Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 16:1
And the LORD spoke unto Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they offered before the LORD, and died;
1. On the introductory clauses see App. I ( d), pp. 163 ff.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The reference to the death of Nadab and Abihu is a notice of the occasion on which the instructions were given, well calculated to add point and emphasis to the solemn admonition to the high priest in the second verse. The death of his sons Lev 10:2, for drawing near to Yahweh in an unauthorized manner, was to serve as a warning to Aaron himself never to transgress in this respect.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
CHAPTER XVI
The solemn yearly expiation for the high priest, who must not
come at all times into the holy place, 1, 2.
He must take a bullock for a sin-offering, and a ram for a
burnt-offering, bathe himself, and be dressed in his sacerdotal
robes, 3, 4.
He shall take two goats, one of which is to be determined by
lot to be a sacrifice; the other to be a scapegoat, 5-10.
He shall offer a bullock for himself and for his family, 11-14.
And shall kill the goat as a sin-offering for the people, and
sprinkle its blood upon the mercy-seat, and hallow the altar of
burnt-offerings, 15-19.
The scapegoat shall be then brought, on the head of which he
shall lay his hands, and confess the iniquities of the children
of Israel; after which the goat shall be permitted to escape to
the wilderness, 20-22.
After this Aaron shall bathe himself, and make a burnt-offering
for himself and for the people, 23-28.
This is to be an everlasting statute, and the day on which the
atonement is to be made shall be a Sabbath, or day of rest,
through all their generations, 29-34.
NOTES ON CHAP. XVI
Verse 1. After the death of the two sons of Aaron] It appears from this verse that the natural place of this chapter is immediately after the tenth, where probably it originally stood; but the transposition, if it did take place, must be very ancient, as all the versions acknowledge this chapter in the place in which it now stands.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
1. after the death of the two sonsof Aaron, when they offered before the Lord, and diedIt isthought by some that this chapter has been transposed out of itsright place in the sacred record, which was immediately after thenarrative of the deaths of Nadab and Abihu [Le10:1-20]. That appalling catastrophe must have filled Aaron withpainful apprehensions lest the guilt of these two sons might beentailed on his house, or that other members of his family mightshare the same fate by some irregularities or defects in thedischarge of their sacred functions. And, therefore, this law wasestablished, by the due observance of whose requirements the Aaronicorder would be securely maintained and accepted in the priesthood.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And the Lord spake unto Moses, after the death of the two sons of Aaron,…. That is, either immediately after their death, and so this chapter would have stood in its natural order next to the tenth; or else after the above laws concerning uncleanness on various accounts were delivered out, designed to prevent the people entering into the tabernacle defiled, whereby they would have incurred the penalty of death; wherefore, as Aben Ezra observes, after the Lord had given cautions to the Israelites, that they might not die, he bid Moses to caution Aaron also, that he might not die as his sons died; these were Nadab and Abihu:
when they offered before the Lord, and died; offered strange fire, and died by flaming fire, as the Targum of Jonathan; or fire sent down from heaven, as Gersom, by lightning; see Le 10:1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The chronological link connecting the following law with the death of the sons of Aaron (Lev 10:1-5) was intended, not only to point out the historical event which led to the appointment of the day of atonement, but also to show the importance and holiness attached to an entrance into the inmost sanctuary of God. The death of Aaron’s sons, as a punishment for wilfully “drawing near before Jehovah,” was to be a solemn warning to Aaron himself, “not to come at all times into the holy place within the vail, before the mercy-seat upon the ark,” i.e., into the most holy place (see Exo 25:10.), but only at the time to be appointed by Jehovah, and for the purposes instituted by Him, i.e., according to Lev 16:29., only once a year, on the day of atonement, and only in the manner prescribed in Lev 16:3., that he might not die. – “For I will appear in the cloud above the capporeth.” The cloud in which Jehovah appeared above the capporeth, between the cherubim (Exo 25:22), was not the cloud of the incense, with which Aaron was to cover the capporeth on entering (Lev 16:13), as Vitringa, Bhr, and others follow the Sadducees in supposing, but the cloud of the divine glory, in which Jehovah manifested His essential presence in the most holy place above the ark of the covenant. Because Jehovah appeared in this cloud, not only could no unclean and sinful man go before the capporeth, i.e., approach the holiness of the all-holy God; but even the anointed and sanctified high priest, if he went before it at his own pleasure, or without the expiatory blood of sacrifice, would expose himself to certain death. The reason for this prohibition is to be found in the fact, that the holiness communicated to the priest did not cancel the sin of his nature, but only covered it over for the performance of his official duties, and so long as the law, which produced only the knowledge of sin and not its forgiveness and removal, was not abolished by the complete atonement, the holy God was and remained to mortal and sinful man a consuming fire, before which no one could stand.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Great Day of Atonement. | B. C. 1490. |
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they offered before the LORD, and died; 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. 3 Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place: with a young bullock for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering. 4 He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on.
Here is, I. The date of this law concerning the day of atonement: it was after the death of the two sons of Aaron (v. 1), which we read, ch. x. 1. 1. Lest Aaron should fear that any remaining guilt of that sin should cleave to his family, or (seeing the priests were so apt to offend) that some after-sin of his other sons should be the ruin of his family, he is directed how to make atonement for his house, that it might keep in with God; for the atonement for it would be the establishment of it, and preserve the entail of the blessing upon it. 2. The priests being warned by the death of Nadab and Abihu to approach to God with reverence and godly fear (without which they came at their peril), directions are here given how the nearest approach might be made, not only without peril, but to unspeakable advantage and comfort, if the directions were observed. When they were cut off for an undue approach, the rest must not say, “Then we will not draw near at all,” but, “Then we will do it by rule.” They died for their sin, therefore God graciously provides for the rest, that they die not. Thus God’s judgments on some should be instructions to others.
II. The design of this law. One intention of it was to preserve a veneration for the most holy place, within the veil, where the Shechinah, or divine glory, was pleased to dwell between the cherubim: Speak unto Aaron, that he come not at all times into the holy place, v. 2. Before the veil some of the priests came every day to burn incense upon the golden altar, but within the veil none must ever come but the high priest only, and he but on one day in the year, and with great ceremony and caution. That place where God manifested his special presence must not be made common. If none must come into the presence-chamber of an earthly king uncalled, no, not the queen herself, upon pain of death (Esth. iv. 11), was it not requisite that the same sacred respect should be paid to the Kings of kings? But see what a blessed change is made by the gospel of Christ; all good Christians have now boldness to enter into the holiest, through the veil, every day (Heb 10:19; Heb 10:20); and we come boldly (not as Aaron must, with fear and trembling) to the throne of grace, or mercy-seat, Heb. iv. 16. While the manifestations of God’s presence and grace were sensible, it was requisite that they should thus be confined and upon reserve, because the objects of sense the more familiar they are made the less awful or delightful they become; but now that they are purely spiritual it is otherwise, for the objects of faith the more they are conversed with the more do they manifest of their greatness and goodness: now therefore we are welcome to come at all times into the holy place not made with hands, for we are made to sit together with Christ in heavenly places by faith, Eph. ii. 6. Then Aaron must not come near at all times, lest he die; we now must come near at all times that we may live: it is distance only that is our death. Then God appeared in the cloud upon the mercy-seat, but now with open face we behold, not in a dark cloud, but in a clear glass, the glory of the Lord, 2 Cor. iii. 18.
III. The person to whom the work of this day was committed, and that was the high priest only: Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place, v. 3. He was to do all himself upon the day of atonement: only there was a second provided to be his substitute or supporter, in case any thing should befal him, either of sickness or ceremonial uncleanness, that he could not perform the service of the day. All Christians are spiritual priests, but Christ only is the high priest, and he alone it is that makes atonement, nor needed he either assistant or substitute.
IV. The attire of the high priest in this service. He was not to be dressed up in his rich garments that were peculiar to himself: he was not to put on the ephod, with the precious stones in it, but only the linen clothes which he wore in common with the inferior priests, v. 4. That meaner dress did best become him on this day of humiliation; and, being thinner and lighter, he would in it be more expedite for the work or service of the day, which was all to go through his hands. Christ, our high priest, made atonement for sin in our nature; not in the robes of his own peculiar glory, but the linen garments of our mortality, clean indeed, but mean.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
LEVITICUS- CHAPTER SIXTEEN
Verses 1-5:
Verse I refers to Le 10:1, 2, the death of Nadab and Abihu, when they offered “strange fire” upon the altar. The sin and death of these two sons did not disqualify Aaron from ministering in the office of high priest.
God placed severe restrictions upon the high priest’s appearance in the Holy of Holies. This was limited to an annual occasion, described in this text and designated as “The Day of Atonement,” Yom Kippur, the “Day of Covering,” see Heb 9:7-25; 10:19-22.
To officiate in his capacity in the Yom Kippur ceremonies, Aaron must first be clothed in proper garments. These differed from the ceremonial garments of the high priest described in Ex 28:1-39. On the occasion of the text, he was to wear white linen garments: coat, breeches, girdle (belt), and mitre (turban). This symbolized the holiness and purity necessary to appear before God, Ps 24:3, 4; Heb 12:14. This symbolism is strengthened by the requirement that the high priest must bathe before he donned these garments.
Aaron was to bring certain sacrifices to the brazen altar. One was a bullock for a Sin Offering, Le 4:3-12, and a ram for a Burnt Offering, Le 1:3-9. This was to be offered for his own sin, see Heb 5:1-4.
The second offering consisted of two kids (young goats) for a Sin Offering, Le 4:27-31. This was to be offered for the sins of “the common people (through) ignorance” (Le 4:27).
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
1. And the Lord spake unto Moses. A copious description is here given of what we have recently adverted to cursorily, as it were, i.e., the solemn atonement which was yearly made in the seventh month; for when Moses was instructing them as to what sacrifices were to be offered on each of the festivals, he expressly excepted, though only in a single word, this sacrifice, where he spoke of the day of atonement itself, on which they afflicted their souls. Now, therefore, a clear and distinct exposition of it is separately given. For although at other seasons of the year also both their public and private sins were expiated, and for this purpose availed the daily sacrifices, still this more solemn rite was meant to arouse the people’s minds, that they might more earnestly apply themselves all the year through to the diligent seeking for pardon and remission. In order, then, that they might be more anxious to propitiate God, one atonement was performed at the end of the year which might ratify all the others. But, that they might more diligently observe what is commanded, Moses makes mention of the time in which the Law was given, viz., when Nadab and Abihu were put to death by God, after they had rashly defiled the altar by their negligence.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
THE GREAT DAY OF ATONEMENT
Leviticus, Chapter 16
IN speaking on The Great Day of Atonement, we properly employ the word Great. That precise idea is in the original text itself, for there yoma means the day; and not only the day of the atonement, but the day as compared with all the other days of the yearthe one day of transcendent importance, because the day when, through sacrifice, men believed their souls cleansed from sin.
At the very outset of this discourse I want to confess my deficiency as a teacher, because I have not spoken more often on the theme of the atonement. Surely it is worthy not only of presentation,, but of repetition. There are many men who imagine that what they need from the pulpit is a novel subject for every Sunday. But one could not study the work of pastors and churches without learning what Jacob Seiss has said, The success of the pulpit, and the benefit of our weekly attentions upon the sanctuary depend much more upon the continuous reiteration of the same great truths of the Gospel than upon any power of invention in the preacher. It is not so much the presentation of new thoughts and brilliant originalities that converts men and builds them up in holiness, as the clear and constant exhibition of the plain doctrines of grace. When Dr. Chalmers was asked to what he attributed his success in the ministry, he answered, Under God, to one thingrepetition, repetition, repetition. If there is any theme of the Scriptures which more than another would justify the adoption of Chalmers practice, it is this theme of the atonement.
When once a man understands it in all its relation to the love of God and the lives of men, he is necessarily a good student of the Word, and well equipped for work.
To discuss this theme is to excite in a certain class of minds a demand for a definition as the introduction to the discourse. That desire I must necessarily leave ungratified for the present. I believe, with Henry Van Dyke, that there are several reasons why one should not attempt a definition of the atonement. The most important of these is that it is impossible; while others of secondary importance are expressed by him in these terms: The very attempt to define atonement so often leads to misconception and strife between men who believe in it with equal sincerity. And again, Such a definition is not needed. The word itself declares all that even an inquiring mind can hope to have accomplishedto make God and man to be at one again. Atonement is at-one-ment. And it will be seen that this whole sixteenth chapter of Leviticus is Gods appointment for bringing about a reconciliation between Himself and sinners; Gods appointment for bringing an end to that estrangement which sin always effects; Gods appointment for reuniting the divorced. I say Gods appointment, since I believe that this chapter and other Scriptures show conclusively that He always has taken the initial steps, and for that matter, practically all the steps in the word atonement. Truly, as Van Dyke remarks, There is no Christian view of the atonement which does not begin with the love of God.
But, all attempts at definition aside, there are great and fundamental truths suggested in this sixteenth chapter of Leviticus that will better illustrate for us the meaning of this word, and the significance of this day, than could the combined definitions of many minds.
THE APPOINTMENTS OF THE DAY
The importance of this day is emphasized in the fact that God minutely unfolds its every appointment. It involves matters of such weighty moment that easily misled man cannot be trusted to determine even the details thereof.
The time itself was Divinely fixed.
This shall he a statute for ever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, * * For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you (Lev 16:29-30).
There are those who see a definite reason for setting it on the tenth day of the seventh month. Some remind us that seven is the symbol of completeness, as is also ten; others declare that it is set at this time because it was the season of the harvest, an indication, therefore, that in the fullness of time the Son of Man should appear to put away sin, and so on. But the one thing concerning it about which we do not need to speculate is that God appointed that day and made it the only day in the year in which to make an atonement for the people.
In that fact we find a plain lesson, namely, that Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many. There were daily sacrifices to show that men were daily in need of cleansing; but the sacrifice of atonement could occur but once in the entire circle of a season. Paul, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, says that we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all. And again, This Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever, sat down on the right hand of God (Heb 10:10-12). It is an unspeakable consolation to those Christian hearts who love the Lord Jesus Christ, to learn that He needed to be crucified but once; that such was His infinite righteousness, that by a single death, He could pay the penalty of every broken law; and such the economy of Gods grace that the Cross would appear but once in human history. If one Calvary would not lead men to repentance, it were useless to multiply crucifixions; if that grace, which led God to give His only begotten Son to death, did not beget repentance in the hearts of men, to repeat the gifts over and over would not only represent a judgment against sin which men would regard bloody and unjust, but also effect a depreciation of the infinite merits of the Son Himself. Hence, in that Christ died, He died unto sin once, according to the symbolism of the great day of atonement.
The ceremonials of that day were definitely certified. The way the high priest must enter into the holy place was clearly stated; the sin offering that he must make for himself, and the one he should present for the people are accurately described; the method of choosing the scape-goat, the ceremony of confessing over its head, its transmission into the wilderness, were all presented in their minutia; while the garments he should wear, the washings he should administer, the method of making the offering, even the very spots where the blood should be sprinkled, are all laid before him to the last letter.
There are people in these days who give themselves much to the work of eliminating from the Christian life the non-essentials, and summarily disposing of all inconvenient or distasteful ceremonies. They boast that the spirit maketh alive and the letter killeth; but often dispense with both letter and spirit. I confess, myself, a natural antagonism to extended ceremonies, particularly ceremonies man made.
My mothers Quaker blood stirred easily in rebellion against gowns and genuflections which have no warrant from the Word of God, and which commonly represent the Pharisaical spirit. To me high-churchism is a reversal of the wheels of progress, an attempt to return to a religion which has served its ends and never was meant to do more than foreshadow the substance of Christianity. But after all, I count it at once unwarranted and wicked to set aside Divinely-appointed ceremonies. It was no right of Aarons to change the number of the offerings, and the method of making them. It was not left to him to determine whether he should shed the blood of the bullock or of the goat, nor yet to say whether the blood should be sprinkled on the Mercy Seat, or left to stain the spot where it was shed. God, whose right it was, had already determined all of that, and Aarons part was implicit obedience.
Beloved, if Aaron, the high priest, must be obedient, how much more the Christian, the common priest, for are not we a kingdom of priests unto God? The ceremonials of the New Testament, therefore, are neither to be neglected nor changed by us. The Quakers custom of declining baptism and the Lords Supper is no more justified by Scripture than would Aarons conduct have been had he selected a sheep instead of the bullock; or had he sprinkled water on the Mercy Seat instead of blood. The proposal to put anything else instead of the Divinely-prescribed ordinance of baptism is nothing more nor less than a departure from the ceremonial which God Himself has certified. It is written, Ye are My friends if ye do whatsoever I have commanded you. You may be familiar with the story told concerning the green Irishman who had walked the streets of Philadelphia in a vain search for employment. By and by he stumbled into Girards office and inquired for a job. Girard answered, Yes, sir, I can give you work. See that pile of bricks out there? Carry them over to the other end of the yard and cord them up. By night-time the work was done. The Irishman reported, received his pay, and asked if there was any further employment. Girard said, Yes, come in in the morning and carry that pile of bricks back to where you found it. The Irishman reported early and went to work without a word. For several days Girard kept him carrying bricks from one side of the yard to the other until he proved the Irishmans purpose to do what he was told and ask no questions. Then he gave the Irishman a new commission. I want you to go down town and bid me off a lot of sugar. The first bid he made, the people about him laughed, and when finally he bought the sugar, the auctioneer gruffly asked, Who is going to pay for this? Mr. Girard, the Irishman answered, I am his agent. This promotion was absolutely the result of obedience. And when God finds a man who stands willing to do just what He says and take all the scoffs and jeers incident to that loyalty, He can bestow upon him the mitre of true priesthood unto Himself.
The purpose was fully proclaimed. It was expiation of sinthe sins of Aaron and his house (Lev 16:6); the uncleanness of the sanctuary (Lev 16:15-17); the sanctification of the altar of burnt offering (Lev 16:18-19), and for all the congregation of Israel (Lev 16:20; Lev 16:22-23), If one should trace this word atonement through its New Testament usages, he would find it employed in these connections: Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, writes, We joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement (Rom 5:11); again, the same word is used in Rom 11:15, but is translated the reconciling of the world, instead of the atonement of the world; and in 2Co 5:19, we have the ministry of the reconciliation, which ought also to be the ministry of the atonement. The drift of modern thought is in the direction of saying that Gods purpose in all of this was to so prove His love to men as to bring them to be at one with Him. I say the drift, and that is just what I mean! The notion that in the atonement only man needs to be reconciled, is without the warrant of the Word; that he does need to be reconciled, there is no question, but as Barnes-Lawrence says, A half truth is no truth. Had the purpose of Calvary been to bring men to a willing communion with God, the sin offering might have been made to them, instead of being presented before God. The purpose here was twofold: To show men the side of Divine mercy, and thereby win them to an acceptance of the Divine love; and at the same time, to reveal unto them the side of the Divine justice, wherein the penalty of sin was only met by the outpouring of life itself. True, the times have changed since David lived, but his speech still has occasion when men depart from or fight against GodAgainst Thee, Thee only have I sinned, and done this evil in Thy sight, that Thou mightest be justified when Thou speakest, and be clear when Thou judgest. And every sinner who has not accepted the Divine appointment has need of the Psalmists fear, expressed in the cry, Cast me not away from Thy presence, and take not Thy Holy Spirit from me.
THE PRIEST FOR THAT DAY
Turning again to this marvelous chapter, we will learn several things regarding this priest.
First of all: He must be the high priest.
Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place with a young bullock for sin offering and a ram for burnt offering (Lev 16:3).
And when Aaron is gone, only his successor in office can administer on that occasion. The priest whom he shall anoint, and whom he shall consecrate to administer the priests office in his fathers stead, shall make the atonement (Lev 16:32). Mark you, it is not a priest; it is the priest. The common priests might minister on other occasions: but not so on the day of atonement. What a lesson here! There are many services that the saints can render for us; but they have no power to secure from God our pardon from guilt. Some years ago in Chicago, I inquired of the Irish girl living in our home why she prayed to Mary. She answered, Because she is the mother of Jesus Christ and necessarily has influence with God. But, I replied, the Scriptures distinctly declare, Thou shalt have no other gods before Me , to which she brightly answered, I dont put Mary before Jesus, but between me and Jesus. I pray to her just as you ask one of your deacons to pray to God for you. What I want is to have her help me in securing favors from Jesus. To be sure, that would be the utmost that could be expected, but if one listened to the Catholic petition, he would certainly be led to think that Mary herself was the sufficient source of power and blessing. Yet it is written of Jesus of Nazareth, Whom God raised from the dead. Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is none other name under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved. Our approach to God, therefore, is not to be by the saints, the common priests, but our atonement comes through the Sonthe Great High Priest.
Again, He must be a holy priest.
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. And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house (Lev 16:5-6);
while Lev 16:4 tells us that,
He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on.
Cleansed in the bath! Clothed in white linen! What an impressive type of that was Christ, who was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin!
Our High Priest is without spot, or stain, or any such thing! When we fall at His feet we worship no unholy one, but that Son of God who said, For their sakes I sanctify Myself, and of whom it was said, He was holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners. We are always shocked when we listen to a mortal man professing his perfection, or even claiming the Spirit without measure. We know he would come nearer to the truth if he said, with Isaiah, I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell among a people of unclean lips; or with David, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me; or with Job, I abhor myself and repent in dust and ashes; or with Ezra, Oh, my God, I am ashamed and blush to lift up my face to Thee, my God. For our iniquities are increased over our heads and our trespass grown up unto the heavens. Paul was a marvelous Apostle, and as compared with fellow-men, religiously moral; and yet he had to say, O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? while the saintly John blushed, as he listened to the Eddyites of his day profess their purity, and penned these words to put them to shame, If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. * * If we say we have not sinned, we make God a liar, and His Word is not in us. How sweet, then, to know that there is One able to enter into the Holy of Holies, and there make an atonement, because He is undefiled! No wonder Charles Spurgeon, speaking of Him who could stand face to face with the Father without a blush, because separate from sin, said of this Saviour, Oh, bow and adore Him ! For if He had not been a holy High Priest He could never have taken thy sins upon Himself; and never have made intercession for thee. * * O reverence and love that spotless One, who on the great day of atonement took away thy guilt I
THE PEOPLE AND THAT DAY
It was to be a day of rest from wonted duties.
And this shall be a statute for ever unto you; that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all * * * * It shall be a Sabbath of rest unto you (Lev 16:29-31).
Perhaps no man will ever be able to measure what Sabbath rest has meant for the souls of the people. Six days in the week are given to labor and pleasure. So assiduously do men follow both these pursuits that they have little time to think upon their souls. When God gave the fourth commandment, Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, He had more in mind the souls of men than their bodies. It can be scientifically demonstrated that the rest of one day in seven is essential to the best physical service and endurance. I noticed recently that some German professor pretends to have discovered an apparatus for measuring brain and nerve fatigue. If the time should ever come when the spirit of man could have its growth or retardation as clearly evidenced by some process as scales and photography can mark those of the body, it would then be seen what the Sabbath is to the soulthe meditation of that day; the truth brought from press and pulpit, and sacred books; the songs, prayers, mission services, and family altarshow far these all go to rehabilitate the neglected, jaded spirit, who can tell? The man who pleads for the Sabbath in this country, as against that secularizing spirit everywhere present, is the man who pleads for the salvation of souls as against the success of Satan.
It was a day for contrition of spirit.
Ye shall afflict your souls (Lev 16:29).
And ye shall afflict your souls by a statute for ever (Lev 16:31).
We often sing,
Weeping will not save me,
Though my face were bathed in tears
That could not allay my fears,
Could not wash the sin of years.
Weeping will not save me.
That is true. On the other hand, it is almost as true that those who weep not cannot be saved. Godly sorrow worketh repentance. In vain has God prepared and proffered His atonement for men who do not repent. When on the day of Pentecost, multitudes came to Peter and the other Apostles asking, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Peter promptly responded, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, for the remission of sins.
And in this same Book of Leviticus we find that a man, failing in this, did all else in vain, for it is distinctly written, Whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people (Lev 23:29). And the Law abides for the Christian dispensation, since Christ Himself taught, Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish.
It was the day for the absolution of the people. There are some very gracious things in this Old Testament teaching, Ye shall make an atonement for the priests and for all the people of the congregation. An atonement for the Children of Israel for all their sins, once a year. It is the same wide-sweeping salvation you have seen in the New Testament. That God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, presented to the Israel of the Old Testament the same evidence of grace in the great day of Atonement. The goat slain spoke of sins remitted; and the scape-goat, sent into a land not inhabited, spoke of sins removed as far as the east is from the west to be remembered against them no more for ever. Ah, the Gospel is in the Book of Leviticus! Charles Spurgeon speaks of a picture he had seen in the Art Union of a scape-goat dying in the wilderness. It was represented with a burning sky above it, its feet sticking in the mire, surrounded by hundreds of skeletons. Spurgeon justly says of this picture, It was a piece of gratuitous nonsense, since this goat was sent into a land uninhabited, and went where no man was to see it or to know anything of its subsequent fatejust as our sins are lost sight of, put behind the Lords back as He Himself says, never to be seen again. Thank the Lord for such a removal! Thank God for such a religion! Van Dyke remarks, If any one should ask therefore, What has the atonement done for you? our answer should be broad enough to cover all our needs. With Christ, God has freely given us all thingsan assurance of mercy, divinely sealed; a satisfaction of the Law, divinely perfected; a ransom from evil, divinely accomplished; a sacrifice for sin, divinely offered; a covenant of peace; a spirit of consecration; a good Shepherd of our souls; a seed of everlasting lifeand if there be any other thing that sinners need for their salvation, doubtless this also is waiting to be discovered in the atonement.
THE PROPHECIES OF THAT DAY
A talk on The Great Day of the Atonement would not be complete without some reference to the prophecies of that day. But no one would expect all the points of prophecy to receive proper attention in a single discourse. To four of these I call your attention.
There is, here, the prophecy of the humiliation of Jesus Christ. It was the day when the high priest had to disrobe himself of his more magnificent dress for the one of plainest cloth; the day when he had to subsist on slender diet; the day when he had to be subjected to the severest strain of an overwhelming service, so much so, that it was commonly feared that the high priest would die in the Holy of Holies. What a picture of Him who being in the form of God, and thinking it not robbery to be equal with God, made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and humbled Himself and became obedient unto death.
If the great high priest cast aside this golden mitre and put off this magnificent dress, and did the humbler duties of the ordinary priest on the day of atonement, Jesus Christ accepted for that same day a crown of thorns, a robe of mockery, and in His hand was put a reed instead of a scepter, to deepen His abasement. That day He who was rich for our sakes became poor; that through His poverty we might be made rich. For The Great Day of the Atonement was the day when, on Calvarys brow, Christ died.
It was, therefore, also a prophecy of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Speaking of the goat to be offered, Charles Spurgeon says, Come and see it die. The priest stabs it. Mark it in its agonies; behold it struggling for a moment; observe the blood as it gushes forth. Christians, ye have here your Saviour! I will not stir your sorrow by filling out this picture to the full, thereby giving you a vision of the death agonies of the Son of God. For the atonement means more than the dying. It stops not with the experience of that suffering, but sweeps in the purpose and effect of it all. To illustrate: In the city of New York, on Broadway, near the post office, there is a bronze statue. Stopping before it, you see only a dying manarms pinioned, feet tied, the shirt-collar thrown openand as you study the agonies of that face, it seems only an execution. But read the subscription:
I regret that I have but one life to give for my country.
Nathan Hale.
Lo, the beauty breaks out where you had not beheld it; and the pain you felt a moment ago gives place to patriotism; and the sadness of that sight only serves to inspire in you the noblest sentiments. That is the interpretation of the Cross.
There is also here the prophecy of the intercession of Jesus. An high priest carrying the blood of the goat into the Holy of Holies, and offering the incense unto the Lord, predicted that day when Christ for us should enter within the veil, not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own Blood, and at the right hand of God make intercession for us. After all, what is your hope of winning at the throne of God? The Molossians of old are said to have had a custom of this sort. When, for any reason they failed to secure a favor from their king, they would find the kings son, and taking him into their arms they would carry him into the presence of the father, and let him plead their cause. And lo, when they hit upon this expedient they were never sent away empty.
Is that the secret of success with those men and women who prevail in prayer? Have they found out that better than their petitions is the intercession of the Great High Priest? Do they sing with understanding,
The Father hears him pray,
His dear anointed One;
He cannot turn away,
Cannot refuse His Son;
The Spirit answers to the Blood,
And tells us we are born of God?
Finally,
The day of atonement has in it the prophecy of the exaltation of Jesus Christ. When the work of the high priest within was finished, then he put on again his goodly raiment; then his brow was adorned with the golden mitre; gold, purple, and jewels marked his appearance; and no sooner was his face seen than the silver trumpet sounded, and the feast of trumpets thrilled the land. Ah, beloved, Jesus has not yet taken on His glorious dress! In that same body of humility upon which the Apostles looked after His resurrection, seeing the marks in His hands, and the open wounds in His side, He pleads before the throne. But one day, He who was our Prophet and is now our Priest, will have finished His office there, and He will come forth the second time without sin, unto salvationour KING. Then the jubilee of the ages will be on. Blessed be God, that day draws nearer! He calls from the heavens, saying, Surely I come quickly. As Gordon said, Even the shadows point to that dawn. As I wake in the twilight in the morning I often see the glimmer of the street lamps falling upon the walls of my chamber; but in a little while the lamp-lighter passes by and turns out one after another, leaving the room in deeper darkness than it had been at any time during the whole night. Yet I know that he is only putting out the street lamps because the sun is about to rise, and flood all the heavens with his light. So the darkness heralds the dawn.
The story is told that a girl of fifteen, having been suddenly paralyzed, and left also nearly blind, heard the examining physician say to her parents, Poor child, she has seen her best days, to which she responded instantly, No, doctor; my best day is yet to come when I shall behold the King in His Beauty.
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
The Great Day of Atonement
SUGGESTIVE READINGS
Lev. 16:2.Come not at all times into the holy place within the veil. It was but natural that the solemn judgment which befel Nadab and Abihu when they offered before the Lord and died (v 1) should have rendered Aaron apprehensive lest he also might err in his ministries before Jehovah. Gods message of direction, therefore, came to guide him in his sacred duties; for He will show the good and the right way to such as desire to do His will, albeit He is swift to rebuke those who adventure to act presumptuously in His sacred presence.
For I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat. Shall we not stand in awe and sin not where we know that God is present? That cloud softened His exceeding glory, so as to allow the eye of mortal man to look and yet live; and that mercy-seat suggested the divine pitifulness towards the sinner who desired to approach Him in reconciliation. Nevertheless, there might be no trifling, no profanity in His holy light; for God is severe as well as gracious. Man should fear before Him. And since there is no scene where God is not present, should we not cultivate reverence, and live as in readiness to meet Him? Within His house still there should be solemnity; His worship demands homage; the Lord is in His holy temple. He will be gracious to the lowly and devout wherever they approach Him, shielding His great glory from them as with a cloud while they seek with supplications and offerings His mercy seat.
Lev. 16:3.Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place. Only once a year; on the august Day of Atonement. This restriction carried a pensive lesson: that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest; that the hindrances to mans free approach to God had been only partially removed; that no provision was in existence for his abiding in the holy presence. Man might, by special arrangements of grace, enter where God dwelt, but he could not tarry there. Because atonement was not then complete; for types could not take away sins so satisfactorily as to qualify man for continuous nearness to God. Only in the perfect work of Jesus Christ can sinners gain abiding fitness for this highest privilege.
Sin offering and a burnt offering. These again meeting the twofold aspects of atonement (vide chaps. 4 and 6); meeting every requirement of Gods holiness and of mans guilt.
Lev. 16:4.He shall put on the holy linen coat Attired in fine linen, clean and white (Rev. 14:7-8), symbolic of a blameless righteousness:the inherent perfection and purity of Christ our High Priest, and the derived sanctity of His redeemed and priestly followers. Being divested of His glorious robes, and appearing simply in these garments of righteousness, suggests to us our Lords condition while He was engaged in making atonement; His majesty and splendour laid aside, but adorned with faultless sanctity and grace. Such meek purity became Him most while engaged in the sad work of atoning for human transgression and wrong.
Lev. 16:5-10.Two kids of the goats: the one lot for the Lord and the other lot for the scapegoat. The two goats formed one sin offering God takes His share and is well pleased therewith; for there was a portion in Christs sacrifice which was specially welcome to His Father, the perfect worthiness, the sweet subjection, the willing suffering of His Sonthat was the Lords lot. The other part was for the sinners release, removing from the transgressor the guilt and penalty of sin; and in the virtue of Christs work through which we have remission of sins we find the sinners lot. As far as the east is from the west so far hath he removed our transgressions from us (Psa. 103:12).
Lev. 16:11-19The sin offering for priest, people, and sanctuary. The incidents were as follows; the young bullock was slain; while its blood was being gathered into a vessel Aaron entered within the veil carrying a censer of burning coals in his right hand and a platter of fragrant incense in his left; placing the burning coals at the foot of the Ark he cast the incense thereon and thus filled the Most Holy shrine with a soft cloud, thereby veiling the Ark from open vision: he then returned for the vessel of blood, and going again within the veil he sprinkled the Mercy Seat therewith, thus making atonement for his own sin and for his priestly associates; for the sweet savour of Christ and the blood of sprinkling are needed even for consecrated and priestly souls. Leaving the Holy of Holies, where the incense still burned, he offered on the altar the goat which had been allotted as the sacrifice for the peoples sin, afterwards re-entering the veil to sprinkle also its blood of atonement upon and before the Ark. Thus three entrances were made that day into the Most Holy of All. No other priest was allowed within the tabernacle (Lev. 16:17) during these solemn incidents; for unworthiness excluded every one, since none doeth good and sinneth not. The faultlessly Divine Priest alonetypified in Aaronmight have access to where the Glory dwelt. With the sprinkling of blood Aaron also made atonement for the defilement of the sanctuary and the altar; symbolically purifying them from all defilements which had incidentally accumulated through neglect or misdemeanour during the year. For uncleanness clings to our holiest things and our best deeds, and almost all things are by the law purged with blood.
Lev. 16:20-22.The live goat. Propitiation by death has been enacted in these first regulations. The release of the living is signified by the second typical arrangement. It pictorially shows us the taking away of sin from the sinner by his Substitute; behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world, but it also expresses the removal from the believers conscience of the burden and grief of his transgressionsthe confession of iniquities leading to their being carried into oblivion; the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited. Glad remission indeed! Thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back (Isa. 38:17); they are annulled by God; and as for ourselves, the worshippers once purged have no more conscience of sins (Heb. 10:2); they are obliterated for the believer. And is every iniquity and transgression thus borne into forgetfulness? Yes. All their iniquities (Lev. 16:21-22). This is remission of sins to the full! Hence the peace which passeth all understanding; for, being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:1).
Lev. 16:23-24.Aaron shall put off the linen garments. The magnificent attire re-assumed by Aaron when the sin offerings were completed may remind us of the glory which did follow when our Lord had finished atonement; He re-assumed His majesty; though still, as High Priest for man in the heavenly sanctuary, He perpetuates sacrificial merits for His people. The fat of the sin offering, etc. (comp. Lev. 4:10), the choicest virtues of our Redeemers atonement still go up from the altar as a delightsome offering unto the Lord.
Lev. 16:29-34.A statute for ever unto you. Every year the Day of Atonement should be solemnly set apart, and its ordinances devoutly observed. Such seasons for self-mortification, for severance from the affairs of this life, for concentrated attention to the needs of our souls and the claims of God, foster humility and reverence, bring eternal realities powerfully before our thoughts, and impress us with the preciousness of the Redeemers work. Our peril is in habitual heedlessness; we are borne on in the rush of secular concerns. The Lords Day ought to bring us a healthful pause, enough to correct our worldliness and awaken to spiritual attention. But it is for our good that we check lifes ensnaring routine, and secure an interlude in which to give supreme consideration to the wonders of Gods redeeming grace and the urgency of our spiritual interests: that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord (Lev. 16:30): it shall be a sabbath of rest unto you.
EXPLANATORY ARTICLE
CONCERNING THE MEANING OF AZAZEL, OR THE SCAPEGOAT (Lev. 16:8)
And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats: one lot for the Lord (Heb. La-JEHOVAH), and the other lot for the scapegoat (Heb. La-Azazel).
In the eastern part of the Court of Priests in the Temple, i.e., close to the worshippers, stood an urn, called Calphi, in which were two lots of the same shape, size, and material; (in the second temple these were of gold); the one bore the inscription la-JEHOVAH, for Jehovah,; the other la-Azazel, for Azazel. The two goats were placed with their backs to the people, and the faces toward the sanctuary (westward). The high priest now faced the people, shook the urn, thurst his two hands into it, drew out the two lots, laying one on the head of each goat. Popularly it was considered a good augury if the right hand lot had fallen for Jehovah. The two goats must be altogether alike in appearance, size, and value. The lot having designated each of the two goats, the high priest tied a tongue-shaped piece of scarlet cloth to the horn of the goat for Azazel, and around the throat of the goat for Jehovah. The goat that was to be sent into the wilderness was now turned round face to the people, waiting, as it were, till their sins should be laid on him to carry them forth to a land not inhabited. Afterwards the high priest, laying both his hands on the head of this goat, confessed and pleaded as follows:
O Lord, the house of Israel Thy people have trespassed, rebelled, and sinned before Thee. I beseech thee, O Lord, forgive now their trespasses and sins which Thy people have committed, as it is written in the law of Moses, Thy servant, saying that in that day there shall be an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that you may be clean from all your sins before the Lord.
While the prostrate multitude worshipped at the name of JEHOVAH, the high priest turned his face towards them as he uttered the words Ye shall be cleansed, as if declaring to them the absolution and remission of their sins.
A strange scene was then witnessed; the priests led the sin-burdened goat through Solomons porch, and, as tradition has it, through the eastern gate which opened upon the Mount of Olives. Here an arched bridge spanned the intervening valley, and over it they brought the goat to the Mount of Olives, where one, specially appointed for the purpose, took him in charge. Tradition enjoins that he should be a stranger, a non-Israelite. Scripture tells us no more of the destiny of the goat that bore upon him all the iniquity of the children of Israel than that they shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness (Lev. 16:22), but tradition supplements this information.
The distance between Jerusalem and the beginning of the wilderness is computed at nearly 90 stadia, making precisely ten intervals, each half a Sabbath-days journey from the other. At the end of each of these intervals there was a station, occupied by one or more persons detailed for the purpose, who offered refreshment to the man leading the goat, and then accompanied him to the next station. By this arrangement two results were secured: some trusted persons accompanied the goat all along his journey, and yet none of them walked more than a Sabbath days journey. At last they reached the edge of the wilderness; here they halted, and the attendant, viewing afar off, while the man led the goat forward, tore off half the scarlet tongue and stuck it on a projecting cliff; then, leading the animal backwards, he pushed it over the projecting ledge of rook.
If tradition be correct on this point it must have been a modern innovation, for originally the goat was set free.
There was a moments pause, and the man, now defiled by contact with the sin-bearer, retraced his steps to the last of the ten stations, where he spent the rest of the day and night. But the arrival of the goat in the wilderness was immediately telegraphed by the waving of flags from station to station, so that in a few minutes after its occurence it was known in the temple.
In a subject so obscure great difference of opinion exists as to the significance of the word Azazel. Those opinions most worthy of notice are: It is to be taken
1. As a designation of the goal itself. Most old interpreters hold this view: regarding it as meaning the goat sent away, or let loose. In accordance with this the Vulgate renders it Caper emissarius; Luther, der ledige Bock; the Septuagint uses the term applied to the goat itself. Theodoreb and Cyril of Alexandria, consider the meaning of the Hebrew to be the goat sent away, and regard that as the sense of the word used in the Septuagint.
2. As the name of the place to which the goat was sent. Thus Vatlabus, Deyling, Kimchi, Abenezra, and others regard it as the desolate spot in the wilderness; Bochart and Carpvoz as any lonely place; and the Arabian version, some Rabbins, LeClerc and others, as Mount Azaz, or the cliff down which the goat was thrown.
3. As a personal being to whom the goat was sent. They, Gesenius, Ewald, Rosenmller, Dr. Wette, Knobel and many of the Rabbins think that Azazel was an evil demon. Origen considers it was Satan. Spencer supposes the goat was given up to the devil, and committed to his disposal. Hengstenberg affirms very confidently that Azazel cannot possibly be anything but another name for Satan. He repudiates the notion that the goat was in any sense a sacrifice to Satan, but urges that it was sent away laden with the sins of Gods people, now forgiven, in order to mock their spiritual enemy in the desert, his proper abode, and to symbolize by its free gambols their exalting triumph. He argues that the origin of the rite was Egyptian, and that the Jews substituted Satan for Typhon, whose dwelling was the desert.
4. The interpretation most harmonious with the scope of Scripture and with the nature of the service is that Azazel denotes a free going away, or an entire and utter removal. Michaelis and Jahn give the former rendering of the word, and Tholuck, Thompson, Bhr and Winer the latter.
Dr. Endersheim (in his work, The Temple, its Ministry and Service), says, The word Azazel is, by universal consent, derived from a root which means wholly to put aside, or wholly to go away. Whether, therefore, we render the la-Azazel by for him who is wholly put aside, that is the sin bearing Christ, or for being wholly separated, or put wholly away, or aside, that is, the putting away of sin, the truth is still the same, as pointing
(1) to the temporary and provisional removal of sin by the goat let go into the land not inhabited, and
(2) to the final, real, and complete removal of sin by the Lord Jesus Christ (Isa. 53:6).
And, as if to add to the significance of the rite, tradition has it that when the sacrifice was fully accepted, the scarlet mark which the scapegoat had borne became white (Isa. 1:18), but adds that this miracle did not take place for forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem.
Smiths Dictionary (see Day of Atonement) suggests that the slain goat should be viewed as setting forth the act of sacrifice, in giving up its own life for others to Jehovah, in accordance with the requirements of divine law: and the goat which carried off its load of sin for complete removal, as signifying the cleansing influence of faith in the sacrifice. But for us the whole spiritual truth has been revealed in historic fact, in the life, death, and resurrection of Him who was made sin for us, who died for us, and rose again for our justification. This Mediator it was necessary should in some unspeakable manner unite death and life.
SECTIONAL HOMILIES
Topic: A UNIQUE DAY IN ISRAEL (Lev. 16:2-3)
I. A LAW OF SEPARATION: Hindrances to abiding nearness to God. That he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil.
1. God was enclosed from man within that veil; man excluded from God: sins effect.
2. No permanent abiding place had been secured for even the most privileged within Gods presence; atonement was not perfect (Heb. 10:1-4).
3. Perfection for man could not come of Levitical priesthood or sacrifices: and the faulty, the unclean, could not abide in Gods sight.
II. A LAW OF RECONCILIATION: Atonement removing obstructions from between man and God. Access within the veil effected, through
1. A spotless priest. These are holy garments (Lev. 16:4). Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place (Lev. 16:3).
2. The ample atonement. With sin-offering, and burnt-offering (Lev. 16:3); satisfying all Gods claims against the sinner; and sufficing for all mans guilt and requirements.
3. Privileged recipients. Make atonement for himself and his house (Lev. 16:6); representing the Church (Heb. 3:6).
III. A LAW OF FELLOWSHIP: Admission into the most sacred Presence.
1. By blood of sprinkling: Evidence of substitutionary death. Seven times applied (Lev. 16:14): perfect redemption.
2. By merits of the Saviours grace; sweet incense burned before the Lord (Lev. 16:12-13): sweet savour of Christ. By the fragrant merits, by the precious blood of Christ, we may enter into the holiest. [See Addenda to chap. xvi., Mercy Seat.]
Topic: TYPICAL ENACTMENT OF ATONEMENT (Lev. 16:3, seq.)
Both the day and the observances were authorised of God (Lev. 16:1-2); both, therefore, divinely important.
(1) In regard to the definiteness of the day.
(2) In regard to the meaning and order of its ceremonies.
I. THE TYPICAL MEANING OF THE JEWISH ATONEMENT DAY.
1. The divinely stated reason for its appointment (Lev. 16:16).
(1) The fact of sin and the necessity for its expiation by blood, both unmistakeably and divinely declared. This is significant, as it bears upon the atonement of which this was only a type.
(2) Sin necessitates atonement if it is to be pardoned: without shedding of blood there is no remission (Heb. 9:22).
(a) Aarons personal preparations typical of the purity and holiness of our Lord (Lev. 16:4 : Heb. 7:26).
(b) Aarons typical work (Lev. 16:17-18).
i. Our Lord was absolutely alone in His great atoning work.
ii. Though Aaron here typifies Christ, he must not himself forget that he is a sinner, and therefore must atone for his own sins. In this he was not a type of Christ (Heb. 7:27).
(3) This fact bespeaks the antagonism of sin against the divine will, and the holiness and righteousness of the divine character.
2. The divinely appointed measures for its observance.
(1) In respect to the agent to carry out the measure.
(a) It was not anyone who volunteered, but Aaron the priest (Lev. 16:2-6).
(b) So is the case of our Lord (Heb. 5:4-5).
(2) In respect to the measures themselves.
iii. The blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled first upon the mercy seat eastward, and then before the mercy seat (Lev. 16:14), and then in the holy place, and lastly upon the altar that is before the Lord. Thus the atoning blood was sprinkled everywhere, from the throne of God within the veil to the altar which stood in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation (comp. Heb. 9:23; Heb. 9:28).
iv. Now follows the typical act of releasing the live goat (Lev. 16:20-22).
The two goats were designed to represent the two aspects of Christs atonement: First, that on which the Lords lot fell being doomed to death showed that the DEATH of Christ alone could vindicate the majesty, truth and holiness of the character of God. Secondly, the live goat over which Aaron confessed the peoples sins, and thus typically was ordained to bear upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited (Lev. 16:22), signified the completeness of the divine act in the remission of the sins of him who, by confession and faith in Christ, transfers them to Him.
v. An instructive and significant scene follows (Lev. 16:27-28). The burnt offering represents consecration. Here, first, of our Lord; having atoned for our sins, He has consecrated Himself to His Father for His Church, to protect, guide, sympathise with, intercede for, and ultimately present her without spot unto the Father (Eph. 5:25-27; Joh. 14:3; Rom. 8:34). Secondly, we have here represented the consecration of the believer.
vi. The perpetuity of this memorial.
PRACTICAL LESSONS
1. The hatefulness, heinousness, and guiltiness of sin are here shown.
2. Gods desire to provide for the removal of its guilt, and the prevention of its consequences demonstrated.
3. The comprehensiveness of the provision in the atonement.Rev. D. C. Hughes.
Topic: THE SLAIN GOAT AND THE SCAPEGOAT (Lev. 16:8-10; Lev. 16:15-16; Lev. 16:21-22)
On this day many victims died. Each holy altar, each holy place received the reconciling sign of blood. Each sacrifice proclaims that substituted sufferings avail.
Christ, their full truth, has once laid down His life. That once is all-sufficient for all the sins of all His people.
But in the service of the atoning day one part stands singularly forth. Two goats are brought for a sin offering. The priest receives them at the tabernacle door. Lots are cast. Mans mind may not select. Some unseen hand takes one for death and bids the other live. This scene reveals the council of eternal love. Before the worlds, Gods will called Jesus to the saving work. Each portion of the scheme was pre-resolved. Each was consigned to His receiving hands.
I. THE SENTENCED GOAT DIED; and mark the uses of its blood.
With this the high priest ventures within the mystic veil; the mercy seat receives the drops; the holy tent is strewn throughout; seven times the golden altar s horns are touched.
1. Blood is our peace. The wounded conscience writhes; sin is deepest misery. But when the Spirit shows the blood, all dread forebodings cease. It proves that peace is signed in heaven.
2. Blood has a sin-expelling power. How can that be loved which pierced the Lord?
3. Blood drives Satan back. Nothing can daunt him, no place exclude him, but this blood of Christ.
4. Blood bars the entrance to doom. A Christ-washed soul may not enter there.
5. Blood removes the hindrances to heaven. Behold the countless multitudes before the throne. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
6. The blood fills paradise with songs. This is the substance of their mighty anthem: Thou wast slain, etc. They cannot sing above who have not washed on earth.
II. THE LADEN GOAT IS LED AWAY.
1. On its head is transmitted all Israels guilt. The substitute receives the whole. The scapegoat takes the burden on its head.
2. It is borne by him afar; beyond the camp, beyond all sight, beyond the track of man. Unseen, unknown, forgotten, it departs from mortal view; buried in oblivions land.
Faith knows this scapegoat well; there is no brighter picture of full pardon of all sin in Christ. Daily the soul tells out all its sin upon the head of Christ, who waits to bear it, and carry it far away. Christ hastens away with the accursed load, and Gods all-searching eye finds it no more.
Is the east distant from the west? Can we move through the intervening space? As we advance the horizon still recedes; infinite separation divides. Thus far the scapegoat bears our guilt away (Psa. 103:12).
Can we recover what is buried in ocean depths? Such is the grave of sin (Mic. 7:19).
Are objects visible upon which the back is turned? Thus sins are hidden from God (Isa. 38:17).
How does a mass of blackening clouds wrap the sky in a pall of impenetrable night! Heed the voice of pardoning grace: I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgression, etc. (Isa. 44:22).
No search finds His peoples sins. A land of infinite forgetfulness conceals them (Jer. 50:20).
Gods pledge stands. I will remember their sin no more (Jer. 31:34). The scapegoat ordinance confirms the truth.
Ponder this ordinance. Sins, many, vile and hateful, pass to our Scapegoat, and so pass away. Faith transfers them; Christ removes them; God forgets them.
Have your hands touched the Scapegoats head? If not, your loathsome load remains.Dean Law.
Topic: INTERCESSION OF CHRIST (Lev. 16:12-14)
And he shall take a censer full of burning coals from off the altar, and his hands full of sweet incense and bring it within the veil.
We derive great advantage from being able to compare the Old Testament with the New. Since we see religion is essentially the same thing in all times and ages.
There are not two ways of acceptance with God: one under the law and another under the gospelbut one way for Jew and Gentile: Jesus Christ the same yesterday, etc.
The fault of the Jews who entered not into the proper spirit of their own religion: that they valued the shell of their religion, but saw not the Pearl of great price. They fully estimated, perhaps over estimated the adornments of the casket, but certainly overlooked the bright Jewel within. They rejoiced in the pomp of their worship, the splendour of their ritual, the imposing grandeur of their sacrifices and the miraculous attestation that their religion came from God, but were strangely remiss in not discovering its real spirituality of design, and its intimate connection with the person and work of Christ. They cried The Temple of the Lord are we, but when the Lord of the Temple came, they treated Him with opposition and contempt. Had they been good Jews, they would have been good Christians. Our Lord implies thisIf ye believed his writing (marg.) ye would have believed my words. If they had been true disciples of Moses they would have been of Christ.
Let us be warned, and pray that we may see the spiritual design both of their dispensation and of our own.
I. THE DOCTRINE OF THE INTERCESSION OF CHRIST.
1. As typically exhibited under the law.
Here Moses describes the ceremony of the great day of expiation and atonement. Aaron went into the most holy place to sprinkle the blood of the sacrifice before the mercy seat. No human being was permitted to accompany him. All the worshippers remained without (Luk. 1:8-9; Luk. 1:12). Aaron was to enter on behalf of the children of Israelso that what he did within the veil was not merely on his own account but on theirs, all of which was a great type of Christ (Heb. 9:11). He used no words, but what he did was significant enough. He appeared there that the virtue of the blood shed on the altar might be applied to the acceptance of the tribes be represented in the forgiveness of their sins, and the answer of their prayers. Herein a type of Christ.
2. As actually fulfilled in Christ. He not only suffered on the cross, but ascended Not on His own account but ours.
It mainly consists in His presenting Himself before God in our nature, and in the merit of His finished atonement as the ground of our acceptance, and in the intimation of His will (in thought if not in words), that the purchased blessing of His salvation may be theirs, and that all law-charges and accusations against them may be hushed and cancelled.
To appear in the presence of God. Not for Himself but for us. Teaching us that His state of transcendant happiness has not removed Him to an inaccessible distance, and has neither dissolved nor impaired His gracious connection with us, but maintains, without any detraction from His own perfect bliss, the most generous sympathy with our interests and wants.
It puts a glory on His atonementthat everything is to pass through His hands. A shining testimony of the holiness of God, and the efficacy of Christs work. No wonder if, having finished His work, He should appear above with large accessions of splendour to repossess the glory He had before all worlds. But here is the point of admiration, He does not appear for His benefit but for ours. Illustrated by common analogies:as an advocate appears on behalf of his clients; a king on behalf of his subjects; a general as representative of his troops; a priest at the altar as representative of whole body of worshippers; so Christ appears as the representative of all His believing people. As our King He appears in beauty; as Captain of salvation appears victorious; as Elder Brother; as Priest, Counsellor, Advocate.
Grand expression of His love. Not content to offer one life on the Cross. He consecrates His new existence. Though raised to the throne of reverence, does not overlook His little flock (John 17).
II. THE BENEFITS WE DERIVE FROM IT.
i. The forgiveness of our sins. If any man sin. After all done for us, we are guilty and undeserving. But while our sins are crying out against us on earth, Christ is pleading in heaven.
Every contrite sinner has liberty to apply by faith the merits of the atoning sacrifice. Nay, every sinner is condemned for not doing this. Whosoever cometh. But for this, our state would be less safe than under the law. Every Jew, to whatsoever tribe he belonged, might carry his sacrifice to the priest, and as he saw him enter the veil might say, He is gone thither for me, sprinkled the Holy Place for me. So every Christian now.
ii. Relief of our sorrows. Christ possesses a capacity of sympathy, especially in mental distresses, tenderness of conscience, etc. Hannah prayed, but Elis heart was not touched with feeling of her infirmity.
iii. The acceptance of our duties. These are maimed and imperfect. Enough evil in them to render them offensive and displeasing to God. But Christ presents them (Rev. 8:2).
Your tears of penitence, labours of faith, songs of gratitude, vows of obedience, He presents. Amid worship of angels, saints, and martyrs He disdains not to present the sighings of the prisoner, the tears of contrite, the prayers of the child whose mind is opening to devotion, and ejaculation of dying.
iv. The frustration of spiritual enemies. Satan is the avenger, but Christ is our advocate. Peter, I have prayed for thee.S. THODEY, A.D. 1840.
Topic: THE WORTH OF SACRIFICES (Lev. 16:16-30)
Of all the days of the Jewish year this was The Day, the meeting-time of God and man.
The priestly tribe could minister on all other days; none but the High Priest on this. No foot but his should press the floor of the sacred tent. Dressed in purest white, repeatedly cleansed with pure water, he enteredone man for the nation, into the holy of holies.
What did the elaborate ritual of the day mean? If divine forgiveness depended upon such a day, then why did the world wait for twenty-five hundred years before the Days appointment? If absolutely necessary, why was not the day and its ritual enjoined upon Abraham, and even upon Adam in Paradise? What is the meaning of sacrifice? Observe
1. Gods character is not changed by sacrifice. He neither regards sin with less hatred, nor loves the sinner less in consequence. The burnt offerings and sacrifices of the centuries have not added jot or tittle to His immeasurable love. The sacrifice of Calvary was the natural outcome of the divine nature, rather than the means of changing that nature. This sacrifice, like all others, expressed His change of attitude.
2. These mere sacrifices possessed no intrinsic value. In themselves considered, sacrifices are a vain oblation (Isa. 1:13; comp. Mic. 6:7; Psa. 51:16; Heb. 10:6). So, though thousands stood by the altar with their offerings, with a multitude of sacrifices, It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Bearing these facts in mind, that the divine nature is unchanged by them, also that mere sacrifices are unpleasing to Him and powerless to take away sin; what is their nature and history, and why commanded?
Of the 4,000 years ending with the Sacrifice of Calvary, 2,500 had passed ere sacrifices were instituted. God says by Jeremiah, I spake not unto your fathers concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices (Jer. 7:22). They were instituted after the sinful worship of the golden calf at Sinai.
But the fact is evident that they were instituted because there was a necessity: yet since, as we have seen, it was not a necessity on Gods part, it must have been for mans sake.
In the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement God proclaims eternal truths.
I. THE DIVINE TESTIMONY AGAINST SIN.
These were the chosen people whose God alone was holy. Yet behold the people all in abasement: it is the cry, We have sinned!
1. Not one of all the people could offer a sacrifice: not one was sinless: the high priest alone was allowed to act for them.
2. One spot alone was sacred, curtained with richest fabrics: and this one spot thus curtained was the divine rebuke against sin.
II. THE BASIS OF ATONEMENT.
Our sinfulness cannot change Gods nature, although it changes His attitude towards us.
1. The whole sacrificial order of the Day of Atonement was given for the cleansing from sin. Just as Christ afterwards came to save His people from their sins.
2. Every sacrifice was one of blood, from Abels downward. Why? The life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it you upon the altar to make an atonement for your soul.
3. This affirms that the God of love must respect His holy law even at the expense of death. These sacrifices were the elementary lessons declaring that by-and-by the law would be made honourable by the costliest of all sacrifices.
III. THE NECESSITY FOR A PERFECT HIGH PRIEST.
In silence, on that great silent Day, stood priests and people while the high priest entered the holy place and fulfilled his task.
1. His unworthiness for such deeds was impressed upon him every moment. He must offer sacrifices for himself: then five times he washed his whole body, and ten times his hands and feet. He must lay aside his own garments and wear the whitest linen.
No imperfect man could become a perfect priest, any more than an imperfect sacrifice could give a perfect conscience. Salvation depends on a more perfect High Priest than Aaron.
2. Our Great High Priest needed no such cleansing. He offered himself without spot to God.
Verily the Day of Atonement was the culminating day of Jewish history. Its sunrise was upon Sinai, its sunset upon Calvary. In the morning the people said to Moses, Let not God speak to us lest we die! but in the evening the surging crowd heard the sacred lips proclaim to a world longing for salvation, IT IS FINISHED!Rev. David O. Mears.
Topic: FULL ATONEMENT
This shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the chil of Israel for all their sins once a year (Levi. Lev. 16:34)
The day of atonement was pre-eminenently intended to typify that great day of vengeance of our God, which was also the great day of acceptance of our souls, when Jesus Christ died, the just for the unjust, to bring us to God. That day of atonement happened only once a year, to teach us that only once should Jesus Christ die; and at a set and appointed time; not left to choice of Moses, or convenience of Aaron, but on a peculiar set day (Lev. 16:29), to show that Gods great day of atonement was appointed and predestinated by Himself. Christs expiation occurred but once, and then not by any chance; God had settled it from before the foundation of the world; and at that hour when God had predestinated, on the very day that God had decreed Christ should die, was He led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers He was dumb.
I. THE PERSON WHO WAS TO MAKE THE ATONEMENT. Aaron the high priest did it. Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place; with a young bullock for a sin offering and a lamb for a burnt offering, Inferior priests slaughtered lambs; other priests at other times did almost all the work of the sanctuary; but on this day nothing was done by any one, as a part of the business of the great day of atonement, except by the high priest. Old rabbinical traditions tell us that everything on that day was done by him, even the lighting of the candles, and the fires, and the incense, and all the offices that were required, and that, for a fortnight beforehand, he was obliged to go into the tabernacle to slaughter the bullocks and assist in the work of the priests and Levites, that he might be prepared to do the work which was unusual to him. All the labour was left to him. So Jesus Christ, the High Priest, and He only, works the atonement. There are other priests, for he hath made us priests and kings unto God. Every Christian is a priest to offer sacrifice of prayer and praise unto God, but none save the high priest must offer atonement, go within the veil, slaughter the goat, and sprinkle the blood.
2. The high priest on this day was a humbled priest. He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired; these are holy garments (Lev. 16:4). On other days he wore the golden garments; the mitre with a plate of pure gold around his brow, tied with brilliant blue; the splendid breastplate, studded with gems, adorned with pure gold and set with precious stones; the glorious ephod, the tinkling bells, and all the other ornaments wherewith he came before the people as the accepted high priest. But on this day he had none of them. On that day he humbled himself just as the people humbled themselves. Jesus Christ, when He made atonement, was a humbled priest. He did not make atonement arrayed in all the glories of His ancient throne in heaven. Upon His brow there was no diadem save the crown of thorns; around Him was cast no purple robe, save that which He wore for a time in mockery; on His head was no sceptre, save the reed which they thrust in cruel contempt upon Him. But oh! adore Him, for it was the simple clean linen of His own humanity, in which He made atonement for your sins.
3. A spotless high priest; and because there were none such to be found, Aaron had to sanctify himself and make atonement for his own sin before he could go in to make an atonement for the sins of the people (Lev. 16:3). Yea, more, before he went within the veil with the blood of the goat which was the atonement for the people, he had to go within the veil to make atonement there for himself (Lev. 16:11-13). Aaron must not go within the veil until his sins had been typically expiated, nor even then without the burning smoking incense before his face, lest God should look on him and he should die, being an impure mortal. Moreover, it is said, that he had to wash himself many times that day (Lev. 16:4; Lev. 16:24). So you see it was strictly provided for that Aaron on that day should be a spotless priest; not so as to nature, but, ceremonially, care was taken that he should be clean. But we have a spotless High Priest, who needed no washing, needed no atonement for Himself; needed no incense to wave before the mercy seat to hide the angry face of justice; needed nothing to hide and shelter Him; He was all pure and clean. Adore and love Him, the spotless High Priest, who, on the day of atonement, took away guilt.
4. The atonement was made by a solitary high priestalone and unassisted. And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place (Lev. 16:17). Matthew Henry observes, that no disciple died with Christ: when He was put to death His disciples forsook Him and fled; they crucified none of His followers with Him, lest any should suppose that the disciple shared the honour of atonement. Thieves were crucified with Him because none would suspect that they could assist Him: but if a disciple had died, it might have been imagined that he had shared the atonement. God kept that holy circle of Calvary select to Christ. O glorious High Priest, Thou hast done it all alone. I have trodden the wine-press alone, and of the people there was none with me. Then give all the glory unto His holy name, for alone and unassisted He made atonement for your guilt.
5. Again, it was a laborious high priest who did the work on that day. There were fifteen beasts which he slaughtered at different times, besides the other offices, which were all left to him. He who was ordained priest in Jeshurun, for that day toiled like a common Levite, worked as laboriously as priest could do, and far more so than on any ordinary day. Just so with our Lord Jesus Christ. Oh, what a labour the atonement was to Him! It was a work that all the hands of the universe could not have accomplished; yet He completed it alone. There was the bloody sweat in Gethsemane, the watching all night, then came the shame, the spitting, the cruel flagellations in Pilates hall; then there was the via dolorosa through Jerusalems sad streets; then came the hanging on the cross, with the weight of His peoples sins on His shoulders. Ay, it was a divine labour that our great High Priest did on that daya labour mightier than the making of the world: it was the new making of a world, the taking of its sins upon His almighty shoulders and casting them into the depths of the sea. Jesus, though He had toiled before, yet never worked as He did on that wondrous day of atonement.
II. THE MEANS WHEREBY THIS ATONEMENT WAS MADE.
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 (Lev. 16:5; see also Lev. 16:7-10). The first is the type of the means whereby the atonement was made.
1. It answered all the pre-requisites of every other thing sacrificed; it must be a perfect, unblemished goat of the first year. Even so was our Lord a perfect man, in the prime and vigour of his manhood. And further, this goat was an eminent type of Christ from the fact that it was taken of the congregation of the children of Israel (Lev. 16:5). The public treasury furnished the goat. So Jesus Christ was, first of all, purchased by the public treasury of the Jewish people before He died. Thirty pieces of silver they had valued Him at, a goodly price; and as they had been accustomed to bring the goat, so they brought Him to be offered; not with the intention that He should be their sacrifice, but unwittingly they fulfilled this when they cried Crucify Him!
2. Though this goat, like the scapegoat, was brought by the people, Gods decision was in it still. Mark, it is said, Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat. This mention of lots is to teach that although the Jews brought Jesus Christ of their own will to die, yet, Christ had been appointed to die. Christs death was fore-ordained, and there was not only mans hand in it, but Gods. The lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord. So it is true that man put Christ to death, but it was of the Lords disposal that Jesus Christ was slaughtered, the just for the unjust, to bring us to God.
3. Behold the goat marked out to make the atonement, and see it die. The priest stabs it. Mark it in its agonies; behold it struggling; observe the blood. Ye have here your Saviour. See His Fathers vengeful sword sheathed in His heart; behold His death agonies. Mark the blood from His open side. As the blood of the goat made the atonement typically, so thy dying Saviour made the great atonement for thy sins.
4. That blood was taken within the veil, and there sprinkled. So with Jesuss blood, Sprinkled now with blood the throne. The Saviours blood has made atonement within the veil; He has taken it there himself. By this one offering atonement was made for ever.
III. We now come to the EFFECTS.
1. One of the first effects of the death of this goat was the sanctification of the holy things which had been made unholy. He shall sprinkle it upon the mercy seat: and he shall make an atonement for the holy place, etc. (Lev. 16:15). Where God dwelt should be holy, but where man comes there must be some degree of unholiness. This blood of the goat made the unholy place holy. So of this sanctuary, our praises and our prayers, there is blood on them all; our holy Sabbath services have been sprinkled with the blood of the great Jesus, and as such they will be accepted through Him. Is it not sweet to reflect that our holy things are now really holy; that though sin is mixed with them all, and we think them defiled, yet the blood has washed out every stain: and our Sanctuary service is as holy in Gods sight as the service of the cherubim, and is acceptable as the psalms of the glorified; we have washed our worship in the blood of the Lamb, and it is accepted through Him.
2. The second great fact was that their sins were taken away. This was set forth by the scapegoat. The first goat was a type of the atonement; the second is the type of the effect of the atonement. The second goat went away, after the first was slaughtered, carrying the sins of the people on its head, and so it sets forth, as a scapegoat, how our sins are carried away into the depths of the wilderness. But mark, this goat did not sacrificially make the atonement: it is the fruit of the atonement; but the sacrifice is the means of making it. So by the death of Christ there was full, free, perfect remission for all those whose sins are laid upon His head. For on this day all sins were laid on the scapegoats headsins of presumption, ignorance, uncleanness, sins little and sins great, sins against the law, morality, ceremonies, sins of all kinds were taken away on that great day of atonement.
3. An interesting fact is here worth mentioning. Turn to Lev. 25:9, and you will read: Then shalt thou cause the trumpet of the jubilee to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month, in the day of atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound throughout all your land. So one of the effects of the atonement was set forth to us, the scapegoat is gone and the sins are gone; and no sooner are they gone than the silver trumpet sounds.
The year of jubilee is come,
Return, ye ransomed sinners, home.
On that day sinners go free; on that day our poor mortgaged lands are liberated, and our poor estates which have been forfeited by our spiritual bankruptcy are all returned to us. So when Jesus dies, slaves win their liberty, and lost ones receive spiritual life again; when He dies, heaven, the long lost inheritance, is ours. Blessed day! Atonement and jubilee ought to go together. Have you ever had a jubilee in your hearts? If you have not, it is because you have not had a day of atonement.
4. One more effect of this great day of atonement: entrance within the veil. Only on one day in the year might the high priest enter within the veil, and then it must be for the great purposes of the atonement. Now, the atonement is finished, and you may enter within the veil; Having boldness, therefore, to enter into the holiest, let us come with boldness unto the throne of the heavenly grace.
IV. What is OUR PROPER BEHAVIOUR WHEN WE CONSIDER THE DAY OF ATONEMENT.
1. This shall be a statute for ever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls (Lev. 16:29). That is one thing that we ought to do when we remember the atonement. Sure, sinner, there is nothing that should move thee to repentance like the thought of that great sacrifice of Christ which is necessary to wash away thy guilt. Law and terrors do but harden, but methinks, the thought that Jesus died is enough to make us melt. It is well, when we hear the name of Calvary, always to shed a tear, for there is nothing that ought to make a sinner weep like the mention of the death of Jesus. On that day ye shall afflict your souls. And even you, Christians, when you think that your Saviour died, should afflict your souls: ye should say,
Alas! and did my Saviour bleed?
And did my Sovreign die?
Would He devote that sacred head
For such a worm as I?
Drops of grief ought to flow, to show our grief for what we did to pierce the Saviour. Afflict your souls, weep for Him that died; weep for Him who was murdered by your sins.
2. Then, we are to do no work at all (Lev. 16:29). When we consider the atonement, we should rest, and do no work at all. Rest from your works as God did from His on the great Sabbath of the world; rest from your own righteousness; rest from your toilsome duties; rest in Him. We that believe do enter into rest. No longer seek to save thyself; it is done, it is done for aye!
3. When the priest had made the atonement, after he had washed himself, he came out again in his glorious garments. When the people saw him they attended him to his house with joy, and they offered burnt offerings of praise on that day: he being thankful that his life was spared, and they being thankful that the atonement was accepted; both of them offering burnt offerings as a type that they desired now to be a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable unto God. Let us go into our houses with joy. The atonement is finished; the High Priest has laid aside the linen garments, and He stands before you with His breastplate, and His mitre, and His embroidered vest, in all His glory. How He rejoices over us, for He hath redeemed His people, and ransomed them out of the hands of His enemies. Come, let us go home with the High Priest; the atonement is accepted, and we are accepted too; the scapegoat is gone, our sins are gone with it. He hath given unto us a day of atonement, and a day of acceptance, and a year of jubilee.C. H. Spurgeon, A.D.1856: Abbreviated.
Topic: THE DAY OF ATONEMENT (Lev. 16:1-5)
The Mosaicritual here reaches a climacteric point. On this annual day of national expiation every kind of sin was confessed and atoned for, which might have escaped notice before. Propitiation being offered for the whole nation, all the people received forgiveness. The day gave all other days a deeper meaning, its rites interpreted and intensified all other ceremonies. Notice
I. THE TIME; when the day of atonement was instituted. After the death of the two sons of Aaron. (a) It was just after a great catastrophe. The fire of the Lord had flashed out, revealing the divine indignation against the reckless priests. Thus the Lord showed, that, though the workers may sin and die, the work must go on; that in the midst of deserved wrath He remembers mercy. (b) It was just at a great crisis. The Jewish theocracy was being consolidated, and those rites and ceremonies completed that would distinguish the Jews for ever from all other nations. The basis was being laid, broad and deep, for the operations of God to bless the world. All the light of nature and revelation, of the patriarchial dispensation and the human conscience, was centred in the day of atonement, (c) It was just before a great career. Israel had before them a great mission, they had been miraculously delivered from Egyptian bondage, were to pass the wilderness and enter the promised land. They were to be the custodians of the Word of God, and the representatives of real religion. Through them all the nations of the earth were to be blessed; with them Jehovah would dwell; by them, make Himself known to the world; and eventually through their posterity He would come, and in very deed would dwell with man on the earth.
II. THE PERSON by whom the atonement was to be made. The Lord said unto Moses, speak unto Aaron thy brother, etc. Any of the priests could offer the daily sacrifices; but, the annual one could be offered by the high priest alone. For so great and distinguished an office (a) a human agent was selected. A manfeeble, sinful, sorrowful, and dyingMoses brother, and a brother of the whole race. What dignity God puts on man! How He selects feeble agents to accomplish mighty results, and makes men co-workers with Himself in the most solemn and sublime engagements. (b) A human agent was directed. Mosesto convey directions about the duties Aaron should perform in connection with his high office. The Lord never calls men to work for Him without giving them, at the same time, ability to do it, and directions how to do it. Aaron but faintly fore-shadowed our great High Priest; for Christ was God, as well as man, and needed not to be instructed. He knew the Fathers will completely, and did it perfectly; and knew also what was in man, and needed for man.
III. THE SPIRIT in which the person was to officiate. Aaron was not to come at all times unto the holy place; so, he was to possess (a) a reticent spirit. His sons, who were slain before the Lord, had not restrained themselves, but rushed unbidden into the holy place; Aaron was to take warning by their fate, hold himself under restraint, not be too free and familiar with sacred things, even though he might be tempted to go into the holy of holies more than once a year. (b) A devout spirit. The most holy place was calculated to inspire the priests with reverent feelings. That it was to be entered but once a year would impress the mind of Aaron with religious awe, as well as the fact that, on entering, he had to attire himself in special vestments and offer specified sacrifices. The holy of holies was the audience chamber of the theocratic King, the seat and throne of the divine kingdom among men. The peculiar privilege of meeting God face to face once a year demanded the deepest solemnity and profoundest reverence. (c) A sanctified spirit. Not only was Aaron to feel becomingly reverent, when he offered the atonement, but he was also to possess a suitable disposition in other respects. He was commanded to lay aside his splendid pontifical robes, and attire himself in the simple sacerdotal garments of an ordinary Levite He did not appear now as the representative of the people simply, but as a sinful man seeking pardon for himself and the whole nation. The clean white linen in which he officiated would symbolise purity; and the complete washing before putting it on would represent sanctity of character.
