someday type out your own reply instead of the works of others.

I don’t need the works of others for my belief they are all found in the Bible alone.

hope this helps !!!
 
civic said:
Nope not interested in the cut n paste but sola scripture which does not call Jesus a scapegoat.

Next fallacy
Next dodge.

Maybe you will someday type out your own reply instead of the works of others.

I don’t need the works of others for my belief they are all found in the Bible alone.

hope this helps !!!
Click to expand...
Your link endorsed purgatory-your copy and paste link and you were not even aware of it-or maybe you were..

One of the responses--

Michael Taylor said...
continued from before...

Nick said>>As for the Scapegoat, that didn't have anything to do with the Mercy Seat.<<

LOL! Read Leviticus 16. It's all of a piece, Nick. There were two goats and two rituals. But you can't say that one had nothing to do with the other because both were essential parts of the one Day of Atonement. This is all the more true when consider that either goat could have served either purpose (See Leviticus 16:7-8, where lots were cast over the goats.)

Nick>>I'd say my biggest objection to your comments on the Scapegoat is that you don't even consider that the function could simply have been to 'banish sin' in a figurative sense, like putting your garbage on a truck that carries it off to the dump.<<

There's no reason to make that analogy since sin isn't something God merely "banishes"; rather it is something God intends to totally extinguish. If sin is merely "banished," then it's still out there "alive" someplace in the wilderness. No one expected the scapegoat to simply survive on its own, as if it had merely been excommunicated for a time, with the possibility of coming back later. The picture of the scapegoat is that of sin being permanently cut off from the people (thus prefiguring the day in which sin will one day be fully removed from God's people). But for this to happen, sin has to "die." Perhaps the idea of banishing the goat to the wilderness was to symbolize the fact that it takes time to kill off sin. But the expectation is that the goat was going to die bearing the sins of the people, and outside the "camp" of the people. (Sort of reminds me of Jesus dying "outside" the gates of Jerusalem, bearing the sins of his people.)

Nick>>The "cutting off" of an Israelite didn't mean they were sent to the wilderness to die, it simply meant they were excommunicated from the Covenant. They lost their place as one of God's People and were reduced to Gentile status.<<

Which is exactly tantamount to spiritual death, symbolized by the certain physical death that would quickly ensue by being sent into the wilderness. No one was expected to survive excommunication, Nick. Being "cut off," was the same as being sent to your death--both physical and spiritual.

Nick>>As far as "bearing iniquity" goes, you're assuming what you have to prove.<<

How so? Are you denying that the scapegoat bears the iniquity of the people?

continued....

July 17, 2013 at 9:00 AM
Michael Taylor said...
continued from before...

Nick>>The notion of "bearing iniquity" when applied to the Priest in places like Leviticus 10:17 means it's their job to make atonement for the sins of the people, not that the Priest himself becomes guilty.<<

Somehow in your mind this an objection to PSA. It seems like you're attributing to us the view that the guilt of the nation was transferred to the OT priest himself. That isn't true. We don't hold this view. We do hold that, in the hands of the priest, the guilt of the nation was transferred to the scapegoat--not to the priest.

Now here is where it gets interesting and the parallels are not exact. In Christ we have both our high priest and our victim. As Hebrews puts it, he offers "the sacrifice of himself" (Hebrews 7:27). So in this sense, our guilt is transferred to the High Priest, precisely because the priest is simultaneously the sin offering. But it is Jesus-as-victim to whom the guilt/punishment/curse is transferred. "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21). Yet at the same time, it is Jesus-as-priest who offers the atoning sacrifice for our sins, namely his own body and blood (of which the Eucharist is the most elegant symbol).

Hopefully you can see how the scapegoat prefigures this aspect (though surely not the totality) of Christ's death. Not only does Jesus die outside the camp (like the scapegoat), but he also bears our iniquity (just like the scapegoat).

So what I'm saying is what all the NT authors have said: Jesus is our Passover lamb (check). Jesus is our high priest (check). Jesus is our mercy seat (check). Jesus is the victim whose blood covers the mercy seat (check). Jesus is the second goat that bears the iniquity of the people outside the camp, thereby fulfilling all aspects of the Day of Atonement rituals (plural), not just he mercy seat ritual (check).

Nick. If there is a heresy going on here, it is yours. You simultaneously affirm the efficacy of Christ's atonement, even as you rob it of its force by making free will the deciding factor in its efficacy. You believe in an Atonement that makes everyone save-able, but which actually saves no one. That's heresy, Nick. Rome teaches it. Protestant Arminianism teaches it.

continued....
July 17, 2013 at 9:14 AM
Michael Taylor said...
continued....

