Why don't you join him? It will tough to sleep but I will manage.
What did Christ know and when did He or does He know it
- Thread starter Presby02
- Start date
It's only in him are you predestined
Ephesians 1:5 (MEV) — 5 He predestined us to adoption as sons to Himself through Jesus Christ according to the good pleasure of His will,
Ephesians 1:6 (MEV) — 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace which He graciously bestowed on us in the Beloved.
And you are in him when you trust in him
Ephesians 1:13 (MEV) — 13 In Him you also, after hearing the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and after believing in Him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
To answer your question: No, our Lord did not fail to seek and save the lost. "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."
(Heb 2:9) But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
(Joh 3:16-21) “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”
Explanation: His death justifies everyone. It is the person who must believe in Him to receive that justification.
(Rom 5:17-19) For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.
(Joh 1:11-12) He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
(Rom 10:8-13) But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
(Rom 3:21-25) But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
God Bless
Johann
Well-known member
Brother, this is beneath you in Christ. You know full well from my reply it is not universalism.
I already answered your question in my first reply, knowing you would want an explanation. Did you even read it with an open mind? But to answer it again, I have bold texted and even underlined the most important and added another verse from Romans.
I stated, "Explanation: His death justifies everyone. It is the person who must believe in Him to receive that justification."
Added...(Rom 5:1) Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
(Rom 5:17-19) For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.
(Joh 1:11-12) He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
(Rom 10:8-13) But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
(Rom 3:21-25) But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
God Bless
Last edited:
Let me kindly say back to you, listen to what I'm saying for you are missing it.You claimed all are justified did you not? Or did i misunderstand?
I know what you said. If "everyone is justified" that sounds a lot lije universalism. Its one of their favorite proof texts.
Listen to what your saying. Everyone is justified but their justified when the believe.
I stated, "Explanation: His death justifies everyone. It is the person who must believe in Him to receive that justification."
God has justified everyone in the death of His Son, now everyone must receive His justification by faith.
How many sacrifices for sin are there? There is only one sacrifice for sin and that is the Lord Jesus Christ. His sacrifice for sin put an end to the need of sin sacrifices by the giving of himself for everyone. This means everyone's sins have been atoned. If not, then we need more sacrifices! And in Isaiah, God has told us He laid the iniquity of us all upon him. And in Hebrews we read that He tasted death for everyone. John wrote He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. In Romans we read we are justified by our faith in Jesus Christ; that His death for our sins justifies us and we receive that justification by faith. This means one must have faith in the testimony of Jesus Christ who came to fulfill the law and the prophets.
God has set salvation up like this; He gave His one and only Son to die for our sins and raise to give us eternal life. It is His Son's death for everyone's sins that God has justified each person to life. Now it is up to each person to simply believe God to receive His justification.
If I sent my son into a crowded room of people with my money to give each person a $1000 without them seeing it, each one personally has the decision to receive my generosity through my son or not. Those who believe my son and his testimony receive the $1000 that I gave through my son. Those who disbelieve receive nothing by their own fault. Similarly, Jesus said, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.(Joh 3:16-18)
The Apostle Paul penned, "For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.(2Co 5:14-15)...Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." (2Co 5:18-21)
The death of Jesus Christ on the cross is where God made Him who knew no sin to be a sin offering that makes everyone right with Him. This is why the Apostle Paul stated, "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God."
God's justification to life, which is not imputing one's sins is for everyone. Now one must receive His justification to life "by no longer (living) for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again."
I have provided many passages from the bible that claim all men are justified to life in Jesus Christ and must receive God's justification of them by faith.
Now I ask you, what is the Gospel message of God? Is it for everyone or just some? Did Jesus taste death for everyone or just some? Is Jesus our Lord the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world? Did God make Him who know no sin to be a sin offering to make everyone right with Him? Did God lay the iniquity of us all or just some on His Son? Did God give His to the world or just some of the world? Did God justify everyone in the death of His son or just some? How does one receive God's justification? If one does not believe God do they receive His justification that was given?
