Whence Art Thou? A Roman Governor in Israel Confronts a King

By

Elizabeth Kirkley Best

Judah’s Glory: “The Passover Blogs” Series

The days had not been easy for Pontius Pilate:  isolated in what he must have considered a desolate desert outpost,   he had ordered the violent subduing of one uprising after another:  while primarily it was the Zealots who gave him trouble,  there was no question that the better part of Israel wanted no part of Rome and it was also a time when many in Israel expected the Messiah to appear,  with several claiming he already had, or was the rabbi from Galilee that was known as Yshua, or 'Jesus' in Aramaic.    News of this 'Jesus' had already stirred the palaces in the area, and the seat of Roman authority,  but some claimed he was the Messiah to come,  which would deeply trouble Rome, and perhaps even lead an army in victory against Roman authority,  and yet still others claimed he was a holy man, a miracle, and perhaps something even more,  though that talk was obsequies.

Pontius Pilate was no friend to the Jews nor Israel:  he was known for being a brutal man,  and the death of insurrectionists and slaves was of minor concern to a Roman prelate:  he was willing to enforce law fully in the hopes of a perfect record that might take his career back to Rome.   Jerusalem in the first century was bustling with commerce and warring factions,  and the Children of Israel were not happy with Rome, with the Roman purchased High Priest,  or with a system that had become oppressive and intolerable,  as those who fought back lined the roads into Jerusalem, crucified,   a sign to any upcoming 'rebel slaves'.   In some ways one can surmize that Pilate, like Herod might have looked forward to meeting this 'Yshua' of Nazareth,  wondering if rumors of his healings and miracles had any veracity.   The Governor though, was about the meet a King,  though a highly unexpected one dressed in the garb of the poor of Israel.

One does not have to guess that Pilate could discern what was going on:   the Scriptures note his detection of the motives of the Pharisees and leadership with regard to Jesus:

For he knew that for envy they had delivered him. Matthew 27:18For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy. Mark 15:10 

Though cruel and unjust, the Roman governor probably had 'seen it all' and though he could have rendered a cursory judgment,  he instead maintained a 'wait and see' policy,  not knowing that it was the Rabbi from Galilee that would disarm him, instead of the the converse.

Much discussion occurs in the Gospels regarding authority.   Jesus did not negate earthly authority, he very much admonished his disciples to obey earthly authority by 'rendering unto Caesar what was Caesar's', but at the same time, he noted that particularly with regard to the Word of God, the Children of the Kingdom, are free.   Paul would later go on in Romans 13 to note that all authority is given of God, and that we are to obey the 'powers', as ordained of God though this is one of the most misunderstood and too often misused portions of scripture.   This interplay of the duty of a believer to obey authority as ordained of God, and yet first to obey the Sovereign God,  has been one of the centerpieces of Post WWII theology, as to when to obey vs. not to obey,  and when obedience becomes 'blind'.

Discussions of authority though in the Gospel is not all negative:  Jesus commends the Centurion for his great faith, though he is both Gentile and Roman, and an officer in the army of the occupying force, because the centurion understands Jesus' ability to command his creation:   he notes that:

For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this [man], Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth [it].

When Jesus heard [it], he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. Matthew 8:9-10

The discussion of authority is seen in the parables that Jesus tells,  also in the sovereign commands of the winds and waves on Geneseret,   in the authoritative commands to 'be made whole',  or 'be made clean',  and even the disciples and people of Israel who noted that Jesus spoke with authority,  in a way they had not heard before.  So before Jesus is brought before Pilate, bound as a lamb,  and seemingly nothing more than a prisoner,  the issue of who was the governing power in Israel had already been brought up.

The conversation though which is about to take place,  is one of the most telling in the Scriptures:  it is one favored by Christians over the centuries as an interchange which determines definitively, ‘Who’s Who’ in Israel:  a ‘governor’ from Rome and representing Caesar,  brings before him one called, “The Nazarene” and confronts him about who he is:

John 18:33-38

33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? 34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? 35    Pilate answered,  Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? 36  Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. 37  Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.38  Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all. 

