The Goat of Departure

[face2face]

@Johann

Let's discuss the principles of what is commonly understood but misrepresented as the Scape-Goat.

The term "scapegoat" is incorrect, and should be amended to read: "goal of departure". This goat is not put to death but reserved for life, after the other goat has been put to death as a sin offering for the people.

"And he shall take the two goats"

The word for "goats" in this place is שָׂעִיר sair, and denotes shaggy / hairy goats. The word is from the root sa'ar, "to storm", and hence, by implication, to shiver in fear or apprehension. This is quite appropriate in view of the purpose of the goats. They pointed towards the "one offering" of Christ who declared:

"I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened (agony!) till it be accomplished" (Luke 12:50).

By the action of presenting them "before Yahweh" they became His. See the application to the Lord here in Luke 2:22.

Now when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, Joseph and Mary brought Jesus up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord.

First point: Just as both goats are presented before Yahweh (God) likewise the Lord Jesus Christ as per Exodus 13:2,12,15

Brought to the "the tent of meeting" meeting and you will notice how the fate of the animals occurred?

@quietthinker - I thought of you and our past discussion about the offering of Christ and Who precisely planned those events.

If you read Leviticus 16:8 this will provide you guidance not dissimilar to Acts 2:23

F2F

 

[Johann]

@Johann

Let's discuss the principles of what is commonly understood but misrepresented as the Scape-Goat.

The term "scapegoat" is incorrect, and should be amended to read: "goal of departure". This goat is not put to death but reserved for life, after the other goat has been put to death as a sin offering for the people.

"And he shall take the two goats"

The word for "goats" in this place is שָׂעִיר sair, and denotes shaggy / hairy goats. The word is from the root sa'ar, "to storm", and hence, by implication, to shiver in fear or apprehension. This is quite appropriate in view of the purpose of the goats. They pointed towards the "one offering" of Christ who declared:

"I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened (agony!) till it be accomplished" (Luke 12:50).

By the action of presenting them "before Yahweh" they became His. See the application to the Lord here in Luke 2:22.

Now when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, Joseph and Mary brought Jesus up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord.

First point: Just as both goats are presented before Yahweh (God) likewise the Lord Jesus Christ as per Exodus 13:2,12,15

Brought to the "the tent of meeting" meeting and you will notice how the fate of the animals occurred?

@quietthinker - I thought of you and our past discussion about the offering of Christ and Who precisely planned those events.

If you read Leviticus 16:8 this will provide you guidance not dissimilar to Acts 2:23

F2F

In Jewish tradition, the two goats used in the Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) ritual, described in Leviticus 16, carry deep symbolic significance, and various interpretations from the Targums, Midrashim, and rabbinical sources help unpack the meaning of these goats. Let’s explore what Jewish teachings, including the Targums, say about these goats and how they contribute to the understanding of atonement.

1. The Two Goats in Leviticus 16:
The two goats (שָׂעִיר שָׂעִיר, sa'ir sa'ir) in the Yom Kippur ritual were presented before God at the entrance of the tent of meeting. Lots were cast over them to determine their roles-one to be sacrificed as a sin offering (chatat) and the other to be sent into the wilderness to Azazel.

The two goats were understood to represent different aspects of atonement:

One Goat for the Lord (Leviticus 16:9): This goat was offered as a sin offering, symbolizing the blood atonement required to cleanse the people from their sins.
The Goat for Azazel (Leviticus 16:10): This goat, often referred to as the "scapegoat" in English, was not killed. Instead, it was sent away into the wilderness, symbolically carrying the sins of the people with it, removing their guilt.

2. Jewish Sayings on the Goats:
Jewish tradition has many interpretations surrounding these two goats, especially regarding their symbolism and meaning.

Midrash Rabbah (Leviticus Rabbah 21:7): The Midrash explains the two goats as identical in appearance and value, yet they meet very different fates. This emphasizes the idea that their fate is determined by divine choice-casting lots over them is a reflection of God's sovereignty, not human decision.

The Mishnah (Yoma 6:8): In the Talmudic discussion on Yom Kippur, it is noted that a scarlet thread was tied to the scapegoat’s head and, according to tradition, the thread would turn white if God accepted the atonement, fulfilling Isaiah

1:18: "Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow." This emphasizes the transformation of sin through God's mercy and forgiveness.

Talmud (Yoma 67b): The Talmud explains that the scapegoat (sa’ir l’azazel) is sent to atone for the people’s sins committed under duress and willingly. The casting of the lots is said to correspond to God’s judgment and mercy. The wilderness to which the goat is sent represents desolation and separation from the people’s sins, showing the cleansing process of atonement.

