Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 16:20

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:

20. when he hath made an end of atoning ] The three things mentioned here indicate the order in which the atonement was made for the holy place (i.e. the Holy of Holies); the tent of meeting (the outer part of it) and the altar (outside the tabernacle) and the course of the high priest was from W. to E.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Lev 16:20-22

The goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities.

The scapegoat a type of Christ

I. The typical sacrifice here enjoined.

1. Appointed by God. Therefore an atonement fully equal to our guilt; a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice; an oblation which satisfies the unbending law and even the infinitely holy mind of the great Jehovah, which leaves justice nothing to ask for, and the redeemed sinner nothing to dread.

2. The efficacy of the sacrifice enjoined in it must be traced to the Divine appointment.

II. The conduct which Aaron was commanded to observe with respect to it. The mere appointment of these two animals as a sin-offering was not sufficient to atone for the transgressions of the Israelites: the one must be slain, and the other must be presented before the Lord and have particular ceremony performed over it, before Israel can be pardoned.

1. A part of this ceremony consisted in the confession of guilt. We are called on to be very earnest in our efforts to become acquainted with the full extent of our depravity; to be often looking into our hearts and reviewing our lives, and to be particular and minute in acknowledging the sins which we discover there.

2. It tells us that the high priest, slier having confessed over the goat the sins of the people, was to transfer them to the victim before him; he was to put them on its head, thus intimating that their guilt no longer rested on them but on the devoted animal on which his hands were laid. The spiritual meaning of this part of the ceremony is plain. It was designed to teach us figuratively the same blessed truth which has now been revealed to us without a figure, and which constitutes the substance and glory of the gospel, that Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; that, He bare our sins in His own body on the tree; that the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquities of us all.

III. The benefits which resulted from Aarons obedience to the injunctions given him. After the appointed confession had been made over it, and the sins of the people put upon its head, the goat was to be sent away into an uninhabited wilderness.

1. This was undoubtedly designed to show us the completeness of that pardon of sin which Christ has purchased by the sacrifice of Himself for the believing sinner. It is a pardon extending, not to a few iniquities, but to all.

2. But the pardon the believing penitent receives through Christ is an everlasting, as well as a complete pardon. This is strongly implied in the text. The goat was not only to bear away all the iniquities of the children of Israel, but it was to bear them away into a wilderness, into a land not inhabited; a land cut off from all other countries; a desolate, unvisited, and almost inaccessible region, in which the devoted animal was to be let go, and where it would remain unseen and forgotten till it perished. The Israelites therefore had not only the assurance that all their past iniquities were pardoned, but they were taught also by this ordinance that they had no reason to fear the return of them, or the revoking of this pardon. (C. Bradley, M. A.)

The scapegoat

I. The scapegoat represented the substitution of christ in the place of sinners.

II. This substitution of christ has made ample satisfaction for sin.

III. This atonement by christ extends to all sins.

1. Iniquities. Some say these refer to our original depravity.

2. Transgressions. The violations of the positive laws of God.

3. Sins. Neglect of His holy commands. Perhaps they are used to denote that the scapegoat bore away sins of every kind and description.

IV. That Christ, as typified by the scapegoat, has effected substitution for all people.

V. In what way the benefits of Christs substitution are received.

1. Faith is requisite.

2. Sins confessed and repented of.

Application:

1. Mans criminal and dangerous condition. Laden with iniquities and sins.

2. The only way of avoiding the terrible results of transgression. By Jesus Christ.

3. The only means by which the blessings of salvation are to be received. By true repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

4. Let all men thus avail themselves of the redemption that is in Christ. (J. Burns, D. D.)

The scapegoat

I. The innocent victim.

1. Innocent. Had no sins of its own to bear. Thus Jesus Christ (1Pe 2:24). With sins of its own how could it atone for the sins of others? No man selected who might ceremonially bear the sins of the people away, and then return after being ceremonially purified.

2. Divinely selected. Chosen by lot. The lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord. Jesus was the Lamb of God. The lamb of Divine selection. Hence how great should be our confidence in this Saviour!