Note what Pilate is most interested in:  whether it is in mocking or not, whether he is influenced by the dream his wife had of this “Just man” is not made clear:   he has one primary question to begin the conversation:  “Art thou the King of the Jews?”  There are many reasons that this is the premiere question, and one that has lasted in the minds and hearts of most for centuries:  Pilate is interested first and foremost in Rome’s interest.  The only crime in question is one of sedition or attempted overthrow of the government, or taking undue authority;  he has already berated the Pharisees regarding whether they are bringing Jesus before him as an issue of their doctrine:

28   Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

 29  Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?

 30  They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.

 31  Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. 

As Jesus is led from Caiaphas, unto the ‘hall of judgment’ there is a statement being made about the spiritual condition of the those in authority at the time:  while the Sanhedrin does first place Jesus on trial before the counselors of Israel, it is the middle of the night, an illegal time for a trial2 before either the Sanhedrin or Pilate, and Jesus is ‘paraded’ before the High priest before being brought to Pilate.   The ‘hall of judgment’ was the judicial hearing platform of Pilate, near or on the Gabbatha where hearings regarding justice and matters of state took place.  (See the discussion on the Gabbatha in the study “ Jesus is Brought Before Pilate:  The Azazel vs. the Sin Offering).   Pilate was the Praetor of Rome, in Palestine, living in and judging from the Praetorium.  

[Mar 15:16 KJV] 16 And the soldiers led him away into the hall, called Praetorium; and they call together the whole band.

The Praetorium Guard,  (in other versions and in secular sources ‘praetorian’) was the guard of Pilate’s complex,  a structure which many archaeologists today was built across from the Temple by a colonnade about 600 feet away. 3    The word comes from ‘praetoriani’  meaning………..,  and Thayer’s Dictionary BLB  provides the following definition:

1. "Head-quarters" in a roman camp, the tent of the commander-in-chiefThe palace in which the governor or procurator of a province resided, to which use the romans were accustomed to appropriate the palaces already existing, and formerly dwelt in by kings or princes; at Jerusalem it was a magnificent palace which Herod the great had built for himself, and which the roman procurators seemed to have occupied whenever they came from Caesarea to Jerusalem to transact public business.The camp of the praetorian soldiers established by Tiberius...       Thayers Lexicon in BLB

In sum, then, the governor was the praetor, who lived and judged from the Praetorium, which is also referred to as the judgment hall or hall of judgment, near the ‘Gabbatha’ or pavement, guarded by the Roman guard associated with Roman governors, generals, and Caesars called the Praetorian guard,  though the expression ‘Praetorian guard’ is not used in the King James version.4   

Jesus was hardly the hardened criminal that Pilate usually had brought before him:   Rome in the years preceding Jesus’ crucifixion , considerably unwelcome in the desert city,  had encountered uprisings and protests some of which are attested to in the writings of Josephus5 and Tertullian6 including groups of Zealots tearing the eagle down from the temple walls, or even a contingent of Jewish statesmen travelling to Rome shortly after the time of Jesus to petition Caligula for the right to worship.   From the time of the Roman occupation the searing and painful reminders of their presence were etched on the conscience of Israel:  Jewish men crucified on stakes lined roads leading into Jerusalem for the ‘criminal’ act of rebelling against the occupying force.   Runaway slaves were brought to court along with those charged with traditional crimes, but for the most part, the cases which reached the Roman Prefect were those which involved the State:   the Pharisees must have known, ultimately that the only charge they could make stick would be ‘treason’ or ‘sedition’:  in this case, of a “King of Israel” opposing the Caesars of Rome.  Still before the Messiah is brought out to people on the Gabbatha that day,  Pilate interrogates his prisoner.

