Satan as Scapegoat

[Pavel Mosko]

Satan as the Scapegoat

This Blogstyle post was written to explain to the Adventists that hung around one of my Facebook groups why Christians find their doctrine of the Scapegoat objectionable.


1) Animals in the Old Testament were supposed to be "without defect", foreshadowing and symbolizing Christ "being without sin". Satan does not fit this, only in his early days "as a ministering Cherub" before his Fall would he fit this. In his actual state, Satan is the antithesis of this important Biblical theological motif.


2)"The Divine Economy of Romans 5:12-21"
King James Version
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the [a]offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s [c]offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
This passage has been summarized by great saints like Gregory of Nazianus and Athanasius as "that which is not assumed is not healed"and"that which is not united to his Divinity is not saved."

 

[Pavel Mosko]

This is why the Adventist Scapegoat is considered so blasphemous by Christians. We see in the previous passage what is called an "Economia" (Economy). In the ancient world this term describes a way of doing things, it literally was used to describe something like a "mode of operations", of how you run your household. And I would argue the above is a lot of what the ancient Jewish sacrificial system was about had to do with this foreshadowing and symbolizing the transfer of sin by transposing of hands by the priest on the offering, to the one that needed the sin offering. It was noted by ancient Christians ages ago, for instance that the shape of the transposed hands looks a bit like a Greek Cross, or a X which in Greek would have been the letter Chi, which also stood for Christ, being the first letter of the Greek term Messiah, and also looking like a cross.

But back to the point, the ramifications of the doctrine is blasphemous when the Scapegoat's significance is considered from a larger perspective of things, namely those two above points and their ramifications, aka "What is not assumed is not saved" a law that God himself established in the Bible to point to Christ. Satan is definitely not without defect, nor did he assume our humanity to pay for our sin.
I think Adventists find the Scapegoat doctrine appealing because of the fact the goat ends up with the name of a Fallen Angel/ Demon in Jewish Tradition, and of course Satan gets wiped out in the end of the book of Revelation, and having this new insight come from a Revelation was the new hot thing, especially since it was a proof text for the Adventist doctrine of Annihilationism rather than Hell being Eternal. This I think is the real problem or issue, and most likely will not go away with this post but it is the real "Elephant in the room".

Closing
1) In closing, I will concede that in this heterodox teaching Adventists did stumble on an important point, the name of the Scape Goat and its significance. When it comes to types and anti-types in the Bible there is a lot going on, and I do find significance in the name of the goat but I believe that is symbolizing other stuff like the Fallen nature of Man, the robber Barabas that was released in place of Christ, even a foreshadowing of Christ, "being tempted in the Wilderness" a scene that somewhat has enacted out the scape goat literally and metaphorically.

2) And lastly, I will raise one point brought up by a Calvinist Theologian and Historian on this issue, that Adventists tend to miss. He claimed that somebody went out and followed the Scapegoat after it was released to make sure it did die eventually after a few days. While I have not found yet officially been able to confirm this fact (few people write on it and post their work to the internet), I do believe it based on study and common sense. 1) Because all other near eastern peoples had similar kind of rituals where that was the case, but more importantly 2) Because of the fact, that the wilderness of the region was a dry dessert, and a domestic farm animal like a goat, is not designed to deal with the lack of water like a camel, mountain goat or similar wilderness creature. But going back to typologies and their spiritual meanings, I do see some important meanings from this. Simply being temporarily pardoned for our trespasses and sins, is not enough. We will all will eventually die from them, to be free we need something, really somebody that can fix things permanently and not just put on a spiritual Band Aid (of simply covering our sin) and that person is Christ.

 

[quietthinker]

It's patently clear Pavel, you've got it in for SDA's. Ever wonder whether you've lost a healthy perspective?

 

[Hobie]

Satan as the Scapegoat

This Blogstyle post was written to explain to the Adventists that hung around one of my Facebook groups why Christians find their doctrine of the Scapegoat objectionable.


1) Animals in the Old Testament were supposed to be "without defect", foreshadowing and symbolizing Christ "being without sin". Satan does not fit this, only in his early days "as a ministering Cherub" before his Fall would he fit this. In his actual state, Satan is the antithesis of this important Biblical theological motif.


2)"The Divine Economy of Romans 5:12-21"
King James Version
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the [a]offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s [c]offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
This passage has been summarized by great saints like Gregory of Nazianus and Athanasius as "that which is not assumed is not healed"and"that which is not united to his Divinity is not saved."