I, on the other hand, get to preach an atonement that actually saves. I get to preach a Jesus who "saves his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). But that's because I believe God has a particular people he intends to save. This is what makes my view (which I daresay is the biblical view) so liberating. I can evangelize with confidence because I know that who ever accepts my message is, like Lydia, one whose heart has been opened by the Lord to hear it and embrace it. And whoever does not accept it is like the very people to whom Isaiah was sent to preach--"so that they would not turn and be healed" (John 12:40).

That's what the true Gospel does (not Rome's false gospel of objective redemption + self-savation by cooperation): It separates the wheat from the chaff. So when people reject the message, I am not dismayed, because I've been given every reason to suppose at the outset that not many will accept it and be saved. But when they do believe, it's because God has given them the faith to believe and repent. And why has God given them this faith in the first place? It is because Jesus has laid down his life for his sheep. Those for whom Christ died are identical to those whom he gives faith in the savior. My role is simply to be instrumental in preaching this good news. (But of course, what is good news for the elect, is in fact bad news for the reprobate.)

The only "good news" you can offer is that if people fulfill certain requirements and avail themselves of the sacraments, then they can be saved, so long as they maintain that salvation by not falling into mortal sin. So the "good news" according to Rome is really bad news--for everything, including the reception of helping graces, depends ultimately on man's willingness to cooperate with grace. That means, at the end of the day, the only difference between those in heaven and those in hell has nothing to do with grace, and everything to do with free will. (That is the most dreadful news I've ever heard. For who could ever stand before a holy God on the basis of his own choices?)

Repent and believe the Gospel (Mark 1:15).

July 17, 2013 at 9:15 AM
Michael Taylor said...
Nick,

In the absence of my library, I've postponed some of the "Psub" articles I have planned and decided to respond to this one in length. Here is the link:


I hope (if you get around to reading it) that you will see that your case against PSA or "Psub" (I like that) amounts to nothing and is based on both a selective reading of Leviticus 16 and some rather obvious either/or thinking.

You're never going to talk a Calvinist out of Psub with that kind of reasoning since anyone with even half an open mind can see that Leviticus includes the ideas of cleansing and propitiation.

But what you're overlooking is the fact that both cleansing and propitiation (as well as redemption and forgiveness) are the end result of a very "bloody" means--a means which involves not only vicarious suffering, but also penal substitution.

I applaud you for at least being consistent with your system, which is more than I can say for Protestant Arminians who often affirm Psub while simultaneously denying particular redemption. To me, one goes with the other.

No dodging from my end.

J.
 
Last edited:
Johann said:
Your link endorsed purgatory-your copy and paste link and you were not even aware of it-or maybe you were..

One of the responses--

Michael Taylor said...
continued from before...

Nick said>>As for the Scapegoat, that didn't have anything to do with the Mercy Seat.<<

LOL! Read Leviticus 16. It's all of a piece, Nick. There were two goats and two rituals. But you can't say that one had nothing to do with the other because both were essential parts of the one Day of Atonement. This is all the more true when consider that either goat could have served either purpose (See Leviticus 16:7-8, where lots were cast over the goats.)

Nick>>I'd say my biggest objection to your comments on the Scapegoat is that you don't even consider that the function could simply have been to 'banish sin' in a figurative sense, like putting your garbage on a truck that carries it off to the dump.<<

There's no reason to make that analogy since sin isn't something God merely "banishes"; rather it is something God intends to totally extinguish. If sin is merely "banished," then it's still out there "alive" someplace in the wilderness. No one expected the scapegoat to simply survive on its own, as if it had merely been excommunicated for a time, with the possibility of coming back later. The picture of the scapegoat is that of sin being permanently cut off from the people (thus prefiguring the day in which sin will one day be fully removed from God's people). But for this to happen, sin has to "die." Perhaps the idea of banishing the goat to the wilderness was to symbolize the fact that it takes time to kill off sin. But the expectation is that the goat was going to die bearing the sins of the people, and outside the "camp" of the people. (Sort of reminds me of Jesus dying "outside" the gates of Jerusalem, bearing the sins of his people.)

Nick>>The "cutting off" of an Israelite didn't mean they were sent to the wilderness to die, it simply meant they were excommunicated from the Covenant. They lost their place as one of God's People and were reduced to Gentile status.<<

Which is exactly tantamount to spiritual death, symbolized by the certain physical death that would quickly ensue by being sent into the wilderness. No one was expected to survive excommunication, Nick. Being "cut off," was the same as being sent to your death--both physical and spiritual.