Pilate is the legal representative of Caesar:   Caesar in the eyes of Romans and occupied areas is ‘King’,  so that anyone declaring himself a ‘King of Israel’  would be at once committing a treasonous act, an act of rebellion against Rome.   The discussion though notes what Charles Colson once referred to as “Kingdoms in Conflict”7  : The representative of the Roman Caesar stands face to face with Jesus,  who in the past three years has healed the sick,  restored sight to the blind, walked on water, calmed storms and without pause asks him a most unusual question :

“Art thou the King of the Jews?”

There was something in Pilate’s countenance that kept him fixated on Jesus.    Jesus responds:

Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?

Every soul from the beginning of time till the end is confronted with this question from the Lord and Savior:  do you say of yourselves, that he is King of the Jews, or are you repeating what you have heard?   The day Jesus asked the question of Pilate,  he showed that there was no one of any rank or position who was left out of having to answer the question.  The question is akin to asking “Do you believe I am the Messiah (meaning, the King of Israel)?  It is ‘typically Jesus’ to use a rabbinical style of answering a question with a question,  but even confronting his own affliction and death,  his mind was on souls, even of those who were persecuting him unmercifully.  Pilate also though, was used to circumventing a direct question, and answers:

35    … Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?

His first question to Jesus is ‘Am I a Jew?’.   He cut to the quick, perceiving at least that Jesus was asking him a significant question which he was unwilling to answer.  Asking Jesus, “Am I a Jew?” at least in part indicates Pilate seeing salvation and the Messiah as part of being ‘a Jew’ and that more likely than not he did not expect to have to declare the kingship of Jesus.

One wonders just what Pilate was thinking, for rather than directly accusing Jesus of charges, he asks Jesus for the charges against himself!   Pilate remarks that Jesus’ own nation of Israel, and the chief priests (though they were hardly Levitical*) delivered Jesus to Pilate for judgment,  though they have failed to specify succinct charges against him.

____________________________________________________-

*Note:  Caiaphas as high priest had paid Rome for his position:  because of the conflicts before Christ’s birth,  Rome had taken over a previous practice of ‘charging’ a fee for the institution of a High Priest at Jerusalem, though this was clearly against the Scriptures and Jewish practice.   The fee or tariff was raised at the expense of the congregation of Israel and amounted in modern dollars to something around $20,000 8.  

more to follow: EKBest

Give Us Barabbas: The Azazel vs. The Sin Offering

                                                                  The Passover Blogs:

What Really Happened Against That Dark Sky on Golgotha?

(c) 2013 Elizabeth K. Best

 

 

Jesus is Brought Before Israel: The Azazel and Sin Offering of Centuries

 

Jesus is Brought Before Pilate: The Azazel of Centuries
____________________________________________________________________________

 

 Arrested and bound by the temple guard carrying burning torches, the Savior sent by God is brought before the sovereign powers which were in Israel at the time: the Sanhedrin, a council of the leading Jewish authorities, Herod, the licentious but amusingly interested king who lived a lavish lifestyle, and ultimately to Pilate, the Roman Curator and consul to the desert outpost of Jerusalem for judgment . The Pharisees, a regional King and Rome became judge and jury to ‘assess’ the righteousness of the King of all righteousness, exerting the arrogant opinion of the State and Religion over the reality and truth of God.. One has to wonder at the violent arrest and unjust court hearings, dealt with in so many studies over the years, of the ‘Way the Truth and the Life’ held under man’s scrutiny for the great crimes of healing the sick, opening the eyes of the blind, casting out demons and teaching the Kingdom of God as no one ever had: these ‘crimes’--- the healing of Israel and the world, were turned into charges of treason and sedition under the jaundiced eyes of wicked men. Still, standing before Pilate, no doubt weary of the previous three years of intense ministry and the travel and trial the night before, the Holy One of Israel stands accused for trial to appease the High Priest, a religionist who had purchased his role from Rome in defiance of the Levitical priesthood. Having seen the miracles, and even proof of Lazarus raised from the dead, the High Priest of Israel declared in wrath that it was ‘better that one man should die for the nation’ than that all should perish. That statement held in suspension and paradox for centuries, has stood as the pre-eminent example of times when the wrath of man praises God.

