The offering on the Day of Atonement is unique in that it is a singular offering in two parts, each goat representing a separate aspect of Christ's sacrifice. In Part Three, David Grabbe explains why the goat of departure cannot be connected to the binding of Satan (Revelation 20:1-3), as well as how Hebrews 9 and 10 clarify the Atonement ritual's meaning through the complete—and completed—sacrifice of Christ.
David Grabbe, reiterating that the two goats of Leviticus 16 make a composite sacrifice for sin, reminds us that every sacrifice in the Levitical sacrificial system was an unblemished animal. The first goat in Leviticus 16 was to satisfy God's demand for justice with a covering of blood. The second goat symbolizes the removal of sin, expunging its memory from the camp of Israel and from God's mind, transferring it into oblivion, symbolized by an uninhabited wasteland- as far as East is from the West. The live goat was a substitutionary sacrifice for the whole nation. The goat of departure bore the sins of the entire people, carrying the sins out of sight and out of mind. Christ, as a substitutionary sacrifice, bore the sins of all of humanity, carrying them out of sight. Satan, because his sins are numerous, cannot be a substitutionary sacrifice for anyone. The sins have been blotted out, totally erased from the mind of God. Sin is disannulled, neutralized, cast off, and obliterated, removed from consciousness and conscience. Satan has no role in this process.
Richard Ritenbaugh, indicating that there are many flashpoints between the greater Church of God and nominal Christianity, suggests that perhaps one of the most significant differences concerns the place and purpose of God's Law. The carnal mind hates and despises God's Law. The Protestant doctrine of grace has an antinomian core, thinking that justification is a synonym for sanctification and salvation, ruling out any need for works. The Law was not nailed to the cross; the handwriting of ordinances (the record of our sins) was nailed to the cross. The Law shows us the boundary markers, serving as a protective hedge. Sadly, morality and 'moralism' are looked upon in many sectors of Protestantism as pejorative terms, juxtaposed in a false dichotomy with the gospel. We do not keep the Law to save ourselves, but keeping the Law is a major part of the Gospel, our guide to show us how to live our lives, helping us to stay in unity with the King. Nominal Christianity has rejected God's Law, the Sabbath, and God's Holy Days, all of which provide guidelines for our spiritual journey toward the Kingdom of God, following Jesus Christ with the help of God's Holy Spirit. Eating unleavened bread symbolizes taking in what is good and pure, purging out the old leaven and becoming a new lump—the new man. We have a part to play in forging the new man. The Feast of Unleavened Bread reminds us that God did the vast majority of the work, that God intends that His Law be in our mouths (not done away), and that these days are to be kept annually and in perpetuity. God's Word is available to us, enabling us to ingest it daily, making it part of our hearts and minds, enabling us to edify others and modeling it in our lives. God supplies the Word and the Spirit to put us on the same wavelength as He is on, working from the same playbook. We are being groomed to be the Bride of Christ. Our putting out sin and living righteously was not abolished by His death on the cross. We are called to be holy in all our conduct. We will not be
John Ritenbaugh affirms that the way to be undefiled (to become sanctified, developing character) is to walk in the Law of the Lord (Psalm 119:1). We must do God's Word or it will never be a part of us. The Colossian Christians (Colossians 2:16-17) were criticized by Gnostic infiltrators for the way they were keeping the holy days. Paul admonishes the embattled Colossians not to let any man judge them for the way they were keeping the holy days. Contrary to some misguided Bible scholars, (1) keeping the Sabbath is not a doctrine of men; (2) what Paul condemns is a philosophy; God's word is not a philosophy. (Paul is concerned about the context in the way this philosophy was impacting on those keeping God's Word.) (3) Paul calls this Gnostic system (not God's holy days) empty, vain deceit, and (4) he names the authors of this Gnostic system and its recipients demons.
Many use Colossians 2:14 to 'prove' God's law is done away. Is this really what Paul means? Earl Henn uses the Bible to explain the apostle's intent in this verse.