Nick>>As far as "bearing iniquity" goes, you're assuming what you have to prove.<<

How so? Are you denying that the scapegoat bears the iniquity of the people?

continued....

July 17, 2013 at 9:00 AM
Michael Taylor said...
continued from before...

Nick>>The notion of "bearing iniquity" when applied to the Priest in places like Leviticus 10:17 means it's their job to make atonement for the sins of the people, not that the Priest himself becomes guilty.<<

Somehow in your mind this an objection to PSA. It seems like you're attributing to us the view that the guilt of the nation was transferred to the OT priest himself. That isn't true. We don't hold this view. We do hold that, in the hands of the priest, the guilt of the nation was transferred to the scapegoat--not to the priest.

Now here is where it gets interesting and the parallels are not exact. In Christ we have both our high priest and our victim. As Hebrews puts it, he offers "the sacrifice of himself" (Hebrews 7:27). So in this sense, our guilt is transferred to the High Priest, precisely because the priest is simultaneously the sin offering. But it is Jesus-as-victim to whom the guilt/punishment/curse is transferred. "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21). Yet at the same time, it is Jesus-as-priest who offers the atoning sacrifice for our sins, namely his own body and blood (of which the Eucharist is the most elegant symbol).

Hopefully you can see how the scapegoat prefigures this aspect (though surely not the totality) of Christ's death. Not only does Jesus die outside the camp (like the scapegoat), but he also bears our iniquity (just like the scapegoat).

So what I'm saying is what all the NT authors have said: Jesus is our Passover lamb (check). Jesus is our high priest (check). Jesus is our mercy seat (check). Jesus is the victim whose blood covers the mercy seat (check). Jesus is the second goat that bears the iniquity of the people outside the camp, thereby fulfilling all aspects of the Day of Atonement rituals (plural), not just he mercy seat ritual (check).

Nick. If there is a heresy going on here, it is yours. You simultaneously affirm the efficacy of Christ's atonement, even as you rob it of its force by making free will the deciding factor in its efficacy. You believe in an Atonement that makes everyone save-able, but which actually saves no one. That's heresy, Nick. Rome teaches it. Protestant Arminianism teaches it.

continued....
July 17, 2013 at 9:14 AM
Michael Taylor said...
continued....

I, on the other hand, get to preach an atonement that actually saves. I get to preach a Jesus who "saves his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). But that's because I believe God has a particular people he intends to save. This is what makes my view (which I daresay is the biblical view) so liberating. I can evangelize with confidence because I know that who ever accepts my message is, like Lydia, one whose heart has been opened by the Lord to hear it and embrace it. And whoever does not accept it is like the very people to whom Isaiah was sent to preach--"so that they would not turn and be healed" (John 12:40).

That's what the true Gospel does (not Rome's false gospel of objective redemption + self-savation by cooperation): It separates the wheat from the chaff. So when people reject the message, I am not dismayed, because I've been given every reason to suppose at the outset that not many will accept it and be saved. But when they do believe, it's because God has given them the faith to believe and repent. And why has God given them this faith in the first place? It is because Jesus has laid down his life for his sheep. Those for whom Christ died are identical to those whom he gives faith in the savior. My role is simply to be instrumental in preaching this good news. (But of course, what is good news for the elect, is in fact bad news for the reprobate.)

The only "good news" you can offer is that if people fulfill certain requirements and avail themselves of the sacraments, then they can be saved, so long as they maintain that salvation by not falling into mortal sin. So the "good news" according to Rome is really bad news--for everything, including the reception of helping graces, depends ultimately on man's willingness to cooperate with grace. That means, at the end of the day, the only difference between those in heaven and those in hell has nothing to do with grace, and everything to do with free will. (That is the most dreadful news I've ever heard. For who could ever stand before a holy God on the basis of his own choices?)

Repent and believe the Gospel (Mark 1:15).

July 17, 2013 at 9:15 AM
Michael Taylor said...
Nick,

In the absence of my library, I've postponed some of the "Psub" articles I have planned and decided to respond to this one in length. Here is the link:


I hope (if you get around to reading it) that you will see that your case against PSA or "Psub" (I like that) amounts to nothing and is based on both a selective reading of Leviticus 16 and some rather obvious either/or thinking.

You're never going to talk a Calvinist out of Psub with that kind of reasoning since anyone with even half an open mind can see that Leviticus includes the ideas of cleansing and propitiation.

But what you're overlooking is the fact that both cleansing and propitiation (as well as redemption and forgiveness) are the end result of a very "bloody" means--a means which involves not only vicarious suffering, but also penal substitution.