3. The Targums on the Two Goats:

The Targums, which are Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible, provide insights and additional interpretations regarding the Yom Kippur goats. They often elaborate on the symbolic meaning and implications of the ritual.

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (Leviticus 16:8): This Targum mentions that one goat is for atonement to the Lord, while the other is for Azazel, which the Targum describes as "the powerful chieftain who ruled in the wilderness." This interpretation introduces the idea of Azazel being a demonic or supernatural figure associated with the wilderness, a view that aligns with some later Jewish apocalyptic texts, such as the Book of Enoch, which also mentions Azazel as a fallen angel associated with sin.

Targum Onkelos (Leviticus 16:8): The Onkelos translation stays close to the Hebrew text but provides a clearer understanding of the act as an atonement ritual that removes sin. Onkelos reflects a more symbolic view of the scapegoat, associating it with the concept of kippur (atonement), where sins are transferred and removed.

4. Rabbinic Interpretations and Symbolism:
Many Jewish commentators have emphasized that the two goats, though identical, signify two divergent paths: life and death, mercy and judgment.

Rashi (on Leviticus 16:10): Rashi interprets the goat sent to Azazel as representing the removal of sin. He also affirms the view of Azazel as a harsh, rocky place (not a figure), interpreting the wilderness as symbolic of spiritual desolation.
Nachmanides (Ramban, on Leviticus 16:8): Nachmanides offers a mystical interpretation, suggesting that the goat sent to Azazel is a bribe or offering to Satan, allowing the accuser no power to speak against Israel. This interpretation views the scapegoat as a way to remove any spiritual claim Satan might have over the people, allowing them to stand blameless before God.
5. Azazel in Jewish Tradition:
There is much debate among Jewish scholars about the identity of Azazel:

Some interpret Azazel as a desolate wilderness location, a place far from the community, where the goat symbolically carries away the people’s sins.
Others, especially in apocalyptic literature like the Book of Enoch, see Azazel as a demonic figure associated with sin and rebellion against God. In Enoch, Azazel is a fallen angel who taught humanity to sin and was punished by being bound in the wilderness.
Conclusion:
In Jewish teachings, the two goats of Yom Kippur symbolize both atonement and the removal of sin. The ritual points toward the depth of Israel's need for purification before God and God’s gracious provision for it. While the Targums and rabbinical interpretations vary, there is a consistent theme of divine sovereignty in choosing the fate of the goats, the seriousness of sin, and the grace offered through atonement. The ritual is a powerful portrayal of cleansing and reconciliation, seen both in the sacrificial system and its later fulfillment in the Messianic hope.

But you and I are not on the same page @F2F

J.

 

[face2face]

But you and I are not on the same page @F2F

J.

If you stick around you can see the deep principles being revealed and how the relate to the Lord Jesus Christ.

I read through your post and you seem to have deviated away from the Bible into satanism? Not sure why you choose that direction.

Lets look at verse 8

"And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats"

This action illustrated that the fate of the two animals was determined bv Yahweh's appointment, and not by chance or caprice; for He governed the result of the lot taken.

The dice are thrown into the lap, but their every decision is from the Lord. Pr 16:33.

"One lot for Yahweh"

The blood of one of the goats was to be given unto Yahweh, so that it would be put to death. "And the other lot for the scapegoat"

The Hebrew word is azazel as in the margin (AV), and the R.V. renders it in that way. It is derived from 'ez' "goat" from a root denoting strength, and ezal meaning "to go away, to disappear". The word therefore signifies The Goat of Departure, or The Goat of Removal.

It represented one that has the strength to bear away the "sins" to be figuratively placed upon it.

F2F

 

[Johann]

I read through your post and you seem to have deviated away from the Bible into satanism?

If you don't apologize re THIS statement on ignore you go-I had enough of this sort of nonsense online from members like you.

@marks is not interested in engaging with you and neither am I.

You are a sly fox F2F.

J.

 

[face2face]

If you don't apologize re THIS statement on ignore you go-I had enough of this sort of nonsense online from members like you.

@marks is not interested in engaging with you and neither am I.

You are a sly fox F2F.

J.

Did you not quote this?

Nachmanides offers a mystical interpretation, suggesting that the goat sent to Azazel is a bribe or offering to Satan, allowing the accuser no power to speak against Israel. This interpretation views the scapegoat as a way to remove any spiritual claim Satan might have over the people, allowing them to stand blameless before God.

Because you copy and paste a lot, how is anyone to know if this is what you believe or someone else's belief?