View attachment 43248

So who is responsible for sin, that's the real issue as you surely can't blame God for it.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
FAQ: Since God created us the way we are; then why isn't He is responsible
for our conduct?

REPLY: Some years ago I went into a music store in San Diego and noticed
that one of the store's glass display cases contained a rather large variety of
curious bottles. So I asked the clerk what they were. He said they were
bongs. You mean for smoking dope? I asked. He replied: Yes; that is their
purpose. So I responded: But isn't dope illegal? He replied: Yes, dope is
illegal, however we don't sell dope; we only sell the means to smoke it. You
see; the responsibility for smoking dope was on the end-users of bongs
rather than upon the sellers of bongs.

In a similar incident, I went into an electronics store to purchase a mobile
CB radio and noticed an array of devices in the display case that I didn't
recognize. The clerk told me they were linear amplifiers; which, he said, are
devices for boosting a standard 5-watt CB's signal strength. I asked the clerk
if that was legal. He said no, it isn't legal to boost the standard signal.
However, he said, it isn't illegal to own equipment with the capability to do
so. In other words; the law placed the responsibility for boosting CB signals
on the end-user of linear amplifiers rather than the sellers of linear
amplifiers.

What I'm getting at is: God created humanity with the capability to make
bad choices. But at the same time, He created humanity with the capability
to make good choices too. For example:

"Then Yahweh said to Cain: If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?
But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to
have you, but you must master it." (Gen 4:7)

In the forbidden fruit incident, Adam chose poorly. Does it make sense to
blame God for Adam's choice? No; Adam knew the risk going in; but
proceeded anyway. (1Tim 2:14)

But you see: so-called "product liability" is a convenient way of blaming
others for our own failings. In other words: product liability's proponents
insist that the availability of things like forbidden fruit, bongs, and linear
amplifiers constitutes enablement. So these days instead of saying "The
Devil made me do it; therefore my conduct is his fault" now people say "I
was provided the means to do it; therefore my conduct is the provider's
fault."

Many of the products under sinks and out in garages are toxic; so
manufacturers put warning labels on them. They do the same thing with
electrical equipment, power tools, and mechanical devices so people can
operate them safely and avoid injury. Now; placing those products for sale
to the public constitutes enablement, but they're assuming end-users are
intelligent enough to read warning labels and/or user's manuals. If users
ignore warning labels and the cautions printed in manuals; it's their own
fault for being stupid.
_

 

[Hobie]

W

.
FAQ: Since God created us the way we are; then why isn't He is responsible
for our conduct?

REPLY: Some years ago I went into a music store in San Diego and noticed
that one of the store's glass display cases contained a rather large variety of
curious bottles. So I asked the clerk what they were. He said they were
bongs. You mean for smoking dope? I asked. He replied: Yes; that is their
purpose. So I responded: But isn't dope illegal? He replied: Yes, dope is
illegal, however we don't sell dope; we only sell the means to smoke it. You
see; the responsibility for smoking dope was on the end-users of bongs
rather than upon the sellers of bongs.

In a similar incident, I went into an electronics store to purchase a mobile
CB radio and noticed an array of devices in the display case that I didn't
recognize. The clerk told me they were linear amplifiers; which, he said, are
devices for boosting a standard 5-watt CB's signal strength. I asked the clerk
if that was legal. He said no, it isn't legal to boost the standard signal.
However, he said, it isn't illegal to own equipment with the capability to do
so. In other words; the law placed the responsibility for boosting CB signals
on the end-user of linear amplifiers rather than the sellers of linear
amplifiers.

What I'm getting at is: God created humanity with the capability to make
bad choices. But at the same time, He created humanity with the capability
to make good choices too. For example:

"Then Yahweh said to Cain: If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?
But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to
have you, but you must master it." (Gen 4:7)

In the forbidden fruit incident, Adam chose poorly. Does it make sense to
blame God for Adam's choice? No; Adam knew the risk going in; but
proceeded anyway. (1Tim 2:14)

But you see: so-called "product liability" is a convenient way of blaming
others for our own failings. In other words: product liability's proponents
insist that the availability of things like forbidden fruit, bongs, and linear
amplifiers constitutes enablement. So these days instead of saying "The
Devil made me do it; therefore my conduct is his fault" now people say "I
was provided the means to do it; therefore my conduct is the provider's
fault."

