Pontious Pilate And Jesus [a]

[Qa'im]

(salam)

(bismillah)

æóÞõáú ÌóÇÁ ÇáúÍóÞøõ æóÒóåóÞó ÇáúÈóÇØöáõ Åöäøó ÇáúÈóÇØöáó ßóÇäó ÒóåõæÞðÇ

And say: Truth hath come and falsehood hath vanished away. Lo! falsehood is ever bound to vanish. (17:81)

I've decided to make a series of threads on the Passion of Jesus, where I analyze the New Testament and historical accounts of Jesus' (as) alleged Sanhedrin trials, trial before Pilate, crucifixion, and resurrection. This is my second topic in the series - I'd recommend you read the first installment here, where I analyze Jesus' trial at the Sanhedrin in the Gospels, and their inconsistency with Jewish culture and the historical procedures of the Sanhedrin. I concluded that the trial of Jesus violated 21 of 22 conditions, making this trial doubtful and improbable at best.

Part II: Pontious Pilate and the Messiah Jesus (as)

After Jesus' trial at the Sanhedrin, he was taken to Pilate, who was the Roman governor in Palestine. The Jews ask Pilate to kill Jesus (as) as he is an "evildoer". In John 18:31, Pilate says "You take him and judge him according to your law.". The Jews responded "It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death". Here is our first historical blunder: even under Roman occupation, the Jews would carry out Mosaic law through the Sanhedrin, and execute for religious charges. An example would be James, who was stoned to death according to Josephus not long after the ascension of Jesus (as). The Romans were more concerned with criminals, militias, tax rejects, thieves, etc. and did not interfere into Jewish heresy trials.

In my Sanhedrin thread, I had concluded that the charge that would lead to his punishment was that Jesus (as) was claiming to be the Messiah and the son of God. (Mark 14:61-66) This is the one that the council acted on, because they were dissatisfied with the previous charges and witnesses, and after this one they acted in unison to execute Jesus (as). "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?", in 62 Jesus says he is, in 63-64 the high priest says "What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?" and all condemned him to death.

What's interesting is that this charge changes when the Jews take Jesus to Pilate. Instead of convicting Jesus of heresy, they say "We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to pay taxes to the Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ, a King" (Like 23:2). I suspect that they would deliberately change the conviction because of what I said earlier - the Romans don't care about Jewish heresy charges - but they do care about taxes, and the political dimension of Judea. If Jesus (as) was a king, this would prove to be a thread to Pilate and the Romans.

In John 18:33, Pilate asks Jesus, "Are you the King of the Jews?". Jesus responds in verse 36 "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now my kingdom is not from here". In other words, Jesus is explaining that he is not a threat to Rome, because his kingdom is not of this world.

Next, depending on which Gospel you read, Pilate either goes forth with the crucifixion, or is "blackmailed" . I don't know if a Roman governor as violent as Pilate would give into blackmail, but for argument's sake, let's assume he did.

Afterwords, we read in the Gospels that it was apparently customary for a Roman governor to release a prisoner every Passover. This year, Pilate gave the choice between the freedom of Jesus Christ, and Barabbas. Note that "Barabbas" means "son of the Father" in Hebrew, and the oldest manuscripts identify the name of this person as "Jesus Barabbas". Jesus Barabbas was a murderer and rebel leader who had be imprisoned under Roman rule. So the Jews had a choice between Jesus and Jesus, and they chose to release, guess who, Jesus! But not the good one. "The governor answered and said to them, 'Which of the two do you want me to release to you?' They said, 'Barabbas!'" (Matthew 27:21) The problem with this story is that this tradition has no historical backing. We don't find this tradition in any historical texts like Josephus, or in any vast historical Jewish traditions and Talmud, so they are exclusive to the Gospels. Not just the Jesus v. Barabbas story, but the whole concept of giving the Jews a choice between two prisoners every Passover, is void, making the event doubtful.

