The Prophecy of the Scapegoat

[Ben Masada]

THE PROPHECY OF THE SCAPEGOAT

Please, notice that I have entitled this thread with "Prophecy" of the Scapegoat and not sacrifice. Two male goats were brought by the High Priest, on the Day of Atonement every year. One was to remain in Jerusalem to be sacrificed for the sins of the people; and the other, the Scapegoat, was to be sent Eastward alive to Azazel in the desert. The literal meaning was to get lost. Hence, the expression in Hebrew, "telech le Azazel!" The decision of which goat would remain in Jerusalem for the Lord and the one which would be sent to Azazel, was made by lot.
(Lev. 16:1-34)

As a result of the split of the Tribes, two kingdoms were created; Israel in the North and Judah in the South. At the time Ahaz was King in Judah, a war had been declared by Samaria and Damascus against Judah; a war that Ahaz was almost certain he would lose. To prevent such an eventuality, he rejected God's Covenant and established one with Tiglath Pileser, king of Assyria. As a result of it, Judah got doomed to Divine destruction; but since David had been promised that his Tribe of Judah would remain as a lamp in Jerusalem forever, according to I Kings 11:36, Judah had to be atoned for, and the lot fell upon Israel as the Scapegoat. (Isa. 9:8) It was then that Israel, aka, the Tabernacle of Joseph was Divinely rejected, while Judah was confirmed to remain before the Lord. (Psalm 78:67-69; Jer. 31:35-37)

That's when the prophecy of the Scapegoat got fulfilled. Israel, the Scapegoat, was sent to Azazel in the desert, towards the East, where Assyria is, so that Judah be atoned for in the process. Having the prophecy of the Scapegoat been fulfilled, any further performance of such a ceremony in the following years had become meaningless. IMHO, either the Priests did not have this understanding or the ceremony would be performed as, so to speak, a festival of mourning in memory of Ephraim, or ancient Israel, who had been pierced so that Judah survived.

Ben

[Dream]

Interesting, Ben, so thanks for posting that. For me its a fascinating passage to consider in Leviticus which I can get lost in.

Something new that I notice, upon thinking again about this passage is how differently the Egyptians treated their dead from the way that Israel treated its dead (and how Christians also treat our dead sometimes). The Egyptians tried to send at least some of the deceased person's belongings to the 'Afterlife' to be with them. Perhaps the Egyptians felt they were somehow causing death by being alive. (That is a common sentiment among many groups of people.) Not so with the Hebrews who put their dead into cloth and the early Christians who would write 'At Peace' on the gravestones.

Often good people die, or friends and loved ones, and as a result we get ownership of their property and even their honored positions in society. It feels like we are somehow killing them. It may not be the central message of the passage, but this passage suggests indirectly that it is ok to let the dead pass on. You do not have to send their belongings to the afterlife with them or pay the ferryman to send them across the Stix, and you are not offending them by being alive. You don't need to feel like your life is a subtraction from theirs.

Your post has caused me to go back and review my halted Dream's Pauline Defense Initiative from back in 2008. (Six years ago? Impossible.) I learned a few things in that 3-page thread (which I don't expect you to read) from Juantoo3, who used to post here more often -- before he got married to that gorgeous girl of his. Its good that he's in married bliss now, but man, he was a formidable poster and very kindly assisted me that time.

[Ben Masada]

Originally Posted by Dream

Interesting, Ben, so thanks for posting that. For me its a fascinating passage to consider in Leviticus which I can get lost in.

Something new that I notice, upon thinking again about this passage is how differently the Egyptians treated their dead from the way that Israel treated its dead (and how Christians also treat our dead sometimes). The Egyptians tried to send at least some of the deceased person's belongings to the 'Afterlife' to be with them. Perhaps the Egyptians felt they were somehow causing death by being alive. (That is a common sentiment among many groups of people.) Not so with the Hebrews who put their dead into cloth and the early Christians who would write 'At Peace' on the gravestones.