I applaud you for at least being consistent with your system, which is more than I can say for Protestant Arminians who often affirm Psub while simultaneously denying particular redemption. To me, one goes with the other.

No dodging from my end.

J.
Click to expand...
The 10 points I made still stand irrefutable. The above is a smokescreen.

The Top 10 following facts you are ignoring :

1- the first goat was unto the Lord, not the scapegoat
2- the first goat died and was sacrificed unto the Lord, its blood made atonement
3- Jesus died as a sacrifice for sin unto the Lord
4- Jesus was not released and lived like the scapegoat
5- The N.T. never associates Jesus with the scapegoat that lived
6- The scapegoat theory is an unbiblical one just like PSA
7- The scapegoat did not atone for sin with blood
8- Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins
9- Jesus was not the scapegoat since His blood was poured out for the forgiveness of sins
10- Calling Jesus the scapegoat is eisegesis, not exegesis. Nowhere in scripture is Jesus ever called a scapegoat

hope this helps !!!
 
civic said:
The 10 points I made still stand irrefutable. The above is a smokescreen.

The Top 10 following facts you are ignoring :

1- the first goat was unto the Lord, not the scapegoat
2- the first goat died and was sacrificed unto the Lord, its blood made atonement
3- Jesus died as a sacrifice for sin unto the Lord
4- Jesus was not released and lived like the scapegoat
5- The N.T. never associates Jesus with the scapegoat that lived
6- The scapegoat theory is an unbiblical one just like PSA
7- The scapegoat did not atone for sin with blood
8- Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins
9- Jesus was not the scapegoat since His blood was poured out for the forgiveness of sins
10- Calling Jesus the scapegoat is eisegesis, not exegesis. Nowhere in scripture is Jesus ever called a scapegoat

hope this helps !!!
Click to expand...
The link you copy and paste from--the irony.

Does the Bible say Jesus was our Scapegoat? (More Problems with Penal Substitution)

In a recent post where I discussed the Mercy Seat as it relates to Romans 3:25, a Calvinist named Michael objected by saying that I had neg...
catholicnick.blogspot.com catholicnick.blogspot.com

What happened to the scapegoat? The only details given are as follows:
And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins. And he shall put them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness. The goat shall bear all their iniquities on itself to a remote area, and he shall let the goat go free in the wilderness. (Lev 16:21-22)

This is the only time in the Bible that I know of where sins are said to be placed upon another. Though there is talk of placing hands on the head of sacrifices, there is no mention of this involving the (symbolic) transfer of guilt, nor does this even make sense in regards to sacrifices not involving sin (Lev 3:1-2). The main question here though is whether the scapegoat is taking the punishment for this 'transferred sin' or if something else is happening. Obviously this is very pertinent to the Penal Substitution question.

I have always pointed out that the scapegoat is described as being kept alive, not killed. If Penal Substitution were the lesson here, then we'd expect to see the scapegoat having the guilt transferred and then immediately receive the 'death penalty' in place of the people. So keeping the goat alive is obviously a serious blow against the Penal Substitution thesis.

Some respond to this claim by arguing that the "sending off into the wilderness" is in itself the punishment, the very punishment of being "cut off" (Hebrew: karath) from community which the Torah warns can happen to people for certain serious sins (Ex 12:19; 30:31-33; Lev 7:20-21, 25-27; 17:8-10; 18:29-30; Num 15:29-31). But the truth is, the Hebrew term here for "wilderness" refers to wilderness in a generic sense, implying neither anything good nor bad. And while the phrase "to a remote area" (Hebrew: gezerah, a "separate place") carries a connotation of being a barren area, this term is not etymologically related to the "cut off" (karath) term mentioned above, so there really isn't a direct connection between a sinner being "cut off" from the tribe and the goat being "sent to a barren wilderness."

As somewhat of a side-note, I don't think the notion of being "cut off" necessarily carries with it the notion of death sentence, because the Torah distinguishes those sins which "cut off" versus those sins by which a sinner "must be put to death" (Ex 21:15-17; 21:17; 21:29; 22:19; 31:14; Lev 20:2; 20:9-16). Thus, even if one argued that the scapegoat was "cut off" in the sense of karath, that doesn't necessarily entail the death penalty but only exclusion from the Old Covenant.

So in conclusion to that, I interpret the function of the goat to simply 'take away' the filthy sin to a remote area, similar to how a garbage truck carries away the trash to a remote area. There is no implication the goat was somehow receiving the punishment of being sent out to starve to death or being shoved off a cliff. The fate of the goat is outside the scope of the sending-off event.