3. Representative. Goat generally regarded as representing evil propensities, and therefore as specially illustrating the wicked (Mat 25:32-46). So Jesus took our nature. Likeness of men and of sinful flesh (Php 2:7; Rom 8:3).

II. The imputed transgressions.

1. Of all the people, and all their iniquities. Vast number, variety, &c., of their sins. Jesus gave Himself a ransom for all. Died for our sins.

2. Transferred from the people by the will of God. By the grace of God Jesus tasted death for us. Our sins laid upon Him according to the mercy of God.

3. Transferred by the priest with confession. They were to be acknowledged as the peoples sins. Confession of sin a condition of our acceptance. Not that God does not know, but that the act of confession brings our guilt home more to our own heart, and tends to promote humility and an earnest desire for mercy. Besides, God has willed it (chap. 5:5; Hos 5:15), and added promises of mercy to such as obey (Lev 26:40-42; Pro 28:13). And pardon follows (Psa 32:5; 1Jn 1:9).

4. Bearing this burden, the goat was then lead away into the wilderness. Away from the camp, whither it might never return to defile it. The iniquity to be clean gone for ever. The people not to be punished for the sins thus removed far from them. Christ bore our reproaches, and was crucified outside the camp.

III. The delivered people.

1. Deliverance from sin the greatest deliverance. Other deliverances being temporal, but this eternal; others bodily, &c., this spiritual.

2. It would promote happiness. They felt that a great load had been removed. Rejoiced in spiritual liberty. The joy of imputed innocence. Now looked upon with favour, their sins being borne away. As far as the east is from the west, so far hath He removed our transgressions from us.

3. It would excite gratitude. Otherwise they would have had to answer for their sins. Apply this to Jesus, and those who are saved from wrath through Him.

Learn–

1. Christ Jesus was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.

2. He made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made, &c.

3. The duty of confession and personal faith. (J. C. Gray.)

The scapegoat

I. That the separation of man from his sins is a subject of tremendous moment.

1. The moral struggles of mankind show the necessity of man being separated from his sins.

2. The influence of sin on human nature shows this. It has mortalised our bodies, clouded our intellects, polluted our affections, burdened our consciences, enfeebled and enslaved our powers.

