Scapegoat

Vergebens!

 

HP: I read, I believe in “The Temple” by Alfred Edersheim, that when they took the scapegoat into the wilderness that they actually run or pushed it off a cliff to insure that it did not return.

 

GE: Yours is such a fantastic chimera it's impossible to answer!

 

HP: Why would you see anything strange about that, seeing that we are punished, according to those believing in original sin, for the sin of Adam?

We sin because of Adam, and Adam sinned because of Eve, and Eve sinned because of Satan, and …………..Oh well, it doesn’t really matter does it? What is important is that we all have someone else to blame.:thumbsup:

 

GE:
If we had someone else to blame we would have been blameless, and should have been pardoned without the need for a Saviour or His sacrifice.

We are punished for the sin of Adam because we are Adam - the first Adam. Jesus is called the "second Adam" -- not the trillionth and sixth.

 

It does matter for we are forgiven our sins each one individually on the confession of our, and ours as, my, sins. Were we not born guilty and worthy of death, we would have had an excuse for our depravity, and not a depravity as part of our own being as our own bodies.

 

HP: You have it precisely backwards. Were we not born guilty and worthy of death, we would have no excuse for our sins. We would only have our own willful rebellion against known commandments of God to blame for our sins, just as Scripture and reason inform us.

 

Why does the Bible says the Devil is cast into the lake of fire?

Revelation 20:
7: And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8: And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9: And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
10: And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

 

HP: That is not all that will be cast there. Mt 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

And who are those on His left hand, and who will be spared that torment?

Romans 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

 

This is Armstrong's treatment of the issue, from Pagan Holidays or God's Holy days: Which? This was always the view I took, but now I do see more where it is connected with some of his false doctrines. However; it still makes some good points.

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=book&id=1238&section=1301

Verse 6-The high priest offered a sin offering for himself and his house.
Verses 7 and 8-"And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; the one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat [margin, Hebrew, Azazel]."
The key to the whole explanation lies in a correct understanding of the meaning of Azazel. This word does not occur elsewhere in the Old Testament. The Comprehensive Commentary has: "Spencer, after the oldest opinions of the Hebrews and Christians, thinks Azazel is the name of the Devil, and so Rosen.... The word scapegoat signifies the goat which went away." The One Volume Commentary says: "The word 'scapegoat' in the A.V. is not a translation." It is merely an interpretation of the supposed meaning by the translators.
True, the English word "scapegoat" signifies "one who bears blame or guilt for others." But "scapegoat" is an English word, and is not a translation of the Hebrew word Azazel. The word "scapegoat," and the meaning attached to this English word, is not a translation of the Hebrew word Azazel, and therefore it is not the word inspired originally. Continues the One Volume Commentary: "Azazel is understood to be the name of one of those malignant demons."
Types of Christ and Satan
These two goats were, of course, types. Notice, it was necessary to be decided by lot, which one was qualified to represent Christ, and which Azazel. Some say both were qualified. The scripture does not say this. Let us not assume it. Now a "lot" is a solemn appeal to God to decide a doubtful matter. It is a sacred religious ceremony. It included a supernatural act of God. That is why lotteries and gambling are of the devil-an actual profaning of a holy service appealing to God.
Notice, men were unable to decide which goat was qualified to represent Christ. This involved an appeal to God to decide! "One lot for the Eternal, and the other lot for Azazel." Now one lot was for the Lord-this goat typified Christ-but the other lot was not for the Lord, did not typify Christ, but Azazel-Satan! Notice the contrast-These words most naturally suggest that Azazel is the name of a person, here contrasted to the Eternal!
Now the goat which God selected-through lot, to represent Christ-was slain, as Christ, its antitype was slain. But the other goat selected by God to represent Azazel was not slain, but was driven, alive, into an uninhabited wilderness. It was not a resurrected goat, symbolizing the resurrected Christ, for it never died. The uninhabited wilderness, to which this goat was driven, cannot, as we shall show, represent heaven, where Christ went. Heaven is neither uninhabited, nor a wilderness.
After God designated which goat represented Christ and which Azazel, the high priest (verse 11) killed the bullock for a sin offering for himself, then took the burning coals of fire and the sweet incense into the Holy of Holies, also sprinkling the blood of the bullock before the mercy seat, typical of the throne of God, covering the tables of testimony (the law). This the high priest was required to do in order to purify himself to officiate, and to represent Christ as high priest. In the antitype, this was not done, for Christ, our High Priest, had no need of this purification as the typical substitutionary priests did.
Now the Levitical high priest was ready to go out and officiate.
Next, the goat which God selected by lot to represent Christ, as the sin offering of the people, was killed. Thus the sins of the people were borne by this goat, even as Christ, finally, once for all, bore our sins on the cross. But Christ rose again from the dead, and ascended to the throne of God in heaven.
Now, who, or what, from this point on in the Levitical ceremony, typified the resurrected Christ, who went to heaven? Some say the goat representing Azazel. Let us see.
The risen Christ, now at the right hand of the throne of God in heaven (I Peter 3:22), is called-what? Our High Priest! What was the earthly type of God's throne? The uninhabited wilderness? No! That is where the live goat went!
The earthly type of God's throne was the mercy seat in the holy of holies. After Christ died, He went to the heavenly mercy seat interceding for us, as our High Priest. "...Entereth into that within the veil; whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec" (Heb. 6:19-20).
The one goat had been slain. It represented the slain Christ. It can no longer represent the risen Christ. The slain Christ was not our High Priest, because the Levitical priesthood, with its high priest, did not end until Christ rose from the dead and ascended to heaven as a High Priest after the order of Melchisedec. But the risen Christ was High Priest. Now who took this part in the Levitical ceremonies, temporarily re-enacted year by year, on this eternal Holy Day? Why, so obviously a child could see, it was the Levitical High Priest, not the goat representing Azazel!
The High Priest-Type of Christ
As soon as the slain goat was dead, who went within the veil, presenting the blood of this goat before the typical throne of God?
Leviticus 16:15-"Then shall he [the high priest] kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and [now the high priest himself typifying the work of the risen Christ] bring his blood within the veil...and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat...and [verse 16] he shall make an atonement for the holy place."
The slain goat represented the crucified Jesus. The high priest, by taking the blood of this slain goat into the veil to the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies, a type of God's throne, represented and did the work of the risen Christ, who ascended to the right hand of the Majesty on high, there interceding as our High Priest. Can we honestly continue to teach that the goat representing Azazel represented the work of the risen Christ? Did this live goat take the blood of Christ within the veil, to the mercy seat?
The high priest going within the veil, into the Holy of Holies, symbolized Christ's return to heaven. The work he did while in the Holy of Holies symbolized Christ's work these 1900 years interceding for us, presenting His shed blood before the mercy seat in heaven. Now, returning, symbolizing Christ's return to earth, what did he do?
"And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat: and Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: and the goat shall bear upon him [Fenton: shall carry upon itself] all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness. And Aaron shall...wash his flesh with water.... And he that let go the goat for the scapegoat [Azazel] shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward come into the camp" (Lev. 16:20-26).