Pilate throughout the Gospels repeatedly says "I find no fault in this man!", and defends Jesus (as) several times. The narrative depicts him to have not wanted to carry out the crucifixion. But, had he chosen, he could have simply released Jesus - after all, he broke none of the Roman laws. Even if the Jews had the privilege of demanding the release of one prisoner, they certainly had no right to demand the execution of a man that Pilate wished to save. Academics have spoken on this issue: Professor S.G.F. Brandon, a Christian historian of the rise in Christianity, concluded that this incident never happened. To cite just one of the incongruities that convinced him that the story is fiction: "The outcome of Pilate's amazing conduct was that he sentenced to death one he knew was innocent, and released a popular resistance fighter, probably a Zealot who had just proved how dangerous he could be." (Jesus and the Zealots, page 262).

--

Anyway, this topic isn't as juicy as some of the others, but insha'Allah it was beneficial. Next, I will be writing about the crucifixion of Jesus. It should be a great overview of that event, and I hope to complete the series with the resurrection, to bring all 4 threads into a full circle.

[Son of Placid]

æóÞõáú ÌóÇÁ ÇáúÍóÞøõ æóÒóåóÞó ÇáúÈóÇØöáõ Åöäøó ÇáúÈóÇØöáó ßóÇäó ÒóåõæÞðÇ

And say: Truth hath come and falsehood hath vanished away. Lo! falsehood is ever bound to vanish. (17:81)

I've decided to make a series of threads on the Passion of Jesus, where I analyze the New Testament and historical accounts of Jesus' alleged Sanhedrin trials, trial before Pilate, crucifixion, and resurrection. This is my second topic in the series - I'd recommend you read the first installment here, where I analyze Jesus' trial at the Sanhedrin in the Gospels, and their inconsistency with Jewish culture and the historical procedures of the Sanhedrin. I concluded that the trial of Jesus violated 21 of 22 conditions, making this trial doubtful and improbable at best.

Part II: Pontious Pilate and the Messiah Jesus

After Jesus' trial at the Sanhedrin, he was taken to Pilate, who was the Roman governor in Palestine. The Jews ask Pilate to kill Jesus as he is an "evildoer". In John 18:31, Pilate says "You take him and judge him according to your law.". The Jews responded "It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death". Here is our first historical blunder: even under Roman occupation, the Jews would carry out Mosaic law through the Sanhedrin, and execute for religious charges. An example would be James, who was stoned to death according to Josephus not long after the ascension of Jesus . The Romans were more concerned with criminals, militias, tax rejects, thieves, etc. and did not interfere into Jewish heresy trials.

In my Sanhedrin thread, I had concluded that the charge that would lead to his punishment was that Jesus was claiming to be the Messiah and the son of God. (Mark 14:61-66) This is the one that the council acted on, because they were dissatisfied with the previous charges and witnesses, and after this one they acted in unison to execute Jesus . "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?", in 62 Jesus says he is, in 63-64 the high priest says "What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?" and all condemned him to death.

What's interesting is that this charge changes when the Jews take Jesus to Pilate. Instead of convicting Jesus of heresy, they say "We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to pay taxes to the Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ, a King" (Like 23:2). I suspect that they would deliberately change the conviction because of what I said earlier - the Romans don't care about Jewish heresy charges - but they do care about taxes, and the political dimension of Judea. If Jesus was a king, this would prove to be a thread to Pilate and the Romans.

In John 18:33, Pilate asks Jesus, "Are you the King of the Jews?". Jesus responds in verse 36 "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now my kingdom is not from here". In other words, Jesus is explaining that he is not a threat to Rome, because his kingdom is not of this world.

Next, depending on which Gospel you read, Pilate either goes forth with the crucifixion, or is "blackmailed" . I don't know if a Roman governor as violent as Pilate would give into blackmail, but for argument's sake, let's assume he did.