Many of the products under sinks and out in garages are toxic; so
manufacturers put warning labels on them. They do the same thing with
electrical equipment, power tools, and mechanical devices so people can
operate them safely and avoid injury. Now; placing those products for sale
to the public constitutes enablement, but they're assuming end-users are
intelligent enough to read warning labels and/or user's manuals. If users
ignore warning labels and the cautions printed in manuals; it's their own
fault for being stupid.

Well, who tempted Eve, it wasn't God..

 

[Wrangler]

Satan as the Scapegoat

who tempted Eve

The OP was incongruent with the title. People don't like to take the log out of their own eye. That is, admit their own sin. In fact, there not that, there only "mistakes." And even then, I'm the victim -- too tired, overworked, influenced by others, etc.

I have found the enemy and the enemy is us.

 

[Stumpmaster]

1) Animals in the Old Testament were supposed to be "without defect", foreshadowing and symbolizing Christ "being without sin". Satan does not fit this, only in his early days "as a ministering Cherub" before his Fall would he fit this. In his actual state, Satan is the antithesis of this important Biblical theological motif.

Keeping it simple . . .

Quote:
"Christ is the complete atonement for our sins.
In many ways, He embodies each aspect of the Day of Atonement.
We are told that He is our great High Priest (Hebrews 4:14).
He is also the “Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world” (Revelation 13:8) as a sacrifice for our sins.
And He is our scapegoat. Second Corinthians 5:21 says, “God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.”
Our sins were laid on Christ – He bore our sins just as the scapegoat bore the sins of the Israelites. Isaiah 53:6 prophesies Christ’s acceptance of the sin burden: “We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.”
After the sins were laid on the scapegoat, it was considered unclean and driven into the wilderness. In essence, the goat was cast out.
The same happened to Jesus. He was crucified outside of the city. “He was despised and rejected by men … He poured out His life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For He bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors” (Isaiah 53:3a, 12).
Jesus embodied what the scapegoat represented – the removal of sins from the perpetrators."

Source: Azazel/Scapegoat Meaning

 

[gordon7]

Satans ministers, what would they say of their master, only good things...


2 Corinthians 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

This is why the Adventist Scapegoat is considered so blasphemous by Christians...

But back to the point, the ramifications of the doctrine is blasphemous ...

Your post is very well presented and very insightful. Thank you for that.
I would suggest, though, to be prudent with the use of the word "blasphemous". Blasphemy is a strong issue that implies an expression against God's sovereignty, love or sanctity.

The Adventist view on the scapegoat could be described as erroneous, objectionable, mistaken, unsustainable, etc. but not blasphemous.
Obviously, an Adventist person knows that Christ is good and Satan is bad.
An Adventist person wants to live the life of Christ, not the live of Satan.

If we do not pay attention to this, we end up seeing "heresies" and "blasphemies" all over the place, instead of focusing on the real battle of God vs. evil.

 

[strepho]

The wicked believe in Nirvana. It's place of nothing. Satan corruption of thier minds. They don't believe thier going into lake of fire.
Documentation
Psalm 37
Proverbs chapter 5
Psalm chapter 9

Corinthians chapter 4. god of this world has blinded those who don't believe in Jesus and gospel.

Wicked own lies and delusions, convince them selves, Nirvana is where they will go.

Ezekiel chapter 33. God warns the wicked. But many wicked people will follow satan into lake of fire on judgement day.

Evildoers and troublemakers have to go.

 

[Brakelite]

When lots were cast upon the two goats taken from the congregation, one lot was for the Lord's goat and the other for the scapegoat. (Leviticus 16:8) Some believe both goats to be symbolic of Christ, representing two phases of His atoning work. Others believe that they represent two opposing forces, and that as one is “for the Lord,” and the other for Azazel, the latter means Satan. Some scholars, probably the majority, hold that Azazel is a personal, wicked, superhuman spirit; others contend that it means “one who removes,” especially “by a series of acts.”

It seems most reasonable to believe that as the one goat is for the Lord, a personal being, so the other also is for a personal being. As the two goats are evidently antithetical, the most consistent view would be that Azazel must be opposed to the Lord. He could then be no other than Satan. While we believe the weight of evidence to be in favor of considering Azazel a personal, wicked spirit, there are certain difficulties in this view which should have consideration. Chief among these is the statement that the scapegoat “shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.” Leviticus 16:10.