Before leaving this, notice, too, that after laying both his hands on the live goat, Azazel, Aaron had to wash and cleanse himself before coming in contact with the people. So, too, the "fit man" also had to wash his clothes and bathe himself after coming in contact with the Azazel goat, before he came into the presence of the people. The symbolism is certainly that of having come in contact with the devil!
Notice, now, this act of putting these already expiated and forgiven sins on the head of this live goat does not take place until after the high priest returns from the Holy of Holies within the veil-so this typified an act to take place after the second coming of Christ to this earth!
But if the live goat represented the resurrected Christ, then the sins Christ bore on the cross were placed by another, typified by the high priest, back on Christ, after His resurrection. Would this make sense? Is the theory of the Azazel goat being Christ consistent? No, but the plain simple meaning does fit at every turn, and is consistent. The first goat represented the innocent Jesus who died for our sins-the high priest represented the risen Christ going within the veil to the mercy seat, or throne of God in heaven, for over 1900 years-and the high priest returning to place the sins finally upon the head of the live goat represented the return of Christ who will place the sins He bore on their author, the devil, and who will send him away alive into a desolate uninhabited wilderness-the "bottomless pit" or abyss of Revelation 20:3.
In the 19th chapter of Revelation, we have the prophecy of the second coming of Christ. At the beginning of the 20th chapter, what is to happen?
Exactly what the 16th chapter of Leviticus shows. The devil is sent away-the symbol here used is the "bottomless pit" symbol of an uninhabited desolate wilderness (Rev. 18:2)-and he is sent there by a fit man-an angel from heaven. Now the devil is not killed. He does not die. He is still alive a thousand years later- after the millennium (Rev. 20:7).

 

More, regarding Satan:

