Scapegoat-Adventist website: "Satan will bear the sins of the righteous"

[tall73]

nope. The sin offerings are slain in vs 11-15. which is before the priest goes into the sanctuary - Irrefutable.
That INCLUDES the bull of sin offering that is for the priest himself as well as the goat of the sin offering. And of course - sin offerings ARE slain and burnt - just as burnt offerings.

And more than those were offered on the Day of Atonement, which the text references.

​

Numbers 29:7-11 7 On the tenth day of this seventh month you shall have a holy convocation. You shall afflict your souls; you shall not do any work. 8 You shall present a burnt offering to the LORD as a sweet aroma: one young bull, one ram, and seven lambs in their first year. Be sure they are without blemish. 9 Their grain offering shall be of fine flour mixed with oil: three-tenths of an ephah for the bull, two-tenths for the one ram, 10 and one-tenth for each of the seven lambs; 11 also one kid of the goats as a sin offering, besides the sin offering for atonement, the regular burnt offering with its grain offering, and their drink offerings. (NKJV)​

​

They still all point to Jesus. And they all point to His one sacrifice, just as the fellowship offerings, the passover offering, etc.

The scapegoat is not killed, and removes sins from God's people, out of the camp. Jesus does that too, because He lives again.


And the clean animals throughout point to the sinless One.

You argue the clean animal that doesn't die refers to unclean, unrepentant sinners--that do die. Yet you don't explain how.

No amount of complaining about me - changes the text. I don't see how this is even a little bit confusing for you.

I don't need to change the text, Bob. I pointed out what the type says about the destruction of the wicked, and it does not involve the scapegoat.

I am not the one claiming that the clean animal that does not die represents unclean, unrepentant sinners who do die.

I have noted it is Jesus making atonement for HIs people throughout the text. And of the scapegoat it is said atonement is made upon it.

Leviticus 16:10 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. (NKJV)​

Num 25 -- when the wicked are judged - they are NOT a "substitutionary atoning sacrifice" of any kind. They merely suffer their own debt and on no one else's behalf. Though the removal of the wicked does "benefit" the camp of the saints

They die. The scapegoat doesn't.

They are unclean and sinful. The scapegoat is clean.


And the type already describes the destruction of the wicked, and it does not relate to the scapegoat.

Leviticus 23:26-30​

26 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: 27 “Also the tenth day of this seventh month shall be the Day of Atonement. It shall be a holy convocation for you; you shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire to the LORD. 28 And you shall do no work on that same day, for it is the Day of Atonement, to make atonement for you before the LORD your God. 29 For any person who is not afflicted in soul on that same day shall be cut off from his people. 30 And any person who does any work on that same day, that person I will destroy from among his people. (NKJV)​

 

[BobRyan]

The clean animal that does not die CANNOT refer to the unclean​

The one who "touches" the scapegoat must wash as if they had come in contact with the UNCLEAN since that is what it represents.
And you already admitted that it is not a sin offering at all.

26 The one who released the goat as the scapegoat shall wash his clothes and bathe his body with water; then afterward he shall come into the camp

The "tradition" that they setup around this - was to ensure that the unclean scapegoat could not possibly wander back into the camp.

 

[tall73]

Hint: Is 53 says Christ made Himself "an offering for SIN" - a sin offering..

He was slain.
His blood is used in the sanctuary - in symbols and types according to Heb 9.

Of course, and we agree.

Matt 7 -- Jesus says the people that call Him lord, lord -- are rejected at His appearing -- if they hear His words but do not do them.

We see the wicked IN the camp - being judged in Numbers 12 as noted above - and this act is called "Atonement FOR the sons of Israel" but not in the sense of substitutionary atoning SACRIFICE, not n the sense of "a sin offering."

It is a very different kind of "Atonement" aspect.


You are missing quite a few details. It might pay your argument to read about the "Atonement" element in Numbers 12.