Afterwords, we read in the Gospels that it was apparently customary for a Roman governor to release a prisoner every Passover. This year, Pilate gave the choice between the freedom of Jesus Christ, and Barabbas. Note that "Barabbas" means "son of the Father" in Hebrew, and the oldest manuscripts identify the name of this person as "Jesus Barabbas". Jesus Barabbas was a murderer and rebel leader who had be imprisoned under Roman rule. So the Jews had a choice between Jesus and Jesus, and they chose to release, guess who, Jesus! But not the good one. "The governor answered and said to them, 'Which of the two do you want me to release to you?' They said, 'Barabbas!'" (Matthew 27:21) The problem with this story is that this tradition has no historical backing. We don't find this tradition in any historical texts like Josephus, or in any vast historical Jewish traditions and Talmud, so they are exclusive to the Gospels. Not just the Jesus v. Barabbas story, but the whole concept of giving the Jews a choice between two prisoners every Passover, is void, making the event doubtful.

Pilate throughout the Gospels repeatedly says "I find no fault in this man!", and defends Jesus several times. The narrative depicts him to have not wanted to carry out the crucifixion. But, had he chosen, he could have simply released Jesus - after all, he broke none of the Roman laws. Even if the Jews had the privilege of demanding the release of one prisoner, they certainly had no right to demand the execution of a man that Pilate wished to save. Academics have spoken on this issue: Professor S.G.F. Brandon, a Christian historian of the rise in Christianity, concluded that this incident never happened. To cite just one of the incongruities that convinced him that the story is fiction: "The outcome of Pilate's amazing conduct was that he sentenced to death one he knew was innocent, and released a popular resistance fighter, probably a Zealot who had just proved how dangerous he could be." (Jesus and the Zealots, page 262).

--

Anyway, this topic isn't as juicy as some of the others, but insha'Allah it was beneficial. Next, I will be writing about the crucifixion of Jesus. It should be a great overview of that event, and I hope to complete the series with the resurrection, to bring all 4 threads into a full circle.

Pilate must have been some baffled over the Sanhedrian bringing Jesus to him. Not sure how they could blackmail him into anything. I'm sure Pilate had killed many for violations, but this Jesus didn't mean anything to him, so he washed his hands of it. Having a kingdom of another world might make him a lunatic, (in Pilate's eyes) but not a threat. Where the confusion comes in is what is not recorded. If Pilate was the final word on execution, they must have convinced him at some point. The fact that the Sanhedrian changed the charges is a sign they were not consistant and had their own agenda. Considering that they stoned others, and put some to death shows the inconsistancies. A sign of the corruption that Jesus had accused them of.

There was a Roman holiday, (with a long name) where they would release prisioners from their chains. There is no record it was the same time as the passover, or if it was adapted, but the release of a prisoner wouldn't have been totally foreign. I'm assuming a prisioner that would go on to lead a lawful life would remain free, and one that returned to his past way of life wouldn't last on the streets very long.

[Qa'im]

(salam)

Pilate must have been some baffled over the Sanhedrian bringing Jesus to him. Not sure how they could blackmail him into anything. I'm sure Pilate had killed many for violations, but this Jesus didn't mean anything to him, so he washed his hands of it. Having a kingdom of another world might make him a lunatic, (in Pilate's eyes) but not a threat. Where the confusion comes in is what is not recorded. If Pilate was the final word on execution, they must have convinced him at some point.

I recall from a Bible study class a few years ago that although Pilate was against executing Jesus (as), the Sanhedrin had allegedly "blackmailed" him, saying that they would tell Caesar that he wasn't doing his job. You don't find this in the synoptic Gospels, but it can be found in John 19:12. Its a bit strange that they would threaten Pilate just like that, as he was known to be very ruthless and unrelenting - Josephus says Pilate was eventually fired from his post because of his mercilessness. I think his image was uplifted in the Gospels for reasons I mentioned before - the gentile Christians were essentially living on Roman territory, and their survival depended on not preaching hate against the Romans. This might be why Pilate and Herod were depicted as people who were unwilling to kill Jesus, but it was more or less "forced" onto them.

There was a Roman holiday, (with a long name) where they would release prisioners from their chains. There is no record it was the same time as the passover, or if it was adapted, but the release of a prisoner wouldn't have been totally foreign. I'm assuming a prisioner that would go on to lead a lawful life would remain free, and one that returned to his past way of life wouldn't last on the streets very long.