I think my conclusion is confirmed by two other details in the chapter. First, the instructions given state that after the High Priest has put his hands on the scapegoat, he shall go bathe, and the text continues with the same instructions for the servant: "he who lets the goat go shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water, and afterward he may come into the camp" (Lev 16:26). This suggests the "filth" associated with the scapegoat required ritual purification, and thus sending out the goat was like taking out the trash. Second, as I noted in my prior post, the purpose of the Day of Atonement is given at the end of the chapter: "On this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you. You shall be clean before the Lord from all your sins."

Does the scapegoat prefigure Jesus? To my knowledge, Jesus is never clearly linked to the scapegoat in the New Testament. He's associated with the Passover Lamb (1 Cor 5:7), the sin offering goat of the Day of Atonement (Heb 13:11-12), as well as to some references to sacrificial bulls and such, but (to my knowledge) never is He associated with the scapegoat.

If Azazel refers to demon or Satan, then obviously Jesus wouldn't be prefigured in it. But since I don't think that's the best understanding of Azazel, I would have to conclude Jesus is prefigured by the scapegoat. Given what I've said above, this is simply to be understood as Jesus 'carrying away' our sins, similar to how Matthew 8:16-17 quotes Isaiah 53:4 and interprets Jesus' 'bearing our griefs and carrying our sorrows' simply as Jesus healing them. There's no need to read this as our guilt being imputed to Jesus and He taking the punishment.

And while the scapegoat is said to be "bearing sin," this doesn't suggest "bearing guilt," as I've shown elsewhere that this phrase refers to being put in charge of making atonement for sin, particularly when the High Priest is said to "bear the sins of the people, to make atonement for them." In fact, as Michael rightly noted, the phrase "bear sin" in Hebrew (nasa avon) can often refer to taking away sin in the sense of forgiving it, as texts like the following prove: Ex 34:7; Num 14:18; Ps 32:5; 85:2; Is 33:24; Hos 14:2; Mic 7:18. So the "bearing sin" of the scapegoat can simply refer to the taking away in the sense of forgiving the sin.

Finally, I came across a very cool apparent parallel text that I believe vindicates this interpretation of the scapegoat. Leviticus 14 addresses how to cleans and make atonement for people and houses with leprosy, and uses many of the same terms as Leviticus 16, including some terms that only appear in these two chapters. Consider the following parallels from Leviticus 14:1-8 and Leviticus 14:49-53 when compared to Leviticus 16: speaks of "two birds," only one of which is killed and the blood sprinkled seven times to result in cleansing and atonement. The bird that was kept alive is set free, completing the whole process: "So he shall make atonement for the house, and it shall be clean" (Lev 14:53). This corresponds to the two goats of Leviticus 16, one which is killed and has it's blood sprinkled seven times, the other goat which is set free, with the result being a cleansing and atonement: "For on this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you" (Lev 16:30). On top of that, the leper who is cleansed must take a bath to be readmitted back into the camp, and this corresponds to the servant who must bathe after handling the scapegoat so as to be readmitted back into the camp. The parallels are too unique to be coincidence. As it is clear that releasing the living bird to wild is not concerned about sending it to its death, the same conclusion should hold true for the scapegoat.

Do you read?

J.
 
Johann said:
The link you copy and paste from--the irony.

Does the Bible say Jesus was our Scapegoat? (More Problems with Penal Substitution)

In a recent post where I discussed the Mercy Seat as it relates to Romans 3:25, a Calvinist named Michael objected by saying that I had neg...
catholicnick.blogspot.com catholicnick.blogspot.com

What happened to the scapegoat? The only details given are as follows:
And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins. And he shall put them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness. The goat shall bear all their iniquities on itself to a remote area, and he shall let the goat go free in the wilderness. (Lev 16:21-22)

This is the only time in the Bible that I know of where sins are said to be placed upon another. Though there is talk of placing hands on the head of sacrifices, there is no mention of this involving the (symbolic) transfer of guilt, nor does this even make sense in regards to sacrifices not involving sin (Lev 3:1-2). The main question here though is whether the scapegoat is taking the punishment for this 'transferred sin' or if something else is happening. Obviously this is very pertinent to the Penal Substitution question.

I have always pointed out that the scapegoat is described as being kept alive, not killed. If Penal Substitution were the lesson here, then we'd expect to see the scapegoat having the guilt transferred and then immediately receive the 'death penalty' in place of the people. So keeping the goat alive is obviously a serious blow against the Penal Substitution thesis.