You are missing the fulfillment in the Day of Atonement type:

Leviticus 23:26-30​

26 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: 27 “Also the tenth day of this seventh month shall be the Day of Atonement. It shall be a holy convocation for you; you shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire to the LORD. 28 And you shall do no work on that same day, for it is the Day of Atonement, to make atonement for you before the LORD your God. 29 For any person who is not afflicted in soul on that same day shall be cut off from his people. 30 And any person who does any work on that same day, that person I will destroy from among his people. (NKJV)​

Those who neglected the atonement being carried out for the people were destroyed. This is not the scapegoat, but it is the explanation in the text of the fate of those who do not avail themselves of the atonement.​

​

​

We are going in circles, because you refuse to accept what the Day of Atonement type actually says about the destruction of the wicked.

And you refuse to explain how a clean, unblemished animal is representing unrepentant, unclean sinners.

However, I have no trouble explaining how Jesus both died and made blood atonement, AND that He lives again, does not die again, and removes sin from the camp, all pointed to by activities of clean animals in the type.

 

[BobRyan]

Of course, and we agree.


You are missing the fulfillment in the Day of Atonement type:

Leviticus 23:26-30​

26 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: 27 “Also the tenth day of this seventh month shall be the Day of Atonement. It shall be a holy convocation for you; you shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire to the LORD. 28 And you shall do no work on that same day, for it is the Day of Atonement, to make atonement for you before the LORD your God. 29 For any person who is not afflicted in soul on that same day shall be cut off from his people. 30 And any person who does any work on that same day, that person I will destroy from among his people. (NKJV)​

Those who neglected the atonement being carried out for the people were destroyed. This is not the scapegoat, but it is the explanation in the text of the fate of those who do not avail themselves of the atonement.​

​

​

We are going in circles, because you refuse to accept what the Day of Atonement type actually says about the destruction of the wicked.

And you refuse to explain how a clean, unblemished animal is representing unrepentant, unclean sinners.

However, I have no trouble explaining how Jesus both died and made blood atonement, AND that He lives again, does not die again, and removes sin from the camp, all pointed to by activities of clean animals in the type.

You are pointing to a text that has nothing to do with the blood claims for forgiveness that had gone into the sanctuary all year - but rather you point to incidental case dealing only with overt rebellion that happened ON the day of Atonement Itself. Not a part of the ceremony at all.

You are confusing one with the other - conflating between the actual ceremony of the Day of Atonement -- vs one who is in rebellion on that very.

The scapegoat is dealing with the subject of rebellion in the case of those who while not being a bad-actor on that very day - were nonetheless people who had claimed the blood at some point during the year - but were in fact not saved. Something that could only be dealt with in the ceremony itself - in symbol, in type.

Obviously.

 

[tall73]

The one who "touches" the scapegoat must wash as if they had come in contact with the UNCLEAN since that is what it represents.

26 The one who released the goat as the scapegoat shall wash his clothes and bathe his body with water; then afterward he shall come into the camp

Already addressed in post 6 of the thread.

Quote:

Adventists have at times asserted that the live goat must point to an evil entity like satan because they say that the person who leads the goat is unclean following this. But that is not what the text says.​

​

First of all the same procedure is followed for those who carried the sin offerings, which Adventists admit apply to Christ: washing clothes, bathing, then coming into the camp.​

​

​

Leviticus 16:26 And he who released the goat as the scapegoat shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water, and afterward he may come into the camp. 27 The bull for the sin offering and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the Holy Place, shall be carried outside the camp. And they shall burn in the fire their skins, their flesh, and their offal. 28 Then he who burns them shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water, and afterward he may come into the camp.​

​

Second, this is not describing uncleanness, nor is uncleanness indicated. In fact, the procedures for sin offerings is spelled out, and references any sin offering where the blood is taken into the sanctuary. And contrary to indicating uncleanness the sin offering and those things it touched were holy! The removal of the bodies had to be done in a clean place.​

​

​

Leviticus 4:11 But the bull’s hide and all its flesh, with its head and legs, its entrails and offal— 12 the whole bull he shall carry outside the camp to a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn it on wood with fire; where the ashes are poured out it shall be burned.​

​

​

Leviticus 6:24 Also the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 25 “Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying, ‘This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed, the sin offering shall be killed before the Lord. It is most holy. 26 The priest who offers it for sin shall eat it. In a holy place it shall be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of meeting. 27 Everyone who touches its flesh must be holy. And when its blood is sprinkled on any garment, you shall wash that on which it was sprinkled, in a holy place. 28 But the earthen vessel in which it is boiled shall be broken. And if it is boiled in a bronze pot, it shall be both scoured and rinsed in water. 29 All the males among the priests may eat it. It is most holy. 30 But no sin offering from which any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of meeting, to make atonement in the holy place, shall be eaten. It shall be burned in the fire.​

​

The last clause includes any sin offering where blood is brought into the tabernacle, which includes the sin offering of the Day of Atonement. This procedure of washing the clothes and the body are describing a practice at a clean place, not someone who is unclean.