If Azazel means “a wicked spirit,” Satan, how can it be possible to “make an atonement with him”? We believe that a consideration of the office of the scapegoat furnishes a solution to this problem. The scapegoat was brought into prominence on the Day of Atonement only after the work of reconciliation was completed. After Aaron “both 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 all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited. And he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.” Verses 20-22.
The priest had made an end of reconciling; the sanctuary and the altar had been cleansed; atonement had been made; an end had been made of cleansing; then, and not until then, did the scapegoat appear in its special role. Thus the scapegoat had no part in the atonement, which had already been accomplished with the blood of the Lord's goat. That work was completed.

 

[BlessedPeace]

It's patently clear Pavel, you've got it in for SDA's. Ever wonder whether you've lost a healthy perspective?

Imagine if that post substituted Calvinists for SDA.

 

[Behold]

we need something, really somebody that can fix things permanently and not just put on a spiritual Band Aid (of simply covering our sin) and that person is Christ.

A.) "JESUS is the ONE TIME.... ETERNAL.... Sacrifice for SIN">.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

The priest had made an end of reconciling; the sanctuary and the altar had been cleansed; atonement had been made; an end had been made of cleansing; then, and not until then, did the scapegoat appear in its special role. Thus the scapegoat had no part in the atonement, which had already been accomplished with the blood of the Lord's goat. That work was completed.

Hi Brakelite and friends:

Here are my two cents:

ATONEMENT IS PRESENT IN BOTH GOATS

The scapegoat is explicitly marked for atonement as well.
We read in verses 8 to 10: Then Aaron shall cast lots for the two goats: one lot for the Lord and the other lot for the scapegoat. 9 And Aaron shall bring the goat on which the Lord’s lot fell, and offer it as a sin offering. 10 But the goat on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make atonement upon it, and to let it go as the scapegoat into the wilderness.
So, to me, the goat to be killed and the goat to be released in the wilderness represent two aspects of the same thing.

THE FIRST GOAT

So, the aspect represented by the bloody killing of the goat may be the immediate pardon that God extends to a person who comes with a contrite heart. It happens instantly, like the tax collector of Jesus' story who was pardoned by God just by expressing humility

THE SCAPEGOAT

A distinctive feature of the ritual with the scapegoat was the confession of sins. I may be wrong, but the ritual for the first goat, the one to be killed, did not imply confession as such. I mean, it is not presented as a formal part of the ritual.
Bearing this in mind, the ritual of the scapegoat represents a long-term, reflexive part of reconciliation with God. It implies the careful and conscious recognition of our sins (what was exactly what I did wrong? why I did it? what should I have done instead? what are the consequences on my life or the life of others if I keep acting like that? ) and the gradual transformation of the character. The goat in the wilderness, as pointed out by our friends above, was going to die slowly. Indeed, someone would watch to ensure the goat died. This is the aspect in which we can wonder: how was the life of the tax collector thereafter? Did his bad habits end up dying in the wilderness?

CONCLUSION

These are the two aspects of salvation: We are saved now, in an instant, but we are also saved throughout our life, by learning to live under new standards. Salvation is a matter of a single sovereign act of God at a given moment, but also about the transforming, gradual operation of God's grace over years.

 

[Brakelite]

Most sins admit of shared responsibility. The person committing the sin is often mostly to blame, though this is not always the case. Some are more sinned against than sinning. The man who educates a child to steal cannot escape responsibility by saying that he himself does not steal. The one who lures a girl into sin, though not participating in it himself, is guilty. The parents who fail to instill right principles in their children, must someday give an account. This is as it should be. Responsibility for sin is not traceable to one person only. This is true of all sins except the personal sins of Satan. “When lie speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” John 8:44.