God Bless
Brother,
To answer you question.
(Joh 3:16-21) “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”
If I setup a trust that holds a $1000 for everyone, and sent a message to all that I have given them a free gift of $1000 all they need to do is claim it, have I given everyone a $1000? Yes, because the monies were setup in a irrevocable trust that is allocated to all. Now all they need to do is come to the bank that has the trust and claim it. If they do not claim it, they do not have the free gift I gave to them. If someone tries claiming it any other way than instructed, they will not receive the $1000 I gave them, as administrated by the trustee.
When God gave His Son for the sins of us all, He gave His Son for the sins of us all. This means God gave Him irrevocably for our sins making us justified in His sight. There is no longer a need for a sin offering, for our Lord's death covers the sins of everyone. The reception of the free gift of justification is by faith. If a person does not receive God's free gift by faith, then they still remain in their sins. Jesus Christ is the trustee of of God's gift. He alone is the One who gives the right for one to become a child of God by believing in Him.
It is not that God has not given it to them, for He most certainly has in the giving of His Son. They haven't received it according to faith as required. God has given all judgment over to His Son, who is the administrator of God's salvation.
God Bless
A trust is not quite the same. A trust is not actually paying a debt or justifying one from a wrong that he or she has done. The Bible is clear in Colossians 2:14. Are sins are actually taken away, being nailed to the cross. I do not believe God holds one accountable for those same sins that have been taken away. The scapegoat was never seen again.
civic
Well-known member
there is no "scapegoat" mentioned in the N.T.
and in leviticus the scapegoat lived, not died.
OOPS............................
Last edited:
Johann
Well-known member
Jesus as the Fulfillment of Both Goats
The New Testament suggests that Jesus fulfills the roles of both goats in the Day of Atonement:
The Sacrificial Goat: Jesus’ death on the cross is the ultimate sin offering, fulfilling the role of the first goat (Hebrews 9:12–14).
The Scapegoat: Jesus bears the sins of humanity, removing them and taking them "far away," as foreshadowed by the scapegoat (Isaiah 53:4, 6, which is applied to Jesus in the New Testament).
4. Why the Word "Scapegoat" Is Absent
The Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation of Leviticus 16 uses terms like ἀποπομπαῖος τράγος ("the goat sent away"), but this phrase does not appear in the New Testament.
Instead of focusing on the specific ritual of the scapegoat, the New Testament emphasizes Jesus’ comprehensive fulfillment of the entire sacrificial system (e.g., Hebrews 10:1–10).
While the word "scapegoat" is not explicitly mentioned in the New Testament, the underlying concept is unmistakably present in passages describing Jesus as the one who bears and removes sin. Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of the Day of Atonement's symbolic imagery, including both the sacrificial goat and the scapegoat.
J.
civic
Well-known member
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 !!!
Johann
Well-known member
Too long-so I'll use ChatGpt here-
Claim: The scapegoat is the only instance of sin being placed on another.
Rebuttal: This is incorrect. While the scapegoat is a prominent instance of sins symbolically being placed on another (Leviticus 16:21), there are other examples in the sacrificial system that involve substitution:
Isaiah 53: The Suffering Servant "bears" (Hebrew: nasa) the sins and iniquities of others (Isaiah 53:4–6, 12). This concept is central to Christian theology and is explicitly linked to Christ in the New Testament (e.g., Matthew 8:17; 1 Peter 2:24).
Sin Offerings: In sin and guilt offerings, the animal's death symbolized the penalty for sin (Leviticus 4–5). The laying on of hands on the sacrificial animal (Leviticus 1:4; 4:4) is widely interpreted as a symbolic act of transferring guilt, based on the broader theological context.
The idea that the transfer of guilt “does not make sense” in sacrifices unrelated to sin (e.g., peace offerings, Leviticus 3) is irrelevant here, as these offerings serve different purposes within the sacrificial system.