When Christ came to our world to atone for men, He laid aside His glory and took upon Him the clean white garment of the virgins nature; He came in a spirit that pleased God, that met all the requirements of the divine law, thereby securing a perfect and everlasting righteousness, which is unto all and upon all who believe.
IV. THE RESULTS the officiator was to expect. The Lord, always present in the cloud upon the mercy seat, had promised the people that on the day of atonement He would appear unto them. (a) There would be the special manifestation of the divine presence. Not in the cloud of incense ascending from the swinging censer in Aarons hand, but in the supernatural cloud that did not waste awaydid not change like other clouds; that was lighted up, not with rays of the natural sun, but with beams of divine brightness. The divine appearance was supernatural. (b) There would be the mysterious manifestation of the divine presence. The Lord would appear, but it would be in the cloud, His glory would be veiled; for no man could literally see His face and live. The Deity was to be seen through a glass darkly. He was to be apprehended, but not comprehended. (c) There would be the gracious manifestation of the divine presence. It was upon the mercy seat that the Lord promised to appear. Had the Deity erected a judgment seat, instead, among the people, they would all, not only have been condemned, but speedily consumed. But the day of atonement would work propitiation, and win both pardon and peace.
If the gospel is in any part of the book of Leviticus, we have it here; and, read in the light of the ninth chapter of Hebrews we see the great atonement of the Redeemer foreshadowed in the ceremonies connected with this national day of expiation. Through Christs atonement the veil has been rent in twain; we may now draw near to God, and know Him as our Father; for Christ was the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person. Through Him we have now received the atonement.F. W. B.
Topic: AARONS SIN OFFERING FOR HIMSELF (Lev. 16:5-14)
The holiness communicated and imputed to the high priest at his consecration, did not free him from liability to commit sin and incur guilt. Hence, previous to presenting an atonement for the sins of the whole nation Aaron was commanded to present a sin offering for himself and his house. He needed clean hands and a pure heart when entering into the most holy place. According to the word of the Lord so Aaron did. Observe
I. It was AN OBEDIENT ACT. The bullock was to be taken and slain by the high priests own hands, indicating ready and unquestioning acquiescence with the divine will. Such obedience is still indispensible to acceptable worship and sacrifice.
II. It was A FRAGRANT ACT. A censer full of burning coals, of the fire from off the altar of the Lord, was taken within the veil, and sweet incense, beaten small, put upon the fire, that its fragrance might fill the holy place.
III. It was A REVERENT ACT. The cloud of the incense was to cover the mercy-seat, that the offerer die not. He was not to gaze with unclouded eyes upon the place where God made Himself specially known. He was to be reminded of the infinite and unapproachable majesty, as well of the infinite meekness and mercy of Jehovah; and, that though privileged to draw near the mercy seat, he must worship with profound reverence.
IV. It was A SUPPLIANT ACT. The blood of the bullock was to be sprinkled upon the mercy seat, eastward, and before it, with his finger seven times. The incense would not only denote cheerful but also expectant worship, for it suggests the sweet and ascending nature of prayer. The blood sprinkled on and before the mercy seat would seem to cry for mercy; and indicate, not only prayer, but propitiation.F. W. B.
Topic: AARONS SACRIFICE COMPARED AND CONTRASTED WITH CHRISTS
I. ANALOGY.
(1) Both were divinely appointed. Aaron was chosen and anointed to be the high priest of Israel. Christ was set apart, and ordained as the High Priest of man, and anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows.
(2) Both atoned alone on the great day of atonement. No one was allowed to enter the most holy place with Aaron; and Christ trod the winepress alone; neither man, nor angels shared with Him the suffering and oblation of the cross.
(3) Both were divinely accepted. Assurances were given that the great oblation would be accepted; and, when offered, indications were vouchsafed that Jehovah was well pleased. Aarons return from the solemn seclusion of the most holy place was proof he had pleased Jehovah; for unacceptable sacrifice would have been visited with death to the offerer. So, when Christ came from the darkness of the grave after His atonement it showed He was accepted, and Jehovah satisfied.
(4) The blessings of both were discriminately dispensed. The atoning blood only bedewed those who felt and confessed their guilt. So, while the atonement of Christ is sufficient for all, it is only efficient and applied where hearts are truly broken and contrite.
II. DISPARITY.
(1). Aaron had to make the atonement once a year; showing how imperfect and temporary the efficacy of his offering was; but Christ offered His atonement once for ever, never to be repealed or repeated.
(2). Aaron atoned for himself, needed to obtain pardon before he could atone for the people; but Christ was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, and needed not to atone for Himself; He did no sin, neither was any deceit found in his mouth.
(3). Aaron offered a sacrifice that was provided for him; but Christ offered Himself; was both priest and victim; and it was the infinite dignity of His nature that gave infinite value to His sacrifice.
(4). Aaron offered a material sacrifice, but Christ poured out his soul unto death. He gave His blood, i.e., His life and love to reconcile the world unto God.
(5). Aaron offered for HIMSELF and the sins of ISRAEL ONLY. Christ did not offer for Himself but He offered for the sins of the whole world.
(6) Aarons offering only atoned for inadvertant sins, for faults and failings of men; for high-handed sins, and wilful transgressions there was no remedy; when those were discovered, they were met with the penalty of death. But the sacrifice of Christ atones for ALL SIN, even the most flagrant and heinous (see Hebrews 10).F. W. B.
Topic: RATIFICATION OF THE STATUTE OF THE ATONEMENT (Lev. 16:29-34)
Special significance was given to the day of atonement by directions concerning it being reiterated, by freedom from all ceremonial defilement being insisted upon. The priests burnt incense every day on the golden altar without the veil, but the high priest alone was permitted to enter into the holy of holies within the veil once a year. This statute would awaken solemn reflection, and be an abiding precaution against undue familiarity with the visible symbolic presence of Jehovah. The day of atonement was to be observed
I. ANNUALLY. And it shall be a statute for ever unto you. The tenth day of the seventh month (Tisri) in every year was to be observed down to the time when the great antitype would render the annual repetition of the rite unnecessary. The day gave a rounded completeness to the oblations of the year; the ceremony would be perpetually needed, for each succeeding generation would require the blessings of propitiation and forgiveness.
II. PUBLICLY. The whole nation was commanded to join in celebration with great unanimity. Whether it be one of your own country, or of a stranger that sojourneth among you. The blood of the sacrifice was to be taken by the high priest within the veil, and sprinkled secretly upon the mercy seat, but he was to reappear among the people, pronounce publicly his benediction, and show openly that the sacrifice had been completed, the end of the ceremony secured. The service included, because it was intended for, all.
III. TRANQUILLY. It shall be a sabbath of rest to you. No manner of work to be done by any who were in the camp. Thus disengaged from all secular toil, the people could concentrate their thoughts upon the solemn engagements of the day, with undistracted minds and undivided hearts. The exercises of the day were not sanguinary struggles with the Almighty for victory over His wrath against sin, but an exhibition of His mercy in opening a way of propitiation for all who would embrace opportunity. The tranquillity of the day of atonement was symbolic of the rest of soul Israel might enjoy under a consciousness of sin forgiven and restoration to the divine favour; suggestive of the peace of God which passeth all understanding, and which those enjoy who are made one with Him by sacrifice.
IV. CONTRITELY. Ye shall afflict your souls. According to many Jewish writers, the children of Israel submitted to manifold deep humiliations on that day, observed it as a solemn fast. They were not commanded to afflict their bodies or rend their garments, but to present the sacrifice of broken and contrite hearts, which God will never despise. This would necessitate the suppression of worldliness, the repression of every sinful passion. When the hands of the high priest were placed upon the head of the scapegoat, and the sins of the people confessed, faith and repentance were to be exercised or the ceremony would be a mere farce, and offensive to Him who expects worshippers to draw near in spirit and in truth.
Many objections have been alleged against the doctrine of atonement by vicarious sacrifice, against propitiation by blood. Those difficulties dwindle away as the light of the New Testament is thrown upon them. The Epistle to the Hebrews shows that blood represented life, which is symbolic of (a) priceless worth; (b) highest sanctity; (c) choicest gift. Thus the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin, because it represents and means that His life and love were poured out for the sake of the worlds redemption.
Against the doctrine of divine mediation reason can bring no valid objection; for nature, by abundant analogies and illustrations, suggests its probability in the realm of grace. The sacrifice of Christ was (a) universal; (b) efficacious; (c) voluntary; (d) final. Our duty and privilege to accept the blessings typified by the day of atonement. Our only hope for time and eternity is in Christ. The music that will hush all the discords of earth swells from the new song of Moses and the Lamb.F. W. B.
OUTLINES ON VERSES OF CHAPTER 16
Lev. 16:2.Theme: UNDUE FAMILIARITY IN DIVINE THINGS CHECKED.
He shall come not at all times into the holy place within the veil before the mercy seat
The day of atonement the most solemn day in the Jewish Calender. Everything about it calculated to awaken interest and solemnity. Other offerings had respect to particular persons and sins, this to the whole nation and all sin. Thus was prefigured the great sacrifice of Calvary, which atoned for sins of whole world. Nadab and Abihu had displayed presumption and irreverence in drawing near to the Lord, and for their wicked conduct had been slain; now, Aaron is commanded not to go into the holy of holies but once a year, lest he should also die. Notice
I. THAT ACCESS INTO JEHOVAHS PRESENCE WAS RESTRICTED. Every day ordinary offerings could be presented, and divine favour secured; but, lest the people should become unduly familiar, and therefore irreverent, restraint was put upon their communion, they were not allowed to enter the most holy place at all, and the high priest only on the day of atonement Access into Gods special presence could only be
1. In a special place. The holy of holies; within the veil, where was the mercy seat crowned with the shekinah cloud. God is everywhere, His favour may be secured in every place: but, His full presence and glory are only beheld in heaven, within the veil.
2. At special times. On the day of atonement special revelations were made of divine mercy, special benedictions were bestowed upon the people. Gods love was signally displayed when Christ effected the atonement upon the cross; special blessings come upon man on the days of rest that remind us of the seal of the atonement, of the resurrection of Jesus on the morning of the third day.
3. By special persons. Only the high priest could enter within the veil, thus teaching Israel how great and worshipful Jehovah was. There was only One in the whole universe who could offer atonement for the sins of the world, and appear in the presence of God for us, the Son of God, the man Christ Jesus.
4. After special preparation. Aaron had to present offerings for himself, and become cleansed from all ceremonial uncleanness, the preparation very thorough and complete. Christ, our Great High Priest, needed not to sacrifice for Himself, nor to seek purification; but He was made perfect through sufferings, and passed through the baptism of Gethsemane on the way to Calvary.
5. For special purposes. Aaron went in to atone and intercede, to fulfil the will and purposes of Jehovah in relation to Israel. Christ died to remove sin, to open gate of heaven to all believers for the regeneration and redemption of humanity.
II. THAT SUCH RESTRICTION WAS MERCIFUL AND BENEFICIAL.
(a) Impressed the people with the deep solemnity of the ceremony.
(b) Produced profound reverence in their hearts for the worship of Jehovah.
(c) Awakened expectations of special blessings.
The veil of the Temple has been rent in twain; we may go with holy boldness to the throne of grace; yet reverence ought to be cultivated, worship is to be associated with godly fear, for our God is a consuming fire.F. W. B.
Lev. 16:10-12.Theme: SIN REMOVED.
The two goats, presented at the door of the tabernacle before the Lord, were but one offering, though one was allowed to escape into the wilderness. The goat slain would indicate that atonement could be effected only by the shedding of blood; the scapegoat would teach that in atonement sin is not only forgiven, but completely taken away. The gospel and the law agree here.
I. THAT SIN TO BE FORGIVEN MUST BE CONFESSED. The people could not atone for their sins, but they must offer the sacrifice of broken and contrite hearts. As Aaron laid his hands on the goat and confessed the sins of the people he would be showing in the most emphatic way that personal faith and repentance were needed in order that guilt might be forgiven. So God requires still that those who seek His pardoning mercy shall feel sorry for their sins and confess them with humble, lowly, and believing hearts.
II. THAT SIN TO BE FORGIVEN MUST BE REMOVED. Not connived at or covered up, not clung to and repeated when the pardon is secured, but taken away for ever; not only the guilt, but the love and practice of sin gone. Christ atoned for, and removed sin. Redemption is to produce sanctification and righteousness. Holiness is the outcome of propitiation, the end of the law and the gospel Christ has secured by His atonement pardon for the guilt of sin and the annihilation of its existence when His kingdom shall be complete, and He all and in all.F. W B.
Lev. 16:13Theme: INTERCESSION.
The incense may be regarded as symbolic of the merits of the atonement and intercession of the high priest. Sweet ascending fragrance from live coals off altar of sacrifice suggests concerning intercession
I. ITS BASIS. Sacrifice, mercy-seat: the cloud covered the place where God met propitiously with man.
II. ITS SANCTION. God commanded it; had it before Him. Aaron could swing the censer with holy boldness when and where divinely directed.
III. ITS EFFICACY. Saved life of the priest, that He die not; showed that the ceremony had been acceptably observed; gave Aaron warrant to complete the rite and bless the people. Our great High Priest presents the merits of His own sacrifice within the veil; the fragrance of His life and death avail for all who come to God by Him Our prayers and praises may rise mingled with the merits of His intercession, and find acceptance in the holiest of all.F. W. B.
V 24.Theme: SUPREME DEMAND FOR HOLINESS.
Aaron, having offered the appointed sacrifice, laid aside his linen garments, washed his person in pure water, arrayed himself in his gorgeous vestments, and stood before the people as their earthly representative and head. Every act in the service pointed to the holiness of God, to His disapproval of every form of sin Sanctification from the stains of guilt, and assumption of the beautiful garments of holiness, essential to acceptable fellowship with the Lord; for
I. DEFILEMENT CANNOT APPEAR IN THE PRESENCE OF THE LORD. Only sin can separate between God and man, but sin, producing defilement of the soul, withdraws the sinner far from God, renders him unfit for the divine presence. When our first parents sinned they fled from the presence of the Lord; the atonement heals the breach, effects righteousness within a man, and shows how the perfect righteousness of another may be set over to his account; and this because
II. PROVISION HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE REMOVAL OF DEFILEMENT. Aarons ablutions of his flesh were symbolic of moral cleansing, and suggest to us how guilt may now be removed. In the fountain opened for sin and uncleanness we may have every stain removed, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. The old man, with the lusts of the flesh, must be put off, and the new man put on, transforming the worshippers into new creatures in Christ Jesus.F. W. B.
Lev. 16:30.Theme: THE ATONING SACRIFICE
Israel was taught both helplessness and need, in that atonement had to be made for the nation by one who stood as mediator in its stead. Atonement was made in Jehovahs own way, the people were to reverently submit to the arrangements, and by repentance and faith avail themselves of the blessings presented Observe
I. THE ATONEMENT WAS OF A VICARD US CHARACTER. The innocent suffered for the guilty, the priest atoned for the people.
II. THE ATONEMENT SECURED SPIRITUAL PURITY. That ye may be clean from all your sins
(a) The moral depravity of man needed it.
(b) The holy nature of Jehovah demanded it.
Once, in the fulness of time, atonement has been made for the sins of the world; a way has been opened for the removal of guilt here, for admission unto perfect holiness and blessedness hereafter.F. W. B.
ILLUSTRATIVE ADDENDA TO CHAPTER 16
THE MERCY SEAT
Propitiation, or mercy seat (the same word as in Heb. 9:5). If we would have mercy it must be through Christ; out of Christ no mercy is to be had. We read in the old law
First: None might come into the holy of holies, where the mercy seat stood, but the high priest; signifying that we have nothing to do with mercy but through Christ our High Priest.
Secondly: The high priest might not come near the mercy seat without blood (Lev. 16:14), to show that we have no right to mercy but through the expiatory sacrifice of Christs blood.
Thirdly: The high priest might not, upon pain of death, come near the mercy seat without incense (Lev. 16:13), indicating that there could be no mercy from God without the incense of Christs intercession.
So that, if we would have mercy, we must get a part in ChristWatson.
THE SCAPEGOAT
There was in the year 1856 exhibited in the Art Union a fine picture of the scapegoat dying in the wilderness: it was represented with a burning sky above it, its feet sticking in the mire, surrounded by hundreds of skeletons, and there dying a doleful and miserable death. Now, that was just a piece of gratuitous nonsense, for there is nothing in the Scripture that warrants it in the least degree. The rabbis tell us that this goat was taken by a man into the wilderness and there tumbled down a high rock to die; but, as an excellent commentor says, if the man did push it down the rock he did more than God ever told him to do. God told him to take a goat and let it go: as to what became of it neither you nor I know anything; that is purposely left. Our Lord Jesus Christ has taken away our sins upon His head, just as the scapegoat, and He is gone from usthat is all: the goat was not a type in its dying, or in regard to its subsequent fate. God has only told us that it should be taken by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness. The most correct account seems to be that of one Rabhi Jarchi, who says that they generally took the goat twelve miles out of Jerusalem, and at each mile there was a booth provided where the man who took it might refresh himself till he came to the tenth mile, when there was no more rest for him till he had seen the goat go. When he had come to the last mile he stood and looked at the goat till it was gone, and he could see it no more. Then the peoples sins were all gone too. Now, what a tine type that is if you do not enquire any further! But if you will get meddling where God intended you to be in ignorance, you will get nothing by it. This scapegoat was not designed to show us the victim or the sacrifice, but simply what became of the sins. The sins of the people are confessed upon that head; the goat is going; the people lose sight of it; a fit man goes with it; the sins are going from them, and no v the man has arrived at his destination; the man sees the goat in the distance skipping here and there over the mountains, glad of its liberty; it is not quite gone; a little farther, and now it is lost to sight. The man returns, and says he can no longer see it; then the people clap their hands, for their sins are all gone too. Oh! soul; canst thou see thy sins all gone? We may have to take a long journey, and carry our sins with us; but oh! how we watch and watch till they are utterly cast into the depths of the wilderness of forgetfulness, where they shall never more be found against us for ever.C. H. Spurgeon.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
THE DAY OF ATONEMENT 16:134
1. AARONS PREPARATION 16:110
TEXT 16:110
1
And Jehovah spake unto Moses, after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they drew near before Jehovah, and died:
2
and Jehovah said unto Moses. Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil, before the mercy-seat which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy-seat.
3
Herewith shall Aaron come into the holy place: with a young bullock for a sin-offering, and a ram for a burnt-offering.
4
He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with the linen girdle, and with the line mitre shall he be attired: they are the holy garments; and he shall bathe his flesh in water, and put them on.
5
And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two he-goats for a sin-offering, and one ram for a burnt-offering.
6
And Aaron shall present the bullock of the sin-offering, which is for himself, and make atonement for himself, and for his house.
7
And he shall take the two goats, and set them before Jehovah at the door of the tent of meeting.
8
And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for Jehovah, and the other lot for Azazel.
9
And Aaron shall present the goat upon which the lot fell for Jehovah, and offer him for a sin-offering.
10
But the goat, on which the lot fell for Azazel, shall be set alive before Jehovah, to make atonement for him, to send him away for Azazel into the wilderness.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 16:110
330.
Why is reference made to the death of Aarons sons?
331.
Had Aaron been into the holy of holies prior to the instructions of the Lord?
332.
What was the mercy seat?
333.
Why demand such a severe penalty for going into the holy of holies?
334.
From whence came the cloud above the mercy seat?
335.
The bull and the ram were not to be brought into the most holy place. What is meant in Lev. 16:3?
336.
Why the change of clothes? What were the three or four pieces of clothes?
337.
Did Aaron take a bath or just wash himself?
338.
What is meant by take from the congregation of the people of Israel? (Lev. 16:5)
339.
Aaron must make atonement for himself and his house. How did he do it? (Lev. 16:6)
340.
Where were the two goats when they were before the Lord? Why cast lots for them?
341.
Who was Azazel?
342.
The Lords goat was used for what purpose?
343.
What happened to the goat for Azazel?
344.
Was this goat sent away into the wilderness to Azazel or for Azazel?
PARAPHRASE 16:110
After Aarons two sons died before the Lord, the Lord said to Moses, Warn your brother Aaron not to enter into the Holy Place behind the veil, where the Ark and the place of mercy are, just whenever he chooses. The penalty for intrusion is death. For I Myself am present in the cloud above the place of mercy. Here are the conditions for his entering there: he must bring a young bull for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering. He must bathe himself and put on the sacred linen coat, shorts, belt, and turban. The people of Israel shall then bring him two male goats for their sin offering, and a ram for their burnt offering. First he shall present to the Lord the young bull as a sin offering for himself, making atonement for himself and his family. Then he shall bring the two goats before the Lord at the entrance of the Tabernacle, and cast lots to determine which is the Lords and which is to be sent away. The goat allotted to the Lord shall then be sacrificed by Aaron as a sin offering. The other goat shall be kept alive and placed before the Lord. The rite of atonement shall be performed over it, and it shall then be sent out into the desert as a scapegoat.
COMMENT 16:110
Lev. 16:1-2 Nadab and Abihu disqualified themselves and were slain. The laws for the clean and the unclean are given in chapters eleven through fifteen to better prepare Aaron and his other two sons to enter into the presence of the Lord with true reverence. The day of atonement is a fitting conclusion and completion of all the sacrifices of the year. Amid all the best efforts of man are imperfections and shortcomings; even in the midst of the ceremonies of the tabernacle unworthy attitudes and actions could be found. This day is an annual supplement and completion of all the ordinances which were daily practiced, the design of which was to obtain atonement and reconciliation.
Perhaps the irregular time used by his sons was the reason for reference to time in Lev. 16:2. Most of all: Aaron is warned about acting without Gods direction, presumption must not be any part of his motive.
The source or composition of the cloud above the mercy seat has been a point of considerable discussion. Was the cloud from the incense or from another source? Are we to understand that the incense filled the room and also covered the mercy seat, but that in addition there was a special cloud of supernatural brightness or glory which hovered between the wings of the cherubim over the mercy seat? We believe the latter explanation to be the true one. Some feel the cloud of glory as versus the cloud of incense was not there at all times, but only on the occasions when God wished to speak to His people. Perhaps this is true. At whatever juncture it must have been an awesome thought to step through the veil into the presence of the Almighty God!
Lev. 16:3-4 Here is Aarons personal preparation: after the usual morning sacrifice (Cf. Num. 29:11), and a sacrifice of seven lambs at the same time so as to indicate the complete offering up to God that was that day to be made, and the complete dependence on atoning blood that day to be shown in all that was doneAaron approached the holy place. In so doing, he led along a bullock for his sin-offering (of 2 years old, Exo. 29:1) and a ram for his burnt-offeringboth of these for himself, as an individual, and for his household (perhaps for all the priests and Levites. Cf. Psa. 115:12). (Bonar) Before Aaron made any of the sacrifices on the day of atonement he must dress himself in the plain white robes which were very much like those of the ordinary priests. A change was made from the vestments of the high priest between the morning sacrifices and those for this great day of atonement. The bull and the ram were both purchased by Aaron from his own money. Tradition says the high priest had two changes of the white linenone of Egyptian linen and the other of Indian and less costly. There were four pieces to this dress. Aaron must bathe himself every time he changes his garments.
Lev. 16:5 After Aaron had put on his linen robes the peopleat their own expensebrought to him two goats. Whereas a ram is specified here and also earlier, for a burnt offering we read nothing of the slaying of these rams for a burnt offering. Evidently the focus of interest and attention is to be upon the sin offerings as the most important part of the day of expiation.
Lev. 16:6-10 By the action of dedicating for himself and his house the sin offering Aaron was freely and publicly admitting his guilt and need. Tradition says that successors of Aaron in the time of Christ used the following words as he laid his hands upon the head of the ram: O Lord, I have sinned, I have committed iniquity, I have transgressed before Thee, I and my house. O Lord, I beseech Thee cover my sins, iniquities and transgressions which I have committed before Thee, I and my house, even as it is written in the Law of Moses Thy servant. The congregation responded by saying Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever and forever.
Having presented his own sin-offering, the high priest, accompanied by the two chief priests, now came to the north side of the altar. Here one of his companions who was next in rank to the high priest placed himself at his right side, while the other, who held the office of chief of the principal household (Cf. 1Ch. 24:6) stood at his left. It was here that the two goats were presented with their faces to the west, where the Holy of Holies was, and where the Divine Majesty was especially revealed. (C. D. Ginsburg)
The description of the lots used in the selection of the goats is well described in the following words:
The lots consisted of two small tablets which at an earlier time were of box or ebony wood, but which during the later part of the second Temple were made of gold, and were kept in a wooden chest. On the one was engraved the words For Jehovah, and on the other For Azazel, the expression in the original, which is translated scapegoat in the Authorized Version. The high priest, after shaking the chest, put both his hands into the urn and simultaneously took out the two tablets, one in each hand. Hereupon he put the tablet which he had in his right hand upon the goat that was standing on his right side, whilst the tablet in his left hand he put on the goat on his left side. If the tablet with the inscription For Jehovah was in his right hand the chief priest who stood at the right of the pontiff exclaimed Hold up thy right hand on high! and if it happened to be in the left hand, the chief of the principal household, who stood on his left, called out to him Hold up thy left hand. Hereupon the high priest laid the two lots on the two goats, the one in the right hand on the goat at his right, and the one in the left hand on the animal at his left, exclaiming at the same time, To the Lord a sin offering!
The identity of Azazel is important. The term itself means removal. As in all verses of this study we want to be as thorough and helpful as possible, hence we refer you to two positions on this subject and what we consider a convincing argument by Andrew Bonar:
The objections urged to the common rendering scape-goat, however, are, after all, of no great weight. It is evidently the most natural meaning. The word for a goat, had just been used, Lev. 16:5, and to depart, go away, was likely enough, even on account of its similar sound, to be the term employed to express the fact of the goats being dismissed. Then, as to the two plausible objections alleged by some against this view, when examined, they have no force. For the first is, that if the clause, the one lot for the Lord, intimate that the goat is appropriated to a person, so should the next clause, the other lot for Azazel, also, signify appropriation to a person. But the answer to this is, that the proper sense is not appropriation to, or designation for, persons. The proper sense is designation for use, viz., the one for the purpose of being killed at the Lords altar; the other for the purpose of being sent away to the wilderness. The second objection is more serious. It is said that the words in Lev. 16:10 never can mean, make atonement with him, but must mean for him, as the object. And it is on this ground mainly that Bush defends his strange idea of this goat being a type of apostate Israel. But, in reply we assert that the words may have the meaning which our version gives them; and that would probably have been used if for him had been meant, seeing this is the phrase used all throughout this chapter to express that idea. In Exo. 30:10, the phrase occurs twice in the sense of atone over, or uponAaron shall make atonement upon the horns of it once in a year; and once in the year shall he make atonement upon it. So here, the priest is to make atonement over the scape-goat, by putting Israels guilt upon it ere he sends it away. And if one say, that surely it is strange that this the mercy-seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times.
FACT QUESTIONS 16:110
355.
How does the content of chapters eleven through fifteen prepare Aaron and his sons to properly enter into the presence of the Lord?
356.
What was the real purpose of the day of atonementin what way was it a fitting climax?
357.
Of what form and from what source was the cloud in the Holy of Holies?
358.
What did Aaron use for a sin offering and a burnt offering?
359.
Describe Aarons attire and the reason for it.
360.
In what action did Aaron admit his sin and need?
361.
Describe the action of lots for the goats.
362.
Who or what was Azazel?
THE SIN OFFERING FOR THE PRIESTS 16:1114
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
XVI.
(1) And the Lord spake unto Moses.As the observance of the minute regulations given in the preceding chapters about the daily sacrifices and purifications would necessarily be tainted with many imperfections and shortcomings, both on the part of the mediating priests and the offering laity, a general day of atonement is here instituted, when priest and people are alike to obtain atonement once a year for the sins which were mixed up even with their sacred worship. The day of atonement enacted in the chapter before us is therefore an appropriate conclusion of the laws of purification in the preceding chapters. It is an annual supplement and completion of all the ordinances which were daily practised, and the design of which was to obtain atonement and reconciliation.
After the death of the two sons of Aaron.That is, after Nadab and Abihu, his two eldest sons, had died, in consequence of having presumptuously entered the sanctuary in a profane manner, and at an irregular time. (See Lev. 10:1-2.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
THE OCCASION OF THE INSTITUTION, Lev 16:1-2.
1. After the death of the two sons of Aaron This judgment of Jehovah is recorded in chap. 10, on which occasion the important safeguards respecting the high priest’s entrance into the most holy place were given. Why this record does not immediately follow chap. x, its natural place, is unknown.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And Yahweh spoke to Moses, after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they drew near before Yahweh, and died,’
These words of Moses are timed as taking place after the death of the two sons of Aaron in Lev 10:1-2. They had drawn near before Yahweh and died because they offered what was false and behaved foolishly. Now it was necessary that the High Priest offered what was true, otherwise he too would die. But the laws of uncleanness had previously been expounded on in order to fill out the need for this day by stressing the daily uncleannesses of Israel. It explained how a holy God could continue to ‘dwell’ in a camp of such uncleannesses. For in spite of the extreme efforts made to preserve the holiness of the Sanctuary, it could not avoid being to some extent tainted by surrounding and sometimes hidden and/or unconscious uncleanness.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Lev 16:1-34 The Day of Atonement Lev 16:1-34 discusses the laws regarding the Day of Atonement. Under the Law the Jew had to become conscience of each and every sin, so that he prepared the proper sacrifices, since each sin required a specific sacrifice. This meant that the Jews were constantly reminded of their sins. The Law even made provision on the Day of Atonement for dealing with any sins that were overlooked during the course of the year. The Law made people recognize their sinful nature so that they would look to God for redemption, since no one was able to keep the Law perfectly (Gal 3:24).
Gal 3:24, “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.”
Lev 16:23 And Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there:
Lev 16:23
[26] Rashi, Commentary on the Tanakh, in The Judaica Press Complete Tanach (Judaica Press, 1998) [on-line]; accessed 25 November 2010; available from http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16508/showrashi/true; Internet, comments on Leviticus 16:23.
Lev 16:26 And he that let go the goat for the scapegoat shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward come into the camp.
Lev 16:26
Lev 16:27 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.
Lev 16:27
Heb 13:10-13, “We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.”
Lev 16:29 And this shall be a statute for ever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you:
Lev 16:29
[27] John E. Hartley, Leviticus, in Word Biblical Commentary: 58 Volumes on CD-Rom, vol. 4, eds. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Inc., 2002), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 3.0b [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2004), notes on Leviticus 16:29-31.
Lev 16:34 And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the LORD commanded Moses.
Lev 16:34
Lev 16:2, “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.”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Aaron’s Sacrifices for Himself
v. 1. And the Lord spake unto Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they offered before the Lord and died, v. 2. And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron, thy brother, that he come not at all times, v. 3. Thus shall Aaron come into the Holy Place, v. 4. He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen miter, v. 5. And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel, v. 6. And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin-offering, which is for himself, and make an atonement for himself and for his house, v. 7. And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the Lord at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, v. 8. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats, v. 9. And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the Lord’s lot fell, and offer him for a sin-offering, v. 10. But the goat on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, v. 11. And Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin-offering, which is for himself, and shall make an atonement for himself and for his house, v. 12. And he shall take a censer, v. 13. and he shall put the incense upon the fire before the Lord, that the cloud of the incense v. 14. And he shall take of the blood of the bullock,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
PART III. SECTION II.
EXPOSITION
THE CEREMONIAL PURIFICATION OF THE WHOLE CONGREGATION ON THE GREAT DAY OF ATONEMENT.
This chapter, containing the account of the institution of the ceremonial to be used on the Day of Atonement, would take its place chronologically immediately after the tenth chapter, for the instructions conveyed in it were delivered to Moses “after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they offered before the Lord and died” (Lev 16:1), when the fate of Nadab and Abihu would naturally have led Aaron to desire a more perfect knowledge than had as yet been imparted to him as to the manner in which he was to present himself before the Lord. Logically it might either occupy its present position, as being the great and culminating atoning and cleansing ceremony, or it might be relegated to a place among the holy days in Lev 23:1-44, where it is, in fact, shortly noticed. That it is placed here shows that the most essential characteristic of the Day in the judgment of the legislator is that of its serving as the occasion and the means of “making an atonement for the holy sanctuary, and making an atonement for the tabernacle of the congregation, and for the altar, and for making an atonement for the priests, and for all the people of the congregation” (Lev 23:33).
Annually there gathered over the camp, and over the sanctuary as situated in the midst of the camp, a mass of defilement, arising in part from sins whose guilt had not been removed by the punishment of the offenders, and in part from uncleannesses which had not been cleansed by sacrifices and the prescribed ceremonial rites. Annually this defilement had to be atoned for or covered away from the sight of God. This was done by the solemn observance of the great Day of Atonement, and specially by the high priest’s carrying the blood of the sacrifices into the holy of holies, into which he might enter on no other day of the year; while the consciousness of deliverance from the guilt of sin was quickened on the part of the people by their seeing the scapegoat “bear away upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited” (Lev 23:22).
Lev 16:2
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. Nadab and Abihu having died for their rash presumption in venturing unbidden into the tabernacle, it was natural that Aaron, who had as yet but once penetrated into the holy of holies, should be struck with fear, and that he should desire Divine instruction as to the times and manner in which he was to appear before the Lord, lest he should be struck dead like his sons. If the attempt to enter the outer chamber of the tabernacle had been so fatal to them, what might not be the result to him of entering within the vail which hung before the mercy-seat which is upon the ark? The mercy-seatcapporeth, , propitiatoriumformed the top of the ark, and was the place where God specially exhibited his Presence, on the occasions of his manifestation, by the bright cloud which then rested upon it between the cherubim. It was this Presence which made it perilous for Aaron to appear within the vail unbidden or without the becoming ritual; for man might not meet God unless he were sanctified for the purpose (Exo 19:14, Exo 19:21-24; 1Sa 6:19). The words, for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat, refer to the Divine Presence thus visibly manifested (see 1Ki 8:10-12), and not, as they have strangely been misinterpreted, to the cloud of smoke raised by the incense burnt by the high priest on his entrance. They do not, however, prove that the manifestation was constantly there, still less that it was continued, according to Jewish tradition, in later times. “The reason for the prohibition of Aaron’s entrance at his own pleasure, or without the expiatory blood of sacrifice, is to be found in the fact that the holiness communicated to the priest did not cancel the sin of his nature, but only covered it over for the performance of his official duties; and so long as the Law, which produced only the knowledge of sin, and not its forgiveness and removal, was not abolished by the complete atonement, the holy God was and remained to mortal and sinful man a consuming fire, before which no one could stand” (Keil).
Lev 16:3
Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place. “Thus” would be translated more literally by With this. He must come supplied with the specified offerings, dressed in the appointed manner and using the ceremonial here designated. The efficacy of the acts of the high priest on this day and throughout his ministrations depended not upon his individual but on his official character, and on his obedience to the various commandments positively enjoined. Personal worthiness would not qualify him for his service, nor personal unworthiness hinder the effect of his liturgical acts (cf. Art. 26, ‘Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacrament’). Aaron’s special offerings for himself on this great day are to be a young bullock for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering.
Lev 16:4
His special garments for the occasion are the holy linen coat, the linen breeches, a linen girdle, and the linen mitre. In the original the definite article is not expressed. The reading should therefore be, He shall put on a holy linen coat, and he shall have linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with a linen mitre shall be attired. The clothing was white from head to foot, differing therein from the dress of the ordinary priest, inasmuch as the sash or girdle of the latter was of variegated materials, and differing also in the shape of the mitre. The white clothing was not intended to symbolize humility and penitence, as some have thought, for white is not the colour in which penitents are naturally dressed. Rather it was symbolical of the purity and holiness which the ceremonies of the day symbolically affected, and which was specially needed to be exhibited in the person of the high priest. In the visions of Ezekiel and Daniel, the angel of God is clothed in linen (Eze 9:2, Eze 9:3, Eze 9:11; Eze 10:2, Eze 10:6, Eze 10:7; Dan 10:5; Dan 12:6, Dan 12:7). And the colour of the angelic raiment is described in the Gospels as white: “his countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow” (Mat 28:3); “they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment” (Mar 16:5); “two men stood by them in shining garments” (Luk 24:4); she “seeth two angels in white sitting” (Joh 20:12). So, too, the wife of the Lamb, in tile Book of the Revelation, has it “granted to her that she should be arrayed in fine linen clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints” (Rev 19:7, Rev 19:8). The white linen dress of the high priest, therefore (which must have given the appearance of the English surplice tied in at the waist), was intended to symbolize the purity and brightness which forms the characteristic of angels and saints, and, above all, of the King of saints. “The white material of the dress which Aaron wore when performing the highest act of expiation under the Old Testament was a symbolical shadowing forth of the holiness and glory of the one perfect Mediator between God and man, who, being the radiation of the glory of God and the image of his nature, effected by himself the perfect cleansing away of our sin, and who, as the true High Priest, being holy, innocent, unspotted, and separate from sinners, entered once by his own blood into the holy place not made with hands, namely, into heaven itself, to appear before the face of God for us and obtain everlasting redemption (Heb 1:3; Heb 7:26; Heb 9:12, Heb 9:24)” (Keil). The symbolism of the holy garments as indicating holiness and purity, is strengthened by the command that Aaron is to wash his flesh in water, and so put them on.
The high priest’s acts on this day, so far as they are recounted in this chapter, were the following.
1. He bathed.
2. He dressed himself in his white holy garments.
3. He offered or presented at the door of the tabernacle a bullock for a sin offering for himself and his house.
4. He presented at the same place two goats for a sin offering for the congregation.
5. He cast lots on the two goats, one of which was to be sacrificed, the other to he let go into the wilderness.
6. He sacrificed the bullock.
7. He passed from the court through the holy place into the holy of holies with a censer and incense, and filled the space beyond the vail with a cloud of smoke from the incense.
8. He returned to the court, and, taking some of the blood of the bullock, passed again within the vail, and there sprinkled the blood once on the front of the mercy-seat and seven times before it.
9. He came out again into the court, and killed the goat on which the lot for sacrifice had fallen.
10. For the third time he entered the holy of holies, and went through the same process with the goat’s blood as with the bullock’s blood.
11. He purified the other part of the tabernacle, as he had purified the holy of holies, by sprinkling with the atoning blood, as before, and placing some of it on the horns of the altar of incense (Exo 30:10).
12. He returned to the court, and placed the blood of the bullock and goat upon the horns of the altar of burnt sacrifice, and sprinkled it seven times.
13. He offered to God the remaining goat, laying his hands upon it, confessing and laying the sins of the people upon its head.
14. He consigned the goat to a man, whose business it was to conduct it to the border of the wilderness, and there release it.
15. He bathed and changed his linen vestments for his commonly worn high priest’s dress.
16. He sacrificed, one after the other, the two rams as burnt offerings for himself and for the people.
17. He burnt the fat of the sin offerings upon the altar.
18. He took measures that the remainder of the sin offerings should be burnt without the camp.
In Num 29:7-11, twelve sacrifices are commanded to be offered by the high priest on this day, namely, the morning and evening sacrifice; a burnt offering for the people, consisting of one young bullock, one ram (as already stated), and seven lambs; and cue goat for a sin offering; so that in all there were fifteen sacrifices offered, besides the meat and drink offerings. The punctiliousness of the Jews in later times was not content that the ceremonies should begin on the day itself. Preparations commenced a full week previously. On the third day of the seventh month, the high priest moved from his house in the city into the temple, and he was twice sprinkled with the ashes of the red heifer, by way of precaution against defilement. He spent the week in practicing and rehearsing, under the eye of some of the elders of the Sanhedrim, the various acts that he would have to perform on the great day, and on the night immediately preceding it he was not allowed to sleep. In case of his sudden death or disqualification, a substitute was appointed to fulfill his function.
Lev 16:5
And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats. It was necessary that the sacrifice offered for a person or class of persons should be provided by the offerer or offerers. The two kids of the goats, or rather the two he-goats, constituted together but one sin offering. This is important for the understanding of the sequel.
Lev 16:6
And Aaron shall offer his bullock and make an atonement for himself, and for his house. The first step is an expiatory offering to reconcile the officiating priest and the remainder of the priestly house to God. This was necessary before his offerings for the people could be accepted. It indicates the defects inherent in a priest whose nature was only that of man, which is compassed about with infirmities. The offering here commanded is not the slaying, but the solemn presentation, of the bullock to the Lord. In after times the following form of confession was used by the high priest when he laid his hand upon the bullock:”O Lord, I have committed iniquity; I have transgressed; I have sinned, I and my house. O Lord, I entreat thee, cover over the iniquities, the transgressions, and the sins which I have committed, transgressed, and sinned before thee, I and my house; even as it is written in the Law of Moses thy servant, ‘For on that day will he cover over for you, to make you clean; from all your transgressions before the Lord ye shall be cleansed” (Edersheim, ‘Temple Service’).
Lev 16:7, Lev 16:8
It must be carefully noted that. as the two goats made one sin offering (Lev 16:5), so they are both presented before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. By this solemn presentation they became the Lord’s, one as much as the other. After this, Aaron is to cast lots upon the two goats. The two goats, of the same size and appearance as far as possible, stood together near the entrance of the court. And by them was an urn containing two lots. These the high priest drew out at the same moment, placing one on the head of one goat, the other on the head of the other goat. According as the lot fell. one of the goats was taken and at once offered to the Lord, with a view to being shortly sacrificed; the other was appointed for a scapegoat, and reserved till the expiatory sacrifices had been made, when it too was offered to the Lord, and then sent away into the wilderness. After the lot had been chosen, the two goats were distinguished from each other by having a piece of scarlet cloth tied, the first round its neck, the second round its horn. One lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat. The last word is in the original la-azazel, and being found only in this chapter, it has caused a great discrepancy of opinion among interpreters as to its meaning. It has been diversely regarded as a place, a person, a thing, and an abstraction. The first class of interpreters explain it as some district of the wilderness; the second understand by it an evil spirit; the third take it as a designation of the goat; the fourth translate it, “for removal.” The first interpretation may be summarily rejected. If a localized spot were meant, that spot would have been left behind by a people constantly on the move. The second hypothesisthat azazel was an evil spirit, or the evil spirithas been embraced by so considerable a number of modern expositors, that it is necessary to dwell upon it at some length. But, indeed, it has little to recommend it. It has been argued that azazel must be a proper name, because it has no article prefixed to it, la-azazel. This is a grammatical error. When a noun expresses an office or a function, and has the preposition le or la prefixed to it, it does not take an article in Hebrew any more than in French; e.g; in the verse, “Jehu shalt thou anoint to be king (or for king) over Israel; and Elisha shalt thou appoint to be prophet (or for prophet) in thy room” (1Ki 19:16), the Hebrew is le-melek and le-navi, without the article. The same idiom will be found in 1Sa 25:30; 2Sa 7:14. With greater plausibility it is argued that 2Sa 7:8 contrasts Jehovah and Azazel, and that if la-Yehovah be translated “for Jehovah,” or “for the Lord,” la-azazel must be translated “for Azazel.” It may be allowed that there is a prima facie likelihood that, where words are thus contrasted, if one designates a person, the other would designate a person. But it is an incredibly rash assertion that this is always the case. All depends upon the idea which the speaker or writer has in his mind and desires to express. As part of the same argument, it is urged that the preposition, being the same in both clauses of the sentence, must be translated by the same word. This is certainly not the case. The natural meaning of le with a proper name is “for,” and with a word expressing the performance of some function (technically called nomen agentis) it means “to be” (see the passage quoted above from 1Ki 19:16). Unless, therefore, azazel be a proper name (which has to be proved, not assumed)the preposition need not and ought not to be translated by “for” but by “to be.” The word le is used with great latitude, and often in a different sense in the same sentence; e.g; Exo 12:24; Le Exo 26:12. The objections to the theory that azazel means an evil spirit are of overwhelming force. It will be enough to name the following.
1. The name azazel is nowhere else mentioned. This could not be, if he were so important a being as to divide with Jehovah the sin offering of the congregation of Israel on the great Day of Atonement.
2. No suitable etymology can be discerned. The nearest approach to it is very forced”the separated one.”
3. The notion of appeasing, or bribing, or mocking the evil spirit by presenting to him a goat, is altogether alien from the spirit of the rest of the Mosaic institutions. Where else is there anything like it?
4. The goat is presented and offered to Jehovah equally with the goat which is slain.
To take that which has been offered (and therefore half sacrificed) to God and give it to Satan, would be a daring impiety, which is inconceivable. That la-azazel means “for removal” is the opinion of Bahr, Tholuck, Winer, and others. There is nothing objectionable in this interpretation, but the form of the word azazel points rather to an agent than to an abstract act. Azazel is a word softened (according to a not unusual custom) from azalzel, just as kokav is a softened form of kav-kav, and as Babel is derived from Balbel (Gen 11:9). Azalzel is an active participle or participial noun, derived ultimately from azal (connected with the Arabic word azala, and meaning removed), but immediately from the reduplicate form of that verb, azazal. The reduplication of the consonants of the root in Hebrew and Arabic gives the force of repetition, so that while azal means removed, azalzal means removed by a repetition of acts. Azalzel, or azazel, therefore, means one who removes by a series of acts. “In this sense the word azazel is strictly expressive of the function which is ascribed to the scapegoat in Exo 26:21, Exo 26:22; namely, that he ‘be sent away, bearing upon him all the iniquities of the children of Israel into the wilderness.’ It properly denotes one that removes or separates; yet a remover in such sort that the removal is not effected by a single act or at one moment, but by a series of minor acts tending to and issuing in a complete removal. No word could better express the movement of the goat before the eyes of the people, as it passed on, removing at each step, in a visible symbol, their sins further and further from them, until, by continued repetition of the movement, they were carried far away and removed utterly”. That it is the goat that is designated by the word azazel is the exposition of the LXX; Josephus, Symmachus, Aquila, Theodotion, the Vulgate, the Authorized English Version, and Luther’s Version. The interpretation is founded on sound etymological grounds, it suits the context wherever the word occurs, it is consistent with the remaining ceremonial of the Day of Atonement, and it accords with the otherwise known religious beliefs and symbolical practices of the Israelites. The two goats were the single sin offering for the people; the one that was offered in sacrifice symbolized atonement or covering made by shedding of blood, the other symbolized the utter removal of the sins of the people, which were conveyed away and lost in the depths of the wilderness, whence there was no return. Cf. Psa 103:12, “As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us;” and Mic 7:19, “He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.” The eighth verse should be translated as it stands in the Authorized Version, or, if we ask for still greater exactness, And Aaron shall east lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and one lot for a remover of sins.
Lev 16:9, Lev 16:10
These verses might be translated as follows:And Aaron shall bring in the goat upon which the lot for the Lord fell, and shall offer him for a sin offering. But the goat, upon which fell the lot for a remover of sins, shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to send him away for a remover of sins into the wilderness. We are justified in inserting the words, “of sins,” after “a remover,” because “the use of the word azal, from which the word rendered by ‘remover’ is derived, is confined in the Hebrew dialect to the single purpose or institution which is here under consideration; so that this particular word must have conveyed to the mind of a Hebrew hearer or reader this notion of a removal of sins, and none other”. The goat is both presented before the Lord, and subsequently (Lev 16:20) offered to him, the priest laying his hands upon him and making a confession of the sins of the people. After he has thus become the Lord’s, how could he be given up to Satan? The purpose of his being set apart is to make an atonement with him (not for him, as some commentators explain it wrongly). As atonement was made by the blood of the sacrificed goat ceremonially covering sin, so it was also made by the live goat symbolically removing sin. But the atonement in both cases has reference to God. How could an atonement be made by an offering to Satan, unless Satan, not God, was the being whose wrath was to be propitiated, and with whom reconciliation was sought?
Lev 16:11
After having offered the bullock for his own sin offering, and presented the two goats, which constituted the sin offering of the people, and offered one of them, Aaron kills the bullock for the sin offering. A considerable interval had to elapse before he could make use of the bullock’s blood for purposes of propitiation, and during this interval, occupied by his entrance into the holy of holies with the incense, the blood was held by an attendant, probably by one of his sons, and prevented from coagulating by being kept in motion.
Lev 16:12, Lev 16:13
This is the first entry of the high priest into the holy of holies. He takes with him a censerliterally, the censer, that is, the censer that he was to use on the occasionfull of burning coals of fire from off the altar; and his hands are full of sweet incense beaten small; his object being to fill the holy of holies with the smoke of the incense which may serve as at least a thin vail between himself and the Presence of the Lord, that he die not (cf. Exo 33:20, “Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live;” cf. also Gen 32:30; Deu 5:24; Jdg 6:22; Jdg 13:22). Here we see taught the lesson of the vision of God, as he is, being impossible to the human faculties. He must be vailed in one way or another. After passing through the outer chamber of the tabernacle, the high priest found himself in the smaller chamber where stood the ark. Immediately he threw the incense on the coals of the censer, until the holy of holies was filled with the smoke, after which, according to later practice, he offered a prayer outside the vail. The following form of prayer, breathing, however, the spirit of ages long subsequent to the tabernacle, or even the first temple, is found in the Talmud:”May it please thee, O Lord our God, the God of our fathers, that neither this day nor this year any captivity come upon us. Yet if captivity befall us this day or this year, let it be to a place where the Law is cultivated. May it please thee, O Lord our God, the God of our fathers, that want come not upon us this day or this year. But if want visit us this day or this year, let it be due to the liberality of our charitable deeds. May it please thee, O Lord, the God of our fathers, that this year may be a year of cheapness, of fullness, of intercourse and trade; a year with abundance of rain, of sunshine, and of dew; one in which thy people Israel shall not require assistance one from another. And listen not to the prayers of those who are about to set out on a journey (against rain). And as to thy people Israel, may no enemy exalt himself against them. May it please thee, O Lord our God, the God of our fathers, that the houses of the men of Saron (exposed to floods) may not become their graves” (Edersheim, ‘Temple Service’).
Lev 16:14
The second entry of the high priest into the holy of holies took place very soon after the first entry. Immediately that he had returned after lighting the incense, and perhaps offering a prayer, he took of the blood of the bullock, which he had previously killed, went back without delay, and sprinkled it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward, that is, on the front of the ark beneath the Presence enthroned upon the mercy seat, and shrouded by the smoke of the incense; and before the mercy seat, that is, on the ground in front of it, he sprinkled of the blood with his finger seven times. In after times, when the ark was gone, the high priest sprinkled upwards once and downwards seven times.
Lev 16:15
The third entry was made as soon as he had killed the goat which formed a moiety of the sin offering of the congregation, when he brought his blood likewise within the vail, and did with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, sprinkling it the same number of times as before. “By the entrance of the high priest into the holy of holies is set forth that atonement could only be effected before the throne of Jehovah” (Clark).
Lev 16:16
The two sprinklings, first with the bullock’s blood, then with the goat’s blood, on the front of the ark and on the ground before it, effected the symbolical atonement which was required annually even for the holy of holies because it was pitched in the midst of sinful men. There remained the outer chamber of the tabernacle and the altar of burnt sacrifice to be atoned for. Accordingly, the high priest proceeds to do so for the tabernacle of the congregation, that is, to make a similar atonement by similar means outside the vail as he had made inside it. He would therefore have made one sprinkling with the blood upon the vail, and seven sprinklings before it, after which he placed the blood upon the horns of the altar of incense, according to the command given in Exo 30:10. In later times it became customary also to sprinkle the top of the altar of incense seven times.
Lev 16:17
There shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation. From the first entry until the work of atonement was completed, both for the holy of holies and for the tabernacle, no one but the high priest was to be allowed within the door of the tabernacle, not only that there might be no witness of the withdrawal of the awful vail, but also that the rite of purification might not be interfered with by an impure presence. Even on the Day of Atonement the dwelling-place of God, typical of heaven, was closed to the eye and foot of man, “the way into the holiest of all being not yet made manifest” (Heb 9:8), until the Divine High Priest opened the way for his people by his own entrance.
Lev 16:18, Lev 16:19
The holy of holies and the outer chamber of the tabernacle having been reconciled, the high priest shall go out unto the altar that is before the Lordthat is, the altar of burnt sacrifice in the court, standing in front of the tabernacle, not the altar of incense, as has been supposed by someand shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat and put it upon the horns of the altar round about. And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times. This completes the ceremony of “making an atonement for the holy sanctuary, and making an atonement for the tabernacle of the congregation, and for the altar” (Lev 16:33.)
Lev 16:20, Lev 16:21
The second part of the ceremonies of the day now commences. It was not enough that the defilement of the sanctuary should be covered, and the sins of the priests and people atoned for by the blood of the sacrifices. There remained a consciousness of sin. How was this to be taken away? To effect this, Aaron proceeds to the unique ceremony of the day by which the utter removal of sin from the reconciled people is typified. He shall bring the live goat; this should be translated offer the live goat. It is the word used above for the offering of the goat that was slain, and it is the word always used for offering sacrifices to the Lord. The first goat had been offered in the usual manner, the offerer laying his hand on his head and perhaps praying over him. Now the second goat is offered, the high priest having to lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, putting them upon the head of the goat. The confession of sins, at first extempore, would naturally, as time progressed, become stereotyped into a liturgical form, as it is found in the Mishna: “O Lord, they have committed iniquity; they have transgressed; they have sinned,thy people, the house of Israel. O Lord, cover over, I entreat thee, their iniquities, their transgressions, and their sins, which they have wickedly committed, transgressed, and sinned before thee,thy people, the house of Israel. As it is written in the Law of Moses thy servant, saying, ‘ For on that day shall it be covered over for you, to make you clean; from all your sins before the Lord ye shall be cleansed'” (Edersheim, ‘Temple Service ‘). During this confession of sins the people remained prostrate in humiliation and prayer in the court of the tabernacle, and it was the custom of the high priest to turn towards them as he pronounced the last words, “Ye shall be cleansed.” At the conclusion of the confession, the high priest handed over the goat to a fit man, that is, to a man who was standing ready to take charge of him, and sent him away by his hand into the wilderness.
Lev 16:22
Then the goat went forth, bearing upon him all their iniquities. The slain goat had symbolized and ceremonially wrought full atonement or covering of sins; but in order to impress upon the mind of the nation a joyful sense of entire liberation from the burden of sin, the second symbol of the disappearing goat is used; so that not only sin, but the consciousness and the fear of the taint and presence of sin, might be taken away from the cleansed and delivered people. The goat is to bear the iniquities of the people unto a land not inhabited. The latter wordsin the original, eretz gezerahwould be more correctly translated, a laud cut off, that is, completely isolated from the surrounding country by some barrier of rock or torrent, which would make it impossible for the goat to come back again. Thus the sins were utterly lost, as though they had never been, and they could not return to the sanctified people. The Hebrew word gazar, to cut (1Ki 3:25; Psa 136:18), is represented in Arabic by jazara, and the substantive gezerah by jaziruh, which means an island, or an area surrounded by rivers. The word is still in use in countries where Arabic is spoken, as the designation of a district divided from the neighbouring territories by rivers cutting it off, and making it a sort of island or peninsula. Into such a district as this, the man who led the goat was to let him go. In later times, contrary to the spirit of the Mosaic appointment, the goat was pushed over a projecting ledge of rock, and so killed, a device of man clumsily introduced for the purpose of perfecting a symbolism of Divine appointment. It was more in accordance with the original institution that “the arrival of the goat in the wilderness was immediately telegraphed by the waving of flags, from station to station, till a few minutes after its occurrence it was known in the temple, and whispered from ear to ear, that the goat had borne upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited” (Edersheim, ‘Temple Service’). Both the goat that was sacrificed and the goat that served as remover of sins typified Christ. The first presents him to our faith as the Victim on the cross, the other as the Sin-bearer on whom the Lord laid “the iniquity of us all” (Isa 53:4; cf. 2Co 5:21; Gal 3:13). “The reason for making use of two animals is to be found purely in the physical impossibility of combining all features that had to be set forth in the sin offering in one animal” (Keil).
Lev 16:23, Lev 16:24
In later times another scene was interposed at this point. The high priest, having sent away the man with the goat, recited the passages of Scripture which commanded the observance of the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:1-34; Lev 23:27-32; Num 29:7-11), and offered prayers in which the people might mentally join. Then he went back into the tabernacle of the congregation (not into the holy of holies), and, as all the special atoning and purifying services of the day were now over, he there took off his linen dress, and put it away; and after bathing in the holy place, that is, in that part of the sanctuary set apart for that purpose, he put on his ordinary high-priestly garments, and sacrificed first a goat for a sin offering (Num 29:16), next his own burnt offering of a ram, and then the burnt offering of the people, which was also a ram and other victims (Ibid.).
Lev 16:25
After the flesh of the burnt sacrifice had been placed in order on the altar, the fat of the sin offering, that is, of the bullock (Lev 16:6) and of the goat (Lev 16:15) and of the other goat (Num 29:16), is placed upon it, and burnt upon the altar, according to the regular practice.
Lev 16:26
The man that let go the goat which served for a remover of sins is to wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh before he comes into the camp. This is not ordered on account of any special defilement attaching to the scapegoat, but only because it had been the symbolical sin-bearer, and therefore conveyed legal uncleanness by its touch. The man who bore the flesh of the ether goat to be burnt had to do exactly the same thing (Lev 16:25).
Lev 16:27, Lev 16:28
As the blood of the bullock and the goat which had been offered in the special expiatory sacrifices of the day had been carried within the sanctuary (Lev 16:14, Lev 16:15), their bodies had to be burnt without the camp (Lev 4:12). Our Lord being the antitype, not only of Aaron as the Great High Priest, but also of the expiatory sacrifices as the Great Sin Offering, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews notices that the fact of Christ’s having “suffered without the camp” serves as an indication that his blood had in its atoning effects been carried by him into heaven, the antitype of the holy of holies (Heb 13:12). The flesh of the other goat, offered as a sin offering, would have been eaten by the priests in the evening, at a sacrificial meal (Lev 10:17, Lev 10:18).
Lev 16:29-31
The ceremonies of the Day of Atonement are not appointed for once only, but they are to be of annual observance. This shall be a statute for ever unto you, as long as the nation should exist, that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all. The seventh is the sacred month, in which the first, the tenth, the fifteenth, and following days are appointed as holy seasons. The Day of Atonement is the single fast of the Jewish Church occurring once a year only. On it all the members of that Church were to afflict their souls, on pain of death (Lev 23:29). The fast began on the evening of the ninth day, and ended on the evening of the tenth, when it was succeeded by general feasting. During the whole of the twenty-four hours no work at all was to be done. In this respect the Day of Atonement was put on a level with the sabbath, whereas on the annual festivals only “servile work” was forbidden (see Le Lev 23:7, Lev 23:21, Lev 23:25, Lev 23:35). On this day, therefore, as on the weekly sabbath, it was not permitted to collect manna (Exo 16:26), or to plough or reap (Exo 34:21), or to light a fire (Exo 35:3), or to gather wood (Num 15:32-36), or to carry corn or fruit (Neh 13:15), or to sell food or other goods (Neh 13:16), or to bear burdens (Jer 17:22, Jer 17:23), or to set out grain for sale (Amo 8:5). And these regulations applied to strangers that sojourned among them as well as to themselves. It was a sabbath of rest; literally, a sabbath of sabbatism. The purpose of the abstinence from food and labour was to bring the soul of each individual into harmony with the solemn rites of purification publicly performed not by themselves, but by the high priest.
Lev 16:32, Lev 16:33
That there may be no mistake, it is specifically enjoined that not only Aaron, but the priest, whom he shall anoint, and whom he shall consecratemeaning, the high priest that shall be anointed, and shall be consecratedto minister in the priest’s office in his father’s steadthat is, to succeed from time to time to the high priesthoodshall make the atonement, and shall put on the linen clothes, even the holy garments. Again it may be noticed that the white robes are termed, not the penitential, but the holy, garments.
Lev 16:34
This shall be an everlasting statute unto you. It lasted as long as the earthly Jerusalem lasted, and until the heavenly Jerusalem was instituted, when it had a spiritual fulfillment once for all. “Of old there was an high priest that cleansed the people with the blood of bulls and goats, but now that the true High Priest is come, the former priesthood is no more. It is a providential dispensation of God that the city and temple of Jerusalem have been destroyed; for if they were still standing, some who are weak in faith might be dazzled by the outward splendor of the literal types, and not drawn by faith to the spiritual antitypes. If there are any, therefore, who, in considering the Levitical ritual of the great Day of Atonement, and in looking at the two he-goatsthe one sacrificed, the other let go, charged with sins, into the wildernessdo not recognize the one Christ who died for our sins and took away our sins, and do not see there the ‘everlasting statute’ of which God here speaks by Moses, let him go up thrice a year to Jerusalem, and there search for the altar which has crumbled in the dust, and offer up his victims there without a priest. But no; thanks be to God, the earthly priesthood and temple are abolished, that we may raise our heart to the heavenly, and look up with faith and love and joy to him who offered himself once for all, and who ever liveth to make intercession for us” (Origen, ‘Hom.’ 10; as quoted by Wordsworth). And he did as the Lord commanded Moses; that is. Moses announced to Aaron the Law which was to be carried out about five months later.
HOMILETICS
Lev 16:1-28
Union and communion with God
is that which the undepraved heart of man most longs for, and which religion is especially intended to bring about. That this may be effected, the barrier of sin, and of that which represents sinceremonial uncleannessmust be broken down. If sin and uncleanness cannot be taken away so as to be as though they had not been, they must, according to their nature, be either punished as justice demands, or be so covered over as to be withdrawn from the sight of the Divine eye. This covering or atonement is wrought by sacrifices for sin, and ceremonial purifications. Hence the public and private sin offerings, and the various forms of cleansing. But in spite of penalties inflicted and sacrifices offered, a mass of crime and sin and uncleanness accumulates year by year, which has not been avenged or cleansed, and this defilement affects the very tabernacle of God and his holy things, as well as the congregation of living men. Therefore an annual atonement and reconciliation were required, which were effected each year on the great Day of Atonement.
I. THE CEREMONIES.
1. Bathing.
2. Robing in white garments.
3. The sin offerings.
4. The entry into the holy of holies.
5. The sprinkling of the blood of the sin offerings on the ark and before the mercy-seat.
6. The scapegoat.
II. THEIR MEANING. All is typical of Christ.
1. Washing with his blood and in the waters of baptism.
2. Clothing with his righteousness.
3. Christ the Sin Offering on the cross.
4. Christ’s ascension and entry into heaven (Heb 9:1-28, Heb 10:1-39).
5. Christ’s life-blood offered on the cross, and carried by him into heaven.
6. Christ the Sin-bearer and the Remover of sins.
III. THE LESSONS.
1. Reconciliation between God and man has been effected. For Christ has come and has offered himself as a sin offering. The mass of sins which gathered over mankind age after age, has been covered or atoned for by the blood of Christ, shed by him upon the cross; and those who were alienated are now reconciled. Christ is the all-prevailing Peacemaker, who has united man with man, and man with God. “He is our peace, who hath made both (Gentile and Jew) one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (Eph 2:14-19). And this reconciliation was wrought by one offering, once for all offered. The high priest’s atonement was made annually, for the blood of bulls and goats could not, effectually and permanently, but only symbolically and temporarily, take away sins (Heb 10:4). “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified” (Heb 10:12-14). And it was wrought for all mankind. How, then, are all to share in it? By realizing their adoption in Christ, which has been potentially bestowed upon the whole family of man, and is made effective to each individual by his “belief” “in the Word of truth,” and his being “sealed” in baptism “with the Holy Spirit of promise” (Eph 1:13). The spiritual bathing, and clothing in white garments, which are now the privileges of every Christian, derive their sacramental force solely from the Sacrifice of the cross.
2. Christ has opened for us the way to heaven. Christ is not only the antitype of the sin offering made for the congregation, but also of the high priest who sacrificed the offering; for he, the Priest, offered himself, the Victim. The holy of holies, wherein the presence of God exhibited itself, was the type of heaven. Into this place “went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: the Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest” (Heb 9:7, Heb 9:8). Alone, the high priest entered beyond the mysterious vail, and no one might be present, even in the outer chamber of the tabernacle, at the time of his entrance, nor while he was fulfilling his functions before the ark. He could not take any one with him. Not even after the atonement had been made, could those who had been reconciled, whether priests or people, enter there. The vail was drawn again, and all was shrouded in silence and mystery as before. But “Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us” (Heb 9:24). At his ascension he entered heaven, and (unlike the high priest) there he remained at the right hand of God (Heb 10:13), having received gifts for men from his Father, and having bestowed them upon his Church by the operation of his Spirit (Eph 4:8-11). And not only so, but he opened the way to all his followers. He was the mystical Head, and where the Head was, there the Body would be likewise. By his death he purchased for man an entrance into the presence of God, and an eternal continuance before the throne. “Having therefore boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us through the vail, that is to say, his flesh; and having an high priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb 10:19-22).
3. Christ has borne, and borne away, our sins. “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa 53:4-6). “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many” (Heb 9:28). “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed” (1Pe 2:24). Christ, by his sacrifice, not only earns for us forgiveness of sin, but also gives us a consciousness of their forgiveness. Those who, in self-abasement and self-abandonment, have thrown themselves at the foot of the cross, have arisen assured of the pardon of their sins, as though they had seen and felt the burden of them taken off from their necks, and carried step by step into a land cut off, from whence no return for them is possible. If there are any who feel overcome by the weight of their sins, they are taught here that, if they cannot bear them, there is One who can bear them, and that, though they cannot free themselves from them, yet they can be freed. “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world!” (Joh 1:29).
IV. WARNING. Washed, robed, reconciled, and delivered from sin, and from the consciousness of sin,what more could have been done for us that God has not done? What return are we to make? We are to live as children of God. “Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) and let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works” (Heb 10:23, Heb 10:24). Further warning. The danger of failing away after having been forgiven and admitted to the privileges of sonship. “For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries” Heb 10:26, Heb 10:27). One unclean spirit may be exchanged for seven (Mat 13:43-45).
“See that ye refuse not him that speaketh; for our God is a consuming fire” (Heb 12:25, Heb 12:29).
Lev 16:29-34
The annual reiteration of the purification made on the Day of Atonement
testifies to the imperfections of the Law. “For the Law can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? “(Heb 10:1, Heb 10:2). Had they done their work perfectly, a repetition of them would not have been required, “because that the worshippers once purged should have bad no more conscience of sins” (Heb 10:2). There was a triple imperfectionin the priest, in the victim, in the effect of the sacrifices. The Levitical priesthood was formed of sinful men, as was testified by the sin offering which the high priest had first to offer for himself before he could offer one for the people: here there was no perfect mediator. The victims were a bullock and a goat; but “it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins” (Heb 10:4): here there was no perfect sacrifice. The atonement had to be repeated annually: here there was no perfect result from the offering made. By its very imperfection the Law points forward to and awakens the desire for a better covenant, with a priest after the order of Melchisedec, “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners” (Heb 7:26), with a sacrifice which could sanctify (Heb 10:10), and which is and can be only “once offered,” because it is “a full, perfect, and sufficient Sacrifice, Oblation, and Satisfaction for the sins of the whole world” (Service for Holy Communion).
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD
Lev 16:1-34
The great Day of Atonement
(Lev 16:29-31). One day in the year set apart to the most solemn representation possible of the two factsthe sinfulness of man, the righteous love of God. Atonement underlying the whole of the ceremonial Law, but the insufficiency of the dally sacrifices, set forth by the separation of one day for the special sacrifice, thus pointing to one atonement in which all other atone-meats should be perfected. Solemn warning in the death of the two sons of Aaron, proclaiming the unchangeableness of Divine Law, and unapproachableness of God in his infinite righteousness. Necessity that, while the cloud upon the mercy-seat spoke of holiness and majesty, there should be a more emphatic testimony to love and mercy. Yet that testimony must be in the way of Law and ordinance, therefore itself maintaining that God is just while he is merciful. These preliminary considerations prepare us to take the “great Day of Atonement” as a typical prophecy fulfilled in the revelation of Christ. Notice
I. THE MEDIATION BETWEEN GOD AND MAN MUST BE A PERFECT MEDIATION.
1. Personal perfection. For ordinary ministration, washing feet and hands sufficient. For the great day, entire cleansing. This must be. A fellow-creature, imperfect and sinful, may be employed as a channel of communication between God and us, hut not as the efficient Mediator undertaking for both. The spotlessness of Jesus must be more than relative, more than character; it must be absolute, therefore, only as we see it in the Incarnation. Nor can we find satisfaction in the humanity of Christ unless we believe that it was capable of rendering to God an infinitely acceptable sacrifice; therefore, while it was flesh, it must have been free from all taint of sin. We lay our sins on him; then he must be himself absolutely sinless, or else our sins will be increased by his. Only in the pre-existence of the Second Person in the Trinity can we find a support for this doctrine of personal perfection in the man Christ Jesus.
2. Official perfection. The high priest must be clothed in spotless garments. “Holy garments.” He put off his “golden garments,” and put on the white linen, emblematical of official perfection. The continual repetition of the sacrifices and the priestly ablutions, together with the special priestly offerings, represented the necessary imperfection of the ceremonial atonement. The priest’s office was seen in its height of dignity in the high priest’s office; the high priest’s office in its most solemn duty, to enter the holiest once a year and make atonement for all. But the true High Priest and the true mediation were yet to come. The ministry of Christ was a perfect offering of man to God, in his active and passive obedience, and a perfect revelation and assurance of Divine favour to man; in the facts of his earthly life, promising healing and restoration for human woes, and life from the dead; in the development of a perfect humanity by example; in the unfolding and proclamation of the heavenly kingdom, which actually commenced in his person, and proceeded in ever-widening spheres of spiritual life in his Church; in his risen glory and the bestowment of the Holy Spirit, which were the completion of his official work as Mediator, for he said that if he went to the Father (that is, as Mediator), he would send the Comforter. Thus the vail was taken away, and the way into the holiest made manifest (Heb 9:8; Heb 10:19-23). Our High Priest is not one of an imperfect succession of Aaron’s sons, but after the order of Melchisedec, coming forth directly from God, and standing in unique perfection; the pledge at once of Divine acceptance and the spiritual liberty of the gospel.
II. VICARIOUS ATONEMENT. The three facts of the day were:
1. The blood of the victims shed and sprinkled.
2. The living way opened between the throne of God and. his people.
3. The public, solemn putting away of sins and their loss, as guilt, in the wilderness.
In the true atonement, thus represented, these are the essential factorsexpiation, reconciliation, restoration.
1. Expiation. The blood of the bullock, the blood of the goat, brought in before the mercy-seat, sprinkled seven times, etc. No remission of sins without blood. A tribute to the holiness of God, therefore to the perfection of the Divine government. No peace can be true and abiding which has not its roots in the unchangeableness of God. Notice how the modern feeling of the steadfastness and uniformity of nature vindicates the necessity of a forgiveness of sin which is a maintenance of Law. The sufferings of Christ must be viewed, not as the arbitrary assignment of a penalty, but as the sufferings of the sacrificial Victim, i.e; of him whose blood, that is, his life, was freely offered to seal the covenant, and who, being in the form of a servant, obeyed even unto death; made of a woman, made under the Law, therefore both having a fleshly, mortal nature, and being in a position of obedience, wherein he must, as a true Son, “fulfill all righteousness.” The cross was an open conflict between righteousness and unrighteousness, in which the true representative Seed of the woman, the true Humanity, was bruised, and, as a Victim, laid bleeding and dying on the altar; but in which, at the same time, the acceptance of the offering, as proved by the Resurrection and Ascension, was a manifestation of the victory of righteousness and the putting away of sin. The universality of the expiation was represented by the offering for priests and people alike, for the holy place, for the very mercy-seat, fur all the worship and religious life of the congregation. Apart from the merit of the Saviour’s blood, there is no acceptance of anything which we offer to God. The attempt to eliminate all distinctive recognition of expiation from religious worship, is the folly of our times in many who reject the teaching of Christianity. A temple without a sacrifice, without the blood which is the remission of sins, is a contradiction of the first truth of Scripture, that man is a fallen being, and can therefore be acceptable to God only on God’s own revealed terms of atonement.