Often good people die, or friends and loved ones, and as a result we get ownership of their property and even their honored positions in society. It feels like we are somehow killing them. It may not be the central message of the passage, but this passage suggests indirectly that it is ok to let the dead pass on. You do not have to send their belongings to the afterlife with them or pay the ferryman to send them across the Stix, and you are not offending them by being alive. You don't need to feel like your life is a subtraction from theirs.

Your post has caused me to go back and review my halted Dream's Pauline Defense Initiative from back in 2008. (Six years ago? Impossible.) I learned a few things in that 3-page thread (which I don't expect you to read) from Juantoo3, who used to post here more often -- before he got married to that gorgeous girl of his. Its good that he's in married bliss now, but man, he was a formidable poster and very kindly assisted me that time.

Sorry Dream, no offense meant, but this post of yours constitutes a non-sequitur. It has absolutely nothing to do with the thread.
Ben

[Amergin]

Originally Posted by Ben Masada

Sorry Dream, no offense meant, but this post of yours constitutes a non-sequitur. It has absolutely nothing to do with the thread.
Ben

Did Dream mistakenly post this on the wrong thread? No offence, I have done that myself.

Slàinte mhath,

Amergin

[Dream]

Originally Posted by Ben Masada

Sorry Dream, no offense meant, but this post of yours constitutes a non-sequitur. It has absolutely nothing to do with the thread.
Ben

No offense taken, Ben. I don't know what kind of effect you are trying to have, but I tried to respond to the subject of the post in a way that would contribute in general. I will point out some possible sources of misunderstandings in your post. I wonder if you've any idea what Christians are thinking when they read your stuff?

I think what might confuse many Christians is what you mean by 'A prophecy'. Most (not talking about orthodox & catholics) take that to mean a prognostication or a prediction, such as an 'End times prophecy'. A very bad habit is to reduce prophecies to being mere predictions, but that is what people generally think when they hear 'fulfilled prophecy'.

"To prevent such an eventuality, he rejected God's Covenant and established one with Tiglath Pileser, king of Assyria." A lot of people don't know what you are talking about here -- what God's covenant is. The country of Israel, today, has a treaty with the USA; yet that is not deemed as rejecting a covenant with God. It also has a treaty with Syria, but I don't hear Israelies shouting to break that treaty. What are you talking about?

"Judah had to be atoned for" Another under-explained concept. Are you suggesting that one person can die in substitution for another's evil ways while the other skates? I thought you didn't like Paul's theology. I think many Christians would hear in this an affirmation of everything they believe about one man taking the punishment for whatever they do, but I don't think that is what you wished to convey.

Having the prophecy of the Scapegoat been fulfilled, any further performance of such a ceremony in the following years had become meaningless. -- It sounds like you're saying that there's no purpose in this particular law other than to forshadow a political hiccup. In addition to being meaningless after its fulfillment, it would have been equally meaningless before such fulfillment. Hence it was a pointless law to you or if not then what's the big deal?

Originally Posted by Amergin

Did Dream mistakenly post this on the wrong thread? No offence, I have done that myself.

Slàinte mhath,

Amergin

I appreciate that, but I'm unscathed. We're on an inter-faith site, encouraging interfaith dialogue, so my post was in line with the purpose of the site, and it cannot be defined non-sequitur without my approval. Getting misunderstandings out in the open is a part of the whole thing.

[radarmark]

Dream, had the same concerns. If the prophecy was fulfilled with the exile and loss of Israel in atonement for Judah, the continuation of the rite was unwareented. Is this all you were pointing out, Ben?

[Ben Masada]

Originally Posted by Dream

Having the prophecy of the Scapegoat been fulfilled, any further performance of such a ceremony in the following years had become meaningless. -- It sounds like you're saying that there's no purpose in this particular law other than to forshadow a political hiccup. In addition to being meaningless after its fulfillment, it would have been equally meaningless before such fulfillment. Hence it was a pointless law to you or if not then what's the big deal?