If you can get me the name of the holiday that would be great. But the Gospels are pretty consistent in saying that the time was at the Passover feast days, and the Romans would give a choice between two prisoners annually on this feast. I don't doubt that prisoners were released from time to time, but what boggles me is that Pilate would give he choice between a man he broke no Roman or Jewish laws, vs a man who murdered and led an uprising according to Luke. On top of that, they were both shared the same name. So not only is this tradition not backed up by anything (not even Josephus), but it's strange in nature.

Of course, God knows best, though.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Qa'im

[Son of Placid]

I recall from a Bible study class a few years ago that although Pilate was against executing Jesus , the Sanhedrin had allegedly "blackmailed" him, saying that they would tell Caesar that he wasn't doing his job. You don't find this in the synoptic Gospels, but it can be found in John 19:12. Its a bit strange that they would threaten Pilate just like that, as he was known to be very ruthless and unrelenting - Josephus says Pilate was eventually fired from his post because of his mercilessness. I think his image was uplifted in the Gospels for reasons I mentioned before - the gentile Christians were essentially living on Roman territory, and their survival depended on not preaching hate against the Romans. This might be why Pilate and Herod were depicted as people who were unwilling to kill Jesus, but it was more or less "forced" onto them.

If you can get me the name of the holiday that would be great. But the Gospels are pretty consistent in saying that the time was at the Passover feast days, and the Romans would give a choice between two prisoners annually on this feast. I don't doubt that prisoners were released from time to time, but what boggles me is that Pilate would give he choice between a man he broke no Roman or Jewish laws, vs a man who murdered and led an uprising according to Luke. On top of that, they were both shared the same name. So not only is this tradition not backed up by anything (not even Josephus), but it's strange in nature.

Of course, God knows best, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectisternium

Third line in the second paragraph

[Qa'im]

(wasalam)

Jazakallahu khayran. (May God give you glad tidings)

Though, I don't see anything that says Lectisternium happened as the same time as Passover. I think the point that it was Pesach was significant in Christian theology, as Jesus (as) was the "sacrificial lamb".

[placid]

Hi Qa'im,

Quote from Post 1:

After Jesus' trial at the Sanhedrin, he was taken to Pilate, who was the Roman governor in Palestine. The Jews ask Pilate to kill Jesus as he is an "evildoer". In John 18:31, Pilate says "You take him and judge him according to your law.". The Jews responded "It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death". Here is our first historical blunder: even under Roman occupation, the Jews would carry out Mosaic law through the Sanhedrin, and execute for religious charges. An example would be James, who was stoned to death according to Josephus not long after the ascension of Jesus . The Romans were more concerned with criminals, militias, tax rejects, thieves, etc. and did not interfere into Jewish heresy trials.

--- Under Mosaic law the Jews WERE the authority.

--- Under Roman law they were not allowed to kill for religious reasons.

This is why when they had their own council and judged Jesus, they said in Matthew 26:

65. Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy!

66. What do you think?”

They answered and said, “He is deserving of death.”

Then when they came to Pilate they changed the accusation to 'malefactor' or evildoer in John 18:

28. Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium, and it was early morning. But they themselves did not go into the Praetorium, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover.

29. Pilate then went out to them and said, “What accusation do you bring against this Man?”

30. They answered and said to him, “If He were not an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him up to you.”

31. Then Pilate said to them, “You take Him and judge Him according to your law.”

Therefore the Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death,”

--- (It is interesting, --- they were plotting murder, yet they did not want to defile themselves by going into a Roman court.

Quote: --- An example would be James, who was stoned to death according to Josephus not long after the ascension of Jesus .

This is quite erroneous.

The first illegal stoning was of Stephen, the Deacon, in Acts 6.

If you notice who was involved you will see it was not the regular scribes and Pharisees

Acts 6:8. And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and signs among the people.

9. Then there arose some from what is called the Synagogue of the Freedmen (Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and those from Cilicia and Asia), disputing with Stephen.

