Part 3
The Messiah came to take away the sins of the world.  However, He
only bore them at the point of His death.  There is nothing to indicate
that when the Messiah returns from heaven He is going to have the
sins of the world placed on His head and must continually bear them in
a place of solitude.  

Both of the goats represented atonement although from a different
perspective.  The first goat represented atonement by sacrifice.  The
first goat represents the removal of the sins of the sinner by means of
the sacrifice of the Christ.  The second goat represents atonement by
removal of that which offends.  In other words, Satan’s removal
achieves atonement by the cessation of his foul spirit working in the
mind of man.  As we saw above, as long as Satan is around there is
disharmony – anything but at-one-ment.  Once Satan’s influence
ceases, everything is in harmony and at peace.  Once Satan
reappears, he begins his work of deception all over again and
disharmony again reigns.  The final solution to sin is the complete
removal of Satan.  Peace can only permanently reign when Satan no
longer exists or can never re-infest the earth or any inhabited part of
the universe, with his evil spirit.

Israel left the second goat alive because God does not immediately
put Satan to death when the Messiah returns from heaven.  His death
would bring about an end to disharmony forever and thereby bring
about atonement forever.  Therefore, while it is true that Satan
cannot qualify to “cover” or “cancel” sin that is not what the second
goat represents!  Notice that the words <with him> in the following
verse have no representation in the Hebrew.  Therefore, the priest
presented the live goat before the Eternal to make atonement and to
let him go into the wilderness!  Atonement resulted with the live goat’
s removal.  Atonement for sin occurs only by the giving of a life and
the blood of that life – if we are speaking of removing sin from human
beings.  The ready champion removed the live goat because it
represented the source of sin, the source of the lack of atonement.  
The priest confessed all of the sins over the head of the live goat.  
This live goat was a goat chosen for removal – no blood was involved.  

Leviticus 16:10 But the goat <08163>, on which the lot <01486> fell <05927>
(8804) to be the scapegoat <05799>, shall be presented <05975> (8714) alive
<02416> before <06440> the LORD <03068>, to make an atonement
<03722> (8763) with him (over him), [and] to let him go <07971> (8763) for
a scapegoat <05799> (Azazel) into the wilderness <04057>.  

Sometimes the bible uses the term Atonement in connection with the
Burnt Offering.  In that instance, the word indicates God’s
acceptance of the person offering the sacrifice as an individual
without sin.  In other words, the offering is not for sin, but a gift from
a person whom God has already atoned before the offering and
therefore acceptable to offer such an offering to God.

Leviticus 1:4 And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and
it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.

We must understand the word atonement in its context.  There is
atonement for sin, there is atonement for peace and there is
atonement for acceptance.  The removal goat was for peace by
removing the agitator that takes away peace.

We saw earlier that God <chose> the Messiah for a sacrifice to
justify or close the gap between man and God.  However, the Day of
Atonement gives us a hint at what the word <chosen> means.  To
make a <choice> there must be more than only one possibility.  If
there had been only one possible sacrifice for sin – at the time of this
decision – how could there be a choice?  The word <chosen> means
<picked out> <elected>.

1 Peter 2:4  To whom coming, [as unto] a living stone, disallowed indeed of
men, but chosen of God, [and] precious,

Both of the goats used on the Day of Atonement were without blemish
to the eye of the priests.  God determined which goat He would
choose for the sacrifice and which goat He would choose for removal.

The following verse shows that God chose the Messiah from the
foundation of the world.  By that time, Satan had already shown his
colors.  Satan had already become sin.

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose
names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation
of the world.  

The two goats when originally picked out represent the Word and
Lucifer.  Both were originally perfect.  The goat chosen for sacrifice
represents the Word of God who became the Messiah and the
sacrifice for our justification.  God chose the live goat for removal.  
This choice between the Word of God and Lucifer who had become
Satan took place at the foundation of the world.  It was easy for God
to make the choice for He could see inside and knew their past.  


                  The Priest Cast Lots!

The priest could not determine which goat would represent the
sacrificed goat!  Now it is obvious that if both goats represented the
Messiah there would have been no need for casting lots!  If both goats
represented the same being, why cast lots?  It follows that if they both
represented the Messiah then either one could have been used for the
sacrifice and the other for whatever that aspect of the Messiah is
suppose to have represented.

The implication of the casting of lots takes us into a study of a
mystery that the church has overlooked – at least in modern times.  
The first thing we can know from the casting of lots is that both goats
did not represent the same being.  We all understand that the
sacrificed goat is representative of the slain Messiah for the sins of
the world.  In the past, we have thought that the other goat
represents Satan; however, now some are not so sure.

From the beginning of time, God chose the firstborn for the birthright
promises.  God specified that the firstborn belonged to Him.

Exodus 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel [is]
my son, [even] my firstborn:

Exodus 22:29 Thou shalt not delay [to offer] the first of thy ripe fruits, and of
thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.

However, from the very first family we see exceptions to the rule.  
Adam and Eve’s firstborn was Cain and their second-born was Abel.  
God chose Abel and favored him rather than Cain – the firstborn.  
Cain came to be representative of Satan while Abel was
representative of the Messiah.

1 John 3:12 Not as Cain, [who] was of that wicked one, and slew his brother.  
And wherefore slew he him?  Because his own works were evil, and his brother’
s righteous.

God chose Isaac, Abraham’s second-born son rather than Ishmael his
firstborn.  This perspective included two different women, which Paul
uses to illustrate the two Covenants.  Hagar represented the covenant
without promise and Sarah represented the covenant with promise.  In
other words, Hagar represented the covenant of bondage (Old
Covenant) with the temple laws of justification and without the holy
spirit while Sarah represents the covenant of freedom (New
Covenant) with justification through faith in the Messiah and the holy
spirit.  