2. Reconciliation (Lev 16:11-14). The true conception of salvation is not a mere deliverance from the punishment of sin, but living fellowship between God and his creature. The life of man is the outcome of God’s wisdom, power, goodness, unchangeable and everlasting. He carries eternity and divinity in his very nature and existence. His future blessedness, yea, his very being, must be secured in God’s favour. The burning coals of fire from off the altar, and the sweet incense beaten small, rising up as a cloud before the mercy-seat, betoken the intermingling of the Divine and human in the life of God’s reconciled children. This is maintained by the offerings of faith and prayer: the light of Divine truth penetrating the mind and life of man, the heart rejoicing in God and seeking him by a constant reference of all things to him, and dependence of daily life on his mercy. When thus the will and love of God underlie all our existence and pervade it, there is an open way between this world and heaven; the two are intermingled. Man becomes what he was made to bea reflection of his Maker’s image. “I will say, It is my people, and they shall say, The Lord is our God.” Christianity has the only true message of hope for the world, because it proclaims reconciliation between the infinite perfection of God and the polluted and imperfect humanity which he has redeemed.
3. Restoration (Lev 16:20-28). The scapegoatan emblem of the entire deliverance of man from the guilt and misery of sin. The necessity of this proclamation of a new world. Heathen minds recognized the evil of sin, but lay under the spell of fatalistic despair. “No symbol could so plainly set forth the completeness of Jehovah’s acceptance of the penitent, as a sin offering in which a life was given up for the altar, and yet a living being survived to carry away all sin and uncleanness.” The commencement of all renovation of character and life is the sense of entire forgiveness, perfect peace with God. The sins are gone into the wilderness, they have not to be cleansed away by any efforts of ours. Spiritual restoration lies at the root of all other. “The kingdom of God” is first “righteousness,” then “peace,” and then “joy in the Holy Ghost.” This is the Divine order of restoration. But as the priest put his hand upon the head of the goat, and confessed over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, so in the Divine work of grace on behalf of man, there must be the living faith which blends the penitent submission of the human will with the infinite sufficiency of the Divine righteousness and power.R.
Lev 16:31
A sabbath of rest.
“Ye shall afflict your souls.” The true penitence is the true peace. The” sabbath” represents the joyful acceptance of the creature, and his entrance into the Divine satisfaction. The Lord rested, and he invites man to rest with him. Sin is the only obstacle to that reconciliation and fellowship which blends man’s sabbath with God’s sabbath. “Once a year” the Jews celebrated this restoration, to us a statute of daily lifeevery day a sabbath.R.
HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR
Lev 16:1-34
The climax of sacrificial worship, the Day of Atonement.
cf. Joh 1:29; 1Co 5:7; Heb 9:10. The sacrifices already considered all bring out with more or less emphasis the idea of atonement. But to render this cardinal idea of our religion still more emphatic, it was ordained that the tenth day of the seventh month in each year should be a day of special humiliation on the part of the people, and special ritual on the part of the priests. The directions about it were apparently given immediately after the presumption and death of Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron. They must have ventured, we think, into the very “holiest of all,” with their censers of unholy fire. The stages in atonement may be set forth in the following way:
I. THERE IS THE VOLUNTARY HUMILIATION OF THE HIGH PRIEST. The Day of Atonement was the high priest’s day; he undertook the atoning work, and no man was to venture near the tabernacle (Heb 9:17) while he was engaged in it. The first thing required of him was humiliation. He had to lay aside his glorious garments in which he usually ministered, and to assume plain white linen ones; he had to bring a sin offering for himself and household; he had thus to humble himself under the mighty band of God, before he could be exalted by admission to the Divine presence. Now, it requires the high priest with his sin offering to typify with any adequacy Jesus Christ. For he is both our High Priest and our Sin Offering. He humbles himself to die as a Sacrifice upon the cross; he is a voluntary Sacrificehe offers himself (Heb 7:27). The humiliation of our High Priest can only be judged by our conception of the glory of Divinity which he temporarily resigned, added to the depth of ignominy into which in his crucifixion he came. All this was necessary that a way of reconciliation might be opened up for sinners.
II. THE HIGH PRIEST WAS REQUIRED NEXT TO PERFUME THE AUDIENCE CHAMBER WITH INCENSE. He proceeded with a censer of coals from off the altar, and a handful of incense, and was careful to fill the holy of holies with the fragrant cloud. Here again does it require the incense, in addition to the priest, to typify the relations of Jesus to our atonement. The work of atonement begins in his intercession. Think how he prayed during his life on earthhow earnest his prayer in Gethsemane was when he sweat as it were great drops of blood; think, further, how his intercession is continued in the heavenly places. Prayer is the beginning, middle, and end of the redemptive work. Without this incense, even the blood of the unblemished lamb would lose much of its effect.
It seems evident from this that we must put away those hard and business-like illustrations of atonement, as a hard bargain driven on the one side and paid literally and in full on the other. We must allow a sufficient sphere in our conceptions for the play of intercession and appeal, and remember that, while it is a God of justice who is satisfied, he proves himself in the transaction a God of grace.
III. AFTER THE INCENSE THERE IS BROUGHT IN THE BLOODY FIRST OF HIS OWN SIN OFFERING, AND THEN OF THE PEOPLE‘S. The blood of Jesus Christ is symbolized by both, and the act of sprinkling it before God is also to be attributed to our Great High Priest. “For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.” “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us” (Heb 9:24, Heb 9:12). Now, the presentation of blood unto God, and the sprinkling of it seven times in the appointed place, represented the appeal which the self-sacrifice of Jesus, his Son, is so well calculated to make to the Divine mercy in the interests of guilty men. The law of mediation is that self-sacrifice stimulates the element of mercy in the Judge. And if it be objected that surely God does not require such an expensive stimulant, the reply is that the self-sacrificing Son and the stimulated Father and Judge are in essence one. The act is consequently a Divine self-sacrifice, to stimulate the element of mercy towards man, and make it harmonize with justice. Here then we have remission of sins secured through the shedding of the blood of Jesus. Pardon and reconciliation are thus put within the reach of the sinner.
IV. BUT THE HIGH PRIEST WAS EXPECTED NOT ONLY TO SECURE THE PARDON OF SINS, BUT ALSO TO PUT IT AWAY BY THE DISMISSAL OF THE SCAPEGOAT. For the pardon of sin is not all man needs. He requires sin to be put away from him. He needs to be enabled to sing, “As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us” (Psa 103:12). Now, this putting away of sin was Beautifully represented in the dismissal of the scapegoat. This second sin offer-lug, after having the sins of the people heaped upon its head by the priestly confession, is sent away in care of a faithful servant to the wilderness, there to be left in loneliness either to live or die. Here again we have a type of Jesus. He is our Scapegoat. He carried our sins on his devoted head into that wilderness of desolation and loneliness, which compelled from him the cry, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” There did he fully atone for them, and secured their annihilation. As we meditate upon this portion of his mediation, we are enabled by the Spirit to realize that sin is put away through Christ’s sacrifice of himself (Heb 9:26). That desolation of the Redeemer into which he entered for us interposes itself, so to speak, between us and our sins, and we feel a wholesome separation from them. How can we ever love sin when we realize that it led our Lord to this?
V. THE HIGH PRIEST, HAVING THUS DISPOSED OF SIN, RESUMED HIS GLORIOUS GARMENTS, AND OFFERED THE BURNT OFFERING FOR HIMSELF AND THE PEOPLE. The stages already noticed have been prayer, the remission of sins through the shedding of blood, and the putting away of sin through the dismissal of the victim. Now comes dedication as the crowning purpose of the atonement, and which the burnt offering all along has indicated. It is Christ who offers this burnt offering, and is the Burnt Offering. That is to say, he has offered for men a perfect righteousness, as well as afforded us a perfect example. Our consecration to God is ideally to be a perfect onebut really how imperfect! but Christ is made unto us sanctification; we are complete in him; we are accepted in the Beloved; and we learn and try to live as he lived, holy as he was holy.
Moreover, upon the burnt offering was presented the fat of the sin offering, the Lord. thus emphasizing his satisfaction with the atonement, and his acceptance of it. The remainder of the sin offering, as a sacred thing, is carried to a clean place without the camp, and there burned. In no more beautiful way could God convey the assurance to his people that the ritual of atonement was complete and acceptable to him. It is when we gratefully dedicate ourselves to God, which is our reasonable service, that we receive the assurance of acceptance in the Beloved.
VI. THE WASHING OF THE THREE MEN OFFICIATING ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT CONVEYS SURELY THE IDEA OF THE CONTAMINATING POWER OF SIN. For the high priest, before he puts on the glorious garments and presents the burnt offering, is required to wash himself in water. The man who piloted the scapegoat to the wilderness has also to perform careful and complete ablutions. And so has the man who took the remains of the sin offering beyond the camp. For all three had to deal with sin, and are ceremonially affected by it. Most vivid must have been the impression thus produced upon the people. Sin would appear the abominable thing which God hates, when it is so defiling.
We have here the climax of the sacrificial worship. The Day of Atonement would be a rest indeed to the sin-burdened people. At the tabernacle they see in ritual how God could be reconciled to man, and how he could pardon and put away sin. As the smoke of the burnt offering passed up to heaven, many a soul felt that a burden was gone, and that the heavens were smiling once more. May the experience of the day of atonement abide in our hearts still, for we need it as much as the pilgrims long ago.R.M.E.
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD
Lev 16:1-4
The high priest on the Day of Atonement.
The Jewish high priest was an eminent type of Christ. He was this on ordinary occasions of his ministry, in respect to which Jesus is called “the High Priest of our profession” (Heb 3:1). But he was especially so upon this great occasion of his entrance into the most holy place,
I. THE MOST HOLY PLACE OF THE TEMPLE WAS A TYPE OF HEAVEN.
1. The tabernacle was a figure of the universe.
(1) It represented the material universe. In allusion to this, Paul speaks of the universe as the great house built by the hands of God (see Heb 3:3, Heb 3:4). And our Lord, also, alluding to the temple with its many courts and offices, speaks of the universe as his Father’s house (Joh 14:1).
(2) It likewise represented the moral universe. In this light it is also viewed by Paul in the same connection as that in which he likens it to the material (see Heb 3:6). In many places of Scripture the people of God are described under the similitude of the temple (see 1Co 3:16; 2Co 6:16; Eph 2:21, Eph 2:22; 1Pe 2:5).
2. The holy places signified the heavens.
(1) Amongst the coverings were what our version calls “badgers’ skins,” but the original word (), techesh, in ancient versions is explained to denote a colour, viz. blue. The covering may have been composed of rams’ skins dyed blue, as the other covering was of “rams’ skins dyed red.” Blue was the proper colour to suggest the air, while the red would suggest the golden glow of the light in the ethereal heavens.
(2) Josephus, speaking of the gate of the porch of the temple, which stood always open, styles it an “emblem of the heavens.” And the vail leading flora the porch to the holy place, made like Babylonish tapestry (Jos 7:1-26 : 21) of blue, purple, scarlet, and fine twined linen, he compares to the elements (‘Wars,’ Lev 5:5). Josephus also describes the branched candlestick, with its seven lights, as emblems of the planets of the solar system.
(3) But whatever may be said of details, the broad fact is not left to conjecture or even to tradition; for Paul tells us plainly that the holy places were patterns of the heavens (Heb 4:14; Heb 9:23).
3. The most holy place figured the supreme heaven. (l) This must be obvious from the fact that the Shechinah was there. God appeared then in regal state upon his throne of glory. The cherubim around him represented the powers of creation, physical and intellectual, which all wait upon him to fulfill his will everywhere in the great universe. Their faces were so placed that, while they all looked inward upon the propitiatory, they also looked outward in all directions, upon the house.
(2) This innermost sanctuary Paul accordingly describes as “heaven itself “an expression synonymous to the “third heaven,” and “heaven of heavens” (Heb 9:24; 2Co 12:2, Deu 10:14; Psa 115:16). It is the palace of God and of angels.
IX. THE ENTRANCE OF THE HIGH PRIEST INTO THE MOST HOLY PLACE ADUMBRATED THAT OF JESUS INTO HEAVEN. (See Heb 8:1, Heb 8:2; Heb 9:11, Heb 9:12, Heb 9:23, Heb 9:24.)
1. He entered in his white garments.
(1) Not in his “golden robes.” These are vulgarly supposed to have been his nobler vestments, and it is thought that entering in his white garments he appeared in “mean” attire, to express “humiliation” and “mourning” (see Matthew Henry, in loc.).
(2) But is this opinion just? Where are the white robes of the high priest so described in Scripture? Is it not rather the other way (see Eze 44:17)? Are the seven angels (Rev 15:6) described as in mean attire? As a matter of fact, did Jesus meanly or mourningly enter heaven? Was it not rather his entrance “into his glory” after his “sufferings” were “finished” (Luk 24:26)?
(3) The white robes represented the glorious body of his resurrection (see 1Ti 6:14-16; Heb 9:24, Heb 9:25). And a specimen of the quality of these garments was given on the mount of transfiguration, when the light of his glory was so white that no fuller on earth could make linen to compare with it.
2. Note now the allusion to Nadab and Abihu.
(1) (See Lev 16:1; refer also to Le Lev 10:1, Lev 10:2.) This terrible event occurred in the wilderness of Sinai (Num 3:4), where the Law was given, and where these very men were called up with Aaron to witness the glory of the Lord (Exo 24:1). Whatever induced them to offer strange fire, they became, in the sequel, a figure of Jesus, who came not with legal righteousness, and whom the fire of God was to search to the utmost.
(2) Aaron now became a similar type (see Lev 16:2). He was to die if he came near Jehovah, and so represented Jesus, who, in the union of his manhood with the Godhead, was to die. This issue was only averted from Aaron by the substitution of animal sacrifices, which were to procure the “forbearance of God,” until Immanuel should put away typical sin sacrifices by the sacrifice of himself.
(3) To avert death from Aaron, God appointed that incense also should be fumed before the mercy-seat, in the cloud of which he would appear (Lev 16:2, Lev 16:12, Lev 16:13). The cloud tempered the fierceness of the fire of the presence of God, and showed that, in virtue of the intercession of Christ, man may see God and live.J.A.M.
Lev 16:5-28
The sacrifices of the Day of Atonement.
Upon ordinary occasions sacrifices might be offered by common priests, who might act as representatives of the high priest or as representatives of the people, and so be types of Christ, or types of Christians. But upon this day the high priest must act in person, which leaves no doubt as to these transactions being eminently emblematical of Christ and of his great work. We notice
I. THE OFFERINGS FOR AARON AND HIS HOUSE. (See Lev 16:6.)
1. In these Christ is viewed in his relation to his Church.
(1) The Christian Church is the house or family of Jesus (Heb 3:6).
(2) To his Church Jesus stands in the relations of
(a) Priest,
(b) Sacrifice,
(c) Bondsman.
He bears our sin in his own person, and dies for us, as Aaron would have died for his own sin and that of his house, had not the sin sacrifices been substituted to procure the forbearance of God until our competent Aaron should appear to satisfy all the claims of justice and mercy.
(3) Aaron, in making atonement for himself and his house, evinced that Christ should be a priest having compassion (see Heb 5:2, Heb 5:3). For though Jesus had no sin of his own, yet did he take upon him our nature, with its curse, so as to be “touched with the feeling of our infirmities”. What a blessed assurance for us!
2. But Christ cannot be of the family of Aaron.
(1) Aaron for himself and for all his house needed sacrifices to atone for their own sins; how then could they put away sin from others? This they could only do typically and ceremonially (see Heb 7:26, Heb 7:27).
(2) Provision was made in the family of Aaron for the transmission of the priesthood from hand to hand; it was therefore never contemplated that any member of that house should have the priesthood in perpetuity. But this we must have in the office of a perfect Priest. His intercession must have no interruption (see Heb 7:23-25).
(3) To fulfill these conditions, Christ is come, a high priest after the order of Melchisedec (Psa 110:4; Heb 7:15-22). He sprang from Judah, of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood (Heb 7:11-14). We may praise God for the perfection of the priesthood of Christ, which needs no supplement in the offices of mortals.
II. THE OFFERINGS FOR THE PEOPLE.
1. There was the burnt offering.
(1) This, under ordinary circumstances, for the individual might be a bullock, or a ram, or a he-goat, or, in case of poverty, a pigeon; but in this case for the nation, as in the consecration of the priests, the ram is specified. (Lev 1:3, Lev 1:10, Lev 1:14; Lev 8:18). It is suggested that this animal was chosen for the offensiveness of its smell, in order to represent the odiousness of sin.
(2) In this case also the high priest in person, and alone, officiated. No one was to remain with him in the tabernacle of the congregation (Lev 16:17). What an expressive figure of Christ (see Isa 63:3, Isa 63:5; Zec 13:7; Mat 26:31, Mat 26:56; Joh 16:32)! No one could help Jesus in his great work of atonement.
2. The sacrifice of the two goats now claims attention.
(1) Two are brought, to foreshadow what one could not adequately, viz. that one part only of the compound person of Christ could die, while both parts were necessary for his making atonement. The animal on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat was to stand alive before the Lord, to make atonement with him (Lev 16:10; see Heb 8:3; 1Pe 3:18). The “somewhat” which our high priest has to offer is his humanity, which his Godhead supported and rendered infinitely efficacious for the expiation of sin.
(2) In casting lots upon the goats, one for the Lord, and the other for the scapegoat, we are taught that the sufferings of Christ were ordered by the providence of God (see Act 4:28). This is amply evinced in the wonderfully detailed anticipations of prophecy.
(3) Aaron laid his two hands upon the head of the creature that was to be the scapegoat, and confessed the sins of the congregation. These were such as may not have been atoned for by the usual sacrifices. And they are summed up as “iniquities” and “transgressions” and “sins” (Lev 16:21). Laden with these,
(4) he was sent away “by the hand of a man of opportunity”. Such was Simon the Cyrenian, who bore the cross on which the atonement was to be made for sin (Mat 27:32; see Gal 6:14; Eph 2:16; Col 2:14). Jesus was hurried along to his execution by the rabble rather than by any officer appointed to lead him. And as the man of opportunity was to be unclean until he had bathed his flesh and washed his clothes, so will the blood of the murder of Jesus be upon the Jews until it is cleansed by their repentance and faith (comp. Mat 27:25 and Joe 3:21).
(5) The scapegoat was to go away with its burden into a “a land not inhabited,” or “land of separation,” a “wilderness,” a place in which it might be lost sight of. This was designed to teach us how effectually our sins are borne away into oblivion by Christ (Psa 103:12; Isa 38:17; Mic 7:19; Joh 1:29; Heb 8:12). To set forth this important truth, it was also ordered that the bodies of those beasts whose blood was brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, were burnt without the camp (Lev 16:27; Heb 13:11, Heb 13:12). So, like the “man of opportunity,” whoever burnt the sin offering became unclean, and so remained until he had washed (see Zec 13:1). Have we been purified from all complicity in the guilt of the crucifixion of Jesus?J.A.M.
Lev 16:29-34
The Day of Atonement.
In this summary we have the design of the statute.
I. ATONEMENT WAS MADE FOR THE TABERNACLE.
1. The work of Christ affects the material universe.
(1) The tabernacle, we have seen (see on Lev 16:1-4), was a type of the universe, material and moral; and that the holy places represented the heavens. The sprinkling of the tabernacle and its holy places, therefore, teaches that the universe is affected by the atonement of Christ (Lev 16:15-19, Lev 16:33; Heb 9:12, Heb 9:23, Heb 9:24; Rev 5:6).
(2) Aaron, as the type of Christ, entered into the holiest place, but then only once in the year, nor could he without dying open an entrance into it even for his son, who, in his turn, could only enter there as the type of Christ. This showed that, while the tabernacle stood, the way into the holiest was not made manifest. But the vail was not only rent in the torn flesh of Jesus, so that he himself became the Way, but he entered heaven himself once for all (Heb 10:19, Heb 10:20).
(3) Do we avail ourselves of the privileges of our spiritual priesthood (Heb 10:21, Heb 10:22)?
2. The work of Christ influences the moral universe.
(1) Angels, therefore, manifested interest in the sufferings of Christ and the glories that should follow (Exo 25:20; Dan 8:13; 1Pe 1:11-13). The sprinkling of the holy places teaches that, through the atonement of Christ, holy angels are reconciled to us. By the sanctifying power of his grace we are brought into sympathy with them.
(2) They are now, therefore, interested in the welfare of the Church; and are themselves a part of the great family of Jesus (see Dan 12:5, Dan 12:6; Eph 1:10; Eph 3:10, Eph 3:15; Php 2:9-11).
II. ATONEMENT WAS MADE FOR THE PEOPLE.
1. None were exempted from the need of it.
(1) Aaron and his house were in the same category with the people in this respect. Though types, they were yet sinful men.
(2) But through the blood-shedding of this day, all stood “clean from all sins before the Lord,” i.e; he looked upon them and accepted them as clean. So in the great day of judgment will he look upon us and accept us as clean through the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ (Jud 1:24).
2. It was a general expiations.
(1) It occurred but once in the year. It was to atone for iniquities, transgressions, and sins, which, through ignorance, inadvertency, or perhaps neglect, had not been atoned for by ordinary sacrifices. Christ not only atones for particular sins, but for sin itself.
(2) It was repeated every year. The utmost the Jewish priest could do was to call sin to remembrance, and point to a greater than himself, who needed not to repeat his offering (see Heb 10:1-3).
III. THE DAY OF ATONEMENT WAS TO BE KEPT AS A SABBATH.
1. In it they were to afflict their souls.
(1) (See Lev 16:31; also Psa 35:13; Isa 58:6, Isa 58:7, Isa 58:13; Dan 10:3, Dan 10:12.)
(2) Resting from the toil of the world, with afflicted souls, while their sins were called to their remembrance, suggests that repentance towards God must accompany faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Act 20:21).
2. In it they were to rest.
(1) This suggested relief from the burden of sin. What a gracious sabbath in the soul is the sense of sins forgiven!
(2) This would be all the more expressive upon the year of jubilee, which, every forty-ninth year, came in on the Day of Atonement (Lev 25:9).
3. The time was the tenth day of the seventh month.
(1) Dr. Lightfoot computes that this was the anniversary of the day on which Moses came the last time down from the mount, bringing with him the renewed tables, and having the glory shining in his face.
(2) Jesus appears literally to have ascended into the heavens, as his type passed behind the vail, on the tenth day of the seventh month (see reasoning conducting to this conclusion in the appendix of Mr. Guinness’s work on ‘The Approaching End of the Age’). It was the time of the vintage, and maples the fullness of the atonement.
(3) It may prove that, on some anniversary of this day, Jesus will come down from heaven, in a glory immeasurably brighter than that in which Moses descended from the mount, to set up his kingdom upon this earth (see Act 1:11). The vintage of his wrath upon his enemies precedes the sabbath of his kingdom.J.A.M.
HOMILIES BY S.R. ALDRIDGE
Lev 16:6
A solemn ceremony.
There was risk involved in drawing nigh to the manifested presence of the Deity. God desired not that the judgment upon Nadab and Abihu should be repeated; rather would he be “sanctified” by reverent approach at appointed seasons in appointed ways. The Almighty can cause the wrath of man to praise him, but he prefers to be honoured by the affection that seeks diligently to observe his precepts. Hence the directions issued concerning the great Day of Atonement, on which the high priest was to come into closest contact with Jehovah. Let us consider those directions so far as they related to the purging away of the uncleanness of the priests.
I. THE FACT THAT THE HIGH PRIEST WAS TO MAKE ATONEMENT FOR HIMSELF AND HIS HOUSE.
1. It prevented pride, keeping alive in his breast a sense of infirmity. The expression, “for his house,” means his sons, and afterwards all who were of the priestly order. The pomp of office requires some guarantee against undue exaltation. A lofty position is apt to turn a weak man’s head, and his fall becomes the more calamitous. It is certain that the highest in the Church of Christ cannot claim exemption from sin.
2. It enkindled sympathy with those for whom he had to exercise his sacred functions (see this beautifully insisted on in the Epistle to Heb 5:2, Heb 5:3). Note likewise the superiority of Christ’s sympathy because of exquisite holy tenderness of spirit, un-blunted by passion. Jesus Christ acquired a fellow-feeling by his humiliation in becoming man, and in being tempted in all points like as we are, whereas Aaron was exalted to be a high priest, and needed to remember his humanity. If Aaron forgot this, and treated the worshippers gruffly, not only would their feelings be wounded, but his intercession would be so much the less efficacious, for even under the Law sentiment was requisite as well as symbol.
3. Its priority to the atonement made for the people emphasized the truth that only the cleansed can make others clean, only the sinless can rightly intercede for the sinful. Because Jesus Christ is holy, he sanctifies his followers. He who was eminently forgiving could pray to his Father to forgive his murderers. None but believers saved through grace should preach the gospel.
4. It prophesied the eventual supersession of Aaron’s order by a perfect priesthood. There was evidence of defect in its very face. Not always could God be satisfied with or man rejoice in imperfect mediation. An intercessor needing forgiveness for himself, a purifier who had constantly to cleanse himself, pointed to the advent of One who should have no need to offer up yearly sacrifice on his own account, whose purity should be real, not merely ceremonial and symbolical.
II. THE CEREMONY ENJOINED.
1. The attire, The gorgeous clothing of colour, gold, hells, and pomegranates, was laid aside, the whole body washed in water, and a garb of white linen donned. It was a day in which the fact of sin was prominent, and splendour ill befitted such an occasion. Besides, the high priest was not to look upon himself this day as representing God to the people, but as presenting the people to God, and a humble demeanour, indicated by plain attire, was appropriate to this function. Then, too, the white linen spoke of the holiness which the day’s services were to secure. It was the garment of salvation, in which God manifested his willingness to be the Saviour of the people from their sins.
2. The sacrifices, a sin offering and a burnt offering. Leaving consideration for the present of what was peculiar to the day in the former, here note
(1) that a harmony is observable in all God’s laws. Whilst this sin offering had its special rites, in other respects it was to be treated according to the general rulesa portion consumed on the altar, and the carcass burnt outside the camp. A likeness is traceable in the dealings of God, whether ordinary or extraordinary. Underlying features are discerned similar to those ascertained in other departments. Miracles have their customary analogies and laws; the operations of the Spirit proceed on familiar lines and principles; the worship and service of heaven will present some of the aspects that have marked the gatherings in the sanctuaries of earth.
(2) Again we observe how purification precedes consecration. The burnt offering followed the sin offering. After fresh ablution, the high priest arrayed himself in his usual vestments, and proceeded to place the holocaust upon the altar, to be the emblem of unreserved surrender to God’s glory. Having been bought with the precious blood of Christ, and thus redeemed from sin, we are enabled to dedicate ourselves to the service of God. It is in vain that men attempt the latter without the former.
3. The entrance into the holy of holies. How solemn and full of awe the moment in which the priest drew aside the vail and came near to the Divine presence! He was alone with God! It was dark but for the mysterious light that appeared between the cherubim, and the glowing coals on which he put the incense. Not too clearly might man contemplate even “the cloud” that was the enwrapment of Jehovah; the cloud of incense must cast an additional covering over the mercy-seat. Not lingering to indulge profane curiosity, the high priest sprinkled the blood of the sin offering upon the front of the mercy-seat, and upon the floor of the holy place. What a view was thus obtained of the majesty of God! what thoughts of his condescension in permitting a sinful creature to have such access to him! May not we learn the impiety of seeking to pry too closely into the mysteries of the Divine existence? Prayer becomes us in appearing before him; then do we know most of God, and protect ourselves from death. And the prayer is made efficacious through the atoning blood. The ark containing the commandments which we have transgressed is covered by the golden plate of Divine mercy, and that mercy is everlastingly secured by the atonement wherewith it is honoured and appealed to.
CONCLUSION. The privilege of the high priest was nothing to what we enjoy. What boldness we may use in entering into the holiest by the blood of Jesus! What remission of sins, what freedom from guilt, what liberty and gladness are ours! Our High Priest has ordered as our Forerunner, not for us merely, into heaven itself (Heb 9:8). As Aaron came forth from the sanctuary to the Israelites, so shall Christ appear, apart from sin, to them that wait for him unto salvation. He shall “receive us unto himself.”S.R.A.
Lev 16:29-34
The Day of Atonement.
This was a day second to none in importance. The rites then celebrated were the most awe-inspiring of all, and concerned the whole nation, which stood watching outside the sacred enclosure of the tabernacle. Not the slightest deviation from the established ritual was allowable; it was too significant and solemn in character to permit of alteration.
I. It was A DAY OF UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT. The high priest made atonement for himself and the order of priests, for the people of the congregation, for the brazen altar, for the tabernacle, and for the sanctuary. Thus was taught the truth that sin mingles with the holiest of men and their deeds, with the holiest things and places. Defilement attaches to our highest acts of worship, to our best thoughts and prayers. The tabernacle needed cleansing because of the “uncleanness” of the people (Lev 16:16) among whom it was situated. The noblest men receive some degree of contamination from their surroundings, and the purest principles have some alloy adhering to them through use. Mere ignorance of specific transgressions was not sufficient to obviate the necessity of atonement. Sin was there, though they should discern it not. “I know nothing against myself, yet am I not hereby justified.” Could any spectacle more vividly impress upon the mind the reality of sin and the need of its removal?
II. It was A DAY OF HUMILIATION. “Ye shall afflict your souls.” The word implies self-denial and consequent fasting, Not lightly was sin to be regarded! We are ever ready to extenuate our guilt and to minimize its enormity. The transgressions in respect of which a sin offering was prescribed were not high-handed acts of rebellion, but such as resulted from man’s frailty, from natural depravity. Yet this was not deemed an excuse of itself, it only showed the importance of providing for its atonement. No man with a perception of the magnitude of his iniquity can retain a heart at case, a conscience at rest. If there be such quietude, it is an evidence of the deadening influence of sin. Though sin has been overruled to the glory of God, it is in itself abominable, and must be viewed with abhorrence. Well may we bow before God in deep abasement!
III. It was A DAY OF REST. No work of any kind was permittedit was a “sabbath of sabbaths.” All the attention of the people was concentrated upon the ceremony observed by the high priest. What a rebuke here to those who cannot spare time to think of their state before God! Surely the transcendent importance of religion justifies occasional abstention from ordinary labour. What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and forfeit eternal life? The constitution of our minds does not enable us to think seriously of many things at once. Let not the concerns of the soul be thereby shelved. If we will not afford the necessary period here, there will come a long season of forced meditation, when the subject of sin and its forgiveness shall pierce us through and through with unutterable remorse.
IV. It was A FIXED DAY. God, in his merciful forethought, set apart the tenth day of the seventh month, lest the Israelites should forget the duty incumbent upon them. There are many advantages in having a time determined upon for religious worship. It comes regularly, and even children look for it. It prevents excuses, ensures due remembrance, and leads to fitting preparation. What is to be done at any time is practically for no time. But the observance of such days needs to be guarded against degenerating into formalism and routine. And under the gospel no adventitious sacramentarian importance must be annexed to these seasons, otherwise we fall under the censure of the apostle, as observing “days, and months, and seasons, and years.” Oh! for wisdom to distinguish between the true and the false in ordinances!
V. It was A DAY OF YEARLY OBSERVANCE. The imperfection of other sacrifices and purifications was thus clearly demonstrated, for however attended to they did not exclude the Day of Atonement. And the yearly repetition of the day itself told the same tale, pointed the same moral of the impotence of the sacrifices of the Law to “make the comers thereunto perfect” (see Heb 10:1-4). The day served its purpose indeed, but only by shadow and prefiguration. Compared with the Crucifixion, it was but a “splendid failure” to pacify the conscience, cleanse the heart, and quicken the life of those who participated in its effects.
VI. It was A DAY OF HUMILIATION THAT PREPARED THE WAY FOR A JOYOUS FESTIVAL. After five days commenced the Feast of Tabernacles, distinguished for its rejoicing beyond all others. The ceremonies of the Day of Atonement closed with a burnt offering, in which the people symbolically renewed their self-dedication to the worship and service of God; and very appropriately the chief feature of the Feast of Tabernacles was the large number of burnt offerings presented, as if the people should testify their gladness at the thought of pardoned iniquity, and of belonging to a God who so graciously blessed them and granted the increase of their fields. The man whose sin is forgiven and put away is truly happy. He can devote himself to God with glad ardour. The cloud that brought the storm and darkness has passed to the far horizon, and now it is brightened with many hues from the dazzling sun. Grief on account of sin is not designed to mar permanently the pleasure of our days. The depression is succeeded by elevation of soul.
The surgeon’s lance may have pained us, but now we are tranquil through the relief afforded.S.R.A.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
Lev 16:1, Lev 16:2
The peril of privilege.
Was it, then, necessary to contemplate the possibility of Aaron’s dying at his post? Was he, the chosen servant of God, who had been so solemnly inducted into his office (Lev 8:1-36, Lev 9:1-24), in actual peril of death as he ministered unto the Lord? Could he draw too near to God, so as to endanger his very life? It was even so. His two sons, Nadab and Abihu, had paid the extreme penalty of their sin in the service of Jehovah; “they offered before the Lord, and died” at their post. And if Aaron had violated the precepts here given, it is certain that from “the cloud upon the mercy seat” would have flashed the fatal fire which would have destroyed the high priest himself. We are not afraid now
(1) of such condign and signal punishment as befell the sons of Aaron: God does not visit us thus in these days; nor
(2) of coming too often or drawing too near to God. The barriers which then stood between the manifested Deity and the common people are removed. We may “come at all times” to the mercy-seat, and are in much greater peril of God’s displeasure for “restraining prayer,” than for intruding into his presence without need. Nevertheless, privilege has its own peculiar peril, and the penalty is very serious: it is death; not physical, but spiritual, eternal death. There may be in our case
I. PRESUMPTION FROM OFFICIAL POSITION. It is only too possible that those who “offer before the Lord” may come to regard their official duties as things which avail before him, independently of the spirit in which they are rendered. “Many will say, have we not prophesied in thy Name and in thy Name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you” (Mat 7:22, Mat 7:23). Many may say, “Have we not preached thy gospel, taught thy truth, evangelized in thy Name?” etc; andtrusting in their official works instead of looking to their inner spirit, and instead of attaching themselves to Christ in penitence and faithbe condemned at his bar.
II. FORMALISM FROM FAMILIARITY. It is all too possible for those who “offer before the Lord” to die a spiritual death, because they lose all real and living appreciation of the things they say and do. There is a subtle but powerful tendency in the human mind to do mechanically and unintelligently that with which it is exceedingly familiar. Not even the most sacred words or solemn rites are proof against it. We may, at the desk, or pulpit, or even at the table of the Lord, take words upon our lips which find no answer in the soul. We may be obnoxious to our Lord’s reproach (Mat 15:8). To use sacred language without sacred feeling is to move away from the fountain of life; to have entered the precincts of habitual formalism is to have passed the outer portals of the kingdom of death.
III. DISOBEDIENCE FROM DISREGARD TO THE WILL OF GOD. We are not bound to a rigid correspondence with every minute New Testament practice. There are some matters in which changed circumstances demand other methods. But we are bound to search the Scriptures to find the will of our Lord in the worship we render and the work we do for him. If we follow nothing better than “the traditions of men,” or our own tastes and inclinations, we may find ourselves in the wildernessa long way from the water of life.
Whatever position we occupy in the Church of Christ, however much of “the honour that cometh from man” we may enjoy, it is essential that we:
1. Cherish the spirit of humility, and exercise a living faith in Jesus Christ.
2. Realize the truth we speak, and spiritually participate in the services we conduct.
3. Have supreme regard to the will of our Master, seeking to learn that will as devoutly, patiently, studiously, as we can. These things must we do “that we die not” before the Lord.C.
Lev 16:2-17
Type and antitype-the priest.
The high priest offering sacrifices for the sin of the people was a clear type of” the High Priest of our profession,” who offered the one sacrifice for sin, who became the Propitiation for our sin, even for the sins of the whole world (1Jn 2:2). We have
I. FOUR FEATURES OF RESEMBLANCE.
1. Aaron acted under Divine direction. He was appointed by God to take the post he took, and was charged to do everything he did. He might not deviate in any particular from the instructions which came from heaven. “Aaron shall” is the continually recurring strain; almost every other verse contains this formula; departure from direction was utter failure in his work and death to himself (Lev 16:2).
2. Aaron divested himself of his rich attirehe wore not the ephod with precious stones, nor the mitre glittering with golden crown; this splendid attire he laid by on this occasion, and he put on the simple linen coat, and was girded with a linen girdle, and wore a linen mitre (Lev 16:4).
3. Aaron did his priestly work alone. “There shall be no man in the tabernacle when he goeth in until he come out” (Lev 16:17). No other foot but his might enter within the vail; no other hand but his might sprinkle the blood on the mercy-seat.
4. Aaron bore a heavy burden for the people. “So laborious and trying was his work that, after it was over, the people gathered round him with sympathy and congratulation that he was brought through it in safety.” So Christ, the great antitype,
(1) was appointed of God (Heb 5:4, Heb 5:5); he was “the Anointed,” the Sent One; he “came to do his Father’s will,” and though under no such minute commandments as those which regulated the actions of Aaron, he was ever consulting the will of the Father, doing “nothing of himself” (Joh 5:19-30; Joh 8:28; Joh 9:4).
(2) Divested himself of the robe of his divinity, and put on the frail garment of our humanity (Joh 1:14; Heb 2:14; Php 2:7).
(3) “Trod the winepress alone.” “Ye shall leave me alone,” said he (Joh 16:32) and alone he agonized in the garden, and alone he suffered and died on the cross. His was a most lonely life, for not even his most loved disciple understood the meaning of his mission; and his was a lonely death, none of those who stood weeping by being able to take any part in the sacrificial work he then wrought out.
(4) Bore so heavy a burden for us that his heart broke beneath it.
II. THREE POINTS OF CONTRAST.
1. Aaron was compelled to present offerings for himself (Lev 16:6, Lev 16:11-14).
2. Had to present an offering that was provided for him; a bullock had to be brought from the herds of Israel (Lev 16:6), or he would have been a priest without an offering.
3. Could offer no availing sacrifice for deliberate transgressions: presumptuous sin had already paid the penalty of death. But Christ Jesus, our Great High Priest,
(1) needed not to present any sacrifice for himself; the holy, harmless, undefiled One, separate from sinners, did not need to offer up sacrifices first for his own sins (Heb 7:26, Heb 7:27).
(2) Had no need to procure a victim, for himself
” came down to be
The offering and the priest.”
He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself (Heb 9:26).
(3) Offered a sacrifice which avails for all sin. His blood “cleanseth us from all sin” (1Jn 1:7; 1Co 6:11; Eph 1:7; Heb 9:14; Heb 7:25, etc.).C.
Lev 16:7-10, Lev 16:15, Lev 16:21, Lev 16:22
Type and antitype-the offering.
The most striking feature of the whole service on the great Day of Atonement was the action of the high priest in regard to the two goats brought to the tabernacle door (Lev 16:7). They clearly point to that “Lamb of God” who came to “take away the sin of the world” (Joh 1:29). That there were two goats rather than one presents no difficulty at all; there might well have been more than one to typify the Sacrifice which they foreshadowed. We learn
I. THAT GOD ADMITS VICARIOUS SUFFERING INTO HIS RIGHTEOUS REALM. The innocent goat would shed its blood, would pour out its life, that the guilty human souls might not die, but live. It was a Divine appointment, and shows clearly that the propitiatory element was allowed by the Holy One of Israel. The vicarious principle has a large place in the kingdom of God on earth. Involuntarily and also voluntarily we suffer for others and others for us. Man bears the penal consequences of his brother’s sin. He does so when he cannot avoid so doing; and he does so frequently with his own full consent; indeed, by going far out of his way on purpose to bear it. Vicarious suffering runs through the whole human economy. But there is only One who could possibly take on himself the penalty of the world’s sinonly One on whom could possibly be “laid the iniquity of us all.” That one is the spotless “Lamb of God,” that Son of God who became sin for man; he, “for the suffering of death was made a little lower than the angels,” and took on him a mortal form. “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities,” etc. (Isa 53:4, Isa 53:5; 1Pe 2:24).
II. THAT THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST AVAILS TO REMOVE COMPLETELY ALL CONDEMNATION. When the children of Israel saw the live goat, over whose head their sins had been confessed, being led away into the waste wilderness where it would never more be seen (Lev 16:22), they had a very vivid assurance made through their senses to their soul that “their transgressions were forgiven, and their sins covered.” No such dramatic assurance have we now, but we may have the utmost confidence that our sins are forgiven us “for his Name’s sake;” that “there is no condemnation to us who are in Christ Jesus,” to us “who have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins” (Act 13:39; Rom 5:9). Trusting in the slain Lamb of God, we may see, by the eye of faith, all our guilt and all our condemnation borne away into the land of forgetfulness, where God will remember it no more for ever.
III. THAT NO SACRIFICE WILL AVAIL ANYTHING WITHOUT ACTIVE PARTICIPATION ON OUR PART. Useless and unavailing altogether the slaying of the one goat and the sending away of the other without the act of confession and the imposition of hands by the high priest (Lev 16:21); this part of the solemn ceremonial was essential; apart from that everything would have been vain. And without our personal spiritual participation the sacrifice of the Lamb of God will be all in vain.
1. There must be the confession of our sin; a confession of sin which springs from contrition for sin, and is attended by a determination to put all sin away (repentance).
2. Faith in the Divine Redeemer. “Our faith must lay its hand on that dear head of his.”
3. And this must be the action of our own individual soul. Whatever guidance and encouragement we may gain from the ministers of Christ, we ourselves must repent and believe.C.
Lev 16:29-31
The great anniversary-sacred seasons.
The Jews had other special days beside the Day of Atonement. They had their weekly sabbath, the new moon sacrifices, their festivals or “holy convocations” (Lev 23:1-44), etc. But this was the “grand climacteric;” there were “high days” during the year, but this was the day of the year to every devout Israelite. No other was comparable to it in solemnity and sacred importance. Several features of peculiar interest combined to raise it above all other occasions.
1. It was the one annual solemnity prescribed by the Law.
2. It was a day of perfect rest from labour (Lev 16:29, Lev 16:31).
3. It was the one day of universal fasting enjoined or encouraged in the Law (Lev 16:29, Lev 16:31).
4. It was a day of self-examination and spiritual humiliation (Lev 16:29).
5. On that day the high priest went perilously near to the manifested presence of Godthen, and then only, entering within the vail, and standing in presence of the mercy-seat and the mysterious, awful Shechinah (Lev 16:12).
6. On that day unusual sacrifices were offered unto the Lord, and a striking spectacle witnessed by the whole camp, the live goat being led away into the wilderness (Lev 16:21).
7. Then, also, the people felt themselves in an unusually blessed relation to Jehovahfree, as at no other time, from all their sin; they were “clean from all their sins before the Lord” (Lev 16:30). We may, therefore, well pronounce this the great anniversary of the Hebrew Church. It must have had hallowing influences in both directions of time: it must have been anticipated with interest and awe; it must have left behind it sacred shadows of holy feelingof unity, reverence, joy in God. The holding of this anniversary “by statute for ever” suggests to us
I. THAT IN CHRIST JESUS THE OBSERVANCE OF DAYS IS AN OPTIONAL THING. There are valid grounds for believing that it is the will of Christ we should observe the Lord’s day as the disciples of him who is “the Resurrection and the Life.” But the enforcement of the observance of sacred days by statute binding on the Christian conscience is expressly disallowed (Gal 4:10, Gal 4:11; Rom 14:5, Rom 14:6; Col 2:16).
II. THAT IT IS WISE, AS A MATTER OF CHRISTIAN LIBERTY, TO OBSERVE SOME ANNIVERSARIES. God has, in his providential arrangements, made certain points to be regularly recurring. Time is so measured that we must be periodically reminded of interesting events. God put the lights in the firmament in order that they might not only “give light upon the earth,” but that they might be “for signs and for seasons, and for days and for years ” (Gen 1:14).
1. A Church should observe:
(1) the day of its institution, or
(2) the day on which it was conscious of revival, or
(3) any particular day which is, to itself, fruitful of sacred suggestions.
2. Individual Christian men may observe
(1) the last day of the old year,
(2) the first day of the new year,
(3) the anniversary of their birthday, or
(4) the anniversary of the day which has the most hallowed associations to their mind,the day of religious decision or that of reception into the visible Church of Christ.
III. THAT THERE IS A TWOFOLD USE WE MAY MAKE OF SUCH ANNIVERSARIES.
1. Solemn retrospect; with careful retreading of past experiences, free and full acknowledgment of God’s goodness and our own manifold shortcomings, simple faith in the Divine promise of forgiveness through Christ.
2. Thoughtful forecast; with studious consideration of what may yet be done for the Master and mankind, devout reconsecration of self to the service of the Saviour, believing prayer for Divine guidance and guardianship through future years.C.
Lev 16:33, Lev 16:34
The imperfect ritual and the All-sufficient Sacrifice.
If we place ourselves at the standpoint of a devout and inquiring Hebrew worshipper, we can suppose ourselves to ask, on the morning and evening of the Day of Atonement
I. WHY THIS ANNUAL CEREMONY? Have not numerous sacrifices been presented all the year round without intermission? Have not daily offerings been laid on the altar, morning and evening? and double sacrifices every sabbath day? and special offerings every month? And have not the people been bringing their presentations, from flock and herd, as piety has dictated, or special circumstances have required, all through the seasons? Have not these “come up with acceptance” before the altar of Jehovah? Has not sin been atoned for? What need, then, of these annual solemnities, of this very special ceremony at the tabernacle?
And if to such reflecting worshipper it should occur that the blood of lambs and bullocks, of doves and pigeons, was no real substitute for the forfeited life of men, would he not take a further step in his inquiry, and ask
II. CAN THIS SUFFICE, ALL OTHER FAILING? What is there in the ceremonies of this sacred day which will avail, if all the year’s sacrifices are insufficient? Will the fact that one man will stand in the inner instead of the outer side of a separating vail, and sprinkle blood on one article of tabernacle furniture rather than another,will this make the difference between the adequacy and the inadequacy of animal sacrifice for human sin? Will the ceremony of slaying one goat and leading the other out into the wilderness constitute the one needful thing that is wanted to remove the guilt of a nation? Surely something more and something greater is wanted still. To these suggested and probable inquiries of the Hebrew worshipper, we reply
III. THESE TYPICAL SOLEMNITIES DID NOT SUFFICE. It was a striking mark of their insufficiency that the very altar and tabernacle of the congregation, even the “holy sanctuary” itself (Lev 16:33; see Lev 16:16 and Heb 4:1-16 :21), had to be “atoned for.” Even they became affected by the “uncleanness of the children of Israel.” Here was imperfection legibly written on the holy things. And our instructed reason tells us that these things were inherently unsatisfactory. “It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins” (Heb 10:4). Such “gifts and sacrifices could not make him that did the service perfect” (Heb 9:9; Heb 7:18, Heb 7:19). They only served for a time, and drew their temporary sufficiency from the fact that they were to be completed and fulfilled in one Divine Offering, which should be presented in “the fullness of time.” And thus we come to
IV. THE ONE ALL–AVAILING SACRIFICE. In the one Great Sacrifice at Calvary, the death of the Lord Jesus Christ, there is everything which a guilty race requires.
1. No need, now, for annual sacrifices; “in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year” (Heb 10:3). “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever,” etc; “by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified” (Heb 10:14). Not “once a year,” but once for all, once for ever!
2. No need for purifying the holy place. He hath passed into the heavens; has sat down at the right hand of God. The “uncleanness” of man cannot stain his throne of grace.
3. No question as to the efficacy of his atonement. “If the blood of bulls and of goats,” etc. (Heb 9:13, Heb 9:14).
4. No limit to the application of his atoning death. The cross of Christ is that on which not merely “all the people of the congregation” (Lev 16:33), but all human souls in every land and through every age may look, in which they may glory, at which they may leave their sin and fear, from which they may date their inextinguishable hope and their everlasting joy.C.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Lev 16:1. And the Lord spake unto Moses, after the death of the two sons of Aaron The death of the sons of Aaron giving occasion for the declaration of the before-mentioned laws; (see ch. Lev 10:10 and ch. 11:) they are here inserted, and are to be read as in a parenthesis; and the present chapter is to be considered as in natural dependence upon the tenth.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
PART FOURTH. THE DAY OF ATONEMENT
___________________
The Annual, Universal, National Feast of Purification. The Great Day of Atonement, and the Great Propitiation.Lange
Lev 16:1-34
1And the Lord spake unto Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when 2they offered1 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: for I will 3appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat. Thus [With this2] shall Aaron come into the holy place: with a young bullock for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering. 4He shall put on the [a3] holy linen coat, and he shall have the [omit the3] linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the [a3] linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash [bathe4] his flesh in water, and so put them on. 5And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids [bucks5] of the goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering.
6And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house. 7And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the [om. the] congregation. 8And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat [for Azazel6]. 9And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the Lords lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. 10But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat [for Azazel6], shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat [for Azazel6] into the wilderness.
11And Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and shall make an atonement for himself, and for his house, and shall kill the bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself: 12and he shall take a [the7] censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the vail: 13and he shall put the incense upon the fire before the Lord, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is upon the testimony, that he die not: 14and he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon8 the mercy seat eastward [on the east side9]; and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times.
15Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the 16bullock, and sprinkle it upon8 the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat: and ho shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness. 17And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel. 18And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the Lord, and make an atonement for it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about. 19And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his fingers seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.
20And when he hath made an end of reconciling [making atonement for10] the holy place, and the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation, and the altar, he shall bring [offer11] the live goat: 21and Aaron shall lay both his hands12 upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their trangressions in [according to13] all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit14 man into the wilderness: 22and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited:15 and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.
23And Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation, and shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there: 24and he shall wash [bathe4] his flesh with water in the holy place, and put on his garments, and come forth and offer his burnt offering, and the burnt offering of the people, and make an atonement for himself, and for the people. 25And the fat of the sin offering shall he burn upon the altar.
26And he that let go the goat for the scapegoat [for Azazel6] shall wash his clothes and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward come into the camp. 27And 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. 28And he that burneth them shall wash his clothes and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp.
29And this shall be a statute for ever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you: 30for on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may 31be clean from all your sins before the Lord. It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute for eLev Lev 16:32 And the priest, whom he [one16] shall anoint, and whom he [one16] shall consecrate to minister in the priests office in his fathers stead, shall make the atonement, and shall put on the linen clothes, even the holy garments: 33and he shall make an atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make an atonement for the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation, and for the altar, and he shall make an atonement for the priests, and for all the people of the congregation. 34And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year.
And he did as the Lord commanded Moses.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lev 16:1. The LXX., the Targs. of Onk., Jon. and Jerus, the Vulg. and Syr. here insert the words strange fire, as is obviously implied.
Lev 16:3. . There seems no reason why the Heb. should not be rendered literally.
Lev 16:4. The articles are not in the Heb., and should be omitted as misleading.
Lev 16:4. , see Textual Note 30 on Lev 14:8. The Sam. and LXX. insert the word all before his flesh.
Lev 16:5. , see Textual Note 21 on Lev 4:23. The same word is used also Lev 16:7-8, etc.; but it seems unnecessary to alter the translation throughout, as this is the only place in which the sense is affected.
Lev 16:8; Lev 16:10 (bis), 26 . The word occurs only here, and in the wide difference of opinion existing as to its meaning, it seems far better to retain the Heb. word unchanged, as is done in many modern critical translations. It occurs in all cases without the article. For the meaning, see exegesis.
Lev 16:12. It is better to retain the definite article, as expressed in the Heb.
Lev 16:14-15. For =upon, the Sam. reads =before, towards.
Lev 16:14. =toward the east is to be connected with the mercy seat, and not with sprinkle. The high priest looking west, faced the mercy seat, and sprinkled it on the side next to him, i.e. the side toward the east. This cannot be clearly expressed in English without a slight modification of the phrase.
Lev 16:20. . See Textual Note 17 on Lev 6:30 (23).
Lev 16:20. , the same word as is used of the other goat in Lev 16:9, and the common word for sacrificial offering.
Lev 16:21. For the of the text, 35 MSS. read , as in the kri.
Lev 16:21. According to is both a better translation of the prep. and gives a better sense.
Lev 16:21. ., . ., according to Fuerst existing or appointed at a convenient time. LXX. , Vulg. paratus. The sense of appointed would probably bettter express the Heb. than fit (so Targ. Jon., and so Rosenmueller); but there is neither sufficient certainty nor sufficient difference to make the change.
Lev 16:22. . LXX. , Vulg. solitariam, Onk. uninhabitable, Jon. desolate, Syr. uncultivated. Lit. a land cut off. The A. V. sufficiently expresses the sense.
Lev 16:32. These verbs must either be rendered impersonally, or else taken in the passive, as the Heb. idiom very well allows.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Here a new Parashah of the law begins, extending through Leviticus 18 Amo 9:7-15 forms the parallel Proper Lesson from the prophets. That prophecy is cited by St. James at the Council of Jerusalem (Act 15:16-17), and applied to the building up of the Gentiles into the Church of Christ. Wordsworth suggests that he may have selected that particular prophecy because it was associated in his mind, through the public readings in the synagogues, with the passage before us which displays, in a figure, the work of Christ, our great High Priest, entering into the heavenly Holy of Holies, and reconciling the world to God by His own blood (Heb 9:7-12; Heb 9:24-28).
This chapter forms the culmination of all that has gone before, of the laws both of sacrifices and of purity, and therefore forms the fitting conclusion of the whole portion of Leviticus concerned with the means of approach to God. The significance of its symbolical ritual is dwelt upon in the 9th ch. of the Ep. to the Heb. The Holy of Holies was entered only on the day and with the sacrifices here prescribed, and this day was the only day of fasting appointed in the Mosaic law. The ritual of its sacrifices was peculiar and impressive, and the goat for Azazel is something so unlike any thing else in the Levitical system as to have occasioned the utmost perplexity to expositors. In Lev 23:27 (Heb.) the day is called the day of atonements (in the plural), as if this included in itself all other atonements, or at least was the most exalted and important, of them all. In Lev 16:31 (Heb.) it is spoken of as a Sabbath of Sabbaths, and by the later Jews it was commonly called simply Joma,=day, as the day of all days. It is probably intended by St. Luke in the expression the fast, Act 27:9. See Com. there. The high-priest alone could officiate, and this he must do in a peculiar dress worn only on this day. By the ritual of this day, the imperfection and insufficiency of all other sacrifices was brought prominently into view, while yet its own imperfection was necessarily involved in its yearly repetition.
The chapter consists of two portions, of which the first (Lev 16:2-28) contains directions for this great annual expiation; and the second (Lev 16:29-34), the command for its yearly celebration. The whole of Langes Exegetical Notes are here given.
1. It is first of all to be noticed that the yearly feast of atonement is mentioned twice in the Levitical law of worship, viz. once here as the culminating point of the laws and expiations of purifications; and again in Leviticus 23. in the midst of the feasts of the Lord for the positive sanctification of the land and the people, as a solemn prelude to the most festal and joyous of all the feasts, the feast of tabernacles. The point of unity of both lines is the thought: that Israel can then only attain to the full joys of the feast of tabernacles, when, on the great Sabbath of the seventh monththe single exclusive day of expiation and regular fast day of the yearit has humbled and purified itself before Jehovah with the confession, that all its legal atonements had not brought full purification; that the instruments of atonement, priests and altar, must themselves be atoned for; that not even by these comprehensive general supplications and general atonements could complete atonement be made; that a guilt remaining in secret must be sent home to Azazel as inexpiable under the of Jehovah (Rom 3:25)an act with which the Levitical atonement sweeps out beyond itself to a future and real atonement.
2. Corresponding to the thoughts that have been mentioned, we have:
a. The prevailing unapproachableness of the holy God, only momentarily suspended through a hypothetical, typically accomplished power of approach, as the idea of a future perfect atonement. This law was enforced by the fact that the two eldest sons of Aaron had died through approaching profanely, and by the threat that he too should die if he went behind the curtain of the Holy of holies, where Jehovah was manifested in a cloud over the mercy-seat (Jer 30:21), otherwise than according to the stated conditions, once a year. (Heb 9:7). Lev 16:1-2. [ The historical connection of this chapter with the death of Nadab and Abihu does not exclude the logical connection with the legislation of the rest of the book. The provision for the day of atonement was necessary in any case to the completeness of the Levitical system, but the command for its observance was immediately occasioned by their unauthorized act. There are no data to show the length of the interval between their death and the Divine communication contained in this chapter; but it was probably short. Lev 16:2. Within the vailwhich separated the holy place, the outer part of the sanctuary where the priests daily ministered at the altar of incense, from the holy of holies which was never to be entered by man except as provided for in this chapter. On the significance of this arrangement see Doctrinal remarks below. The custom of having peculiarly sacred parts in the heathen temples is well known. The mercy-seat. LXX. , Vulg., propitiatorium, and so the other ancient versions. The LXX. word is twice used in the N. T., being translated mercy-seat in Heb 9:5, but propitiation in Rom 3:25. The word occurs only in Ex., in this chapter, and in Num 7:89, and 1Ch 28:11. It is evident from Exo 25:22; Exo 30:6; and Num 7:89, that it was the place appointed for the peculiar manifestation of the presence of God; and from this chapter, that it was the objective point of the highest propitiatory rites known to the law. The English word only partially conveys the sense. I will appear in the cloud.There has been much question whether this means the light-giving cloud which overshadowed and at certain times filled the tabernacle, and which according to the Jewish authorities, was afterwards represented by the Shechinah above the ark; or whether it refers simply to the cloud of incense arising from the censer of the highpriest as he passed within the vail. The subject is ably and fully discussed by Bhr (Symb. I. c. V. 2, IV. 2d aufl., pp. 471481) who concludes in favor of the latter. See the authorities there cited. The determination in reality involves two separate questions: first, whether the promise of the text is personal to Aaron, or whether it is given in perpetuity to him and his successors in the high-priesthood; and second, whether, after the cessation of the wanderings in the wilderness, there ever was such a Shechinah. In regard to the latter question, later Jewish tradition, from the time of the Targums down, is certainly sufficiently emphatic in the affirmative; but for so remarkable and perpetual a miracle, higher authority is required. Bhr has shown that Philo and Josephus, as well as the Christian Fathers to the time of S. Jerome, knew nothing of it, and it is never mentioned in the Scriptures, or in the Jewish Apocryphal books. Nevertheless, the incense is not spoken of until Lev 16:12, and it seems unlikely that the cloud from it should be intended here. God had hitherto manifested His presence to Moses and to the people in the cloud which covered the tabernacle, and that in various localities; it would not be strange that He should now promise a similar manifestation to Aaron by the same instrumentality. That this should take place upon the mercy-seat was a consequence of Aarons coming before it in this highest act of propitiation. Of course this would give no ground to suppose that such a manifestation continued there perpetually, or at any other time than that on which it is here especially promised, Rosenmller, Keil, and most other commentators, however, accept the Jewish tradition of the Shechinah.F. G.].
b. He must next protect himself with a great sacrifice; for he is directed to take a young bullock for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering. By these the great faults of the priesthood on the one side, and the great duties on the other side are signified, Lev 16:3. [ Come into the holy is sometimes understood in relation to Aarons entrance into the tabernacle merely, because these offerings were offered before he passed beyond the court at all; but as the point of the whole ritual is the entrance into the holy of holies, the words are more fitly interpreted in relation to this. Full account is given of the ritual of the sin offering in Lev 16:11-14; Lev 16:27-28; the sacrifice of the priestly burnt offering was at the same time with that of the people at the conclusion of the other sacrifices (Lev 16:24).F. G.].
c. After this, he is to make himself the atoner for the collective priesthood. All the high-priestly ornaments were laid aside, and he was clothed with a linen coat over linen drawers, and girt with a linen girdle. The linen cap completed the attire. Even this enrobing must be preceded by a religious lustration (Lev 16:4). [This clothing is called the holy garments, Lev 16:4; Lev 16:32; and it is separated from that of the common priests by a white linen girdle in place of the ordinary priestly girdle wrought in needle-work with blue and purple and scarlet (Exo 39:29). The high-priest is thus to lay aside his golden garments of authority, and to be clad in pure white as symbolical of holiness. This symbolism was increased by his bathing himself before putting on these garments, and again when he exchanged them (Lev 16:24) for his official robes. These bathings were not the mere ordinary bathings of the hands and feet, but of the whole body.F. G.].
d. Only in such guise can he receive the means of atonement for the congregation involved with him in guilt, the two he-goats, which in the more general sense, are appointed for a sin offering. In the presentation of the burnt offering, however, the congregation was equalized with the high-priest himself. But how inconsiderable is the he-goat in comparison with the young bullock, Lev 16:5. [He shall take of the congregation. Inasmuch as these sacrifices were for the people, the victims were supplied by them, as the former ones had been by Aaron. The fact that the two goats together constitute the sin offering is to be particularly noted. The high-priests sin offering was a bullock, as provided in Lev 4:3, and the ordinary sin offering for the whole congregation was the same (ib. 14); here it is changed to two goats to meet the particular ritual provided, but they together constitute a single sin offering. In the same way two birds were required for the purification of the leper (Lev 14:4), or to make atonement for the leprous house (ib. 53) one of which was set free; and so also in the sin offering of the poor (v. 7), two doves were required which were differently treated, but together made up a single sacrifice. The burnt offering, both for the high-priest and for the congregation, was not a bullock, but an inferior victim was prescribed, probably to avoid withdrawing the attention from the other sacrifices, and thus to bring out with greater force the significance of the whole work of the day as an atonement for sin.F. G.].
e. Now follows the ordinance for the atonement in a shorter statement. The sin offerings were placed together before the sanctuary, presented before the Lord; the bullock and the two he-goats; since the guilt is indeed different, but yet also common. [The text, however, distinctly separates the presentation of Aarons bullock (Lev 16:6) from that of the he-goats for the people (Lev 16:7); and this is in accordance with the order of the actual sacrifice which follows. It seems also necessary to the idea that Aaron must first make an atonement for himself and for his house before proceeding to offer for the people.F. G.]. But now the mysterious act was performed: the lot was cast over the two he-goats, while the lot of the one was called for Jehovah, that of the other for Azazel. On the various significations of this, see below. Meantime, only the directions which belong to both are spoken of. Lev 16:9-10. [610. The used in Lev 16:9-10 of the lots refers to the coming up of the lot out of the urn. Keil. Aarons bullock is now offered, not sacrificed, for this comes afterwards, Lev 16:11; the same is true also of the other sin offerings. According to Jewish tradition, this offering was accompanied by the high-priests making a solemn confession of sin, the form of which is given in Massechet Joma c. 3, 8 (Patrick). His house is not his immediate, personal family, but the whole order of priests, and perhaps it also included the Levites after they were separated from the congregation.The two goats of Lev 16:7 were to be, according to Jewish tradition, of the same size, color, and value, and as nearly alike in every way as possible. Both of them alike Aaron was directed to present before the Lord, but the word used for this act () is a different one from that used of Aarons offering of the bullock (), and does not appear to be used in a sacrificial sense. The lots were then cast, and only the one upon which the LORDS lot fell was Aaron at present to offer () for a sin offering (Lev 16:8) as he had already done with his own bullock; the other, on which the lot fell for Azazel was to be presented alive () before the Lord (Lev 16:10). This difference in the treatment of the two goats from the outset is too important to be overlooked; but subsequently the other was also offered(Lev 16:20), and it is expressly said that Aaron should make an atonement with him.Thus it is clear that the goat for Azazel, while forming part of the one sin offering and used for the purpose of atonement, was yet offered to the Lord, in the sacrificial sense, separately from the other.F. G.].
f. The sacrificial acts follow these preparations. Aaron must slay the sin offering of the priesthood in the court. Then he first brings a large offering of incense (both hands full of I sweet incense) into the holy of holies, a cloud of the fulness of prayer, which covers the whole mercy-seat, as this covers the law, the evidence of the guilt of sin. With this preparatory entrance only is made possible the principal entrance for fulfilling the priestly atonement, without Aarons dying in that entrance. Then he comes back, brings the vessel of blood, and first sprinkles with his finger blood upon the mercy-seat on its front side, as if to express the thought that there is an atonement in the blood; then he sprinkles before the Kaporeth [mercy-seat] with his fingers (plural) seven times, as if to express the whole historical work of the blood of martyrdom which the blood-sprinkling of the Kaporeth [mercy-seat] crowned. [Lev 16:11-14. It is important to the understanding of this day to keep the order of its rites distinctly in view. They have been clearly stated above: (1) the high priest slew the bullock for the priestly sin offering; (2) then he entered the holy of holies with the golden censer (comp. Heb 9:4) full of burning incense; (3) taking the blood of his own sin offering, he again entered the holy of holies and sprinkled the blood, first upon the front side of the mercy-seat, and then seven times before it; (4) he again came out to slay the goat for the sin offering of the people (Lev 16:15).F. G.]. Now first follows the atonement for the people. Aaron takes the vessel of blood of the peoples atonement, and performs the two sprinklings in the holy of holies as before. Here also the distinction is made upon the mercy-seat and before the mercy-seat. But as Aaron does not make atonement for his private guilt, of which mention was made in chap. 4, but for the faults in his sacrificial service itself, so is it also with the atonement for the people. For their private sins they have brought their sacrifices during the course of the year; now they have, in connection with the priesthood, to atone generally for the subtle sins in all their atonements and offerings. [Yet it would give an imperfect view of the purpose of the great day of atonement to suppose it restricted simply to atoning for defects in the various sacrifices of the past year, nor probably does Lange mean to be so understood. It was rather an expression of the inherent insufficiency of those sacrifices; an acknowledgment that, notwithstanding all those propitiations, there still remained an alienation between a sinful people and a perfectly holy God. It was the design of this day to acknowledge this, and by the most solemn and expressive types, symbolically to remove it; yet in the provision for its annual repetition, its own insufficiency to this end stands confessed, and with especial clearness it points forward to the only true remedy in Him who should really obtain the victory over the power of evil.F. G.] So first atonement was made for the sanctuary of the Temple [or Tabernacle] in the holy of holies (which indeed had itself remained unapproachable for sin as well as the sinner), and then from the holy of holies outward, for the tabernacle of congregation, which had been particularly exposed to defilement in the midst of the impurities of the people. That by the tabernacle of congregation is meant the court, is shown by the command that no one should enter it while he accomplishes the atonement. [On the other hand, Keil understands the holy place of the tabernacle in contradistinction to the holy of holies, which is called throughout this chapter simply the holy. So also Rosenmller and others. And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of congregation. The object of this was not to guard the privacy of the ceremony, but simply because all were regarded as defiled and to be atoned for, and every thing defiled must be excluded during the process of atonement.F. G.] The whole religion of the people appears as in abeyance while the high-priest was consummating the atonement. And fitly were these atoning acts so named. After the high-priest had completed the atonement in the holy of holies, he went back into the sanctuary, and there sprinkled the altar of incense. In a manner entirely analogous to the sprinkling upon the mercy-seat, he first sprinkled the horns of the altar of incense, and then the altar itself seven times. [The analogy is still more completely carried out by the change of words in the Heb. put it () upon the horns of the altar. he shall sprinkle () of the blood upon it. F. G.] Only in this sprinkling, the blood of the bullock is joined with the blood of the he-goat, as indeed the prayers of both priest and people rise together to God, and in like manner also their faults in prayer. It is remarkable that the act of sprinkling in the court (at the altar of burnt offering) seems to follow the act of sprinkling in the holy of holies, and not till then the sprinkling of the altar of incense in the temple [tabernacle], which is here called par excellence the altar. In this connection the passage Exo 30:10 is worthy of note. Accordingly the atonement for this altar was the last act of sacrifice, and thereby the atonement for the theocratic prayer became the last point in the atonement, as indeed it had certainly been the basis for the first. [The ceremonies of propitiation began by carrying the burning incense, symbolizing prayer, within the vail; then the blood was sprinkled upon the instruments of propitiation, the mercy-seat and the brazen altar, and finally upon the altar of incense itself which was connected with the symbolism of prayer.F. G.] This ordinance seems to be connected with the thought that the altar of incense in its relation to Jehovah (the altar that is before the LORD) was reckoned as belonging to the holy of holies, as also the Epistle to the Hebrews seems to understand. After all this comes the treatment of the living he-goat, designated for Azazel. This goat was brought into the court. Here the high-priest must lay both his hands (his hand in the singular was said of the offerer Lev 1:4; Lev 3:2; Lev 4:4; Lev 4:24) upon the head of the goat and confess upon it all the misdeeds () of the children of Israel, and all their breaches of allegiance (deadly sins, crimes) (), which belong to all their sins, which are not included either in the sins to be atoned for, or which have already been atoned for (), and shall lay these upon the head of the goat, and shall send it away (hunt it away) into the wilderness by means of a man who stood ready for that purpose (therefore instantly). The object, however, is that the he-goat shall bear away all the sins, as if they had been laid upon him, into a desolate place. So shall he send him away into the wilderness, properly speaking, into a complete solitude, into a bare place in the midst of the wilderness, to the most desolate spot. So fearful indeed is the burden of guilt of this beast, that the man who has driven away the goat must first, outside the camp, wash his clothes and bathe himself before he may come back again into the camp. This is the contagious power of the deadly sins. It is to be considered that sins done with uplifted hand could not be removed by Levitical sacrifice.