​

When someone was unclean, they would have to wait to be clean. Even in the case of touching an unclean animal the person was stated to be unclean, and was so until the evening:

​

Leviticus 11:24 ‘By these you shall become unclean; whoever touches the carcass of any of them shall be unclean until evening; 25 whoever carries part of the carcass of any of them shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening​

Leviticus 11:24 ‘By these you shall become unclean; whoever touches the carcass of any of them shall be unclean until evening; 25 whoever carries part of the carcass of any of them shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening​

​

When someone carried a normal carcass they could not wash and go back into the camp immediatly. In the sin offering regulations they would take the carcass to a clean place, and wash, and then go back to camp. But here they would be unclean until the evening and have to wait to go to clean places.

​

The "tradition" that they setup around this - was to ensure that the unclean scapegoat could not possibly wander back into the camp.

The scapegoat was showing the removal of the sins from the people.

 

[BobRyan]

Already addressed in post 5 of the thread.

Quote:

Adventists have at times asserted that the live goat must point to an evil entity like satan because they say that the person who leads the goat is unclean following this. But that is not what the text says.​

​

First of all the same procedure is followed for those who carried the sin offerings,​

There is unclean elements in both cases. So both have washing.

In the case of an actual sin offering, an actual atoning sacrifice - it was used to transfer sin and resolve it in atonement. A lot of "sin" being resolved in the case of an ACTUAL sin offering, an actual atoning sacrifice.

In the case of a NON-sin offering like the scapegoat NOT slain at all for sin... it is unclean by virtue of explicitly , ceremonially associating it was sin AFTER all Atonement services in the Sanctuary were full and complete. Sin is very specifically attributed to it - but it pays no "Wages of sin is death" penalty in that ceremony. Since it is NOT a sin offering, NOT substitutionary, NOT an atoning sacrifice.

It is the Numbers 25 aspect of "Atonement" that you have been refusing to address in Lev 16 for that animal that is NOT slain at all and whose blood does NOT apply in any way shape or form in the Sanctuary.

Were we simply not suppose to notice.??

 

[tall73]

You are pointing to a text that has nothing to do with the blood claims for forgiveness that had gone into the sanctuary all year - but rather dealt with overt rebellion that happened ON the day of Atonement Itself.

You are simply reading your system into the text. The Day of Atomement shows corporate provision for sin, and those who accepted it had their sins atoned for. Those who did not, did not.

And this has universal application because this points to the provision Christ made by His sacrifice for sins in the fulfillment.

If you reject the atonement of Christ, you have no covering for sins.

In the type this was done once a year. But in the fulfillment people have either accepted the atonement of Christ or not, in their own lifetimes. And that decision either results in atonement, or their destruction.

The scapegoat is dealing with the subject of rebellion in the case of those who while not being a bad-actor on that very day - were nonetheless people who had claimed the blood at some point during the year - but were in fact not saved. Something that could only be dealt with in the ceremony itself - in symbol, in type.

Bob, to be not saved they would have to refuse the atonement, which is what is shown in the type.

The scapegoat is a clean animal, and has nothing to do with unclean, unrepentant sinners.

Obviously.

Obviously the clean scapegoat, which does not die, does not apply to wicked sinners that do die.

 

[BobRyan]

Obviously the clean scapegoat, which does not die, does not apply to wicked sinners that do die.

Only by dying in the ceremony for the "Day of Atonement" could an animal be considered as a type of Christ who dies in our place.

By contrast the scapegoat is not killed - because it is not suffering "the wages of sin -- death". Even you admit it is not a sin offering, not a substitutionary atoning sacrifice of any kind and its blood plays no part at all in the Day of Atonement -- it is not slain at all.

Yet it is considered to be so unclean that one that touches it must bathe.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, to be not saved they would have to refuse the atonement, which is what is shown in the type.