3. The intervention of Christ shows this.

II. That a penitential approach to God through sacrifice is the divine method of separation.

1. Sin deserves death.

2. Through the death of another, the sinners death may be avoided.

III. That the separation of man from his sin, if effected through the true sacrifice, is complete. (Homilist.)

Mans need of a scapegoat

As soon as man sins, and his conscience becomes at all alive to the fact, and troublesome on account of it, he begins at once to look around for some scapegoat. The sinner always feels, after the first flush and excitement of sin have passed away, and the fire of its passion has died out, that it would be an exceedingly desirable thing to put the guilt, burden, and consequences of sin as completely away from himself as possible. Now that the fleeting pleasure of sin has been extracted and only the bitter dregs remain, the sinner would willingly and by any means get quit of them, and so he casts around a glance of inquiry, hoping to discover some scapegoat with whom he may share the blame of sin, or upon whom he may put it altogether. The first sinners, in this matter, set an example which all sinners from that time to this have diligently copied. Adam shabbily put the blame upon his wife, and Eve foolishly put the blame upon the serpent, and both impiously sought to put the blame upon God. Do we not in the offering of these vain excuses see our first parents looking about for a scapegoat, who shall at least share the burden of their recently contracted and still unacknowledged and unabsolved guilt? And thus has it been with all sinners from that time to this. Still do we find men seeking to explain the fact of sin, and to excuse the guilt of sin, by referring to something outside of themselves. A man, for instance, commits some sin: his conscience calls him to some kind of reckoning. And what, under such circumstances, does he do? He does not, it is to be feared, cry out in penitence before God, Against Thee, Thee only have I sinned, and done this evil in Thy sight, but instead of this he looks about for some scapegoat. His conscience charges him with having told a lie. Well, if it were a lie, it was a very white one; it was certainly told with the very best of intentions; it was to obviate some very unpleasant consequences which would have injuriously affected not only himself but others. A man gets drunk. He cannot but admit that he was overtaken, or overcome, but he would like all his friends to know that the circumstances were very peculiar, indeed, quite exceptional; it was the excitement of the company which led him on, and not the love of the drink. Another man takes some unfair advantage of his neighbour: Well, he dares to say that his neighbours have often taken advantage of him. He swears: Tis an old habit into which he unconsciously lapses. He indulges in ungovernable outbursts of anger: Well, he always had a hasty temper, and no one could know how much he had to annoy and provoke him. You remind a man that he is very seldom found in Gods house on the Lords day, and might be very often met in the fields, or on the river or rail: He knows it isnt altogether the right sort of thing to do; he certainly was brought up differently at home and at school; but then he is so pent up during the week that he wants a little fresh air on Sunday. You expostulate with another who, while rarely or never running into any actual excess, spends a great deal too much time and money in the public-house. He excuses himself by reminding you that persons in his station have not the same comforts at home which those have who live in larger houses and on larger incomes; and that those who expostulate or condemn would moderate their complaints if they knew more about the matter. And thus, but that time would fail us, I might go through a much longer catalogue, and show you how in every case men, as soon as their conscience becomes troublesome, look about instinctively for some scapegoat. They endeavour to discover something in their character, their temperament, their circumstances, their education, their companionship, their occupation–something, in short, outside of themselves, which shall bear in some degree the blame and guilt of sin, which all the while they are indulging and cherishing. All such attempts are vain. All such excuses empty and unavailing. These scapegoats break down under the burden imposed upon them, and have no power to carry the guilt, the bitterness, the clinging memory of one single sin into the wilderness of oblivion. It is my pleasing task to direct your attention to the true Scapegoat: the provision which God Himself has made for separating the sinner from his sins, and from all their terrible consequences, finally and for ever. A provision which in its Divine fulness is sufficient to meet, and more than meet, all the exigences of our sinful nature. (T. M. Morris.)

Heathen imitations of the scapegoat

From this law of God, no doubt, did spring that custom among the heathen who, offering sacrifices, used to ban and curse the head of the beast offered in sacrifice with these words, That if any evil be so come, either upon the sacrificers themselves, or upon the whole country of Egypt, it would please the gods to turn all upon that head. The Massilians also yearly used to make an atonement or expiation for their city with some holy man, whom, decked and set out with holy garments and with garlands, after the manner of a sacrifice, they led through the city, and putting all the evils upon his head that might anyway hang over their city, they cast him into the sea, sacrificing of him so unto Neptune, speaking these words with great solemnity, Sis pro nobis piaculum (Be thou an expiation for us). Thus the heathen caught at things, but not in a right manner, whereby we may well see what a darkness it is to be deprived of the light of the Word of God. In like manner receiving it from the doctrine of the old Fathers, by the tradition of Noahs sons, that there should in time come a Man who, taking upon Him the sins of all men, should become a sacrifice for the salvation of all men; and notwithstanding the manner how this should be, they used in great extremities and perils–as plagues, famine, wars, &c.

to offer up men to their gods to appease their wrath thereby. So in Livy we read Quintus Curtius did in a time of pestilence; the Decii, father and son, in a time of hard war with the Latines and Samnites; Codrus, king of the Athenians, in Lycurgus; Menceceus in Euripides, and the daughters of Erecteus offered themselves to be sacrificed for their country. So Ahaz (2Ki 16:1-20.); Manasseh (chap. 21.), and the King of Moab (chap. 3.), their own sons. This was a great mistaking you plainly see, and therefore let it move you to send up thankful thoughts to God for your better knowledge and understanding. (Bp. Babington.)

The solitary sin-bearer

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, M. A.)

And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited

:–When confessed sins are fairly laid upon Him who is appointed to bear them, they will never come back to those who confessed them. He will carry them unto a land not inhabited–a land where there are no talebearers or gossips to keep the story of those sins alive. Forgiven sins will be also forgotten sins: in the day of final account, not one of them will appear against the transgressor. Sins which are not laid upon the Scapegoat must be faced by the sinner in the presence of the universe. Sins which the Scapegoat has borne away into the land not inhabited cannot then be found in all the universe. God Himself will have forgotten them: for His promise is that those sins and those iniquities He will remember no more for ever, (H. G. Trurnbull.)