That's exactly how you have put it. Once a archetype had been fulfilled, there was no further need to keep behaving according to the type. Throughout the History of Israel, the prophecy of the scapegoat would point to the political redemption of Judah by Israel, the Ten Tribes. Once that happened with the removal of Israel by the Assyrians so that Judah could be spared by another 130 years in the Land, that prophecy had been fulfilled. However, the meaning before the fulfillment was to remind the people at the fulfillment that the event had been predicted. That nothing should happen by surprise so to speak.
Ben

[Ben Masada]

Originally Posted by radarmark

Dream, had the same concerns. If the prophecy was fulfilled with the exile and loss of Israel in atonement for Judah, the continuation of the rite was unwareented. Is this all you were pointing out, Ben?

I couldn't put it better myself. That's what I have been trying to point out.
Ben

[Dream]

Originally Posted by Ben Masada

However, the meaning before the fulfillment was to remind the people at the fulfillment that the event had been predicted. That nothing should happen by surprise so to speak.

Jesus seemed to imply that the sacrifice of the scapegoats and of the two birds (when a person was poor) was still being practiced in his lifetime or at least still had meaning to him, and this was many centuries beyond the time of the Assyrian takeover of Northern Israel. He did not think it was defunct or only about Manasseh and Ephraim. Jesus in his Be-attitudes in Matthew 5 mentioned a class of person that he called 'Poor in spirit'. He said in Matthew 10:29 that the hairs on each person's head were numbered and that though two sparrow sold for very little, not one would fall without the Father knowing. It seems like there is a hint here that the sparrows provided several lessons in addition to whatever the goats represented. Since Abraham is to cause a blessing to the whole world, how can you know that Moses law is a prediction about Ephraim vs. Manasseh only? There weren't only goats, but there were birds to represent the poor man, too. There was a separate sacrifice for the poor (a bird and a 'scape bird) showing all people were equal before God, or at least that is what I had thought. I would not boil the entire thing down into a prediction about the fall of the Northern Tribes, mainly because that limits the scope of Abraham's blessing but also because of Jesus mention of the two 'Sparrows' long after the end of the Assyrian empire.

[Ben Masada]

Originally Posted by Dream

Jesus seemed to imply that the sacrifice of the scapegoats and of the two birds (when a person was poor) was still being practiced in his lifetime or at least still had meaning to him, and this was many centuries beyond the time of the Assyrian takeover of Northern Israel. He did not think it was defunct or only about Manasseh and Ephraim. Jesus in his Be-attitudes in Matthew 5 mentioned a class of person that he called 'Poor in spirit'. He said in Matthew 10:29 that the hairs on each person's head were numbered and that though two sparrow sold for very little, not one would fall without the Father knowing. It seems like there is a hint here that the sparrows provided several lessons in addition to whatever the goats represented. Since Abraham is to cause a blessing to the whole world, how can you know that Moses law is a prediction about Ephraim vs. Manasseh only? There weren't only goats, but there were birds to represent the poor man, too. There was a separate sacrifice for the poor (a bird and a 'scape bird) showing all people were equal before God, or at least that is what I had thought. I would not boil the entire thing down into a prediction about the fall of the Northern Tribes, mainly because that limits the scope of Abraham's blessing but also because of Jesus mention of the two 'Sparrows' long after the end of the Assyrian empire.

If you remember the thread, I made it plain that after the fulfillment of the prophecy of the Scapegoat, although the ceremony became obsolete after the fulfilling, the priests continued with it, perhaps in memory to the tragic event when, instead of one Tribe, Israel lost Ten of them.

There is in Zechariah 12:10, a reference to the Land of Judah in continual mourning for "him" whom they had pierced with their sins; as of mourning for one's only son, or grieving over a first-born. Just as Israel was identified as God's first-born, according to Exodus 4:22.
Ben

[Dream]

Its not that I didn't read what you wrote, Ben Masada, but that the priests continued to keep following the laws as they were given to them regardless of whether a tribe was 'Lost'. How am I supposed to agree or to disagree about the meaning of Zechariah 12? I don't know if I'm speaking to you the individual or to the commonly understood basic meaning of Zechariah 12. I assume that your main concern is that it is not about Jesus the man. Well, that may or may not be about him, but it has no bearing on your postulate about the meaning of the sacrifices of goats and doves. It doesn't shout to me that the sacrifice was a prediction of any kind, and the fact that the priests continued to offer it seems to say the opposite. It seems to say that it represented to them an ongoing principle of some kind. It may have been to remind them of the loss of the 10 tribes, but that is not obvious. I've never heard anyone suggest it until you came along. Maybe you are getting information from somewhere other than the text itself?