For the topic at hand, which is comparing the release of the 'Azazel' or scapegoat bearing the sins of Israel with the trial of Christ and judgment coming not from Pilate but from the people, we will not attend directly to the first two 'trials' or hearings. Both Herod's hearing of seeing the 'phenomenon' of Jesus, and the late night trial of the Messiah run counter to Temple Law conducted by the Sanhedrin, are both important and even critical in the understanding of the injustice of man vs. the justice of God, and the surrender of the Messiah to God's will even when it is unjust. Those two trials, as well as the final one establish Jesus' willful laying down of his life, rather than having it taken from him. These 'hearings' also establish the face of Christian persecution, as in the end, the believer often finds his greatest accusers to be Religionists, powerful men, and Rome: the 'dignities' which too often figure in the death of believers following in the footprints of their Redeemer. Focusing though on the foreshadowing of the choice of Barabbas over the King and true High Priest of Israel, is the question at hand. Did the two goats of Leviticus 16, foreshadow the choice? Was it merely an angry crowd, somewhat frightened of Jesus and willing to let an innocent die, in order to go along with Temple leadership at the time? Or was it possibly the God of Israel working out the prophetic fulfillment of the little understood practice of conferring the sins of Israel onto a sacrificial offering, with one dying for sin, and one bearing the sins of collective Israel out into the wilderness to whatever would become of him? These and more are the questions we confront in this study.

 

Leviticus 16: Two Goats & the Sins of Israel

In the midst of Leviticus, we find a most unusual chapter about two goats, the sins of Israel, a ceremonial practice and the wilderness. In the Torah, or first five books of the Bible, we read frequently about sacrifices such as the 'olah' or burnt offering, the 'minchah' or meat offering or the other offerings involving the sacrifice of an animal, usually a lamb, goat or bullock, or of prepared offerings of bread or meal: though there are many sacrifices mentioned in the early books, such as sin, peace and trepass offerings beside those above, one may still observe that those offerings were prescribed in very similar ways: the offering was brought to the door of the Tabernacle; if it was an animal, the priests would sacrifice the animal, and whether beast or bread, all but one or two of the offerings were burned on the altar. 
Leviticus 16 though shows God, commanding the more unusual or unique sacrifice of choosing two young goats, conferring the sins of the nation upon them, and then a differential treatment of the two pointing to the significant 'offering' of the scapegoat or better, 'sin-bearer' of Israel still centuries away.

[Lev 16:2, 5, 7-10 KJV] 2 And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy [place] within the vail before the mercy seat, which [is] upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat. . . 5 And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering. ...

7 And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the LORD [at] the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat. 9 And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD'S lot fell, and offer him [for] 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 an atonement with him, [and] to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

 

The command for this sin offering comes following the death of two of Aaron's sons who offered strange fire, or committed an idolatrous practice contrary to the will of God, which bore the possibility of the death of many in the wilderness. Sometimes God's judgments in the Old Testament seem very severe to unbelievers and new believers with little experience in the Word. God's main aim for Israel though in the forty years of desert wandering to Canaan, was their survival and safety: turning to other gods and practices would have 'brought Israel's fence down' a divine reality, which could have caused untold harm to the whole congregation.  