But further, they could not all be discovered and blotted out by the penalty of death, the Cherem. Thus there remained, after all the atonements and penalties, an unatoned and unpardonable residue, the hidden guilt of Israel, which crept on in darkness through its history until the crucifixion of Christ (Rom 3:25). From this the congregation of Israel could only be freed by a symbolical act, in which they hunted away this burden of guilt with the sin-goat of double power, to him to whom this guilt belonged, to the Azazel in the wilderness. That the solitude inside the pasturage of the wilderness was considered as a region of evil spirits is plain from passages of the Old and New Testaments (Isa 13:21; Isa 34:14; Mat 12:43 ss.); that further, the dismissing of the unpardonable sins could be considered as a giving over of the sinner, with his sin, to its author, is shown by the act of excommunication of Paul (1Co 5:5), and that the idea or conception of a diabolical opposing spirit was handed down from patriarchal times, is plain, backwards, from Genesis 3, and forwards, from the position of Satan in Job, and other places. The name Azazel corresponds throughout to this conception. Whether the be derived from , it means (from the verb in Pihel) the one that is always hiding, separating himself; or from , the one that is always removing himself, the escaping one, the old one every where and nowhere; and one can only say simply that the various explanations which are most divergent from this conception are only to be accounted for from the want of understanding the undoubtedly very obscure and solemn idea of the text. Thus Knobel finds himself authorized by the text and the grammar to explain our author considered Azazel as an evil being in the wilderness. To be sure, it is his purpose to assert in this connection that the devil does not appear in the old Hebrew books, and was not a dweller in the wilderness. [Similarly Kalisch argues, upon the same grounds, that this book must be later than the time of Zechariah!F. G.] That the teaching concerning the devil has only been gradually developed from the obscurest forms; that the devil appears in Scripture in connection with subordinate demons; that further, he is described in the New Testament as a dweller in the wilderness;17 that finally, the conception of natural or spectral Desert fiends would be a dualistic one, contravening the spirit of the Old Testamentall this is overlooked in his skilfully prepared antithesis. But when Merx, in opposition to the interpretation of the passage of Satan, declares that the Old Testament consciousness is never dualistic, he has not learned to distinguish dualism from the biblical teaching in regard to Satan; and, as regards the further exposition, that the idea of Satan was foreign to the Old Testament, it is a pure assumption, with which he sets himself in opposition to the best recognized passages. The lately advanced proposition, this thought does not appear any where else in Scripture, denies the conception of , and can only be described as bad Hermeneutics, without mentioning that we have here nothing to do with a . Into what adventurousness Exegesis was brought when it passed to the thought, that the absolutely or relatively (for the Old Testament economy) inexpiable sins were given over to the kingdom of darkness for earlier or later judgment, is shown by the interpretations that are given:Azazel signifies a locality in the wilderness; a desolate place; a mountain (while it is forgotten that the people journeyed from station to station); or the buck goat itself (from and , caper emissarius, the scapegoat (der ledige Bock18) according to Luther); or Azazel is a demon, to whom this goat is brought as a sacrifice; or the word is an abstraction, and signifies the whole sending away, like the characteristic hesitation of the LXX. between and , in which two different expositions are brought out. [In regard to the meaning of Azazel: in the great variety of etymologies given for the word by scholars of the highest standing, it may be assumed as certain that nothing can be positively determined by the etymology. See the Lexicons and Bochart, Hieroz. I., lib. II. c. 54 (Tom. I., p. 745 seq. ed. Rosen.); Spencer, de leg. L. III. Diss. 8, Sect. 2 (p. 1041 s. ed. Tbing.). Not only the roots themselves are varied, but their signification also, and still further the signification of the compound. Little light can be had from the Ancient Versions. The Sam., and the Targs. of Onk., Jon., and Jerus., retain the word unchanged; so also does the Syriac, but in Waltons Polyglott this is parenthetically translated Deus fortissimus, for which, however, there seems to be no more authority than in the Hebrew; the Vulg. has caprus emissarius; the LXX. renders in Lev 16:8, (which Josephus also uses), in Lev 16:10 e , in Lev 16:26 t ; Symm. ; Aq. (or, according to Theodoret, ; Theod. . All these versions, it will be observed, either retain the word unchanged, or else refer it to the goat itself in the general sense of Luther, and the A. V. scape-goat. The old Italic, too, has ad dimissionem. The Jewish authorities differ, R. Saadias Gaon being quoted by Spencer, and Kimchi by Mnster and others for the interpretation rough mountain of God, but many of them explaining the word of the Devil. Of the Christian Fathers, Origen (contra Cels. 6), and a Christian poet cited by Epiphanius (Hres, xxxiv.) from Irenus, identify Azazel with the Devil; on the other hand, Theodoret (Qu. xxii. in Lev.) and Cyril (Glaph.) concur with the interpretation of Jerome. Suidas and Hesychius make the LXX. averruncus, the averter of evil. (See Suicer Thes. S. V. .) The great majority of modern commentators agree with Spencer and Rosenmller in interpreting the word itself of the Devil, although Bhr, Winer, and Tholuck contend for the sense complete removal. The Book of Enoch, so called, uses the name, or one so like it as to be evidently meant for the same, several times (Lev 8:1; Lev 10:12; Lev 13:1), in a way that shows the author understood by it the Devil; but this book, being an apocryphal composition, probably of the second century, (see Excursus It. in my com. on S. Jude), can add nothing to the authorities already cited. The writers who adopt this sense differ very widely in regard to the object of the goat for Azazel, some considering him as a sacrifice to appease the evil spirit, others as sent to deride and triumph over him in his own dominion, and others as simply sent away to him as to one banished from the realm of grace. (Clark.) See the dissertations, among others, by Spencer and one by Hengstenberg in his Egypt and the Books of Moses.
In this great variety of interpretation of the word and of the meaning of the ritual, we are fairly remanded to the text itself with the conviction that nothing is certain except what is positively stated there. These points at least, are clear: (1) the two goats together constitute one sin offering, ver 5; and also in Lev 16:10, the goat for Azazel is expressly said to be presented before the LORD to make an atonement with him. according to invariable usage, denotes the object of the expiation; to expiate it, i.e., to make it the object of expiation, or make expiation with it. Keil.) Nevertheless a distinction is observed in the text in the purpose of the expiation effected by each of the goats. The blood of the one that was slain is used only for making atonement for the holy places, Lev 16:15-19; after this it is expressly said, and when he hath made an end of making atonement for the holy place,etc. The expiation for these was then finished, and as yet no expiation had been made for the sins of the people. Then follows, he shall bring the live goat, and on his head the high-priest lays the sins of the people to be borne away. The two goats then constitute one sin offering, but one is used to expiate the holy places, the other to bear away the sins of the people. (2) The two goats were not offered together in the sacrificial sense, but only caused to stand before the Lord for the purpose of casting lots, Lev 16:7; afterwards the goat for sacrifice was offered (Lev 16:9) by himself, and the goat for Azazel (Lev 16:20) was offered by himself. (3) The lot was cast by Aaron as the officiating high-priest, and was plainly intended to place the choice of the goats entirely in the hands of the Lord Himself. (4) The preposition used is precisely the same in regard to both the goats: for () the Lord,for Azazel; in view of this it is impossible to understand Azazel as in any way designating the goat itself, so that the interpretation of the LXX. Vulg. and A. V. is untenable as a literal translation, although as a paraphrase, it very well expresses the sense. On the other hand, this by no means implies, as so often assumed, that Azazel must be a personal being. It would be perfectly consonant to the usage of language that one goat should be for the Lord, and the other for anything, or place, or abstraction; for the knife, for the wilderness, for the bearing away of sin. (5) The word Azazel is elsewhere unknown to the Scriptures, and there is no satisfactory evidence that, except as taken from this passage, it ever was a word known to any language. (6) Finally it is to be borne in mind that this is not the only case in which two victims, treated with different ritual, constituted together a single sin offering. The same thing occurred in the two birds of the sin offering of the poor (v. 710), of which one was treated according to the ritual of the sin offering, and the other according to that of the burnt offering, yet both together constituted the sin offering. Another analogy is in the two birds for the purification of the leprous man or house, one killed, the other set free. These last, however, were not a sacrifice.
In view of these facts why may it not be supposed that the word Azazel was somewhat vague and indeterminate in its signification to the ancient Israelites themselves, just as Redemption is to the Christian? So far as our sinful condition is concerned, nothing can be plainer or more vitally important; but when the question is asked, To whom is this redemption paid? no certain and satisfactory answer has been, or can be given. May it not have been in the same way with this word to the Israelites? That their sins were borne away was most clearly taught; but looking upon these sins as concrete realities, the question might arise, Whither were they carried? The answer is in the first place to the wilderness, to the place of banishment from God; and then further to Azazel. It was not necessary that the word should be clearly understood; in fact the more vague its meaning, the more perfect the symbolism. The typical system could not explain further. The main point is well brought out in the translations of the LXX. the Vulg. and the A. V., After every other part of the atonement for the holy places had been completed (Lev 16:20) this goat was appointed for the symbolic bearing away of the sins of the people, first into the wilderness, a wide, indefinite place, and then further to Azazel, a wide, indefinite word. All this very emphatically symbolized to the people the utter removal of the burden of their sins, without attempting to define precisely what became of them. The only danger that could be supposed of similar vagueness entered into the New Testament account of the great Sacrifice for sins, to set at rest the endless theories which aim in vain at explaining the modus operandi of the Divine atonementexcept that whatever that term had been, learning and ability would have been hopelessly devoted to ascertain its meaning, as has already been the case with Azazel.F. G.]
After the atoning sacrifice was completed in the way described, Aaron must prepare to present the burnt offering. It is very significant that he had to lay aside in the court the linen garments, the garments of expiation, and bathe his flesh with water, and then only, in his own high-priestly robes, present his burnt offering and that of the people, a ram for himself, and a ram for the people. Moreover, when it is said, he shall both make an atonement for himself, and for the people (Lev 16:24), it is certainly implied in the expression that the typical burnt offering signified only a typical Interim for the real Burnt offering (Rom 12:1), provided the expression is not to be considered as a final recapitulation. The contrast between the he-goat which had been slain as a sin offering to Jehovah, and the goat, of the Azazel is also expressed in this: that the fat of the first came upon the altar with the burnt offering, while even the man who drove away the Azazel goat had to undergo a lustration. [Aarons bathing himself (Lev 16:24) seems also to be connected with his having symbolically laid the sins of the people upon the head of the goat. The same lustration was also required of him who burnt the flesh of the other goat and of the bullock without the camp (Lev 16:28), as is noticed by Lange below. The object of these requirements is evidently to express by every possible symbolism the defiling nature of sin. In Lev 16:27 the word for burning is , which as noted under Lev 4:12, is never used of sacrificial burning.F. G.] The sin offerings indeed, the bullock and the goat, in their remainder of skin, flesh and bones, were carried without the camp, and there burned; as was to be done with the sin offerings of the high-priest and of the congregation according to Lev 4:1-21, as if these pieces were considered a Cherem. [The law required that the flesh of all sin offerings whose blood was brought within the sanctuary, should be burned without the camp. See on Lev 10:18.F. G.] But it has certainly this meaning: that these pieces were here neutralized and removed with a becoming reverence for their signification. On account of this important idea, the fulfiller of this work was also subjected to a lustration, Lev 16:28.
As a supplement, partly a repetition, it is now said, that the children of Israel shall on this day afflict their souls; that this law shall be an everlasting law; the day a great Sabbath on which all work shall be stopped; that it shall be Israels atonement from all their sins which the high-priest should execute, and that once a year. It also remains not unnoticed that the ordinance in regard to this was observed at that time.
For the literature, see Keil, p. 113, 14, etc. [Trans. page 398. See also the authorities in Smiths Bib. Dict. art. Atonement, Day of, and in Winer, art. Vershnungstag.F. G.]
[Lev 16:29. In the seventh month of the ecclesiastical year, which according to Josephus (I. 3, 3), was the first of the civil year. The old Hebrew name for this month was Ethanim, the post-captivity name Tisri. On the first day of this month was appointed the Feast of Trumpets (Lev 23:24), celebrated as a Sabbath and by an holy convocation; on the tenth was the great Day of Atonement, provided for in this chapter, and again mentioned Lev 23:26-32; and on the fifteenth day began the feast of tabernacles, lasting for a week (Lev 23:33-43). The deportment required of the people on the Day of Atonement is more fully expressed in Leviticus 23. Here it is simply described as a day in which ye shall afflict your souls,i.e. devote yourselves to penitence and humiliation. This would of course include fasting; but the distinctive word for fasting, or , so common afterwards, does not occur in the Pentateuch or Joshua. It was further provided that the people should do no work at all, not merely no servile work, as was provided for on various other occasions, but absolutely no work. And this ordinance was extended to the stranger that sojourneth among you. Various laws were made obligatory upon the stranger, as the observance of the fourth commandment, Exo 20:10; the abstinence from blood, Lev 17:10; certain laws of sexual purity, Lev 18:26; the law against giving of ones seed to Molech, Lev 20:2; and against blasphemy, Lev 24:16. These were all laws so essential to the Hebrew theocracy that every one who came within the sphere of their exercise was bound to respect them. They apply to every one staying for however long or short a time within the bounds of Israel, and it is a mistake to restrict them (Clark) to those of other races permanently domiciled among the Israelites, as will at once appear from a consideration of the character of several of these laws. Lev 16:34. He did as the LORD commanded Moses,i.e. in announcing the law. Perhaps also the expression may include the observance of the day when the time came round which could only have been several months later, the Israelites having departed from Mount Sinai on the twentieth day of the second month (Num 10:11), while all the legislation in Leviticus was given during their sojourn there (Lev 26:46; Lev 27:34).F. G.]
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
I. The vail shutting out the Holy of Holies set forth, in speaking symbol, the unapproachableness and unknowableness of God. Even the high priest, entering once in the year, must obscure his view in the very cloud of incense with which he approached. The same truth was more feebly taught in the arrangements of the heathen temples, and was set forth in the speculations of heathen philosophy. In the Jewish Scriptures it is declared with the utmost emphasis and clearness. In the New Testament too, we are taught that He can be revealed to man only by Him who is both God and man. Thus the latest conclusion of modern philosophy, that behind all that can be discovered of nature there is an Unknowable, a power inscrutable to the human intellect is taught in Scripture from beginning to end. Even when the vail was rent asunder at the crucifixion of Christ, and a new and living way was consecrated for us into the holy of holies, it became a way to the knowledge and apprehension of God rather practically and spiritually than intellectually. The finite and the Infinite can meet only in Him who is both.
II. The high-priest was warned to enter within the vail only in the way and at the time prescribed, lest he die. His official and symbolic holiness did not make him personally holy, so that he could bear to enter as he pleased the presence of the holy God, but only covered his official service. This was not prevented or rendered unavailing by his own personal unworthiness. So here is taught the great principle that the unworthiness of ministers hinders not the effect of the sacraments; that the grace of God accompanies the acts of those whom He has appointed in that which He has given them to do, although this treasure be placed in earthen vessels.
III. The dress of Aaron when he passed within the vail was evidently significant. Ordinarily, when he ministered as high-priest and in the presence of the people, his robes were of the utmost splendor, symbolizing his high office as the typical mediator between God and the congregation; but now in the highest act of that mediation, when alone before God, these are to be laid aside, and the whole purpose of the dress is to symbolize that perfect purity with which only he may enter the presence of the immediate dwelling-place of God.
IV. In Aarons first offering of a sin offering for himself is very strongly set forth the imperfection of the Levitical law. The one on whose mediation the people must depend for forgiveness must yet first make propitiation for himself. And in the provision for the annual repetion of this day, its insufficiency is apparent, see Heb 10:1-3. Here then again, as so constantly in every part of its provisions, the law of sacrifice proclaims itself as but a temporary institution until that which is perfect should come.
V. By the goat for Azazel again, the same thing is taught. It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins (Heb 10:4); therefore after all symbolism had been exhausted in the sacrifice of bulls and of goats, the sins were yet laid upon the head of the goat for Azazel, and sent away into the wilderness. The sins thus sent away are not to be looked upon as different sins from those for which propitiation was offered, nor as a residue of these unatoned for; but as the same sins, as all the sins of the children of Israel (Lev 16:21). Atonements had been made for these throughout the year; a further and higher atonement had at this moment been made; but that all these were inherently ineffectual was now shown by the goat for Azazel.
VI. The Christian Fathers, with that instinct which often seizes upon a truth without recognizing accurately the process by which it is reached, generally considered the goat for Azazel as a type of Christ, some of them in one way, some in another. Cyril thought him a type of the risen Christ, and the wilderness to which he was sent, a type of heaven. Theodoret makes him a type of the Divine nature of Christ, which was necessary to the perfection of His atonement, and yet incapable of suffering. The type seems really to consist in this: that the sins for which all the Levitical sacrifices were unable really to atone, were symbolically borne away by the goat; even as our iniquities are truly laid upon Christ, and He has borne them away. Isa 53:4-6.
VII. The incense formed a prominent and essential part of the ritual of the day of atonement. This is not to be forgotten in its relation to the antitype. It is not on Christs sacrifice alone that we depend for the forgiveness of our sins, but upon His intercession also.
VIII. On the day of atonement no work whatever was to be done: the propitiation for sin was not only the paramount duty, taking the place of everything that interfered with it; but it was to be all-absorbing. The people had no duties to perform directly in connection with the service of atonement; but still they must do no work. The propitiation for sin must be the one thing on that day done in all the camp of Israel; and meanwhile the whole congregation were to afflict their souls. Though the propitiation of sins be wrought for us, and not by us, yet must it bring to us the lowliness and humiliation of repentance.
IX. Aaron was to make an atonement (Lev 16:20) for the holy of holies, for the tabernacle, and for the altar; but these had already been sanctified at their first consecration, and the atonement now made must be perpetually repeated year by year. It is plain from this that there was no effective remedy for the inherent weakness and sinfulness of man, which contaminated even his most holy things, until the coming of that Son of man who should be without sin. The high-priest entered the holy of holies, and thus approached the symbolic dwelling-place of God; but he did not thereby open the way to others, or even to himself except for this same typical entrance, the Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the Holiest of all was not yet made manifest (Heb 9:8); the only atonement which could really open the way for man to heaven itself must be offered before the throne of Jehovah by Him who alone could offer an all-sufficent sacrifice for the sin of the world.
X. The rites were not in any proper sense supplemental, but were a solemn gathering up, as it were, of all other rites of atonement, so as to make them point more expressively to the revelation to come of Gods gracious purpose to man, in sending His Son to be delivered for our offences, and to rise again for our justification to be our great High Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec, and to enter for us within the vail (Rom 4:25; Heb 6:20). The day of atonement expanded the meaning of every sin offering, in the same way as the services for Good Friday and Ash Wednesday expand the meaning of our Litany days throughout the year, and Easter Day, that of our Sundays. Clark.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
The day of atonement forms a contrast to the defilement of the sanctuary by the sons of Aaron, their rash intrusion, their strange fire, their moral death and fearful destruction. (Lev 16:1). It dependsas far as concerns the understandingupon a great dread, a great world-historic preparation, and earnest religious prayers and actions. It is performed for the whole people, and this means for all humanity. But it points also, by its several particulars out from the Old Testament and into the New. The high-priest is not yet clean, not yet the righteous; he must first offer for himself (see the Ep. to the Heb.). He is not one with his sacrifice and sacrificial blood, although he must represent the approximation to this unity in the disrobing himself of his high-priestly majesty. But even the sin offering availed only for sins of weakness (Lev 24:16; Num 15:30), and not for sins of malice, of rebellion, of outrage with a high hand. These were everywhere, when they were discovered, punished with death. But since all were not discovered, a deadly sin steals through the life of Israel, and accumulatesas a token of which the goat of the sin offering is sent, through the goat of the Azazel, into the wilderness as a curse offering to the author of the demon-like sin. [The same application may be made of the different views given of the sins borne away by the goat, and of Azazel in the Exegetical.F. G.]. Thus the law lightens the darkest night-side of Israel and of the human race. But Christ has shown the chain and tradition of these secret faults in His denunciation, Mat 23:30 ss., and Paul has shown (Romans 3) how Christ, before the tribunal of God. has also atoned for these hitherto inexpiable sins (on the distinction between and see Cocceius), and has moreover no scruple in declaring that Christ also has become a curse offering for us (Gal 3:13). [The of Gal 3:13 may well be compared with the of 2Co 5:21. It cannot possibly denote that Christ became a curse offering in the sense which Lange attributes to the Azazel-goat (although something approaching even this view of the atonement was held in Christian antiquity. See Oxenhams Cath. doct. of the Atonement, 2d ed., pp. 114124); but rather means that he took upon Himself the curse which belonged to us.F. G.]. The New Testament atonement is indeed conditioned on faith in its objective application to individual men, although in its universal objective force it is absolutely unconditioned. Of itself also, the shadowy representative of this great future atonement produced in Israel a calm, thankful, and festive disposition, the foundation for the joyous feast of Tabernacles. The Old Testament sanctuary itself, in all its parts (Lev 16:33), was again expiated and cleansed, in a typical way, by this atonement. As the ground for this lies the thought: that without such purifications from time to time, a priestly institution is in danger of sinking into the deepest and most corrupting corruption. The acts for sanctifying the holy people extend to the end of Leviticus 16; in Leviticus 17 follow the sacred observances. Lange.
The congregation of Israel were wholly excluded from even the typical holy of holies, yet were they required to be holy; when on one day of the year their high-priest passed within the vail, they must afflict their souls and do no manner of work; but for us, our Great High-Priest has passed within the vail, and opened a new and living way for us to follow; let us then draw near with a true heart (Heb 10:22). The hope of thus entering the true holy of holies at the end of his pilgrimage brings with it to the Christian a closer communion with God on his journey thither; for that is not reserved for the end, but in spirit even now he has boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus (ib. 19). Only all depends upon the Propitiation which the day of atonement typified.
The fearful contagion of sin is shown by the purification of those who had to do with the propitiation for sin; even Aaron must bathe himself and change his robes, and the men who took charge of the two goats of the sin offering, who led into the wilderness the one for Azazel, or burnt the flesh of the one slain in sacrifice, must wash their clothes and bathe their flesh before they could return to the camp. Hereby is shadowed forth the exceeding pollution of sin.
The sacrifices of this day were performed by the high-priest alone, and especially when he made atonement for the holy places no man might be within the court. Thus the high-priest prefigured Christ, who accomplished the work of atonement alone, and of the people there was none with Him; His own arm brought salvation (Isa 63:5). Wordsworth.
The holy of holies was never entered by anyone except at this time; yet (Lev 16:16) atonement must be made for it because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel.Upon this Calvin (in Lev 16:16) remarks, Moses distinctly says that the sanctuary must be purified not from its own uncleannesses, but from those of the children of Israel. Now the reality of this figure is to be regarded for our advantage. God appears to us in His only Begotten Son through baptism and the holy supper: these are the pledges of our sanctification: but such is our corruption that we do not cease, as far as in us lies, to profane these instruments of the Spirit, by which God sanctifieth us. But since no flocks may be slain, it becomes us to mourn, and earnestly to pray that our uncleanness, by which baptism and the holy supper are vitiated, Christ may wash away and cleanse by the sprinkling of His own blood.
Footnotes:
[1]Lev 16:1. The LXX., the Targs. of Onk., Jon. and Jerus, the Vulg. and Syr. here insert the words strange fire, as is obviously implied.
[2]Lev 16:3. . There seems no reason why the Heb. should not be rendered literally.
[3]Lev 16:4. The articles are not in the Heb., and should be omitted as misleading.
[4]Lev 16:4. , see Textual Note 30 on Lev 14:8. The Sam. and LXX. insert the word all before his flesh.
[5]Lev 16:5. , see Textual Note 21 on Lev 4:23. The same word is used also Lev 16:7-8, etc.; but it seems unnecessary to alter the translation throughout, as this is the only place in which the sense is affected.
[6]Lev 16:8; Lev 16:10 (bis), 26 . The word occurs only here, and in the wide difference of opinion existing as to its meaning, it seems far better to retain the Heb. word unchanged, as is done in many modern critical translations. It occurs in all cases without the article. For the meaning, see exegesis.
[7]Lev 16:12. It is better to retain the definite article, as expressed in the Heb.
[8]Lev 16:14-15. For =upon, the Sam. reads =before, towards.
[9]Lev 16:14. =toward the east is to be connected with the mercy seat, and not with sprinkle. The high priest looking west, faced the mercy seat, and sprinkled it on the side next to him, i.e. the side toward the east. This cannot be clearly expressed in English without a slight modification of the phrase.
[10]Lev 16:20. . See Textual Note 17 on Lev 6:30 (23).
[11]Lev 16:20. , the same word as is used of the other goat in Lev 16:9, and the common word for sacrificial offering.
[12]Lev 16:21. For the of the text, 35 MSS. read , as in the kri.
[13]Lev 16:21. According to is both a better translation of the prep. and gives a better sense.
[14]Lev 16:21. ., . ., according to Fuerst existing or appointed at a convenient time. LXX. , Vulg. paratus. The sense of appointed would probably bettter express the Heb. than fit (so Targ. Jon., and so Rosenmueller); but there is neither sufficient certainty nor sufficient difference to make the change.
[15]Lev 16:22. . LXX. , Vulg. solitariam, Onk. uninhabitable, Jon. desolate, Syr. uncultivated. Lit. a land cut off. The A. V. sufficiently expresses the sense.
[16]Lev 16:32. These verbs must either be rendered impersonally, or else taken in the passive, as the Heb. idiom very well allows.
[17][This statement is probably founded upon two factsfirst, that of our Lords having been led into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil; but tins does not imply that the Devil is in any especial sense a dweller in the wilderness, but only that this was a favorable situation for him to ply his temptations; and second, that certain men possessed of evil spirits sought solitary places. Other passages of the N. T. certainly present the Devil as eminently cosmopolitan.F. G.]
[18]Hiller indeed thinks, that the scape-goat (der ledige Bock) signifies that the people are set free by the expiation; only since they could not have let it run free in Jerusalem, they sent it into the wilderness!
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
This chapter, take it altogether, is perhaps, as interesting and important as any, in the whole Levitical dispensation. And if explained to us, by the gospel, will be found worthy the most serious and close attention of all real believers in CHRIST. It contains the memorable account of the appointed ordinance, to be observed once only in every year, of the day of atonement. How the high priest is to enter, on this solemn day, into the holy place: the prohibition of his ever entering there but upon that day; the service he is to perform; the manner of performing it; the sin-offering he is to bring, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of his people: these things are all here particularly set down and appointed. The ceremony to be observed also respecting the scape-goat, forms a part of this chapter; and the attention to be shown by the people, upon this memorable occasion is pointed out.
Lev 16:1
In the opening of this chapter, I beg the Reader once again to keep in view the motto, which indeed ought to stand at the head of every chapter of the writings of Moses, and which I requested might be remembered, Moses wrote of CHRIST. And as the Apostle to the Hebrews, expressly tells us, that the HOLY GHOST signified to the church in the wilderness, by this annual service, the great leading points of salvation by JESUS; here in a very especial manner ought our attention to be awakened. Heb 9:7-8 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
The Scapegoat
Lev 16:8-22
Among a primitive people who seemed to have more moral troubles than any other and to feel greater need of dismissing them by artificial means, there grew up the custom of using a curious expedient. They chose a beast of the field, and upon its head symbolically piled all the moral hard-headedness of the several tribes; after which the unoffending brute was banished to the wilderness and the guilty multitude felt relieved. However crude that ancient method of transferring mental and moral burdens, it had at least this redeeming feature; the early Hebrews heaped their sins upon a creature which they did not care for and sent it away. In modern times we pile our burdens upon our dearest fellow-creatures and keep them permanently near us for further use. What human being but has some other upon whom he nightly hangs his troubles as he hangs his different garments upon hooks and nails in the walls around him?
James Lane Allen in The Mettle of the Pasture, pp. 161-162.
The High Priest and the Atonement
Lev 16:30
I. There were many priests, but only one high priest. He only could make atonement. Under the gospel all believers are priests. But there is but one high priest, Jesus Christ, called the Great High Priest; He alone can make atonement; He only can forgive sin.
II. The high priest on the day of atonement was an humbled priest. On this day he came out clothed in fine linen only. And Jesus, when He made atonement, was an humbled priest. They stripped from Him even the seamless garment that He wore.
III. The high priest on that day was a spotless priest. Aaron had to be ceremonially purified. We have a spotless High Priest; He needed no atonement for Himself He had no sin to put away.
IV. The high priest on that day was a solitary priest. It is remarkable that no disciple died with Christ. His disciples forsook Him and fled. We owe all our salvation to Him, and to Him alone.
V. The high priest on that day was a laborious priest. Jewish authorities assert that on that day everything was done by Him. Jesus, though He had toiled before, yet never worked as He did on that wondrous day of atonement.
C. H. Spurgeon, Outline Sermons, p. 254.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
Lev 16:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they offered before the LORD, and died;
Ver. 1. After the death. ] That others might be warned. Lege historiam, ne fias historia, saith one.
When they offered before the Lord.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Leviticus Chapter 16
Lectures on the Day of Atonement.
Lev 16
With an appendix on the chief errors recently current on Atonement,
by W. Kelly.
LECTURE 1.
Lev 16:1-4 .
Its General Principle compared with Christ’s Work.
I wish to present the principle of atonement, and have, therefore, taken the preliminary verses of Lev 16 , which introduce the Day of Atonement. It is only an introduction to the subject; but in the course of these discourses, proofs will appear from this type that God not only had all before His mind (as every one that knows Him must feel) but has been pleased to unroll it before us. In the most marvellous manner He contrived, with a wisdom that bespeaks itself divine, to furnish an earthly people with ceremonies which insisted on provisional sacrifices, and cleansing for the defilements of their outward conduct (or what is called “the purifying of the flesh”). But in these self-same rites grace and truth lay hidden till the light of Christ should shine on them and reveal, if not the very image, the shadows of good things to come; some already fulfilled, some not even yet but no less assuredly to be, according to the word and purpose of God.
Inasmuch, then, as even this chapter can generally testify, God has plans which have not yet been carried out to the full, we may see what is true of Scripture, that it is prophetic. And is there anything that brings out God more than the fact that His word is prophetic? Prophecy is a more enduring and deeper witness than miracle. A sign or a miracle no doubt is a display, while the world goes on as usual, of God’s active power; but prophecy gives living proof of His mind. None but a low-minded or thoughtless man could suppose that power is equal to mind. And there is more than mind in it: moral light is conveyed, the maintenance, as well as the making known, of God’s character and will, which is evidently far beyond not matter only but mind. As the greatest of Frenchmen said, the least mind is superior to all matter, whilst all mind is below charity or divine love.
Here we find the true source of atonement: the love of God provided it in a way that should conciliate grace and righteousness, guilty man and a holy God Who thus, and thus only, causes mercy to glory against judgment. No where is God so highly exalted, nowhere man so truly humbled. What speaks so profoundly of sin as the blood of Christ? But it is applied to our utter unworthiness, it is brought in for the very purpose of meeting man as he is, and of bringing him out of all his iniquities to God as God is. For such, and nothing less, is the design of atonement. Divine righteousness, based on Christ’s work, is its character, when man was proved unrighteous; and as it was according to grace, so is it of faith, and thus open to every believer.
But the Day of Atonement necessarily had a temporal and imperfect character; “the law made nothing perfect.” It was, beyond question, the most solemn act in the whole Jewish year; but the fact of its renewal every year was conclusive evidence, as the Epistle to the Hebrews declares, of its inefficacy for conscience as well as for God in view of eternity. It was therefore provisional, as all the institutions of the law were. Is this any impeachment of God’s law? It is His own word that pronounces it. If so, you will allow God to be a better judge than you are, or I, or all men. If God declares that the law made nothing perfect – and such is His expressed and irrevocable sentence (Heb 7:19 ) – who with the least reverence for God can question it for a moment? Therefore the provisional atonement year by year for Israel on its face had what did not rise up to the perfection of God’s nature, character, and mind. At best it could be but a shadow of the grace and truth that came by Jesus Christ.
One can understand readily that, only when a perfect being comes, can the result be in perfection. Adam was an admirable creature no doubt, if we believe the scriptures, as an innocent man on an unfallen earth. Nevertheless, on the plain surface of facts, the first thing recorded of him when tried is that he sins. There must be perpetual and violent effort to escape the moral inference; honest denial of man’s sin there cannot be. The overwhelming fact is out from the beginning. Is it to be tolerated or ignored because it is universal?
At once God brings in the token of a bruised Bruiser of the serpent, the woman’s Seed. This ere long decided the difference between the two sons of Adam. “The Lord had respect to Abel and to his offering.” Why to Abel rather than to Cain? Because “by faith” Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice. Faith submits to, and receives, and rests on, the word of God. It was not the mere matter of fact or feeling; nor did it turn on which of the two brought the largest or more valuable offering. “By faith Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain.” What made it so? In Cain there was no more than natural religion, as he took no account of sin; he offered in duty to Jehovah of the fruit of the ground – the ground under the curse. It was the expression of unbelieving homage, with total insensibility to sin on one side and to grace on the other. Faith always confesses sin in man, as it more or less counts on grace in God. Whatever be the sin of man, the grace of God is beyond it. One of the workings of unbelief is despair, another the bolder form of rebellion against God in the open rejection of His word. But the soul may not be so impious and yet be as really guilty by doubting grace in God to forgive its sin, however heinous. Faith, seeing Christ and hearing the Gospel, owns the sin truly, but reckons on the mercy God reveals.
Man’s device ever fails to cover his evil. God clothed guilty Adam and Eve with coats of skins. It was a provision which, in presence of sin, spoke of death, yet of mercy to man through death. This, without God’s word, would never have entered the human mind. Naturally, for that matter, Cain’s was a much more reasonable offering in appearance. For what man, as man is, however intelligent, would have thought of a sacrifice as acceptable to God? It was exactly what Abel brought “of the firstlings of the flock, and the fat thereof.” If slain beasts furnished the clothing which God gave his parents, Abel slays a lamb in sacrifice to God. It was an offering in faith; access to God for a sinner can only be through death. That behind it all there was more and what was deeper than Abel or any saint of old knew, is true. One does not say that Abel contemplated the sacrifice of the woman’s Seed; but it was in God’s mind, and faith reaped the blessing. Therefore Abel was attested as righteous, “God bearing witness to his gifts, and by it, being dead, he yet speaketh.” Abel looked for the One Who should crush the power of evil here below; and against and above nature he, by faith, offered sacrifice to God with the expression of its excellency in “tine fat.” But God blesses according to whet He sees in the sacrifice: a principle which plainly came out later in the blood of the paschal lamb (Exo 12:13 ).
No doubt all the believers throughout the Old Testament looked for the Kinsman-Redeemer, as we may see in the assurance of Job (Job 19:25 , Job 19:26 ), the destroyer of death and of him that has the power of death. They did not question that in due time the Messiah would meet both God and man perfectly; but to suppose that they understood how it was to be done is going beyond scripture. Not even the disciples in the days of our Lord could have put the two things intelligently together. Did not Christ’s personal envoys, who accompanied the Master from John’s baptism till the ascension – did not the apostles know as much as their predecessors? To doubt this would be doing anything but honour to the teaching of Jehovah’s righteous Servant (Isa 53:11 ). His enemies being judges, “never man spake like this man”; and never did men on earth receive such a course of holy and perfect instruction as the twelve from the Son of God.
The grand question then is, not what the saints under the Old Testament understood, but what God set up and what its bearing is on the atonement, now that Christ has come and finished the work given Him to do. The true meaning of the atonement is in question, and here the New Testament alone comes conclusively to our aid. What can be conceived clearer than the divine comment given in the Epistle to the Hebrews (or Christian Jews), who needed it, as they ought to have appreciated it best? We sometimes hear of commentaries and commentators, and the best men show both prepossessions and prejudices. It is a pity that they do not use the Epistle to the Hebrews a little more and to better purpose. There is the greatest of all commentaries, and the one most immediately bearing on this very truth with which we are now occupied. Not only does the inspired text lie in the chapter before us, but also the inspired exegesis in the New Testament. No one can doubt this who reads Heb 9 . And what does it let us know? That Aaron, the high priest, represents Christ, and that the work He wrought was for no transient purpose but “eternal redemption.”
Of old there were carnal ordinances imposed till a time of reformation; but Christ being come High Priest of good things to come, by the better and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands (that is, not of this creation), nor by blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood entered in once for all into the holies, having found (or obtained) an eternal redemption. His sacrifice is, in the strictest sense, of everlasting efficacy. That word “eternal” occurs frequently with peculiar stress in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Why eternal? In contrast with the temporal character of what was akin among the sons of Israel. Thus we find, beside eternal redemption, eternal salvation, eternal inheritance, everlasting or eternal covenant: all of which words have a pointed reference, when understood, to lift the believing Hebrews above what was but temporal. Christ, dead, risen, and in heaven, puts the believer face to face with the unseen and eternal. Just because as Jews they were accustomed to God’s government of man on earth, their eyes needed to be raised above so as to see within the veil what can never pass away. If the Christian Jews slipped into their old thoughts, they would lower fatally the character of the gospel, as they are warned in chapter 6 and elsewhere.
Nor did those Hebrews only need this, but we do also. The inspired word has the unceasing authority of God, and the deepest value for us all who believe. What God intended by it is that you should rise above the clouds of tumult and difficulty, especially during these changeful periods through which we are passing; and that you should be established in the certainty of a new, everlasting, and heavenly relationship to God, even now, through the atonement of our Lord Jesus.
The Day of Atonement provided for all the sins, transgressions, and iniquities of the children of Israel. What had the work of Christ in view? Not only the entire, present, and everlasting removal of all our iniquities from the conscience, but the glorifying God Himself even about sin by the virtue of Christ’s atoning death. Such is the need; and nothing less can avail. God most assuredly will never slight the value of the sufferings of His Son, nor forget that He is indebted to His cross for perfectly glorifying Himself; yet even if we take a lower but true ground, what is the value of an atonement which could fall short of a single sin? Supposing such a scheme possible as a man forgiven 999 sins, but not the 1000th, he is as ill off as if he had none; for by that one unforgiven sin he is absolutely unfit for the presence of God: no sin can enter there; and if we have not our portion on high, where must we be found?
Further, atonement contemplates far more than the need when we die or appear before the judgment seat of Christ. It will be admitted by the reader of Lev 16 , that a Jew rightly looked for the effectual application of that day’s sacrifice to his then wants, to his actual sins, to the iniquities that burdened his spirit, and that filled him with apprehension of judgment. But the effect was only for the time. What, then, has the coming of our Lord done? Has it not brought life, love, and light into the world? It has revealed God in the divine person of His own Son, yet a man, Who suffered for sins once, just for unjust, that He might bring us to God. To the believer this is soul-salvation, as the saving of the body awaits Christ’s coming again. Apart from sin will He appear a second time.
There were certain imperfections allowed of old, as nobody can deny. Our Lord has ruled that it is so “because (or in view) of the hardness of their hearts.” We find David, Solomon, etc., doing things that no Christian would think of. How comes it then, that licences, which notoriously existed under the law, are now intolerable? Because Christ is come, “the true light now shineth.” No doubt man put it out, as far as he could; but he has not got rid of it. The rejected Christ is in heaven; but the light, far from being withdrawn, shines more brightly than ever. The First Epistle of John is careful to affirm that the darkness is passing away, and that the true light already shineth. When He was on the earth, the darkness comprehended it not, though shining in the darkness (Joh 1:5 ). Now that He is in heaven the darkness passes away. It is not exactly true that it “is passed away”; the A.V. is therein too strong. But if not absolutely passed away, it is passing away as each believer receives the light. Now that we have Christ and in Him redemption, he who receives the light is made light in the Lord; and every one in whom Christ is not only the light but the life, is cleansed by His blood, and freed from sin, to live unto God.
What is the effect of redemption even outwardly? That men are ashamed now of what, before Christ came, was thought nothing but natural, if not right. Few know, on the one hand, how much is due to the light of Christ in the gospel exposing all and so deterring men from their audacious and immeasurable iniquities. For that very reason, on the other hand, the sins of every one, whose conscience is awakened by the word, become before God, hateful and even appalling. The first effect of the light of God in Christ is to make the evil appear worse than ever. Hence it is that, wherever the word of God deals vitally with the soul, repentance towards God ensues, though faith alone gives repentance its divine character. So the soul has no comfort yet; there can be no real rest, nor even relief. Till redemption is known, the burden becomes through the Holy Spirit’s action more and more oppressive; and thank God for it! What more dangerous than to slur over our sins because the grace of Christ is preached? Nor does anything more enfeeble the soul afterwards than bounding, if one may say so, over the grave of our sins, instead of looking down steadily there to judge ourselves for what we are. A man otherwise is startled perhaps to find, another day, the evil which he at first passed over too lightly; he may thus begin to question whether such a one as he can really have, as he calls it, an interest in Christ and His grace. Had he at the start faced his own evil, he had known better, not only what he himself is, but how the Saviour has taken it all up and blotted out every sin with His precious blood.
According to the plain testimony of the New Testament, then, Christ’s coming has brought sin out in its full opposition to God, in its evil against man, and in all its secret depths, as never was known before. No doubt the law acted in an admirable manner; for the commandment is holy, jest, and good. But after all, the law is not Christ, and Christ revealed God in His grace, instead of merely giving what appealed to fallen man. Yet you can see in the law that God had before Him the state of man as he is. At Sinai He commanded ”Thou shalt not do this evil; thou shalt not do that.” It could be of no use to claim from the sons of Israel what was only to be found in Christ. What the law did was just what man then needed – to put a check upon the evil that was there, to condemn what the evil heart had a desire for. Man was already a sinner before the law was given. No doubt Adam innocent had a law; but this is a very different thing from the law, which supposes that man is fallen, and that he has a constant inclination to do the various wicked things prohibited and denounced by it. Along with that law of God, and forming the most solemn institution connected with it, was the Day of Atonement, among other provisions of good things to come.
But now that Christ is come, He has brought in an incomparably deeper and larger standard of sin. He has made, therefore, the discovery of the evil and wretched condition of man beyond comparison more complete and profound. No wonder that the Holy Spirit uses grand words, for none less could set forth truly the character of what is revealed to us in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The law claimed man’s works. Christ did in the highest sense the work of God. “Lo, I come to do Thy will, O God.” Atonement is God Himself, by and in Christ, taking up and settling the question of sin, in His own grace, for His own glory, that believers might be fully blessed. Present association with heaven is in full view, because one immediate object was to wean the Hebrews from yearning after earthly hopes. Yet the future is not forgotten: for the Christian it is unmistakeably “eternal,” whatever the accomplishment of earthly promises by and by. But there is more to heed than this. There is a present enjoyment in the Spirit’s power of that eternal character. It has for its object to bring the believer now, with purged conscience, into God’s presence, or, as Peter puts it, “to bring us to God,” as He is and will be known in the light for ever.
Just think what a blessed reality this is, and whether you have or have not made it yours! The Lord intimates it even in the Gospel. The prodigal son comes not merely to himself, but to the father; and the father meets him, with affection indeed, but with a vast deal more. He has the best robe put upon him, not when he deserved it (for this never could be), but before there was the smallest question of aught save his repentant sense of sin and of his father’s love. It is God acting from and for what He is Himself, and for what He can righteously afford to do through the redemption that is in Christ to the worst of sinners. Such and so efficacious is His love displayed in the atoning work of the Lord Jesus.
Alas! even those who love His name do ignorantly put off the feast which the Father would have us enjoy here till we get to heaven. They think that such joy and gladness cannot be known in the midst of earthly sorrow, and that the gathering together for rejoicing must await the closing heavenly scene “for ever with the Lord.” But they unwittingly do God’s grace great injustice, and defraud themselves now of exceeding joy in the Spirit. They practically lose the sweetness and the power of His joy which is their strength even here. It is not only that the once guilty son comes to his father, and that the father runs and meets the son in nothing but love, without a reproach, so much the more to produce self-reproach (oh! the immense loss for the soul that but slightly judges self before God); but along with this there is the conscious fitting him for the presence of his father in enjoyed communion.
The best robe is put upon him. Never bad he worn such a robe, before levity and self-will induced him to abandon his father’s house. Even Adam had not the beauteous robe of Christ when he walked upright in the garden of Eden. Redemption is no mere reinstating of fallen man, as it is sometimes perversely called; it takes away his nakedness, and clothes him with Christ, whiter than snow in His blood. Nothing less does the Saviour undertake than to fit for the Father’s presence. It is no question, therefore, of bringing back to the condition of innocence, but of the Last Adam. Grace reigns through righteousness. Christ provides and gives the tone to all who believe. God the Father is the source; Christ the means and channel of love; the Holy Spirit takes His blessed part in making the word that reveals all, living and effectual in the soul. The robe, therefore, must be the best robe. The calf must be the fatted calf. The shoes, the ring, the feast, each and all are in accordance with Christ’s person and with His work. And so, lastly, and above all, there is the communion of joy; for the God of all grace must have His own deep satisfaction in the feast, as indeed nothing could be holy, good, or lasting without Him.
Do Christians generally know what all this means? It is exactly what God intends to be made good now in Christianity. Let me hope you have now at least a little of that divine spring of communion in joy and liberty. No one doubts by and by the fulness of joy: then and there, of course, it will be for ever in all perfection. But it is a flagrant mistake that the scene the Lord describes should be confined and put off to heaven. Is it needed to demonstrate why not? In heaven there will be no elder son, nor will the father go out to entreat. There will be no such ungracious murmurers in heaven; alas! plenty now on earth. It is therefore to be realised now on earth, though all the springs of the joy are heavenly and divine.
Doubtless the reason why people relegate it to the heavens is, because they are not in the secret of its joy themselves; and there is a sort of reluctance in the hearts even of righteous men that others should have what they know not themselves. Ah! let the lack rather awaken an earnest searching of heart to enquire, “How is it that my soul is not in the love, joy, and liberty the Lord describes? That I have not realised yet the best robe, or the fatted calf? How that I have overlooked the communion of God’s own joy in love with His own?” “The Son of Man is come to save that which was lost;” but by that work God was glorified in Him, as God at once glorified Him in Himself, and would have us now to taste its fruit.
Forgiving is not all the gospel tells out; nor should it be all for us to know or make known remission of sins. God’s object is not, and could not be, less than to bring us to the knowledge of the Father and the Son, into the joy and liberty of grace now, while we wait for the glory of God in the hope of which we exult. In this knowledge of our God and Father lies the most effectual power against the worldly snares that encumber us on every side. It is never the gospel order to make us holy in order to be happy before God; an effort often made, but always made in vain. In order to be holy in practice, grace makes you happy first. He Who alone was the Holy One died for you in your unholiness and evil, in order to make you happy through faith in Him. By His death Christ deserved it for you, and the grace of God righteously blesses you in the faith of Him. And this is exactly in unison with God’s heart and mind and word; for His word was written for us that we, believing, might share His joy in love.
Have we wandered from the text and the commentary? From neither. Lev 16 held up the picture of atonement. Heb 9 declares that, as Christ is come and His blood shed atoningly, blessing is now for faith, and is eternal: What was forbidden to Aaron save a little one day in the year, is now vouchsafed always to every Christian. “The way into the holies hath not yet been made manifest” is what God said of Israel. But in Heb 10:19 , it is written for the Christian, “Having, therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holies by the blood of Jesus, a new and living way which He dedicated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a great priest over the house of God, let us approach in full assurance of faith,” etc. We are ever welcome there and thus.
But there is another blessed fruit of Christ’s work. His blood is equally efficacious in purging our conscience from dead works to serve (or worship) the living God (Heb 9:14 ). The two privileges go together. If the way is made manifest into the sanctuary, we are also made free of it. Christ’s own are welcomed to draw near now, but only as purged in conscience, not only from bad but from dead works, to serve a living God. How great the superiority of our privilege over Israel, and Aaron’s sons, yea, over Aaron himself! It is not only that the way is open, and the sins are borne; but the conscience is purified by the same blood of Christ which did the rest. Thus the light of God makes only the clearer what Christ’s blood has effected. Nothing there disturbs the conscience of the believer, who is set in love and liberty to serve the living God. Christ’s work, which displaces the dead works of man, ever abides in unchanging value as our ground of acceptance. The same efficacious sacrifice of Christ has achieved these inestimable blessings as a whole. As long as the Jewish tabernacle had its standing, there was the remembrance of sins; not their remission for ever, but the conscience unpurged before God, and the barrier maintained between God and man. The blood of Christ has changed all for us who believe. And no wonder. The. law had for its aim to shut up those under it, till faith came and the accomplishment of God’s will by Christ set aside all the lifeless substitutes and vain efforts of man. Then man, purified from sins, and in his conscience, comes freely to God.
This nearness to God appeared distinctly after Christ’s death; as the death of the sons of Aaron was the time to restrict even Aaron from God’s presence. Why so? Because his sons had been guilty of presumptuous sin. God had caused His fire from heaven to consume the burnt sacrifice, and they had despised it and Him. They thought forsooth that any fire would do just as well: common fire would born incense no less than the fire of God. How ready man is to set at nought His favour, however rich! God had affixed the seal of divine approbation; but it only gave Nadab and Abihu the opportunity of proving their hearts to be wholly careless of His glory as well as of His grace. Jehovah had Himself in grace sent the fire from before Him to consume the burnt offering and the fat. Therefore it was for them to keep up that holy fire. But these two sons of Aaron profanely took common fire; and if God had passed it over, He would have been a consenting party to His own dishonour. Impossible! God judged them. They sinned unto death. It is not every sinner that thus sins unto death. There was then, there is now, sin unto death. It supposes sin in special circumstances to His dishonour. God had just brought in a peculiar work of grace, and in it was distinguishing Israel as His people; and immediately the two sons of Aaron put shame on His favour, and died for it.
How plain it was, even on the day of atonement, that God’s chosen people could not draw near to God in the sanctuary! None but the high priest, – and even he – could enter the most holy place on this day alone in the year, for brief moments, and that with incense and with blood! What did all this indicate? That the way into the holies had not yet been made manifest. Now it is. How striking the contrast since the redemption that is in Christ Jesus! The way into the holies is made manifest. So, when Christ died, the veil of the temple was rent from the top to the bottom. No mark more significant. God taught plainly that the Levitical institution was gone, and that for faith a new thing was come on His part through Christ’s death. This enters into the very core of Christianity. The way into the holies has been and is made manifest.
Are you, my brother, peacefully enjoying Christ thus? Are you in the present conscious possession of this nearness to God? What is the good of knowing that the way into the holies is manifested, if it is not for you to enter in by faith day by day, thereby appropriating the riches of God’s grace toward you? It is now for every partaker of the heavenly calling. The veil that God rent was the death-warrant of Judaism. That man might outwardly repair; but it was only man without God. The veil was by no word of God erected again. For the Christian it is rent for ever, as is earthly sacrifice, altar, and priest; whereby is shown, by a divine token, the essential difference between Jewish atonement and that which the Christian has in virtue of Christ’s death.
In the Jewish institution who can deny that the barrier abode impassable with the slightest exception even for Aaron. It did not matter whether it were a Samuel or a David, an Isaiah or a Daniel, there was no free entrance into the holies. The faith, or the holy character, of the high priest made no difference as to this. Jehovah appeared in the cloud upon the mercy seat, and even Aaron must not come in at all times within the veil, that he die not. On that day, once a year, a special sin offering was made; then only with the most scrupulous observance of God’s injunctions could he approach to atone for himself, and his house, as well as for the people. The way there was otherwise closed.
What do we find in the birth and life of our blessed Lord Jesus? God came to man in the person of Christ. And what appeared in the Lord’s death? That man, believing man, can now come boldly to God. The unbeliever is blind to both these matchless blessings. God came to man, believing or not; but unbelieving man rose up against Him, cast Him out, and crucified Him. Yet in that very cross of our Lord Jesus was this new and living way dedicated; so that he who believes in His name is free to draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith to God through the rent veil, with Christ as the great priest over the house of God. In fulfilment of the Levitical types our hearts are sprinkled from a wicked conscience, the body washed with pure water. The Christian has as an abiding settled reality what the Jewish had partially and only in form. The word of God has purified his heart by faith. There is but One Whose death has laid the basis for free access to God; and there it remains uncancelled, as it will, until the last believer in our Lord goes up to be with Him for ever. We shall all in person meet Him there whore our faith penetrates now. This is Christianity.
Are you, Christian, resting intelligently on Christ’s work of atonement? It is admitted that there is more in Him than what we read in the Hebrews. Thus, you cannot believe in Christ without receiving life in His name. The believer requires divine life, in order to have affections according to God, – affections that hate evil and love what is good. Christ is life eternal to every one who believes in Him. He is their life, just as Adam was the head of natural life to mankind at large; and it is well to remark that Adam only became that head and source of life practically when he was a sinner. So Christ becomes the giver of life everlasting after His work of obedience unto death was complete. Righteousness was an accomplished fact, God being glorified in Him to the uttermost.
Christ therefore stands in blessed contrast with Adam. When He rose from the dead, the Lord breathed on His disciples the breath of new life in resurrection power, the distinctive life of the Christian. But this is no more the topic of the Epistle to the Hebrews, than the baptism of the Spirit which forms Christ’s body; yet, any one can see the two things were necessary, not His death only, but the life which He is and gives to us, to which we may add union with Him, the membership of His body. What congruity would there be, if we could conceive the blessed life of Christ given to a man left struggling against his unremoved sins? How suitable that the risen life should be, where the sins are blotted out by His blood! The two blessings of grace are absolutely necessary, and both are by faith given, if one is, to man.
Christ, received by faith, secures the believer in all God gives. What a mercy that the gifts of grace should be thus united! For they are given to the simplest through faith in Christ; even to one that could not read or write, to a poor old man or woman, to a little child, if there be the Spirit of God producing subjection of heart to Christ, the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Do you ask, Will it last? The answer is, To all eternity; for “Christ is the same yesterday, today, and for ever.”
For a Jew there was a round of daily, monthly, yearly, and occasional sacrifices. But one of the characteristic features of Christianity is this, there is one offering, and one only, the antitype that answers to all, but infinitely more than all. Creature sacrifices could be nothing but shadows, Christ’s work is the divine reality. In the sacrifice of Christ God brings in what He could rest in, a perfection which could not be in the probationary plan of Old Testament times. Christ not only made the need of this perfection to be felt, but He alone supplied it to God’s glory and man’s blessedness. And the Holy Ghost is sent personally from heaven to bring in the joy and power of it all into the heart, ways, worship, and service.
He that receives the gospel is entitled to receive the blessing at once. At least, whatever hindrance exists, it may be from human activity of mind, or perhaps from morbid feeling; it is not God that delays the soul. As to these difficulties, the Lord is patient and tender, but there is no difficulty on His side; it is purely and solely on the part of him that ill hears the word. Old habits or thoughts, or? it may be will, working one way and another, – these things may cause delay; but He is faithful and unfailing.
See the beautiful instance of the Syro-Phoenician woman. The Lord was ready for her call as soon as she came; but was she yet ready for the Lord? She had not considered how far off she was; but the Lord brought her down to this point. He was not sent save for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. When her cry became simpler, as one that needed His help, He threw out the hint that it was not meet to cast the children’s bread to the dogs. The light shone into her soul now brought truly low, and she sees the need of grace in a moment. Correcting through His word her mistake, she no longer takes the position of being one of the sheep, but owns her self a poor dog. She had no claim, she falls back on sovereign grace, and finds far more than she had sought; not indeed a lost sheep of the house of Israel, she becomes a saved sheep of the Lord Jesus for ever. Here was a case for, not a miracle like her daughter’s, but the Saviour come to atone for sins. God would justify all the forbearance He had shown in the past, but He was now bringing to view deeper counsels and ways than man had learnt or could learn before.
Hence it is that the gospel does not merely set forth God vindicated in the cross of Christ, or, according to the language of the theologians, “His satisfaction.” Surely that God is glorified says a great deal more. “Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in Him.” This is not merely legal or penal satisfaction. Even a man may be satisfied when he gets what he wants; but God, we know, was glorified in Christ’s death; and why? Because He took in all the reality, depth, and compass of Christ’s work in redemption. All that is in God and man thereby was met and displayed perfectly; majesty and humiliation, grace and righteousness, holiness and suffering for sin, obedience and moral glory. “Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in Him. If God is glorified in Him, God shall also glorify Him in Himself, and shall straightway glorify Him.” God as such was glorified in the rejected Christ, the humbled crucified Son of man. Every attribute of the divine nature, and every declaration of His word shine in the cross to God’s glory; and therefore did God at once set the risen Son of man, not on the throne of David, but at His right hand on His own throne.
Throughout Christ’s life and service previously the Father had been glorified in the unswerving obedience of the Son, at all cost and in all circumstances. Why is it that we now hear of “God” being glorified rather than “the Father?” Because sin brings forward “God” as the judge of sin; as sin affects man’s conscience and compels him to think of God. For, spite of man’s bad habits and hardness, God makes himself felt in the conscience of a sinner, who ordinarily quails at the thought of death or judgment. But if conscience will be heard about sin, what did God feel about the self-sacrificing work of the Lord Jesus under His own judgment of sin, and on behalf of sinners? God is glorified even about sin, by the perfection of Christ’s enduring all its consequences at God’s hand; and what is the effect of it all? If God was thus, and only thus, glorified, as He could have been by none other person and in no other way, how does He testify His sense of the worth of His Son’s atoning death?
It would have been wholly beneath that worth to have accomplished the Old Testament prophecies for earth and the earthly people, even if willing. The cross proclaimed mankind evil and lost, most of all Israel; and God takes the Son of man “straightway” into His own glory on high as the only adequate answer to the cross. (Ps. 8, 110.)
The holy hill of Zion is not holy or high enough for the Son of man. The “decree” (Psa 2 ) He declared for it will be assuredly fulfilled another day. But what has God done now? He has set the risen Lord at His own right hand. Man in His person is exalted, and shares the throne of God; the Old and the New Testaments declare it. There had been many kings sitting on David’s throne; and, God will bestow more abundant dignity and honour on that throne when Christ deigns to sit on it, and asks for and receives the heathen for His inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for His possession. Bat this will be the future kingdom; it is not Christianity.
Christianity is founded on Christ dead, risen, and glorified by God’s will, as it sheds on the believer the light of heavenly grace and glory in Christ, and puts the soul into living relationship with God the Father on the ground of redemption, according to the efficacy of Christ’s blood which shall abide for ever. Beloved brethren, let us only learn better our own Christianity. How much more should we then know Christ, and estimate His work!
Into the details of this chapter succeeding lectures will enter. What is now set out may serve to bring out the general idea distinctly, and prove the marked contrast of the gospel with the temporary, temporal, and earthly character of Jewish atonement, which too many accept as its measure. The death of Aaron’s profane sons was the occasion of declaring man’s unfitness to draw near before Jehovah; even Aaron must not approach at all times within the veil, on pain of death (ver. 1, 2). Aaron must come with a young bullock or calf for a sin offering. He had to bring a ram also for a burnt offering (ver. 3). Aaron had to put on the holy linen coat, to have the linen breeches upon his flesh, to be girded with the linen girdle, and to be attired with the linen mitre or turban; also must bathe his flesh in water before putting them on (ver. 4). All this spoke of intrinsic imperfection and uncleanness. He was as he stood in no degree meet for access to God; and when he did get there, it was through incense and blood.
The high priest appears, not clad in his official robes (he does not wear them until the peculiar work of atonement is accomplished). He is here in the garb that spoke of unsullied righteousness, the holy garments. This was not his proper apparel. The high priest was distinguished by a rich dress, wherein ornaments of gold and jewels had their place. But the holy “linen garments” were worn for the special work of this day.
We may here observe that this very exceptional appearance of the high priest on the Day of Atonement seems to help us in understanding a verse that has been a source of perplexity to many men otherwise well versed in the Word of God. It is written in Heb 2:17 , “Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in all things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.” To reconcile sinners is exactly what the gospel undertakes to do; but to reconcile “sins” is an unhappy expression. God will never be reconciled to sins, nor would God ever have us to be reconciled to sins. “To make reconciliation for sins,” therefore, is one of those verbal oversights that we find occasionally even in the admirable Authorised Version. The Scriptural phraseology for “reconciliation” is altogether different from “atonement.”
In Rom 5:11 , as is commonly known, it should be the reconciliation, not “the atonement;” in Heb 2:17 it should be not “reconciliation,” but propitiation or expiation. Atonement is as to sin expiation, as to God propitiation. God is offended at sin, justly indignant at that which is a direct violation of His will and nature in man, who dares to resist His authority and His commands. Atonement is God’s intervention, in His grace, righteously to expiate the sins and set free the guilty; and therefore atonement is the sole way in which God righteously brings the sinner into reconciliation with Himself. Therein God is as truly glorified as the repentant sinner is brought nigh to God. By that work the face of God becomes propitious to the sinner, so that his sins being judged are sent away never to be found again. Thus the evident force of the verse in Hebrews is, “to make atonement, or expiation, for the sins of the people.”
But here is where some find difficulty – “A merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to propitiate (or make atonement) for the sins of the people.” The High Priest is not in His official status on high till after the sacrifice is made. The proper sphere of the High Priest is heaven, and not earth. Nevertheless, nothing is more certain than that Christ was, and must be, this faithful and merciful High Priest, “to make expiation, or atonement, for the sins of the people,” in “the death of the cross,” “through the blood of His cross.” Here it was He died, lifted up from the earth no doubt, yet not in heaven; though the virtue of that blood was at once infinitely felt there, in figure upon the mercy seat and before it. Can one conceive a more admirable shadow than what God has given to put these two things together? The high priest had to act that day in a manner not more necessary than most efficacious for making an expiation of sins; nevertheless, he was not yet arrayed in his official robes. Does not this singular circumstance on which much stress is laid tally with the facts of the case? The Lord entered on the proper functions of the High Priesthood, after He had been perfected through sufferings, when He went to heaven. But, before He went on high, the atoning sacrifice had been effected. “When He had made purification of sins, He sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Heb 1:3 ); nay, more, “With His own blood He entered into the holies, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb 9:12 ). He obtained it neither on earth strictly, not yet in heaven. He was “lifted up” on the cross. There did God make sin Him Who knew no sin; but if atonement must be made for sin on the cross, its efficacy penetrated the holiest that very moment. “It is finished” said He Who had poured out His soul unto death. The blood was for God in the sanctuary, though for man’s sin on the earth.
The reality far surpasses every part of the type. To this end was He “lifted up from the earth.” Thus does He draw, not the children of Israel as such, but “all men”; for as the cross closed all hope for Israel of a living Messiah, everything for sinful man turned on a crucified Saviour. There He bore the judgment of sin, while the virtue of His blood instantly reached God in the holiest. Only after His ascension and sending down the Spirit was it preached to man on earth. It was the high priest alone who acted solely, not as ordinarily on high, but rather in the exceptional position of the one great representative in the judgment of sin before God for the heavenly family, and for the earthly people, not yet saluted of God as entered on His ordinary functions above. Does not this correspond with the holy linen dress worn for the special service of the high priest that day? Had it been the usual garments proper to His heavenly place, there had been more room for thinking of a fresh action of Christ in heaven, in order to make out a succession of stages historically answering to the various parts of the type. But even the type is plain enough that, before the high priest assumes his normal garments, he has to execute a work of the deepest moment, clad in a way altogether different from the regular dress of his office. It points to the Lord Jesus meeting completely what is here attributed to the high priest, Aaron, on the Day of Atonement, before He entered upon the ordinary functions of His priesthood. Aaron had not, Christ had, obtained eternal redemption when He entered the sanctuary. The truth has an immediate completeness and unity, which the type could not possess. “For the law made nothing perfect” (Heb 7:19 ). Aaron was immeasurably below the Saviour and His work.
Creature means availed but for the moment, as a witness to the acceptance personally and the efficacy of His blood for us on Christ’s part. The offering of our Lord was final and complete. There is no question for us of sacrifice again. There is also in Him eternal life, and through His work eternal redemption. Thereby is the conscience perfectly purged from sin. If He has not purged it by His blood once shed, what can do it? Christ suffers and dies no more.
Do you object that one may go wrong in the course of the day – that one may fall into sin? For this there is divine provision which restores the soul, while humbling it in the cast by the remembrance of what the sin cost Christ. The soul bows to God under the sense of dishonour done to the grace of such a Saviour. The word of God is applied by the Spirit to rebuke and bring the soul into confession before God. “Washing of water by the word” is the remarkable figure of the apostle, answering to the water of separation from defilement in Num 19 . This goes on when needed; but why not the sacrifice? Because it remains absolutely perfect, yea perfecting; which its repetition would deny according to the argument in the Hebrews. Yet, has not something to be done? “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous.” But if the central truth before us now is, that Christ’s infinite work of atonement, blotting out the believer’s sins and cleansing his conscience, abides for ever before God, renewal is excluded because its efficacy is perfect. Such is the unqualified and unhesitating doctrine laid down by inspiration. From this sentence of God’s word and Spirit there is no appeal.
We may have to enter into some interesting distinctions in the scriptures; but it will be shown that in every one of them the very image, the full truth of God, goes incomparably beyond the types. You must remember that a type, however instructive in analogy (sometimes a contrast, rather than a resemblance), is after all only the shadow, and not the full impress and expression of the truth.
LECTURE 2.
Lev 16:5-10
Its General Principle compared with Christ’s Work.
That which comes before us now is the distinction between the two goats. Everyone can see on the face of scripture that there is a very marked difference between them. It is vain for any one to suppose that God did not intend a definite truth to be taught by each. One may notice that they were decided by lot, the disposal being in the hand, therefore, of the Lord exclusively; and this was quite an exceptional thing. As a general rule, the choice of the victim, under certain expressed conditions, was ordinarily left to the offerer. In some cases there was no latitude whatever: a positive command was laid down that such or such an animal should be offered under given circumstances. In other cases there is a gracious consideration of the poor in the offering. Poverty is taken into account on the one hand, and ample means, with a large heart, had their full opportunity on the other side. But in this case all was prescribed, and specially decided by the Lord.
Two goats, no other animals, were demanded to be brought by the children of Israel. But even the high priest himself was not allowed to choose which of the goats should be Jehovah’s lot, and which should be the people’s. This was left absolutely in the hands of God. The reason may be that there is no offering in all the ritual of Israel that has so Godward a character as those that were presented on the great Day of Atonement. It was God dealing with sin; and He accordingly moves in the matter – God alone. The high priest himself is the only other that is permitted to appear. On other days he had the sons of his house; the subordinate priests took their suited part. On that day he acted, and he only. The bearing of these things on our Lord Jesus is manifest: propitiation was His work alone.
Jesus was the high priest, but as yet in an altogether exceptional position – a high priest not so much in what was intercessional, as for what was representative before God in sin-bearing. He was identifying himself thus with Israel, and not for the people only, but for the sons of Aaron as well as for himself. It is clear therefore that the place is altogether different from that which regularly became the high priest in the sanctuary of God. Intercession in no way fulfilled the type of this great day, but laying a righteous basis for it rather. It was not as a martyr, nor identification in sympathy, to which some would lower the atonement; neither was it any question only of moral government, still less a simple display of love or of absolute pardon. These features, perhaps, may in a just measure and true light be found in the death of our Lord. He was indeed the holiest of martyrs, and in this view beyond all in His death. And therein did He make good God’s moral government, as it never was nor could be save in His own person, and under His own hands. His obedience in love was absolutely perfect. Yet had He been tempted as none other was. No temptation common to man had He been spared; but it is never said that the Lord was not tempted far beyond all. Suppose you that any man was tempted as the Lord during the forty days?
Possibly, nay, probably, the last three great trials of our Lord may be known in measure and spirit by not a few of His followers, and accordingly they present the only details of His temptation that are given us. But what do we know of what passed during the forty days? Why are there no details? Because none will ever be put in such a position again. A man may, on the one hand, imitate it in part as an impostor, and we may have heard of the like; on the other, we read of Moses sustained on high, and of Elijah going on earth in the strength of divinely supplied food. But oh! how different were even their holy fasts from His, Who alone resisted the enemy in the wilderness, with no companions except the wild beasts, till angels came to minister at the close! The Holy One of God triumphantly resisted, but in resisting suffered to the uttermost. Is this the case with what men call “temptation?” How sadly we know that we have too often yielded instead of resisting, and that we gratify ourselves because we do not suffer! We “enter into temptation,” as Peter did, instead of watching and praying as we should. Our Lord “suffered being tempted.” He kept the evil outside; yet the spiritual sensibilities of His holy nature were wrung by the temptation which Satan presented. But there was nothing within that answered to the temptation without; and Satan finding nothing in Him was completely foiled. Was that in vain? It was a part of the necessary fitting of our blessed Lord to be the sympathising High Priest. He had learnt obedience by the things which He suffered. Before He became man on earth’ He knew what it was to command. He was now, albeit glorified in heaven, yet still man, able more tenderly and more powerfully to sympathise with the tried and tempted saints than if He had not so been here below. For we are not to suppose that the love is less because He is risen from the dead. We are indeed assured that He lives for ever to intercede for them. At the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens He is the channel of tender mercy and grace for seasonable help. His sympathy is ever flowing freely. and fully from above. Such is the way in which the Holy Spirit presents it in the Epistle to the Hebrews and elsewhere.
But on the Day of Atonement there was no question of sympathy, but of identification with sinful men in grace to bear the judgment of sin at God’s hand. What is wanted for sin is not sympathy, but suffering for it. Not that, if any one sin, he is without a blessed resource; for we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And yet more, as a foundation, He is the propitiation for our sins. In this lay the answer to the deepest of all need. Sin had put shame on God, and done violence to His will, nature, and glory. God, therefore, must be vindicated in a]1 His ways and His nature about sin. He had been glorified as Father in the life here below of His Son, our Lord Jesus. There He had found the only man that perfectly and always met, not His every requirement only, but His mind and affection in an obedience and dependence that never quailed under sorrow and suffering. But a new question arose, not whether the Father found His joy in the perfect walk of His Son, a man in lowly dependence and obedience here below; but would this Holy One of God bear to be made sin? Would He bow His head under that intolerable burden? Would He, for God’s glory, take up sin in all its enormity, in all its hatefulness, and in all its dread unutterable consequences to Himself? Would He give Himself up at all cost to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself?
The judgment of sin entails abandonment on God’s part. Would He take and drink that cup? He that would suffer for sins could only undertake it, because in Him was no sin. A man tainted with the least sin must suffer for His own evils; it was therefore a condition indispensable for atonement that the victim should be without spot or blemish. Where was the man then who could suffer for sins without question of his own? Man had been challenged to convince Him of sin. God had borne witness of His complacency in Him. Jesus along could suffer atoningly; and this is what our Lord did, and what the high priest’s action that day represented.
Doubtless no one type is quite sufficient to set forth our Lord. He was both the high priest who offered, and the victim that was offered. Scripture is perfectly plain in setting both forth in Him. The Epistle to the Hebrews, in the verse already referred to, incontrovertibly testifies the full truth; and one might almost equally refer to the witness borne by the First Epistle of St. John: “And He is the propitiation () for our sins” (1Jn 2:2 ; 1Jn 4:10 ). There we have the very word which describes the relation of our Lord to the day of atonement as the victim. More than this, Rom 3 declares that God sot Him forth as “the propitiatory,” or mercy-seat (). No wonder scripture says that “Christ is all.” Even this- expresses but part of what He is; but it is a rich and plain witness, and most conspicuously, that Christ was “all” in the essential and solemn transactions of the Day of Atonement. If we looked at other types, we should see that Christ is “all” in them also. But it is quite enough to occupy us now if we only look into this single part of the varied ceremonies on that unique day of interest for Israel.
Accordingly, then, the goat on which Jehovah’s lot fell was beyond question to meet the exigencies of Jehovah’s character. For this reason we find that the blood had always to be brought, not before man that needed its atoning virtue, but to God where He is. The same truth substantially appears on the paschal night. When the first passover was instituted, the blood was put, not within the door, but without. That precious blood was not for man to look on in order to extract comfort from his sight of it. Comfort, indeed, he was perfectly entitled to draw from it, but not by his looking at it. The blood was expressly and only outside the door; the Israelitish family was to be as expressly within. “When I see the blood, I will pass over,” said the Lord; and Israel could eat the flesh in security, but not without bitter herbs.
So the true, deep, and all-important aspect of propitiation is ever that the blood is offered to God. No doubt it is for man; but the essential truth is, that it is put before God. Faith, therefore, acts on His estimate of the blood, not on man’s. This is so true; that when the goat for Jehovah’s lot comes forward, and the high priest deals with it, we have in this, the foundation of all for Israel, not a word said of laying his hands on its head, or of confessing Israel’s sins. It is not affirmed that he did not – the Jews say that he did; but we need not mind what old Jewish tradition says, any more than what men say today. In scripture we have our lesson, and thus we have it from God, and thank God for it; and we know the value and safety of resting on what He says. Woe be to the man who attempts to speak for God without His word! The silence of God is to be respected in the next place to His utterance. What He deigns to speak, of course, has its own supreme place; but reverent faith binds us to abstain from filling up the blank that God leaves. We are assured that He perfectly knew and provided for all the wants of those for whom He meant His revelation. There we bow our heads and worship; there we are content to ask, “What does God intend by withholding what His people are so ready to speak for Him? “
Men may venture to say a great deal on what the high priest did; but it is remarkable that, although it was a fundamental provision for the children of Israel, not a word is breathed of the high priest laying his hands upon Jehovah’s lot. This was an ordinary practice, as in the case of a burnt-offering that was killed, and a striking comfort for the offerer; but here silence reigns about it. Why? Is it inexplicable? In no way. Hands were laid on, where it was a question of man prominently. In an ordinary sin-offering it was the transfer of his confessed sin to the victim; in the burnt-offering, of the acceptance of the offering to the offerer.
Here Jehovah’s glory is alone in view. His majesty had to be vindicated, and His moral nature. The clearance of the sinful people was graciously given and carried out to the full on the day of Atonement; but it was on Azazel, the second goat. The first goat is stamped throughout and indelibly with the truth, that not man, not Israel, but God’s glory is primarily in question, and must be fully maintained. The first requirement for atonement is that God be glorified; there is nothing sure, stable, or righteous without this. It is not the mind of God in scripture when a creature’s necessity, instead of God’s moral glory, is allowed the first place.
The absence of confession over the first goat is no less marked, however quick man is to interpolate it. There was the most comprehensive and abject confession over the second goat, but not a word of the sort as to the first. Doubtless the reason is similar: confession is where man’s sins are in full view. Confession is due to God, in order to give righteous comfort to man; it is the needed and just expression of self-judgment before God, that he may be forgiven. But there is, and must be, a deeper thing – that God’s justice and honour be secured in atonement. There is Do adequate or holy basis without. meeting His glory or character: how and where is this scoured? In an offering for sin that speaks to Him of Christ, without reserve, devoted to His glory, not in life only, but in sacrificial death, giving Himself up absolutely to bear all the consequences of sin in God’s unsparing judgment.