[Ben Masada]

Originally Posted by Dream

Its not that I didn't read what you wrote, Ben Masada, but that the priests continued to keep following the laws as they were given to them regardless of whether a tribe was 'Lost'. How am I supposed to agree or to disagree about the meaning of Zechariah 12? I don't know if I'm speaking to you the individual or to the commonly understood basic meaning of Zechariah 12. I assume that your main concern is that it is not about Jesus the man. Well, that may or may not be about him, but it has no bearing on your postulate about the meaning of the sacrifices of goats and doves. It doesn't shout to me that the sacrifice was a prediction of any kind, and the fact that the priests continued to offer it seems to say the opposite. It seems to say that it represented to them an ongoing principle of some kind. It may have been to remind them of the loss of the 10 tribes, but that is not obvious. I've never heard anyone suggest it until you came along. Maybe you are getting information from somewhere other than the text itself?

Would it be too arrogant to say, "Divine inspiration?" If I am not getting from anywhere, and things pop up in my mind as I read the Scriptures, I can't think of another reason at the moment.

Think this through. Every year, throughout Jewish History, a goat was, ceremonially chosen as a scapegoat, charged with the sins of Israel, and let loose into the desert towards the East where it would get lost forever.

Then, many years later Judah rejects God's Covenant and makes one with Assyria in the East. It becomes doomed to destruction but, because of God's promise to David that Judah would stay forever in Jerusalem, Israel, the Ten Tribes is required as the scapegoat to redeem Judah, as Israel is taken to the East towards Assyria where it gets lost forever.

Then, the Lord inspired me to see here the rite of the scapegoat as a prophecy to that end. Is there any other way to see it? It couldn't be Jesus because, according to Ezek. 18:20 it says that "Only the one who sins shall die." It means that an individual cannot die for another.
Ben

[Dream]

Do I respond to you as a fundamentalist would, or as I now think?

Originally Posted by Ben Masada

Would it be too arrogant to say, "Divine inspiration?"

Having an idea pop into your head isn't arrogant.

I have two things about Ezekiel 18:20. First, I do not think the texts indicate Jesus could take the punishment for purposeful wrong doing. That seems like a modern distortion. That lump has been worked out for me, however. The sins that Jesus died for were not for things like murder, adultery and various items of the 10 commandments, because forgiveness for those things requires prayers, repentance and restitution -- not sacrifices. Jesus death is supposed to follow the idea of the ancient red heifer, perhaps an atonement sacrifice between God and humankind rather than only between God and Israel.

That being said, many Christians have lived and died believing that Jesus death can absorb the guilt of evil acts and relieve them of responsibility for it. I think that is ridiculous. That is the type of belief that I regret is very abundant where I live.

Exodus 4:22 does call Israel the L_RD's firstborn son, and that is what I consider the first meaning whenever his son is mentioned in Bible prophets. I don't know much about the meaning of Zechariah 12:10 right now, so I cannot comment on your inspiration about it.

Then, the Lord inspired me to see here the rite of the scapegoat as a prophecy to that end. Is there any other way to see it? It couldn't be Jesus because, according to Ezek. 18:20 it says that "Only the one who sins shall die." It means that an individual cannot die for another.
Ben

It couldn't be Jesus for that reason; or/and it doesn't seem to fit Jesus in general. He also is pictured as a silent lamb not as a noisy goat, being patterned after the suffering servant of Isaiah 53.

Two ideas for what the two goats and two birds can mean in addition to what you are talking about. First there was my original thought that they could be a lesson against survivor's guilt, and also they could be an object lesson about equality and justice. Merely because someone is very fortunate does not make them unequal or better than another who has been unfortunate. It could be an ongoing reminder of that.