Not true as Christ points out in Matt 7 where a lot of people who do not view themselves as "refusing atonement" call Him "lord lord" but are lost nonetheless.

The ceremony deals with them in the form of the scapegoat.

Nothing in the Lev 16 ceremony says "find some unsaved people, get them to misbehave ON the actual day of Atonement - then have them sent out of the camp" -- as we all know.

 

[tall73]

There is unclean elements in both cases. So both have washing.

Sorry Bob, the text doesn't say that. It says the opposite:

​

Leviticus 6:24 Also the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 25 “Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying, ‘This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed, the sin offering shall be killed before the Lord. It is most holy. 26 The priest who offers it for sin shall eat it. In a holy place it shall be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of meeting. 27 Everyone who touches its flesh must be holy. And when its blood is sprinkled on any garment, you shall wash that on which it was sprinkled, in a holy place. 28 But the earthen vessel in which it is boiled shall be broken. And if it is boiled in a bronze pot, it shall be both scoured and rinsed in water. 29 All the males among the priests may eat it. It is most holy. 30 But no sin offering from which any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of meeting, to make atonement in the holy place, shall be eaten. It shall be burned in the fire.​

It makes things holy. Those who interact with it must be holy. It does not say they are unclean. And you did not deal with the fact that someone who was unclean from a carcass could not just come back into camp:

Leviticus 11:24 ‘By these you shall become unclean; whoever touches the carcass of any of them shall be unclean until evening; 25 whoever carries part of the carcass of any of them shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening​

Leviticus 11:24 ‘By these you shall become unclean; whoever touches the carcass of any of them shall be unclean until evening; 25 whoever carries part of the carcass of any of them shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening​

In the case of an actual sin offering, an actual atoning sacrifice - it was used to transfer sin and resolve it in atonement.

It doesn't say it transfers.

And it doesn't say anything about uncleanness. Jesus' blood makes holy. Jesus' blood forgives.

Leviticus 4:27-31 27 If anyone of the common people sins unintentionally by doing something against any of the commandments of the LORD in anything which ought not to be done, and is guilty, 28 or if his sin which he has committed comes to his knowledge, then he shall bring as his offering a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he has committed. 29 And he shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering, and kill the sin offering at the place of the burnt offering. 30 Then the priest shall take some of its blood with his finger, put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and pour all the remaining blood at the base of the altar. 31 He shall remove all its fat, as fat is removed from the sacrifice of the peace offering; and the priest shall burn it on the altar for a sweet aroma to the LORD. So the priest shall make atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him. (NKJV)​

In the case of a NON-sin offering like the scapegoat NOT slain at all for sin... it is unclean by virtue of explicitly , ceremonially associating it was sin

It doesn't say it is unclean. And the same procedure is followed for those handling the sin offering--which are holy. And if blood got on the garment from the Holy Sin offering which represented Christ, it was washed in a HOLY place. There is no uncleanness in the blood of Christ.

AFTER all Atonement services in the Sanctuary were full and complete. It is the Numbers 25 aspect of "Atonement" that you have been refusing to address in Lev 16 for that animal that is NOT slain at all and whose blood does NOT apply in any way shape or form in the Sanctuary.

Bob, I have from the beginning said the wicked die for their own sin. I even quoted Scriptures to show that.

But you are saying the clean animal that is not killed, and which removes sins from God's people, and from the camp, represents unrepentant sinners, who do die, are not clean, and die for their own sin

Those are not the same.

And you have not even tried to explain how unrepentant murderers, adulterers, thieves, etc. are represented by a clean animal.

The clean animals point to Christ, and the works He does for His people. He died for sins. He also removes the sins of His people.

 

[tall73]

Only by dying in the ceremony for the "Day of Atonement" could an animal be considered as a type of Christ who dies in our place.

It is simply your assertion that the type cannot portray both the death of Christ as sacrifice, and the role of Christ in removing sins from the people.

The clean animals represent His work. And atonement is made upon the scapegoat.

By contrast the scapegoat is not killed - because it is not suffering "the wages of sin -- death". Even you admit it is not a sin offering, not a substitutionary atoning sacrifice of any kind and its blood plays no part at all in the Day of Atonement -- it is not slain at all.