Man, though the object of compassion to the uttermost, here disappears. Christ, the sin-bearer, is alone before God. Man does not like either. The first man is all-important in his own eyes; and he becomes all the more sensitive when be is awakened to his need of forgiveness. He is slow to understand that everything should not be about himself. Man needs pardon urgently and profoundly: why should he not have the answer to his own grievous wants in the first goat? God has judged otherwise, and He is wise and holy. God has laid down what is due to His own glory in atonement as the first of all questions, in the clearest and most convincing way, except as to the infatuated persons who imagine that they can understand the things of God better than God Himself, and so are as ready to take from scripture as to add to it. Even in the shadow, not yet the very image, God anticipated and excluded all this vanity and pride. He has here attested to those who tremble at His word that, while the fulness of the blessing is designed for man, this cannot be but through what the first goat means, and not the second alone. Both must be heeded, and in God’s order. There is no other way of blessing: the soul receives by faith and rejoices that God has been glorified in His Son. In order that it should be so, the race vanishes, and God deals with a representative in Aaron. In the anti-type it was Christ, the Son of man.
This was shown strikingly when the only occasion in which Scripture represents our Lord Jesus saying, “My God,” was on the cross, until He said it in the resurrection. When He was here below, He always said “Father.” He never acted, spoke, thought, save in the perfect communion of the Son with the Father. No wonder the Father was glorified in the Son. But now a total change came in, and the Lord prepares us for this, conveyed in that wondrous expression of His, already so often quoted: “Now is the Son of man glorified, and” – the Father? No! – “God is glorified in Him.” That this is not casual appears beyond dispute from the words that follow: “If God” – not the Father as such, but God – “be glorified in Him, God shall glorify Him in Himself, and shall glorify Him straightway.” Why? Because it was a question of the bearing of sin, and God as God is judge of sin, rather than the Father as such.
We all know that the theologians talk about our “reconciled Father” (and it is allowed they mean the truth of atonement, where all one’s heart goes with them); but no man can justify such language from Scripture. It is God that needs atonement. Sin is hateful and intolerable to His nature. If it is expiated, it can only be through a divine and unsparing judgment of it. The Father brings in quite another range of facts and truths, thoughts and feelings. It is His gracious relation to the Son, and now by grace to the family of faith (for one does not here dwell on His more general Fatherhood that pertains to every creature). Hence this watchful discipline and holy chastening, as a father towards his children.
But, where the judgment of sin is concerned, all consideration of gracious relationship and its fruit is shut out entirely. God is the judge of sin, and there cannot be in this the least kindly mitigation. What sin deserves ought not to be impaired. Mercy is here wholly out of place. Sin must be punished duly: all must be out, and the truth, holiness, and righteousness of God be vindicated at all cost in the execution of the judgment of sin. In the cross of Christ not one ray of light from the Father broke the darkness that surrounded Him – Who knew no sin – made sin there for us. Never was His perfection so precious in God’s eyes as when bearing our sins He cried, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” But it was the time for dealing with all evil laid on Him, not for the enjoyment or expression of communion.
This may enable the believer to see how complete was the change of our Lord’s position on the cross. Was He not the eternal Son? This was unalterable. He could no more cease to be the Son in the Father’s bosom, than the Father could cease to be His Father. Had it been possible indeed, His atonement had been in vain for God or man; but He could not be otherwise. Was He not God Himself? He Who is God can never cease to be God; just as one that is a mere man can never become God. All such notions are the dreams of human vanity and profane folly. He Who had deigned to become man was now on the cross made sin. And Who made Him to be sin? God alone: man never thought of such a thing. God, the Judge of sin, gave His beloved Son that He might become man, not merely to exhibit perfect dependence and obedience as a man in all “the days of His flesh” in communion with the Father, but above all to suffer to the uttermost all that God could expend of His most solemn unsparing judgment of sin on the cross. Yet was it all one unbroken obedience.
Therefore it was that darkness supernatural surrounded our Lord so suffering at that moment. It was not that He ceased to be the Son: He said “Father” on the cross, not only before He exclaimed “My God,” etc., but afterwards, as if expressly to show that the relationship never ceased for a moment. Notwithstanding, He then became the victim for sin; and it was no make-believe. He suffered once for sins, not merely once on a time, but once for all, Just for unjust, that He might bring us to God. He had been a sufferer through His life in love and kindness and zeal for God. Now it was from God for sins, a new and wholly distinct suffering for Him, and on Christ’s part only; for no other ever endured it. If anything be real since the world began, His sin-bearing was. As all had been true in the life of our Lord, so all must be and was equally so in His suffering and death for sin. How blessed for us! Yet, that the blessing might be as righteous as full, it was Jehovah’s lot, and not for His people in the first place. Such is the unquestionable force of the first goat. Consequently, if one word could describe properly the distinctive principle of this first act, must we not say it is “propitiation”?
When we come to the second goat, the word is “substitution.” In these two will be found some help towards any just appreciation of the Day of Atonement, and the truth which is so fully revealed in the New Testament. At the present time there is a very active body of men who pronounce themselves “thinkers,” and would gladly deny both of these altogether, who wish to fritter all down to the manifestation of gracious feeling in our Lord, to a display of love in martyrdom, or to some kindred departure from God’s dealing with sin in His cross. It is the old Socinian idea in a new shape on the part of men who shrink from professing to be Socinians.
All such theories are utterly short of, and opposed to, what was wrought by God in that work of our Lord Jesus. They even contradict the shadows set forth by the type. Yet the revealed truth of the New Testament alone gives the full light of God. A type is like a parable in this – that it never runs on all-fours. What is given in either is but a striking analogy (in the type contrast no less than resemblance) of some grand principle, but never the complete truth, or image, as it is called in Heb 10 . For evidently, and of course, a type must be either human material, or lower than human, such as a goat, ox, ram, a pair of pigeons, or something of that kind. So a parable speaks of a sower, or a marriage feast; or any suitable comparison.
But these figures, being of a creature kind, are necessarily limited; what we have in our Lord Jesus is infinite, and therefore the necessity of an infinite revelation as the inspired key. Had our Lord Jesus been a hair’s-breadth less God than the Father, He could not have been an adequate sacrifice for sins before God, the Judge of sins; neither else could He have declared God to man. Only God could and can perfectly meet what God requires. That the Son did this in man, and as man, was part of His perfection. Do you ask, “How can God meet God?” You can understand that a man can meet a man. If you argue that there is unity in the Godhead, it is granted; while it is affirmed that there are persons in the Godhead, even the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
This shows the importance of the truth. He who allows no more in the Godhead than three aspects of one person is not a Christian, but a deceiver and an antichrist. He does not confess the fully revealed and true God, Whose is Godhead not in three aspects but in three Persons, so distinct that the Father could send the Son, and the Holy Ghost descend on that Son in the presence of the Father, and in the consciousness of the Son, as it was, indeed, before man also. Such is the early and immense fact recorded in the Gospels, the clear witness to “the Trinity.” What sympathy can one have with those who, overlooking such a fact, stumble over the word? Why be so servile to the letter, and so anxious to get rid of a word because it is not in the Bible? The thing is in the Bible; the truth, not only open in the New Testament, but pervading (in a more veiled form, like the Old Testament in general) the Bible from the first chapter to the fait. You cannot now read the first chapter of Genesis intelligently without seeing that there are more persons than one in the Godhead. You cannot read the first verse of the first chapter without having a positive though gradual preparation for divulging it, at least after it was revealed.
Do you ask, how can this be? “In the beginning God created.” It is notoriously true, that in the original Hebrew “God” stands in the plural, and naturally points to more than one person; yet “created” is in the singular. This is not found where it is a question of heathen gods, but only of the living God. When scripture speaks about the gods of the nations, the verb is plural. When scripture speaks about the true God, although the subject be in the plural, the verb is often in the singular. Cases like Gen 20:13 , where the verb is also plural, prove that God (Elohim) was known to be a true plural. Could anything more truly answer to the unity of the nature and the plurality of the persons? It is allowed that none in the Old Testament could certainly see the three persons as revealed later: even the believer had to wait for the New Testament for full light and truth. But when it came in Christ and by the Spirit, the peculiar grammatical concord of God’s names could not but strike those who heed every word of holy writ.
Under the law God was not yet manifested, but on the contrary bidden behind a veil and certain: God was dwelling, as He says, in the thick darkness. Is that the case now? When. God sent His own Son, it was no longer so, as St. John bears witness. Far from dwelling in the thick darkness, the true light came in His person. Then the darkness apprehended it not; but here it did shine when Christ was here, as it shone out through the rent veil when He died on the cross. All that lay concealed behind – incense, priests, shadows, offerings, sacrifices, as well as the tabernacle itself, with its different measures of access to God – all is closed for the letter in the death of Christ. The Levitical system is clean gone, that the spirit, the truth couched under it all, and more still, might be known clearly. In the birth of Christ God had come to man; but now, in His death, the way lay open for man to come to God; and this the believer sees and knows to be the very essence and distinctive privilege of the gospel. For it is the unmistakeable truth of Christ that God did come to man in the person of His Son (Emmanuel); but the revealed effect of the atoning work of Christ is that the way is now made manifest into the holies. The veil of the temple was then rest from the top to the bottom.
If the striking type of the Day of Atonement falls short of the truth, assuredly it gives no small witness to the truth. Even the blood of the first goat was carried into the holiest of all. It was no emblem of carrying in blood after Christ died on the cross, as the letter would say. Carrying Christ’s blood! The literal idea is indeed offensive. There was no other Jewish way, of course, but to carry in the blood then shed, and there was no other person than the high priest to carry it in. But to imagine that Jesus should have to do some subsequent act in order to make His blood available before the throne in the heavens is a strange doctrine. The truth is, that the moment the blood was shed, the effect of His atonement was infinitely felt above, before He entered there as the great High Priest in person. The veil of the temple was rent – not from the bottom to the top, as if it were by an earthquake or any influence from below; it was from the top to the bottom. It was God, Who was glorified in Christ’s work of propitiation. It was God, Who signified the consequences of that expiation in His own eyes even then, as He afterwards caused the blessed result to be proclaimed in the gospel.
For, suppose that a Jew had looked in through the rent veil, what would be seen there? Never was it allowed before; no priest even could enter; but when the veil was rent, what was there to see? The blood upon the mercy seat. The blood once sprinkled “upon” the mercy seat was enough for God. But man requires the utmost means to assure him, and God graciously vouchsafes it: seven times the blood was sprinkled “before” the mercy seat, to give complete evidence for man that he may safely and surely draw near to God. For God it was simply put upon it. It represented the atoning blood of His Son, Who had so surely taken the place of the victim for sin, that He cried out from the cross, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? “
Alas! for those who misuse those wondrous words of the Atoning Victim, as an excuse for their own unbelief, and dare to compare their darkness with His. It is false that God ever forsook His saints. Is such unbelief excusable? Assuredly it supposes the densest ignorance of the gospel. But it is also the grossest irreverence to compare your “hours of darkness”* with that which shrouded the Sin-bearer then, and then only. Search the New Testament through, and the Old too, and you will never find an excuse for the darkness of doubting. I do not say that he who torments his soul with fears may not be a believer; but he is a believer who does dishonour to his faith by his unfaithfulness inwardly if not outwardly. Can you conceive that God gave His word for you to hesitate? Or do you think that the doubt of a child of God is not worse and more shameful than that of an unbelieving man?
*”If the Master,” wrote Bishop Horne, “thus underwent the trial of a spiritual desertion, why doth the disciple think it strange, unless the light of heaven shine continually on his tabernacle? Let us comfort ourselves in such circumstances with the thought that we are thereby!! conformed to the image of our dying Lord that sun which set in a cloud to arise without one.” ( A Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Irving’s edition, i. 223, 4, Glasgow, 1825). Their name is Legion who repeat the same error.
Look at things according to God; consider what doubting Him means; what an insult to His truth and love in Christ! Say not what the child pleads when it has done some bad or foolish thing, “Mother, I never meant it.” Nobody charges the child with wicked intent. But why meddle with what she ought not to have touched? So it is with those who are but children in the faith and spiritual understanding, sadly ignorant of God and of themselves. It is for want of simple rest in His Son and His word. Has not God given us the most ample grounds on which we should confide in Him? What could match with the truth now before us – the Son of God after taking on Himself the full consequences of sin at the hand of God? Was it not that God might be glorified in the Son of man made sin? I put it now in its most abstract and absolute form; and what is the blessed result for the soul that bows to God in faith? Not only that the believer is saved by grace, but that the gospel can go out to every creature under heaven. What does the gospel declare as its ground and justification? That He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world (1Jn 2:2 ).
Do you observe that certain words, printed in the italics of the Authorised Version, are here left out? The reason is, because they ought never to have been in. They are not required for the sense in our idiom; nay, their insertion conveys a wrong meaning, and makes the version say what inspiration does not either here or anywhere else. It is no pleasure to make such a remark on the common English Version: they are the words of a friend, of one who, as a whole, values the plain English Bible beyond any other version in general use. But let God be true, Who did not write those words: indeed they are printed in a character to show that they are not in the original Greek. There is therefore a marked distinction between the two clauses. “He was the propitiation for our sins.” Who are the “our”? The family of God, you will answer, as this is the ordinary “we” of scripture (not, as is known, the only “we” there, but beyond just doubt the prevailing usage). For “we,” as a general rule, unless there be modifying circumstances clearly marked, regularly means the family of faith, as “we know,” “we believe.” Does everybody know or believe? Certainly not; but only the faithful, or Christians. So in that case Christ is “the propitiation for our sins.” But is this all? He is, thank God, “also for the whole world” – not “for the [sins of the] whole world.” If Christ had been the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, as He is for the sins of believers, the whole world would have been saved. If they were borne away, what would remain for judgment? It is not so. There is a weighty difference. What, then, is the preacher of the gospel entitled to say? There is eternal life in Christ, and there is redemption through His blood. He is life eternal, His work no less before God. But for whom is this work? For all that repent and believe the gospel. Not a hair’s breadth more does God allow. There is the revealed reply in its simplicity and its distinction and its fulness. You are not entitled to tell an unbeliever, “Christ bore your sins in His own body on the tree:” when he believes, God’s word assures him of it.
Scripture is most precise as to the difference between propitiation and substitution. We may have another opportunity of going into substitution with more detail when we come to a subsequent lecture; but for the present I am content just to indicate, in passing, the distinctive truth of each. Propitiation, as being Godward by the work of Christ, takes in not merely what God is towards His people, but what He is towards sinners, wherever and whatever they may be. Would you limit God, as the Jews did? He will not sanction it. The work of Christ’s propitiation, being infinite before God, opens consequently the door to God’s love in beseeching every creature on earth. Doubtless the type here or anywhere fails to set forth such love, such righteousness, as is in Christ. No Jew could possibly understand it, nor did God reveal it then. There was yet the reason of the reserve mentioned before; the law stood in the way. Yet have we seen some dim confirmation in the fact that there was nothing said or done to limit the efficacy of Jehovah’s lot, as there was in the people’s lot. There was a not insignificant difference, as already pointed out, in the then absence of express confession of Israel’s sins, and of laying on of hands. It was, no doubt, in the people’s view, to bring down a shower of blessing upon them only; but in God’s mind much more. His nature, word, majesty, and character, were met in the offering for sin. The effect of the antitype is that now God delights in sending His glad tidings to every creature. But still the fact remains that some who hear the gospel are saved, and some are not. Sinners who hear it are the more guilty if they believe not, and they must perish everlastingly.
Is it then that the saved are better men than the unsaved? Do you presume that your superiority is the ground why you stand in the favour of God? Suffer me to have doubts of you, if such is your plea. You will not find scripture to support but condemn you. Not that one forgets for a moment that there is the most decided difference in every soul that is born of God from every other that is not; but does man’s superior goodness earn the life of Christ, or draw down the remission of your sins? It is just because I love you, and would be faithful to the truth as revealed, that I say, God forbid! Look at the effect of such a thought. It flatly contradicts His word and nullifies Christ’s work. If it were true, God’s favour must be turned away from every believer the moment he did not fully answer to the character of Christ; His advocacy would be at an end. Is this true? Is the access to God’s presence and grace a fluctuating condition? Does it change like the cloudy face of the sky? Is not the believer’s nearness stable and constant? According to the Epistle to the Hebrews, approach to God for the believer is as unbroken as the efficacy of the work of Christ for his sins. But, you say, God chastises. Certainly. So you chastise your child when it is needed; but you do not love it the less, nor is it less your child. On the contrary, it is because you are its father, and love it dearly, that you have the rod, and are called to use it.
It is a wonderfully blessed thing to know that God has been pleased to bring us who believe into nothing but favour; if it were not so, even after pardon, we should be lost over and over again. But salvation is a status that attaches to the believer through his course; and bow is this marked? That there is, not only propitiation to meet the character of God, that He may proclaim His love in Christ to every creature; but also substitution to secure an absolute cleansing away of all the sins of every believer. Hoping to expound this more minutely, I purposely put the two things together now to give an adequate view of the difference between propitiation and substitution, which together constitute the atonement.
You will find that there is a continual tendency of the different classes, even of believers, in Christendom to ignore one or other of these truths. Take, for instance, those that maintain that the gospel ought to go out to every creature. It is notorious that such men habitually deny God’s special favour to the elect. They overlook or pare down any positive difference on God’s part towards His own children. They hold that a man may be a child of God today and not to-morrow, throughout his course. Now this destroys substitution. They hold propitiation, and there they are right and therefore are quite justified in preaching the gospel unrestrictedly to every creature, as the Lord indeed enjoined. But how their one-sidedness enfeebles the proper portion of the saints! They cannot but reduce to a minimum the rich unfoldings of divine love in the settled relationships of faith, as He has revealed in the Apostolic Epistles generally, whence they try to cull out appeals to the unconverted, or to attenuate what is meant for God’s children, if they do not dangerously extend their privileges to the unsaved.
But look now for a moment at the opposite side. There are those who hold that all God has done and now reveals is in view of the elect only, that all He has wrought in Christ Jesus is in effect for the church, and that He does not care a pin about the world, except to judge it at the last day. This may be put rather bluntly; and I care not to present such grievous unfeelingness for man and dishonour of God and His Son in as polished terms as those might desire who cherish notions so narrow and unsavoury. Yet a certain respectable class around us do see but the elect as the object of God. Such go not in doctrine beyond the second goat, or the people’s lot. They see the all-importance of substitution; as their adversaries are absorbed in the effect of propitiation.
How come the two contending parties of religionists not to see the truth of both the goats? There both are distinctly in the word of God. Why is it that those, who rightly urge that the message of God’s grace should freely go out to every creature, fail to hold the security of the believer too? What a blotting out of Christ’s love to the church! Such is the inevitable result of taking up one part of the truth and setting it against another. Thus we see the importance of holding, not merely a truth, but the truth. Here plainly there are two sides. The goat of propitiation provides in the fullest manner for the glory of God; even where sin is before Him. In doing it, what was the consequence? Christ was forsaken of God that the believer should never be forsaken. Christ bore the judgment of sin that God’s glory might be immutably established in righteousness. Thus grace in the freest way can and does now go out to every creature here below.
But besides this opening of the sluices that divine love might flow freely over the sand, however barren in itself, we also find another line of truth altogether; the fullest and nicest care that those who are His children should be kept in peace and blessing. They had been guilty as any, as indifferent as others to God. They were the children of wrath and served Satan as truly as the worst of those vitro refuse the gospel. And see how God has provided for their evil, when we come to the goat of substitution. “Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquity of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their iniquities.” Language seems almost to fail, in order to express the fulness of grace in securing relief to the guilty people, whatever might be their sins and iniquities. God took care, not only of His own glory and nature, but to give them knowledge of salvation by the remission of their sins.
Thus even the type demonstrates that we require these two distinct truths to maintain the balance of God’s word. It is a blessed thing to hold the outgoing of God’s grace to every creature, but not at the sacrifice of the security of those who believe. Thus only is maintained in any measure of truth that firm Rock on which the elect stand. Their salvation is as secure as the message of grace is free. Supposing you blur the difference between the two goats, and crush them up, if one may say so, into one indistinguishable mass – the dead and the live goat – so that the difference between them is gone, what follows? Either that you become exclusively devoted to the gospel that God sends to every sinner under heaven, or that you shut yourself up to think only of the elect and their salvation. The worst is that each virtually makes out God to be such an one as themselves in their short-sightedness. It is plain that these two things are of exceeding importance if not taken up exclusively. As parts of the truth, they are admirably held together and so they compose God’s truth. In the first goat God has secured His majesty, His love, and His righteousness, in the going forth of His message to every creature. In the second goat He has equally cared for the security of each one of His people, in knowing that all his sins, transgressions, and iniquities, are completely borne away. Can one conceive how the truth of atonement could be more admirably shown by types beforehand?
Only let us preserve the order of the subjects as much as possible. Therefore, on the next occasion on which I hope to address you, it will devolve on me to point out the way in which the blessed truth of atonement exceeds the type of both goats. It may seem hard for some to admit such a possibility; but it will be a privilege to show you that there is a further truth connected with “the bullock,” which has its own peculiarity for those who are the object of that great offering; and this is not without its perfect answer and solution in the New Testament. For the present I trust that the general distinction between the two goats has been sufficiently cleared, and the necessity seen for them both.
Let me only finish now what I would say by drawing your attention to a verse which is given rightly in the Authorised Version, but with grievous defect in the Revised Version. This is rather a serious charge, when one thinks of a work which was produced by a considerable company (some of them really learned); afterwards introduced with no small blowing of trumpets; and received with abundant cordiality, if we may judge by the tons of the New Testament copies sold immediately. The matter is not on any recondite point, nor really open to any serious doubt or difficulty. The truth is here plain, and intimately connected with the subject before us.
In Rom 3:22 we read these words: “Even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all them that believe.” In the two clauses we have the principle of the two goats. The truth which answers to the first is “The righteousness of God unto all.” This is what follows from Jehovah’s lot. God is not the God of Israel only, as the Jews have always sought to make out. Is He not the God of the Gentiles also? It is exactly what the apostle says in this chapter a little farther on: “Yes, of the Gentiles also, if at least God is one who shall justify circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through their faith.” But here we have it in the form, “The righteousness of God, by faith in Jesus Christ unto all,” after which words there ought to be a comma to make it strictly correct. Next comes in the fruit of the second goat – “and upon all them that believe.” Here is stated, as it were, the security of the believer. It is not “unto all them that believe.” “Unto” thus distinguished is merely a tendency or direction; and, even when not so, it may not reach all. It expresses whither the gospel goes – “unto all.” The gospel addresses itself to every creature, as also every soul is bound to receive the testimony of God’s grace, which puts upon them the responsibility of bowing in their hearts to it as from God. It is “unto all”; and the man who does not preach it “unto all” misunderstands his duty as a herald of the gospel.
But on the other hand, the righteousness of God is not merely “unto () all them that believe,” but upon () them. What does “upon” represent there? The effect produced, and this is not upon all mankind, but “upon all that believe.” You have, therefore, to distinguish objects in this verse: the universal aspect of the gospel in going out to every creature; and the positive effect upon all them that believe.
Here, as it appears to me, the Authorised Version gives the truth; what do the Revisers? Led away by a mistake very common in some ancient copies, of which certain of their company were almost idolators, they follow the oldest blindly. A B C P. with two juniors and some ancient versions, would ordinarily have the greatest weight; but here, by a merely clerical blunder, the scribes seem to have passed from the first (“all”) to the second, with the fatal effect we have described. That later copyists invented the admirably correct and comprehensive distinction, which the common text intimates, is too much to conceive. The distinction too is especially Pauline, which none of the copyists even understood, any more than some modern commentators. Theodoret may interpret unwisely, but he writes unhesitatingly about the two clauses; as indeed they are attested by ancient versions older than any existing MSS. A real conflation is ever feeble, if not false. A slip, if made, might naturally ruin a nicely poised and fully stated truth, which was entirely beyond mediaeval mind to construct or even understand.
The result at, any rate is, “The righteousness of God unto all them that believe.” This is the form given in the Revised Version. What is the consequence? That they have unwittingly taken away from scripture a double truth. The two branches of the truth are mixed up, so that one cannot get at either. Thus is produced a hotch-potch of both clauses, which destroys the exact sense of each.
For the effect of the reading adopted is that there is not a word “unto all” sinners as such; and to the believer is brought merely an offer of the gospel. Is not this exactly what remains? There is “the righteousness of God unto all them that believe,” if they like to accept it. On the one hand the blessing of the gospel is not made sure for the believer; on the other the unbeliever has no gracious overture from God, because His righteousness is only said to be “unto all them that believe.” Yet the words omitted state the double truth in perfection, which the Revisers virtually treat as a blunder of the scribes; whereas no mere man ever did invent so perfect a statement of the truth. Thus the change does not here leave the smallest ground-work for preaching the gospel to the unconverted, whilst it takes away the safety and settled comfort of the believer. Yet the verse is read as if a perfectly adequate authority sustained it, although there is a simple and sure way of explaining why the intervening words were omitted. The transcriber’s eye might readily pass from one “all” (.) to the other and thus give, for the large truth of God, a poor word of man, which is not really scripture. But why did the Revisers adopt the error? Through their excessive confidence in the external evidence without adequate consideration of the internal. They have, as I believe, marred and maimed the double statement of God’s truth in the passage, and furnished that which answers neither to the first goat nor to the second. How important to have the truth represented by the twofold type!
LECTURE 3.
Lev 16:11 Lev 16:9 .
Its General Principle compared with Christ’s Work.
The first act of Aaron that now claims our consideration is the sacrifice of the bullock for the sin offering. It was expressly for himself and his house. But it is important here as elsewhere to bear in mind the tone, character, and limits of typical instruction. There is an analogy, because it cannot otherwise be a type; but there are limits, because it is only a type and “not the very image.” Atonement, according to the full mind and intent of God, could have been but once accomplished, and only by the true High Priest, even Christ. A typical form was all that could be now, for Aaron was sinful as the people were; but He whom Aaron represented, as He needed no sin-offering, so could He Himself be made sin for us. It is well to seize the difference – and in some cases contrast – not merely in what is here so obvious, but because there are other points to be noted which may not seem equally plain, where nevertheless the same principle as really applies. We must not fail invariably to read the type in the light of Christ, instead of reducing Christ to the measure of the type.
Great mistakes have been made since (if not in) the first century through neglect of the right use of Christ as He is now fully revealed. So it was, to my own personal knowledge, even among Christians more than usually versed in scripture, forty years ago at least; so it has been since, and may be at any time. Two portions of the word of God seem peculiarly liable to a kindred sort of misconstruction, perhaps one might rather say three. The earliest in point of place are the types of the Levitical economy. Next comes the book of the Psalms, as bringing in the heart in all its varied feelings, about either the wants and trials of man, or the anticipations given of God; but Christ’s Spirit is there, and hence the need of not confounding the first man with the Second. Thirdly, there is the prophetic word, so open to bias and error where Christ is not seen duly and His kingdom. In all these three departments of divine truth (and it pretty much comprehends the O.T.), who is sufficient for these things? What need of dependence on God, and watchfulness against self, that we may have divine guidance!
There is here, as everywhere, but one safeguard. Human canons do not preserve, nor certainly is truth due to human tradition but to Christ kept by the Spirit before us. He alone of God is made to us wisdom; and it never can be otherwise. As He is the life of the Christian, so is He the true light that now shines, the only One who ever did enlighten, and fully. Therefore, we are only safe in following Him through God’s word, these portions especially which without Him are indeed dark. But as there is “no darkness at all” in God, so there is none Christ does not graciously dispel, save what unbelief makes for itself in slighting or forcing His word. Reading it hastily we may find peculiar difficulty, where it lies outside our own relationship. For instance, we come in contact with that which is according to the status or measure of the Jew; but we are Christians and ought never to forget our own place. Again, there are depths of grace and glory in Christ, where it becomes us to bow our heads and adore, rather than to rush in familiarly on such holy ground. But there is no danger in keeping behind, yet close to, Christ; there is all possible blessing in hearing His voice. Let us now endeavour to conform to that only just, true, and full rule for interpreting the word of God. At this point it becomes particularly needful, because our theme concerns the utmost nearness to the presence of God.
We have looked a little at Jehovah’s lot, the goat that was slain whose blood was also brought in; nevertheless we are above all to look into the meaning and application of the sacrifice for Aaron and his house.
Now the bullock necessarily has a special principle attached to it. Scripture never heaps together things unmeaningly as men sometimes do. The bullock, though it has a general aim in common with the first goat, was expressly distinct and has marked differences. On the face of the chapter there was but one bullock, though there were two goats. As it was the largest sort of offering, so here it has a higher direction. The bullock was offered only for the priestly house. There was no complementary bullock to be driven away with their sins laid and confessed on its head, like the second goat which followed up the first, after a notable interval. The bullock and the first goat were slain as nearly about the same time as possible – the bullock first (ver. 11), the goat afterwards (ver. 15).
But a remarkable type intervenes before the blood of either was carried within. And Aaron “shall take a censor full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the veil; and he shall put the incense upon the fire before the Lord, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy-seat that is upon the testimony, that he die not” (ver. 12, 13). What does this mean? The traditional idea is that incense represents the prayers of the saints: surely an irrelevant interpretation as applied, not only to the type before us, but to what is analogous in the book of Leviticus, and indeed wherever incense is offered nuder the law. In the special circumstances of Rev 5 , we do find the prayers of the saints symbolised by incense (ver. 8); but in the very same book, Rev 8:3 , we read of “much incense” given, in order to impart efficacy to the prayers of all the saints at the golden altar which was before the throne. Here the distinctness of the incense from the prayers is beyond argument. It is clear from this, sustained by a great deal more elsewhere, that incense cannot be assumed to mean absolutely or only prayers Of the saints. The royal priests in Rev 5 present the prayers of the saints as incense; the angel high-priest in Rev 8 puts to the prayers of all the saints much incense, which no creature could do – only Himself. Where would be the sense in adding the prayers of the saints to the prayers of the saints? We must therefore look for a larger truth in explanation; nor really is it far to seek. Early in Leviticus, and specially in Exodus, we may find seasonable help.
Thus in Exo 30 we have the detailed composition of the holy perfume for Jehovah, which was not for man “to smell thereto” on pain of being cut off. This it was which beaten small was to be put before the testimony in the tabernacle of the congregation. It set forth the fragrant grace of Christ, the more tried so much the more abundantly sweet to God. It was what He peculiarly appreciated in Christ. Here the prayers of saints are out of the question. It prefigures the personal grace of Christ tried to the utmost, but even in the minutest thing agreeable to God Who alone could estimate it.
In Lev 2 we have nothing to do with the prayers of the saints, but Christ livingly acceptable to God. Therefore incense enters as an important element in the “meal (not “meat”) offering.” Fine flour, oil mingled or anointed, or both, with salt, were therein; or ears of corn green or full. But the peculiar claim of “all the pure incense” for God is ever reserved. The remnant, after the memorial handful for the burning as a sweet savour to Jehovah, was Aaron’s and his sons’; but “all frankincense” was burnt upon the altar. It was the expression of Christ’s personal grace in its unspeakable preciousness to God. Our prayers are clearly out of the question. Do not all these offerings at the beginning of Leviticus speak exclusively of Christ? If none but the presumptuous would dispute the bearing of the holocaust, of the peace-offering, and of those for sin and trespass, it ought not to be doubted that the meat-offering has at least as much of the character of Christ offered up to God, as any other oblation. They are the reflection of Christ and His work, each in a distinctive way.
Surely incense here has nothing to do with the prayers of the saints. Is it not the fragrant grace of Christ’s presence which God alone could appreciate in Him, and in Him only? All went up to God. Elsewhere it was His grace rising up in intercession, when making prayers of saints acceptable to God. Exo 30:34-38 might afford a still clearer proof of the reference to Christ, where our prayers would be quite out of place. But time fails to dwell further on this interesting type, which testifies of the fragrance of Christ’s personal grace to God, and in no way points here to the prayers of saints, whatever His grace also in making them acceptable.
Before the blood then, not merely of the goat, but of the bullock, was brought in to be put upon the mercy-seat and before it, the incense rose up before God. There was the witness of the exquisite grace of Christ before God, of His personal sweet-savour, when tried by the fire to the uttermost; and this apart from blood-shedding, not apart from fiery judgment, but from that which was essential to put away sin. The blood was not yet put there; the incense preceded. Bat how did that incense rise? Was it not kindled by the holy fire of God? And that fire was closely connected with the burnt offering. The fire fell there, and then was kindled the incense which rose up as a cloud before God and filled the most holy place. It was the fire of God’s consuming judgment; for this is ever the symbol of that which, testing the Lord in every way and to the fullest possible degree, only brought out the more the fragrance of His grace. The object in atonement was to lay a ground for divine righteousness, so that God, in blessing to the full, should act consistently with what was due to Christ and His work, which had glorified God even in judging sin. Yet before that basis was laid there was in the incense the witness of His ineffably fragrant grace Godward. Such seems the meaning of the incense which the high priest burnt in the most holy place.
After this “he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy-seat eastward; and before the mercy-seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times. Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the veil, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock.” It is not, as if there were two offerings or two acts of sacrifice for our blessed Lord Jesus, but at least two objects of His work here in the mind of God. In order to complete atonement for the people the second goat must be taken into account for that work, though typically it only appears when the high priest emerges from the sanctuary (vers. 20 and 32, 33). But the foremost shadow before us now is the blood of the bullock put upon and before the mercy-seat – put once upon and seven times before the mercy-seat. Once sufficed for God, where approach to Him was invited; man needed seven times. Alas! how dull has man proved to take in the fullest encouragement on God’s part; for He it was Who thus in the figure provided all: He despises not any.
But why the bullock, and why the goat? The blood of the bullock was carried in on behalf of the priestly family; in this type Aaron and his house. Here the Epistle to the Hebrews marks a contrast. If Aaron must be atoned for, it could not be so with Christ. It were blasphemy to include the Son of God in any such requirement. You might suppose such a caveat quite uncalled for. Alas! I remember a Canadian ex-clergyman who, getting into the minutia of these types, and, dull indeed to see the guarded glory of the true high priest, fell into this horrible snare, and was put away from amongst us because of so deep a dishonour to our Lord Jesus. Those who deem such a thought scarcely possible, forget we have an active, subtle, and deadly foe. Let us learn what it is to distrust ourselves, and to cherish confidence in the living God and His word.
Nevertheless, it remains that the blood of the bullock was for the priestly family, as that of the goat was for the people. Is there anything in the New Testament to help here? Much. Take one scripture – and a familiar one – in the eleventh chapter of the Gospel of St. John (Joh 11:49-52 ). The occasion came through an uncomely mouth, but it was God’s giving. Caiaphas spoke wickedly, but God prophesied through him, as of old through Balaam. It is not that his heart who uttered the prophecy was in the truth. But if the unscrupulous high priest here prophesied that it was expedient for one man to die for the people, it is clearly the Spirit of God Who comments that He died not for that nation only, but that also He should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. There you have the death of our Lord for two distinct objects. One cannot avoid perceiving that the children of God are a higher object than “that nation.” Indeed none more than John, throughout the whole of his Gospel, shows that nation to be reprobate. Never was a nation more unbelieving and rebellious. It is all over with them from the very first chapter: “He came to His own [things], and His own [people] received Him not.” The Jews, the rejectors of the Lord, are seen to be themselves rejected of God from the beginning of the fourth Gospel. The other Gospels gradually come up to the same conclusion, because of Jewish unbelief; but John starts with it. For which reason the Lord is introduced by John purging the temple of these wicked men before His public ministry begins; whereas the Synoptic Gospels give no purging of the temple till we approach the end. What could more than this purifying prove that the Jews were the unclean, notwithstanding their high pretensions? And high pretensions always rise more and more when judgment is at the door. Then are a privileged people most lifted up when they have lost all true sense of communion with God.
But to return: the plain truth comes out that the death of Christ was not merely for the Jewish people, but to gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. No doubt that purpose of gathering in one expresses also another thought and purpose; but there could be no such gathering on God’s part without a righteous removal of their sins. Thus the propitiation is necessarily implied, although it be not stated in these words. Atonement is the necessary pre-requisite for such a blessing as the gathering together of the scattered children of God unless He could overlook His own dishonour or their unremoved guilt. And therein is one main moral reason why the church never had a place on earth, and never could be called to its own heavenly portion before the Lord Jesus: the atonement was not yet an accomplished fact before God, Who could not, consistently with His glory, gather in one without it.
Let us now a little more closely examine the Epistle to the Hebrews, which, as already remarked, is a divine comment on these Levitical types. We need not guess, nor argue at length; it is enough, and best of all, to believe.
In Heb 2 we have Isa 8:18 applied to the saints now being called. They are the children God has given to Christ. Then in Heb 3 we read, “Whose house are we.” Christ had just been treated as the apostle and high priest of our profession. In the beginning of the chapter after His introduction in His high priesthood, we are told that He has a house over which He acts with divine rights, not merely as a servant: “Whose house are we.” The “we” in this Epistle is no doubtful matter. It means not mere Hebrews, but such as were bearing His name, sanctified by His blood, and made free of the holiest of all – “Whose house are we.” Does any one conceive that this relationship is peculiar to Christian Jews? Is the principle to be denied to those who now believe generally? Of every Christian it is no less true, though one rejoices to own it was primarily written to believing Hebrews. It is the common but high privilege of every Christian. Nor can one admire the one-sided rashness which can treat the treatise on the Old Testament types – if one does not call it an Epistle – that inspired commentary to these Hebrews, as a child’s book. Rather is that depreciation a childish remark. The Hebrew saints, to whom the Old Testament was expounded, were no doubt children, when they ought for the time to be teachers; but who does not discern throughout the voice of Him that speaks from heaven? The object of the teaching (Heb 5:6 ) was to bring these Hebrews out of the word of the beginning of Christ, elementary as this was, into the full growth or “perfection” which flows from knowing Him on high, after He had made purification of sins. Do you call that a picture book of the nursery? So speak if you will of the Old Testament types. They were part of the rudiments of the world to which Israel was in bondage. They were all but partial pictures. But the Epistle to the Hebrews, far from being a nursery book, is a profound and most instructive communication of the Holy Spirit to lead on the Christ-professing Jews into the present elevating and heavenly associations with Him glorified; whilst it made no less clear and certain that those who despise, and still more those who give Him up, are for ever lost. They had been dull of hearing; and it is always so with men proud of their ancient religion: nothing so much hinders growth in the truth. There is no veil over the eyes so impenetrable as religions habit or tradition. Given two persons converted: one of the mere profane world, the other perhaps respected in the professing church. Which of the two ordinarily goes forward steadily in the truth? Not the man who devoted himself to the study of theology for the last ten or twenty years past. He is generally an unapt scholar when he repairs to scripture, even seriously. Such is the effect of old religions prejudice. He needs to unlearn quite as much as to learn; which makes progress difficult and slow. The Hebrew confessors are thus seen to be but dull in rising to the height of Christianity, as they saw feebly into its depths. They were impeded in learning because they had so much to unlearn. They are not the only persons now who are thus entangled. As Christendom grows old, the same difficulty repeats itself, though it be less excusable for Christians now than then for the Jews who believed. The truth fully revealed gives meaning to those ancient shadows. They had before them the materials; but they needed the teaching of God’s Spirit, Who glorifies Christ. Yet the ancient oracles had been used, not only for the conversion, but for the help and blessing, of souls then for some fifteen hundred years, to say nothing of times antecedent. But these were the persons who proved so slow in spiritual understanding. Therefore it is the more incumbent on all bred in religions habits, and accustomed to a groove of set forms and phrases, to watch against this danger, of which scripture warns.
This, the richest specimen the Bible furnishes of Expositional teaching – for it is more particularly of that character – was intended to educate the believing Hebrews into the true meaning of the old types. But to restrict it, the light, or the privileges, revealed therein, to the Hebrews, to say that they, and they only, were the house of Christ, were sheer ignorance and an intolerable wrong. “Whose house are we” is a principle as truly applicable now as then, and to Gentile Christians no less really than Jewish. But it may be presumed that nobody here would have the least difficulty as to this, and that all concede that the truth applies to believers now in all its forms, and will as long as there are Christians waiting for the Son of God from heaven. But if it be granted that we too are the true Aaron’s house, the bullock was beyond doubt for them, in contradistinction from the people; and we shall find that this is as important in doctrine as for practice. For it is to be noticed that the blood of the bullock has exclusively to do with those who enter the holy places, or the sanctuary of God. The blood of the goat was brought there too, for God must be glorified in reconciling Israel or any others. But you cannot sever the first goat from the second. They coalesce and constitute the necessary atonement for the people who await the coming out of the great high priest. It is not so with those concerned in the bullock. There is no waiting on His appearance for their acceptance. In this case there is no fresh type nor future time that draws you back to the earth, as there is unquestionably in the second goat applied historically. The bullock has to do at once and only with the presence of God and those entitled to enter there by grace.
On the other hand, if we look at the two goats, the counterpart of them both attaches to the earth, and the earthly people in an unmistakeable way. In that transaction how much was before the eyes of the people! God ordered it thus for the purpose of giving them the visible token that their sins were gone never to be remembered more. No such thing was necessary for, or suited to, the priestly house.
But understand what is meant. There is a time when souls ever so truly converted are not up to the Christian position. Do you ask, Who are in so anomalous a condition? Why, you and myself have been, if we are not, among them. Time was when we were nothing but souls in our sins. Time was when it was a question, and a great question to us, to be born of God, yet not knowing our sins forgiven. One grieves to think that many a saint on earth thinks the remission of sins rather a high claim, and a very questionable privilege whether it is true. Do you think thus? Then let me tell you, that you have scarcely got beyond the portion of a devout Jew or Gentile before redemption. If this be so, are you yet really on Christian ground? One is not denying that you are a Christian; but how many converted persons are on Jewish ground so far as their state of mind or experience goes?
He who merely looks to Christ with the hope that he may go to heaven at last and not be lost when he comes into judgment, has but imperfectly learnt by faith the Christian’s alphabet. Is this the gospel? The sooner he learns more of God in Christ, the better; and even this chapter is admirably adapted to show, when read in the light of Hebrews, where and how far he has fallen short. The sacrifice of the bullock, teaching us what it contains and what it omits, gives us precisely enough, though in type, the place into which the young believer is meant, and ought, to advance. It is likely that the Hebrews at that time were not much beyond what has just been described; and the apostle wrote that they might be Christians in deed and in truth. Therefore one may observe the great stress wherewith that Epistle shows, not merely that Christ has personally gone through the heavens, but that He is in the highest place in all the virtue of His work for us, that we now by faith may draw near into the holiest of all. Of course it is but in spirit: we are not there; we are still on earth, not in heaven. But have we no entrance into the favour of God by faith, beyond where we are? or do we merely look up to heaven as the future home of our hearts? Is it the true sanctuary open to us now, or is it not?
It is a common argument of those who are accepted as soundly evangelical to say that there is but one priest, even Christ on high; and that therefore the sacerdotal pretension of a certain school in Christendom is simply the trash of Popery. To this last I agree with entire cordiality. If the gospel be true, the notion of any on earth being priests for the rest of Christians is evident and pestilent falsehood. It is a revival of Jewish principles, since they were in figure nailed to Christ’s cross, dead and buried in His grave. But if this be all, you fail to take the full and positive standpoint of the Christian. Do not content yourself with saying that among Christians there are no priests for others on earth, Christ being the only great priest in the presence of God. There is far more than this in what is now revealed. What more, do you ask, is required to supplement it? “Whose house are we?” Why do not evangelical men hold, preach, and practise this? Why do they not tell the saints on earth that they are all and equally priests? It is not merely that they are to be in heaven. No doubt their title will be perfectly owned there. We are to be priests of God and of Christ in the resurrection (Rev 20:6 ); but have we not from God the self-same title now? (Rev 1:6 ).
And if any scruple to believe the Apocalypse, why overlook the Epistle to the Hebrews? Does not Peter also say that Christians are a royal priesthood, and, what is still more and better, a holy priesthood? (1Pe 2 ) The royal priesthood is to be displayed before the world; the holy priesthood is to draw near unto the presence of God. It is the more intimate of the two. If the royal priesthood shines more before men, should it not be dearer to a saintly heart to draw near to God in praise and thanksgiving? St. John speaks of Him that loveth us and washed (or loosed) us from our sins by His blood and made us kings and priests unto God. Are you not misinterpreting the word of God when you infer that, whilst Christ loves us now and proved it by His atoning blood, He is only going to make us kings and priests?
My brethren, be not so weak in faith, but so foolhardy in fact as thus virtually to set about improving Holy Writ. Were it not better simply to believe it? Leave that to dull and dark men of learning, who tell you how hard it is to understand the scriptures. Certainly it is hard to unbelief or the presumption that would mend the perfect word of God. Without faith you will never understand the scriptures. The true way to understand them is simply to believe. Be content to receive them as of God without understanding first. Scriptural understanding follows faith. Cherish confidence in God that His word cannot but be right. Christ is the key in the hand of the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven. Then the heart opens, and what once seemed difficult becomes an everlasting and increasingly enjoyed privilege.
Why is it, therefore, that Christian people have it, and will have it, that Christ alone is priest, and that there are now no true priests at all? Scripture affirms that those, whom Christ is not ashamed to call brethren, are priests, and that they are called to exercise the highest function of drawing near within the rent veil. It is not at all meant that every Christian is a minister of the word, very far from it indeed; but it is repeated that every Christian man, woman, and child, is really and truly a priest of God. The importance of this truth is no less than its sure warrant.
One might well ask, Can you for a moment question what scripture reveals on this head? Nor need one merely go upon the words, though they are written by Paul, Peter, and John, three witnesses unparalleled even in scripture. But it may be added if the gospel were better known, there would be no hesitation about that which is now urged – that Christians are the priestly house of Christ, the true sons of the true Aaron. They alone answer to that type, which is therefore slipped over by most as if it were nothing. What privilege of the priest exceeds liberty of access to the sanctuary? We have seen that even Aaron of old had it in the scantiest degree.
How is it with the Christian? Liberty of access he has not merely into the holy place, but in to the holiest of all. By Christ’s blood is now given boldness at all times for all saints, whilst Aaron entered tremblingly but once a year, with incense and blood ever renewed, into that which was but the figure of the true sanctuary. So greatly does the gospel exceed the highest privilege of not only priesthood but the high priesthood. Yet it would ill become one to suppose for a moment that Christians are high priests: God forbid! One would no more think of claiming to be high priests than of calling Christ our elder brother, as do Moravians and the like. It is one thing for Christ to call us brethren, quite another for us to call Him brother. It is one thing for the Queen to show some condescension to you or to me, but altogether an impropriety for us therefore to forget her majesty and to slight her royal grace. Reverence becomes us, and especially in the presence of the unmerited favour, and of the infinite personal glory, of the Saviour, which make the favour so immense to such as we are.
It is no question of words, but of the momentous fact by divine grace, that, when a man receives the gospel of God by faith, he is entitled to know from that moment that in virtue of Christ’s cross he is brought nigh to God. Now if thus reconciled and nigh, can you tell me of any privilege more truly precious? Was it not on the face of things that only priests could enter the sanctuary? The people were without praying, and the priests came within to burn incense. As long as the temple and the law had a standing, the people could only be outside. Is this, according to the gospel, the actual position of a Christian? Time was, no doubt, when we stood without; and it was a rich and needed mercy to come under the truth of the second goat as well as of the first. But when we entered on the near and proper ground of Christian privilege, what then? We find ourselves in evident and weighty contrast with Israel, who have not yet the blessing. They abide in unbelief outside, and only outside. Is that then where we are now? Is it not true that grace calls us in faith to follow Christ within the veil? It is not only that there we have a hope sure and steadfast, and that which enters within the veil, but we have a full assurance of faith, and so are emboldened to enter into the holiest by His blood.
There is a new and living way consecrated or dedicated for us – for all who believe on Him. All who are associated with Him are not more called to bear His reproach from the world than they are to draw near where He is glorified in the presence of God. That is not and never will be the portion of the Jew. Christ will come and reign over Israel here below. Believing now we become heavenly. The moment a Jew now receives Christ as His portion, he ceases to be a Jew, he becomes a Christian. And Christ in heaven is the common portion of all Christians whether they be Jews or not. They thus acquire a title of access into the holiest of all by the blood of Jesus. And what believers want, in order to have the force of Christian worship and walk, is not a negative truth, but the positive, as here that Christians now are priests of God. They are the house of Christ, the anti-typical Aaron. This is the unquestionable doctrine of the New Testament. It is not merely where the word “priest” is used, or the sanctuary is in view. Nearness of access to God, by the faith of Christ through His blood, is everywhere the truth of the gospel, from the fundamental Epistle to the Romans right through the whole extent of the New Testament. I know no part in it (unless it be the Epistle of James, which does not take up redemption, but rather looks on the new birth or the new life), which does not present the substance of the truth which is now before us, – that we come under the bullock as well as the incense, to speak Levitically. We have, therefore, special privileges associated with Aaron and his priestly house, and indeed a vast deal more.
Mark this difference: though the blood of the goat entered within the veil, Israel never got beyond the brazen altar; we, on the contrary, draw near into the holiest, before the mercy-seat in the sanctuary. We draw near boldly unto the throne of God. We are entitled to behold the glory of God there in the face of Jesus Christ. You may perceive that other scriptures are here mingled along with this type which comes before us; but it is scarcely desirable too straitly to sever one truth from another. These are only used in order to show the fulness of the Christian roll of blessing. How comes it to pass that we have our privileges shadowed not only by the sons of Aaron but by Aaron himself? that they really can only be measured by Christ on high? It is because, as we know from other parts of scripture, we are made one with Christ. Union is not the doctrine of the Epistle to the Hebrews, simply because it is not the object shore. But he that wrote to the Hebrews is none other than the apostle who brought out the mystery concerning Christ and concerning the church as no man ever did before or since.
It was enough here to set out the peculiar and heavenly status of the Christian in virtue of Christ’s work and priesthood. He is associated with Christ in perfect nearness to God, for who could think of Christ as one that separates from God? He is the very One that brings us nigh. Because of His own person, all the more acceptable to God because displayed in the dependence and holiness of man here below, Christ was entitled to the presence of God. But He would not go along. He loved His master, He loved His wife, He loved His children; He was the true Hebrew servant, and would serve for ever and ever. He laid down His life, that He might take it again in resurrection. He was the corn of wheat which, having fallen into the ground, died bearing much fruit. He gave Himself for us, and loved to the end.
Very different were we, apart from that life which was laid down for us that we too might live of His life. We belonged to the first man, as now to the Second, the last Adam, for ever. What does this import? It is what God teaches His children, even you. It is what we are meant to enjoy here as Christ’s house. As is the Heavenly, such are they also who are heavenly. It stamps His whole character, His own associations, His proper relationships, as far as possible, upon the Christian. Is it then the lot or attainment of some only? His grace confers it upon all. There is no Christian save in this near position. It is in no case left us to choose our own place before God. It is God that has chosen us, having given Christ for us; and God will have nothing less as a measure and character of blessing to us than the measure of His own beloved Son, the First-born among many brethren. Here again one may observe another expression of it according to the scope of the Epistle to the Romans. But almost everywhere is presented the same blessed association with Christ.
This, in short, is just the text on which the Spirit preaches habitually (Col 3:11 ): “Christ is all and in all.” Do we desire to know, not merely where Christ will be by and by, but where Christ is now? Then, according to the mind of God, He is not only all, but “in all,” i.e. in all Christians. There is the whole spring and character of Christian conduct. He is our life. It is in vain to look for Christian ways, unless you are in, and believe in, Christian relationship. Our ways are according to the relationships we fill. Our duties flow from what we are thus. It is not merely a question of right and wrong, of what we ought to do or be. This was law. But now it is a question of being consistent with Christ Who is all and in all. This is what we have as Christians. And what then is the standard of our consistency? Christ, and Christ in the presence of God.
Everything thus supports and carries out more and more manifestly the meaning of this instructive type – the blessing figured by the incense and the bullock, for those that belong to the Lord, while He is now within on high. Mark the force of this. Are we not brought into association with Christ while He is in the sanctuary? Properly speaking, there was no Christian until Christ entered the sanctuary. There were disciples before. A disciple might be a Christian or he might not. For we read of disciples not merely in the Gospels but in the prophecy of Isaiah (Isa 8 ). Thus there were disciples belonging to the church of God, as we see in the Acts of the Apostles, as there were disciples before the church began. A disciple, therefore, is not necessarily or properly a Christian. Even when the church began, a disciple might not have the full Christian character, though he ought of course. Those disciples who went up to the temple to offer sacrifices under the law emerged from the Jewish condition into the Christian. By what means? Christ’s death on the cross, known intelligently to faith, and the gift of the Holy Ghost consequent upon His blood-shedding. It is Christ on high that stamps the full and proper Christian character upon us. But this evidently falls in with our relationship to Christ as His house; indeed all our characteristic blessing now depends upon His being there in virtue of His atoning work. We could not of course have title to be there but through His death. Therefore we must all come in through that narrow door of His cross. And no soul will stoop so low save by being born again, as there is no means of reconciliation with God, still less of being Christ’s house, unless our sins are borne away. But the goat of substitution, supplementing that of propitiation, for they constitute the atonement for the people, does not give the full measure of the Christian. It is the necessary foundation for guilt outside. Without it there could be no remission of sins, not to speak of the full privileges of Christianity. But there are privileges beyond it, figured by the bullock and the incense.
Take as an illustration the initiatory sign of Christian faith. We all know that baptism is that, without going into controverted points of mode and subject. What does baptism mean? Is it a sign of life? The Romanists will tell you so, and others who are like them, which they ought not to be. Baptism, contrariwise, is a sign of Christ’s death. Hence the Lord instituted proper Christian baptism after, and not before, He rose from the dead. What, then, is really taught in that initiatory institution? That one is buried with Christ. Is that life? Is it not plainly one put in the place of death with Christ? Where also would be the propriety of being buried with Him through baptism into life? Were it a sign of life-giving to a soul destitute of it previously, one could understand the figure of the breast or the cradle of the mother church; but how incongruous with the death of Christ, and with burial? The ordinary doctrine that connects baptism with new-birth is unmitigated Popish error, indeed the delusion of the Fathers before Popery. Baptism is not even the sign, still less the means, of life, but of death and burial with Christ. The Old Testament saints had life, ages before baptism or circumcision. Baptism is the sign of a new and distinctively Christian privilege that none could enjoy before our Lord died and rose.
The Old Testament saints hung on God’s promise; and perhaps some of you may be “grasping at the promises” now. Would to God you knew better! Do not suppose that anything is meant disrespectful to the ancients, or unkind to anybody here. Would to God you might be aroused from clinging to what was then of faith, true and right, according to God, when there was nothing more. But, now that an incomparably “better thing” is revealed, why are you so obstinately cleaving to that which fails to express the full grace of God towards your soul? It is not merely a promised Messiah, but the rejected and crucified Son of man, Who was dead, and is risen and glorified in heaven. Has all that brought in no difference? Why, the atoning work is done. It is no longer promise, but accomplishment. This has made a vast difference for God; surely it ought to make at least as great a difference for you, and it would if you understood by faith the gospel. We are brought into proportionately greater privileges.
The work the Father gave the Son to do is accomplished to His glory, Who has therefore glorified the Son and is now giving every blessing short of the resurrection for His heavenly kingdom. We are even seated in heavenly places in Christ though not, yet taken in person to be seated with Him in heaven. How strong and holy is that great basis of Christianity as revealed in 2Co 5 ! Him Who knew no sin He made sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. What a blessed character of righteousness is come before God! It is what Christ is made to us from God.
When the Holy Ghost was given, it was, as our Lord said, to convince the world of three things – of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. Of sin, on what ground? Because they violated the law? Not so, nor because they had an accusing conscience, but “because they believe not on Me.” A Gentile only thinks of himself; a Jew perhaps of the law, as some others seem to know no better, though they ought; but our Lord puts the true measure. Christ brought in the perfect standard. “The law made nothing perfect.” There is now the introduction of a better hope, and the rejection of Christ therefore becomes the great sin. If He had not come, and spoken, as well as done, beyond all others, they had not had sin; but now they had no excuse for their sin; they had both seen and hated both Him and His Father – yea, hated Him without a cause. The test-sin therefore is the not believing on Him. What. ever people may argue for other things, that is God’s present standard. But what is His conviction in respect of “righteousness?” The world is by the Spirit proved to be unrighteous, because it rejected the Holy One; as God the Father has proved His righteousness, because He has received the rejected Christ to His own right hand. “Because I go to the Father, and ye behold me no more.”
From that point of view Christ is lost to the world. When He comes again, it will not be to present Himself in grace or to preach the kingdom. He will come to judge both quick and dead; He will judge the habitable earth in righteousness. It will not be the day of grace as now, in order that men may believe on Him. This will be all past. The world proved its unrighteousness by crucifying Christ; the Father by receiving the rejected Son, so that He is thus seen no more. Righteousness is proved in Christ gone to the Father at the right hand of God in heaven: and thereby you who believe are made God’s righteousness in Him. We are identified with Christ at the right hand of God. What a high standard of righteousness this is! Truly it is the righteousness of God, though infant tongues among the children of God have not yet learned to lisp it aright. But oh! what a blessed privilege. It is not merely a perfect life of obedience under the law on the earth as a whole, nor a making reparation for countless failures of His people in all the isolated details of their lives; but as God showed His righteousness in raising up and glorifying the rejected One, so do we also by grace become God’s righteousness in Him. That man in Christ should be in His glory on high is righteousness; that, in an unbelieving world, we who believe should be identified with Him in that glory by virtue of His work of redemption is another wondrous result of that same righteousness of God.
This, one can see, is connected in the closest way with the sin-offering, the bullock slain for Aaron and his house. No doubt the believers of Israel looked for the Messiah to come in the due time and bless the people. But when the Son of man comes, Be will, after solemn judgment, reign in Zion expressly, but over the earth (Psa 2 , Zec 14 ) where will be a temple, veil, priesthood, etc., once more. The Christians from among the Jews for themselves merge their earthly expectation in the better and heavenly hope suitable to knowing Christ, as we do, on high, instead of in connection with the earth. For indeed there is now but “one body and one Spirit.” Therefore do we, if we understand our calling, though we rightly begin as poor outside sinners, enter within the sanctuary, whence the Spirit is come, while Christ is there, to unite us to Him. It is where Christ is hidden from man, hidden in God, that we, Jew or Gentile, now know Him. Instead of His coming forth from the sanctuary to give us remission of sins, as it will be verified by grace to expectant Israel by and by, the Holy Ghost is sent down by the Father and the Son to associate us with Christ in the glory where He sits now. That distinctively is Christianity. Would to God that every one of us entered into this and more as our proper portion! It is not as a merely interesting doctrine that it is now laid before you, but as truth bound up with Christ’s glory, and hence of the deepest moment for the Spirit Who blesses our souls in glorifying Him.
For as the Jew was in danger of overlooking the relationships, and hence the duties, of Israel, so are we exposed specially to forget our own place and our own responsibility. An active and subtle foe would ever dishonour God by our failure as by theirs. We need, therefore, to be watchful that we neglect not that which most nearly concerns the glory of God by us. And as Christ is objectively the truth, so is He the only one Who works by the Holy Ghost and the word to keep us from all mistakes and guide us into all truth. We should be wholly unfit for any such call of grace, unless, having life in the Son, we had peace through the blood of Christ’s cross. We, as believers, have eternal life in Him, the self-same life of Christ which was shown and tried and proved in all its perfection on the earth. And our consciences are purged by the blood which rent the veil and opened the way into the holies, God in all His moral being and majesty being for ever glorified thereby. It is because Christ is in the holiest, and we by faith know Him while there, the Holy Ghost is sent down not only that we may enjoy the blessed fruit of Christ’s work, but that we may enter freely, boldly, in spirit where He is. When the Lord comes forth for the people, there will be quite another condition.
But I ought to point out now, how before He quits heaven, we have in ver. 16 the reconciliation of the holy place and the altar (of incense, I presume), no man being there but the high priest while He makes atonement for it till He comes out (ver. 17-19). The counterpart of this we read in Heb 9:23 , “The heavenly things themselves, with better sacrifices than these.” Such is God’s nice care for His dwelling. I only allude to it by the way. No man was to be with the high priest in this unutterably solemn action. He does it all Himself. He was for this purpose alone with God. Nothing mingled with the atonement of Christ. That it should be absolutely fit for the divine glory, the highest perfection for His own to enjoy, He does the work in His own person to the exclusion of every other. This made all sure. How precious to God the Father, and how blessed for us, whose souls should delight not only in the work, but in Him who did all, suffered all, perfectly to God’s glory, that all might be of grace!
LECTURE 4.
Lev 16:20-23 .
Azazel, or, the people’s lot.
The subject-matter calling for consideration tonight is the detail which God gives us of the scapegoat. This will be made somewhat clearer by recalling, for comparison in a general way, the force of Jehovah’s lot, or the first goat. For there were, as we have seen, two goats on behalf of Israel. Unquestionably they together constituted the sin-offering (ver. 5), and both were set before the Lord (ver. 7), but the first goat is of the two the more important in its aim. Its aspect is not toward the people, but toward Jehovah. It was strictly and manifestly Godward. This is to be particularly noticed; because the constant danger of the heart when awakened is to think only of what will relieve it of its newly-felt distress. One becomes absorbed with a remedy for the disease, which the Spirit of God has discerned to the soul, that utter ruin through sin, by which it is then truly burdened, and for which it pours out its groans and lamentations to God.
Now the first goat, or Jehovah’s lot, takes up quite another necessity – His glory, as being struck at and violated by sin. Were there not one soul to be delivered, Jehovah’s lot were essential, and in the first place as it is. Before there could be, on any righteous basis, the thought of saving sinners, God must be glorified about sin, and here Jehovah’s lot finds its place. Therefore it is that by virtue of the blood which was carried within the veil, and put upon the mercy-seat and before it, God has His deep satisfaction in that infinite work of His Son, our Lord Jesus, which has replaced man’s iniquity by His own devotedness, entirely and at all cost, to His nature and glory. God found His rest in that blood, which spoke of divine love and perfect suffering for sin. The incense was rather the sweet savour under judgment of His personal grace. But the obedience was perfected in shame and suffering up to a death of judgment of sin itself, and such a death as could never be known by any, save the Son of God. The work was done, so that all hindrance from sin is taken away, and God can send out the message of His grace to every creature under heaven. We saw that this could not be revealed while the law had a standing. The law necessarily looked at Israel only. They were the people, they only, under it. All other nations were without and unclean, or, according to the ancient figure, dogs, whatever might be the pitiful affections of God; and God was always plenteous in mercy, and in Himself love, as truly as light. Still, whatever might be not only God’s nature, but also His purpose, as long as the barrier of the law was before Him, until it was righteously taken down, there could not be as yet the expression of that grace which in the death of our Lord Jesus swept away every obstacle between God’s love and man.
We must remember that all this time, while the day of atonement was pre-figured for Israel, the law was in power over them. It would have neutralised that law if the grace had been revealed which treats a Gentile, even who believes, exactly as a Jew. Law in point of fact is the system which insists on the distinction between the chosen seed of Abraham and the nations. That this is now done away with is essentially true of the gospel, as well as of the church of God; and both the gospel and the church are the fruit, not of the type, but of the anti-type in Christ The Day of Atonement which Israel observed once a year kept up the difference; but the grace and truth which came by Jesus and shone out in the cross, as well as the light of the glory, have now set aside every shadow of the sort. This entirely accounts for the fact that we hear nothing at all about the Gentiles in the typo. At the same time we may notice again how little is said of Israel in the first goat. The reason is plain. God was in the highest degree concerned; He therefore must be glorified; His nature must be vindicated, as must be also His majesty and His truth.
All this was the object sought in the first goat, as far as a figure could show it. There was Jehovah’s lot. But was this all that atonement includes? Far from it. That which far more nearly concerns and immediately contemplates the sinner, comes before us in the second goat; and this it is of which we have been reading tonight. “And when he had made an end of reconciling (atoning for) the holy the place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and altar, etc.” All this goes along with the first goat. So it was with the bullock, save that it had the special idea of providing for the priestly house. In both the first goat and the bullock there was not only the vindication of God as to His own glory in having to do with those who were sinful, but, further, the making good the heavenly places sot forth by the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar.
This is not at all left to be interpreted by our imagination. In the first chapter to the Colossians we have the answering truth: “And, having made peace through the blood of His cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself.” What is meant by “all things”? People on earth or in heaven? Neither. This is what is said, “All things, whether they be things in heaven or things on earth.” To prove that such is the meaning, you have only to read on, “And you hath He reconciled.” Nothing can be more exact. The allusion to the reconciling of all things is boned up with the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. There we hear of a future purpose of God, when peace was made through the blood of His cross, “by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself.” But next there follows the application of Christ’s reconciling work to those who now believe. It is exactly the order we have here: “And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat; 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.” Here you have a most lively picture of that which the soul, now awakened, feels to be an intolerable burden. The high priest is seen and heard occupying himself simply and solely with the distressed heart and burdened conscience of Israel. All that which might well have overwhelmed the soul God provides for according to His goodness. “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.”
Can one conceive language more fitted to take up whatever was thus resting heavily as a heart trouble? How deeply affecting that God should show so strongly His desire that they should not be charged with undue weight upon their souls! “Aaron….. shall confess over him all the iniquities, etc.”
It has been already pointed out that in the first goat there was no laying on of hands, any more than there was at that time confession of their sins Nevertheless what was done exceeded in importance; for there is nothing that so completely goes to the root of sin as God’s judgment of it in death; nor does anything more testify to the cancelling of the defilement of sin than the fact that the blood was put on the mercy-seat and before it. It was God met in what sin deserved, and His witness borne that, if sin cannot escape the presence of God, He had provided that the blood which cleanses from all should penetrate shore. Thus, what abides before God is not the sin, but the blood which makes full atonement for the sin. Still the sinners were as yet outside. There was no question of putting blood upon them. Therein lies one serious misapprehension, and indeed ruinous mistake, as to atonement.
Men only think of the sinner in the work of our Lord Jesus. But not so: the primary aspect of atonement is toward God. Sin is judged before Him. But the sinner is most fully considered in his place; and when he does come before us, we have the utmost minuteness of confession. Is there anything that has a more searching and purging effect than confession? Romanism knows how to avail itself of confession; for the weaker the faith of any one is, the greater is the comfort that he takes from pouring out the acknowledgment of his sins into the ear of a fellow-mortal. God is really nothing in such a case; but the man’s own hardened mind fools intense relief from the assumption that the priest to whom he confesses stands authoritatively in the room of God, and is entitled to absolve him in His name.
Now whatever of truth there is in confession comes here before us in its most important form. Not that one in the least would deny that there is confession on the part of the soul. We know from the First Epistle of John, that “if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse as from all unrighteousness.” This is an important fact morally, the “cleansing from all unrighteousness.” The desire to hide aught from God is a wrong, and there never is a wrong done to Him but what involves with it loss to the soul that is not delivered from evil. But what is it that opens the heart and gives confidence in confession? The certainly that another has charged Himself with the whole of the sins in all their enormity. Who He is is not doubtful. Jesus is the only Man Who knew, and felt, and owned all the sins. I do not speak of His death only as propitiating nor of our conscience; for much of true grief consists in the feeling that our self-judgment is so shallow. This then could not give rest to the troubled soul. How blessed to have an absolutely full confession by one so competent as the High Priest!
According to the language of the New Testament, the mediator between God and man is a man, Christ Jesus. Were He not God, it were little indeed; but, being God, it is an infinite truth that He was also the responsible man, Who knowing every secret thing of every man, told out all the sins and iniquities of every believer to God in the same perfection as He suffered sacrificially. He became man that shore might be an adequate representative for our sins laid and abhorred before God. The same One, Who to judge must search the reins and the hearts of all, does here in grace identify Himself with “innumerable evils,” with our iniquities, as His own, so as to be unable to look up. It is not priestly work within the holies, but the Holy One our substitute in absolute integrity of confession, represented here by the high priest. He it is whose hands are laid upon the head of the goat. The blood was shed and carried into the presence of God, as the groundwork; but the sins were none the less, but the more confessed unsparingly. God was thus furnishing in type the fulness of Christ’s atoning work for Israel; for Israel comes up in the most distinct manner when we have the second goat. Then and there the sins are confessed in all their variety of guilt.
The same principle is in what our Lord said to the sinful woman of whom we read in the house of Simon the Pharisee. Grace does not in the least degree extenuate the sins of the saved. This could not be in salvation according to God. Christ makes no excuse for her, whatever the traps that may have been laid for her in her life of folly. She had not always behaved as she did of late; yet had she been long a sinner in the deepest sense, as were those who despised her. But she was now, as alas! too few are, at the feet of Jesus. There she was, it is true, without a word; but all she did, and all she felt, were perfectly open to His gaze, though she stood behind Him. He did not need to have her before His face. All was in the light to Him; and if not a word was uttered, her ways, thoughts, feelings, were fully and equally known to Him Who reads the life of every soul. To Him only she looked for the mercy she needed. Therefore, said He, her sins, which are many, are forgiven. Yet surely here was no glossing over her sins. It was not enough to say, “They are to be all met shortly in the atoning blood;” they are none the less aggravated but the more, because of the grace which gave in Christ the blood that alone can cleanse all away. They are felt every one in all their heinousness. They were laid upon the head of the live goat; for such was the form which God prescribed to give Israel satisfactory witness that their sins were gone, and, as far as the figure was concerned, gone never to be found again.
No doubt under the law eternity does not strictly appear; but what was yearly to the Jews is for over to the Christian. We are not left to an inference of reasoning in this matter, but have the positive and distinct revelation of God in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb 10:1 , Heb 10:2 ). What God was testifying was, at least to worshippers once purged, “no more conscience of sins.”
Have you, my dear friends, such a clearance by the blood of Christ as gives you no more conscience of sins? How rare a thing it is to find a child of God with no more burden or doubt! In a mere man there is no sign of hardness more terrible than to have no conscience of sins. The quickening work of the Holy Spirit produces the deepest sense of sins before God; but the effect of the work of Christ is that, while the sense of sin is awakened in the highest degree, the soul is delivered from all dread or anxiety, because of the judgment on the cross which our Lord has already borne. Faith rests on that as the word of God for one’s own guilt.
Let it be observed in this case that there is no vagueness. The live goat is most definite in its application. We hear confessed over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins. It is not mere piecemeal work; not just thus far and no farther; not 999 sins out of a thousand, or even 9999 out of ten thousand. Far be it from our hearts to make light of that which is abhorrent to the very nature of God, of which we now partake, as the apostle Peter lots us know. He that is born of God sinneth not, as says St. John. But there is on the one hand the fact that we have sin, and have sinned. Any endeavour either to deny sin, or to make an apology for it, is as obnoxious to God as destructive morally. On the other hand, God has brought in Christ to annul sin from the universe finally, as He now does for every one that believes. But sacrifice (prefiguring Christ’s) was the way of Abel by faith. It was the way of Cain to offer the fruits of the earth, wholly indifferent to the curse of God, as if He were as oblivious of sin as such an offerer is. Certainly such an one soon betrayed murderous hatred of him who was accepted when himself was refused.
Alas! it is the too constant history of souls, that when they find themselves and their worship unacceptable to God, they turn away in despair, and seek to bury themselves in the pursuits and hopes and enjoyments of the world. This was “the way of Cain.” If you, on the other hand, have been awakened to feel your sins and your sinfulness, have you now “no more conscience of sins”? This is what the apostle Paul contrasts as a Christian privilege of the first magnitude with an Old Testament worshipper resting on his annual sacrifices. Their effect was temporal; consequently they had to be repeated, whenever the anxious calls of another year arose. This could not perfectly suit either God or man. No adequate sacrifice had yet abolished sin before Him; an inadequate one could not make the comers thereunto perfect. Once the worshippers were divinely purged, they had no more conscience of sins.
This is what alone meets God and the believer, a basis of righteousness, where the Christian is perfectly cleansed. I am not now speaking of his being dead and risen with Christ, which line of truth does not occur in the Epistle to the Hebrews; still less is there any question of being members of Christ. A more fundamental need is mot by the sacrifice of Christ, which none can overlook without loss and danger, not to speak of the fresh and deep interest with which it invests the Old Testament. In Heb 2 we are “all of one”; but we are nowhere there exactly said to be one spirit with the Lord. The body of Christ and the baptism of the Spirit are not revealed there. It never rises up to the revelation that we are one with Christ, – members of the body of which He is the Head on high. Indeed, to have introduced that truth in the Epistle to the Hebrews would have been wholly out of harmony; because the Spirit here occupies us with the divine idea of the sacrifices and the priesthood. Such are the two pillars of the Epistle to the Hebrews, resting on the personal glory of our Lord, Son of God and Son of man in one person. Hence, instead of learning that we are one with Him glorified, we are taught in all its force that He died for our sins, and that He now appears before the face of God for us. “For us” and “head of the body” are two totally different departments of truth. It would have brought in complete confusion to have mingled them in the same communication.
