The day of Atonement has always been held
to be a very solemn and searching type of that One Sacrifice, once offered, for
sin, by the Lord Jesus Christ. Like all
types of divine things, we shall find that it utterly breaks down in some
features. Yet even these are not to be
regarded as faults, but inherent in the very nature of the case. For example, observe how, in Hebrews ix.,
the Holy Spirit lays hold upon several such inadequacies in type:--
“Into the second went the high priest
alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for
the errors of the people” (Heb. ix. 7).
“But Christ . . . . . by a greater and
more perfect tabernacle . . . . . neither by the blood of goats and calves, but
by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place” (Heb.ix.11,12).
Here we have heaven itself instead of the
tabernacle made with hands; here we have
“His own blood” instead of the blood of bulls and goats; and here we have no need for an offering for
His own sins, for this High Priest was holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from
sinners.
The immediate cause for the great symbolic
rite of the Day of Atonement was the action of Nadab and Abihu in offering
strange fire unto the Lord. While access
to the presence of the Lord is a most blessed privilege of the redeemed, unholy
familiarity must not be allowed, lest it breed contempt, and consequently
“The Lord spake unto Moses, after the
death of the two sons of Aaron, when they offered before the Lord, and
died: 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” (Lev. xvi. 1, 2).
“That he die not” has allusion to the fate
of the two sons, Nadab and Abihu. It is
repeated in xvi. 13, where, in contrast
with the strange fire that called down judgment, Aaron was to take
“A censer full of burning coals of fire
from off the altar before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense, beaten
small, … that he die not” (Lev.xvi.12,13).
Our earlier studies of the offerings will
have prepared us to appreciate more readily a good deal that is written in Leviticus xvi., and as the scapegoat has become the most
controversial subject in the passage, we shall at once devote ourselves to its
consideration.
The goat for
Azazel.
The peculiar feature of this atonement is
that, not one, but two, goats are presented before the Lord, one being
subsequently slain and the other, the living goat sent away and let go in a
land not inhabited. The margin of the
A.V. draws attention to the fact that the word rendered “scapegoat” is the
Hebrew word Azazel, and further investigation shows that, placed in
juxtaposition, are the expressions “one lot for the Lord” and “the other lot
for Azazel”, which has lent colour to the suggestion that Azazel must be a
person. We do not think that it would be
edifying to indicate the many different explanations of the allocations of
these lots that have, from time to time, been put forward, but we give a few in
order that the reader may be able to judge of the matter for himself:--
NEWBERRY
gives a note explanatory of Azazel, “Heb. Hazah-zeel, from hez
a goat, and ahzal to depart”.
ROTHERHAM
says: “Azazel is a title of an
evil being, opposed to Jehovah, to whom, on the great day of propitiation, the
live goat was sent, not as a sacrifice to Satan, but rather because of the
death of the other goat, in virtue of which he cries aloud to Satan, ‘Slay me
if thou durst, I claim to live! I have
already died in my companion whose death is accounted mine’.”
THE OXFORD GESENIUS translates Azazel, “entire removal”, which is
very similar to the view of Tholuck and Bahr, who take the word as a form of azal,
to remove.
Another view is that the goat of Azazel is
not a type of Christ at all. This
interpretation holds that it symbolizes the unbeliever, who is sent away from
the presence of the Lord bearing his sin, and Barabbas is mentioned as the
antitype of the goat whose life was spared.
Taking this last view first, we cannot accept it because of the simple
statement in Lev. xvi. 5: “Take two kids of the goats for a sin
offering”. Surely, if the Lord
intended us to understand that only one of the goats was a type of the Lord’s
offering, this statement would have been qualified. The fact that no one knew which goat would be
for the Lord and which for Azazel necessitated that they should both be without
blemish, and therefore types of Christ.
The scapegoat.
Let us now examine the Scripture afresh,
and go back, beyond modern speculation, to the interpretations of earlier
times. The Latin Vulgate renders Azazel
by Hircus emmisarius, which means “a goat for sending away”. The LXX translates Azazel by apopompaios,
which is a word made up of apo, “away” and pempo, “to send”. In non-biblical usage this word meant “the
turner away”, “the averter”, and carried with it a good deal of superstition,
but there is no reason for rejecting the simple meaning of the LXX, “the sent
away”. Now “the goat for sending away”
is the literal meaning of the Hebrew words Az Azel. Az is
a Hebrew word for “goat” and is so translated in the A.V. fifty-five
times. In five other places it is
translated “she goat” and once “kid”.
Some find difficulty here, as the “kids” taken in Lev. xvi. 5
are not “she goats”. On the other
hand there are two words available when “he goats” are to be specified, attud
(Numb.vii.17 & in sixteen other places), & tsaphir (II
Chron. xxix. 21 and in four other places).
The words used in Leviticus xvi. are more general, and do not constitute a
legitimate objection. Azel is the
verb, “to send away”. With the simple etymology
of the word before us, coupled with the ancient testimony of the Septuagint, of
Symmachus, of Aquila and of the Latin Vulgate, we believe the A.V. is correct
and that the goat for Azazel is the goat for sending away, the “escape” goat,
the one set free.