Some respond to this claim by arguing that the "sending off into the wilderness" is in itself the punishment, the very punishment of being "cut off" (Hebrew: karath) from community which the Torah warns can happen to people for certain serious sins (Ex 12:19; 30:31-33; Lev 7:20-21, 25-27; 17:8-10; 18:29-30; Num 15:29-31). But the truth is, the Hebrew term here for "wilderness" refers to wilderness in a generic sense, implying neither anything good nor bad. And while the phrase "to a remote area" (Hebrew: gezerah, a "separate place") carries a connotation of being a barren area, this term is not etymologically related to the "cut off" (karath) term mentioned above, so there really isn't a direct connection between a sinner being "cut off" from the tribe and the goat being "sent to a barren wilderness."

As somewhat of a side-note, I don't think the notion of being "cut off" necessarily carries with it the notion of death sentence, because the Torah distinguishes those sins which "cut off" versus those sins by which a sinner "must be put to death" (Ex 21:15-17; 21:17; 21:29; 22:19; 31:14; Lev 20:2; 20:9-16). Thus, even if one argued that the scapegoat was "cut off" in the sense of karath, that doesn't necessarily entail the death penalty but only exclusion from the Old Covenant.

So in conclusion to that, I interpret the function of the goat to simply 'take away' the filthy sin to a remote area, similar to how a garbage truck carries away the trash to a remote area. There is no implication the goat was somehow receiving the punishment of being sent out to starve to death or being shoved off a cliff. The fate of the goat is outside the scope of the sending-off event.

I think my conclusion is confirmed by two other details in the chapter. First, the instructions given state that after the High Priest has put his hands on the scapegoat, he shall go bathe, and the text continues with the same instructions for the servant: "he who lets the goat go shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water, and afterward he may come into the camp" (Lev 16:26). This suggests the "filth" associated with the scapegoat required ritual purification, and thus sending out the goat was like taking out the trash. Second, as I noted in my prior post, the purpose of the Day of Atonement is given at the end of the chapter: "On this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you. You shall be clean before the Lord from all your sins."

Does the scapegoat prefigure Jesus? To my knowledge, Jesus is never clearly linked to the scapegoat in the New Testament. He's associated with the Passover Lamb (1 Cor 5:7), the sin offering goat of the Day of Atonement (Heb 13:11-12), as well as to some references to sacrificial bulls and such, but (to my knowledge) never is He associated with the scapegoat.

If Azazel refers to demon or Satan, then obviously Jesus wouldn't be prefigured in it. But since I don't think that's the best understanding of Azazel, I would have to conclude Jesus is prefigured by the scapegoat. Given what I've said above, this is simply to be understood as Jesus 'carrying away' our sins, similar to how Matthew 8:16-17 quotes Isaiah 53:4 and interprets Jesus' 'bearing our griefs and carrying our sorrows' simply as Jesus healing them. There's no need to read this as our guilt being imputed to Jesus and He taking the punishment.

And while the scapegoat is said to be "bearing sin," this doesn't suggest "bearing guilt," as I've shown elsewhere that this phrase refers to being put in charge of making atonement for sin, particularly when the High Priest is said to "bear the sins of the people, to make atonement for them." In fact, as Michael rightly noted, the phrase "bear sin" in Hebrew (nasa avon) can often refer to taking away sin in the sense of forgiving it, as texts like the following prove: Ex 34:7; Num 14:18; Ps 32:5; 85:2; Is 33:24; Hos 14:2; Mic 7:18. So the "bearing sin" of the scapegoat can simply refer to the taking away in the sense of forgiving the sin.

Finally, I came across a very cool apparent parallel text that I believe vindicates this interpretation of the scapegoat. Leviticus 14 addresses how to cleans and make atonement for people and houses with leprosy, and uses many of the same terms as Leviticus 16, including some terms that only appear in these two chapters. Consider the following parallels from Leviticus 14:1-8 and Leviticus 14:49-53 when compared to Leviticus 16: speaks of "two birds," only one of which is killed and the blood sprinkled seven times to result in cleansing and atonement. The bird that was kept alive is set free, completing the whole process: "So he shall make atonement for the house, and it shall be clean" (Lev 14:53). This corresponds to the two goats of Leviticus 16, one which is killed and has it's blood sprinkled seven times, the other goat which is set free, with the result being a cleansing and atonement: "For on this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you" (Lev 16:30). On top of that, the leper who is cleansed must take a bath to be readmitted back into the camp, and this corresponds to the servant who must bathe after handling the scapegoat so as to be readmitted back into the camp. The parallels are too unique to be coincidence. As it is clear that releasing the living bird to wild is not concerned about sending it to its death, the same conclusion should hold true for the scapegoat.

Do you read?