The sin offering was to include 2 goats and one ram; for now, our interest is primarily in the two goats: the ram is the more traditional part of the offering. (see Lev 5:15; Exodus 29:18 for sin and trespass offerings) The High Priest, Aaron, is in Leviticus 16:3-4 commanded to prepare himself via his garments and office in the appropriate way for a sacrifice. Then the sacrifice is as follows:

A.      The High Priest presents the 2 goats at the door of the tabernacle

B.      Aaron the high Priest cast lots upon the two goats:

C.       One lot on one goat is for the LORD

D.      One Lot is for the 'Scapegoat' or Azazel

E.       The "Lord's Lot" Goat is offered for a sin offering.

F.       The Azazel or 'Scapegoat' is presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement, and

G.      The Scapegoat, carrying the sins of Israel is then let go outside the city walls. 

 

 



The presentation of Jesus before Israel,  with the option of either the Messiah of Israel being set free or the criminal Barabbas,  takes place on the Gabbatha,  a platform or more possibly a plaza outside what archaeologists believe was the praetorium.   The ‘praetorium’ was where Pilate lived and worked and conducted the business of the Roman State in Palestine.   ‘Pilate’ was Praetor, or Prefect of Rome.  Josephus, the early Jewish historian notes that  when Roman authorities came to Israel for business or judicial purposes they stayed in Herod’s palace, conducting business outside the palace:  this may not be contradictory,  since it would appear that Herod’s palace,  the Temple, and the Praetorium were within close proximity to one another:  recent archaeological evidence proposes a 600 foot ‘colonnade’ in between the Praetorium and the Temple,  a rather crass statement about the corruption and compromise between the Temple of the time, and Rome.  ^1,2

 

 

Within clear view, then of the temple,  and Herod’s Palace,  on the Gabbatha of Pilate’s Praetorium, whatever the exact location,  Jesus was presented to Israel, by Pilate, following his declaration of himself as King, Lord, and Savior,  with the words, “Behold the Man”. John 19:5.  ‘Behold the Man’ also follows the Pilate’s decree that he finds ‘no fault in him’:  Jesus is the perfect lamb, the Passover lamb without a flaw,  there is no ‘fault’ in him, as he is about to be dedicated to those crying for a lamb for sacrifice.   Consider, though the parallels of the events, some perfectly matched and some not, of the choice of Messiah vs. the criminal:

 

Old Testament: Lord’s Lot vs. Azazel                 New Testament: Jesus & Barabbas

 

The High Priest presents the two goats at the door of the Tabernacle	The Prefect of Rome, In sight of the High Priest Caiaphas, presents Jesus and Barabbas near the door of the Temple, on the ‘pavement’
Aaron the High Priest, Casts lots on the two goats	Caiaphas the High Priest, calls for the crucifixion
One lot is for the goat of the Lord	The ‘Sin Offering’ for sacrifice
One lot is for the Scapegoat	Barabbas is chosen for release, in metaphor the sins of Israel are forgiven and released :note, though, that Messiah, doubly is also the scapegoat and sin-bearer of Israel
The ‘Lord’s Lot ‘ goat is chosen for sacrifice	Messiah is chosen for crucifixion
The Azazel or 'Scapegoat' is presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement, and	Barabbas, a murderer and insurrectionist, is pardoned,  released,  though there is no atonement, which can only be made by Messiah.
The Scapegoat, carrying the sins of Israel is then let go outside the city walls.	Barabbas is released* presumably according to custom outside the city, and Jesus is led to crucifixion outside the city walls.

 

As in the Temple the High Priest presents the two goats at the door of the Tabernacle, the prefect of Rome, in sight of the High Priest Caiaphas presents Jesus and Barabbas near the door of the Temple on the pavement:

 

^{[John 19:13 KJV]} 13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. ^{[Jhn 19:14 KJV]} 14  And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

 

 

 Pilate no doubt, meant a partial mocking of the Jews, as he presents Jesus,  bound as the sacrificial lamb, degraded, and rejected, when he says, ‘Behold your King!”.   Yet at the same time, what Rome declared, stood and one must wonder if Pilate, after the trying confrontation with Jesus in the discussion of whether or not Jesus was a King,  must have said it only partially mocking,  with the sense that he was indeed standing in the presence of a heavenly king.  The presentation of a King and Lamb at Passover was a most remarkable event.  One recalls the passage in exodus regarding the taking of the unleavened bread and the lamb on the night when the angel of death ‘passed over’

 

[Exo 12:21 KJV] 21 Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw out and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill the passover.