.

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

20-22. he shall bring the livegoatHaving already been presented before the Lord (Le16:10), it was now brought forward to the high priest, who,placing his hands upon its head, and “having confessed over itall the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all theirtransgressions in all their sins,” transferred them by this actto the goat as their substitute. It was then delivered into the handsof a person, who was appointed to lead him away into a distant,solitary, and desert place, where in early times he was let go, toescape for his life; but in the time of Christ, he was carried to ahigh rock twelve miles from Jerusalem, and there, being thrust overthe precipice, he was killed. Commentators have differed widely intheir opinions about the character and purpose of this part of theceremonial; some considering the word “Azazel,” with theSeptuagint and our translators, to mean, “the scapegoat”;others, “a lofty, precipitous rock” [BOCHART];others, “a thing separated to God” [EWALD,THOLUCK]; while othersthink it designates Satan [GESENIUS,HENGSTENBERG]. This lastview is grounded on the idea of both goats forming one and the samesacrifice of atonement, and it is supported by Zec3:1-10, which presents a striking commentary on this passage.Whether there was in this peculiar ceremony any reference to anEgyptian superstition about Typhon, the spirit of evil, inhabitingthe wilderness, and the design was to ridicule it by sending a cursedanimal into his gloomy dominions, it is impossible to say. Thesubject is involved in much obscurity. But in any view there seems tobe a typical reference to Christ who bore away our sins [Heb 10:4;1Jn 3:5].

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy [place],…. That is, the holy of holies, by carrying in the blood of the bullock, and of the goat there, and sprinkling them as before observed:

and the tabernacle of the congregation; the great court where the people met, and where the altar of burnt offering stood:

and the altar; the altar of incense in the holy place; and so all the parts of the tabernacle were reconciled and atoned for, even the holy of holies, the holy place, and the court of the people: all the work the day of atonement, we are told w, was done according to the order prescribed, and that if anything was done before another, it was doing nothing: thus, for instance, if the blood of the goat went before (or was sprinkled before) the blood of the bullock, he must return and sprinkle of the blood of the goat after the blood of the bullock; and if before he has finished the puttings (of the blood) within, the blood is poured out, (that is, at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering,) he shall bring other blood, and return and sprinkle anew within, and so in the temple, and at the golden altar, for every atonement is by itself:

he shall bring the live goat; that which remained alive after the other was slain, as it was to do, according to the lot that fell upon it,

Le 16:10; this was brought to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, whither the high priest went, and performed the following rites.

w Yoma, c. 5. sect. 7.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

After the completion of the expiation and cleansing of the holy things, Aaron was to bring up the live goat, i.e., to have it brought before the altar of burnt-offering, and placing both his hands upon its head, to confess all the sins and transgressions of the children of Israel upon it, and so put them upon its head. He was then to send the goat away into the desert by a man who was standing ready, that it might carry all its sins upon it into a land cut off; and there the man was to set the goat at liberty. , . from an appointed time, signifies opportune, present at the right time, or ready. , which is also met with in this passage alone, from to cut, or cut off, that which is severed, a country cut off from others, not connected by roads with any inhabited land. “The goat was not to find its way back” ( Knobel). To understand clearly the meaning of this symbolical rite, we must start from the fact, that according to the distinct words of Lev 16:5, the two goats were to serve as a sin-offering ( ). They were both of them devoted, therefore, to one and the same purpose, as was pointed out by the Talmudists, who laid down the law on that very account, that they were to be exactly alike, colore, statura, et valore . The living goat, therefore, is not to be regarded merely as the bearer of the sin to be taken away, but as quite as truly a sin-offering as the one that was slaughtered. It was appointed (Lev 16:10), i.e., not that an expiatory rite might be performed over it, for with always applies to the object of the expiation, but properly to expiate it, i.e., to make it the object of the expiation, or make expiation with it. To this end the sins of the nation were confessed upon it with the laying on of hands, and thus symbolically laid upon its head, that it might bear them, and when sent into the desert carry them away thither. The sins, which were thus laid upon its head by confession, were the sins of Israel, which had already been expiated by the sacrifice of the other goat. To understand, however, how the sins already expiated could still be confessed and laid upon the living goat, it is not sufficient to say, with Bhr, that the expiation with blood represented merely a covering or covering up of the sin, and that in order to impress upon the expiation the stamp of the greatest possible completeness and perfection, a supplement was appended, which represented the carrying away and removal of the sin. For in the case of every sin-offering for the congregation, in addition to the covering or forgiveness of sin represented by the sprinkling of blood, the removal or abolition of it was also represented by the burning of the flesh of the sacrifice; and this took place in the present instance also. As both goats were intended for a sin-offering, the sins of the nation were confessed upon both, and placed upon the heads of both by the laying on of hands; though it is of the living goat only that this is expressly recorded, being omitted in the case of the other, because the rule laid down in Lev 4:4. was followed.