The same writer, I do not doubt, was inspired by God to make both known; for I explode the precarious theories, old or now, that Barnabas, or Titus, or Silas, or anybody else than the great apostle Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is not a more question of tradition, which is never sure, but because holy scripture (2Pe 3 ) intimates it clearly. However differing in style as being addressed to Christian Israelites, below the surface it bears the intrinsic marks of Paul most thoroughly in its depth, height, and comprehensive swoop. For instance we see from the very beginning Christ in heaven in the fall rights of His work on earth. There He is seated at the right hand of the majesty on high. It is not that He is traced up to heaven merely as by Peter; but there He is found throughout the whole Epistle. It was thus that Paul was converted; he only saw Christ in heaven. Therefore it is that he calls the good news the gospel of Christ’s glory – the glory of God in Christ’s face. It was so that it pleased God to reveal His Son in Paul who learnt that to persecute His saints was to persecute Him. The Epistle to the Hebrews bears the imprint just as strongly as any other, though in a remarkably different form, as from the apostle of the uncircumcision writing to the circumcision.
What we gather from Hebrews then – returning to the great truth before us – is, that God would give the Christian the distinct knowledge that all his sins are so completely gone that he is already free to draw near habitually into the holiest of all. How could the witness to that clearance be represented so well as in the figure of a live animal – the second goat – charged with all the iniquities and transgressions and sins confessed upon its head, and, by a man appointed, or in readiness, to be sent into a solitary land, or let go in the wilderness?
You must drop from your mind all thoughts of resurrection here. It is well known that some are disposed to see the resurrection in the type. It seems rather a taking thought that, as we have had in the first goat death, or as with the two birds in the cleansing of the leper (Lev 14 ), so resurrection should follow in the live goat. But when the matter is looked into somewhat more closely, it will be found that the interpretation will not really hold. When Christ rose from the dead, it was in view of His going to heaven, whereas the live goat here is vent into the wilderness. But the wilderness cannot represent a scene of glory: heaven is anything but a land that is not inhabited. No; resurrection has no place whatever in this type; which is just God giving a lively figure of the dismissal of the sins that were confessed to where they could never be found again.
It is beyond controversy that in the New Testament the resurrection of Christ is treated as the blessed proof that our sins are remitted; as it is said, “He was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification.” But we must be content with the type that God has given us here. We must not interweave truths that are really distinct by a forced connection of our own. It is quite enough to say that, as the sequel of Jehovah’s lot, we have here the people’s lot; and that, in this case, the sins confessed by the high priest, and laid on the head of the scape-goat, are by this most significant action vent away, never to be found more. If this be really what is intended by it, certainly it is of the deepest moment to souls.
Now we come to an important difference between the two goats. The first goat, we have seen, was not expressly limited like the second; the bearing of the Antitype assuredly is infinite. It was not only that the first goat was slain, and the blood carried into the holiest, but we hear of it also atoning for the holy place, the tabernacle and the altar. The application of the blood goes far beyond man. Just in the same way, in the New Testament, the blood of Christ is not at all limited to His people or that to which it is applied. Its efficacy is infinite for all those who come at God’s call, and believe in Christ.
But the assumption that His blood has no scope beyond the elect is a serious error. Not that to me God’s electing love is a doubtful question, but as sure as any other truth of revelation, and a spring of solid comfort to the household of faith, humbling to man’s pride and glorifying to the God of all grace. One may be quite willing to allow, therefore, that election is behind the second goat, if such an expression may be allowed. For there limitation comes; but the first goat typically is unlimited in its range. For this reason is grounded upon it the going forth of the gospel to every creature under heaven. What can be less limited, if other truth be safeguarded? Nothing can be conceived more disastrous to the intended width of the gospel than to address the elect merely. The Lord commanded that it be preached to every creature. Therefore you do well to act on His word, and need not fear for God’s glory. Be assured that God has found a ransom and is fully vindicated. Do not imaging for a moment that you are in danger of going beyond what the blood of Christ deserves, and what God estimates of His efficacious sacrifice. Were there a thousand worlds to save, were there sinners beyond all numbering to hear God’s glad tidings, there is that in the blood of Jesus which would moot every sinner of every world. Such is the unlimited value God finds in the death of His Son.
Yet if God did no more than proclaim the gospel, no person would hearken or could find peace. You may be arrested by the gospel, you may receive the word straightway with joy; but the word so received by nothing deeper than the affections as quickly comes to nought. The soul requires more than that, and the believer by grace is the object of a deeper work. The truth pierces the conscience under the hand of God’s Spirit, and the believer being thus brought to God, in a true self-judgment as well as sense of His grace in the person and work of Christ, is justified from all things, Hence one is not entitled to say to an unconverted person “Your sins are blotted out, and you are justified from all things.” It is going beyond the word of God for a servant of His to toll an unbeliever that by the work of Christ he, and all the world, are saved; so that all they need is to believe it. On the contrary, till you believe, you are not forgiven. “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.”
In going beyond God’s gospel, you are preaching a spurious one of your own. You are bolder than man ought to be, without the word of God, and even against it. That the blood of Christ is capable of meeting every needy soul is assuredly true. But you have no warrant to toll a soul, until there is faith in Christ, that his sins are all gong. When he believes the gospel, you are entitled to tell him, in virtue of the truth figured in the second goat, that Christ bore his sins in His own body on the tree, and bore them away for over. The work of propitiation is seen under the first goat. When the sins are confessed and sent away, then is the comfort of knowing that all that heavy burden is clean gone never to reappear. This you cannot say to every soul. Here it is that the limitation of Israel has its importance. The people are concerned in the second goat in a very definite manner. In the former case it was Jehovah’s lot; in the second place, it is the people’s lot. By the “people” is not meant everybody, but (as far as Leviticus speaks) the chosen nation, and that nation only.
No doubt if you believe the gospel, you are one of God’s elect, you are one of His children, crying, Abba, Father. Now you know from His word that you were the object of God’s love before the world was made; but you had no right to appropriate one word about it until you believed in His Son. Till then all beyond was a secret; the fact was that you were a child of wrath like another. But when the soul confessed Christ, when the blood was owned in its propitiating value, then you had a true title from God to hear, “Your sins, which are many, are forgiven.” Then one can tell the full truth unhesitatingly to the soul which believes and repents; and there never is a divinely wrought repentance without a divinely given faith, nor a divinely given faith without a similar repentance. Be ready to comfort a soul whenever there is either the one or the other apparent. For in some cases the soul is filled with the anguish of its sins before God, so as to cloud the sense of pardoning love. This should not be, for the gospel is plain. Yet what can be more wholesome for the soul than to pass through a searching self-judgment in the sight of God. Be not uneasy about such an one, nor hurry it too much. Do not turn it away prematurely from these profitable exercises of conscience, along with looking to Christ and the cross. Lot it bow to an overwhelming sense of its own evil, while learning what the grace of God has wrought in the Lord Jesus, but do not enfeeble that deep work of unsparing self-judgment before God. You may now say confidently in the Lord’s name, “Your sins are completely borne away.” This is just for us the teaching of the scapegoat.
Let me repeat that here you have not the broad truth of the work of expiation effected by His blood that grace is sending out to all the world – the work which has for ever vindicated the glory of God where sin had put dishonour on Him, and has left Him righteously free to bless according to all that is in His heart. But here we see the witness to what is imperatively needed for the unburdening of the soul. Yet the second goat would be ineffective and vain without the first. If God be not first approached with atoning blood, it is the merest delusion to extract from the scapegoat the shadow of a comfort that your sins are borne away. But here the New Testament speaks so plainly that we may turn profitably to a few scriptures in illustration. Take the earliest that can be in order, the first chapter of Matthew: “Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for it is He that shall save His people from their sins.” “Save His people” does not mean save everybody. By “His people” is not meant those of all nations. Jesus is shown to be the divine Messiah. Jehovah’s people are His people, whom He will save from their sins, and not merely come to govern, as a Jew might have thought. His glory is divine, He is truly Emmanuel, which is, being interpreted, God with us. Yea, if possible, He is more than Emmanuel, He is Jehovah; He was therefore to be called Jesus, which involves the ineffable name of Jehovah, “For He shall save His people from their sins.” Thus all is definite. The Saviour accomplishes the gracious purpose of God.
In the same Gospel of Matthew later on, we have not merely words about the Lord, but His own words. Some have the fooling that when we have the very expressions of our blessed Lord, there is more in them than in any other communications of scripture, though these may ever so forcibly sot forth the same truth. There is indeed a majesty and a depth in the utterance of our Saviour, which is quite peculiar and characteristic of Himself; but the authority of scripture throughout is really and precisely the same. The moment you bring in varying degrees of authority, you take away the essence of its power, you bring in uncertainty; and uncertainty as to God’s word is deadly. However, in Mat 20:28 it is written, “Even as the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for” – all? Nay; for “many.” There is a true sense in which our Lord is a ransom for all; and the apostle speaks of it in 1Ti 2 , the testimony to be borne in its own seasons. But a nice difference distinguishes the two texts. When, as in Matthew, it is a ransom for many, we have it clearly defined. The “for” is “instead of” () many. It is strict substitution. When, as in 1 Tim., all are in view, it is simply “on behalf of” () all. “For” is not always the same word in Scripture. It is the more needful to make the remark, because so many are apt to reason that if “for” means one thing in one place, it must have the same force in another. Now take Rom 4:25 , He “was delivered for our offences,” and next “raised again for our justification.” The “for” (), though it be in Greek the strongest case of the same word, coos not mean the same thing in the two clauses. “For our offences” expresses the reason why He was given up; but His being raised is in order to our justification, not because we were justified, which would contradict all truth, and particularly the words immediately after.
Perhaps the prejudices of some may be wounded at hearing this; but allow me to convince you, if you are open to conviction, that what is said is true It would involve the consequence that a man is justified before he believes, which is clearly falsehood. It is by faith that one is justified, not before he believes. If this last were allowed, just think of the inevitable inference! One is a child of God while still a child of wrath! under guilty condemnation while justified! Can you conceive anything more heinous as well as monstrous, as it might well be, flying in the face of scripture? None but the believer is justified. Before he believed, he was neither washed, nor sanctified, nor justified. It is not a question of God’s purpose, but of man’s faith. There was divine purpose beyond just doubt before man or the world was made; but what has this to do with the epoch when a man is justified? How absurd to argue that a man is justified before he is born! That God has a purpose of grace about him is another thing; but in order to justification, he must be born again and believe the gospel, knowing Christ from God’s word. You cannot have a man justified without knowing it. Justification is a condition or status into which a person is brought by faith. “Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Justification, it is allowed, must have a righteous basis, or, according to theological language, rest on an adequately meritorious cause. But the antecedent ground or cause must not be confounded with the means or principle by which the soul is brought into it. If scripture decide, a man is not justified until he believes in Christ, and has consequently peace with God. Peace with Him is a state of mind that the man cannot have without knowing that he has it. It is clangorous work, and ruinous to the soul, to tell a man that he has peace with God, if he have no enjoyment of it. Peace is that blessed change which possesses the soul when, through believing in Christ, he gives up warfare against God. When he receives, not only the Saviour, but the atoning work which the Saviour has done, he rests upon it before God. Then, and not before, having been justified by faith, he has peace with God to the praise of Christ, not of his faith, though without faith it cannot be.
So also, if we appeal to the First Epistle to the Corinthians, we read in chap. 15 how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures (ver. 3). Now this is a great truth to lay before an anxious or enquiring soul. But you can only say it in the most vague and general manner to an unbeliever. You can freely say that He tasted death for every one (perhaps indeed every “thing”), Heb 2:9 . If He had not died as a sacrifice for sin, if He had not shed His blood as a propitiation, there could have been no gospel to a guilty world. But, it is when the soul believes in the efficacy of Christ’s death, that the burden of guilt is taken away, and this with the surest warrant of God to every one that believes. Where faith is, one cannot exaggerate the assurance He gives to the soul. Accordingly in Gal 2:20 , if we turn now to the next Epistle after those to the Corinthians, Christ “loved me and gave Himself for me.” Impossible to have language more personal. It is not merely the general truth that “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Here the soul, now believing, is entitled to claim the love of Christ specially, “He loved me and gave Himself for me.” Are you entitled to preach this to an unbeliever? No scripture admits of such a licence.
But we may briefly look back at the third chapter of the Epistle to the Romans too, more cursorily tonight, though it was recently used for another purpose: “Whom God set forth as a propitiatory through faith in His blood, for the showing of His righteousness, for the passing over of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; for showing, I say, at this time of His righteousness that He might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.” Evidently there is no such thing as justifying unless there be also the believing in Jesus. Faith must be in order to justification.
Still the message goes forth to all, for in verse 23 it is written, “Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all.” But the moment you come to application it is said, “And upon all them that believe.” These are justified, but the word of grace goes out to every one. Thus the two truths are borne witness to in a remarkable manner throughout the Now Testament. There is universal proclamation by virtue of Christ’s precious blood; and there is the positive assurance of justification wherever there is faith in Him. So in Rom 5 we are told, “God commendeth His love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.”
We may observe, by the way, that Scripture speaks in three ways of justification as the need of man naturally unrighteous: – justified by His grace (Tit 3:7 ); justified by His blood (Rom 5:9 ), if you seek the procuring cause in the work of our Lord Jesus Christ; and justified by faith, if we ask the way by which the soul is individually brought into the blessing (Rom 5:1 ).
You may have heard possibly that there are those who will have faith to mean the sum and substance of all Christian virtues! This is absolutely to annul the gospel of God. Faith means the soul’s reception of divine testimony. He who believes is one who sets to his veal that God is true. If God testifies of Jesus as His Son, he who believes receives it heartily. It is for the guilty and lost: how then can it be the sum and substance of all Christian virtues, when the gospel is expressly for any poor soul as a sinner? When we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Take even a stronger word, “To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that Justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness.” Is this the sum and substance of Christian virtues? It is the full contradiction of such a thought. Alas! what is thus expressed is the doctrine of men that do not understand the gospel, though the particular person referred to is the late Dr. Pusey, and indeed men of that school, besides that party in particular. Their heterodoxy or rather misbelief is, that in effect we become our own saviours by the help of the Holy Ghost. Redemption is unknown, little as they suspect it; for outwardly they pay reverence to more than Christ, some seeming to adore the sign of the cross. They believe that Chris, died to put every one, especially the baptised, in the way of salvation, and that without baptism nobody in general can be saved. But when it comes to the application, they bring in ordinances and morally the sum of all Christian virtues. So that it is a complete robbing the Lord of His redemption spoil, as it deprives the soul of all possibility of peace with God. How could any upright man say to God, “Now let me have peace with Thee, for I have the sum and substance of all the Christian virtues.” The very thing the Holy Spirit has been proving home is that the soul has not one as it ought to have; and therefore He forces it to fall back on God’s sovereign mercy in Christ. The idea completely nullifies the direct operation of God in quickening souls, as well as in redemption. Yet these are the sentiments of pious men. But withal they are blinded by human tradition. They read the Bible only through deceiving mists, unless when they defend it against rationalists.
There is no more fruitful source of darkening the spiritual understanding than the allowance of man between the soul and God, particularly at that solemn moment of a soul’s coming for the first time into God’s marvellous light, the knowledge of the Saviour for eternity.
But, passing on, we may see the same truth in the twin Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, and with no small precision and brilliancy. It may assume a somewhat different figure. For instance, “In Whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.” Although redemption and atonement are very distinguishable, they are indeed none the less in fact inseparable. You cannot have atonement without redemption, or redemption without atonement. Therefore it appears to me quite lawful to adduce the force of these scriptures into the case. As all is based on the blood of Christ, so it cannot be enjoyed without faith. The “we,” who “have redemption,” are those who believe, those described in a previous verse as the faithful in Christ.
So again we may look at a scripture very distinct indeed in the First Epistle of Peter. I purposely pass over the Epistle to the Hebrews for the moment, but in 1Pe 2 we have what distinctly refers to Christ making good the Day of Atonement. “Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow His stops; Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth; Who, when He was reviled, reviled not again, when He suffered, reviled not, but committed Himself to Him that judgeth righteously; Who His own self bare our sins in His body on the tree.” It is not “up to” the tree. The margin, after many others, so gave it; but this was an ignorant and total oversight of the sacrificial language of the Old Testament. There are two forms employed in the LXX, and always distinctly. When it is a question of “up to,” or “to,” another wholly different preposition is used. Where the one found here is expressed, it invariably means “upon,” and not “to.” It is allowed that in other connections this may not always hold; but in sacrificial language the distinction is certain and constant. Now it is plain that here the apostle Peter is referring to the sacrificial language of the Old Testament. All his Epistle indeed abounds in allusions of a similar kind. If the world tells us that Peter was an unlearned man, let not believers forgot that the Holy Ghost inspired him. There may be no show of human reasoning or eloquence, no effort to gild the golden truths that he was given to announce; but the language for all that is divinely accurate. Any scholar ought to understand it also on the surface of the passage.
It is sadly plain that there is, at the bottom of all these efforts to mystify, a want of faith in the true inspiration of God’s word as well as in the unique efficacy of Christ’s work. But lot me refer to another thing to show you how unfounded is the idea that our Lord was bearing sins all His life. The word “bare” excludes the desired notion. “Bare” () does not convey continuity but a transient act. The aorist is the definite expression of such an act. It expresses therefore what took place on the cross, certainly not what was in process before, any more than after. Christ’s bearing our sins in His body was complete then, and only then. The form of the word excludes anything begun before that solemn time, and it implies a completeness on the cross, where it began. Therefore, the notion “up to” is false, not only in the form of the word itself, but in its contextual sacrificial usage.
We may add another thing. When our Lord became a sin-bearer, He was surrounded by a supernatural darkness. It is notorious that, on scientific grounds, there could not have been an eclipse at that time. It was not then a mere natural eclipse; it was a supernatural darkness. There were other supernatural tokens which accompanied it. The veil of the temple was rent from top to bottom. The graves were opened. The sun was darkened, and the darkness, we saw, was of a most remarkable kind. Thus and then it was that Christ was made sin for us. If Christ had been bearing our sins all His life, there ought to have been these mysterious tokens all the while. If Christ had been made sin before, as such He must also have been forsaken of God. But plainly the forsaking of God was then, and only then. The supernatural darkness, the forsaking of God, and all the other wonderful signs, marked the presence of a crisis unequalled and unfathomable, that stands apart from all before and after. Is it too much, with scripture for our warrant to say, that in all eternity there never can be such a crisis again? How blessed it is to know that it all points to Christ made sin for us. No doubt it was God’s doing for His own glory, whatever the wickedness of the creature in its part about it. The heart is not to be envied which can reason such things away, instead of growing by the truth that what Christ suffered that day constitutes the most important fact that ever was, or can be.
When a soul is awakened, not merely to the deep and outrageous evil done to the Son of God, but to His and the Father’s unspeakable grace in achieving infinitely more than mere man could either do or suffer, that sin might be judged and put away as well as forgiven, and God be glorified even as to that which in itself is most hateful to His nature, how immense the change and blessed the victory of good over evil! Conscience, in us who believe, feels that God ought to be vindicated. But if we cannot but care for His moral glory, yet more has God sot His heart on the blessing of man lost in sin. Therefore has He in the cross of Christ made peace, and given us to have redemption through His blood, rising in the majesty of His love above our hatred where it was highest against His Son going down to the uttermost to save us out of our miserable selfishness, rebellious work, and foreboding of just wrath and judgment. He, therefore, gives us to know that the same death of our Lord Jesus Christ was both the complete meeting of His glory as Judge of sin on the one hand, and the blotting out by His blood of our sins on the other. Irreconcilable everywhere else, they are united in the reality of Christ’s death; as His person along afforded the sole Being capable of solving the problem of sin to the sinner’s blessing and God’s honour.
The sending away of the people’s sins, grounded on the sin-offering of atonement day, is the meaning of the scapegoat. We have but glanced at certain unhallowed speculations which need not be dwelt on. Suffice it now to say that from the early days of Christendom’s departure from apostolic truth till our own day, not a few learned persons have not been wanting who have dared to conjecture that the scapegoat represents the devil! Plain Christians might think that these men must have lost their senses to broach such defiling notions. But one form of the dream was put forward by a chief champion of orthodoxy as opposed to the neologists of Germany. It was quite common among the Fathers, so called, some of whom wont so far as to think that there was even a sacrifice to the devil! Far be it from me to attribute such vile heathenism to the learned Dr. Hengstenberg of Berlin, or to the respected Mr. George Stanley Faber of our own country. They were Christians, but slipped into the extraordinary delusion that the scapegoat means Satan dealing with our Lord Jesus Christ. No! it was the figure which God graciously vouchsafed as the complement of the sacrificed goat of the removal of all their sins from the burdened souls of His people. It was God Who, as He found His rest as to sin in the shed blood of Christ on the cross, would also signify His banishment of all dread of judgment from the verily and confessedly guilty who looked to Him that confessed and bore their sins on the tree.
It is almost superfluous to commend the subject as one of urgent and exceeding moment to souls. May the Lord grant, if any here who look to Him be still troubled by their sins, that they may see God’s written testimony to the cross, blood, and death of Christ, if one may put it in the largest form. It is not a mere question of their loss through unbelief of scripture; but are they truly doing honour to the atoning work of our Lord Jesus Christ? The Holy Spirit testifies strongly the virtue of Christ’s death (Heb 10:15 ). It is not the bare fact of His death of course, but God’s declaration to and for man of its value in His sight that you are called to weigh, – the revealed power of it for your sins. It is the cleansing and peace which God gives the believer by reason of Christ. He wants you to have the settled assurance that all against you is so clean gone that God will never remember it more.
Some of my hearers may remember the teaching founded on the bullock, and perhaps wonder that the scapegoat seems applied to the same purport. Let me explain in a few moments how the truth stands. We all begin standing without, just like Israel; we who believe were no loss guilty of sins and iniquities. The bullock is for us when we come to the knowledge that we are made free of entrance into the Holy Place, that we can as priests draw near where God is. This is very far from being our state of mind when first, however truly, awakened. The soul then feels itself without the sanctuary, and cries for mercy, while owning itself a just object of divine judgment. Such is the state to which the two goats apply. Not only do we plead the blood as vindicating God on the one hand, but the remission of our sins to give us assurance that they are gone.
But are we left there? Not so. Christ is gone into the holiest of all. Are we, now like Israel, waiting for Christ to come out? This is the type strictly for them. The second goat shows the high priest come out of the sanctuary, to the unspeakable relief of the people who cannot in any sense enter within. When any one presses the literal accomplishment of the scapegoat, it is Israel. They are outside now, and will be so even then. But the Lord Jesus will leave the heavenly sanctuary and will come with power, glory, and blessing. Are we in any such position as Christians? Certainly not, when we know the full efficacy of His blood. The gospel brings us far more than the comfort of the second goat to the people without. We give thanks to the Father Who made us meet for sharing the inheritance of the saints in light. Through Christ we have access, whether Jew or Gentile who believe, by one Spirit unto the Father. Even those who were once afar off are become nigh by the blood of Christ. The Holy Ghost, as already come out of the sanctuary, makes us know this while Christ is within, so that we may await Christ’s coming, not to announce remission of sins, but to change our bodies into conformity with His own, and to present the church to Himself glorious. Such, beyond controversy, is Christianity and the Christian hope. Through the Holy Ghost come out we draw near within, where Christ is. When Christ quits heaven and appears to bless His people, the Holy Ghost will be shed on all flesh at the same and a second time. The blessing of Christianity is that we know Christ while He is in the heavens. This is where the application of the bullock applies to us in all its force; though one must always begin, where Israel ends, with the two goats.
LECTURE 5.
Lev 16:23 – END.
Conclusory Remarks.
These then were the special offerings of the great Day of Atonement, and the difference is clearly given by the Spirit of God between the position of those who can enter the sanctuary, and that which Aaron secured for the people outside by the dismissal of the scapegoat.
After both were done, when Aaron came into the tabernacle of the congregation, he “put off the linen garments which he put on when he went into the holy place and left them there.” Then he washed his flesh with water in the (or a) holy place, and put on his garments, that is, his ordinary attire, and came forth and offered his burnt offering, and the burnt offering of the people, thus making atonement for himself and for the people; when he also burnt on the altar the fat of the sin-offering (ver. 23-25).
Now these burnt offerings were in no way a speciality of the Day of Atonement. Hence it is observable that at this point he divested himself of the garments of holiness, which the high priest did not put on except for this single occasion. It has been already adverted to as helping to explain the difficulty some find in Heb 2:17 . They have, indeed, involved themselves in much needless trouble; for the proper call and salutation of the High Priest was after resurrection and ascension. Then perfected He became to all that obey Him author of everlasting salvation, named or addressed by God as high priest according to the order of Melchisedec. But it is no less plain that the high priest was to expiate the sins of the people; and, as this clearly was by an atoning sacrifice, the difficulty for some was, how to conciliate a propitiation made by His blood with an office exercised in risen glory above. The answer is, that what the high priest did on the great Day of Atonement was as peculiar as of the deepest moment. Yet he was not acting in his ordinary functions of the high priest. His proper place was in the sanctuary. It is matter of common knowledge, that when an Israelite brought a burnt-offering or a peace-offering or a sin-offering, it was the offerer that laid his hand on the head of the victim. In every offering by fire to the Lord, where death intervened, as the offerer identified himself with the slain victim, so the priest sprinkled the blood afterwards. It is a mistake that the priest slew the victim. It was the offerer. The priest’s part began when the animal was slain. It was in sprinkling the blood where his functions began.
Now, in what special light did the high priest stand on that day? Not at all as the high priest in his habitual glory; not even as an ordinary priest in the sanctuary. The high priest identified himself, first, with the sins of his own house, and subsequently with those of the children of Israel. Thus he stood that day more as a representative, taking upon himself what God directed for the putting away of sins, than according to the dignity of his ordinary duties. This may be illustrated by the distinctive dress during the characteristic acts of that day, as it is stated clearly enough in the text referred to. “Wherefore it behoved Him in all things to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God to atone for the sins of the people.” He partook of blood and flesh; or, as the apostle puts it in Rom 8:3 , “God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” This is remarkable phraseology. Adam was not made “in the likeness of sinful flesh.” Adam was certainly made of flesh and blood as to his body, which on his fall became sinful. Our Lord Jesus, on the other hand, was certainly not a fallen man, a partaker of sinful flesh and blood. Not only would it have ruined His person, but thus He could not have been a due offering for sin. Had there been the smallest taint of evil, He would not have been “the Holy Thing,” nor could He have offered the most holy sacrifice for sin, which was to put away our sins. He must have died for His own condition; He could not have suffered vicariously for others. The necessity for the expression of the Spirit is apparent. God sent forth “His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin,” etc. There exactly is the truth. So a sacrifice for sin He was sent, but therefore simply in the likeness, not in the reality, of flesh of sin, though as really a man born of woman as He was God. It was in that likeness, because He was born of a woman who, though a virgin of David’s house, not less than any other human being, had flesh of sin. How then was the difficulty to be solved? By divine grace and power, through His conception by the Holy Spirit, our blessed Lord was to be as truly a man as any other, but not the sharer of human taint, nor, if I may so call it, of that attainder which had fallen on the race through sin. This was effected, as Luk 1 lets us know, by the power of the Highest overshadowing the virgin Mary; wherefore her Son was called the Son of God. This was absolutely essential. He must derive His flesh and blood really from His mother; but by that miraculous power, which wholly exempted His humanity from all spot or motion of evil, He in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only excepted from which He was clearly void, both in His flesh and in His spirit. From that moment when the virgin was declared to be about to conceive and in due time become the mother of our Lord, a total immunity from sin was secured for Him: “A body didst Thou prepare for Me” (Heb 10 ). Otherwise the sin-offering could not have been worthy of God, or efficacious for man. “It is most holy,” was the voice even of the law respecting it: how much more was this true of Christ? Still He was in the likeness of flesh of sin, because His mother was certainly of sinful race like others, unless you prefer tradition to God’s word.
And thus is seen the impiety of the heterodoxy introduced of late, the so-called immaculate nature of the virgin. Rome predicates of her what is only true of Him, the natural result of the idolatry of the mother so much more prominent, popular, and real, than worship even of the Father and the Son, from Whom they stand at a distance and in dread. It is the Bona Dea of heathenism in a christened shape, which exactly suits those who know not God, if not those who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. To the simple Christian the enemy there betrays his hand. But the Lord Jesus did take blood and flesh, as it behoved Him, when He became a man, in all things to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation (or atonement) for the sins of the people. Clearly this was by His death. What other way was there than by the shedding of His blood? Consequently to suppose that it is a fresh and subsequent work in heaven, after death and before resurrection, is to depart from God’s word, and to expose yourself to danger, as well as delusion. Whatever be the ordinary place of the high priest, it is not so when expiation is made in the garment of linen. According to its force, it very suitably described our Lord as the Holy Offerer and offering for sin.
Very differently is our Lord viewed when in heaven He was crowned with glory and honour. Aaron exceptionally wore his holy garments of linen in the most holy place. The reason is that propitiation had to be effected on the only day when he could enter the holiest of all; and when he did so enter, he wore the unusual garb that indicated his undertaking the work of atonement, whether for his own family, or for the house of Israel generally. Is not the difficulty some find in the verse happily anticipated by the type? Beware of the onesidedness, that will not hear of our Lord as High Priest in any sense or exceptional purpose, until He went on high for His proper function before God. You must, however, allow this latitude, unless indeed you deny propitiation on the cross.
Whilst the N.T. is clear that propitiation was by the High Priest, it excludes all supposition that it was only to be accomplished by our Lord’s going to heaven. The work was done and finished, when He was “lifted up.” This may not have been strictly on the earth, but it was before He went to heaven. It was when He was crucified, when man poured on Him the deepest scorn and hatred. Then did God give Him to accomplish that work whereby, from all eternity, His grace had designed to save the guiltiest, making it the ground of His righteousness. Without this sacrifice God must have simply destroyed, or in saving forfeited His character and word. By the cross of Christ He can love, as He has judged, to the uttermost, and thus maintained all – yea, won a fresh and everlasting glory. For what else could God do for sinners? How preserve His rights intact, if He simply forgave sins? If God had acted on our sins, it could only have been as Judge, and He must have destroyed all the sinners. On the other hand if God had only acted according to the love of His nature, it must have been in giving up that, in His nature equally, which detects and must punish sin. Thus but for Christ and His cross all had been ruin, and confusion, and dishonour. Without it God’s moral glory had been virtually undermined. But in Christ God would neither destroy the sinner nor make light of the sins. Hence He gave His Son to be a propitiation. That propitiation was through His death and blood- shedding. This alone suited either God or lost man; as this alone accounts for the prevalence of sacrifice – no doubt debased and corrupted among the heathen; but in itself it pointed to “A sacrifice of nobler name, And richer blood than they.” This Satan endeavoured too successfully to corrupt, as he loves to seize everything for evil. The meaning of it, however, was never seen fully till the Lord came and died on the cross. Therein was not the mere shadow but the very image. Directly the Lord died atoningly, it was the propitiation which God prefigured, and thenceforward had before Him in all its value.
After the peculiar work of that day was done, Aaron divests himself of the garments of holiness, puts on his ordinary garments, and goes forth and offers his burnt-offering. This might have been offered on any other day, but on that day the high priest was, in all that was of moment, the actor exclusively, though it might be no longer a specially characterised offering. It represented the Lord Jesus by the eternal Spirit offering Himself, without spot, unto God: the two burnt-offerings were for himself as well as for the people (ver. 24). From Lev 1 , as well as here, we find the burnt-offering was to make atonement; but this of course only in a general way. It did not express the peculiar solemnity of the great Day of Atonement. When an Israelite brought an offering in the fulness of his heart, to express his sense of dependence on the goodness of God, it always had an atoning character. God could not accept an offering without blood to make atonement. Neither faith nor the true God slurs over sin. Hence, where all went up to God acceptably, as it was invariably offered on the brazen altar – the first point of approach between man and God, the burnt-offering had an atoning character.
There is another notable fact here: “The fat of the sin-offering shall he burn upon the altar” (ver. 25). This was reserved for the altar of God, though the slain goat and the bullock were offered for sin. The fat of the sin-offering was not consumed with the carcases outside. The blood, we have seen, was carried into the holiest. What could be a more remarkable indication? It witnessed to the perfect acceptance of Him Who deigned to be a sin offering, however cast out by man and judged of God. If the Antitype, the One Whose love identified Himself with bearing our sins must experience in His person death and judgment – like the goat and the bullock burnt outside the camp – the fat (which, had there been any intrinsic defilement would have been the first to show it) was burnt upon the altar of acceptance. How strikingly this testifies to the inward purity of our Lord Jesus! He was altogether righteous and holy, not in acts only but in nature.
Then, after mentioning that he who let the goat go must wash his clothes and bathe his flesh in water before returning to the camp (ver. 26), it is laid down that the bullock and the goat, whose blood bad been brought in for atonement to the sanctuary, were to be carried forth, and burnt in the fire, skin, flesh, and dung, without the camp (ver. 27), whilst he that burnt them must wash his clothes and bathe before coming into the camp (ver. 28). Here we are not left to our conjecture about the meaning. In the Epistle to the Heb 13:11-13 the apostle gives us invaluable light. “For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.” There can be no question that under this shadow lies a weighty principle and practice too for us. What is the connection with Christ? “wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach.” The application is as sure as the duty; for there is no call so near the Christian’s heart as identification with Christ practically.
The Jews were God’s chosen people within “the camp,” the ground plan of the Epistle being the wilderness, and not the holy land. This position characterised them in contrast with the Gentiles, from whom they were separated. What access they had to the sanctuary was merely through the priests and the high priest; and we have often seen how distant, occasional, and precarious this was; for the law made nothing perfect. Yet they, and they alone, had on earth the title of God’s people. This was in the wilderness marked by their having a camp, wherein was the tabernacle where God dwelt in the holiest. But the law kept themselves rigorously outside that sanctuary: the way into the holiest was not yet made manifest.
The cross of Christ brought in a complete contrast with these two most marked circumstances in the position of Israel. On the one hand the Christian is invited and emboldened, as sprinkled by blood from an evil conscience and washed with pure water, to draw near into the holiest of all; on the other, the Christian is equally exhorted to go forth unto Christ without the camp, bearing His reproach. The two extremes now meet in the believer – I do not mean as Christians are, or as they say; but as Christians ought to believe. The meaning is solemn. If you are a Christian in deed and in truth, you are washed or loosed from your sins in the blood of Christ. You will not be one whit cleaner in the eyes of God when you reach heaven than now; for Christ is dead, risen, and glorified. This is a matter of unsophisticated faith; there is nothing which can possibly add to what Christ has done and God has accepted on your behalf. If you look at this or that brother, you may see your own faults, exaggerated perhaps in your eyes. This ought not to be so; we ought rather to count him better than ourselves. But alas! the same flesh which makes us indulgent to our own faults, makes us sharp on the faults of our brethren: so little do we walk in the power of faith.
If God’s word governs our thoughts, we find ourselves, in this Epistle, among the holy brethren partakers of the heavenly calling. We are of the true house of Christ, the family of the High Priest, and later on are invited to draw near into the holiest of all. On what ground could any soul possibly enter within, if his sins were not completely gone? If they are not so now, what is to blot them out another day? Christ would not take His seat on high till all was settled for every one who should believe. From this the apostle reasons and appeals. If repetition were needed, Christ must often have suffered; whereas the whole force of the doctrine in the Epistle is His work and death once for all. Indeed, the same emphasis appears in the First Epistle of Peter, “He suffered once for sins” (1Pe 3 ). Nor is it only that He once for all suffered, but that we are cleansed once for all. We are purified in conscience according to the power of that one sacrifice, which has dedicated a new and living way through the veil. The unity of the cleansing is as true of the believer as the unity of the sacrifice is true of Christ. I speak only of the Christian now, of those who draw not back to perdition but believe to the saving of the soul.
But along with the drawing near into the holiest goes the call to go forth to Christ without the camp. Let us seek no place of honour on earth, no means of reputation, no seat of ease, no outward distinction. The Jews might fairly once have looked for all these. Through unfaithfulness they have lost all; but Christians, instead of being promoted in their stead, are called to join Him Who suffered without the gate. They were not called to take the place of “the camp” when the Jews lost their standing. Nay, before the Jews lost their place and nation openly, Christians were exhorted to draw near within, even if they had been Jews; and now, being sanctified by Christ’s blood which makes them free of the sanctuary, they are also called to go without the camp.
The Christian is a man who is not of the world; he is of Christ for heaven, and called to draw near where He is. The two truths flow together; and what God has thus joined, let no man sunder. What right has grace given to anyone of access into the holiest of all, unless along with it there be readiness to follow Jesus Who suffered without the gate? If you value your title to draw near within the sanctuary, shrink not from going forth to Him without the camp. Is it not in both respects your place, and your only right place, with Him? If your faith leads you to Christ in the true and heavenly sanctuary, remember that to you it is given not only to believe on Him’ but also to suffer for His sake. Let us be in our faith with Christ, both inside the veil and outside the camp.
Christendom has reversed all this. In theological eyes it is rank presumption to draw near into the holiest while we are on earth. Is not this really the unbelief of christendom? But Christ gives us entrance into the sanctuary as the common privilege of His own. It is open to every Christian, whether Calvinist, Arminian, or of any other party. It is well to avoid all such parties; for they lead their votaries into short-sighted views of the truth of God; and there is precious truth which in these disputes is apt to be overlooked. The word of God looks far beyond men’s disputations. We may well be suspicious of ecclesiastical parties, no matter what or where they are; and my experience is that those who are nearest are no better in their spirit and objects, if not worse than others who know less. Surely, my brethren, we ought to be above quarrels, if indeed we have got the truth of God. And have we not Christ so known as to put shame on such manners? He that hath an ear, let him hear.
Let us seek earnestly and humbly and as before God to profit by all this, and guard against every snare by cleaving to Christ and the truth in a spirit of grace. If any prefer controversy and strife, let them. One may be grieved thereby; but, as you know, there is nothing so powerful as a good example. As I have often said to some that found us all very faulty and blameable, Why do not you by your fidelity show us a more excellent way in carrying out the truth? You will not say that it is acceptable to God for you merely to criticise, whilst going on with what you know to be wrong. If we have walked but very poorly, why not do better yourselves? Why not help instead of carping?
Certainly these are great realities – access into the holiest, and companionship with Christ outside the camp, while we are still on earth. If I own these both to be my galling, am I to join in language or conduct which denies them? Am I to be dragged down by custom into Levitical worship which leaves the worshipper outside? Am I free before God to forget and forego the truth of Christ every time I worship? Do you ask me who do so? Forgive me for saying I should like to see the Christians who do not “serve the tabernacle,” as this Epistle calls it, instead of making good in faith their own proper privileges. The fault does not belong only to any particular denomination; it attaches to all. I do not wish to be personal; but is it not really the kindest service possible to urge your weighing what you say in worship with what God teaches? If you receive His word about it, and it is as plain as it is deep and comforting, cleave to the truth with all your heart. Is that too much to ask of a believer? Why should you, my beloved friends, be playing at see-saw between truth and error, between what you know to be acceptable to God and what people in christendom have slipped into? Every one naturally likes the camp. To the natural man “the holiest” is one extreme, and “without the camp” is another. To be in the camp, with a priest for the sanctuary, is the via media, so pleasant to the eye and to the mind. They are thus in the acceptable place of the world, the religious world, not of course the merely profane. Such was just the portion the Jews occupied of old. It was out of this middle place that the apostle called the Christians, not only to draw within the veil, but to go forth without the camp; and both now.
Again, let me ask you, was the cross of Christ a respectable thing? Was it really so regarded when He suffered without the gate? One might rather ask, if ever there were greater scorn put upon any one. The two robbers that were hanged had far more consideration than the Lord of all. Ah! beloved friends, your place on earth is that place of scorn. If you truly enjoy the nearness of the sanctuary of heaven, it will strengthen your faith to go forth to Christ without the camp. When the blood was brought into the holiest, the bodies were burned without the camp. This is a distinct connection of divine truth. The deduction is that we should have communion with our Saviour in both ways. You have Him for your joy in heaven, and you are to be with Him in eternal joy. Therefore, during the little while that you are on earth, be not ashamed of His rejection; shrink not from the call to be with Christ outside. There is the doctrine, and the practice follows. I do not dwell at greater length on it now, because there are other moral principles of great value to lay before you from this fruitful chapter.
The next thing then that the Spirit of God brings before us is, “And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you.” We do not hear this about any subordinate matter. The Day of Atonement stands distinctly to itself and separate in dignity from all others, “That in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or the stranger that sojourneth among you.” The first point insisted on, and most evidently, is the affliction of the soul. Atonement was not to be a matter of mere joy lest it should degenerate into lightness.
As we are considering this, let me show you how readily man slips into these errors. In Act 2:41 , we have all read, as the effect of the truth which the apostle was preaching, “Then they that gladly received the word were baptised.” It may be new to some though to many of you more familiar, that the word “gladly” has no sufficient authority to stand there. Consider for a moment what it means for newly-converted “gladly” to receive the message. Such a word has not the happiest link with an occasion so solemn as souls being brought to God. Do not consider for a moment that there is any wish to cloud the joy and peace of the believer; but our Lord instructs us that it is a bad sign when the first effect of the truth entering the soul is gladness. Deep self-search and humiliation are incomparably better proofs of a true work of God there. Hence I cannot but feel that the modern fashion of singing the gospel, in an elaborate or perhaps very lively service of song, seems singularly unapostolic and a dangerous innovation. The levity of it is most opposed to the whole spirit of the Day of Atonement which to me suggests the remark. What is the soul being brought to God by the gospel, but the present application of that great Day to such an one? Look at the contrast between the word of God and the prevalent style in our day. Perhaps I may be hitting rather hard some who are near to me, and valued for their work’s sake. Wishing to be as far from personality as possible, I yet mean to set aside unsparingly anything which is contrary to God’s word; and if brethren complain of not being let alone, surely so much the worse for them. After all it is much better to try all by the word lest the truth of God be sacrificed to human zeal and popular ways. How will all look at the latter end? Surely it is a great boon to be delivered from mistake that we may do the will of God.
The history of this word “gladly” really is, that it comes from another part of the Acts of the Apostles (21: 17). It is a word occurring but this once in the N. T. and rightly applied to receiving beloved servants of the Lord. This curiously illustrates how a word, sometimes a clause, gets occasionally where it ought not. We can understand how brethren who saw the apostle with other servants of the Lord would gladly receive them. One feels how proper this was for men who were at rest and peace with God. But in Act 2 souls were first brought face to face with their sins, and this in the presence of God. Did not solemnity become them at the most important epoch of their life? It is not questioned that, whatever may be the difficulties, the result will be joy and peace; but we are speaking now of the process, and the proper, legitimate, and desirable effect of the word of God in dealing with souls, listening to it, and for the first time taking their stand as confessors of Christ.
Further, one may notice how one part of the scriptures tallies with another. When the Israelites, with the blood sprinkled on their doors, were eating the body of the lamb, was it with the blowing of trumpets or the striking of cymbals? Do not tell me that they did not sing at other times. Only a chapter or two afterwards we find the song of Moses, and of Miriam, etc., with their timbrels. They sang on the Arabian bank of the Bed Sea, but we hear of no song when they first celebrated the Paschal night. They ate the body of the lamb “with bitter herbs.” What does this mean? Certainly not “gladly” receiving His word? They did indeed receive His word, but with deep solemnity and self-judgment. It was in the sense of their sins; and sin is not a matter to sing, smile, or trifle about. No wonder that the fruits of the work, on our modern lines, are so unlike apostolic simplicity and depth.
It seems dangerous to invite souls to gladness, not merely the unconverted, but perhaps those under conviction of sin and in the process of conversion; souls that you seriously charge to receive the word. Is it not true then that what answers to one type or another, as well as the plain account of scripture, is the need of solemn dealing with the conscience? For one must be inwardly cleared before God, in order that the heart in due time may go out with freedom of affection. Until the soul is set at large by faith in the work of Christ, it is not rightly fitted for sharing the expression of joy. Still less is it advisable to reason or persuade souls into believing prematurely that they are saved. Thus is the conscience injured, as well as the grace of the Lord. It would make internal dealing quite superfluous, and substitute a call to the affections, instead of ministering Christ’s work of atonement, to the burdened spirit. The proper thing is that the awakened conscience first be cleared; then the affections have their suited play afterwards.
Thus exactly was the way of the Lord with the woman of Samaria, who was at first without self-judgment. Christ knew that she had no husband, and by His word her sin was laid upon her conscience, and in that way she was truly brought before God. It was the same with the prodigal. There was no gladness till after he met his father. Not that there was not misery, but conscience was allowed to work within him. Therefore, it may be fittingly pressed, as an urgent duty, that care be taken, not only in preaching, but in the services one sanctions, that there be no departure from the plainly revealed will of God. It is for us to carry truth out, not merely in this or in that but in everything. With the atonement God’s word insists on the afflicting of the soul. Not that doubt or distrust can be ever right or tolerable. Anything of that kind differs wholly from humiliation before God. To cherish questions or fears would rather hinder than help on the afflicting of the soul, which should be real work; and of this there can scarce be too much where the heart is looking to Christ and His atonement. The more this is rested on, the more can you praise God for the truth which humbles, and for His grace in that precious blood which cleanses from all sin. The name of Jesus for saving the soul ill consorts with levity of spirit or fleshly excitement; and the expression of joy does not surely befit the moment when God is bringing His all-searching word to bear on the heart and the life in His sight.
But this is not all. There was another thing which was particularly bound up with the Day of Atonement: not only “ye shall afflict your souls,” but also “do no work at all.” Is not this injunction remarkable at such a time? It was not a question whether it was the usual sabbath or not. The Day of Atonement peremptorily excluded man’s works in that connection. It is impossible to deny that work is a most weighty part of a Christian’s duty. Our Lord was always doing the work that the Father gave Him to do; as every Christian is called to do the good works which God afore prepared that he should walk in them. The Christian is not made to be only a meditative being, with heart and mind pondering the truth. This is all-important in its place, but he is called to dependence yet diligence, to obedience and even energy in serving the Lord. But the energy should always follow the meditation. Let the activity flow out of that which passes between himself and God. It is a dangerous thing, when God is showing sin and His atonement by Christ, to turn aside into merriness of heart. The soul at such a moment should be afflicted, instead of being transported by music and singing, by a solo, or a choir, or any form whatever of exhilaration. The singing of saints is quite another matter. What more proper when filled with the Spirit than to speak to one another in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs? This wholly differs from introducing music to soothe or stimulate the heart which the Spirit would exercise in self-judgment. Among happy saints it is a question perfectly settled: the outbursts of thanksgiving and praise may well fill the ordinary life of the Christian. But the first injunction to which God calls in the presence of the Day of Atonement is grief of heart because of our sins, though God is covering them with the blood of propitiation.
Connected with this is the second call to no work of man on that day. Had our works been as good as alas! we have to own them bad, how suitable for us to rest before the infinite work of the Saviour in atoning for sinners! “Lo, I come, to do Thy will, O God.” “By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” What has that will not done? In the perfection of His sacrifice it has not only blotted out our sins, but set us apart to God as a settled fact. Sacrifice and offering, holocaust and sacrifice for sin, are all swallowed up in that one offering. By one offering He has perfected for ever them that are sanctified What more is needed by man? What more could even God do for us in our present pilgrimage on earth? Therefore, as the just mark of recognising that it was all His work, unmixed with anything on our part, His people, and even the stranger sojourning among them, were forbidden all manner of work on that day. “It is a sabbath of solemn rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls; it is a sabbath for ever” (ver. 31). No levity of heart on the one hand, and on the other no presumptuous adding of their works to that great work which was then wrought and made known to the people of God.
Look at the apostle Paul. There you have a man who afflicted his soul, and eschewed all merit on his part, though found blameless as to righteousness that is in law. His was a case of deeply wrought conversion; he was so absorbed that he neither ate nor drank for three days and nights; so filled was he with the sense of utter sinfulness as well as with the truth of God’s atonement in Christ. Blinded with excess of light, he had no room for other persons or other works. Self was profoundly judged. He was completely shut up to Christ’s glorious person and the triumph of grace reigning through righteousness, which God had revealed to his once proud but now afflicted soul.
It is allowed that conversion may be real where every trait is feebler. The jailor in the prison at Philippi was one who soon emerged from his overwhelming horror after he received the Lord Jesus. We may hope he got well through the perils of the wilderness, and have no reason to doubt it. But still his was a case very different from the apostle’s; and it is not hard to discern a considerable difference in the way in which people are brought to God, as a general rule. There was affliction, but ere long rejoicing on the jailor’s part and all of his house. Not that he did not truly repent, for I am sure he did. In every true case there is the afflicting of the soul; but if there be not a deep searching of heart, the affliction soon passes. Ordinarily the heart rebounds, and one is occupied far more with the joy of the good things grace has given. A deeper self-judgment casts one on Christ, yet more than on the deliverance from evil, however truly this is felt.
Perhaps we may notice that some are charged with not enough valuing the Old Testament; but assuredly this can hardly apply to such as give it the importance we here claim and enforce. We believe it to be of God, no less divinely inspired than the New. It is true you have in the Levitical institutions only the shadows, with the most instructive dealings of God, promises, and prophecies, besides examples for good and warnings of evil, all fruitful indeed. You cannot safely and profitably read Exodus or Leviticus without the full light of the New Testament; but the believer accepts the word as a whole. The sacred letters throughout were written by the Holy Ghost. Thankfully, humbly, one accepts all as good for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, as also for comfort and admonition. So what has been brought before us tonight is not without holy and serious import, and in an important way bears on the habits growing up during this degenerate day in christendom.
But do not overlook danger from legality on the ether side. Far am I from meaning that it was not an evil day in christendom when people sang, “That day of wrath, that dreadful day,” which the thought of Christ’s coming only awoke. Was this genuine affliction of the soul? It was little better than a frightful scare: God was unknown. There is a great difference between repentance and alarm. Abject terror of soul may have exactly characterised medieval Christianity. High and low were frightened, and in their terror they gave up their acres or their labour in order to propitiate the God before Whose judgments they trembled in view of the day of the Lord. It was out of that spirit that many a grand cathedral arose with its truly dim religious light. It was not merely the great lords as well as crowned heads who contributed from their wealth or their spoils, but the poor workmen freely gave their skill and labour: a standing and striking testimony to the power of alarm in unenlightened people’s souls. It had been the main weapon of heathenism; the sole moral element in that dark deceit was fear. So it was now alas! in fallen christendom.
Nor is it that one would exclude fear from that which works in those that hear God’s word. It is right and fitting that the guilty should be alarmed when they hear of their sins, and of God’s justice and sure judgment. How blessed to know that after the sins, and before the judgment, God did come down from heaven in the person of His own Son to work His unfailing atonement! Certainly there could have been no perfection of the work, if Christ had not been a divine person. It is therefore all-important that our Lord Jesus be acknowledged as God unreservedly. If the Word had not been God, if the Son not one with the Father, the Saviour would have been incompetent for the work He undertook. But it is done and accepted, and all is changed. Before our Lord Jesus Christ came, the righteousness of God might well fill the soul with anxiety. Judgment must then take its course. That God was to judge the world, every Jew acknowledged. There would be a resurrection of just and of unjust. After judgment the lake of fire awaited the lost. The second death is not ceasing to exist. Indeed death itself is but a severance of soul from body. For the believer it is “to depart and be with Christ.” Even when a wicked man dies, he is in no way annihilated: his soul is severed from the body – this is death. “All live to God,” if not to men. But when the second death comes, the wicked exist for ever, not only in soul, but in body. Resurrection is not temporal being, like living in the world that now is; it ushers in what is final and unchanging.
This brings out the deep importance of the true atonement. I ask you, are your souls now resting on Christ and His atonement? In the gospel God is announcing to you Christ as the propitiation for the whole world. How awful for your own soul and body if you slight His message! Receive it from God, and may it be without the presumption of your works, but with true affliction of soul. If Christ has thus suffered for sins, why doubt God’s love, guilty though you are? The very fact that there is an atonement is the fullest testimony to His mercy as well as justice. Is it not for sinners in their sins, in their transgressions, and in their iniquities? Do not these words of His cover what you have done? Does not Christ’s work meet the worst that can be alleged against you? The Atonement-day was God’s doing away man’s evil. Make no excuses more.
Rest your soul on the Saviour and His propitiation; for there is none other holy, true, or efficacious. It is not merely that He has done the work, but He is the propitiation. John takes particular care thus to identify the divine work. “He is the propitiation for our sins;” and therefore should we look to Him only for it. God forbid that you should look to yourself or to others! For what can others avail you for sin? What can the Virgin or the saints do for you in this need? Were the church of God here below in its pristine unity, were the staff Beauty and the staff Bands unbroken (if I may apply figures from Israel), what could the church of God avail for saving your soul? God’s church, if not man’s, would tell you, by the lips of its members, what His grace in Christ did for each and all of them. But permit me to add that God tells you the truth in His word better than any of its uninspired members ever preached. God’s word is intended to give you the sole unfailing decision you can now have on the matter. Here you have all you require in. this single chapter, read in the light of Christ. It is admitted that none could make much of it without the New Testament. But have we not both Old Testament and New? Have we not divine light shining on the shadows of the past, so that the truth rises to view in all its unity, grandeur, simplicity, and certainty?
And what about yourselves, who now hear the truth? May God bring you to Himself and fasten His own blessed word on your souls! Hay you acknowledge the folly of your heart and the wickedness of your life! Is there anything really more wicked in His sight than, with the scriptures read and heard continually, to be practically living without God and in despite of Christ? Begin then at once to hear God for eternity. Do not put it off for another day. If you never believed in Christ and His salvation before, may God give you to believe in Him that you may be saved now. Remember there must be with atonement affliction of the soul, and no work of yours can be connected with that which He has wrought. When this is settled, there will be ample room and loud call for you to work, and unfailing joy for you to express. But the atonement is too holy and too solemn for man to be other than abased and prostrate. Bow to it then with affliction of your soul; and abhor the presumption of adding to it by work on your part. “They shall come, and shall declare His righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that He hath done (it).”
The words just cited are the end of Psa 22 , first Christ most distinctively undergoing the sufferings of atonement, wherein He appeals to God to find necessary desertion, with the blessed results in the latter half. Its opening cry is so applied in the New Testament, as already pointed out: every other thought deprives it of grace, not to say of meaning, and is altogether unworthy of the suffering Man, Who was God. Psa 40 is more mingled; but beyond dispute, in the light of Heb 10 , it puts forth Christ setting aside, not only sacrifice and offering, but burnt-offering and offering for sin, by the oblation of His body once for all on the cross. His willing obedience unto death is the central thought, though in so doing God’s will He graciously feels as His own the sins of the godly Jews, whose substitute He is. Psa 69 again shows us Messiah on the cross, but in the aspect of His rejection by man, and by the ungodly Jews particularly, with the results of judgment on them, whatever the blessing of Zion. Psa 88 again points to Messiah’s spirit identified with elect Israel, righteously feeling in grace all the power of darkness and death, yet crying to Jehovah day and night. Psa 102 is Christ identified with the misery of Zion, and referring to Jehovah, Who owns the humbled One as Jehovah, no less eternal and unchangeable than Himself. Psa 109 closes these marvellous views by showing us Christ suffering from the treachery of the Jews, headed by Judas, and looking on to the son of perdition in the last days, when Jews and Gentiles again unite against Him to their. everlasting shame, but the needy shall rejoice in Him for ever.
Nor are the Prophets silent, any more than the Law and the Psalms, though one need not now go beyond the clear, and deep, and full testimony of Isa. 52, 53. Even the rationalistic Gesenius, though he contends here for the prophetic body personified and rejected by Israel, confesses as the truth, both from the language employed and the habitual thought, not of that nation only but of all others, that an expiatory work runs through it. Yet, while allowing the New Testament teaching to be based on it, he, poor man wise in his own conceit, prefers that the expiation should be by the suffering prophets for Israel’s deliverance. But if expiation is admitted, none but an unbeliever can fail to see it in Christ alone. The Righteous Servant of Jehovah, Whom the Jews esteemed smitten of God, was really wounded for their transgressions, bruised for their iniquities: the chastisement of their peace was upon Him; and by His stripes are they healed. Jehovah hath laid on Him the iniquity of them all. For the transgression of His people was He stricken. He had done no violence, nor was any deceit in His mouth. “Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise Him. He hath put Him to grief: when Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in His hand. He shall see of the travail of His soul and shall be satisfied. By His knowledge shall My Righteous Servant justify many (or rather, instruct the many in righteousness, cf. Dan 12:3 ), and He shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide Him a portion with the great, and He shall divide the spoil with the strong; because He poured out His soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors; and He bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.” Argument or even exposition is superfluous; save for the insensible to sin and indifferent to God, the truth of the Holy Sufferer is transparent throughout. It is Jesus only: we have seen His sufferings; but His glories are not all out yet – some are to follow, as they surely will “in that day.”
APPENDIX.
1. The Scapegoat.
It is generally known that the Hebrew word so translated in the Authorised Version, but left by the Revisers untranslated, has been the occasion of keen debate among men of learning, Jews as well as Christians, though chiefly rationalists. Symmachus gives , and Aquila (or, as Montfaucon reads, ); and the Vulgate follows, as did Luther in his day. Theodoret in his comment on the passage seems to have had no question but that the seventy meant as . But the learned S. Bochart (Hieroz. II. 54.) objected that their rendering is by a term in classical authors appropriated to the active sense of averting or turning away evils, answering to the Latin averruncus, though he for his part suggests quite a different version of the Hebrew. One of his arguments repeated by moderns, that ez is a she goat, not a male, Gesenius confesses it not so certain. Indeed the remark in the Thesaurus, as anyone may verify from Hebrew usage, is “prius caprum quam capram significasse videtur.” It is really an epicene, and so capable of application to either sex. Besides, Azazel is a compound, for which the more general designation sufficed with another word to define. This allowed, the natural formation of the word is obvious Azazel means goat of departure. Nor is there real difficulty in identifying the people’s lot with it; as the slain goat was for Jehovah, so the living one for a scapegoat. This is the express distinction of scripture in each case.
People are easily stumbled who for such reasons abandon the intrinsically simple, suitable, and holy sense, for alternatives of the most equivocal nature, if not absurd and profane. Thus not a few suggest that it is the name of a place, of which nobody ever heard; whereas the context supposes a meaning which all could understand at once. This is true only of the ancient and commonly held view. The advocates for a place cannot settle among themselves whether Azazel signifies a precipitous mountain, to which the goat is supposed to be led, or a lonely valley which Deu 21 probably suggested, though the case was wholly different. Besides, we have the place of consignment already and distinctly specified in ver. 10, which puts this sense of A. out of court as intolerable tautology; so Gesenius rightly argues on the latter supposition. “To a desert place, into the “desert,” cannot stand; any more than the former supposition of casting the goat down a precipice, instead of letting him go free, as ver. 22 requires. Tholuck, Winer, etc., contended for such a strange manipulation of A. as would mean “for a complete removal.” which Gesenius condemned very properly, both for its frigid character and for its incoherence with ver. 8; and therefore he preferred with many others the abominable sense of a demon or Satan! Hence the Septuagint has been cited as if must mean some such evil genies of the wilderness, who had to be propitiated by the sacrifice of the dismissed goat! One can understand the apostate emperor Julian so sneering at scripture; but Cyril of Alex. found no difficulty in understanding the Greek translation, as the plain English reader does the A.V.
For on the face of the chapter the two goats were taken “for a sin-offering” (ver. 5); and Aaron presented not one only but both before Jehovah at the door of the tabernacle (ver. 7); and lots were cast (ver. 8) that the whole disposal of each might be of Jehovah. Is it not blasphemy then to find such sentiments insinuated as would involve an unholy compact between Jehovah and Satan, not merely in the face of the entire law which forbade giving His sacred honour to His adversary, but this on the most solemn day of sacrifice and confession of sins in the Jewish year? Now ver. 10 is conclusive proof that the Seventy had no such profanity in their minds, any more than they convey it in their words. For though the word in heathen mouths had no better connection, the LXX show that they simply employed it to mean the God-appointed dismisser of the sins charged on its head by varying the rendering in ver. 10. There, instead of saying , as would have been the natural form after their translation of ver. 8, they seem to go out of their way to guard themselves and the scripture in hand by changing the phrase to , “to send him away for the dismissal” (not “the dismisser”). Symmachus has here (Origenis Hexapla, Field, ii. 194). It is certain from this comparison that the Seventy meant by the goat that was sent away; which demonstrates therefore, notwithstanding their use of the word, that the notion of a caco-demon did not even occur to their thoughts. To crown the evidence, weigh their version of ver. 26, “And he that sends forth the goat that has been set apart to be let go,” as Sir L. C. L. Brenton translates . Who can doubt that there was no unworthy superstition of an Averruncus, but just simply the second goat of departure? It may be added that Mr. Chas. Thompson, the American Translator (Philad. 1808), did not differ as to this from Brenton, save in being less correct, “And he that letteth go the he-goat which was sent away to be set at liberty,” etc., as he had rendered l-azazel in vers. 8, 10, simply “for escape.” Neither of them allows the idea of the heathen demon in any case.
The notion of Witsius, etc., is less offensive, as might be expected in pious men. It was that the goat sent away to the Averter indicated Christ’s relation to the devil, whom He, however tried, did overcome. And Hengstenberg sought to purge it so as to express in symbol that he whom God forgives is freed from the devil’s power. But it is all an inexcusable departure from the simple truth of the type by an attempt to christen a heathen idea, which has no ground whatever in the original, and only a semblance in the LXX corrected almost immediately in the context. “When He ascended up on high, He led captivity captive.” Such is the noble way in which was displayed, completely and for ever, Christ triumphing over the evil powers, which had before seemed to triumph for a while: they were really vanquished and despoiled in His cross.
2. Modern views subversive of the Atonement.
It may be helpful to notice briefly some prevalent speculations of our day which work banefully against the truth, and to the injury of souls.
We need not dwell on the virtual Socinianism which reduces the death of Christ to an example of love, or to a fidelity which stopped not short of martyrdom. His suffering for us was as unique as His person. Many have lived in devoted love, many have died martyrs, and on a cross too. How comes it that not one suffered as Christ, that He alone is a an object of faith or means of peace? Because He, and He only, suffered for our sins. Quite as low do they go who make His death only a necessary step to His resurrection for assuring men of a future life and fresh pardon, either on God’s prerogative, or on man’s repentance, or on both. It is clear that, for vindicating God and clearing the conscience, any theory of the kind scarce goes beyond heathenism. Such men neglect the true light which now shines with fulness of love in Christ. Righteousness and grace are alike lost by these thoughts, and Christ, far from being “all,” is reduced comparatively, and really indeed, to nothing for atonement.
(1) Beyond these in appearance is the scheme that, as our Lord ever went about doing good in grace and mercy, so His sufferings were endured up to death as a perfect manifestation of God in man. So Mr. Maurice on “Sacrifice,” who regards the Son of God as the ideal man, the true root and eternal anti-type of humanity. But this is no more than philosophising on Christ. As it obliterates the guilt and ruin of fallen man, so it accounts in no true sense or divine way for the sufferings of Christ at the hand of God. Guilt on the one hand is ignored, and God the Judge of sin on the other. Hence the infinite work of Christ is viewed merely on the side of love and self-surrender, not at all in the light of His suffering once for sins, that He might bring the believer to God. Thus the cross is viewed in its most superficial aspect. The judgment of God therein is wholly absent from the theory, no less than the deliverance and new state of the believer as identified with Christ risen from the dead, and seated at God’s right hand in heaven.
It is true that Christ felt the sins of men with that anguish, with which only a perfectly pure and holy one could feel the sins of others, along with perfect grace toward themselves in His heart. But sympathy is not what is wanted with sins, or even with sinners as such. Suffering for sins can alone avail, and that by One Who is adequate to meet God in all His holy feeling and righteous dealing about sin. Sinners need a sufficient Saviour, and a divinely acceptable salvation.
Again, union does not mean Christ becoming partaker of man’s nature, though this was essential to save souls. The faithful now are united by and in the Spirit to Him glorified on high. The union of mankind as such with Christ is a destructive fiction.
(2) The late Dr. J. McLeod Campbell, in his book on “The Nature of the Atonement,” betrays the like ruinous departure from revealed truth. He contends for Christ’s “condemnation of sin in His own Spirit” as atoning, not His blood-shedding. Scriptural atonement is given up for one purely holy and loving sentiment, altogether short of, and differing from, what the cross really means. For Christ is supposed to have atoned for men by offering up to God a perfect confession for. their sins, and an adequate repentance! for them, with which divine justice is satisfied! and a full expiation made for human guilt! “Fatherliness in God originating our salvation; the Son of God accomplishing that salvation by the revelation of the Father.”
Here again, Christ suffering for sins, the Just for the unjust, has no true place, any more than the righteousness of God in answer to Christ’s infinite suffering. It is a strange and vague substitution of Christ making a confession, “Which must, in its own nature, have been a perfect amen in humanity to the judgment of God on the sin of man.” It thus evidently leaves out God arrayed against our sins laid on Jesus. All admit the love which brought Him down and carried Him through to the uttermost. But what was the meaning of the cup which His Father gave Him to drink? What of His praying in agony that, if it were possible, this cup might pass from Him? What, still more, of the cry on the cross, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” These were no merely sympathetical woes, which last He never prayed should pass from Him, but His unutterable suffering – yea, beyond all our thoughts – at God’s hand, when His necessary hatred and judgment of sin broke forth even on His own Son made sin for us. Nothing but vicarious suffering-for us from God can account for the profound feelings and language of our Lord when delivered for our offences, and bearing our sins in His own body on the tree. It is allowed also that Christ in grace took up our sins and confessed them as His own, in His heart substitution for us. But to say that all the elements of a perfect contrition and repentance except! the personal consciousness of sin (the very element” essential to repentance and contrition) were in Him, is to mistake the word of God, and foist in a fable.
As contrary to scripture is it to say that thus was accorded to divine justice that which is its due, and which could alone satisfy it. Was it not immeasurably more to be forsaken of God? This Christ suffered for us if we believe Himself on the cross. He poured out His soul an offering for sin. Isaiah: says nothing short of this could satisfy divine justice, nor an adequate expiation be, unless our guilt were righteously borne as it was in His cross. Here again is the same swamping of necessary truth which characterises the theory of Mr. Maurice. Like his it also blots out the essential difference which faith creates. Substitution is wholly gone in these efforts to show nothing but divine love to everybody. If in these solutions there were any adequate answer to the first goat, there is no recognition whatever of what the second conveys; but even as to the first, how poor is the notion of sympathy in the presence of God’s judgment of sin in Christ’s cross!
(3) Another human key has been offered whereby to escape the offence of the cross. The late Mr. Robertson, of Brighton, laboured to make out that “Christ simply came into collision with the world’s evil and bare the penalty of that daring. He approached the whirling wheel, and was torn in pieces. He laid His hand on the cockatrice’s den, and its fangs pierced Him. Such is the law which governs the conflict with evil. It can be crushed only by suffering from it. The Son of Man, who puts His naked foot on the serpent’s head, crushed it; but the fang goes into His heel.” Here again the same irreparable want appears. God is in none of these thoughts. It is not suffering for sins, but suffering from sinners only. The judgment of God is left out, sin being unjudged; and the grace of God does not appeal to or for sinners. How irreverent also to think and speak of Christ bearing the penalty of His “daring”! How grievous the lowering and the loss of truth which reduces all in Christ to “law”! It is a mere victim overcome of evil, instead of a divine sacrifice for us which overcame it with good, but at infinite cost to Himself even from God. Jehovah bruising Him becomes a mere figure, instead of being the deepest reality. Scripture is plain that His sacrifice on the cross was not merely by God’s foreknowledge, but by His determinate counsel. Whatever part the Jews played in heart, whatever the lawless hands of Gentiles did, after all it was that which God’s hand and God’s counsel determined before to be done. “Jehovah laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” “He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed.” Such was the baptism with which He must be baptised; such the cup His Father had given Him to drink. Thus only can we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins; as God set Him forth a propitiation through faith in His blood to declare His righteousness. Thereby is God just and the justifier of him that believes in Jesus.
In his Expository Lectures on the Epistles to the Corinthians, Mr. R. joins others of the school in basing all on the Incarnation, as if God then reconciled the world unto Himself and Himself to man. “Consequently every one is to be looked at now, not merely as a man, but as a brother in Christ!” The passage on the contrary declares that, whatever God’s loving attitude and overtures in the Incarnate Word, man was so evil and hostile that there was no way to bring him to God, short of His making Christ sin for us that we might become His righteousness in Him (2Co 5 ).
(4) Hence all the efforts of such men as Dr. Young in the “Life and Light of Men” are vain. “The Jews sacrificed Christ – sacrificed Him to their vile passions; but as certainly (!) He did not mean to atone for their sins (!!), or to render satisfaction to divine justice (!!!).” It is not a question of Jews or Gentiles, but of God’s purposes and means. All scripture from beginning to end reveals the way of sacrifice to be not Abel’s only, but divine. Of all that was done in faith the foundation lay before God only in the atoning death of the Lord Jesus. His inward sufferings were as perfect as real; but it is sheer unbelief to abuse them to the denial that God made Christ, Who knew no sin, to be sin for us. How false and bold then to say that “a true salvation is not escape from the consequence of sin, present or remote”! Undoubtedly salvation by Christ is far feller; but it is rebellion against God to deny that remission of sins is included. “Without shedding of blood is no remission”: so says the N. T., as well as the old.
(5) Similar remarks apply to Dr. Bushnell’s treatise on “Vicarious Sacrifice,” and “Forgiveness and Law.” His is another variety of atonement by moral power. What can be worse than to say that, in Christ made a curse for us,” the meaning of the expression is exhausted, when Christ is said simply to come into the corporate state of evil, and to bear it with us – faithful unto death for our recovery”? Is this to give “His life a ransom for many”? “He gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” “The chastisement of our peace was upon Him.” He bore the penalty of our sin, and by His blood purged our conscience to serve the living God. It is to reverse the truth, if His aim and way were, as Dr. B. says, “to bring us out of our sins themselves, and so out of their penalties.” Vitally needful was the vicariousness of His suffering for us, and not love only. Indeed love is incomparably more proved therein. Otherwise we have no more left than goodness and martyrdom, an example for us to imitate and reciprocate. “Hereby know we love, because He laid down His life for us.” “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as propitiation for our sins.” This is excluded by all these unbelieving theories. “God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved through His life.”
(6) Mr. B. Jowett, in his “Epistles of St. Paul” as elsewhere, has committed himself to rash and irrelevant utterances on this most sacred and momentous subject. His distinct tendency if not effort is to undermine divine authority and certainty in scripture; which if accepted would dissolve the truth of atonement as indeed of everything else. Thus he writes in his second Vol. p. 549: “The Old Testament is not on all points the same with the New, for ‘Moses allowed some things for the hardness of their hearts’; nor the law with the prophets, for there were ‘proverbs in the house of Israel’ that were reversed; nor does the gospel, which is simple and universal, in all respects agree with the epistles, which have reference to the particular state of the first converts; nor is the teaching of St. James, who admits works as a co-efficient with faith in the justification of man, absolutely identical with that of St. Paul, who asserts; justification by faith only; nor is the character of all the epistles of St. Paul precisely the same; nor does he himself claim an equal authority for all his precepts.” How grave the fault to avail oneself of points more or less true to upset the truth! And what can we think of his statement farther on – “Christ Himself hardly uses, even in a figure, the word sacrifice; never with the least reference to His own life or death.” And this, in the face, not only of Mat 20:28 , but of Mat 26:28 ! And what is the meaning of His giving His flesh for the life of the world? of His laying down His life for the sheep? of the corn of wheat dying and bringing forth much fruit? of His being lifted up from the earth and drawing all men unto Him? From the transfiguration we hear Him setting His death constantly before His disciples.