10. And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke.

--- He was illegally stoned to death. Acts 7:59-60.

Later, the Apostle James was killed, Acts 12:

1. Now about that time Herod the king stretched out his hand to harass some from the church.

2. Then he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

3. And because he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to seize Peter also.

--- (This was 11 years after the ascension of Jesus, when both the Jews and the Romans were persecuting the Church and driving them out of Jerusalem.

James, the brother of Jesus was the Elder or Minister in the Church of Jerusalem and in AD 62 he was put to death by the High Priest after the Governor, Festus, had died.

Josephus Book 20, Ch 9:

Quote: Festus was now dead, and Albinus (who was coming to replace him) was but upon the road; so he (the High Priest, Ananus) assembled the sanhedrin of the judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others. And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned. --- End of quote.

--- Here again, the Jewish council did not have the authority to put anyone to death, but the High Priest, Ananus, who was of the Sadducees wanted to be rid of James and the others, so took the opportunity in the brief time when there was no governor there, --- and illegally put them to death.

The Scripture and Josephus say it right, do they not?

Placid

[Qa'im]

I will have to get back to this post, the post on the Sanhedrin thread, and Part III once I'm done with my end term and exam stuff. Is that fine with you?

[placid]

Hi Qa'im,

Yes, that is fine. Take your time. ---I hope your exams go well.

It is very timely to discuss the trial and death of Jesus just before Easter.

I would like to add some info on the following subject as I believe we find a comparison to 'choosing' in the Levitical laws.

Quote from Post 1:

Afterwords, we read in the Gospels that it was apparently customary for a Roman governor to release a prisoner every Passover. This year, Pilate gave the choice between the freedom of Jesus Christ, and Barabbas.

--- Each of the Gospels record this event:

Matthew 27:15 Now at the feast the governor was accustomed to releasing to the multitude one prisoner whom they wished.

Mark 15:6. Now at the feast he was accustomed to releasing one prisoner to them, whomever they requested.

Luke 23:13. Then Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests, the rulers, and the people,

14. said to them, “You have brought this Man to me, as one who misleads the people. And indeed, having examined Him in your presence, I have found no fault in this Man concerning those things of which you accuse Him;

15. no, neither did Herod, for I sent you back to him; and indeed nothing deserving of death has been done by Him.

16. I will therefore chastise Him and release Him”

17. (for it was necessary for him to release one to them at the feast).

John 18:38. Pilate --- went out again to the Jews, and said to them, “I find no fault in Him at all.

39. “But you have a custom that I should release someone to you at the Passover. Do you therefore want me to release to you the King of the Jews?”

40. Then they all cried again, saying, “Not this Man, but Barabbas!”

It is interesting that the practice of releasing one was customary, but the choice was made by the Jews.

Luke says, "It was necessary" --- I suppose that would mean, --- 'to satisfy the customary tradition.'

John indicates that it was a Jewish custom to release one at the Passover, and the Jews made the choice.

---There are some interesting types and patterns in the Levitical laws, and even the event of "Passover" suggested choice.

God had given instructions to the Jews while in Egypt to prepare to leave, and He instituted the Passover as a sign of their faith and obedience.

God had heard the prayers of His people and called Moses to lead them.

Moses had said, "Let my people go," --- but the Egyptians wanted to keep them as slaves. God had sent plagues on them and Pharaoh still refused. --- The last plague was that the firstborn in each family would die, even to the Pharaoh's palace.

--- Here are a few verses from Exodus 12:

1. Now the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying,

2. “This month shall be your beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year to you.

3. Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying: ‘On the tenth of this month every man shall take for himself a lamb, according to the house of his father, a lamb for a household.

5. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats.

6. Now you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month. Then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at twilight.

7. And they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the houses where they eat it.

8. Then they shall eat the flesh on that night; roasted in fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.

11. And thus you shall eat it: with a belt on your waist, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. So you shall eat it in haste. It is the LORD’s Passover.

12. ‘For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.

13. Now the blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you; and the plague shall not be on you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt.

