# Priest places hands on goat ~= double imputation



## RamistThomist (Jan 13, 2008)

Okay, this is a different argument I have heard from FVers. And while both sides would immediately add and qualify from other passages and other contexts, just for arguments sake, stick with this text. 

Remember in the Old Testament how the priest would place his hands on a goat and send it out into the wilderness, bearing the sins of the community? Well, I have heard *some* FV guys, including personal conversations with men who wrote books, say that this text cannot teach double imputation because while the priest places the sins on the goat, the goat doesn't place righteousness back onto the priest/community.

So I guess their inference would be the cross teaches passive obedience, not active obedience.

????


----------



## MW (Jan 13, 2008)

What is the point? that the type can't be made to teach double imputation or that the type disproves double imputation? If the first, fair enough; no single type represents everything concerning the Antitype, and there is no point turning to a type to prove what is so clearly taught in plain language in 2 Cor. 5:21. If the latter, that would be typological intepretation gone mad.


----------



## turmeric (Jan 13, 2008)

The goat starts out innocent. Both goats start out innocent. The whole system teaches double-imputation, doesn't it? The animal takes their sin - they are counted innocent like the animal, right?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 13, 2008)

turmeric said:


> The goat starts out innocent. Both goats start out innocent. The whole system teaches double-imputation, doesn't it? The animal takes their sin - they are counted innocent like the animal, right?



I agree and I agree with what Rev Winzer said above.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 13, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> What is the point? that the type can't be made to teach double imputation or that the type disproves double imputation? If the first, fair enough; no single type represents everything concerning the Antitype, and there is no point turning to a type to prove what is so clearly taught in plain language in 2 Cor. 5:21. If the latter, that would be typological intepretation gone mad.



That was my initial reaction as well. It's not as if the scape goat is the _only_ typological element that the Cross fulfills to begin with but even all the typological elements can't be placed together in an additive fashion to say what Christ accomplished. In other words, we don't just take what we know of the OT (without light from the NT) and say: "...this together is Christ regardless of what the Gospels and Epistles say of him!" If it were so easily done then the Jews might not have missed their Messiah. Christ is the full revelation of these truths and it is quite remarkable that, much like the recipients of the Hebrews, these men seem to want to go backward to "bulls and goats" and completely ignore the Son of God who has revealed Himself in these last days.


----------