J.
Click to expand...
You continue to ignore my 10 biblical and irrefutable points and cut n paste something I’ll never read.
 
civic said:
The Hebrew term for what we call the "scapegoat" is Azazel. What does Azazel mean? The ESV says in the footnote for Leviticus 16:8, "The meaning of Azazel is uncertain; possibly the name of a place or a demon, traditionally a scapegoat." The hardest part about discerning the true meaning is that this term only appears 3 times in the Bible, and only in Leviticus 16, so there isn't much to go on. I'll look now at the three possible options.

Apparently two Church Fathers and the apocryphal book of 1 Enoch identified Azazel as either a demon or Satan. The fact the Bible nowhere makes this identification with a demon or Satan makes this the least likely meaning, in my opinion. The closest proof I've see is that in Leviticus 16:8, it says: "Aaron shall cast lots over the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel." The claim is that one goat is "for the Lord" and the other goat is for something else, which is not the Lord. This can come off as saying something along the lines of "one for Yahweh, the other for Satan." Another possible supporting text is Leviticus 17:7, in which God forbids the Israelites from going back to their idolatrous sacrifices "to goat demons, after whom they [used to] whore." This isn't to suggest the Azazel was a sacrifice to Satan, but rather the goat was to carry the sin back where it belongs.

The Talmudic/Rabbinical Jewish view is that Azazel means "rugged mountain cliff," from which the goat was pushed off of as part of the ceremony. They say this ties into the "remote area" mentioned in Leviticus 16:22, which I'll get to later.

The traditional term of "scapegoat" is said to derive directly from the term Azazel, being a compound term meaning "goat" and "sending away". Many assume "scapegoat" refers to "something innocent that takes the blame," but the term itself doesn't imply that, only a "goat of sending away."

Of these three options, I'd say "scapegoat" is the most plausible, for reasons I'll get into next. I think the Rabbinical understanding has some merit, but as I'll show later I don't think the text supports the view the goat is pushed off a cliff. As for the Azazel as a demon view, I consider it the weakest, especially since it isn't derived from the term itself nor does it find support in the ritual's description.

What kind of sacrifice was this? Leviticus 16:5 says that the High Priest shall "take from the congregation of the people of Israel two male goats for a sin offering." This would imply either that each of them is a sin offering, or that the sin offering consists in both aspects of the two goats. And the only other detail given doesn't seem to help much: "Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the Lord and use it as a sin offering, but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness" (Lev 16:9-10). This text seems to limit the "sin offering" only to the first goat, but it does ascribe "making atonement" to the role of the scapegoat. Either way, I'm convinced that both the sin offering and the notion of atonement didn't involve Penal Substitution, so assigning "sin offering" or "atonement" to the scapegoat suggests it wasn't modeling this either (see below for more on this).

What happened to the scapegoat? The only details given are as follows:

This is the only time in the Bible that I know of where sins are said to be placed upon another. Though there is talk of placing hands on the head of sacrifices, there is no mention of this involving the (symbolic) transfer of guilt, nor does this even make sense in regards to sacrifices not involving sin (Lev 3:1-2). The main question here though is whether the scapegoat is taking the punishment for this 'transferred sin' or if something else is happening. Obviously this is very pertinent to the Penal Substitution question.

I have always pointed out that the scapegoat is described as being kept alive, not killed. If Penal Substitution were the lesson here, then we'd expect to see the scapegoat having the guilt transferred and then immediately receive the 'death penalty' in place of the people. So keeping the goat alive is obviously a serious blow against the Penal Substitution thesis.

Some respond to this claim by arguing that the "sending off into the wilderness" is in itself the punishment, the very punishment of being "cut off" (Hebrew: karath) from community which the Torah warns can happen to people for certain serious sins (Ex 12:19; 30:31-33; Lev 7:20-21, 25-27; 17:8-10; 18:29-30; Num 15:29-31). But the truth is, the Hebrew term here for "wilderness" refers to wilderness in a generic sense, implying neither anything good nor bad. And while the phrase "to a remote area" (Hebrew: gezerah, a "separate place") carries a connotation of being a barren area, this term is not etymologically related to the "cut off" (karath) term mentioned above, so there really isn't a direct connection between a sinner being "cut off" from the tribe and the goat being "sent to a barren wilderness."

As somewhat of a side-note, I don't think the notion of being "cut off" necessarily carries with it the notion of death sentence, because the Torah distinguishes those sins which "cut off" versus those sins by which a sinner "must be put to death" (Ex 21:15-17; 21:17; 21:29; 22:19; 31:14; Lev 20:2; 20:9-16). Thus, even if one argued that the scapegoat was "cut off" in the sense of karath, that doesn't necessarily entail the death penalty but only exclusion from the Old Covenant.