We come now to a consideration of the sins which Satan bears, the sins which men bear, the sins which Christ bears. It is to be kept in mind, however, that only Christ bears sins in substitutionary atonement. Men and Satan bear sins by way of desert and punishment. That Satan should suffer for his personal sins is axiomatic. He is a murderer from the beginning and the originator of sin. If sin is to be punished at all, Satan cannot escape. His responsibility reaches beyond that of his personal sins to the sins which he has caused others to commit. This embraces all sin, by whomsoever committed. He is responsible for the sins of the angels which fell, and he is responsible for the sins of men. There is no sin committed anywhere, in heaven or on earth, for which he is not primarily responsible. Whether the sin is committed by saint or sinner, Satan is the instigator of it. This does not mean that the angels who sinned will not have to suffer for what they did; nor does it mean that men are without responsibility. It is only fair and just that each sinner bear the punishment of his sins to the extent to which he is guilty. Satan does not bear their sin as such. They must bear their own sin. The sin for which he will be held responsible is his evil work in tempting them to sin, urging them on, luring them to their ruin. This is often worse than the sin itself. The principle of joint responsibility is illustrated in the sin of our first parents. Satan tempted them, and they fell. Because of Satan's part in the sin, the serpent was cursed; because of Adam and Eve's sin, they were banished from Eden. God did not hold Adam and Eve solely responsible, neither did He excuse them. Satan was guilty; so was man. There were no extenuating circumstances. All were guilty, and all were punished, each according to his deserts. This principle of joint responsibility, illustrated in God's treatment of the first sin, still holds good. It is God ordained, and its justice finds response in man's own sense of right.

As Satan is primarily responsible for the sins of all men, these sins must finally be placed on him and he must bear the punishment due him. This punishment is not expiatory; nor is it substitutionary; neither is it atoning, except in the sense that a criminal atones for his sins by being hanged on the gallows. He simply suffers for his own sins and for his influence in causing others to sin. This principle is well stated by Ellen White who said, “The punishment of the sinner will be measured by the extent to which he has influenced others in impenitence. Of all the sins that God will punish, none are more grievous in His sight than those that encourage others to do evil.” This is in harmony with what Jesus declared when He said, KJV Matthew 5:18-19
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
This does not mean that there will be commandment breakers in heaven. It means that those in heaven, will be calling them least, those who disobey and teach others to do the same.

Satan must bear the guilt of causing others to sin. Putting these statements together, We find that Satan will be punished for his part in the sins of the impenitent, and also for his part in the sins of the righteous. This is just, for it is the one who led them into sin.

Some have mistakenly concluded that if the sins of Israel are finally placed on Satan, he must have some part in the atonement. This is a great error. Satan has no part whatever in the vicarious atonement; the saints are in no way indebted to him; his bearing of sin is in no way related to salvation; his work is evil and only evil. As the Lamb of God, Christ bore the sin of the world. (John 3:16) All the accumulated sins of men were placed upon Him. He is “the Savior of all men, specially of those that believe.” 1 Timothy 4:10. Christ's sacrifice could not be and was not limited to those only who should finally accept Him. It included all men in its provisions. He bore the sins of all men, of Caiaphas, of Judas, of those who nailed Him to the cross. But He bore them efficaciously only for those who would finally accept Him. “As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name.” John 1: 12. But even those who finally reject the offer of salvation have been the beneficiaries of Christ's atonement. No sinner has any inherent right to life, and his continued existence and opportunity of accepting salvation is provided for him only by the sacrifice on Calvary. Probationary time is granted him in which to make his decision, and this time is blood bought. When at last he finally and irrevocably decides that he will not accept life on the conditions on which it is offered, the die is cast and he must bear the consequences. God can do no more for him. Salvation has been offered him again and again, and he has spurned it. The Holy Spirit leaves him. He has settled his own case.

In the sanctuary service the simple principles of salvation were clearly taught. A repentant sinner brought his lamb, laid his hand on its head, confessed his sin, and then killed the lamb. The priest then ministered the blood and ate of the flesh, while the man went away forgiven. By eating of the flesh the priest took the sin on himself, thus becoming a type of Him who became sin for us. On the Day of Atonement the high priest, bearing the accumulated sins of the year, made atonement for all confessed sins with the blood of the goat, thus blotting them out with not even the record remaining. The record of those confessed sins were already written in the blood of the Lamb, the day of atonement was the cleansing of the sanctuary. The blood of the goat, with no sins upon it, representing Christ's ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, cleansed the sanctuary (see Daniel 8:14) "of all the uncleanness of the house off Israel". Hence, in answer to your own question, is why no sins were confessed on the goat. Repentant Israel was that day not merely forgiven their sins, but had them blotted out, and they existed no more. Those who had not confessed their sins and had not received forgiveness were cut off, excommunicated, a type of their final cutting off from the favor of God and the land of the living. This is the simple lesson of salvation as taught in the sanctuary. In the daily burnt offering Israel saw Christ as the Savior of all men, a continual sacrifice applicable to all, providing temporarily and provisionally for all sin, confessed or unconfessed. In the sin offering they saw men accepting by faith the proffered salvation and receiving forgiveness. On the Day of Atonement they saw the high priest making atonement and providing complete cleansing for those who already had their sins forgiven and were still penitent, humbly bowing before God's dwelling place. With this the atonement was complete, and nothing needed to be or could be added. The sins were that day blotted out, and even the record was nonexistent.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

