scapegoat

[Robin]

Leviticus 16:

9 Aaron shall bring the goat whose lot falls to the LORD and sacrifice it for a sin offering. 10 But the goat chosen by lot as the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the LORD to be used for making atonement by sending it into the desert as a scapegoat.


Does anyone have any wisdom they can share with me about the scapegoat?

[OBrenda]

You Got me M.G.
(To bad one of the smilelys wasn't scratching his head)
You got my interest up!

[sansmile]

Great question,  me and hubby doing wee study on it now. YLT  calls it azazel  bty. Remembering that a scapegoat is usually an innocent party.?

God Bless
Sandie xxx

[Stevernator]

Someone told me it was symbolic of Jesus fasting in the desert. Perhaps Jesus is our scapegoat?

[Stevernator]

Well I don't usually go to wikipedia for scripture interpretation but here is what it says is the traditional Christian theology of it.

In Christian theology, the story of the scapegoat in Leviticus is interpreted as a symbolic prefiguration of the self-sacrifice of Jesus, who takes the sins of humanity on his own head, having been driven into the 'wilderness' outside the city by order of the high priests. Also see John 1:29 and Hebrews Chps. 9-10

[Martinez]

Good question this one.

The question is does Jesus mean that these people are goats in His eyes or in the eyes of the very religious?
And how does it fit in with this verse?

Mat 25:32  And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
Mat 25:33  And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
Mat 25:34  Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
Mat 25:35  For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Mat 25:36  Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
Mat 25:37  Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
Mat 25:38  When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
Mat 25:39  Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
Mat 25:40  And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Mat 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:
Mat 25:42  For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
Mat 25:43  I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Mat 25:44  Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Mat 25:45  Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
Mat 25:46  And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.


I usually think of the dessert as being a place without water, in this case "Living Water", certainly those who don't know Christ (decieved) are without water.

I'm not sure but it's food for thought that's for sure!

[sansmile]

Just  thinking about Abraham  when he was ready to  sacrifice his  son. God provided  a scapegoat......  the ram  in the bush. Christ is the innocent  scapegoat.
 
just thinking out loud  x

[Robin]

I emailed Ray and asked him for a hint on what the scapegoat represents.

I looked up Azazel and that was interesting. I would have never known that. I found so many definitions for Azazel that I won't even try to speculate what it really means.

This is how it reads in the Holman Christian Standard Bible

Leviticus 16:6 "Aaron will present the bull for his sin offering and make atonement for himself and his household. 7 Next he will take the two goats and place them before the LORD at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 8 After Aaron casts lots for the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other for Azazel, 9 he is to present the goat chosen by lot for the LORD and sacrifice it as a sin offering. 10 But the goat chosen by lot for Azazel is to be presented alive before the LORD to make purification with it by sending it into the wilderness for Azazel.

[chuckt]

i see Christ as the scapegoat....


chuckt

[Robin]

Ray says that Christ was not made sin, but was a sin offering.

Christianity taught me that our sin was poured into Christ at his crucifixion. His righteousness was poured into us. It is that exchanged life teaching. They used the scapegoat as the example. They said the sins of the people were transfered to the scapegoat in the same way our sin was transferred to Christ on the cross.

I don't have an answer to this in light of Ray's teaching that Christ was not made sin for us.

[OBrenda]

LEV  16:5  He shall take from the congregation of the people of Israel two male goats for a sin offering
LEV 16:8   and Aaron shall cast lots on the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel.
LEV 16:10 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 to Azazel.

Could this be as Ray has taught us that everything is about the same thing...God representing the Called and the Chosen?

Both Goats are a Sin Offering which is Christ
If ... Azazel means: (Angel of Death/Satan)

One goat is for the Lord  = Wheat/Chosen/Elect to also be Judges of the World
This goat is killed/dies. (First Death) Sins that are cleansed by His Blood!
In which the blood is sprinkled on and in front of the Mercy Seat.  Where the White Throne Judgement will happen?