Of course not. Because it represents another aspect of Christ's work. The sin offering represents His blood which cleanses. The burnt offerings represnt His being a pleasing aroma to the Lord. The scapegoat represents the removal of sins from God's people.

Jesus is represented by all the clean animals in the type.

There is no indication at all that the clean animal represents unclean sinners who die for their own sins.

Yet it is considered to be so unclean that one that touches it must bathe.

The text doesn't say it is considered that at all Bob! The same process is followed for the sin offerings in the text. And the sin offering was most holy. All of it is taken to a CLEAN place Bob.

Leviticus 4:11 But the bull’s hide and all its flesh, with its head and legs, its entrails and offal— 12 the whole bull he shall carry outside the camp to a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn it on wood with fire; where the ashes are poured out it shall be burned.​

 

[tall73]

tall73 said:

Bob, to be not saved they would have to refuse the atonement, which is what is shown in the type.​

Not true as Christ points out in Matt 7 where a lot of people who do not view themselves as "refusing atonement" call Him "lord lord" but are lost nonetheless.

You mean the ones He said He never knew, and they practiced lawlessness?

Yes, they were clearly not afflicting themselves, not availing themselves of the atonement. They CLAIMED to know Him, and He said they did not.

Similar to the ones addressed in John 5:

John 5:38-47
38 But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. 39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.
41 “I do not receive honor from men. 42 But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you. 43 I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. 44 How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God? 45 Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (NKJV)

The ceremony deals with them in the form of the scapegoat.

It is already stated what happens to those who neglect the atonement, and it is not in the scapegoat passage.

Moreover, you still, after all these requests, have not addressed how unrepentant sinners are represented by a clean animal.

It is Jesus who removes sin from His people.

Nothing in the Lev 16 ceremony says "find some unsaved people, get them to misbehave ON the actual day of Atonement - then have them sent out of the camp" -- as we all know.

The Day of Atonement is the atonement for God's people. To neglect it is to be lost, because it points to the fulfillment in Christ.

Now the verses in Leviticus 23 spell out that those who neglect it are destroyed. This is what we see in the fulfillment.

1 John 5:11-13 11 And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God. (NKJV)​

​

​

But the scapegoat shows a clean animal--pointing to Jesus throughout the type--removing sins from the camp.

How do you expect us to believe that the clean animal represents unclean, unrepentant sinners?

 

[tall73]

By contrast the scapegoat is not killed - because it is not suffering "the wages of sin -- death"

Then how can you claim it represents the wicked? It does not die, and they do. They pay their own wages. They are unclean sinners.

It, on the other hand is a clean animal. It removes the sins of God's people.

 

[tall73]

In the case of an actual sin offering, an actual atoning sacrifice - it was used to transfer sin and resolve it in atonement. A lot of "sin" being resolved in the case of an ACTUAL sin offering, an actual atoning sacrifice.

It did not transfer sin. In fact, when blood was taken in, for the case of the anointed priest, or the whole camp sinning, rather than transfer sin atonement was made in the holy place:

Leviticus 6:30 But no sin offering from which any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of meeting, to make atonement in the holy place, shall be eaten. It shall be burned in the fire. (NKJV)​

The same was true on the Day of Atonement for those sin offerings:

Leviticus 16:27 27 The bull for the sin offering and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the Holy Place, shall be carried outside the camp. And they shall burn in the fire their skins, their flesh, and their offal. (NKJV)​

It was not two "phases" as Adventists claim, with one transferring sins in, and the other out. Atonement was made in the holy place in both cases.

The sin offering and guilt offering represented repentance and atonement for a sinful act--confession of sin, and a picture of atonement and forgiveness.

And the Day of Atonement showed this on the corporate level, for the whole camp, for all the sins of the people. In this way the Day of Atonement especially portrayed the death, corporate provision for all of the people, and the ministration of the offering before God that Jesus accomplished.

Eph 1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace.

 

[BobRyan]

Then how can you claim it represents the wicked? It does not die, and they do

The one who "touches" the scapegoat must wash as if they had come in contact with the UNCLEAN since that is what it represents.

Recall- the scapegoat in Lev 16 -- is not a sin offering at all.

Lev 16:
26 The one who released the goat as the scapegoat shall wash his clothes and bathe his body with water; then afterward he shall come into the camp


The "tradition" that they setup around this - was to ensure that the unclean scapegoat could not possibly wander back into the camp.