The issue is squarely with you J.

F2F

 

[face2face]

The Hebrew in this verse is very significant. First, the word "offer" is from asah which denotes to make, or appoint. The goat was appointed as a sin offering. Second, the word for sin offering is chatta'th. and can denote an offence, from chata, signifying to "miss the mark". A strict rendering of the statement reads: "and shall make it sin". @Johann - you can see this can't you? See the principles and how the Apostle Paul understood the sacrifice of Christ.

This goat was treated as representing sin's flesh, and, therefore, was given over to death.

It foreshadowed Christ's death. Concerning him, Paul taught: "He (God) hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin . . ." (2 Cor. 5:21).

It is significant, that whereas over the head of the Goat of Departure the sins of the people were pronounced, no audible voice pronounced the sins of the people upon this goat, for it represented sin's flesh, or potential sin (Rom. 8:3), which must be figuratively put to death if one would please Yahweh. Hence, of Christ it is written: "For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God" (Rom. 6:10).

For what "sin" did Christ die?

I'll await your answer J.

 

[face2face]

In Jewish teachings, the two goats of Yom Kippur symbolize both atonement and the removal of sin. The ritual points toward the depth of Israel's need for purification before God and God’s gracious provision for it. While the Targums and rabbinical interpretations vary, there is a consistent theme of divine sovereignty in choosing the fate of the goats, the seriousness of sin, and the grace offered through atonement. The ritual is a powerful portrayal of cleansing and reconciliation, seen both in the sacrificial system and its later fulfillment in the Messianic hope.

But you and I are not on the same page @F2F

You copy and paste Mystic teaching and then say "But you and I are not on the same page @F2F"

Then you become easily offended when I call you out on it?

You need to explain yourself Johann!

F2F

 

[Johann]

The Hebrew in this verse is very significant. First, the word "offer" is from asah which denotes to make, or appoint. The goat was appointed as a sin offering. Second, the word for sin offering is chatta'th. and can denote an offence, from chata, signifying to "miss the mark". A strict rendering of the statement reads: "and shall make it sin". @Johann - you can see this can't you? See the principles and how the Apostle Paul understood the sacrifice of Christ.

Incorrect.

"Offer" and "Asah" (עָשָׂה): The word translated as "offer" in some contexts is indeed עָשָׂה (asah), which primarily means "to do," "to make," or "to accomplish." It does not specifically mean "to offer" in a sacrificial sense. The act of appointing or making something in this context emphasizes that the goat was designated or set apart for a specific purpose, which is crucial for understanding its role as a representation of sin, not the offering itself. In the case of the goat, it was made (asah) for the purpose of carrying or bearing sin, but this does not imply that the goat became sinful in essence.

"Sin Offering" and "Chatta'th" (חַטָּאת): The term חַטָּאת (chatta'th) is used in Hebrew to denote both "sin" and "sin offering." This term comes from the root verb חָטָא (chata), which means "to miss the mark" or "to fall short." In many biblical contexts, chatta'th is employed to describe the offering made for sin rather than sin itself. The key distinction is that the sin offering is symbolic of the sin being dealt with or atoned for, rather than the offering itself becoming sinful.

A Strict Rendering of the Statement: When we look at passages like Leviticus 16:21, where the scapegoat is described as "bearing" the sins of Israel, the Hebrew verb נָשָׂא (nasa) is used, meaning "to carry" or "to lift." This is essential to note because nasa does not imply that the scapegoat became sinful; rather, it bore the consequences or the symbolic weight of the sin. Similarly, in 2 Corinthians 5:21, when Paul says that God made Christ to be "sin" (ἁμαρτία) for us, it reflects this sacrificial concept rooted in chatta'th-not that Jesus became sinful, but that He bore sin vicariously as the sin offering.

Clarification in Pauline Thought: Paul’s understanding of the sacrifice of Christ is grounded in the Jewish sacrificial system, where offerings represented sin without inheriting sin. The statement “and shall make it sin” (if we consider it from 2 Corinthians 5:21 or Leviticus 16) does not mean the offering becomes sin but rather that it is treated as sin for the purpose of atonement. This parallels Paul's logic in Romans 8:3, where God sent His Son "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας) to condemn sin in the flesh, not to become inherently sinful.

substitutionary atonement and compare Isa 53:5,8] out of the flocks, with thy estimation by shekels of kesef, after the Shekel HaKodesh (the Shekel of the Sanctuary), for an asham (trespass or guilt offering).