The point we do not want to miss is that God did not choose Abraham’
s firstborn son to represent the Messiah or to receive the promises.  
In fact, Isaac – the second-born – was a type of the Messiah while
Ishmael was a type of Satan.  We understand this when God requires
Abraham to offer Isaac as a sacrifice.  It is important to notice here
that God referred to Isaac as Abraham only son.  God totally ignored
Ishmael, as though he did not exist.  Furthermore, God agreed with
Sarah and told Abraham to cast out the bondwoman and her son, for
“in Isaac shall your seed be called”.  Recall that a fit-man cast the live
goat out of the community of Israel and an angel will cast Satan out of
the Kingdom of God and from the earth.

Genesis 22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only [son] Isaac, whom thou
lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt
offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

Genesis 21:10 Wherefore she (Sarah) said unto Abraham, Cast out this
bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with
my son, [even] with Isaac.

Genesis 21:12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight
because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said
unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Next, we come to Isaac’s two sons Esau and Jacob.  Who does not
know the story of God’s rejection of Esau the firstborn who is a type
of Satan and lost the birthright?  Furthermore, God accepted Jacob –
the second-born – for receipt of the promises through whom the
Messiah would come.  By default, Jacob is a type of the Messiah and
Esau is a type of Satan.

In the book of Malachi, God tells us that he hates Esau and that He
has indignation (righteous anger) against his descendants forever.  In
the book of Obadiah, God tells us that there will be no survivor of the
house of Esau – a type of Satan’s ultimate demise.  Paul refers to
Esau as a wicked person who sold his birthright for one morsel of food
– a type of Satan.

Malachi 1:3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste
for the dragons of the wilderness.

Malachi 1:4 Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and
build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I
will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The
people against whom the LORD hath indignation forever.

NKJV:
Obadiah 1:18 The house of Jacob shall be a fire, And the house of Joseph a
flame; But the house of Esau [shall be] stubble; They shall kindle them and
devour them, And no survivor shall [remain] of the house of Esau," For the
LORD has spoken.  

Hebrews 12:16 Lest there [be] any fornicator, or profane (wicked) person, as
Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.

In the first three most important marriages of the bible, the firstborn
is a type of Satan who looses favor in God’s sight for the second-born
that is a type of the Messiah – a righteous person.  

Beyond this, the bible instructs us that Jacob’s firstborn, Ruben lost
the birthright and it went to Joseph instead.  In this situation, Jacob
had two wives and Joseph was the firstborn of the second woman.  
This catches the theme of Christ – the firstborn of many brothers
while Ruben is a firstborn/type of Satan: in reality, the first created of
God.  This resembles Isaac the firstborn of Sarah, although neither of
Jacob’s wives, of these two sons, were bondmaids.  In both cases,
however, neither the firstborn of Abraham nor the firstborn of Jacob
received the birthright promises.  Ruben lost the birthright because of
his wickedness in defiling his father’s bed – a type of Satan.

1 Chronicles 5:1  Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he [was]
the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was
given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be
reckoned after the birthright.

Genesis 35:22 And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben
went and lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine: and Israel heard [it].  Now
the sons of Jacob were twelve:

Romans 8:29  For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be]
conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many
brethren.

On the other hand, the bible repeatedly tells us of Joseph’s
righteousness – one example is where he refused to lay with Potiphar’
s wife to his own hurt.  Joseph recognized that to lie with another man’
s wife was wickedness and sin against God, which Ruben did not seem
to understand or had a weakness beyond his control.  Therefore,
Ruben becomes a type of Satan and Joseph a type of the Messiah.

Genesis 39:7  And it came to pass after these things, that his master’s wife cast
her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me.
8 But he refused, and said unto his master’s wife, Behold, my master wotteth
not what is with me in the house, and he hath committed all that he hath to my
hand;
9 There is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back any
thing from me but thee, because thou art his wife: how then can I do this great
wickedness, and sin against God?

Moreover, what about the sons of Joseph – Ephraim, the second-born
was favored over Manasseh the firstborn.  However, here we do not
see any implication of righteous in one more than in the other.

All of these examples point to one perspective – God honored the
second-born or the firstborn of a second wife over the firstborn.  
What is God telling us?  We could not understand the nuances of
these events without the two goats of the Atonement.  In the first four
of these five instances, we are impressed with the righteousness of
the second-born and the unrighteousness of the firstborn.  Wickedness
equals Satan and righteousness equals the Messiah.  Cain, Ishmael
and Esau are specific types of Satan while Abel, Isaac and Jacob are
specific types of the Messiah.  

It should not escape us that the very first two sons in the human race
are an exception to the rule God laid down for the firstborn.  
Furthermore, similar circumstances greet us with the three patriarchs
of Israel, in which the firstborn did not receive the inheritance.  Now
we return to the Day of Atonement and the two goats.  One goat
receives the inheritance of eternal life and ownership of the universe
while God sends the other goat into the wilderness in shame.

By implication this is what we learn when we put all of these
scriptures together: Before the universe came into existence, God
created two beings – the name of the first created being was Lucifer
and the name of the second-created being was or came to be the
Word of God.  God saw something in the second-created being
superior to the “first created” and favored Him with the inheritance
of all things.  The Word of God created the angel kingdom and the
entirety of the universe.  He also created the human race some time
after Lucifer revealed his wickedness.

Continue ...
Why the Day
of Atonement?