. They pay their own wages. They are unclean sinners.

The Day of Atonement points this out by listing all the sins they are responsible for themselves without any blood sacrifice, or administration of blood in the sanctuary -- just sin and then banishment.

No wonder we have this --


Lev 16:
26 The one who released the goat as the scapegoat shall wash his clothes and bathe his body with water; then afterward he shall come into the camp

Eph 1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace.

hence the "sin offering" the "goat of the sin offering" and the administration of blood in the sanctuary "where Christ is seated as High Priest" Heb 8:1-4

Not at all the non-sin-offering scapegoat.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

Not true as Christ points out in Matt 7 where a lot of people who do not view themselves as "refusing atonement" call Him "lord lord" but are lost nonetheless.

You mean the ones He said He never knew, and they practiced lawlessness?

Ezek 18 shows exactly how all that they have done by way of being a saved saint prior to turning away from salvation 'is not remembered' -- they very Bible teaching you now seem to wish not to remember? seriously???

Ezek 18 -
24 “But when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness, commits injustice and does according to all the abominations that the wicked person does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die

So it can only be addressed "in symbol" such as the non-sin-offering, non-substitutionary atonement - "Scapegoat" so unclean that it makes the one who touches it - to be unclean according to Lev 16.

Yes, they were clearly not afflicting themselves

We both know it is utter nonsense to suggest that every single person in the camp that was at all insincere during the year's events - was making "sure" to be in open rebellion ON the very day of Atonement. I don't see how that idea is even a little bit confusing for you to suppose such a thing.

 

[tall73]

The one who "touches" the scapegoat must wash as if they had come in contact with the UNCLEAN since that is what it represents.

Bob, you guessed at an answer, and didn't show your homework. And you ignored what the text actually said.

There are three washings referenced in Leviticus 16 And they are not stated to refer to uncleanness at all. You have not shown that they are. You have presumed they are, though nothing is said about uncleanness.

The text speaks of holiness:

Leviticus 16:23-24 23 “Then Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of meeting, shall take off the linen garments which he put on when he went into the Holy Place, and shall leave them there. 24 And he shall wash his body with water in a holy place, put on his garments, come out and offer his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people, and make atonement for himself and for the people. (NKJV)​

The high priest washes himself in a holy place, and then comes out....he doesn't even leave the camp. And he doesn't re-defile the holy place that was just cleaned. And he continues ministration.

In the same way, the sin offering is said to be holy, to be touched by those who are holy, for the blood to be washed in a holy place, for the body to be disposed of in a clean place, etc.:

Leviticus 6:24 Also the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 25 “Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying, ‘This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed, the sin offering shall be killed before the Lord. It is most holy. 26 The priest who offers it for sin shall eat it. In a holy place it shall be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of meeting. 27 Everyone who touches its flesh must be holy. And when its blood is sprinkled on any garment, you shall wash that on which it was sprinkled, in a holy place. 28 But the earthen vessel in which it is boiled shall be broken. And if it is boiled in a bronze pot, it shall be both scoured and rinsed in water. 29 All the males among the priests may eat it. It is most holy. ​

​

Leviticus 4:11 But the bull’s hide and all its flesh, with its head and legs, its entrails and offal— 12 the whole bull he shall carry outside the camp to a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn it on wood with fire; where the ashes are poured out it shall be burned.​

​

The procedure is the same for the person who handles the bodies of the sin offerings and for the scapegoat:

Leviticus 16:26 26 And he who released the goat as the scapegoat shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water, and afterward he may come into the camp. (NKJV)​

​

Leviticus 16:28 Then he who burns them shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water, and afterward he may come into the camp. (NKJV)​

The washing, and coming back into the camp is the same for both. And we already know that the one who burns the sin offering does it at a clean place.

Moreover, if someone even touched the carcass of a dead animal in another setting they were stated to be unclean, and have to wait until evening.

Leviticus 11:24 ‘By these you shall become unclean; whoever touches the carcass of any of them shall be unclean until evening; 25 whoever carries part of the carcass of any of them shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening​

But there the high priest washes in a holy place, and is not unclean, but immediately continues holy ministration:

Leviticus 16:24 24 And he shall wash his body with water in a holy place, put on his garments, come out and offer his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people, and make atonement for himself and for the people. (NKJV)​

​

He was not unclean.