2. Claim: The scapegoat’s survival undermines Penal Substitution.
Rebuttal: This misunderstands the dual role of the two goats in the Day of Atonement ritual (Leviticus 16:7–10):
Sacrificial Goat: One goat is killed as a sin offering, symbolizing the payment of sin's penalty through death. This represents the Penal Substitution aspect of atonement (Leviticus 16:15–19).
Scapegoat: The other goat (for Azazel) symbolically carries away the sins of Israel, illustrating the removal of guilt and sin’s consequences (Leviticus 16:20–22). Both goats together provide a complete picture of atonement: one satisfies divine justice through death, and the other removes the defilement of sin from the community.
Penal Substitution does not require both goats to die.
The death of the first goat fulfills the legal requirement for sin's penalty (Romans 6:23), while the scapegoat demonstrates the expiation (removal) of sin.
3. Claim: The wilderness does not imply punishment.
Rebuttal: While the Hebrew word for wilderness (midbar) is neutral, the act of sending the scapegoat into the wilderness has symbolic significance. The wilderness represents a place of separation, desolation, and chaos in biblical imagery (e.g., Deuteronomy 8:15; Isaiah 13:21).
By sending the scapegoat into the wilderness, Israel's sins are removed far from the community, signifying God’s forgiveness (cf. Psalm 103:12).
The word gezerah ("remote area") emphasizes separation but does not preclude punitive connotations.
The goat's banishment aligns with the broader theological theme of separation from God as a consequence of sin (Isaiah 59:2).
4. Claim: "Cut off" (karath) does not imply death.
Rebuttal: The phrase karath can mean separation, exclusion, or death depending on context.
While not every instance implies immediate execution, karath often has life-and-death stakes, particularly in covenantal contexts (Genesis 17:14; Exodus 31:14). In the case of the scapegoat, the focus is on separation from the covenant community rather than on death.
5. Claim: The scapegoat is merely a "garbage truck" for sin.
Rebuttal: The scapegoat’s role is far more profound than simply "carrying trash away."
The scapegoat embodies the theological reality of expiation-the removal of sin from the people and their standing before God. This act prefigures the work of Christ, who "takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). The fate of the goat may not involve execution, but the act of bearing the community's sins into the wilderness is highly significant and symbolic of Christ’s ultimate sacrifice.
6. The Penal Substitution View
Penal Substitution is not invalidated by the scapegoat’s survival because the sacrificial goat fulfills the death requirement. The scapegoat complements this by showing the removal of sin’s guilt and pollution. Together, they represent the comprehensive work of atonement that Jesus accomplishes in His death and resurrection:
Death for sin: Jesus satisfies the penalty of sin through His sacrificial death (Hebrews 9:22, 26).
Removal of sin: Jesus removes the believer's sins completely, as foreshadowed by the scapegoat (Isaiah 53:4, 6; Hebrews 9:28).
Conclusion
The claim that the scapegoat undermines Penal Substitution misunderstands the dual role of the goats in Leviticus 16 and the broader theological framework of atonement.
The survival of the scapegoat does not negate the principle of substitutionary death but rather complements it by illustrating the removal of sin’s defilement. Together, the two goats typify the complete atonement fulfilled in Christ, both in paying the penalty for sin and removing its consequences.
Thanks.
J.
civic
Well-known member
The scapegoat is only mentioned 3 times in the Bible between Lev 14-16 and it lived , it was set free.
Nothing like Jesus. And nowhere in the NT is Jesus ever connected with the scapegoat but is the lamb who died for our sins according to the scriptures. Gospel truth 101.
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 !!!
civic
Well-known member
I have no interest in AI Bots.
I'm interested in dialogues with real people and their thoughts.
I'll go with the Living Enduring word of God as my guide which never associates Jesus with the scapegoat.
Johann
Well-known member
Too bad-because it refutes your fallacies and provides me with the opportunity to dive deeper into the Scriptures myself, equipped with the necessary tools, syntax, and morphologies.
J.
Similar threads