So in conclusion to that, I interpret the function of the goat to simply 'take away' the filthy sin to a remote area, similar to how a garbage truck carries away the trash to a remote area. There is no implication the goat was somehow receiving the punishment of being sent out to starve to death or being shoved off a cliff. The fate of the goat is outside the scope of the sending-off event.

I think my conclusion is confirmed by two other details in the chapter. First, the instructions given state that after the High Priest has put his hands on the scapegoat, he shall go bathe, and the text continues with the same instructions for the servant: "he who lets the goat go shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water, and afterward he may come into the camp" (Lev 16:26). This suggests the "filth" associated with the scapegoat required ritual purification, and thus sending out the goat was like taking out the trash. Second, as I noted in my prior post, the purpose of the Day of Atonement is given at the end of the chapter: "On this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you. You shall be clean before the Lord from all your sins."

Does the scapegoat prefigure Jesus? To my knowledge, Jesus is never clearly linked to the scapegoat in the New Testament. He's associated with the Passover Lamb (1 Cor 5:7), the sin offering goat of the Day of Atonement (Heb 13:11-12), as well as to some references to sacrificial bulls and such, but (to my knowledge) never is He associated with the scapegoat.

If Azazel refers to demon or Satan, then obviously Jesus wouldn't be prefigured in it. But since I don't think that's the best understanding of Azazel, I would have to conclude Jesus is prefigured by the scapegoat. Given what I've said above, this is simply to be understood as Jesus 'carrying away' our sins, similar to how Matthew 8:16-17 quotes Isaiah 53:4 and interprets Jesus' 'bearing our griefs and carrying our sorrows' simply as Jesus healing them. There's no need to read this as our guilt being imputed to Jesus and He taking the punishment.

And while the scapegoat is said to be "bearing sin," this doesn't suggest "bearing guilt," as I've shown elsewhere that this phrase refers to being put in charge of making atonement for sin, particularly when the High Priest is said to "bear the sins of the people, to make atonement for them." In fact, as Michael rightly noted, the phrase "bear sin" in Hebrew (nasa avon) can often refer to taking away sin in the sense of forgiving it, as texts like the following prove: Ex 34:7; Num 14:18; Ps 32:5; 85:2; Is 33:24; Hos 14:2; Mic 7:18. So the "bearing sin" of the scapegoat can simply refer to the taking away in the sense of forgiving the sin.catholicnick.blogspot.com/2013/07/does-bible-say-jesus-was-our-scapegoat.html

Finally, I came across a very cool apparent parallel text that I believe vindicates this interpretation of the scapegoat. Leviticus 14 addresses how to cleans and make atonement for people and houses with leprosy, and uses many of the same terms as Leviticus 16, including some terms that only appear in these two chapters. Consider the following parallels from Leviticus 14:1-8 and Leviticus 14:49-53 when compared to Leviticus 16: speaks of "two birds," only one of which is killed and the blood sprinkled seven times to result in cleansing and atonement. The bird that was kept alive is set free, completing the whole process: "So he shall make atonement for the house, and it shall be clean" (Lev 14:53). This corresponds to the two goats of Leviticus 16, one which is killed and has it's blood sprinkled seven times, the other goat which is set free, with the result being a cleansing and atonement: "For on this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you" (Lev 16:30). On top of that, the leper who is cleansed must take a bath to be readmitted back into the camp, and this corresponds to the servant who must bathe after handling the scapegoat so as to be readmitted back into the camp. The parallels are too unique to be coincidence. As it is clear that releasing the living bird to wild is not concerned about sending it to its death, the same conclusion should hold true for the scapegoat.

hope this helps !!!
Click to expand...

Does the Bible say Jesus was our Scapegoat? (More Problems with Penal Substitution)

In a recent post where I discussed the Mercy Seat as it relates to Romans 3:25, a Calvinist named Michael objected by saying that I had neg...
catholicnick.blogspot.com catholicnick.blogspot.com
 

Similar threads

Begotten
Open Panel Discussion - Open Theism
6 7 8
Replies
152
Views
3K
TomL
T
Behold
How do you know : If you are going to Hell?
Replies
5
Views
174
Pancho Frijoles
Pancho Frijoles
Joy
What Does Lukewarm Mean in Revelation?
Replies
9
Views
112
civic
civic
Behold
How to : Avoid Hell
Replies
7
Views
84
MTMattie
MTMattie
Behold
Calvinism + TULIP : Will get you Killed... (Vol 2)
Replies
8
Views
86
Pancho Frijoles
Pancho Frijoles
Back
Top Bottom