 

[tall73]

The "tradition" that they setup around this - was to ensure that the unclean scapegoat could not possibly wander back into the camp.

Sorry Bob, but the text does not speak of uncleanness, but holiness, washing in a holy place, etc. Citing later tradition doesn't change the text.

The sins of the people are removed from them, however, and don't come back. The ritual purifies, not makes unclean.

The Day of Atonement points this out by listing all the sins they are responsible for themselves without any blood sacrifice, or administration of blood in the sanctuary -- just sin and then banishment.

It speaks of all the sins of the people throughout the year. The wicked die for their own sins, not all the sins of the people.

Jesus' blood atoned for the sins of the people, forgave them, and removed all trace of sin from the camp of His people.

But we also see in Lev. 23 that the wicked are destoryed, and cut off from the people.

Moreover, "banishment" was not the punishment. The sinners would be destroyed. And as you point out, the scapegoat is not killed.

The scapegoat doesn't match up with unrepentant sinners Bob:

Scapegoat	Unrepentant sinners
Clean	Unclean/sinful
Does not die	Does die
Removes all sins of the people from the camp from the year	Die for their own sins, for which they have no substitute.

 

[tall73]

BobRyan said:​

Not true as Christ points out in Matt 7 where a lot of people who do not view themselves as "refusing atonement" call Him "lord lord" but are lost nonetheless.​

tall73 said:​

You mean the ones He said He never knew, and they practiced lawlessness?​

Ezek 18 shows exactly how all that they have done by way of being a saved saint prior to turning away from salvation 'is not remembered' -- they very Bible teaching you now seem to wish not to remember? seriously???

Ezek 18 -
24 “But when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness, commits injustice and does according to all the abominations that the wicked person does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die

Bob, it is not my fault you cited Matthew 7, which was not illustrating the point you wanted to make. In Matthew 7 He does say He never knew them:

Matthew 7:21-23 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ (NKJV)​

The people in Matthew 7 clearly do not accept the atonement of Christ, or they would have known Him. And I answered such.

And now you post Ezekiel, as though that is the text you had cited.

Ezek 18 -​

24 “But when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness, commits injustice and does according to all the abominations that the wicked person does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die​

Yes, the one who turns form the Lord, to sin will not live. He dies for his sin. And again, he is rejecting the Lord, and His ways, not repenting, not turning to the Lord for atonement. If he had sought the Lord, sought repentance, He would have been atoned for, and lived. So this is another good example of those who refuse to afflict themselves, and avail themselves of atonement.

So it can only be addressed "in symbol" such as the non-sin-offering, non-substitutionary atonement - "Scapegoat" so unclean that it makes the one who touches it - to be unclean according to Lev 16.

Nope, your symbol doesn't match up Bob

Scapegoat	Unrepentant sinners
Clean	Unclean/sinful
Does not die	Does die
Removes all sins of the people from the camp from the year	Die for their own sins, for which they have no substitute.

And you still haven't shown any text that says someone was unclean after this. In fact, the same procedure was followed in the washings after handling the sin offerings, and this is without a doubt said to be done in a holy/clean place, and to not result in the type of uncleanness from even touching a regular dead animal.

We both know it is utter nonsense to suggest that every single person in the camp that was at all insincere during the year's events - was making "sure" to be in open rebellion ON the very day of Atonement. I don't see how that idea is even a little bit confusing for you to suppose such a thing.

Those afflicting themselves and looking to the atonement made were atoned for. Those who didn't, were not.

In the same way, the one who confessed his sin, brought the sin offering, had atonement made for him, and was forgiven.

Both are showing those who actually look to the Lord for forgiveness. The ones cut off are not.

 

[tall73]

Bob, you have failed to explain for several pages now how the unrepentant, sinful, unclean wicked can be represented by a clean, unblemished animal in the type. Are you ever going to explain?

You at least tried to explain how satan could be, though of course, you ignore that at the timing of the text--when Jesus leaves the sanctuary--satan would not be clean, but rather full of sin.

You have made no attempt at all to explain how the unrepentant wicked would be portrayed by a clean animal. Are you going to?