There were choices made here, --- wheather a sheep or a goat. --- It must be unblemished as this was 'the Passover lamb.'

Other choices would be made. --- Those who had integrated into Egyption culture and had jobs or positions, --- though Jewish, --- might perhaps say, "I don't believe it, I am not going to bother doing this," --- so there would be no 'covering' on their house and they would suffer the same as the Egyptians.

The symbolism was that the blood of the lamb on the doorposts was a 'covering,' and if the people within were obedient,

then this allowed them to 'escape' the punishment.

--- Verse 14 establishes it as an annual feast on the 14 of Nisan (our April);

14. ‘So this day shall be to you a memorial; and you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD throughout your generations. You shall keep it as a feast by an everlasting ordinance.

While there is more symbolism here, --- there is another feast that involves a 'scapegoat', in Leviticus 16.

Enough for now so I will mention it in another post.

Placid

[placid]

Hi Qa'im,

Quote from Post 5:

I think the point that it was Pesach was significant in Christian theology, as Jesus was the "sacrificial lamb".

--- Yes, Passover was the feast day when they killed the “sacrificial lamb” and it is the commemoration of the original “Passover” on the night before they left Egypt.

The blood of the lamb that was put on the doorposts was symbolic of a covering so that those ‘under the blood’ received God’s favor.

I know, you don’t like thinking about blood, but you can’t talk about Passover and Easter, without talking about the ‘atonement.’ --- This was all written in detail in the Jewish law.

Leviticus 17:

10. ‘And whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people.

11. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’

This was what God commanded the Jews. --- There had to be a sacrifice of blood for atonement from sin.

The word ‘atonement’ simply means ‘at-one-ment,’ or, reconciliation.

The two, --- God, --- and those who offered the sacrifice, were brought into harmony (temporarily) by the shedding of blood.

--- We can disagree and argue against it, but God gave these ordinances to the Jews very early in their walk with Him. (To us, it may all sound gory, but if you are going to follow God, then you must be obedient to Him.)

--- Another feast, ‘the Day of Atonement,’ was instituted in Leviticus 16:

3. “Thus Aaron shall come into the Holy Place: with the blood of a young bull as a sin offering, and of a ram as a burnt offering.

5. And he (Aaron) shall take from the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats as a sin offering, and one ram as a burnt offering.

6. “Aaron shall offer the bull as a sin offering, which is for himself, and make atonement for himself and for his house.

7. He shall take the two goats and present them before the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of meeting.

8. 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.

15 “Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering, which is for the people, bring its blood inside the veil, do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and before the mercy seat.

16. So he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, for all their sins;

20 “And when he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place, the tabernacle of meeting, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat.

21. Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man.

22. The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to an uninhabited land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness.

29. “This shall be a statute forever for you: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether a native of your own country or a stranger who dwells among you.

30. For on that day the priest shall make atonement for you, to cleanse you, --- that you may be clean from all your sins before the LORD.

34 This shall be an everlasting statute for you, to make atonement for the children of Israel, for all their sins, once a year.

--- Here was the example of choosing which goat would die and which goat would live.

Aaron cast lots to make the choice. --- One for a sin offering and the other to be released.

Read verses 7-10, and notice verse 9. --- You would think that the one ‘on which the LORD’s lot fell,’ would be the one set free, --- but, that was the one offered for a blood sacrifice (without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin).

After the sin offering, then Aaron would symbolically ‘transfer’ all of the sins that had been forgiven from the people, --- onto the head of the ‘scapegoat,’ and send it into the wilderness.

John the Baptist said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”

In the choosing, at the hands of the Pharisees, Jesus was chosen to die as the sin offering, and Barabbas was released as the ‘scapegoat.’

Placid

[Qa'im]

(salam)

I'm willing to get into the atonement of sin concept more so in a different part of my series, maybe Part III (crucifixion) and Part IV (resurrection), as those topics have more to do with atonement that this one. Right now I'm busy studying for exams, so it limits my researching abilities for religious topics for now. But those parts are definitely coming sometime between now and the end of April.