The Azazel Goat Not Our Sin-Bearer
Let us get this straight!
Is there justice with God? Is not God a God of justice, as well as of compassion and mercy? Who is the real author of our sins? The devil is the author of them, even as Christ is the author of our salvation. Jesus took our guilt-our blame-our sins-upon Himself as an innocent substitutionary sacrifice. He was an innocent victim. He loved us, and was willing to die for us. Our guilt-our sins, were borne by Him, and Him alone-and God forgives them when we repent and accept His sacrifice. And yet, is this, if we stop there, full justice?
The real cause-the actual author of those sins-was Satan the devil. Is it justice for Christ to bear guilt that is not His, while the devil goes off scot-free? Do you not suppose God's great plan will finally work full justice by placing that original blame and guilt right where it belongs?
Now mark carefully this distinction. Christ bore our guilt. For we have been guilty, even though the devil was the original cause of it all. But justice certainly demands that God place right back on the head of the devil his guilt-not our guilt, but his own guilt-for leading us into sin. We were guilty, too-and our guilt Christ bore-yet all our sins belong right back on the devil as his own guilt!
Now notice another point. The Azazel goat carries away the sins of all the people already forgiven. These sins already were fully paid for by Christ's substitute sacrifice, symbolized by the killing of the innocent goat before those same sins were finally laid on the live goat. They had been previously paid for by the death of the slain goat.
The devil is the real author of all sin. Can we, then, be finally made at one with God, as long as this instigator of sin is with us? Can we not see he must first be driven away? And there would not be justice with God unless his own guilt in our sins were placed right back on his head? Is it justice for Christ to bear the devil's guilt, as well as our own guilt, for our sins? Christ has carried our sins, but must He continue to carry them? Should they not be removed entirely from us, and from the presence even of God?
Thus the killing and sprinkling of blood of the first goat visibly set forth the means of reconciliation with God, through the substituted sacrifice of an innocent victim. So finally the sending away of the second goat, laden with those sins, the expiation of which had been signified by the first goat, no less vividly sets forth the effect of that sacrifice, in complete removal of those expiated sins from the presence of God!
Satan the Accuser
Satan is the accuser of the brethren. His power over men is founded on sin. When all these sins, of which he is the author, are laid back on him, after being removed from us by Christ, then Satan shall have lost his claim on us. And no longer can he accuse us!
Thus, finally, as the acceptance of the blood of the first goat (Christ) symbolized complete propitiation, and pardon of Israel's sins, so the sending of Azazel bearing away those expiated sins symbolizes the complete removal of all sins-deliverance by the atonement from the power of the adversary.

The driving away of the second live goat shows the final atonement, by placing the sins on their author where they belong, and the complete removal of the sins and their author from the presence of God and His people-and thus the complete deliverance of the people from the power of Satan.

Now a few points that will come to mind. Both goats were "presented before the Lord." Can Satan be presented before the Lord? Job 1:6 and 2:1 says he has presented himself before the Lord. Note, too, Azazel was driven away from the Holy of Holies, a symbol of God's presence.

 

HP: You present a mighty skewed sense of justice, compassion and mercy Eric. If the devil is the cause, then the devil is the only one to blame. Cause and blame go together in any semblance of justice. Under what conditions can you imagine that the innocent is just as guilty and as such the rightful recipient of punishment as is the ‘cause’ of the infraction of God’s law?

Scripture is clear. Everyone is responsible for their own sin and not that of another. “Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.”

 

HP: Says who?

 

Remember, this is not my view, it is Armstrong. As I said, I see where it is connected with some of his false doctrines. As I told Bob on another thread, Armstrong believed that almost everyone will be saved. Using a twisted two-point Calvinism (T-U) he says that all are not called now, but will be at the Great White Throne (which is for calling, not for sentencing to Hell). Only these who still refuse, or those called now who refuse are lost. So almost all people's sins are redeemed, and placed back on Satan, who of course is not saved. At one point, I had believed in this. I hadn't read this in a while, and when getting the quote for this discussion, I too was struck by his use of the concept of "justice" as an emotive argument. That is why I included that stuff I had to edit out of the first point for length; to illustrate his shaky line of reasoning.

Still, I thought some of his other arguments (sins being placed back on resurrected Christ if Azazel represents Him, etc.) Were very good, and I would like to see how everyone answers those.

 

HP: You present a mighty skewed sense of justice, compassion and mercy Eric. If the devil is the cause, then the devil is the only one to blame. Cause and blame go together in any semblance of justice. Under what conditions can you imagine that the innocent is just as guilty and as such the rightful recipient of punishment as is the ‘cause’ of the infraction of God’s law?

GE:
Absolutely! For once I remember EG White having spoken TRUTH, where she says, "Sin explained is sin excused". Sin caused is sin explained is sin excused --- caused of course by another party than the doer of the sin.

 

I think you, 'have it precisely backwards': Were we not, born guilty and worthy of death, we would have had, an excuse for our sins.

 

Heavenly Pilgrim, and Gerhard and Eric,

Ok look guys,

When Eve Sinned, who did God blame as the instigator of the sin? READ:

It was SATAN. He is the one who ultimately caused the whole thing. That doesnt mean Adam and Eve werent responsible as well for giving in to temptation.



Genesis 3:
8: And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
9: And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10: And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11: And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
12: And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
13: And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
14: And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
16: Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17: And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18: Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19: In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

 

Well then you overlooked a key point in Lev 16. The Scapegoat is not a sin offering. It does not shed its blood. WITHOUT the shedding of blood there is NO forgiveness of sin - there is only paying your own debt.

THE ONLY way to have a substitutionary atoning sacrifice is to have a sin offering take your place - and die.

There is NO other option. Hence the NT calls Christ our High Priest AND the lamb of God and our "Atoning Sacrifice" but never never never never "The scapegoat" - which is "no sin offering at all"

In Christ,

Bob

 

Agreed - some parts of the argument -- such as the origin of the term "Scapegoat" and the possibility that the goat represents evil - are interesting - certainly it points away from the sin offering by showing "another" disposition for sin - other than expiation through the sin offering.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Agreed. Man made traditions were indeed inserted over time. It is significant that God does not mention it - since the death of the scapegoat as a sacrifice is not the point in the actual chapter dealing with Atonement.

In Christ,

Bob