(Note: The distinction, that in the case of all the other sacrifices the (one) hand is ordered to be laid upon the victim, whilst here both hands are ordered to be laid upon the goat, does not constitute an essential difference, as Hoffmann supposes; but the laying on of both hands rendered the act more solemn and expressive, in harmony with the solemnity of the whole proceeding.)

By both Israel was delivered from all sins and transgressions; but by the one, upon which the lot “for Jehovah” fell, it was so with regard to Jehovah; by the other, upon which the lot “for Azazel” fell, with regard to Azazel. With regard to Jehovah, or in relation to Jehovah, the sins were wiped away by the sacrifice of the goat; the sprinkling of the blood setting forth their forgiveness, and the burning of the animal the blotting of them out; and with this the separation of the congregation from Jehovah because of its sin was removed, and living fellowship with God restored. But Israel had also been brought by its sin into a distinct relation to Azazel, the head of the evil spirits; and it was necessary that this should be brought to an end, if reconciliation with God was to be perfectly secured. This complete deliverance from sin and its author was symbolized in the leading away of the goat, which had been laden with the sins, into the desert. This goat was to take back the sins, which God had forgiven to His congregation, into the desert to Azazel, the father of all sin, in the one hand as a proof that his evil influences upon men would be of no avail in the case of those who had received expiation from God, and on the other hand as a proof to the congregation also that those who were laden with sin could not remain in the kingdom of God, but would be banished to the abode of evil spirits, unless they were redeemed therefrom. This last point, it is true, is not expressly mentioned in the test; but it is evident from the fate which necessarily awaited the goat, when driven into the wilderness in the “land cut off.” It would be sure to perish out there in the desert, that is to say, to suffer just what a winner would have to endure if his sins remained upon him; though probably it is only a later addition, not founded in the law, which we find in the Mishnah, Joma vi. 6, viz., that the goat was driven headlong from a rock in the desert, and dashed to pieces at the foot. There is not the slightest idea of presenting a sacrifice to Azazel. This goat was a sin-offering, only so far as it was laden with the sins of the people to carry them away into the desert; and in this respect alone is there a resemblance between the two goats and the two birds used in the purification of the leper (Lev 14:4.), of which the one to be set free was bathed in the blood of the one that was killed. In both cases the reason for making use of two animals is to be found purely in the physical impossibility of combining all the features, that had to be set forth in the sin-offering, in one single animal.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

      20 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:   21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:   22 And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.   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:   24 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.   25 And the fat of the sin offering shall he burn upon the altar.   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.   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.   28 And he that burneth them shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp.