In his Essay on the Atonement which follows his Exposition, Mr. J. strives to get rid of the Levitical types of Christ’s death on the ground of no such interpretation accompanying them. Now this really means, that, if tree, we should have had the N. T. side by side with the Old: a notion which would blot out God’s wisdom and will in various dispensations. 1Pe 1:12 is in principle the inspired answer. Christ’s coming and death for us, followed by the gift of the Spirit on His ascension, was the right time and way of teaching plainly all, which had been wrapt up in figure, but not in uncertainty. When declared and seen to be the divine intention after 1500 years, the truth comes out only the more impressively as of God. And unbelief is proved to be not only blind but irreverent, as well as absurd, in presence of such facts when Mr. J. adds, “It would seem ridiculous, to assume a spiritual meaning in the Homeric! rites and sacrifices; and although they may be different in other respects, have we any more reason for inferring such a meaning in the Mosaic (!!)?” One might have hoped that even preoccupation with Plato’s reveries, diversified with relaxation over the Iliad and the Odyssey, might leave room even in the most prejudiced mind to; remember that the scriptures claim to be inspired of God; so that, even though they consist of two very distinct collections in wholly different tongues, for an earthly people and for Christ’s heavenly body, there cannot but be one mind of God in all, either preparing for Christ, or at length revealed in Him folly by the one Spirit sent down from heaven. Now Christ’s presence on earth was the stumbling- stone of the one, as the O. T. prophets declared beforehand; and His death of shame, yet in God’s hand of eternal redemption, introduces the other; which also explains why He Who was the rejected Messiah, and the glorified Head of the church, did not Himself bring out His death, resurrection, and ascension glory, but left it to the Holy Spirit by the apostles and prophets of the N. T. Yet He said enough to prove that all was known perfectly: only the disciples could not bear to hear all whilst He was here and the atoning work not Jet accomplished. How then must one estimate Mr. J.’s words, “It is hard to imagine that there can be any truer expression of the gospel than the words of the Lord Jesus, or that any truth omitted by Him can be essential to the gospel” (Exp. ii. p. 555)? Had it been true that His death for our sins was absolutely left till it was in fact fulfilled and for the Holy Spirit to testify, how childish the reasoning! Alas! it is much worse: “A deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand? “
(7) Another departure from the faith of God’s elect is that of Canon J. P. Norris, in his “Rudiments of Theology,” which may be noticed briefly as a warning to souls. It is admitted in the letter that Christ bore our sins; but the spirit is neutralised by the distinct denial that He bore the penalty of our sins. For this is the true force of His having borne them in His own body on the tree, of His having suffered for them once. Even the prophet is explicit that “He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of (or punishment for) our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed.” Jehovah “hath made to light on Him the iniquity of us all.” “For the transgressions of My people was He stricken.” It is bold to say that this is not a vicarious punishment for sin. No doubt there was also a dying to sin; but this is also a further N. T. privilege beyond the old and new and everlasting truth that He died judicially, or penally suffered, for our sins, as was expressed even in the types which could give but the surface and semblance, not the very image and fulness of the truth. Redeeming from all iniquity, saving from our sins, is unquestionably scriptural; but it could not be righteously without Christ’s enduring the penalty at God’s hand that we might not. In the face of scripture to deny this, as the Canon does (p. 49), is extravagantly false and evil.
Dying unto sin, as any one can see in Rom 6 etc., is that the believer dead with Christ may live to God; it has really no direct connection with “enabling God to forgive the sinner.” Sin in the flesh as such is “condemned” by God in Christ a sacrifice for sin (Rom 8:3 ), not forgiven as sins are. The doctrine is shallow and anti-scriptural. Our death with Christ to sin is entirely distinct from His dying for our sins. The last alone is what scripture treats as propitiation or atonement. “For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.” This is the vital truth of the gospel which the apostle preached and wrote and by which also believers are saved; that He died to sin is a blessed and instructive sequel, as taught from Rom 5:12 to chap. 8, no less true, and most necessary for deliverance and practical holiness. But it is ruinous to confound the two truths as is here done, as it really excludes the basis of all righteous blessing in Christ’s propitiatory suffering for sins, and renders powerless our death with Him. It exposes also to perilous heterodoxy. Think of a person teaching that Christ “gathered up into His own person all mankind, laden as they were with sin! and with the consciousness of sin upon His heart consummated that dying unto sin which they were in themselves powerless to effect” (p. 56)! Expiation thus vanishes, and a kind of Irvingite universalism remains in Mr. N.’s crucible.
This fundamental error as to the person appears with no less certainty in a later page (282), and no doubt is his real, ‘perhaps unwitting, doctrine: “He could not redeem us without taking our nature, and He could not take our nature without drawing upon Himself the curse in which sin has involved it.” This is to destroy His holy person, and to deny His grace in suffering for sins, Just for unjust. It was by no fatal necessity of our nature but by the grace of God that He tasted death . It was in the holy liberty of divine love that He laid down His life for us. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a grain of wheat fall into the earth and die, it abideth by itself alone; but if it die, it beareth much fruit.” In this only, and for this, lay the inevitable need of His death. It was sacrificial in the strictest sense and the deepest way. To say that it was in itself a Roman military execution, and the blood shed by a soldier’s pilum, is to set external circumstances against the revealed mind and purpose of God in what ought to be beyond all dear to the believer’s heart and conscience. God’s judgment of sin in the cross, and Christ’s infinite suffering for our sins there, are ignored and set aside for another truth, distinct yet inseparable, which has no ground-work or application apart from what is denied. There may have been many an Israelite with no thought beyond “There goes my sin in the victim’s death”; but that God meant no penalty in the shadow, or the substance, is mere infidelity as to propitiation for sins. Undoubtedly God’s mercy appeared in permitting, enjoining, and accepting, the sacrifice; but there was penal suffering in that sacrifice, which prefigured grace reigning through righteousness.
This profound error is the parent of others; as for instance (p. 234), that “the blood of Christ is uniformly spoken of as a most living thing, now communicable,” as also in pp. 212, 223, 224. Life eternal in the Son, which we have by faith even now, is thus confounded most grossly with His death and blood as a propitiation for our sins. These truths, every spiritual man ought to see, are wholly distinct, though the Christian knows both: (1) that God has sent His Son that we might live through Him; (2) that He sent Him as propitiation for our sins – in both the manifestation of God’s love. Mr. N. utterly confuses the blessed given up in His death and blood-shedding for our sins, with His in which we dive also, and for ever, in infinite grace. The old errors and worse re-appear in p. 309; but enough.
(8) The last aberration, which we may notice here, consists of a slight on Christ’s work on the cross in two opposite directions. One writer will have it that Christ only completed His vicarious suffering after death and before resurrection in hades; the other insists on propitiation being made by Christ’s entering heaven after death and before resurrection. I understand both of them to hold that the work was not finished in the blood and death of Christ on the cross, but that propitiation effectively depends on a further action of Christ (whether in heaven or in hades) in the disembodied state. This I believe to be a fable as to a foundation truth.
3. Tenets often misunderstood and mis-applied in Isa 53:4 ,Isa 53:11 .
It is of moment to disarm the adversary by avoiding a mistaken application or sense of scripture. The truth is enfeebled by anxiety to press texts misunderstood, like Joh 1:29 , and 1Pe 2:24 .
Thus it is notorious how good and learned men have laboured in vain over Isa 53:4 , because they have not taken heed to the Holy Spirit’s, use of it in Mat 8:17 . There it is applied to the grace with which He used His power in the removal of infirmities and sicknesses in His ministry among the Jews. Partly through the idea that the prophecy must be solely about the atonement and its consequences, partly through the language of the LXX, many will have it that the verse only includes the lesser troubles of the body in the larger thought of man’s deepest need. But God is wiser than men, even the most faithful; and subjection to His word is the best and holiest and surest corrective. If Isa 53:4 were any where applied by an inspired authority to the atonement, this would be decisive. It is only applied to Christ’s ministry or at least miracles. When His dying for our sins is meant, the Spirit in 1Pe 2:24 , Heb 9:28 , refers to Isa 53:11 , Isa 53:12 . The wisdom of inspiration shines conspicuously here; for the Septuagintal Version is avoided when incorrect or equivocal, and employed only when exact; and this by S. Peter who had no erudition to fall back on. God is the only absolutely wise guide; and here we may see it, if we be not blind.
But, again, ver. 11 has two parts, which cannot be confounded without loss. “By His knowledge shall My righteous Servant instruct many (or, the many) in righteousness; and He shall bear their iniquities.” Dan 12:3 serves to show the true force of the verb translated “justify.” Translate it as it should be here, and the sense of both clauses is plain and consistent. Take it as is done ordinarily, and violence ensues at once, with error as the result.
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
Leviticus
THE DAY OF ATONEMENT
Lev 16:1 – Lev 16:19
The Talmudical treatise on the ritual of the day of atonement is entitled ‘Yoma,’ the day, which sufficiently expresses its importance in the series of sacrificial observances. It was the confession of the incompleteness of them all, a ceremonial proclamation that ceremonies do not avail to take away sin; and it was also a declaration that the true end of worship is not reached till the worshipper has free access to the holy place of the Most High. Thus the prophetic element is the very life-breath of this supreme institution of the old covenant, which therein acknowledges its own defects, and feeds the hopes of a future better thing. We do not here consider the singular part of the ritual of the Day of Atonement which is concerned with the treatment of the so-called ‘scapegoat’ but confine ourselves to the consideration of that part of it which was observed in the Tabernacle and was intended to expiate the sins of the priesthood and of the people. The chapter connects the rites of the Day of Atonement with the tragic death of the sons of Aaron, which witnessed to the sanctity of the inner shrine, as not to be trodden but with the appointed offerings by the appointed priest; and so makes the whole a divinely given instruction as to the means by which, and the objects for which, Aaron may enter within the veil.
I. In Lev 16:3 – Lev 16:10 we have the preliminaries of the sacrifices and a summary of the rites. First, Aaron was to bathe, and then to robe himself in pure white. The dress is in singular contrast to the splendour of his usual official costume, in which he stood before men as representing God, and evidently signifies the purity which alone fits for entrance into the awful presence. Thus vested, he brings the whole of the animals to be sacrificed to the altar,-namely, for himself and his order, a bullock and a ram; for the people, two goats and a ram. The goats are then taken by him to the door of the tent,-and it is to be observed that they are spoken of as both constituting one sin offering Lev 16:5. They therefore both belong to the Lord, and are, in some important sense, one, as was recognised by the later Rabbinical prescription that they should be alike in colour, size, and value. The appeal to the lot was an appeal to God to decide the parts they were respectively to sustain in a transaction which, in both parts, was really one. The consideration of the meaning of the ritual for the one which was led away may be postponed for the present. The preliminaries end with the casting of the lots, and in later times, with tying the ominous red fillet on the head of the dumb creature for which so weird a fate was in store.
II. The first part of the ritual proper Lev 16:11 – Lev 16:14 is the expiation for the sins of Aaron and the priesthood, and his entrance into the most holy place. The bullock was slain in the usual manner of the sin offering, but its blood was destined for a more solemn use. The white-robed priest took a censer of burning embers from the altar before the tent-door, and two hands full of incense, and, thus laden, passed into the Tabernacle. How the silent crowd in the outer court would watch the last flutter of the white robe as it was lost in the gloom within! He passed through the holy place, which, on every day but this, was the limit of his approach; but, on this one day, he lifted the curtain, and entered the dark chamber, where the glory flashed from the golden walls and rested above the ark. Would not his heart beat faster as he laid his hand on the heavy veil, and caught the first gleam of the calm light from the Shechinah? As soon as he entered, he was to cast the incense into the censer, that the fragrant cloud might cover the mercy-seat. Incense is the symbol of prayer, and that curling cloud is a picture of the truth that the purest of men, even the anointed priest, robed in white, who has offered sacrifices daily all the year round, and today has anxiously obeyed all the commands of ceremonial cleanliness, can yet only draw near to God as a suppliant, not entering there as having a right of access, but beseeching entrance as undeserved mercy. The incense did not cover ‘the glory’ that Aaron might not gaze upon it, but it covered him that Jehovah might not look on his sin. It would appear that, between Lev 16:13 – Lev 16:14 , Aaron’s leaving the most holy place to bring the blood of the sacrifice must be understood. If so, we can fancy the long-drawn sigh of relief with which the waiting worshippers saw him return, and carry back into the shrine the expiating blood. The ‘most holy place’ would still be filled and its atmosphere thick with the incense fumes when he returned to perform the solemn expiation for himself and the whole priestly order. Once the blood was sprinkled on the mercy-seat, and seven times, apparently, on the ground in front of it. The former act was intended, as seems probable, to make atonement for the sins of the priesthood; the latter, to cleanse the sanctuary from the ideal defilements arising from their defective and sinful ministrations.
This completed the part of the ceremonial which belonged immediately to Aaron and the priests. It carries important lessons. Could there be a more striking exhibition of their imperfect realisation of the idea of the priestly office? Observe the anomaly inherent in the very necessity of the case. Aaron was dressed in the white robes emblematic of purity; he had partaken in the benefit of, and had himself offered, sacrifices all the year round. So far as ritual could go, he was pure, and yet so stained with sin that he dared not enter into the divine presence without that double safeguard of the incense and the blood. The priest who cleanses others is himself unclean, and he and his fellows have tainted the sanctuary by the very services which were meant to atone and to purify. That solemn ritual is intended to teach priest and people alike, that every priest ‘taken from among men’ fails in his office, and pollutes the temple instead of purifying the worshipper. But the office was God’s appointment, and therefore would not always be filled by men too small and sinful for its requirements. There must somewhere and somewhen be a priest who will be one indeed, fulfilling the divine ideal of the functions, and answering the deep human longings which have expressed themselves in all lands, for one, pure with no ceremonial but a real purity, to bring us to God and God to us, to offer sacrifice which shall need no after atonement to expiate its defects, and to stand without incense or blood of sprinkling for himself in the presence of God for us. The imperfections of the human holders of the Old Testament offices, whether priest, prophet, or king, were no less prophecies than their positive qualifications were. Therefore, when we see Aaron passing into the holy place, we see the dim shadow of Christ, who ‘needeth not to make atonement’ for His own sins, and is our priest ‘for ever.’
III. The ritual for the atonement of the sins of the people follows. The two goats had been, during all this time, standing at the door of the Tabernacle. We have already pointed out that they are to be considered as one sacrifice. There are two of them, for the same reason, as has been often remarked, as there were two birds in the ritual of cleansing the leper; namely, because one animal could not represent the two parts of the one whole truth which they are meant to set forth. The one was sacrificed as a sin offering, and the other led away into a solitary land. Here we consider the meaning of the former only, which presents no difficulty. It is a sin offering for the people, exactly corresponding to that just offered for the priests. The same use is made of the blood, which is once sprinkled by Aaron on the mercy-seat and seven times on the ground before it, as in the former case. It is not, however, all employed there, but part of it is carried out into the other divisions of the Tabernacle; and first, the holy place, which the priests daily entered and which is called in Lev 16:16 ‘the tent of meeting,’ and next, the altar of burnt offering in the outer court, are in like manner sprinkled seven times with the blood, to ‘hallow’ them ‘from the uncleanness of the children of Israel’ Lev 16:19. The teaching of this rite, in its bearing upon the people, is similar to that of the previous priestly expiation. The insufficiency of sacrificial cleansing is set forth by this annual atonement for sins which had all been already atoned for. The defects of a ritual worship are proclaimed by the ritual which cleanses the holy places from the uncleanness contracted by them from the worshippers. If the altar, the seat of expiation, itself needed expiation, how imperfect its worth must be! If the cleansing fountain is foul, how shall it be cleansed, or how shall it cleanse the offerers? The bearing of the blood of expiation into the most holy place, where no Israelite ever entered, save the high priest, taught that the true expiation could only be effected by one who should pass into the presence of God, and leave the door wide open for all to enter. For surely the distance between the worshippers and the mercy-seat was a confession of imperfection; and the entrance there of the representative of the sinful people was the holding out of a dim hope that in some fashion, yet unknown, the veil would be rent, and true communion be possible for the humble soul. The Epistle to the Hebrews tells us where we are to look for the realities of which these ceremonies were the foreshadowings. The veil was rent at the crucifixion. Christ has gone into ‘the secret place of the Most High,’ and if we love Him, our hearts have gone with Him, and our lives are ‘hid with Him, in God.’
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
spake. See note on Lev 5:14.
offered = brought near. Hebrew. karab. App-43. Targum of Onkelos, The Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate, add “strange fire”, as in Lev 10:1.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Now in chapter sixteen, we deal with Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. The high priest wasn’t to go into the Holy of Holies at any time.
The Lord began to speak to Moses and this was given after the death of the sons of Aaron, [and now God is becoming more specific of the ministry of the priests, and how that they are not to go into the Holy of Holies at any time,] that they die not: [for God said,] I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat. And so Aaron shall come into the holy place: with a young bullock for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering. And he shall put on a holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are the holy garments; therefore he shall wash his flesh in water, and so put them on ( Lev 16:1-4 ).
Now on the Day of Atonement, now during the rest of the year the other priests would offer the sacrifices, but on the Day of Atonement, actually the high priest would have to do all the work. If you count the number of animals and all that he had to kill and butcher, and offer, it comes to some thirty some animals that he had to deal with, plus he had to bathe five times.
Now on this particular day, he did not wear the beautiful garments of the high priest, the ephod, and the blue mitre, and all that. But on this day he wore just the plain linen of the robes of the priesthood. The first thing he had to do is offer an offering for his own sins. He had to take care of his own sins first. Then, having offered the offerings for his own sins, then he would offer for the sins of the people.
Of course, as you look at this, it is all looking forward to Jesus Christ. So there is just beautiful symbolism all the way through, with the exception that there is no equivalent in Christ for the sin offering that the high priest offered for himself. For Jesus did not have to offer any sacrifice for Himself being sinless. There’s no New Testament equivalent to that. But Christ has become our High Priest, and He entered into the heavens of which the earthly tabernacle was only a model. Not with the blood of goats, but with His own blood. His was not an annual affair, for the high priest must each year offer, but Jesus once and for all, and is forever sitting down now at the right hand of the Father, until His enemies are made His footstool. But in the work of Aaron on the Day of Atonement, you find tremendous symbolism to Christ our great High Priest, going in and offering for us, and for our atonement before God.
Speaking of the Old Testament and the sacrifices, Paul the apostle tells us in Colossians that, “these were all a shadow of things to come, but the substance is Christ” ( Col 2:17 ). These things were all just shadows of Jesus Christ. He’s the substance. So Christ standing there at the division of history, casts the shadow in the Old Testament in the sacrifices and in the holy days. They were all shadows of Jesus Christ. None more important or powerful than this Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur, when the priest made atonement for the people, in the offerings we see the work of Jesus Christ.
Now there were two goats that were brought, and the high priest Aaron would take the two goats, and would cast lots on the two goats; one was for the Lord, and the other was a scapegoat.
Verse nine:
And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the Lord’s lot fell, and offer him for the sin offering. 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. And Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and shall make an atonement for himself, and for his house, and shall kill the bullock of the sin offering which is for himself: And he shall 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, and bring it within the veil: … And he shall take the blood of the bullock, sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward; and before the mercy seat he shall sprinkle the blood with his finger seven times. And then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the veil, to do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat: And shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and for their transgressions ( Lev 16:5-12 , Lev 16:14-16 )
So now on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement when the high priest, doing all of his work alone, no help on this day, even as Jesus alone bore our sins, suffered in our place.
Now the high priest would only come into the Holy of Holies one day a year, that was all. This was coming into the presence of God manifested there within the Holy of Holies, the mercy seat. On this Day of Atonement, he would enter the Holy of Holies three times. First of all, coming in offering the sin offering for himself. Then with the blood of the bullock as a sin offering for the people. Then with the blood of the goat as a sin offering for the people, coming into the Holy of Holies offering these sin offerings that God might make a covering of the sins of the nation.
Now this is the law of God for sin. As we get into a subsequent chapter, God deals with the importance of the blood, in chapter seventeen. He forbids any eating of blood, and in verse eleven He said, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes the atonement for the soul.” The covering, it’s the blood that makes the covering.
I point that out to point up to me what is a great disparity today among the Jews. Though they observe still Yom Kippur as the holiest day of the year, yet I have questioned the Jews, as to how they hope to have forgiveness of their sins. The standard pat answer that the Jew gives to me, as far as the basis for the forgiveness of his sin, is that Yom Kippur is now the day of reflection in which you think over your past year. You think of all of the evil things that you have done, and you think of all of the good things that you have done. Your hope and purpose is that your good outweighs your evil.
Now if you know some crooked Jew that’s been given you a bad time, you might go to him the day before Yom Kippur, because quite often this time of the year they’re really striving hard to make up for all of the other mismanagement during the year. So on the next day when they’re reflecting, they’re gonna come out okay on these balances. And yet the fallacy of it all, because God has established the basis for relationship with Himself.
The way that God has established the basis for a relationship is through blood sacrifices. For it is through the blood that atonement is made. God also declared in the law, “For without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins” ( Heb 9:22 ). Sin is that which has always separated man from God. Under the law there is not one word about balancing your good works against your evil. God made a covenant with these people, a covenant whereby they might relate to Him. A covenant whereby they might come to Him, but that covenant whereby they might come to Him was actually a covenant that involved the shedding of the blood of an animal. For it is through the blood that atonement is made.
Now one thing the law shows is not how approachable God is but how unapproachable God is by the normal man. Under the law there is no easy approach to God. There was only one man that could really approach God, and that was the high priest, and that was only once a year, and that was only after many sacrifices and many washings. So their own law shows them that God is unapproachable by them.
When I have challenged the Jew on this issue, he really has no real answer. But only gives you some of the lame things that the Rabbis have taught them, which have no scriptural basis. The Old Testament doesn’t really present us a God that can be approached by anyone, at anytime. In fact the sixteenth chapter begins, “And 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 to Aaron thy brother that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil.” You’re not to come here just anytime. You’re only to come here once a year. And then only as you follow all of the ceremony that God is laying out here.
Now if God was so unapproachable, then what makes the Jew think that God is any more approachable today? If He could only be approached through blood sacrifices, how do they think that they can approach Him with their own works, which God’s word in their own Testament declares is “as filthy rags in the sight of God.” In the Old Testament any endeavor to approach God, by any other method than the prescribed method by God, was considered by God an abomination. So they are not true to their own scriptures. Having forsaken the way of God, they have now thought to establish their own righteousness by their works apart from the law of God. As Paul said, “Those to whom the law was given never did attain to the righteousness that is in the law”. Because having departed from the law of God, they are seeking now by works to be righteous before God. Paul, in Romans shows the fallacy of their whole approach to God today.
Now we have an approach to God. Something that Israel no longer has. They don’t have any offering for sin, they don’t have any temple; they don’t have any high priests. But we have approach to God today through Jesus Christ, our great High Priest, who has entered into heaven for us, not into the earthly tabernacle made with hands, but into the very presence of God, the heavenly of which the earthly temple was only a model. There Jesus has entered in, and by His entering in was the sacrifice for us. He then flung wide the door, and said, “Okay, all of you kids come on in.” All the children who by faith, believe, and trust in Jesus Christ, now have a free access to God through the blood of Jesus Christ, and the blood of His new covenant that He has established with man. “Therefore let us come boldly to the throne of grace that we might receive mercy in our time of need” ( Heb 4:16 ).
What a beautiful thing we have through Jesus Christ. So we are not coming to God apart from a blood sacrifice. For it is the blood that makes the atonement. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. That is why Jesus shed His blood, and that is why God put such a high respect for blood in the minds of these people, emphasizing over and over, the high respect that they should have for blood, even the blood of animals. It is to teach them the high respect, so that when God’s blood was shed for our sins, it should be something that is held in highest respect, and reverence.
In Hebrews we are told that, “He who despised Moses’ law was stoned in the mouth of two or three witnesses. Of how much sorer punishment suppose ye he could be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and who hath countered the blood of His covenant wherewith He was sanctified an unholy thing” ( Heb 10:28-29 ). The reverence that God would have us to have in respect, God would have us have for blood, even the blood of the animal, how much more respect for the blood of Jesus Christ.
I shudder when people speak disparagingly concerning the blood of Jesus Christ. I shudder when people say, “Oh Christianity is a bloody religion.” I shudder when men like Voltaire say, “The blood of Christ, the blood of pigs, there’s no difference.” I shudder at such blasphemy. God wants you to have the very highest respect for the blood of Jesus Christ that was shed that your sins might be put away. But the glorious thing about Jesus Christ, and about His sacrifice for our sins, it was only necessary once, and it covered for all. We don’t have to bring sin offerings. His sacrifice was sufficient for every one of us, and has provided the basis whereby God can forgive you of your sins.
But let me tell you this, in the scripture there is no other basis whereby God can forgive you of your sins. There’s no way that you as a sinner can have fellowship with God until the sin issue is dealt with. Something has to be done about your sin. God is a holy God; there’s no sin that can dwell in His presence. Thus, for you to become one with God, have fellowship with God, something must be done about your sin. So no man can really have fellowship with God apart from Jesus Christ. The cross of Christ is to them that perish foolishness, but to us who are saved thereby it’s the power of God, whereby I’ve been cleansed of my sins, so that now I can come to God through Jesus Christ.
So the sixteenth chapter is absolutely a fabulous chapter to study as you see Aaron the high priest going in, sprinkling the blood before the mercy seat, making the atonement in the holy place for the uncleanness of Israel. That was with the blood of the bullock, and then going back in with the blood of the goat. The two goats, one was for the Lord, sacrificed as the sin offering. But the other one, the scapegoat, these speak of the twofold work of Jesus Christ. Jesus not only provides the forgiveness of your sins, but He also provides you power over sin, to separate your sins from you.
Now this second goat, the scapegoat, after having slain the first goat upon whom the lot fell and offering it as a sacrifice, he took the second goat and he laid his hands upon the head of this second goat. Over the head of the second goat, he confessed all the sins of the nation, transferring all of the sins onto this second goat. Then this second goat was led by a priest out of camp, out into the wilderness, and it was let go to just run off in the wilderness. It was the scapegoat, and it spoke of the separation of us from sin.
Now as the years went on there was a highly developed ritual that went with this as the temple was finally established in Jerusalem, there was a certain area where the scapegoat was generally released. There were men that would stand at vantage points all the way out to the Judean wilderness. The priest would be going out and the people would all be waiting back in the great area of the temple mount. The priest as he would lead this scapegoat into the wilderness, finally he’d come to the wilderness area where he turned it loose.
As it ran and when it disappeared, he would give a signal to the fellow back on the mountain peak, who would give the signal to the next guy, who would send to the next, to the next, to the next. And in just a few moments the signal would come from the Mount of Olives to those down in the temple mount that the scapegoat has gone, the sins are gone. There would be this great rejoicing of the people, the singing of the Hallel songs, the praises unto God, and as the news would come back that the goat carrying the sin was gone. I think of that great rejoicing when we realize that our sins are gone, never to be remembered again. Christ having borne them, carried them, and the victory, the power that He gives to us over sin.
So this Day of Atonement, the most important day in the Jewish calendar. It’s worthy to study and compare with Jesus Christ.
So in verse thirty-four,
This shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the Lord commanded Moses ( Lev 16:34 ). “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Lev 16:1-2. And 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: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.
The way into the heavenly places was not yet made manifest; the inner shrine, called the holy of holies, was specially guarded from human access. No one could have said in those days, Let us come boldly unto the throne of grace, for only the high priest could approach the mercy seat at all, and he must go within the vail strictly in accordance with the instructions given to Moses by the Lord. Nadab and Abihu appear to have entered into the presence of God wrongfully. They had probably been drinking, for there was a command afterwards given that no priest should drink wine or strong drink when he went into the house of the Lord. God in his righteous anger slew these young men at once, and now, lest any others should intrude into the secret place of communion, a law was given to tell when and how man might approach his God.
Lev 16:3. Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place: with a young bullock for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering.
There is no access to God except by sacrifice; there never was, and there never can be, any way to God for sinful man except by sacrifice.
Lev 16:4. He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on.
Our great High Priest offered himself without spot to God, and he is himself without sin; but the Jewish high priest must make himself typically pure by putting on the snow white garments of holy service, and before doing so he must wash himself with water, that he might come before God acceptably. None might approach the Holy God with impurities upon them.
Lev 16:5-6. 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. And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house.
These priests were sinful, and therefore they must first themselves be purged from guilt before they could come nigh to God; but the true High Priest of God, our Lord Jesus, needed to offer no sacrifice for himself, for he was pure and without blemish or stain of sin.
Lev 16:7. And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
These two goats were not for himself, but for the people. You must regard them as if they were but one offering, for it needed both of them to set forth the divine plan by which sin is put away; one was to die, and the other was typically to bear away the sin of the people.
Lev 16:8. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat.
One goat was to show how sin is put away in reference to God by sacrifice, and the other goat was to show how it is put away in reference to us, Gods people, by being carried into oblivion.
Lev 16:9-14. And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORDs lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. 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. And Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and shall make an atonement for himself, and for his house, and shall kill the bullock of the sin offering which is for himself: and he shall 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, and bring it within the vail: and he shall put the incense upon the fire before the LORD, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is upon the testimony, that he die not: and he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward; and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times.
This was his first entrance within the vail, with holy incense to denote the acceptance which Christ has with God, though he is always well-beloved, and dear, and precious to his Father. This incense sent up a cloud that veiled the glory of the Shekinah which shone between the two wings of the cherubim, and so the high priest was better able to bear the wondrous brilliance by which God revealed his presence. When Aaron had thus filled the place with the sweetly perfumed smoke, he took the blood of the bullock of the sin offering, and carefully sprinkled it seven times on the mercy seat, and on the ground around the mercy seat. What a mercy it is for you and me that the spot where we meet with God is a place where the blood of the great sacrifice has been sprinkled, ay, and that the ground of our meeting with God, the place on which the mercy seat rests, has also the blood mark upon it!
Lev 16:15. Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:
Twice, you see, is the holy place thus besprinkled, first with the blood of the bullock, and then with that of the goat.
Lev 16:16. And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.
If God is to dwell in the midst of sinful men, it can only be through the blood of the atonement. Twice seven times were the holy place and the tabernacle to be sprinkled with blood, as though to indicate a double perfectness of efficacy of the preparation for Gods dwelling among sinful men.
Lev 16:17-19 And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel. And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the LORD, and make an atonement for it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about. And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.
Even this altar, to which we bring our prayers and our thankofferings, has sin upon it. There is some defilement even in the saltwater of our penitent tears; there is some unbelief even in our most acceptable faith; there is some want of holiness about our holiest things. We are unclean by nature, and by practice, too, what could we do without the sprinkling of the blood? See how the Lord insisted upon it in the case of his ancient people, yet there are some in these modern times who deride it. God forgive their blasphemy!
Lev 16:20-21. And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat: 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:
Notice the all in this twenty-first verse: 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. This was the second part of the atonement showing, not sacrifice, but the effect of sacrifice, and explaining what becomes of sin after the sacrifice has been accepted, and the blood has been presented within the vail.
Lev 16:22-25. 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. And Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there: and he shall wash his flesh with water in the holy place, and put on his garments, and come forth, and offer his burnt offering, and the burnt offering of the people, and make an atonement for himself, and for the people. And the fat of the sin offering shall he burn upon the altar.
Only the fat of it, the best of it, was burnt upon the altar, for sin offerings were not acceptable to God. They were regarded as being filled with impurity by reason of the sin which they brought to mind; for this reason the bullock and the goat of the sin offering had to be burnt without the camp: Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate, as our sin offering. Yet, inasmuch as the fat was accepted upon the altar, so is Christ, even as our sin offering, acceptable before God.
Lev 16:26-27. And he that let go the goat for the scapegoat shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward come into the camp. 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.
All must be burnt; and the last is mentioned because it more strikingly sets forth the impurity of the sin connected with the sin offering. All must be burnt right up; there must not be a particle of the sin offering left unconsumed.
Lev 16:28. And he that burneth them shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp.
Everything that has to do with Gods service must be clean and purified by fire, and purified by water. An atonement cannot be made by that which is itself defiled; it must be without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing before it can put sin away; this is the virtue of Christs atonement, for he was altogether without sin of any kind.
Lev 16:29-31 And this shall be a statute for ever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you: for on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD. It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute for ever.
This shows what sacredness the Lord attached to the great day of atonement, and gives us more than a hint of the preciousness of our Lords atoning work for us. Now let us turn to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and see how the apostle spiritualizes the services of the Mosaic dispensation.
This exposition consisted of readings from Lev 16:1-31; And Heb 9:1-22.
Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible
The great Day of Atonement was perhaps the most important of the whole year in the Hebrew economy. On that day provision was made for dealing with the whole question of sin as known and unknown. When considering the sin and trespass offerings, we saw that in each case, in greater or less degree, the element of accountability was conditioned in knowledge. Sin, however, in the sight of God is still sin, even though committed in ignorance. All such must be dealt with.
Careful instructions were given for the observance of the day. It was the one day in the year on which the high priest entered into the Holy of Holies. Every arrangement was intended to impress the mind with the solemnity of approach to God and to emphasize the fact that man as a sinner has no right of access save as he approaches through sacrifice. It is significant that when the priest entered the Holiest of all he did not wear his gorgeous apparel, but was clothed in a garment of simple and pure white linen. Careful instructions, moreover, were given as to the attitude of the people on that day. They were to rest and afflict their souls, which means that the day must be observed as one of solemn fasting and humiliation in which they would remind themselves of the fact of their sin or the provision made for their cleansing and of the consequent right of approach to God in worship.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
the Offerings for Atonement Day
Lev 16:1-14
This chapter contains the ritual of the great Day of Atonement, when the high priest entered within the veil, and in virtue of the blood sprinkled upon the mercy seat, and still more of the faith exercised therein, Israel was cleansed from every sin before the Lord, Lev 16:30. The death of his two sons acted as a solemn warning that Aaron should not deviate from the prescribed ceremonial in the smallest particular.
Every step is worthy of notice, each illustrates some feature in the sacrifice of Calvary, each is meant by the Holy Spirit of God to signify something. See Heb 9:8-9. The first goat was for the Lord, representing the work of Christ in its Godward aspect. The second, like the second bird in Lev 14:6, signified its manward aspect. It is necessary that we should personally avail ourselves of its efficacy. Our faith must lay its hand on that dear head of thine! It was necessary that Aaron, as himself a sinner, must first offer for his own sins; and his offerings had to be repeated every year. See the triumphant contrast of Heb 9:24.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Lev 16:22
The solitude of the sin-bearer is something altogether distinct from the solitude of the Holy One. The solitude of holiness separated Him from sinners; but that separation, which made Him lead in His humanity a strange, lonesome life, yet brought Him into such full contact with all the glorious beings and the realities of the spirit-world, that such a solitude could hardly be looked upon with any considerable regret, or be the source of actual pain. The solitude of the sin-bearer is different from that of the Representative of holiness and purity.
Consider the causes of this solitude. (1) Wherever sin exists, it is an isolating principle. Its tendency is to induce seclusion and separation, to shut the person who is possessed of it from all connection with that which is outside itself. (2) The scapegoat was to bear upon its head all the confessed iniquity of the children of Israel, and to bear it into a land of separation. Christ was the Scapegoat of the human family. In the Epistle to the Hebrews we read that He, by the Eternal Spirit, offered Himself to God. The scapegoat finds the land of separation at last, all alone in the darkness. He bore our sins into the land not inhabited. No witnessing spirit can find them there; no denizen of those dreary regions can rediscover them. They are lost sight of by man; the angels find them obliterated from their view; and God Himself has turned His back upon them, and left them in the land of separation.
W. Hay Aitken, Mission Sermons, 3rd series, p. 267
References: Lev 16:30.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxxii., No. 1923. Lev 16:34.-H. Melvill, Golden Lectures, 1856 (Penny Pulpit, No. 254S); J. Fleming, The Gospel in Leviticus, p. 7; Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. ii., No. 95. Lev 16.-Homiletic Quarterly, vol. iv., p. 530, and vol. v., p. 8; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 371. Lev 17:8, Lev 17:9.-J. Fleming, The Gospel in Leviticus, p. 30. Lev 17:11.-A. Lindesie, The Gospel of Grace, p. 20. Lev 19:9, Lev 19:10.-Parker, vol. iii., p. 134. Lev 19:16, Lev 19:17.-Spurgeon, Morning by Morning, p. 334.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
IV. THE DAY OF ATONEMENT: IN THE HOLIEST
1. The Day of Atonement
CHAPTER 16
1. The command how Aaron was to enter (Lev 16:1-5)
2. The presentation of the offerings (Lev 16:6-10)
3. The blood carried into the Holiest (Lev 16:11-19)
4. The scapegoat (Lev 16:20-22)
5. Aarons burnt offering and that for the people (Lev 16:23-25)
6. The ceremony outside of the camp (Lev 16:26-28)
7. Cleansed and resting (Lev 16:29-34)
A brief rehearsal of the ceremonies of this great day of atonement, with a few explanatory remarks, will help in a better understanding of this chapter. The day of atonement was for the full atonement of all the sins, transgressions and failures of Israel, so that Jehovah in His holiness might tabernacle in their midst. On that day alone the Holiest was opened for the high priest to enter in. That all connected with this day is the shadow of the real things to come, and that in the New Testament we have the blessed substance, is well known. The Epistle to the Hebrews is in part the commentary to Israels great day of atonement. The way into the Holiest by the rent vail which is revealed in the Epistle to the Hebrews, was not made known on the day of atonement. The day itself was celebrated on the tenth day of the seventh month, and it was a Sabbath of rest in which they were to afflict their souls (chapter 23:27-29). What is called afflict was fasting, the outward sign of inward sorrow over sin. When this was omitted the atonement did not profit anything for whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people. Only true faith manifested by repentance gives the sinner a share in the great work of atonement.
Aaron is the central figure in the day of atonement. All is his work with the exception of the leading away of the scapegoat. Aaron is the type of Christ. Aaron had to enter the Holiest with the blood of sacrifice, but Christ entered by His own blood. Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us (Heb 9:12). Aaron had to come into the holy place with a sin offering and a burnt offering. Nothing is said about a meal or a peace offering. These would be out of keeping with the purpose of the day. As we have seen, the sin and the burnt offerings foreshadow the perfect work of Christ in which Gods righteous claims are met and in which atonement is made for the creatures sins. Aaron had to lay aside his robes of beauty and glory and put on white linen garments after he had washed his flesh in water. Christ did not need fine linen garments, nor was there any need in Him for washing. Aaron wearing these garments and washed in water typifies what Christ is in Himself. Aaron had to take next two kids of the goats for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. He had to offer the bullock of the sin offering (chapter 4:3). Such an offering for Himself Christ did not need (Heb 7:27). But Aarons offering was an atonement for his house. And Christ is Son over His house, whose house we are (Heb 3:6). The bullock offering made by Aaron typifies therefore the aspect of Christs work for the Church. The two goats were for the people Israel. Lots were cast by Aaron, and one goat was taken by lot for Jehovah and the other for the scapegoat. After the choice by lot had been made Aaron killed the sin offering for himself and his house. Then having taken a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar, with his hands full of sweet incense, he entered within the vail, into the Holiest. The cloud of incense covered the mercy seat. He then sprinkled the blood with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward and seven times before the mercy seat. How blessedly all this foreshadows Christ and His work! The incense typifies the fragrance of His own person, and the sprinkled blood is the type of His own precious blood, in which God accomplishes all His eternal and sovereign counsels of grace.
The blood which is sprinkled upon the believers conscience has been sprinkled seven times before the throne of God. The nearer we get to God, the more importance and value we find attached to the blood of Jesus. If we look at the brazen altar, we find the blood there; if we look at the brazen laver, we find the blood there; if we look at the golden altar, we find the blood there; if we look at the vail of the tabernacle, we find the blood there; but in no place do we find so much about the blood as within the vail, before Jehovahs throne, in the immediate presence of the divine glory.
In Heaven His blood forever speaks,
In God the Fathers ears.
Then the first goat was killed and the blood was also sprinkled in the same manner. And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins; and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness (verse 16). And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of the things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these (Heb 9:22-23). Christ brought the one great sacrifice on the cross and then entered into heaven itself. Having made by Himself purification of sins He sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. Christ Himself, in the Holiest, is the blood-sprinkled mercy seat. Aaron and his presence in the Holiest behind the vail is described in verse 17: And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, one for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel. We see again the difference which is made in the atonement for Aaron and his household and atonement for all the congregation of Israel. It foreshadows the atonement made by the one sacrifice of Christ for the church and for Israel. Israel, however, does not yet possess the blessings and fruits of this atonement on account of their unbelief. We shall soon see how this great day of atonement foreshadows the forgiveness of their sins in the future. The true priest having gone into heaven with His own blood and being there alone, the day of atonement is now. And we who believe and constitute His church have boldness to enter into the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He hath consecrated for us through the vail, that is to say, His flesh. This entire age is the day of atonement, and it will end when He comes forth again.
When the work was finished by Aaron and he had come forth again the live goat was brought. Aaron then put his hands upon it and confessed over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, all their transgression, and all their sins. All these were put symbolically upon the head of the goat and a fit man sent the goat away into the wilderness. 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. We cannot follow the different views expressed on the meaning of the second goat. However, we mention a few. The word for scapegoat is in the Hebrew _azazel. Some take it that _Azazel is an evil being. Inasmuch as it saith that one goat is to be for Azazel, Azazel must also be a person. Some critics claim that all this is a kind of relic of demon worship; such a statement is not only wrong, but pernicious. Others claim that the goat sent to Azazel in the wilderness shows Israels sin in rejecting Christ, and that they were on account of it delivered to Satan. There are still other views which we do not mention. Jewish and Christian expositors declare that Azazel is Satan, and try to explain why the goat was sent to him.
The best exposition we have seen on this view is by Kurtz: The blood of the first goat was carried by him into the holiest of all, on this day (on which alone he was permitted to enter) and sprinkled on the mercy-seat. The sins for which atonement was thus made, were put upon the head of the second goat, which was sent away alive into the wilderness of Azazel (the evil demon, represented as dwelling in the wilderness), in order that the latter might ascertain all that had been done, and know that he no longer retained power over Israel. This whole transaction expressed the thought that the atonement made on this day was so complete, and so plain and undeniable, that even Satan the Accuser (Job 1 and 2; Zech. 3; Rev 12:10-11) was compelled to acknowledge it. In the sacrifice of this day, consequently, the sacrifice of Christ is shadowed and typified more clearly than in any other, even as we read in Heb 9:12 : By His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
There is no need for all these speculations. Azazel is not at all an evil being or Satan. The Hebrew word signifies dismissal–to depart. It is translated in the Septuagint (Greek version of the Old Testament) with _eis _teen _apopompeen, which means to let him go for the dismissal. Both goats are for sin offering. The first goat represents Christ dying for the sins of His people. The second goat laden with those sins which were atoned for by the blood of the first goat, represents the blessed effect of the work of Christ, that the sins of His people are forever out of sight. It is a blessed harmony with the two birds used in connection with the cleansing of the leper.
And here the dispensational aspects come in. Before the transgressions of Israel could be confessed over the scapegoat and before the goat could be sent forever away with its burden, never to return, the high priest had to come out of the Holiest. As long as he remained alone in the tabernacle the scapegoat could not carry off the sins of the people. When the Lord appears the second time, when He comes forth out of Heavens glory as the King-Priest, then the blessed effect of His death for that nation (Joh 11:51) will be realized and their sins and transgressions will forever be put away. Then their sins will be cast into the depths of the sea (Mic 7:19) and they shall no more be remembered (Isa 43:25). That this is the true meaning of the scapegoat taking the sins of the people into the wilderness and therefore forever out of sight, we shall learn also in the twenty-third chapter. The feasts and holy seasons mentioned there are: Passover (redemption by blood); firstfruits (resurrection); feast of weeks (Pentecost); feast of trumpets (the regathering of Israel); the day of atonement (when Israel repents and is forgiven); the feast of tabernacles (millennial times). Israel therefore is unconsciously waiting for Christs return as their forefathers waited outside, till Aaron came back to put their sins on the scapegoat.
Of the many other interesting things for brief annotation we but mention the rest connected with this great day (verse 31). In the Hebrew Sabbath of rest is Sabbath sabbatizing. No work had to be done on that great day. The work was completely on Gods side, man must not attempt to supplement that work. But let us also remember the dispensational application. When Israels great national day of atonement and repentance comes, when they shall look upon the One, whom they pierced and the great mourning and affliction of soul takes place (Zec 12:9-12), the glorious Sabbath will follow. Rest and glory will come at last to them as His redeemed people, while the glory of the Lord will cover the earth and all the earth will have rest.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
Lev 10:1, Lev 10:2
Reciprocal: Exo 30:20 – die not Lev 4:35 – and the priest shall make
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
The opening words of chapter 16 carry us back to the early verses of Lev 10:1-20 where the sin of Nadab and Abihu is recorded. Certain consequences flowing from that sin are mentioned in the rest of the 10th chapter, but now we find that it furnished the occasion for the ritual of the annual day of atonement to be revealed. Verse Lev 16:29 of our chapter shows that it was the procedure to be observed on that day, and how it fitted into the succession of feasts that filled Israel’s year we shall discover when we come to Lev 23:26-32. For the moment we confine ourselves to what is contained in this chapter, viewing it in a twofold way.
In the first place then we have a type of the efficacy which in due time was to be found in the sacrificial “offering of the body of Jesus Christ once” (Heb 10:10) In the type two animals were needed, and each subjected to different treatment, so as to set forth the two aspects of the death of Christ, which we must carefully distinguish. When, however, we turn to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and read the latter part of Lev 9:1-24, and the early part of Lev 10:1-20 we find the word, “once” or “one” used no less than six times in regard to the anti-typical Sacrifice, which was one in its nature, and offered once for all. Just as two men – Moses and Aaron, Apostle and Priest – were needed to shadow forth the excellence and office of Christ personally, so two goats were needed to shadow forth the excellence of His work.
The details as to the two goats are given to us in verses Lev 16:7-10 and again in 15- The one upon which the Lord’s lot fell had to be slain and its blood carried within the veil and sprinkled upon the mercy seat and seven times before it; Aaron being enveloped in a cloud of incense as he did this. Here then is a type of Christ entering into heaven itself, having obtained eternal redemption. He entered once in the fragrance of His own perfection, and “by His own blood,” as Heb 9:12 tells us.
The blood sprinkled once only on the mercy seat sets forth the propitiatory value and perfection before God of the blood of Christ, the virtue of which lies in the infinitude and eternity of the Person who shed it. The cherubim were placed so that they gazed down upon the blood of the mercy seat, and that with complacency, since typically the claims of God on account of Israel’s sins for the past year were satisfactorily met. While we have in the type that which is limited and temporal, we have in the Antitype that which is infinite and eternal.
The blood sprinkled seven times before the mercy seat sets forth rather the perfection of the sacrifice in its application to men. It is a glorious fact that the redemptive value of the work of Christ will be displayed in a variety of ways. We, who are the Church today, know its propitiatory value, for it has met the Divine claims against us. But the same thing will be true as to a restored Israel, and as to the nations who will be blessed in the millennial age, and as to the eternal state which lies beyond that. But whether we think of the blood sprinkled once or as sprinkled seven times, all indicates the propitiatory efficacy of the blood of Christ, that is, its value as meeting all the righteous claims of the throne of God.
The second goat was treated in an entirely different way. Upon the first goat the lot fell “for the Lord.” The other was the “scapegoat,” or more literally, a “goat for going away.” Upon its head Aaron had to put his hands, and, confessing over it the sins and transgressions of the people, put them all upon its head, and then send him away into an uninhabited land by the hand of a fit man. Here we see in type not propitiation but substitution – our side of the matter rather than God’s. The actual word, “substitute,” does not occur in the Bible, but what it signifies is there, and first comes clearly to light when we read that Abraham offered the ram “in the stead of his son” (Gen 22:13). Here the sins of the people in their condemning weight were placed on the head of the goat instead of resting on themselves. Their sins were typically borne away by their substitute
When we turn to the Antitype the same truth meets us in the prediction of the prophet, “All we like sheep have gone astray;… and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all” (Isa 53:6). In this great verse two things strike us. First, it is “all we” and “us all.” Who are the “we” and the “us”? The people of God who confess their sins and believe in the Substitute. Exactly so; for while the propitiatory work of Christ opens the door in righteousness to whosoever will, its substitutionary effect is confined to believers.
But further, it is the Lord Himself who laid our sins on the Substitute. Aaron doubtless confessed and laid on the head of the goat all that he knew and remembered of the transgressions of the people, but how could he confess them all? A well-known hymn may say, “I lay my sins on Jesus,” but we may well be thankful that it is not left for us to do it. It has been accomplished by an act of God, and hence done perfectly.
But now, having briefly considered this chapter as a type, let us note in the second place the contrasts that it presents. The second verse indicates what is stated in Heb 9:8, Heb 9:9, that, “the way into the holiest was not yet made manifest.” And further, verse Lev 16:4 shows that Aaron could no longer wear his garments ” for glory and for beauty. ” The failure of the priesthood had supervened, and consequently he had to go in wearing holy garments of plain linen. The holiest was closed to all, save this one man on this one special yearly occasion. How great then the contrast with our Lord, who has entered the true holiest, even heaven itself, in virtue of His own blood, and who is there in perpetuity and “crowned with glory and honour.”
Again, Aaron had first to offer the bullock for himself and for his house, since he was, as Heb 5:1-3 points out, compassed with infirmity, and so had to offer for his own sins. Our High Priest is “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens” (Heb 7:26).
And further, there was no finality about these proceedings. They were to take place every year on the tenth day of the month, though we believe there is no record in the rest of the Scriptures of its being observed in Israel. Year by year it was to remind the people of their sins and give them in type a settlement of those sins, and a cleansing of the sanctuary and their earthly religious system. Hence, reminded of their sins, the day was to be one of affliction and mourning and cessation of work. Thus Israel was shown that in the work of atonement their works had no place.
Once more, we may note the contrast stated in Heb 10:1-4. In those sacrifices there was a remembrance of sins made every year, for it was not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins. What happened was that in His forbearance God “passed over” (the words placed in the margin against Rom 3:25) the sins that were committed before Christ died. Hence the word used so frequently in the Old Testament is “atonement,” the literal meaning of which is “covering.” In the New Testament that word does not occur – Rom 5:11 being a mistranslation. The rather, we read in Heb 10:18, that, “where remission of these is there is no more offering for sin.” The word for “remission” means “a sending away,” and not merely a covering. So in the Old Testament we find a provisional covering of sin in the forbearance of God, awaiting the complete sending away of sin, which was only accomplished by the death and resurrection of Christ.
Thus in Lev 16:1-34 we have a striking exemplification of the fact that the law had only a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, and that consequently these yearly sacrifices could not “make the comers thereunto perfect” (Heb 10:1). Have we ever thanked God in adequate measure that we are in the favoured position of being once purged, and therefore having no more conscience of sins?
Chapter 17 gives us a kind of appendix to all this, guarding against abuses that might so easily creep in. If sacrifices were offered, the animal must be presented at the door of the tabernacle and not slain elsewhere in the camp or outside in the open field. The evil practice that this guarded against is revealed in verse Lev 16:7, which verse also discloses that already the people had been infected with idolatry. We may remember how Stephen in his address – Act 7:42, Act 7:43 – charged the people with idolatry even in the wilderness. This shows how much the prohibition of verses Lev 16:1-9, was needed, and how it was disregarded by some, though perhaps not in a public way. Verse Lev 16:7 plainly says, “they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils;” and that “devils,” or more correctly “demons,” were the objects of such sacrifices is corroborated by Paul in 1Co 10:20.
The rest of Lev 17:1-16 is occupied with regulations as to eating. The blood, neither of beast nor fowl, was to be eaten for it is the life of the creature, and life belongs to God. This enactment specially enforced for Israel what had been laid down in the time of Noah after the flood, as recorded in Gen 9:4. So when the apostles and elders gave this injunction to Gentile believers, as recorded in Act 15:20; Act 15:29, they were not imposing upon them what was merely an item of the law of Moses, but rather a prohibition that applies to mankind generally. We do well to observe it, though we do not need to observe the extreme scruples of the Jews, as is shown by the instruction of 1Co 10:25.
An important fact is stated in verse Lev 16:11. The life of the flesh is in the blood, but atonement was only made when the blood was shed and “upon the altar.” The blood in the veins of the living animal effected nothing. Men, who profess to be Christian teachers, have taken the words, “the life of the flesh is in the blood,” and have made the attempt to prove from them the idea that the blood of Christ means the life of Christ, and that it is really His wonderful life that works salvation. But they only utter this falsity by ignoring what this verse states. It was not the blood of the living animal that made atonement in the type. It was only the blood “upon the altar.”
Three chapters follow – 18, 19, and 20 – which in many respects make terrible reading, but which, if read quietly as in the presence of God, are calculated to have a wholesome effect upon us. We are brought face to face, especially in chapters 18 and 20, with great depths of depravity, and it is a solemn and soul-searching thing to realize that we have within us that fallen, fleshly nature which is capable of such things as these. The sins prohibited have largely to do with the sexual nature of mankind, and it is today perfectly obvious that sins of that nature underlie a vast amount of the depravity and crime that fill every land.
The opening verses of Lev 18:1-30 show that the Lord was looking back on Egypt and forward to Canaan. Both these lands were in the grip of very degrading idolatry, and so Israel was exposed to the infection both before and after their wilderness journey. They were not to follow the evil but keep God’s statutes and judgments, and so doing they should live in them. This is the statement that the Apostle quotes in Gal 3:12. This doing was not “of faith,” and obedience would ensure not heaven but continued life on earth.
Lev 19:1-37 contains sundry statutes, many of which were designed to regulate man’s dealings with his neighbour, and at the same time display the gracious thought of God for those not easily able to protect themselves. In all this Jehovah asserted the glory of His name and manifested His own rights. This we see in such verses as 4, 12, 21, 26, 30, 37.
At the same time we delight in the care for the poor and the stranger manifested in verses Lev 16:9-10. If Boaz had not observed this regulation the Book of Ruth had never been written. Again the hired servant is protected in verse Lev 16:13, and the deaf and blind in verse Lev 16:14. Towards the end of the chapter honour is demanded for the aged, though such may be getting feeble, and the stranger is specially protected. All this displays the kindness of God.
In the middle of the chapter what we may call social sins and errors are prohibited. It is well for us to observe these things for they are not unknown in Christian circles. Especially would we desire to emphasize verse Lev 16:16. Who can estimate the trouble and sorrow caused by talebearers among the saints of God? It is connected here with standing up against the “blood,” or “life,” of one’s neighbours. To such a length will tale-bearing go. But notice the next verse. We are to rebuke our neighbour and not suffer sin upon him. The instruction evidently is: if you discern wrong or sin in your brother, go straight to him about it, and do not talk against him behind his back. If we Christians acted thus how much good would be gained and how much evil avoided!
Lev 20:1-27 opens with warnings against the very idolatry that Stephen had to accuse the people of, as we have seen, and verse Lev 16:6 adds to this a warning against the practice of spiritism, which, sad to say, has become so common in our day. Following this are verses that indicate that if we do not sanctify the Lord in our hearts we shall not observe the natural relations that God has ordained, whether parents, as in verse Lev 16:9, or other relationships as in verses Lev 16:10-21.
This thought is enforced in the closing verses of the chapter. The many statutes were given so that Israel might be utterly different from the corrupted nations into whose land they were going. The holiness of God is greatly stressed, and it is remarkable how many times the words “I am the Lord your God,” are repeated. Verse Lev 16:27 certainly infers that the terrible evils forbidden were largely introduced among the nations by spiritist practices – the trafficking with demons.
Lev 21:1-24 is occupied with special instructions for the priests, not only as to themselves but also as to their families. Special sanctity became such in their habits and their persons. Reading this chapter we perceive how serious was the sin of Eli in not restraining his sons in their evil ways. Even more stringent were the rules for the high priest himself, as seen in verses Lev 16:10-15. So when Caiaphas rent his clothes, as recorded in Mat 26:65, he definitely broke the commandment of verse Lev 16:10. It has been asserted by some who have investigated the matter, that every possible rule of justice, both divine and human, was broken in the condemnation of our Lord
What is ordained in verses Lev 16:16-24, is very striking. Any man of the priestly family, who was deformed or blemished, was debarred from going into the sanctuary and exercising his functions, but he was not to be deprived of priestly food. He should eat “the bread of his God,” though he might not offer “the bread of his God.” Today all true Christians are priests, and we cannot but think that something analogous may be seen. There may be those who, by reason of some grievous defect which is public, are debarred from public activity, whether in worship or in service, yet they are as much entitled to have their part in that which as spiritual food is the life of the priestly family, as the most unblemished and favoured of their brethren.
Lev 22:1-33 continues the same strain for the first 16 verses. The most rigid care had to be taken lest uncleanness of any sort was brought into contact with the holy things of God. All these regulations were clearly intended to impress the children of Israel with their own natural liability to that which was defiling in contrast with the essential holiness of God. We too need to be impressed with this, though the uncleanness we have to fear today is that which springs from within rather than from without. In our Lord’s time the Pharisees and others were misusing instructions such as these, treating such ceremonial observances as if they were the only thing that mattered. Hence the Lord’s word that, “those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man” (Mat 15:18).
From verse Lev 16:17 to the end of the chapter we have regulations as to offerings which might be brought by the ordinary Israelite or even by a stranger. Here the same intention is seen Every offerer had to know the holiness of Jehovah to whom the offering was made, and see that no blemish of any kind marked the offering, and that it was not some very small and feeble creature just born. All was to be done as God ordained. They were hallowed, and thus set apart, by Jehovah; and He was to be hallowed in the midst of them.
When we turn to the Book of Malachi, we at once see that the remnant of the people who had returned to the land, were violating these instructions in outrageous fashion. The priests were offering “polluted bread” on the altar of the Lord. They were offering “the blind for sacrifice,” and also “the lame and sick.” They were challenged to offer such things to the governor and see what he would say. Offered to him it would be an impertinence; offered to God it was a shameful sin. They were treating the statutes of our chapter as though they were null and void. Hence the reminder that the “law of Moses… with the statutes and judgments” (Mal 4:4), had not lost any of its force though a thousand years had passed since it was given. What God ordains at the beginning of a dispensation stands unaltered and authoritative at the end of it.
When we turn from the type to the Antitype we find as ever that which is perfect and in full agreement with God’s thoughts and demands. We have only to quote one verse in connection with that which has been before us. We know that we have been redeemed “with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1Pe 1:19).
Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary
Division 3. (Lev 16:1-34; Lev 17:1-16.)
The purification of the heavenly sanctuary and the earthly people. Christ’s appearing in the sanctuary and from the sanctuary.
We now come to the central division of the book, and, in other ways than this, the heart of it. If Leviticus be the book of the sanctuary -that sanctuary in which was enshrined the glory of God, it was on the day of atonement that this sanctuary was justified in its abode among them, and their crowning blessing secured. It was also the day in which alone the sanctuary in its innermost recesses was opened, and man in some sense drew nigh to God.
True, it was still but the shadow, and not the very image. The high-priest alone, not Israel, not even the whole priestly family, drew nigh; and he but for a brief moment, covered with a cloud of incense, and in the power of the atoning blood which he presented to God. The vail which was before God was thus only temporarily lifted, -that vail which through all the dispensations of law declared that “the way into the holiest was not yet made manifest” (Heb 9:8), as grace, founded on a better sacrifice, alone could manifest it. But for us that grace is revealed, and we are brought to God: we have the substance of the shadows; and for us, therefore, they can speak with a fuller meaning than they could have before. The epistle to the Hebrews is largely the exposition and application to us of this day of atonement; and we have thus an inspired commentary on it of inestimable value, and which gives corresponding value to the type before us.
Israel’s great day is for us also great; and we must seek with all possible care, and in dependence upon the teaching of the Spirit of God, to get understanding of it.
And for this it will be well to anticipate somewhat the teaching of the twenty-third chapter, and to see its dispensational place as there revealed. In this way many things of importance become clear to us, and the details alone capable of being grasped. The dispensational place is most intimately connected with its spiritual meaning.
In the twenty-third chapter, the year of the Lord’s holy seasons (they are not all “feasts”) gives us the cycle of blessing for the Church and Israel -the heavenly and the earthly saints. It divides, therefore, into two parts: the passover, first-fruits, and the “feast of weeks” begin the year; then, after a pause, another cluster is found in the seventh month, -on the first day, the blowing of trumpets; on the tenth, the day of atonement; and on the fifteenth begins the feast of tabernacles. The first group we have no difficulty in recognizing as specially our own: the feast of redemption, the sheaf of resurrection, and Pentecost. The second group begins with the blowing of trumpets, which, as the gathering of the congregation, speaks of the reassembling of Israel; then the day of atonement shows them in repentance taking refuge under the work of Christ; and lastly the feast of tabernacles brings in for them millennial blessing.
It is evident, therefore, that the day of atonement is here connected in a special way with the repentance of Israel in the last days, -the seventh month, or time of complete accomplishment of His purposes toward them; and this explains (whatever else may be found in it,) the meaning of the scape-goat, and that while the first goat is killed and its blood brought into the holiest for them when Aaron goes in there, their sins are not confessed and sent away from them until he has come out again. Just so will it be with the nation of Israel. Whatever preparatory work has gone before, (and such there will assuredly be,) yet as to the nation we are told, “They shall look on Me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for Him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born. . . . And the land shall mourn, every family apart. . . . In that day shall there be a fountain opened to the house of David, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness.” (Zec 12:10; Zec 12:12; Zec 13:1.)
It might be thought, however, that this still left open the question of time, and that the looking upon Him whom they had pierced was only poetic imagery for conviction under the gospel. But this difficulty is quite removed by the New Testament prophet, quoting and applying the older prophecy: “Behold, He cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see Him, and they also which pierced Him: and all kindreds of the earth” -the exact words, really, for “all the tribes of the land,” however capable of a wider significance, -“shall wail because of Him.” (Rev 1:7.) Here it is plain that it is in the day of Christ’s visible glory that Zechariah’s prophecy will be fulfilled, and with it the scapegoat also shall find its antitype.
So much is clear, then, as to the application to Israel. Having obtained it, however, we find no less clearly that the day of atonement begins long before this, and contemplates the Lord’s entrance into heaven as well as His return from it, this stretching over all the present time; and its fullness of meaning for us the epistle to the Hebrews brings out and develops. Brought thus far, indeed, it is not difficult to discover that in the priestly house of the sons of Aaron we have here (what we have seen in them elsewhere,) our own type, and that the day of atonement gives us, thus, a most comprehensive picture of the fruits of atonement both for the Church and Israel. We have to insert into it from the New Testament the rending of the vail, and then we are prepared to look at the details of what must have the profoundest interest and instruction for us.
In the division of this part of the book, commentators in general unite the seventeenth chapter with those which follow, rather than with the sixteenth. It is, in fact, however, as an appendix to this that it finds its real place and significance. The statement of what makes atonement before God is its central feature, and its connection with the day of atonement should be easily seen. It is, in fact, fundamental to the whole subject; and as we have already had to appeal to its teaching, so we shall find a necessity for such appeal once more, in order that there may be full assurance as to the interpretation of what is immediately before us. It is strictly a supplementary note, but of the greatest possible moment.
1. As a first section here, it is easy to characterize the sixteenth chapter: it is surely of the concord of divine righteousness with peace toward men that the day of atonement speaks, -the theme of the epistle to the Romans, especially in its first part, where, in Rom 3:25, the blood-sprinkled mercy-seat is brought before us: the word for “propitiation” there, which is rather “propitiatory,” is the word used in the Septuagint and in Heb 9:5 for “the mercy-seat.” The themes of Romans and of Hebrews are combined in this most expressive type.
(1) And here, first, we learn with what the priest must come into the holy place: it is, as we know, Aaron the high-priest, and no other of the priestly family can come in at all. This does not deprive us of access; it was a figure for the time then present; but for us the vail is rent: we have “boldness to enter into the holiest through the blood of Jesus.” (Heb 10:19.)
All through the day of atonement, except only in leading away the goat, and in carrying the sin-offering without the camp, it is Aaron who does all. As high-priest, he is the representative of the people, as he is the representative-head of the priestly house. Even the slaying of the victims is accordingly his work. This makes it easier to apprehend the application of this to Christ, that Aaron must enter into the sanctuary only with the blood of sacrifice. Thus the apostle, translating the type, says of Him, that “neither by the blood of goats and bullocks” -not necessarily “calves,” -“but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption.” (Heb 9:12.) The word here is dia -“by means of,” and its force in connection with the Jewish high-priest is not a question. He could not have entered apart from the blood of sacrifice. Of course this could apply to the Lord only in the official character in which Hebrews presents Him: no one dreams that personally He could not enter at any time, but as High-Priest, the representative of others, and of such as we are, it was otherwise: “the Son of Man must be lifted up,” He Himself says. (Joh 3:14.) Thus, “having obtained eternal redemption,” He entered in once into the holy place.
While this is surely true, what our eyes are at present fixed on is Himself. The white linen with which the high-priest is to be clothed shows the perfect righteousness which as man is His personal qualification to draw nigh. The robes of glory and beauty are not upon him. It is not a question of what He is officially, or even as the Divine Son. The first and all-important question is of His own ability to stand the test of the absolute requirements of divine holiness. Upon this amid the agonies of the cross everything hung: “He was heard for His piety.” (Heb 5:7, marg.) Bearing the awful weight of sins not His own. He vindicated by entire submission the character of God in imposing a penalty which was but the necessary requirement of His own nature; and God thus glorified, that nature demanded the deliverance out of death of the blessed Sufferer: “by the glory of the father” He was raised up from the dead. (Rom 6:4.) Thus the white linen garments are in necessary connection with the blood with which the high-priest enters the holiest.
Lastly, for the people also as well as for the priesthood He has an offering. These different offerings we are called to consider in that which follows.
(2) In the second subsection we have the presentation to Jehovah of the offerings: they are not actually yet sacrificed, but only presented to God. Scripture always distinguishes between this offering and the final offering up. It is the putting them into relation to Him and to their appointed work; and so Christ “through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God.” (Heb 9:14.) We also read that “He offered up Himself.” (Heb 7:27.) To offer to God was not in itself priestly work: here the high-priest does it because he is the people’s representative, just as afterwards he kills the victim. The priest’s work, as we have seen, begins after this, with the sprinkling of the blood, and the offering up upon the altar.
In the application of this we need the most careful discrimination. It has been contended by some, that thus the priest’s work begins “the other side of death,” and that Christ’s priestly work did not commence therefore until after death. But the offering up was priestly, and Christ “offered up Himself:” this could not be after the cross. If it be contended that here the shadow of the law was as “not the very image,” we might as well (and better) argue that this applies to the slaying of the victim rather. But this cannot be justified either, and, if the principle were admitted, all certainty as to the interpretation of the types would disappear. There can be conceived no reason why, if the spiritual meaning require it, the offerer should not as well “offer up” as slay the victim: yet there was nothing in the law more stringent than the prohibition of any such intrusion into the priestly office.
The failure of the shadows of the law to give the perfect image of the reality is of two kinds, and it would seem two only. One example of this failure is familiar to us in the rent vail. It was not something of which no account could be given, but had a definite lesson of its own, and a needful one. Its meaning was that the way into the holiest was not yet made manifest: the law could show no way. Thus this class of examples, as the apostle says, were figures for the time then present (Heb 9:9). -needful assurances of the weakness and inefficacy of law in its very nature. Of the other class of examples we can find one which bears very directly upon the matter before us. The death of the animal preceded its burning upon the ground or on the altar: in the antitype it was the reverse, the judgment upon sin Christ endured before death, and not after it; and the inversion of the order here has helped to occasion the very misconception of the priestly work coming only after death. Yet it is surely clear that this inversion is simply a necessity of a sort easily to be recognized, although the Spirit of God has none the less turned it to account. Thus from some natural necessity or from the character of the law itself this want of correspondence between type and antitype seems to arise. To imagine it where there is no such need is on the other hand to introduce unmeaning and causeless confusion into the inspired Word: no example of such a kind can be produced, it is confidently believed, from the whole range of Scripture.
“Christ by the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God;” and we find this apparently as what was implied in His coming to John’s baptism. It was the end of that private life of His for thirty years, in which in the fulfillment of His personal responsibility as man He was being manifested as the Lamb without spot. John’s baptism of repentance had therefore no claim upon Him personally, and to have come to it on His own account would have been a denial of His own spotlessness. “I have need to be baptized of Thee,” says the Baptist, from that point of view rightly, -“and comest Thou to me?” All thought of the Lord’s doing this by way of example for us is therefore a grave as it is a gross mistake. Was He a penitent? or one taking refuge by faith in a Saviour to come? No, He could be neither; and therefore could not mean by His action to put Himself in such a place. What, then, could it mean?
His answer to John is, “Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.” In His coming to it as a baptism of repentance He could not in righteousness own it for Himself; for others it obviously was the first step in righteousness that could be taken by sinners, -and for them how deeply significant! a baptism in Jordan, the river of death, a “baptism to death” therefore (Rom 6:4), to which the sins they confessed were their just title. Death was the righteous penalty of sin, which by grace they were thus permitted to anticipate, owning their guilt in view of “remission of sins” (Luk 3:3) through Him whom John preceded. Now He was come, and owning for them the righteousness of this confession of their guilt and of the penalty under which they were, His own fulfillment of righteousness is in going into death for them as their Saviour and their sacrifice. He is moving therefore from His former position as One fulfilling righteousness for Himself; He is taking position as One fulfilling it for others. And this implies for Him death, which He speaks of afterward, as the baptism He was to be baptized with, “straitened” by His love, and in the manifestation of it, till it was accomplished (Luk 12:50).
It is in this way, then, He takes His place under John’s baptism. It is His offering Himself without spot to God, and as this He is immediately proclaimed by the Father’s voice, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” And now the Spirit of God openly descends upon Him. He is anointed without blood, as we saw in Aaron’s case (Exo 29:7; Lev 8:12), and thus He becomes the “anointed priest,” to offer up the offering He had just presented.
All, therefore, is harmony, as in the Word of God it always is, -the offering first, and then the priestly offering up. From His baptism by John, the Lord goes forth as the Lamb reserved for sacrifice, and as the High-Priest whose offering up is of Himself. All glories unite in Him, and the pathway of suffering is indeed His glory.
And now returning to Leviticus, we find, along with the presence of the offerings, the diversity of the offerings insisted on, in their purpose and in their character alike. Of course they all have their fulfillment in His one all-comprehensive offering: but this is displayed for us here, in the different ends it is designed to answer, and in its diverse character as suited to those ends. And thus we must look at it.
First, we have the difference between the offerings for the people, and for the priestly house: for the former, two goats; for the latter, one bullock. We have seen the distinctive character of these -the goat and the bullock, and have only to see their appropriateness as offerings respectively for Israel and the Church. The goat is the sin-offering elsewhere prescribed for the prince and common person in Israel, as the bullock is for the high-priest, and the congregation at large; here for the congregation at large it is but the goat. Yet we must distinguish: for the congregation in Lev 4:1-35 includes the priesthood, while here the priesthood are represented separately; thus we see the ground upon which the congregation here represents the people of Israel simply, while there it stands for the redeemed as a whole.
The bullock thus as the offering for the Church gives us, as we have already seen, the Lord as the blessed Servant of the Father’s will: the goat speaks of simple substitution. Thus the bullock brings in directly the thought of the glorifying God as the goat does not. In the latter sin is seen as removed, and completely; but in the former case the incense-altar can be anointed in the sanctuary, -that is, in heaven (Lev 4:7; Lev 4:18). On the day of atonement indeed the blood of both goat and bullock is brought into the sanctuary, and put upon the mercy-seat before God, but the people are not brought in by it, and the scape-goat shows us the effect for Israel. But of this we must speak in its place.
For the people there are two goats, and here again is diversity; for they are separated to different work. This is given in some detail, and there are conflicting views as to the interpretation, which call for some examination.