[showme]

Originally Posted by Ben Masada

Would it be too arrogant to say, "Divine inspiration?" If I am not getting from anywhere, and things pop up in my mind as I read the Scriptures, I can't think of another reason at the moment.

Think this through. Every year, throughout Jewish History, a goat was, ceremonially chosen as a scapegoat, charged with the sins of Israel, and let loose into the desert towards the East where it would get lost forever.

Then, many years later Judah rejects God's Covenant and makes one with Assyria in the East. It becomes doomed to destruction but, because of God's promise to David that Judah would stay forever in Jerusalem, Israel, the Ten Tribes is required as the scapegoat to redeem Judah, as Israel is taken to the East towards Assyria where it gets lost forever.

Then, the Lord inspired me to see here the rite of the scapegoat as a prophecy to that end. Is there any other way to see it? It couldn't be Jesus because, according to Ezek. 18:20 it says that "Only the one who sins shall die." It means that an individual cannot die for another.
Ben

Ben, Ben, how we do stray from the beaten path. Now you say you have been inspired by God, and yet the other day you said prophecy has been ended since the supposed completion of Daniel 2 prophecy.

As for Israel being the scapegoat and "lost forever", that simply doesn't fit Jeremiah 16:15 or Ez 11:15-25. or anything else for that matter. Jeremiah 31:31 addresses both the House of Judah (the jews) and the House of Israel. If there is still a sun in the sky (Jer 31:35), then I think Israel's being lost is temperal.

As for Ezek 18:20, why should Israel suffer for Judah's sins, and be her scape goat. Wasn't Judah used as the scapegoat for the Nazis? Maybe people get the scapegoat concept wrong, including Ben.

[BrotherMichaelSky]

Originally Posted by Ben Masada

THE PROPHECY OF THE SCAPEGOAT

Please, notice that I have entitled this thread with "Prophecy" of the Scapegoat and not sacrifice. Two male goats were brought by the High Priest, on the Day of Atonement every year. One was to remain in Jerusalem to be sacrificed for the sins of the people; and the other, the Scapegoat, was to be sent Eastward alive to Azazel in the desert. The literal meaning was to get lost. Hence, the expression in Hebrew, "telech le Azazel!" The decision of which goat would remain in Jerusalem for the Lord and the one which would be sent to Azazel, was made by lot.
(Lev. 16:1-34)

As a result of the split of the Tribes, two kingdoms were created; Israel in the North and Judah in the South. At the time Ahaz was King in Judah, a war had been declared by Samaria and Damascus against Judah; a war that Ahaz was almost certain he would lose. To prevent such an eventuality, he rejected God's Covenant and established one with Tiglath Pileser, king of Assyria. As a result of it, Judah got doomed to Divine destruction; but since David had been promised that his Tribe of Judah would remain as a lamp in Jerusalem forever, according to I Kings 11:36, Judah had to be atoned for, and the lot fell upon Israel as the Scapegoat. (Isa. 9:8) It was then that Israel, aka, the Tabernacle of Joseph was Divinely rejected, while Judah was confirmed to remain before the Lord. (Psalm 78:67-69; Jer. 31:35-37)

That's when the prophecy of the Scapegoat got fulfilled. Israel, the Scapegoat, was sent to Azazel in the desert, towards the East, where Assyria is, so that Judah be atoned for in the process. Having the prophecy of the Scapegoat been fulfilled, any further performance of such a ceremony in the following years had become meaningless. IMHO, either the Priests did not have this understanding or the ceremony would be performed as, so to speak, a festival of mourning in memory of Ephraim, or ancient Israel, who had been pierced so that Judah survived.

Ben

Got a few questions Ben...

Wasn't part of the process of prophecy whether or not the goat wandered back into town OR wandered out to be eaten by the Fallen Angel? done yearly?

and honestly, I never understood why the sins were whispered to the goat...
what was the rationale behind this? and is it important to the next part of your story?

What were these fallen angels doing in the wilderness?
And can you tell me where I might reference more info on these fallen angels within Judaic literature?

this kinda an early version of "giving the devil his due?"