      The high priest having presented unto the Lord the expiatory sacrifices, by the sprinkling of their blood, the remainder of which, it is probable, he poured out at the foot of the brazen altar, 1. He is next to confess the sins of Israel, with both his hands upon the head of the scape-goat (Lev 16:20; Lev 16:21); and whenever hands were imposed upon the head of any sacrifice it was always done with confession, according as the nature of the sacrifice was; and, this being a sin-offering, it must be a confession of sin. In the latter and more degenerate ages of the Jewish church they had a set form of confession prepared for the high priest, but God here prescribed none; for it might be supposed that the high priest was so well acquainted with the state of the people, and had such a tender concern for them, that he needed not any form. The confession must be as particular as he could make it, not only of all the iniquities of the children of Israel, but all their transgressions in all their sins. In one sin there may be many transgressions, from the several aggravating circumstances of it; and in our confessions we should take notice of them, and not only say, I have sinned, but, with Achan, “Thus and thus have I done.” By this confession he must put the sins of Israel upon the head of the goat; that is, exercising faith upon the divine appointment which constituted such a translation, he must transfer the punishment incurred from the sinners to the sacrifice, which would have been but a jest, nay, an affront to God, if he himself had not ordained it. 2. The goat was then to be sent away immediately by the hand of a fit person pitched upon for the purpose, into a wilderness, a land not inhabited; and God allowed them to make this construction of it, that the sending away of the goat was the sending away of their sins, by a free and full remission: He shall bear upon him all their iniquities, v. 22. The losing of the goat was a sign to them that the sins of Israel should be sought for, and not found, Jer. l. 20. The later Jews had a custom to tie one shred of scarlet cloth to the horns of the goat and another to the gate of the temple, or to the top of the rock where the goat was lost, and they concluded that if it turned white, as they say it usually did, the sins of Israel were forgiven, as it is written, Though your sins have been as scarlet, they shall be as wool: and they add that for forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans the scarlet cloth never changed colour at all, which is a fair confession that, having rejected the substance, the shadow stood them in no stead. 3. The high priest must then put off his linen garments in the tabernacle, and leave them there, the Jews say never to be worn again by himself or any other, for they made new ones every year; and he must bathe himself in water, put on his rich clothes, and then offer both his own and the people’s burnt-offerings, Lev 16:23; Lev 16:24. When we have the comfort of our pardon God must have the glory of it. If we have the benefit of the sacrifice of atonement, we must not grudge the sacrifices of acknowledgment. And, it should seem, the burning of the fat of the sin-offering was deferred till now (v. 25), that it might be consumed with the burnt-offerings. 4. The flesh of both those sin-offerings whose blood was taken within the veil was to be all burnt, not upon the altar, but at a distance without the camp, to signify both our putting away sin by true repentance, and the spirit of burning, and God’s putting it away by a full remission, so that it shall never rise up in judgment against us. 5. He that took the scape-goat into the wilderness, and those that burned the sin-offering, were to be looked upon as ceremonially unclean, and must not come into the camp till they had washed their clothes and bathed their flesh in water, which signified the defiling nature of sin; even the sacrifice which was but made sin was defiling: also the imperfection of the legal sacrifices; they were so far from taking away sin that even they left some stain upon those that touched them. 6. When all this was done, the high priest went again into the most holy place to fetch his censer, and so returned to his own house with joy, because he had done his duty, and died not.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Verse 20-22:

Following the sprinkling of the blood of the first goat upon the Mercy Seat before Jehovah, the holy place, tabernacle, congregation, and altar, Aaron then came outside to where the second goat waited. Then began the second part of the ritual of Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement).

Aaron laid both his hands upon the head of this second goat,

symbolically transferring the sins of the people upon it. He confessed the sins of the people. This confession later developed into a liturgical form, found in the Mishna. (In his book, “The Temple, Its Ministry and Services,” Eerdman’s, Alfred Edersheim devotes a chapter to the Day of Atonement, giving the full liturgy of the sacrifice, both in its inception and as it came to be at the time of Christ.)

Then, Aaron delivered the “scapegoat,” azazel, to a “fit man,” itti, one who was ready to carry out the duty assigned. This man led the azazel into an uninhabited region, and there left it. This is symbolic of Christ’s removal of our sins “as far as the east is from the west,” Ps 103:12; Jer 31:34; Heb 8:12; 10:17.