The other is for Azazel   =   Tares/Chosen...seeds of the devil
The same sin sacrifice/Christ that is for the Azazel/Tares, that will be spiritually separated from the others in the wilderness, still alive.
(? Could this symbolize all those that are not the Elect, awaiting the Second Death and judgement/Lake of Fire and then reconciliation of Satan and the Tares)?
These scriptures also bring to mind John the Baptist, a voice crying in the wilderness.  He was also killed.

[Kat]

Hi M.G.

Christ was a 'sin offering' not made 'sin,' as sin is missing the mark or lawlessness.  This is from the transcript "Was Christ made sin?' to explain this.

http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,6719.0.html ----------

So if sin is lawlessness, when was Jesus Christ lawless?  What laws did He break?  If Christ was sin and sin is lawlessness, what laws did Christ break?   If sin is missing the mark, falling short or whatever, when did Christ fall short?  How did He fall short? 
v
v
Jesus Christ was not 'the sin' of the world offered on the cross, He died on the cross FOR our sins.  Can you not understand simple words?  An offering was a sacrifice back in Israel 'for' the sin.  That's why it was not called sin, it was called a SIN OFFERING. 

Here is 2 Cor. 5:21 translated;

"For Him who knew no Sin, He made a Sin-offering on our behalf, that we might become God's Righteousness in Him" (Emphatic Diaglott).

"For the One not knowing sin, He makes [Gk. Aorist - not past tense] to be a sin offering for our sakes that we may be becoming God's righteousness in Him" (Concordant N.T.).

This is the proper order too.  It should not be "for He made Him sin," the first phrase is "For Him who knew no Sin."
----------------------------------------------

To understand about the sacrifies you have to realize that they are all pointing to the ultimate sacrifice Jesus Christ.  Here is an excerpt from an email that Ray points this out.

http://bible-truths.com/email3.htm -------------

Just like with the whole Law of Moses, it foreshadowed SOMETHING BETTER (Heb. 10:1). Jesus Christ is not a shadow of ANYTHING---Jesus Christ is the REAL THING--THE REALITY of which all physical ceremonies, sacrifices, and rituals were but a SHADOW. Stop looking to the "shadows" as though there were REAL POWER in the shadows. There is not. The only power is in the REALITY and the REALITY is JESUS CHRIST IN US. PERIOD.
--------------------------------------------------

There is a section of this same transcript from above 'Was Christ made sin?' that I believe is speaking to the same thing being discussed here.  This is from chapter 4 of Leviticus about 2 offerings, but I believe it represents the same thing as the 'two goats' sacrifices. 

http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,6719.0.html ----------

SIN OFFERING - TRESPASS OFFERING

When he talks about the offerings, that there were two offerings, one for sin and one for trespass.  He says that the sin offering was for the fact that Israel was sin and the trespass offering was for the actual commitment of sins.  But like the rest of this lecture it is total heresy.   Here are his words he's talking about the sin offerings, quote "That sin offering was made for what we are, not what we do, what we are, we have a sin offering for what we are.  We have a trespass offering for what we do."  That's nonsense, did you get that? 

This is what that is saying, that in the Old Testament they have what is called a sin offering for what we are, sin, not sinners, sin.  Then there was the trespass offering for what we do, commit sins.  Two different offerings, because these two things exist.  1)We are sin, 2) we commit sins.  Two different aspects of our relationship with sin, two different offerings for those two different relationships.  He says we have the offerings to prove it. 
Don't these guys ever read there Bibles anymore.  What unscriptural foolishness.  Let's look at it.  So you get the picture right?  He says, if you gave a sin offering, it was because you are sin.  You didn't do anything wrong, maybe you went all month and didn't commit any sins, but because you were sin inside, you give a sin offering.  But when you go out and if you hit someone over the head with a rock, you committed a sin and then you offer a trespass offering.  Because you actually committed a sin. And he says this is Scriptural.