 

But the presentation of a king of Israel,  at Passover was a first:  while Josiah in his reign restored the practice of Passover to Israel,  the coronation of a king occurred at other times: on the other hand, the release of a prisoner according to custom,  was respected:

 

[Jhn 18:39 KJV] 39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?

 

Israel , a nation of priests, is given a choice between the one who whether reverently or irreverently is called, “King of the Jews”,  or Barabbas:

 

 

^{[Mat 27:16-23 KJV]} 16 And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. 17 Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? 18 For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.   

19 When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. 20

But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.   21 The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas. 22 Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? [They] all say unto him, Let him be crucified. 23 And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.

 

In the Old Testament, when the goats were set before the congregation and the high Priest at the door of the Tabernacle,  the high priest cast lots on which goat was to be which:

 ^{[Lev 16:7-9 KJV] 7} And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the LORD [at] the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat. 9 And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD'S lot fell, and offer him [for] a sin offering.                                             

                                                                                                                                        

The Sin Offering goat is the goat which is chosen by lot to be sacrificed for the sins of Israel.  At the same time,  Aaron cast lots for the scapegoat,  which in Hebrew is ‘Azazel’:

עֲזָאזֵל

The word for ‘Azazel’, pronounced atz-ah-tzel,  is translated ‘scapegoat’  in which we still find the modern meaning of ‘one who takes or has conferred upon them all the blame’,  for example, a family ‘scapegoat’  takes on the sins of a family,  or an ‘office scapegoat’ becomes responsible for everything that fails in an office:   this useage is entirely similar to the ancient concept.    Gesenius’ Lexicon includes the meaning ‘dubious’ or ‘complete removal’, e.g. of sin,   and notes that the scapegoat and the Lord’s lot goat pertain only in Leviticus to the day of atonement.   An atonement,  is sometimes cleverly referred to as an ‘at-one-ment’,  meaning that two are made one,  and the clear understanding in Old and New Testament is that via a removal of sin,  God and man are united,  or at least man becomes ‘at one’ with God by the removal of sin:  in the Old Testament this was on a per sin basis, or on a yearly basis as with the day of atonement,  when the sin offering would expiate the sins of Israel, of the congregation of Israel for a year:

[Exo 30:10 KJV] 10 And Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements: once in the year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations: it [is] most holy unto the LORD.

                                                               

The altar was about to be set, for the blood of atonement to be applied,  but for the moment, the decision reverts to the casting of lots between two ‘goats’ and that day on the Gabbatha, should things have been different,  one would have assumed that the innocent lamb, Messiah, would have been set free, since Pilate, ‘found no fault’ in him.   Yet that day, the High Priest, even after Rome declared Jesus innocent,  calls ‘for the lamb’ (in the OT, a lamb could also be a young goat).    

The choice between Barabbas and Jesus is both perfectly a fulfillment of the offering of the goats, and somewhat seemingly confusing because Jesus is both the goat sent out into the wilderness, as well as the goat offered for the sin offering: he is the Azazel and the Lord’s lot goat,  the sin-bearer and the sin-offering.   The fact that there is overlap in no way negates the fulfillment though,  but is rather like a picture that fades in and out:  one sees the offering both in Jesus vs. Barabbas, and at the same time as synthesized in the offering of Jesus.

A modern concept based upon some ancient pagan ideas was that the Azazel was a ‘demon’: this idea was portrayed in the movie Fallen (1998) with Denzel Washington in which a demon spirit named Azazel moved person to person:  this is of course not a biblical or correct view of the Azazel,  but it does bear a similarity to the idea that ‘sin’ and its consequences are borne on the ‘scapegoat’ and sent out into the wilderness removing the culpability and results from the congregation of Israel and the City of God.   Presumably the goat also would eventually die,  but in no case was it to wander back into the city.  