This live goat is atoned for. Verse 10 reads, “to make an atonement with
him”. There are some who uphold this
rendering, but as the same preposition is used in verses 6, 16 & 18 it must
be rendered similarly, “to make an atonement for him”. The note in The Companion Bible on Lev. xvi. 10
is as follows:--
“ ‘With him’, Heb. ‘for him’. See verses 16, 18. The scapegoat was not used to make atonement,
but atonement was made for it.
Hence he was to be ‘let go’ free.
See verse 22.”
The
two goats are therefore to be considered together as exhibiting God’s method of
dealing with His people’s sin. The idea
expressed by some, that the live goat symbolizes those whose sins are
unforgiven is disposed of by the following facts:--
First, the goat on whom the Lord’s lot
fell is killed; its blood makes
atonement.
“Because of the uncleanness of the
children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins”
(Lev. xvi. 16).
“In all their sins.” This must not be minimized. Atonement has been made concerning all the
sins of the people.
Secondly we read:--
“And when he hath made an
end of reconciling the holy place” (Lev.xvi.20).
This is a reference to verse 16, and
assures us that the work of atonement was “finished”, “ended”, “accomplished”,
as the word kalah is translated.
Even in dealing with types of the offering of Christ, it is a serious
thing to introduce any measure of uncertainty.
Thirdly:--
“When he hath made an end of reconciling
the holy place . . . . . he shall bring 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” (Lev.
xvi. 20, 21).
By comparing verse 16 with verse 21 we
find that atonement was made for Israel’s transgressions in all their sins, and
confession was made of all these transgressions in all their sins. These confessed sins were forgiven sins, and
the whole point of the passage turns upon confession. Psalm xxxii. & Psalm li.
bear eloquent and moving testimony to the need for the confession of
sins, even though they be atoned for.
“When I kept silence my bones waxed old .
. . . . I acknowledged my sins . . . . . I said I will confess my
transgressions” (Psa. xxxii. 1-5).
“Wash me … cleanse me … for I acknowledge
my transgressions” (Psa.li.2,3).
“If we confess our sins, He is faithful
and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (I.John.i.9).
Some have asked whether, if the epistles
assure us that God has forgiven us all trespasses, it is of faith that we ask
to be forgiven. The Scriptures written
for our learning do not teach us to ask for forgiveness, but it is for our
moral good that, while rejoicing in the freedom of His grace, we nevertheless
confess our sinnership. It is just as
true for us as for Israel that we should both confess and forsake all known
evil (Psa. xxviii. 13), otherwise we may come under the judgment of Romans vi.,
and be found teaching that, because we are under grace, we may continue
in sin.
Fourthly, these atoned-for and confessed
sins are now sent away:--
“Confess over him . . . . . and shall send
him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness . . . . . unto a land not
inhabited: and he shall let go the goat
in the wilderness” (Lev. xvi. 21).
Jewish tradition has unwarrantably
mutilated this part of the inspired law.
We read in their account that the live goat was taken to some
precipitous place and there dashed to pieces down the rocky slope. Sadly enough, some Christian expositors have
enlarged upon this imagination as though it were resident in the type. The truth is all the other way. There can be no second sacrifice for the same
sins in a type like this. The live goat
carries away confessed sins, atoned sins, into a land of “separation”. The live goat is “let go”.
In
Leviticus xiv. we have the same
words used in connection with another double symbol. There, two birds, one dead and one living,
instead of two goats, one dead and one living, the words “let loose” and “let
go” in Lev. xiv. 7 & 53 being the same as are used of the live
goat. The living bird is dipped in the
blood of the bird that was slain, and then “let loose”. In the case of the live goat, sins that have
been atoned for are confessed over it instead, and it, too, is then “let go”.
The word “forgiveness” in Eph. i. 7
is aphesis, which, in works outside the Scriptures, is variously translated “let go”, “to set
free”, “quittance”, “discharge”, “divorce”.
Luke iv. 18 this word “forgiveness”
occurs twice in the phrases “deliverance to the captive”, “to set at
liberty them that are bruised”.
The scapegoat seems to be in the mind’s
eye of the prophets when they wrote:--
“I will forgive their iniquity (the goat
slain) and I will remember their sins no more” (the goat set free) (Jer.xxxi.34).
“Who is a God like unto Thee, that
pardoneth iniquity? (the goat slain) … Thou wilt cast all their sins into the
depths of the sea” (the goat set free) (Micah vii. 18, 19).
“Thou hast, in love to my soul, delivered
it from the pit of corruption (the goat slain), for Thou hast cast all my sins
behind Thy back” (the goat set free) (Isa. xxxviii. 17).
We have touched upon the symbol and pledge
of resurrection, in the live goat, for though it may be deduced, it is not
prominent, the complete removal of sin being the immediate purpose of this
glorious type. Let us all thank God for
the sacrifice slain — let us not omit praise for Azazel, “the goat that was
sent away”.
No comments:
Post a Comment