Num_29:11 One male of the goats for a chattat; in addition to the chattat hakippurim (sin offering of the atonement), and the olat hatamid and its minchah and their nesakim.

Eze_16:63 That thou mayest remember, and be ashamed, and never open thy mouth any more because of thy shame, when I have made kapporah (atonement, i.e., when I am pacified, appeased) toward thee for all that thou hast done, saith Adonoi Hashem.


Should you wish-I can send you links on the meaning of the offerings as per Leviticus.

The burden of proof is on you, not me F2F.

J.

 

[face2face]

For what "sin" did Christ die?

To answer the question of #6 which no one wants to answer in this forum

Christ was completely free of transgression, therefore the statement does not relate to active sin, but to potential sin, or sin's flesh.

Christ denied the flesh in life, and permitted it to be put to death on the cross, thus rendering perfect obedience unto the Father. That perfect obedience ensured his resurrection from the dead.

Hence two goats were required to prophetically represent that one sacrifice: one that died, and the other that lived to depart unto a place not inhabited by man.

@Johann @marks

This is the complete view of these two animals and how they relate to Christ's life and sacrifice

F2F

 

[face2face]

In others words Johann.

2 Corinthians 5:21 teaches that Christ became sin's flesh and it was that flesh which is styled Sin by Paul.

You can't deny this - impossible!

F2F

 

[face2face]

@Johann further to this it's impossible as you would know the have God dwelling in Sin's Flesh. If you have a shred of knowledge on the Holiness of God you would acknowledge this as truth.

F2F

 

[Johann]

In others words Johann.

2 Corinthians 5:21 teaches that Christ became sin's flesh and it was that flesh which is styled Sin by Paul.

You can't deny this - impossible!

F2F

You are veering off the beaten path-

The phrase "Christ became sin's flesh" is incorrect, both theologically and linguistically. Paul does not teach that Christ became sinful flesh in the sense that He inherently took on the nature of sin. Rather, Paul emphasizes that Christ was sinless but was treated as sin or offered as a sin offering on our behalf. The Greek term ἁμαρτία (hamartia) can refer to sin or to a sin offering, which is important for understanding Paul's usage.



Romans 8:3 clarifies this point further:
"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh."

The phrase "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας) shows that Christ took on human flesh that resembled sinful humanity, but He Himself was not sinful. He was without sin (Hebrews 4:15). Paul is careful to say that Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh, not that He became sinful flesh.
Isaiah 53:6 prophesies:
"The Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all."

This reflects the idea that Christ bore the consequences of sin without becoming inherently sinful. It is the same concept Paul teaches in 2 Corinthians 5:21-Christ is the one on whom God placed the sin of the world, bearing its penalty for us.
Sin Offering (ἁμαρτία): In Leviticus 16 and Isaiah 53, the sin offering (Hebrew: חַטָּאת, chatta'th) is an animal that symbolically bears the sin of the people but does not become inherently sinful. Similarly, Christ was made a sin offering for us, but He did not become sinful in nature.

And now I had enough-this is not edifying.

The burden of proof is on YOU, not me.
Back to the Bible

J.

 

[face2face]

You are veering off the beaten path-

No, as we are finding both the OT example of the two goats and the Living Sacrifice of Christ both speak to the same lessons. You just can't connect the dots for now.

The phrase "Christ became sin's flesh" is incorrect, both theologically and linguistically. Paul does not teach that Christ became sinful flesh in the sense that He inherently took on the nature of sin. Rather, Paul emphasizes that Christ was sinless but was treated as sin or offered as a sin offering on our behalf. The Greek term ἁμαρτία (hamartia) can refer to sin or to a sin offering, which is important for understanding Paul's usage.

In nature, the same is every respect!

Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, he likewise shared in their humanity, Heb 2:14.

2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every respect Heb 2:17.

I do enjoy being on the Apostles side.

I tried asking Asoul many times to show Hypostasis and he couldn't show one verse - I expect you would be the same Johann.

Romans 8:3 clarifies this point further:
"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh."

Where did God condemn sin?

Show me from Romans 8:1-3

The phrase "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας) shows that Christ took on human flesh that resembled sinful humanity, but He Himself was not sinful. He was without sin (Hebrews 4:15). Paul is careful to say that Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh, not that He became sinful flesh.
Isaiah 53:6 prophesies:
"The Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all."

This reflects the idea that Christ bore the consequences of sin without becoming inherently sinful. It is the same concept Paul teaches in 2 Corinthians 5:21-Christ is the one on whom God placed the sin of the world, bearing its penalty for us.
Sin Offering (ἁμαρτία): In Leviticus 16 and Isaiah 53, the sin offering (Hebrew: חַטָּאת, chatta'th) is an animal that symbolically bears the sin of the people but does not become inherently sinful. Similarly, Christ was made a sin offering for us, but He did not become sinful in nature.