[Lev 16:21-22 KJV] 21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send [him] away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: 22 And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

The laying on of hands by the high priest does not find a parallel on the Gabbatha that day, but there is an interesting possible parallel in the release of Barabbas:  when criminals were released via a pardon,  they were not warmly received into the populace, but were essentially banished beyond the city walls:   the thinking was not much different that with the Azazel:  they could leave the city walls, free,   but they could still not remain with the unexipiated sin or crime to their account.   Cast beyond the city walls,  they were at least free to try to go elsewhere and start over, though the fate of many was death in the wilderness.

The wilderness bears a point of mention as well:  the words for wilderness in both Old and New Testaments indicate ‘desolate places’ not only describing the terrain.  The wilderness is a place of no water,  and a place of demonic dwellings.   Cast outside the walls, it is where sin belongs.    The wilderness was where Jesus spent his youth,  though in the sense of being kept apart and sanctified ‘until the day of his shewing to Israel’.   Later, the wilderness was the place where he would be tested,  meeting with the various temptations of worldly power, riches and reign vs. the choice of the ways of the Lord and his Word.  Ultimately,  it is a sort of battlefield of both the unholiest and holiest of God’s people:  Jesus battles Satan in the wilderness;  Moses is cast to the wilderness by Pharaoh and later leads the congregation of God through it:  David is chased across the wilderness by the madness of Saul, before becoming King.    The wilderness, desolate and the end-reach of sin and devils, is also the place of the trials of God.

Jesus is crucified outside the walls of Jerusalem,  in a place near a garden called Golgotha,  but it is the ‘outside’ of the city walls that is critical:   both the sin offering goat, the Lord’s lot goat, and the azazel goat end up eventually ‘outside the gate’, as we are admonished to meet Jesus there, bearing his reproach:

^{[Heb 13:13 KJV] 13} Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.

 

The Azazel is released into the wilderness as mentioned in Leviticus 16:22.  But the sin offering goat,  is taken into the Temple for sacrifice,  but the blood of the sacrifice, applied to the altar,  and the sacrificed sin offering is taken outside the city:

 

[Lev 16:27 KJV] 27 And the bullock [for] the sin offering, and the goat [for] the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy [place], shall [one] carry forth without the camp; and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung.

                     

The bullock that is mentioned above is the sacrifice made for the High Priest’s offering for himself:  the sin offering goat, the Lord’s Lot is sacrificed for the people and the Tabernacle, and after being ‘brought in to make atonement in the holy place’  is carried ‘without the camp’.

 

The burnt offering carried without the camp would seem to lack one parallel to the offering of Jesus on the wooden altar on Golgotha:  a fire born offering.   When I was younger in the Lord this was a little difficult to reconcile,  since the sin offering was a burnt offering.  The answer quite simply lies in the purpose of and ‘kind’ of offering that is meant by a burnt offering:   the word is ‘olah’ and refers to the rising smoke of an offering by fire.  The ‘olah’ offering though clearly refers to the ‘ascent’ of the offering to God,  the ascent in this case is the offering of Jesus’ spirit on the cross, a point we will attend to in a later study.    We see though again the issue of the wavering focus of the foreshadowing of the offering of Christ as the atonement for Israel in the atonement of the two goats in Leviticus:  the goats are simply both pointing to Jesus vs. Barabbas, and Jesus as the sin offering and sin-bearer of Israel.

 

The complexity of God’s way and plan portrayed in the offering of Messiah on the pavement of the Praetorium is a beautiful one, carried forward fifteen hundred years from the time of the congregation of God wandering in the wilderness of Zin,  to the designation and fulfillment of the foreshadow as braced and bound,  with Pilate crying ‘Behold the man’ :  the first time in the Scriptures that the words “Behold the man” are spoken are by God in Genesis, when he is saying literally ‘Behold Adam’:  here on the pavement, we see the second Adam presented to Israel.

 

More next time.

ekbest