Lots are cast as to the two goats, as to their destination: the one is said to be “for Jehovah;” the other “for the scape-goat.” In the last place, the Revised Version, with many critical authorities now, substitutes “for Azazel,” with an alternative in the margin, “or dismissal,” which would bring it back nearly to the old translation. Azazel is mere adoption of the Hebrew word, as to the meaning and application of which there have been so many different thoughts, that some are content to leave it as an insoluble enigma. And yet it is certain that the first two letters of the word are those for “goat,” and that it is a goat on which the lot falls; while the rest of the word is one which signifies to go away,” “depart,” and this is exactly what the goat does: why then should there be any difficulty as to the meaning?
Keil contends, however, that “the words, one lot for Jehovah and one for Azazel, require unconditionally that Azazel should be regarded as a personal being in opposition to Jehovah;” but this is his affirmation only: no one that had no theory to support would see any such necessity. But a long line of commentators, Jewish and Christian both, declare Azazel to be a name for Satan, and with this Keil agrees, and that the goat is to be sent away to Satan, for what purpose they cannot decide, for the simple reason that Scripture says nothing about it. The two goats are one sin-offering (v. 5) and of course a double representation of Christ, and the great point is, that the sins for which the first goat dies are taken away from the people on the head of the second “into a land cut off” -where therefore they cannot be found. All is as simple as can be, and needs no such weird invention to introduce confusion into it.
The fact that the two goats are one sin-offering meets another difficulty which has been found in the words as to the second goat, “to make atonement for him, to let him go as a scape-goat into the wilderness.” The common version escapes it by rendering “to make atonement with him,” but this cannot be maintained. Others would translate, “to make atonement over him,” but this is neither the force of the word, nor has it any plain significance that one can discern. The words mean regularly “to make atonement for him,” and the meaning is simple when we consider that, the two being one sin-offering, the atonement is made entirely by the first goat, which therefore makes it for the other: this solution of the matter, simple as it is, seems to have escaped the commentators. Its importance is, that what is done with it is defined not to be “atonement,” and inconsistent with the thought of its really making it; for atonement is made for it, to let it go. It shows also that the being let go is a real freedom, the result of atonement made, and that the “land cut off” is not death or its equivalent, as I once thought. It is as the consequence of atonement that the sins are borne away, and their being on the head of the goat does not mean penalty for it, but freedom for the people -a freedom which involves their sins being no more found.
Thus too the meaning of “Jehovah’s lot” becomes plain. The first goat is that, because it is the real sacrifice, while the other is “let go.” It is not a question of two parts or aspects of atonement; for the first alone really makes the atonement, while the other expresses the result for the people.
(3) And now we are to see the actual entrance into the holiest. First, for himself and his house. Aaron slays the bullock of the sin-offering, and then fills the sanctuary with a cloud of incense, that it may cover the mercy-seat; afterward sprinkling the blood of the bullock upon the front of it, and seven times before it, making atonement for the priestly house. He then kills the goat which is for the people, and does with its blood as with the blood of the bullock, making “atonement for the sanctuary because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins,” “for the tent of meeting which abideth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.”
The first point of inquiry here must be as to the meaning of what is the central feature of all, the sprinkling of the blood upon the “propitiatory” or “mercy-seat.” That it was for “atonement” is explicitly said, as in the next chapter the blood is stated to be given upon the altar for atonement. Here the mercy-seat takes the place of the altar, although afterward the blood is carried out to the altar, as we shall see; but the mercy-seat is first here and central, being indeed the “propitiatory” (as in Heb 9:5 it is literally) or the “place of propitiation or atonement.”
The “propitiatory” was the cover of the ark, as we know, and with it represented Christ, in its two materials of wood and gold, just as the altar of burnt-offering represented Christ in its two materials of wood and brass. If the mercy-seat were the “place of propitiation,” the altar (mizbeach) was literally “the place of sacrifice.” The altar, as the Lord Himself tells us, is that which “sanctifieth the gift.” (Mat 23:19.) The person of Christ is that which makes His work so precious and acceptable to God.
We have seen already that when Christ offered Himself to God for the baptism to death to which He was to be baptized, that then He was proclaimed of God the Son in whom He was well pleased, and anointed with the Spirit for His priestly work. Similarly the apostle connects God’s acknowledgment of His Son with His call to the High-Priesthood (Heb 5:5). Afterward we are shown Him in the suffering which was His wondrous obedience, offering up Himself (Heb 5:7-8; Heb 7:27), perfected as the Saviour, and for His work in the heavenly sanctuary. He rose from the dead, and having “by Himself purged our sins,” ascended into heaven, and “sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Heb 1:3). He was “raised again for our justification” (Rom 4:25), His deliverance from death being the public acceptance of His work on our behalf, and the clearance from charge of all those who by faith are His. The living bird, dipped in the blood of atonement, first sprinkles the leper, and then takes its flight into the open field.
It is of this entrance into heaven after resurrection that the epistle to the Hebrews speaks, -an entrance by ascension, which the Lord in His words to Mary on the day of His resurrection denies having yet taken place: “Touch Me not,” He says, “for I am not yet ascended to My Father.” With His ascension is connected His session at the right hand of God: “He was received up into heaven,” says Mark, “and sat on the right hand of God.” This was necessarily a thing done once, not needing to be repeated, and so is spoken of always in Hebrews: “We have such a High-Priest who is set down on the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens;” “by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place;” “but this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins, sat down forever” -or has taken His seat in perpetuity” -“at the right hand of God.” This is the true force of the last verse, though in the R.V. only given in the margin.
From all this it is plain that the entrance contemplated in Hebrews is after resurrection and by ascension only, and therefore in the value of a work already accepted of God. But this being so, it ought to be as plain that the entrance of the high-priest into the sanctuary in Leviticus is a type of the same, and that the blood he carries does not wait for acceptance when it is put upon the mercy-seat, but is put there as already accepted, to make atonement for the sanctuary: the work already looked at as complete is applied to this particular purpose. Thus the same blood, in the language of the Old Testament, can make atonement again and again, -that is, for every fresh object to which it is applied.
The purpose here is plain: “he shall make atonement for the sanctuary, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins, and so shall he do for the tent of meeting which abideth among them in the midst of their uncleannesses.” Thus in this picture we have exhibited what the epistle to the Hebrews calls the “purification of the heavenly things” (Heb 9:23). It is seen that the blood of atonement is that which vindicates the abiding of the tabernacle -thus of the divine presence -in the midst of a sinful people. And so directly after is the altar also purified, that it may remain among them to sanctify their gifts.
For us there is a higher blessing. Christ has entered into heaven, not for a moment, but to take His place in the presence of God for us, “a High-Priest over the house of God.” The vail rent in answer to His work accomplished, we have access ourselves to God in the holiest, and are invited to “draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith” (Heb 10:22). The holy and the holiest are now one, and there is no “first tabernacle” (Heb 9:8).
But this connects with another thing, which Hebrews does not enlarge upon, though it lays the foundation, and other epistles of Paul are full of it. The high-priest is the head and representative of the priestly family before God, and we are “seated together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” This in the Old Testament is necessarily as yet a mystery hid in God; and here we can only indicate a connection. There is none with Aaron in the sanctuary in Leviticus, and he does not remain there. In making atonement he is of course alone.
(4) The numerical structure marks, as it would seem decisively, the scapegoat as giving the result for Israel, the earthly people. This we have seen emphasized in other ways: prophecy is abundantly clear that while provision has been made for Israel long since in the work of the cross, it is only when the Lord appears that their sins as a nation will be put away. In this way the meaning of the two goats is perfectly simple, the first only being the Lord’s lot and the real atonement, the last being, however, in a sense and for a purpose quite evident, identified with it. Like the second bird, it typifies, therefore, the results of the work rather than the work itself,* the putting away of Israel’s sin at the time of the Lord’s appearing from heaven, but in virtue of a work accomplished when He went in. The two goats figure in this way but one sin-offering, which is seen in its Godward side in that which is Jehovah’s lot, and in its effect for the nation in the scapegoat.
{*Questions have, however, been raised as to the connection of these goats respectively with propitiation and substitution, so important in their bearing upon the nature of atonement itself, that it is impossible to avoid the discussion of them. It has been sought to distinguish them in this way, that propitiation is the glorifying of God by the work of the cross, -the satisfying of His nature, -in such a manner as to enable the offer of grace to be made to all men; while substitution is that which unconditionally takes away the sins of His people. He is a propitiation for the whole world, it is said, but He bears only the sins of the latter: “The Lord hath laid upon Him the iniquity of us all” applies in this way, for those whose sins are borne could never have themselves to bear them. This, therefore, if true as to the world, would necessitate universal salvation. Let us look, then, at these questions, and what they involve.
First of all, if these views are true, they involve an atonement for the world different in character from that for believers. The work of the cross becomes a twofold work, and there is an atonement which saves and one that does not save. If the believer is only saved by his sins being borne by Another (and this is substitution), then if every one’s sins are not borne, there can be no salvation, and no provision for the salvation, of any but the elect. Some, no doubt also, would accept this, and here is not the place to take it up: it is limited atonement of the most rigid kind, but does not allow of any “world” to which atonement can at all apply, except the world of the elect, nor of any propitiation which cannot save. As to this last, it is clearly right: a propitiation which cannot save is not in any true sense “propitiation.”
But if, on the other hand, a propitiation without substitution still can save, then is substitution itself needless and meaningless: there is no place for it any where. So far is this, however, from the truth, that it ought not to need proof for those who have but their Old Testament before them, that in a substitutionary bearing of sin lies the very essence of sacrifice -of propitiation. Thus is God’ s righteousness in the sentence upon sin maintained, in that which puts away sin; and in the Son of God becoming the substitute, divine love is maintained in righteousness. This is what propitiates, -not turns God’s heart toward us, which was never estranged, but enables Him to show mercy consistently with all that He is.
Then, as to the extent of atonement or propitiation, it is indeed “for the whole world” (1Jn 2:2), but not unconditionally: as it is elsewhere said, Christ is “a propitiation through faith, by His blood.” (Rom 3:25.) The word here is the word for the mercy-seat -the “propitiatory,” which does not touch the meaning. He is thus a propitiation for the whole world, conditionally upon faith, thus in effect for believers -an unconditional propitiation for believers. And substitution is (as all allow) for believers; “a propitiation, through faith, by His blood,” (as the R.V. rightly puts it,) binds together these two -propitiation and substitution -as equal in extent and upon the same condition for all.
“God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Here is the universality of the atonement, and the condition of faith wherever it shall avail. Election is a truth of Scripture, but it is never said that Christ died for the elect, either simply or in any special way. To the sinners at Corinth Paul preached as gospel that “Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures” (1Co 15:3), -that is, of course, for the sins of those whom he was then addressing; and the effect being conditioned upon faith, “all who believe are justified from all things” (Act 13:39), and “justified by faith,” -that is, when they believe. It is never said that Christ died for the elect, or that men are justified by their election, but by their faith. “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” (Rom 4:3.)
Believing sinners are thus the people for whom Christ died, a provision sufficient for the whole world, if the whole world would believe. Thus the offer of salvation can be truly made to all, and the responsibility of non-acceptance be truly pressed on all: “ye will not come unto Me, that ye might have life” (Joh 5:40). All this seems clear; the only real difficulty remains to be considered.
How could it be said in this way, “The Lord hath laid upon Him the iniquity of us all”? or that Christ “bare our sins in His own body on the tree”? Here habits of thought, and not the words of Scripture, create the perplexity. There is really the thought in the mind of what has been justly called a “commercial atonement,” a thought which if fully weighed will be found to lower the character of it, and which is foreign to Scripture, though built upon mistaken inferences from it.
In the day of judgment men will be “judged according to their works.” Every sin will receive its just recompense; there will be the infliction of “few stripes” or “many stripes.” Penalty will be strictly commensurate with desert.
Now, if Christ “bare our sins in His own body on the tree,” this principle has been thought to involve the strict penalty of these sins in full measurement being laid upon Him -so much suffering for so much sin. Here it is easy to see that if this be so, atonement must be strictly limited. To atone for one sinner, nay, for one more sin, He must suffer more. Then too if He suffered for these sins, those whose sins they were could not suffer for them. The highest Calvinistic view results: an absolutely efficacious atonement for those whose sins He really bore, and for others none whatever.
But Scripture says nothing of all this, and what it does say is inconsistent with it: a propitiation for the whole world would in this way be impossible, and so would the over-payment which the trespass-offering insists upon. Was the value of the cross indeed only sufficient to save just so many? or if the whole world had been saved by it, would there not have been an over-payment still? Yes, surely: for the power of the atonement and the glory of the work accomplished were not in so much deserved suffering meted out to One who had not deserved it, but in that death and wrath which were man’s portion proclaimed as the holy judgment of God by Him who went into them in a perfect love that was the full expression of divine love. The “substitute for penalty,” which some speak of here would not have done this; and the “equivalent,” which others advocate, could not be found. “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.”
And if our sins brought Him to this, as they did, why should we not be able to say that “Himself bare our sins in His own body,” as the sacrificial victim? or looking at the whole multitude of the redeemed, that, “Jehovah laid upon Him the iniquity of us all”? The sacrifice is truly, fully efficacious for all His people, and that not merely for a certain defined number, but limitless save by the unbelief that can “neglect so great salvation.”}
For us all it avails to show that the blessed sacrifice puts away sin for none until it has been confessed to God by those whose hearts have turned to Him in that repentance which is never separate from faith. It is a condition of the gospel, that “if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1Jn 1:9.)
(5) The first four sections of this chapter, complete the peculiar features of the day of atonement. The high-priest now puts off the white linen garments with which he went into the sanctuary, and returns to his garments of glory and beauty, his usual official dress. In this he offers the burnt-offering and burns the fat of the sin-offering upon the altar. We have already seen the significance of these two things, which add the positive side of acceptance in Christ to the negative putting away of sin and with this agrees the blooming out of color in the high-priest’s robe. It is like Joseph’s variegated coat, God’s recognition in delight of His Son, and upon this footing is man now with God, the meaning, as I believe, of the numerical place of this section; and briefly though it is given, how much would be lacking if we had not this!
(6) Next we have, in the burning of the sin-offering outside the camp, the way in which sin is overcome and removed, and which Heb 13:1-25 links so decisively with the entrance of the blood into the holy place. This too, then, has its necessary place here: its exposition has been already elsewhere given.
(7) Lastly, in connection with all this, we have a sabbath of rest appointed, in which all work is solemnly forbidden. In connection with atonement the meaning is most simple. Whether for Israel or for the believer now, no work of man must supplement the glorious work which has been done for sinners. On the other hand, the rest so dearly purchased for us is not to be received with light and indifferent hearts: Israel were to “afflict their souls” on the day of atonement, just as on the passover they were to eat the bitter herbs with the lamb. A humble and chastened spirit alone becomes those who enjoy rest through His toil, -a peace made through the blood of the cross.
2. The seventeenth chapter is strictly an appendix to the sixteenth, as has been already said. Its central thought is of atonement by blood, the testimony as to which, as a thing of surpassing importance, is enjoined to be maintained throughout the daily life.
Whenever ox or sheep or goat was slain by any, there was to be recognition of the need of atonement, and how it had been met. In fact, to one enlightened by the Word of God, all nature is full of such remembrances; but nothing speaks more clearly than this great natural ordinance that death should be the sustenance of life. Accordingly, every such meal God ordained to be in communion with the altar, a feast upon an offering. How blessed would it be for us if nature’s real lessons were known and laid to heart after this manner continually, and our common every-day lives thus lifted into higher meaning! Thus would God make Christ to be ever before our eyes, and fellowship with Him to be confirmed and strengthened -the things seen and temporal to minister to the things unseen and eternal!
As a provision against the wandering heart after other gods also, there is in all this deep significance. In truth, it is the unoccupied part of our lives -whatever in them is not positively consecrated to God -that betrays us to the enemy. We need to realize that in an enemy’s country as we are, and not only so, but on a daily battle-field, there can be no neutral ground. Whatever, as well as whosoever, is not for Christ is against Him. There is no place where sin will not gain advantage over us except the presence of God. “Thou art my hiding-place,” needs to be continually the language of our souls.
The eleventh verse, that in which we find the heart of the whole chapter, has been already considered. It shows us how it is the blood maketh atonement for the soul: it is because the life is in the blood; and to pour out the blood is therefore the sign of death, not of life, as some perversely take it: “He poured out his soul” -or “life” -“unto death,” is the inspired interpretation.
Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary
THE GREAT DAY OF ATONEMENT
When was the law of this chapter revealed to Moses (Lev 16:1)? This has led some to think that the chapter is misplaced and that it should follow chapter 10, an idea strengthened by the fact of its cutting into the middle of these laws concerning the clean and the unclean.
What prohibition is laid upon Aaron, and with what penalty (Lev 16:2)? Is there a suggestion here that the disobedience of Nadab and Abihu was aggravated by their entering into the Holy of Holies when they should not have done so?
With what sacrifices was Aaron to appear (Lev 16:3), and in what apparel (v.4)? What further ceremonial precaution must he take?
What is the offering for the people on this occasion (Lev 16:5-7)? What peculiarity is mentioned in the case (Lev 16:8-10)? What is the ceremony connected with the scapegoat (Lev 16:20-26)?
In what month and on what day of the month were these ceremonies to occur (Lev 16:29)? What kind of a day was this to be (Lev 16:31)?
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IT ALL
This Day of Atonement was the most important in the whole Mosaic system of sacrifices, for then the idea of the removal of sin received its highest expression.
To illustrate: It must be that countless sins were committed by the people collectively and individually of which they were unaware, and which were not covered by any of the daily offerings. If, then, there were not some great act of atonement covering everything to the fullest extent, the sacrificial system had fallen short. To meet this the law of the Day of Atonement was instituted.
On this day atonement was made for Aaron and his house (Lev 16:6); the holy place and the tabernacle (Lev 16:15-17); the altar and the outer court (Lev 16:18-19); and the whole congregation of Israel (Lev 16:20-22; Lev 16:33); and this for all their iniquities, and all their transgressions, even all their sins (Lev 16:21), i.e., unknown to everyone except God (compare Heb 9:7-9).
Notice further among other things, (1) that only the high priest could officiate on this day (Lev 16:17); (2) that he could do so only after certain preparations, among them the bathing of himself, the laying aside of the garments for glory and beauty and the donning of a vesture of unadorned white; and (3) that he entered the Holy of Holies sprinkling the blood even on the mercy seat in that secret place where no other Israelite might tread.
All these things impress us that the sin offering on this day, more than any other, symbolizes in the most perfect way the one offering of Christ who now appears in the presence of God for us.
The Scapegoat
The significance of the scapegoat is difficult to determine. The Revised Version translates the word by the name Azazel, whose meaning is not clear. Either it is a name of an evil spirit conceived of as dwelling in the wilderness, or else an abstract noun meaning removal or dismissal (RV margin).
If we take it in the latter sense, then the scapegoat may be regarded as bearing away all the iniquities of Israel, which are symbolically laid upon him, into a solitary place where they are forever away from the presence of God and the camp of his people. Thus to quote Kellogg, as the killing and sprinkling of the first goat set forth the means of reconciliation with God, so the sending away of the second sets forth the effect of that sacrifice in the complete removal of those sins as already indicated (compare Psa 103:12; Mic 7:19).
If, however, the word is taken as the name of a person, then the understanding would seem like this: Satan has a certain power over man because of mans sin (Heb 2:14-15; 1Jn 5:19 RV; Rev 12:10). To this evil one, the adversary of Gods people in all ages, the live goat was symbolically sent bearing on him the sins of Israel.
These sins are considered as having been forgiven by God, by which it is symbolically announced to Satan that the foundation of his power over Israel is gone. His accusations are now no longer in place, for the whole question of Israels sin has been met and settled in the atoning blood.
QUESTIONS
1. What makes the Day of Atonement the most important in the Mosaic system?
2. Can you quote Lev 16:21?
3. How does the Revised Version translate scapegoat?
4. If the word be an abstract noun, how would you understand its meaning?
5. If the name of a person, how?
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
Lev 16:1. This chapter would naturally have followed the tenth, where the death of Aarons sons is related, if that event had not given occasion for declaring the forementioned laws about those uncleannesses that disqualified an Israelite for approaching the sanctuary.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Lev 16:3. A young bullockand a ram. It appears from Num 28:29-30, that seven lambs and a he-goat were added to the sacrifice, and perhaps a thousand victims from individuals.
Lev 16:4. The holy linen coat. Herodotus, in Euterpe, says that the Egyptian priests are clothed with a linen robe only, and wear shoes made of papier wood.
Lev 16:8. The other lot for a scape-goat. Azazel, from Az, a goat, and zail, he went; referring to the goat sent away to the desert. So Buxtorf. Other critics would turn the words, The other lot for the goat sent to the mount of Azazail. In later times the Jews sent the goat to a rock, from which it was precipitated and killed; but we know of no such name for that rock or mount, nor does it appear to have been known to Moses. Vatablus supposed the mount to be near mount Sinai.The chief difficulty lies at the 26th verse, where the word occurs twice. Let the goat go for a scape-goat; the literal reading is here preferred by manyLet Azazail go for a scape-goat.
Lev 16:14. With his finger. Seven times he sprinkled upon the covering or mercy-seat, and seven times upon the pavement before the mercy-seat. It is remarkable that our Saviour bled seven times for us. His head was crowned with thorns, his back was scourged, his hands and feet were nailed to the cross, and his side pierced for our redemption. It is equally remarkable that the holy scriptures give us a sevenfold view of the atonement for all mankind, even as these victims bled for the whole nation of the Jews.
(1) Christ is the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.
(2) He is our vicarious sacrifice, having suffered the just for the unjust.
(3) He is the propitiation, or mercy-seat sprinkled with blood, for the sins of the whole world.
(4) We are redeemed with his most precious blood, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot.
(5) He is our peace, having made peace by the blood of the cross.
(6) He is the fountain in which the house of David, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the gentile hosts might wash their garments, and make them white as snow.
(7) In a word, he shed the blood of the covenant, which makes all its blessings forever our own. See Hebrews 9.
Lev 16:17. There shall be no man in the tabernacle. The highpriest might enter there, and that about four times in the year: for there is only one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.
Lev 16:21. Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over him the iniquities of Israel. Herodotus, who travelled in Egypt, says in Euterpe, When the Egyptians had carefully examined a bull to see that he had no defect, then they led him before the altar, and poured wine on the fire. After slaughtering the victim, they cut off his head and burned the body; and having loaded the head with maledictions, they took it to the market to sell it to the Greeks; but if they found no market with foreigners, then they threw the head into the river. This custom has a striking resemblance to the scape-goat of the Hebrews.
Lev 16:29. On the tenth day of the month ye shall afflict your souls. This is the day, says Maimonides, in which Moses descended from the mount with the second two tables in his hand, and announced to the people the pardon of their sins. On this account it is chosen as a hallowed day of repentance and devotion. This is equally admonitory to the christian church: we should review our errors, and confess our sins to the Lord.
REFLECTIONS.
The day that Moses descended from the mount, and obtained a pardon for the revolted nation, when they had sinned in worshipping the molten calf, was annually observed as a day of national atonement. Seven days before the arrival of this great day, the highpriest retired to his chamber, and began to sanctify his person. Each of these seven days he officiated at the altar, inuring himself to the sacred service. The festival was observed with the greatest solemnity; every one was enjoined to abstain from meat and labour, under the penalty of excommunication.
The highpriest thus purified, put off his splendid costume; and putting on white robes, proceeded to the sacred duties of the day. This was to offer a bullock for a sin-offering, and a ram for a burnt-offering, that his own sins might be expiated before he dared to approach the Lord in behalf of the nation. In these preparatory oblations, we see the superior glory of Christ, who laid aside his robes of glory and majesty; and being arrayed in innocence, proceeded to make atonement for our transgressions. Sinners also may learn hence to approach the Lord, not in the splendid fashions of the day, but in humility of heart, and with penitential confessions of sin. Then it is that our great Highpriest enters into the heavens by his own blood, covers the throne of God with a cloud of incense, and pleads the atonement of his death for the pardon of our transgressions.
The second scene of this august festival was, the two young goats presented at the door of the tabernacle in behalf of the people. That for the altar was not accepted by choice, but determined by lot. This should teach sinners, that they are not accepted of God for any worthiness of their own, but conformably to the grace and covenant of God. The priest next took the other goat, and laying his hand on its head he confessed over it, in a most solemn and devotional way, the sins of the nation; and then tying a scarlet bandage round its horns, he sent it to the desert. In later times it was sent to a promontory about twelve miles from Jerusalem: and being pushed from the summit of the rock, was dashed in pieces by the fall. Men were arranged at different distances, with white clothes, to give the signal one to another when the goat had arrived in the desert. Hence, in less than a minute, by this ancient kind of telegraph, the penitent nation were apprized of the arrival of the animal in the wilderness. In these goats we see again a most significant figure of the propitiation made by Jesus Christ for sin. See him, like the first goat, endure part of his sufferings in Jerusalem, and the other part on the rock of Calvary. Behold him red in his apparel, as the goat with the scarlet thread; but it was that our sins, whose tints are deep like scarlet and crimson, might be white as snow; it was that our sins might be buried in his grave, and be remembered no more for ever.
Oh Lord, open thou mine eyes, to behold wonderful things out of thy law. Let me see in all these victims, laden with iniquity and dying for sin, the love of my Redeemer, who bare our sins in his own body on the tree. Let me see in the hallowed altar smoking with victims, in the censer covering the mercy-seat with a cloud of perfumes; let me see in the spotless person of this priest, the more glorious person of Christ, atoning by his death, pleading by his merit, and giving me, a sinner, boldness of access by the richest invitations of his love. In the millions of Israel and of the proselytes let me see the converted multitudes, waiting in thy courts for acceptance, and an entrance into the holy of holies, which was denied them while on earth. Let me see in the victim dragged into the desert, the joyful tidings of the Messiah crucified, and then carried to the gentile world. Let many nations be sprinkled with his blood, and let Ethiopia soon stretch out her hands to God.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Leviticus 16
This chapter unfolds some of the weightiest principles of truth which can possibly engage the renewed mind. It presents the doctrine of atonement with uncommon fullness and power. In short, we must rank the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus amongst the most precious and important sections of Inspiration; if indeed it be allowable to make comparisons where all is divine.
Looking at this chapter, historically, it furnished a record of the transactions of the great day of atonement in Israel, whereby Jehovah’s relationship with the assembly was established and maintained, and all the sins, failures, and infirmities of the people fully atoned for, so that the Lord God might dwell among them. The blood which was shed upon this solemn day formed the basis of Jehovah’s throne in the midst of the congregation. In virtue of it, a holy God could take up His abode in the midst of the people, notwithstanding all their uncleanness. “The tenth day of the seventh month” was a unique day in Israel. There was no other day in the year like it. The sacrifices of this one day formed the ground of God’s dealing in grace, mercy, patience, and forbearance.
Furthermore, we learn from this portion of inspired history,” that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest.” God was hidden behind a veil and man was at a distance. “And 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 unto the holy place within the veil before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark, that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.”
The way was not open for man to approach, at all times, into the divine presence, nor was there any provision, in the entire range of the Mosaic ritual, for his abiding there continually. God was shut in from man; and man was shut out from God, nor could “the blood of bulls and goats” open a permanent meeting place; “A sacrifice of nobler name and richer blood” was needed to accomplish this. “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? Because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.” (Heb. 10: 1-4) Neither the Levitical priesthood nor the Levitical sacrifices, could yield perfection. Insufficiency was stamped on the latter, infirmity on the former, imperfection on both. An imperfect man could not be a perfect priest; nor could an imperfect sacrifice give a perfect conscience. Aaron was not competent or entitled to take his seat within the veil, nor could the sacrifices which he offered rend that veil.
Thus much as to our chapter, historically. Let us now look at it typically.
“Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place: with a young bullock for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering.” (Ver. 3) Here, we have the two grand aspects of Christ’s atoning work, as that which perfectly maintains the divine glory, and perfectly meets man’s deepest need. There is no mention, throughout all the services of this unique and solemn day, of a meat offering, or a peace offering. The perfect human life of our blessed Lord is not foreshadowed, here, nor is the communion of the soul with God, consequent upon His accomplished work, unfolded. In a word, the one grand subject is “atonement,” and that in a double way namely, first, as meeting all the claims of God – the claims of His nature – the claims of His character – the claims of His throne; and, secondly, as perfectly meeting all man’s guilt and all his necessities. We must bear these two points in mind, if we would have a clear understanding of the truth presented in this chapter, or of the doctrine of the great day of atonement. “Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place,” with atonement, as securing the glory of God, in every possible way, whether as respects His counsels of redeeming love toward the church, toward Israel, and toward the whole creation, or in reference to all the claims of His moral administration; and with atonement as fully meeting man’s guilty and needy condition. These two aspects of the atonement will continually present themselves to our view as we ponder the precious contents of our chapter. Their importance cannot possibly be overestimated.
“He shall put on the holy linen coat, and be shall have the linen breeches upon his Flesh, and he shell be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on. (Ver. 4) Aaron’s person, washed in pure water, and robed in the white linen garments, furnishes a lovely and impressive type of Christ entering upon the work of atonement. He is seen to be personally and characteristically pure and spotless. “For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.” (John 17: 19) It is peculiarly precious to be called, as it were, to gaze upon the Person of our divine Priest, in all His essential holiness. The Holy Ghost delights in every thing that unfolds Christ to the view of His people; and wherever we behold Him, we see Him to be the same spotless, perfect, glorious, precious, peerless Jesus, “the fairest among ten thousand, yea, altogether lovely.” He did not need to do or to wear anything, in order to be pure and spotless. He needed no pure water, no fine linen. He was, intrinsically and practically, “the holy One of God.” What Aaron did, and what he wore – the washing and the robing, are but the faint shadows of what Christ is. The law had only a “shadow,” and “not the very image of good things to come.” Blessed be God, we have not merely the shadow, but the eternal and divine reality – Christ Himself.
“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. And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, Which is for himself, and make atonement for himself and for his house.” (Ver. 5, 6) Aaron and his house represent the Church, not indeed as the “one body,” but as a priestly house. It is not the Church as we find it developed in Ephesians and Colossians, but rather as we find it in the First Epistle of Peter, in the following well-known passage: “Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 2: 5) So also in Hebrews: “But Christ as a Son over His own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.” (Heb. 3: 6) We must ever remember that there is no revelation of the mystery of the Church in the Old Testament. Types and shadows there are, but no revelation. That wondrous mystery of Jew and Gentile forming “one body,” “one new man,” and united to a glorified Christ in heaven, could not, as is obvious, be revealed until Christ had taken His place above. Of this mystery Paul was, pre-eminently, made a steward and a minister, as he tells us in Ephesians 3: 1-12, a passage which I would commend to the prayerful attention of the Christian reader.
“And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat. And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the Lord’s lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. 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.” (Ver. 7-10) In these two goats, we have the two aspects of atonement already referred to. “The Lord’s lot “fell upon one; and the people’s lot fell upon the other. In the case of the former, it was not a question of the persons or the sins which were to be forgiven, nor of God’s counsels of grace toward His elect. These things, I need hardly say, are of infinite moment; but they are not involved in the case of “the goat on which the Lord’s lot fell.” This latter typifies the death of Christ as that wherein God has been perfectly glorified, with respect to sin in general. This great truth is fully set forth in the remarkable expression, “the Lord’s lot.” God has a peculiar portion in the death of Christ – a portion quite distinct – a portion which would hold eternally good even though no sinner were ever to be saved. In order to see the force of this, it is needful to bear in mind how God has been dishonoured in this world. His truth has been despised. His authority has been contemned. His majesty has been slighted. His law has been broken. His claims have been disregarded. His name has been blasphemed. His character has been traduced.
Now, the death of Christ has made provision for all this. It has perfectly glorified God in the very place where all these things have been done. It has perfectly vindicated the majesty, the truth, the holiness, the character of God. It has divinely met all the claims of His throne. It has atoned for sin. It has furnished a divine remedy for all the mischief which sin introduced into the universe. It affords a ground on which the blessed God can act in Grace, mercy, and forbearance toward all. It furnishes a warrant for the eternal expulsion and perdition of the prince of this world. It forms the imperishable foundation of God’s moral government. In virtue of the cross, God can act according to His own sovereignty. He can display the matchless glories of His character, and the adorable attributes of His nature. He might, in the exercise of inflexible justice, have consigned the human family to the lake of fire, together with the devil and his angels. But, in that case, where would be His love, His grace, His mercy, His kindness, His long-suffering, His compassion, His patience, His perfect goodness?
Then, on the other hand, had these precious attributes been exercised, in the absence of atonement, where were the justice, the truth, the majesty, the holiness, the righteousness, the governmental claims, yea, the entire moral glory of God! How could “mercy and truth meet together?” or “righteousness and peace kiss each other” How could “truth spring out of the earth” or “righteousness look down from heaven?” Impossible. Nought save the atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ could have fully glorified God; but that has glorified Him. It has reflected the full glory of the divine character, as it never could have been reflected amid the brightest splendours of an unfallen creation. By means of that atonement, in prospect and retrospect, God has been exercising forbearance toward this world, for well nigh six thousand years. In virtue of that atonement, the most wicked, daring, and blasphemous of the sons of men “live, move, and have their being;” eat, drink, and sleep. The very morsel which yonder open blaspheming infidel puts into his mouth, he owes to the atonement which he knows not, but impiously ridicules. The sunbeams and showers which fertilise the fields of the atheist, reach him in virtue of the atonement of Christ. Yea, the very breath which the infidel and the atheist spend in blaspheming God’s revelation, or denying His existence, they owe to the atonement of Christ. Were it not for that precious atonement, instead of blaspheming upon earth, they would be weltering in hell.
Let not my reader misunderstand me, I speak not here of the forgiveness or salvation of persons. This is quite another thing, and stands connected, as every true Christian knows, with the confession of the name of Jesus, and the hearty belief that God raised Him from the dead. (Rom. 10) This is plain enough, and fully understood; but it is in no wise involved in that aspect of the atonement which we are, et present, contemplating, and which is so strikingly foreshadowed by “the goat on which the Lord’s lot fell.” God’s pardoning and accepting a sinner is one thing; His bearing with that man, and showering temporal blessings upon him, is quite another. Both are in virtue of the cross, but in a totally different aspect and application thereof.
Nor is this distinction, by any means, unimportant. Quite the opposite. Indeed, so important is it that where it is overlooked, there must be confusion as to the full doctrine of atonement. Nor is this all. A clear understanding of God’s ways in government, whether in the past, the present, or the future, will be found involved in this profoundly interesting point. And, finally, in it will be found the key wherewith to expound a number of texts in which many Christians find considerable difficulty. I shall just adduce two or three of these passages as examples.
“Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” (John 1: 29) With this we may connect a kindred passage in John’s first epistle, is which the Lord Jesus Christ is spoken of as” the propitiation for the whole world.” (1 John 2: 2)* In both these passages the Lord Jesus is referred to as the One who has perfectly glorified God with respect to “Sin” and “the world,” in their broadest acceptation. He is here seen as the great Antitype of “the goat on which the Lord’s lot fell.” This gives us a most precious view of the atonement of Christ, and one which is too much overlooked, or not clearly apprehended. Whenever the question of persons and the forgiveness of sins is raised, in connection with these and kindred passages of scripture, the mind is sure to get involved in insuperable difficulties.
{*The reader will observe, in the above passage, that the words “the sins of” are introduced by the translators, and are not inspired. The divine accuracy of the passage is completely lost by retaining those uninspired words. The doctrine laid down is surely this – in the first clause of the verse Christ is set forth as the propitiation For His people’s actual sins; but in the last clause, it is not a question of sins or of persons at all, but of sin and the world in general. In fact, the whole verse presents Christ as the Antitype of the two goats, as the One who has borne His people’s sins; and, also. as the One who has perfectly glorified God with respect to sin in general, and made provision for dealing in grace with the world at large, and for the final deliverance and blessing of the whole creation.}
So, also, with respect to all those passages in which God’s grace to the world at large is presented. They are founded upon that special aspect of the atonement with which we are more immediately occupied. “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” (Mark 16) “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have everlasting life, For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world ; but that the world through him might be saved.” (John 3: 16, 17) “I exhort, therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” (1 Tim. 2: 1-6) “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,” (Titus 2: 11) “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that He by the grace of God should taste death for every man. (Heb. 2: 9) “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3: 9)
There is no need whatsoever for seeking to avoid the plain sense of the above and similar passages. They bear a clear and unequivocal testimony to divine grace toward all, without the slightest reference to man’s responsibility, on the one hand, or to God’s eternal counsels, on the other. These things are just as clearly, just as fully, just as unequivocally, taught in the word. Man is responsible, and God is sovereign. All who bow to Scripture admit these things. But, at the same lime, it is of the very last importance to recognise the wide aspect of the grace of God, and of the cross of Christ. It glorifies God and leaves man wholly without excuse. Men argue about God’s decrees and man’s incompetency to believe without divine influence. Their arguments prove that they do not want God; for did they only want Him, He is near enough to be found of them. The grace of God, and the atonement of Christ, are as wide as they could desire. “Any” – “every” – “whosoever” – and “all,” are God’s own words; and I should like to know who is shut out. If God sends a message of salvation to a man, He surely intends it for him; and what can be more wicked and impious than to reject God’s grace, and make Him a liar, and then give His secret decrees as a reason for so doing. It would be, in a certain sense, honest for a man to say at once, “The fact is, I do not believe God’s word, and I do not want His grace or His salvation.” One could understand this; but for men to cover their hatred of God and His truth with the drapery of a false because one-sided theology, is the very highest character of wickedness. It is such as to make us feel, of a truth, that the devil is never more diabolical than when he appears with the Bible in his hand.
If it be true that men are prevented, by God’s secret decrees and counsels, from receiving the gospel which He has commanded to be preached to them, then on what principle of righteousness will they be “punished with everlasting destruction” for not obeying that gospel? (2 Thess. 1: 6-10) Is there a single soul throughout all the gloomy regions of the lost who blames God’s counsels for his being there? Not one. Oh! no; God has made such ample provision in the atonement of Christ, not only for the salvation of those that believe, but also for the aspect of His grace toward those that reject the gospel, that there is no excuse. It is not because a man cannot, but because he will not believe that he “shall be punished with everlasting destruction.” Never was there a more fatal mistake than for a man to ensconce himself behind God’s decrees while deliberately and intelligently refusing God’s grace; and this is all the more dangerous, because supported by the dogmas of a one-sided theology. God’s grace is free to all; and if we ask, How is this? the answer is, “Jehovah’s lot” fell upon the true victim, in order that He might be perfectly glorified as to sin, in its widest aspect, and be free to act in grace toward all, and “preach the gospel to every creature.” This grace and this preaching must have a solid basis, and that basis is found in the atonement; and though man should reject, God is glorified in the exercise of grace, and in the offer of salvation, because of the basis on which both the one and the other repose. He is glorified, and He shall be glorified, throughout eternity’s countless ages. (“Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again . . . . . Now is the judgement of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all unto me.” (John 12: 27-32.)
Thus far we have been occupied only with one special point, namely, “the goat on which the Lord’s lot fell;” and a cursory reader might suppose that the next thing in order would be the scape-goat, which gives us the other great aspect of the death of Christ, or its application to the sins of the people. But no: ere we come to that, we have the fullest confirmation of that precious line of truth which has been before us, in the fact that the blood of the slain goat, together with the blood of the bullock, was sprinkled upon, and before, Jehovah’s throne, in order to show that all the claims of that throne were answered in the blood of atonement, and full provision made for all the demands of’ God’s moral administration.
“And Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin offering which is for himself, and shall make an atonement for himself, and for his house, and shall kill the bullock of the sin offering which is for himself. And he shall 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, and bring it within the veil. And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the Lord, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy-seat that is upon the testimony, that he die not.” Here we have a most vivid and striking presentation indeed. The blood of atonement is carried in within the veil, into the holiest of all, and there sprinkled upon the throne of the God of Israel. The cloud of the divine presence was there; and in order that Aaron might appear in the immediate presence of the glory, and not die, “the cloud of incense” ascends and “covers the mercy-seat,” on which the blood of atonement was to be sprinkled “seven times.” The “sweet incense beaten small” expresses the fragrance of Christ’s Person – the sweet odour of His most precious sacrifice.
“And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy-seat eastward; and before the mercy-seat shall he sprinkle of the Blood with his finger seven times. Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people, and bring his blood within the veil, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy-seat, and before tile mercy-seat.” (Ver. 14, 15.) “Seven” is the perfect number; and in the sprinkling of the blood seven times before the mercy-seat we learn that whatever be the application of the atonement of Christ, whether as to things, to places, or to persons, it is perfectly estimated in the divine presence. The blood which secures the salvation of the Church – the “house” of the true Aaron; the blood which secures the salvation of the “congregation” of Israel; the blood which secures the final restoration and blessedness of the whole creation – that blood has been presented before God, sprinkled and accepted according to all the perfectness, fragrance, and preciousness of Christ. In the power of that blood God can accomplish all His eternal counsels of grace. He can save the Church, and raise it into the very loftiest heights of glory and dignity, despite of all the power of sin and Satan. He can restore Israel’s scattered tribes – He can unite Judah and Ephraim – He can accomplish all the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He can save and bless untold millions of the Gentiles. He can restore and bless the wide creation. He can allow the beams of His glory to lighten up the universe for ever. He can display, in the view of angels, men, and devils, His own eternal glory – the glory of His character – the glory of His nature – the glory of His works – the glory of His government. All this He can do, and will do; but the one solitary pedestal upon which the stupendous fabric of glory shall rest, for ever, is the blood of the cross – that precious blood, dear Christian reader, which has spoken peace, divine and everlasting peace, to your heart and conscience, in the presence of Infinite Holiness. The blood which is sprinkled upon the believer’s conscience has been sprinkled” seven times” before the throne of God. The nearer we get to God, the more importance and value we find attached to the blood of Jesus. If we look at the brazen altar, we find the blood there; if we look at the brazen laver, we find the blood there; if we look at the golden altar, we find the blood there; if we look at the veil of the tabernacle, we find the blood there: but in no place do we find so much about the blood, as within the veil, before Jehovah’s throne, in the immediate presence of the divine glory.
In heaven His blood for ever speaks,
In God the Father’s ears.”
“And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.” The same truth meets us all along. The claims of the sanctuary must be provided for. Jehovah’s courts, as well as His throne, must bear witness to the value of the blood. The tabernacle, in the midst of Israel’s uncleanness, must be fenced round about by the divine provisions of atonement. Jehovah provided, in all things, for His own glory. The priests and their priestly service, the place of worship, and all therein, must stand in the power of the blood. The Holy One could not have remained, for a moment, in the midst of the congregation, were it not for the power of the blood! It was that which left Him free to dwell, and act, and rule, in the midst of an erring people.
“And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel.” (Ver. 17) Aaron needed to offer up sacrifice for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people. He could only enter into the sanctuary in the power of the blood. We have, in verse 17, a type of the atonement of Christ in its application both to the church and to the congregation of Israel. The church now enters into the holiest by the Blood of Jesus. (Heb. 10) As to Israel, the veil is still on their hearts. (2 Cor. 3) They are still at. a distance, although full provision has been made in the cross for their forgiveness and restoration when they shall turn to the Lord. This. entire period is, properly speaking, the day of atonement. The true Aaron is gone in with His own blood, into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us. By and by, He will come forth to lead the congregation of Israel into the full results of His accomplished work. Meanwhile, His house, that is to say, all true believers, are associated with Him, having boldness to enter into the holiest, being brought nigh by the blood of Jesus.
“And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the Lord, and make an atonement for it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about. And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.” (Ver. 18, 19) Thus the atoning blood was sprinkled everywhere, from the throne of God within the veil, to the altar which stood in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation. “It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: nor yet that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest entered into the holy place every year with blood of others; for then must He often have suffered since the foundation of the world; but now once in the end of the world (at the end of everything earthly, everything human) hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time, without sin, unto salvation.” (Heb. 9: 23-28)
There is but one way into the holiest of all, and that is a blood-sprinkled way. It is vain to strive to enter by any other. Men may attempt to work themselves in, to pray themselves in, to buy themselves in, to get in by a pathway of ordinances, or it may be of half-ordinances, half-Christ; but it is of no use. God speaks of one way, and but one, and that way has been thrown open through the rent veil of the Saviour’s flesh. Along that way have the millions of the saved passed, from age to age. Patriarchs, prophets, Apostles, martyrs, saints in every age, from Abel downwards, have trod that blessed way, and found thereby sure and undisputed access. The one sacrifice of the Cross is divinely sufficient for all. God asks no more, and He can take no less. To add ought thereto is to cast dishonour upon that with which God has declared himself well pleased, yea, in which He is infinitely glorified. To diminish ought therefrom is to deny man’s guilt and ruin, and offer an indignity to the justice and majesty of the eternal Trinity.
“And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and The altar, he shall bring the live goat. 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. 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.”
Here, then, we have the other grand idea attached to the death of Christ – namely, the full and final forgiveness of the people. If the death of Christ forms the foundation of the glory of God, it also forms the foundation of the perfect forgiveness of sins to all who put their trust in it. This latter, blessed be God, is but a secondary, an inferior application of the atonement, though our foolish hearts would fain regard it as the very highest possible view of the cross to see in it that which puts away all our sins. This is a mistake. God’s glory is the first thing; our salvation is the second. To maintain Gods glory was the chief, the darling object of the heart of Christ. This object He pursued from first to last, with an undeviating purpose and unflinching fidelity. “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.” (John 10: 17) “Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in Him. If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him.” (John 13: 31, 32) “Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people from far: the Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft: in his quiver hath He hid me; and said unto me, Thou art my servant, 0 Israel, in whom I will be glorified.” (Isaiah 49. 1-3)
Thus, the glory of God was the paramount object of the Lord Jesus Christ, in life and in death. He lived and died to glorify His Father’s name. Does the Church lose ought by this? Nay. Does Israel Nay. Do the Gentiles? Nay. In no way could their salvation and blessedness be so perfectly provided for as by being made subsidiary to the glory of God. Hearken to the divine response to Christ, the true Israel, in the sublime passage just quoted. “It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation to the ends of the earth.”
And is it not a blessed thing to know that God is glorified in the putting away of our sins We may ask, Where are our sins? Put away. By what? By that act of Christ upon the cross in which God has been eternally glorified. Thus it is. The two goats, on the day of atonement, give the double aspect of the one act. In the one, we see God’s glory maintained; in the other, sins put away. The one is as perfect as the other. We are as perfectly forgiven as God is perfectly glorified, by the death of Christ. Was there one single point in which God was not glorified in the cross? Not one. Neither is there one single point in which we are not perfectly forgiven. I say we;” for albeit the congregation of Israel is the primary object contemplated in the beautiful and impressive ordinance of the scape-goat; yet does it hold good, in the fullest way, with respect to every soul that believes on the Lord Jesus Christ, that he is as perfectly forgiven as God is perfectly glorified, by the atonement of the cross. How many of the sins of Israel did the scape-goat bear away? “All.” Precious word! Not one left behind. and whither did he bear them? “Into a land not inhabited” – a land where they could never be found, because there was no one there to look for them. Could any type be more perfect? Could we possibly have a more graphic picture of Christ’s accomplished sacrifice, in its primary and secondary aspects? Impossible. We can hang with intense admiration over such a picture, and, as we gaze, exclaim, “Of a truth, the pencil of the Master is here! “
Reader, pause here, and say, do you know that all your sins are forgiven, according to the perfection of Christ’s sacrifice? If you simply Believe on His name they are so. They are all gone, and gone for ever. Say not, as so many anxious souls do, “I fear I do not realise.” There is no such word as “realise” in the entire gospel. We are not saved by realisation, but by Christ; and the way to get Christ in all His fullness and preciousness is to believe” only believe!” And what will be the result? “The worshippers once purged should have no more conscience of sins.” Observe this. “No more Conscience of sins.” this must be the result, inasmuch as Christ’s sacrifice is perfect-so perfect, that God is glorified therein. Now, it must be obvious to you that Christ’s work does not need your realisation to be added to it to make it perfect. This could not be. We might as well say that the work of creation was not complete until Adam realised it in the garden of Eden. True, he did realise; but what did he realise? A perfect work. Thus let it be with your precious soul this moment, if it has never been so before. May you, now and evermore, repose, in artless simplicity, upon the One who has, by one offering, perfected for ever them that are sanctified! And how are they sanctified? Is it by realisation? By no means. How then? By the perfect work of Christ.
Having sought – alas! most feebly – to unfold the doctrine of this marvellous chapter, so far as God has given me light upon it, there is just one point further to which I shall merely call my reader’s attention, ere I close this section. It is contained in the following quotation: “and this shall be a statute for ever unto you, that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you. For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord. It shall be a Sabbath of rest and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute for ever.” (Ver. 29-31)
This shall have its full accomplishment in the saved remnant of Israel by and by, as foretold by the prophet Zechariah: “And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications; and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon . . . . In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness. . . . . . . and it shall come to pass in that day that the light shall not be clear (in one place) and dark: (in another:) but it shall be one day, (the true and long-expected Sabbath,) which shall be known to the Lord, not day nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light. And it shall be in that day. that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be. And THE LORD SHALL BE KING OVER ALL THE EARTH: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one . . . . . . . In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD . . . . . . And in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts.” (Zech. 12 – 14)
What a day that will be! No marvel that it should be so frequently and so emphatically introduced in the above glowing passage. It will be a bright and blessed “Sabbath of rest” when the mourning remnant shall gather, in the spirit of true penitence, round the open fountain, and enter into the full and final results of the great day of atonement. They shall “afflict their souls,” no doubt; for how could they do otherwise, while fixing their repentant gaze “upon him whom they have pierced?” But, oh! what a Sabbath they will have! Jerusalem will have a brimming cup of salvation, after her long and dreary night of sorrow. Her former desolations shall be forgotten, and her children, restored to their long-lost dwellings, shall take down their harps from the willows, and sing once more the sweet songs of Zion beneath the peaceful shade of the vine And fig tree.
Blessed be God, the time is at hand. Every setting sun brings us nearer to that blissful Sabbath. The word is, “Surely, I come quickly;” and all around seems to tell us that “the days are at hand, and the effect of every vision.” May we be “sober, and watch unto prayer!” May we keep ourselves unspotted from the world; and thus, in the spirit of our minds, the affections of our hearts, and the experience of our souls, be ready to meet the heavenly Bridegroom! Our place for the present is outside the camp. Thank God that it is so! It would be an unspeakable loss to be inside. The same cross which has brought us inside the veil has cast us outside the camp. Christ was cast out thither, and we are with Him there; but He has been received up into heaven, and we are with Him there. Is it not a mercy to be outside of all that which has rejected our blessed Lord and Master? Truly so; and the more we know of Jesus, and the more we know of this present evil world, the more thankful we shall be to find our place outside of it all with Him.
Fuente: Mackintosh’s Notes on the Pentateuch
Leviticus 16. The Day of Atonement (see p. 104).The introduction (Lev 16:1) shows, by its reference to Lev 10:1-7, that Leviticus 16 originally followed Lev 10:7; i.e. after the law for the High Priests consecration came the law of his entrance into the holy place. It is possible that the kernel of Leviticus 16 is this law of the High Priests entrance (Lev 16:1-4; Lev 16:6; Lev 16:12-13; Lev 16:23-25), and that the separate rite of atonement for the sins of the people with the curious rite of the second goat was added later, or that two originally independent rites coalesced. This is the more probable because the rite is nowhere else mentioned in the OT. Ezek. prescribes two days of atonement (in 1st and 7th months; cf. Eze 45:18; Eze 45:20, where omit day of). In Neh 8:9 ff, the law is read publicly, on the 1st day of the 7th month; on the 2nd, the feast of booths is decided on, and carried out (probably as Lev 23:34 ff.) in the week from the 15th to the 23rd. The following day, 24th, is kept as a fast. There is here no place for the Day of Leviticus 16. It is mentioned, indeed, in Lev 23:27 ff; Lev 25:9 ff., but with no hint of the special ritual of Leviticus 16. Hence, probably, Leviticus 16 embodies the latest ceremony of the whole of P, though the actual rites which it prescribes, side by side with burnt and sin offerings, breathe a very different spirit, and one which carries us back to a distant antiquity. In earlier times, when heathenism was still a danger, these rites were discountenanced by the priestly legislators; now, the menace of heathenism broken, they are taken over, as survivals and still popular, on account of their suggestive symbolism. Logically, there is no place for this peculiar rite in the system of P, which elsewhere regards sacrifice as sufficient by itself. (On Azazel, see p. 104.)
In Lev 23:24, the 1st day of the 7th month is a solemn rest; in Lev 25:9, the 10th day of the 7th month of the 50th year begins the year of Jubile. The old Heb. year began in the autumn (Exo 23:16; Exo 34:22), when the harvests were complete (p. 118). But in the Exile the Hebrews learnt the Babylonian reckoning, which began in spring; hence the ecclesiastical New Years festivals would be considered as taking place in the 7th month. Lev 25:9 shows that the 10th day of the month was actually regarded as New Years Day. It is characteristic of later Judaism to hold what was once a joyous festival in this fashion; a clean start was to be made by a solemn rite for rehallowing the whole people.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
THE GREAT DAY OF ATONEMENT (vv. 1-34)
This is a chapter of central importance in the book of Leviticus. It forms a basis for, and is explained in, the epistle to the Hebrews. Aaron’s two sons had died for offering strange fire to the Lord (Lev 10:1-2). We are reminded of this in verse 1 of chapter 16 in order to be impressed with the seriousness of any approach into the holy presence of God. The priests, and even the high priest were forbidden to come at all times into the holiest of all, inside the veil. This is a contrast to the Lord Jesus in the actual fact of His personal glory, for He was always, by virtue of His person, in the intimacy of the presence of God.
Yet, Aaron is typical of Christ as High Priest, the representative of His people, and what He does for their sakes is to be distinguished from what He is entitled to personally.
Verse 2 tells us that God Himself would be present in the cloud on the mercy seat, therefore it was only one day of the year that Aaron alone could enter the most holy place. Verse 29 indicates this to be on the tenth day of the seventh month. The Lord fully described the ritual which Aaron was to strictly observe.
He was to bring a young bull as a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. Having washed his flesh in water, he was to put on, not his garments of glory and beauty, but those of linen (v. 4). These speak of the moral purity of the Lord Jesus in His perfect Manhood.
Also, from the congregation he was to take two kids of the goats for a sin offering and one ram as a burnt offering (v. 5).
Then Aaron was first to present his own bull of the sin offering before the Lord, not yet to kill it (v. 6 JND trans.), though it was that which was to make atonement for him and his house. Similarly, he was to present the two goats before the Lord at the tabernacle door (v. 7).
Following this he was to cast lots for the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other for the scapegoat. For only one was to be sacrificed to the Lord as a sin offering. Then it was offered, but the other one was again presented before the Lord alive. Though it is said the first goat was offered, yet not until verse 15 are we told the goat was slaughtered.
It therefore appears that the bull for Aaron and his house was first slaughtered (v. 11). Then Aaron was to bring from the altar a censer full of coals and his hands full of finely ground sweet incense, put on the fire to form a cloud of incense that would cover the mercy seat when Aaron entered the holiest of all. If he failed to do this when entering the most holy place, he would die. But also, he must bring with him some of the blood of the bull and sprinkle it with his finger on the east side and in front of the mercy seat seven times (v. 14).
The spiritual significance of this is indicated in Heb 9:11-12 : But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of bulls and calves, but with (or by) His own blood He entered the Most Holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. Some have imagined that the Lord Jesus literally took His shed blood into heaven when He ascended there, but this is confusing the type with the antitype. Because of the value of the shedding of His blood, He entered heaven on behalf of His redeemed people, having obtained eternal redemption. The throne of God has been perfectly vindicated by virtue of the blood of Christ having been shed at Calvary. His resurrection and ascension to heaven have confirmed the fact that redemption is fully accomplished.
Now he must kill the goat that is specifically said to be for the people (v. 15), bring its blood inside the veil and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and before it. The bull had been for Aaron and his house (v. 6). This implies the Lord Jesus and the priestly family, which today is the Church of God, for all believers now are priests (1Pe 2:5). The two goats picture the one sacrifice of Christ on behalf of Israel, the first one being that which actually makes atonement by being offered up. But because Israel has not recognized the sacrifice of Christ, though it has really been for them, the results of that sacrifice will not be applied to Israel until they finally turn to the Lord.
Therefore the high priest was to lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confessing over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, putting them on the head of the goat and sending it away by a suitable man into the wilderness (v. 2). Thus the atonement, though definitely made for Israel, does not at the time have application to Israel: their sins are still not gone, though confessed by the high priest (Christ), and the value of the atonement is for Israel delayed, while the nation is dispersed among the nations, in the wilderness. How striking a witness this is to the fact that God knew perfectly well that Israel would reject their Messiah and remain a long time in sad unbelief!
After sending the scapegoat away into the wilderness, Aaron was to come into the outer sanctuary of the tabernacle, take off his linen garments and leave them there, to wash his body and put on his normal garments of glory and beauty, then to come out and offer the burnt offering for himself and that also for the people (v. 24). His coming out in those garments signified that the work of atonement was done to the satisfaction of God. The burnt offerings signified that God was glorified in the perfection of the sacrifice. It is noted here also that the fat of the sin offering was to be burned on the altar. This was commanded in Lev 4:8-10, though otherwise the bodies of those animals whose blood was taken into the sanctuary were burned outside the camp (Lev 4:11-12), which also verse 27 of this chapter confirms. This speaks of Christ as the sin offering bearing the unmitigated judgment of God.
The one who burned the animals was to wash his clothes and bathe his body in water (v. 26), showing that only the contact with that which was put under the judgment of God had a defiling influence, though when the burning took place, no more defilement would be spread.
On the tenth day of the seventh month Israel was to recognize as a permanent statute of God that they should afflict their souls and do no work (v. 29). This speaks of humbling themselves in serious self-judgment. When we reach Lev 23:1-44 we shall see how this is emphasized when the set times of Jehovah are discussed (vv. 26-32). Those set times speak of God’s dealings from the time of the sacrifice of Christ at Calvary until the morning of millennial blessing for Israel.
The great day of atonement pictures the national repentance of Israel when the Lord Jesus, their Messiah, appears to them when they are in the throes of the great tribulation. They will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for his firstborn (Zec 12:10). Rev 1:7 adds to this, Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth (the land) will mourn because of Him.
Verse 32-34 lay special emphasis on the work of the priest who is anointed and consecrated to minister as priest in his father’s place. Typically this priest is Christ, who has been not only the great sacrifice Israel needed, but the one Mediator between God and men, the One who intercedes and who has offered Himself for us. It is He through whom Israel is blessed, and also through whom the whole temple service is sanctified. He makes atonement for the priests (the priestly family, the Church) and for the people (that is, Israel). This statute was to allow no lapsing, no intermission, but was to be faithfully kept every year (v. 34).
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
D. The Day of Atonement ch. 16
The sacrifices and offerings that Moses described thus far in the Law were not sufficient to cleanse all the defilements of the people. Much sinfulness and uncleanness still needed removing. Therefore God appointed a yearly sacrifice that cleansed all the sins and impurities not covered by other means that the Israelites committed ignorantly (Heb 9:7). The sacrifice of the Day of Atonement was in this sense the most comprehensive of the Mosaic sacrifices.
This chapter is a theological pivot on which the whole Book of Leviticus turns. It is the climax of the first part of the book that deals with the public worship of the Israelites (chs. 1-16). The second major part of Leviticus begins at the end of this chapter and reveals the private worship of the Israelites (chs. 17-27).
The chapter begins with a reference back to chapter 10, the judgment of Nadab and Abihu (Lev 16:1). The material in chapter 16 is legislation that God prescribed shortly after and in view of that apostasy. Chapter 10 showed how important it was for priests to approach God with due care and self-preparation; those who did not died. Chapter 16 contains information about how the high priest must behave to preserve himself from a similar fate. There is this tie to the narrative of Israel’s history, but chapter 16 is also a continuation of the legislation designed to differentiate between clean and unclean contained in chapters 11-15. It is another block of legal material, though the style is quite discursive (narrative).
The Day of Atonement took place six months after the Passover. These two great festivals were half a year apart. Whereas the Passover was a day of great rejoicing, the Day of Atonement was a time of great solemnity in Israel. The Contemporary English Version (CEV) translators rendered the Day of Atonement as the Great Day of Forgiveness.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
1. Introductory information 16:1-10
This section contains a general introduction to what follows in the chapter (Lev 16:1-2), information about the animals and priestly dress used in the ceremonies (Lev 16:3-5), and an outline of the events of the day (Lev 16:6-10).
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Introduction to the Day of Atonement legislation 16:1-2
We learn from Lev 16:1 that Moses received instructions regarding the Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur, immediately after the judgment of Nadab and Abihu (ch. 10). Obviously he inserted chapters 11-15 in the chronological narrative for a purpose. He probably did so because of the connection between the clean and unclean distinctions in these chapters and the emphasis on priestly purity that ended with the judgment of Nadab and Abihu (ch. 10). There is also continuity in the emphasis on the importance of holiness when entering the presence of Yahweh (ch. 16).
As usual, God revealed these laws to Moses, not directly to the priests or even the high priest, Aaron (Lev 16:2). Moses was the great mediator between God and the Israelites superior even to the high priest. Moses served in the role of a prophet when he did this. Later in Israel’s history, the prophets continued to communicate instructions from God not only to the priests but also to the kings.
Even the high priest was not to enter the presence of God in the holy of holies, symbolized by the cloud over the mercy seat, at any time. If he did, he would die, as Nadab and Abihu did. What follows is instruction about when and how he could enter. The only way anyone could approach God when He manifested Himself on Mt. Sinai (Exodus 19) was also as He specified. God was just as holy and demanded just as much reverence when He was dwelling among His people as when He dwelt away from them. Now He dwells within each Christian (Joh 14:17; Rom 8:9; 1Co 12:13).
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
THE GREAT DAY OF ATONEMENT
Lev 16:1-34
IN the first verse of chapter 16, which ordains the ceremonial for the great annual day of atonement, we are told that this ordinance was delivered by the Lord to Moses “after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they drew near before the Lord, and died.” Because of the close historical connection thus declared between this chapter and chapter 10, and also because in this ordinance the Mosaic sacrificial worship, which has been the subject of the book thus far, finds its culmination, it seems most satisfactory to anticipate the order of the book by taking up at this point the exposition of this chapter, before proceeding in chapter 11 to a wholly different subject.
This ordinance of the day of atonement was perhaps the most important and characteristic in the whole Mosaic legislation. In the law of the offerings, the most distinctive part was the law of the sin offering; and it was on the great annual day of atonement that the conceptions embodied in the sin offering obtained their most complete development. The central place which this day occupied in the whole system of sacred times is well illustrated in that it is often spoken of by the rabbis, without any more precise designation, as simply “Yoma,” “The Day.” It was “the day” because, on this day, the idea of sacrificial expiation and the consequent removal of all sin, essential to the life of peace and fellowship with God, which was set forth imperfectly, as regards individuals and the nation, by the daily sin offerings, received the highest possible symbolical expression. It is plain that countless sins and transgressions and various defilements must yet have escaped unrecognised as such, even by the most careful and conscientious Israelite; and that, for this reason, they could not have been covered by any of the daily offerings for sin. Hence, apart from this full, solemn, typical purgation and cleansing of the priesthood and the congregation, and the holy sanctuary, from the uncleannesses and transgressions of the children of Israel, “even all their sins” (Lev 16:16), the sacrificial system had yet fallen short of expressing in adequate symbolism the ideal of the complete removal of all sin. With abundant reason then do the rabbis regard it as the day of days in the sacred year.
It is insisted by the radical criticism of our day that the general sense of sin and need of expiation which this ordinance expresses could not have existed in the days of Moses; and that since, moreover, the later historical books of the Old Testament contain no reference to the observance of the day, therefore its origin must be attributed to the days of the restoration from Babylon, when, as such critics suppose the deeper sense of sin, developed by the great judgment of the Babylonian captivity and exile, occasioned the elaboration of this ritual.
To this one might reply that the objection rests upon an assumption which the Christian believer cannot admit, that the ordinance was merely a product of the human mind. But if, as our Lord constantly taught, and as the chapter explicitly affirms, the ordinance was a matter of Divine, supernatural revelation, then naturally we shall expect to find in it, not mans estimate of the guilt of sin, but Gods, which in all ages is the same. But, meeting such objectors on their own ground, we need not go into the matter further than to refer to the high authority of Dillmann, who declares this theory of the post-exilian origin of this institution to be “absolutely incredible”; and in reply to the objection that the day is not alluded to in the whole Old Testament history, justly adds that this argument from silence would equally forbid us to assign the origin of the ordinance to the days of the return from Babylon, or any of the pre-Christian centuries for “one would then have to maintain that the festival first arose in the first Christian century; since only out of that age do we first have any explicit testimonies concerning it.”
Again, the first verse of the chapter gives as the occasion of the promulgation of this law, “the death of the two sons of Aaron,” Nadab and Abihu, “when they drew near before the Lord and died”; a historical note which is perfectly natural if we have here a narrative dating from Mosaic days, but which seems most objectless and unlikely to have been entered, if the law were a late invention of rabbinical forgers. On that occasion it was, as we read, {Lev 5:2} that “the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil, before the mercy seat which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.” Into this place of Jehovahs most immediate earthly manifestation, even Aaron is to come only once a year, and then only with atoning blood, as hereinafter prescribed.
The object of the whole service of this day is represented as atonement; expiation of sin, in the highest and fullest sense then possible. It is said to be appointed to make atonement for Aaron and for his house (Lev 16:6), for the holy place, and for the tent of meeting (Lev 16:15-17); for the altar of burnt offering in the outer court (Lev 16:18-19); and for all the congregation of Israel (Lev 16:20-22, Lev 16:33); and this, not merely for such sins of ignorance as had been afterward recognised and acknowledged in the ordinary sin offerings of each day, but for “all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins”: even such as were still unknown to all but God (Lev 16:21). The fact of such an ordinance for such a purpose taught a most impressive lesson of the holiness of God and the sinfulness of man, on the one hand, and, on the other, the utter insufficiency of the daily offerings to cleanse from all sin. Day by day these had been offered in each year; and yet, as we read, {Heb 9:8-9} the Holy Ghost this signified by this ordinance, “that the way into the holy place hath not yet been made manifest”; it was “a parable for the time now present”; teaching that the temple sacrifices of Judaism could not “as touching the conscience, make the worshipper perfect”. {Heb 9:9} We may well reverse the judgment of the critics, and say-not that the deepened sense of sin in Israel was the cause of the day of atonement; but rather, that the solemn observances of this day, under God, were made for many in Israel a most effective means to deepen the conviction of sin.
The time which was ordained for this annual observance is significant-the tenth day of the seventh month. It was appointed for the seventh month, as the sabbatic month, in which all the related ideas of rest in God and with God, in the enjoyment of the blessings of a now complete redemption, received in the great feast of tabernacles their fullest expression. It was therefore appointed for that month, and for a day which shortly preceded this greatest of the annual feasts, to signify in type the profound and most vital truth, that the full joy of the sabbatic rest of man with God, and the ingathering of the fruits of complete redemption, is only possible upon condition of repentance and the fullest possible expiation for sin. It was appointed for the tenth day of this month, no doubt, because in the Scripture symbolism the number ten is the symbol of completeness; and was fitly thus connected with a service which signified expiation completed for the sins of the year.
The observances appointed for the day had regard, first, to the people, and, secondly, to the tabernacle service. As for the former, it was commanded (Lev 16:29) that they should “do no manner of work,” observing the day as a Sabbath Sabbathon, ” a high Sabbath,” or “Sabbath of solemn rest,” (Lev 16:31); and, secondly, that they should “afflict their souls” (Lev 16:30), namely, by solemn fasting, in visible sign of sorrow and humiliation for sin. By which it was most distinctly taught, that howsoever complete atonement may be, and howsoever, in making that atonement through a sacrificial victim, the sinner himself have no part, yet apart from his personal repentance for his sins, that atonement shall profit him nothing; nay, it was declared, {Lev 23:29} that if any man should fail on this point, God would cut him off from his people. The law abides as regards the greater sacrifice of Christ; except we repent, we shall, even because of that sacrifice, only the more terribly perish; because not even this supreme exhibition of the holy love and justice of God has moved us to renounce sin.
As regards the tabernacle service for the day, the order was as follows. First, as most distinctive of the ritual of the day, only the high priest could officiate. The other priests, who, on other occasions, served continually in the holy place, must on this day, during these ceremonies, leave it to him alone; taking their place, themselves as sinners for whom also atonement was to be made, with the sinful congregation of their brethren. For it was ordered (Lev 16:17): “There shall be no man in the tent of meeting when the high priest goeth in to make atonement in the holy place, until he come out,” and the work of atonement be completed.
And the high priest could himself officiate only after certain significant preparations. First (Lev 16:4), he must “bathe in water” his whole person. The word used in the original is different from that which is used of the partial washings in connection with the daily ceremonial cleansings; and, most suggestively, the same complete washing is required as that which was ordered in the law for the consecration of the priesthood, and for cleansing from leprosy and other specific defilements. Thus was expressed, in the clearest manner possible, the thought, that the high priest, who shall be permitted to draw near to God in the holiest place, and there prevail with Him, must himself be wholly pure and clean.
Then, having bathed, he must robe himself in a special manner for the service of this day. He must lay aside the bright-coloured “garments for glory and beauty” which he wore on all other occasions, and put on, instead, a vesture of pure, unadorned white, like that of the ordinary priest; excepting only that for him, on this day, unlike them, the girdle also must be white. By this substitution of these garments for his ordinary brilliant robes was signified, not merely the absolute purity which the white linen symbolised, but especially also, by the absence of adornment, humiliation for sin. On this day he was thus made in outward appearance essentially like unto the other members of his house, for whose sin, together with his own, he was to make atonement.
Thus washed and robed, wearing on his white turban the golden crown inscribed “Holiness to Jehovah,” {Exo 28:38} he now took (Lev 16:3, Lev 16:5-7), as a sin offering for himself and for his house, a bullock; and for the congregation, “two he-goats for a sin offering”; with a ram for himself, and one for them, for a burnt offering. The two goats were set “before the Lord at the door of the tent of meeting.” The bullock was the offering before prescribed for the sin offering for the high priest, {Lev 4:3} as being the most valuable of all sacrificial victims. For the choice of the goats many reasons have been given, none of which seem wholly satisfactory. Both of the goats are equally declared (Lev 16:5) to be “for a sin offering”; yet only one was to be slain.
The ceremonial which followed is unique; it is without its like either in Mosaism or in heathenism. It was ordered (Lev 16:8): “Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for Azazel”; an expression to which we shall shortly return. Only the goat on whom the lot fell for the Lord was to be slain.
The two goats remain standing before the Lord; while now Aaron kills the sin offering for himself and for his house (Lev 16:11); then enters, first, the Holy of Holies within the veil, having taken (Lev 16:12) a censer “full of coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord,” with his hands full of incense (Lev 16:13), “that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is upon the testimony (i.e., the two tables of the law within the ark), that he die not.” Then (Lev 16:13) he sprinkles the blood “upon the mercy seat on the east”-by which was signified the application of the blood God-ward, accompanied with the fragrance of intercession, for the expiation of his own sins and those of his house; and then “seven times, before the mercy seat,”-evidently, on the floor of the sanctuary, for the symbolic cleansing of the holiest place, defiled by all the uncleannesses of the children of Israel, in the midst of whom it stood. Then, returning, he kills the goat of the sin offering “for Jehovah,” and repeats the same ceremony, now in behalf of the whole congregation, sprinkling, as before, the mercy seat, and, seven times, the Holy of Holies, thus making atonement for it, “because of the uncleannesses of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, even all their sins” (Lev 16:16). In like manner, he was then to cleanse, by a seven-fold sprinkling, the Holy place; and then again going into the outer court, also the altar of burnt offering; this last, doubtless, as in other cases, by applying the blood to the horns of the altar.
In all this it will be observed that the difference from the ordinary sin offerings and the wider reach of its symbolical virtue is found, not in that the offering is different from or larger than others, but in that, symbolically speaking, the blood is brought, as in no other offering, into the most immediate presence of God; even into the secret darkness of the Holy of Holies, where no child of Israel might tread. For this reason did this sin offering become, above all others, the most perfect type of the one offering of Him, the God-Man, who reconciled us to God by doing that in reality which was here done in symbol, even entering with atoning blood into the very presence of God, there to appear in our behalf.