And now I had enough-this is not edifying.

The burden of proof is on YOU, not me.
Back to the Bible

J.

How was sin presented in the body of Christ?

Verse to assist you Johann

Romans 8:1-3 and 2 Corinthians 5:20-21; Hebrews 2:14-17; Romans 6:9: 1 Peter 2:24

F2F

 

[face2face]

@Johann

Look at verse 10

16:10 but the goat which has been designated by lot for Azazel is to be stood alive before the Lord to make atonement on it by sending it away to Azazel into the wilderness. Lev 16:10.

The two goats are prophetic of Christ's work. Both in life and in death he glorified the Father (representative of all those who sacrifice the flesh as per John 17:4-5).

This goat was preserved alive, and presented to Yahweh to foreshadow the resurrection of the Lord after he had successfully completed his function as a sin offering.

Hence Paul wrote: "Jesus our Lord . . . was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification" (Rorn. 4:25).

The type foreshadowed the provision of a living advocate on behalf of Yahweh's people, as is provided in the Lord Jesus Christ. The resurrection of the Lord witnessed to the efficacy of the atonement accomplished by his sacrifice (Rom. 1:1-4).

F2F

 

[Johann]

@Johann

Look at verse 10

16:10 but the goat which has been designated by lot for Azazel is to be stood alive before the Lord to make atonement on it by sending it away to Azazel into the wilderness. Lev 16:10.

The two goats are prophetic of Christ's work. Both in life and in death he glorified the Father (representative of all those who sacrifice the flesh as per John 17:4-5).

This goat was preserved alive, and presented to Yahweh to foreshadow the resurrection of the Lord after he had successfully completed his function as a sin offering.

Hence Paul wrote: "Jesus our Lord . . . was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification" (Rorn. 4:25).

The type foreshadowed the provision of a living advocate on behalf of Yahweh's people, as is provided in the Lord Jesus Christ. The resurrection of the Lord witnessed to the efficacy of the atonement accomplished by his sacrifice (Rom. 1:1-4).

F2F

I believe I have covered this sufficiently and biblically.

I also believe your view of Christ Jesus is rather blasphemous.

J.

 

[face2face]

I believe I have covered this sufficiently and biblically.

I also believe your view of Christ Jesus is rather blasphemous.

J.

The victory of sin's flesh is extremely confronting for those who do not understand the Victory.
Your footing is not Biblical but man-made which is why you are struggling to understand the nature of Christ.
In time I believe you have the skills to see both aspects of the two goat symbol but I get why you would run back to what you think you know.
F2F

 

[face2face]

@Johann what's been disappointing from you is your lack of appreciation for both aspects of Christs life, death and resurrection.

The two goats are prophetic of Christ's work. Both in life and in death he glorified the Father (representative of all those who sacrifice the flesh as per John 17:4-5).

Imagine if you could grasp the weight of this work?

F2F

 

[face2face]

@Johann

Let me push your understand further!

“Aaron is to present the sin offering bull which is for himself, and he is to make atonement on behalf of himself and his household. He is to slaughter the sin offering bull which is for himself Le 16:11.

Can you see it?

 

[Johann]

@Johann

Let me push your understand further!

“Aaron is to present the sin offering bull which is for himself, and he is to make atonement on behalf of himself and his household. He is to slaughter the sin offering bull which is for himself Le 16:11.

Can you see it?

"On behalf of himself and his household" – This highlights the necessity for Aaron, as the high priest, to first make atonement for his own sins. Before he could mediate for the nation, his own sin had to be dealt with. This is crucial in understanding the imperfection of the Old Covenant priesthood, compared to Christ, our sinless High Priest (Hebrews 7:26-27), who did not need to offer a sacrifice for Himself because He was without sin.

This is where your "doctrine" is blasphemous..

J.

 

[face2face]

"On behalf of himself and his household" – This highlights the necessity for Aaron, as the high priest, to first make atonement for his own sins. Before he could mediate for the nation, his own sin had to be dealt with. This is crucial in understanding the imperfection of the Old Covenant priesthood, compared to Christ, our sinless High Priest (Hebrews 7:26-27), who did not need to offer a sacrifice for Himself because He was without sin.

This is where your "doctrine" is blasphemous..

J.

So in what way did Jesus benefit from his own death?

J. use Scripture to provide your answer

F2F