Lev 4:22  When a ruler has sinned (now this is not the fact, this is the act, he actually sinned), and done somewhat through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD his God concerning things which should not be done, and is guilty; v. 23  Or if his sin, wherein he hath sinned (this is pretty clear), come to his knowledge; he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a male without blemish: v. 24  And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the LORD: it is a sin offering.

What kind of offering, a trespass?  Because this is a sin that he actually commented, it tells us four times in the verse, that he actually committed sin.  But it is a SIN OFFERING.  So much for that heresy.

Lev 4:28  Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. V. 29  And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering...

What happed to the trespass offering?  By what he says this is suppose to be a trespass offering, when you commit a sin, because the trespass offering is for the actual sin and the sin offering is for what you are.  But no, we just read a sin offering is for committing the sin.

Lev 4:34  And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering... v. 35 ...and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed,

What happened to the 'sin in fact?'  Where is this sin offering for the sin in fact, but not the sin in act? 

This is a important study I have done and all of those dissidents are going to get this.  They will get all of this stuff contradicting not just their premise, not just one paragraph, not just one page, but every single word of this dirty religion.  They will read it and you know what effect it will have on them?  Zero.  You've got it, none what so ever.  They will say, 'well I think he lies, he didn't quote Coy right.'  I mean come on.
Here is one more Scripture.

Lev 5:6  And he shall bring his trespass offering...

Now we are getting down to it, this is where you are suppose to commit a sin, this has nothing to do with the sin offering, it's when you commit a sin and it has got to be as he said, a trespass offering and not a sin offering right?   Wrong pale face. 

Continue v. 6 ...his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats for (for what? a trespass offering, right?  Nope...) a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin.

You bring the trespass offering, for a sin offering, that's what it is.  The trespass offering is a sin offering.  It's in your Bible, it's in my Bible.  It's in verse 7...

Lev 5:7  And if he be not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring for his trespass (bring what, a trespass offering? No), which he hath committed (this is an 'act' now), two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, unto the LORD; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering.

It's just nonsense, yet this is one of his major points.  This is his poof that you can 'be sin,' without sinning, because there was an offering especially for just being sin and not committing a sin, it was called the sin offering.  No!

We just read time and time and time again, in the same chapter, that when you committed a sin, you offered the sin offering. What he has is wrong, it's just bogus nonsense. 

Then he has one called  'the propensity to sin.'  Because it is kind of in humanity to sin and this is one of his proofs that Christ was sin, because He was a human.
-----------------------------------------------------------

I don't completely understand a lot of this, but it gives you something to think about 

mercy, peace and love
Kat

[Robin]

OBrenda, I think we should wait to see if Ray has time to answer and not speculate on what the meaning of all that might be.

I can see from Ray's teaching that at no time was Christ made sin for us. He was without sin and was innocent at all times. So if the scapegoat represents Christ then the sins and guilt of the people were not transferred or imputed into Christ. All the verses say that Christ died for sin or to sin. It never says he died with our sin. Christ never received God's wrath in our place.


This is the false teaching I am trying sort though.
*link not allowed*

[OBrenda]

I'm Sorry M.G.

[Robin]

No need to be sorry OBrenda! I may have worded that wrong. I just know that we are supposed to stick with Ray's teaching on the forum and we get off track if we start speculating on some of the things he hasn't taught about yet. That's usually when the mods jump in and stop us, lol.

It was nothing against you. I have a lot of questions too.

[Mbongiseni]

Greetings! I would that the two goats represent two different implications.Since all agree that the sacrificial goat which was killed and its blood sprinkled on the alter represent Christ then the other represent Satan,the second goat that is sent alive to the wilderness could  Revelation 20 verse 2 :"and he laid hold on the dragon, the old serpent, who is Devil and Adversary, and did bind him a thousand years," be refered to the same? Everyone some day has to answer may be that is part of the judgement with regard to the Devil.

Be blessed!