In regard to @Brakelite's comprehensive and excellent presentation, there are some aspects that still I don't understand


1. God did not explain to Israelites that one type of atonement was substitutionary while the other was not. The word for "atonement" is the same used for both the goat killed and the scapegoat, as well as for the female lamb and bulls that were sacrificed as offerings for a sin.
Therefore, separating atonement into a vicarious one and a punitive one (like the one of the "criminal who gets hanged out in the gallows"), seems a much later (and artificial) reinterpretation.

2. I have not found any evidence in the sacred text that, during the regular sanctuary services, the repentant sinner would confess his sins as he laid his hands on the lamb. Confession appears only on the ritual for the scapegoat. If I have missed a verse describing confession for the regular offerings for sin, please let me know.

3. If, as @Brakelite explains, "It is only fair and just that each sinner bear the punishment of his sins to the extent to which he is guilty. Satan does not bear their sin as such"... then I find weird that the same gesture of laying hands on the animal to be sacrificed, performed for the so called "vicary" atonement, had to be performed as well for the "punitive" atonment... PLUS... confessing their sins. By laying hands, something was transfered from men to the scapegoat (symbolically, of course). What was that? Responsibility? No, because as Brakelite explains well, each party (Satan and men) respond for their own part of responsibility. So, what was being transfered?

 

[Brakelite]

By laying hands, something was transfered from men to the scapegoat (symbolically, of course). What was that?

Indeed, and well noticed. I would suggest that one must remember the purpose of the day of atonement. It was for the cleansing of the sanctuary. It was for the purpose of putting away of sins permanently from the house of Israel. Those sins, which had been previously confessed and transferred to the sacrificial animal through the laying on of hands, (Levit.5:5; 16:21), were then symbolically carried into the tabernacle through the medium of the blood, and sprinkled before the altar etc. In this manner was the type portrayed in our deeds, both God and bad, being recorded in the books of heaven in the heavenly sanctuary there. So the sins that are being transferred to the live goat, the scapegoat, are not being transferred from man, but from the sanctuary itself. The 'books' wiped clean. Placed on Satan, the guilt of which he will carry until his destruction.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

... So the sins that are being transferred to the live goat, the scapegoat, are not being transferred from man, but from the sanctuary itself. The 'books' wiped clean. Placed on Satan, the guilt of which he will carry until his destruction.

Still, those were the sins of men, regardless of any intermediate vehicles of that transfer, such as the priest and sanctuary.
The “wrongdoings of the sons of Israel” were the ones placed symbolically over the scapegoat… and the scapegoat “carried” those specific wrongdoings. The hands laid upon the head of the scapegoat were still human hands. The sins confessed there, orally, at that moment, were still human sins and not recordings, or traces of sins.

The sacred text is clear in this regard:

Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the wrongdoings of the sons of Israel and all their unlawful acts regarding all their sins; and he shall place them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands ready. Then the goat shall carry on itself all their wrongdoings to an [t]isolated territory; he shall release the goat in the wilderness. (Lev 16: 21,22)

Let’s review the intriguing similarity of the imagery used here, with the one used in Isaiah 53:4,5

However, it was our sicknesses that He Himself bore,
And our pains that He carried;
Yet we ourselves assumed that He had been afflicted,
Struck down by God, and humiliated.
But He was pierced for our offenses,
He was crushed for our wrongdoings;
The punishment for our well-being was laid upon Him

 

[Brakelite]

Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the wrongdoings of the sons of Israel and all their unlawful acts regarding all their sins; and he shall place them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands ready. Then the goat shall carry on itself all their wrongdoings to an [t]isolated territory; he shall release the goat in the wilderness. (Lev 16: 21,22)

I am intrigued then how you reconcile that as being applicable to Jesus. Please explain.