The entire ritual of Yom Kippur shows the fullness of salvation. The blood of the slain goat, sprinkled upon the Mercy Seat, covers the sins of the people from the sight of God. This symbolizes the full payment of sin by the sacrifice of Christ. The “scapegoat,” azazel, pictures the complete removal of all sin, 1Jo 1:7-9; 1Pe 1:18, 19; Ps 103:12.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

20. And when he hath made an end of reconciling. The mode of expiation with the other goat is now more clearly explained, viz., that it should be placed before God, and that the priest should lay his hands on its head, and confess the sins of the people, so that he may throw the curse on the goat itself. This, as I have said, was the only bloodless ( ἀναίματον) sacrifice; yet it is expressly called an “offering,” (248) with reference, however, to the slaying of the former goat, and was, therefore, as to its efficacy for propitiation, by no means to be separated from it. It was by no means reasonable that an innocent animal should be substituted in the place of men, to be exposed to the curse of God, except that believers might learn that they were in no wise competent to bear His judgment, nor could be delivered from it otherwise than by the transfer of their guilt and crime. For, since men feel that they are altogether overwhelmed by the wrath of God, which impends over them all, they vainly endeavor to lighten or shake off in various ways this intolerable burden; for no absolution is to be hoped for save by the interposition of a satisfaction; and it is not lawful to obtrude this according to man’s fancy, or, in their foolish arrogance, to seek in themselves for the price whereby their sins may be compensated for. Another means, therefore, of making atonement to God was revealed when Christ, “being made a curse for us,” transferred to Himself the sins which alienated men from God. (2Co 5:19; Gal 3:13.) The confession tended to humiliate the people, and thus acted as a stimulus to sincere repentance; since “the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,” (Psa 51:17😉 nor is it fit that any but the prostrate should be lifted up by God’s mercy, nor that any but those who voluntarily condemn themselves should be absolved. The accumulation of words tends to this, “all the iniquities, all their transgressions, all their sins,” that believers may not lightly only and as, a mere act of duty acknowledge themselves guilty before God, but rather that they should groan under the weight, of their guilt. Since now in Christ no special day in the year is prescribed in which the Church should confess its sins in a solemn ceremony, let believers learn, whenever they meet together in God’s name, humbly to submit themselves to voluntary self-condemnation, and to pray for pardon, as if the Spirit of God dictated a formulary for them; and so let each in private: conform himself to this rule.

(248) C. refers to his own translation, “ tunc offeret hircum vivum.” Lorinus in loco says, “The Greek προσάξει signifies he shall bring or lead near, ( offeret vel adducet ) Although הקריב hikriub, is not infrequently rendered to offer.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

THE SCAPEGOAT 16:2022
TEXT 16:2022

20

And when he hath made an end of atoning for the holy place, and the tent of meeting, and the altar, he shall present the live goat:

21

and Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins; and he shall put them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a man that is in readiness into the wilderness:

22

and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a solitary land: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS 16:2022

354.

The sin is forgiven. What need is there for the scapegoat?

355.

This goat becomes a sin bearer. How?

356.

Who takes the goat into the wilderness? Why?

357.

Read Joh. 1:29; Isa. 53:11-12; Psa. 103:12 and show the application here.

PARAPHRASE 16:2022

When he has completed the rite of atonement for the Holy Place, the entire Tabernacle, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat and, laying both hands upon its head, confess over it all the sins of the people of Israel. He shall lay all their sins upon the head of the goat and send it into the desert, led by a man appointed for the task. So the goat shall carry all the sins of the people into a land where no one lives, and the man shall let it loose in the wilderness.

COMMENT 16:2022

Lev. 16:20-22 The cleansing is now complete. The priests, the people and the sanctuary along with all its utensils are clean. It is now time to turn attention to the scapegoat who has been standing patiently in the court. The goat is brought forward and all Israel hears the high priests voice confessing their sins and iniquities and transgressions. Most solemnly, and no doubt even weeping, did Aaron confess his peoples sins over the head of the scapegoat. He felt on his heart the load which was lying on the victim. These confessed sins having been thus laid on its head, the goat stood laden with the curse. Against it alone will the lightning be directed nowon this one point will vengeance fall. Israel is now clearthe stroke must slope over their heads to their substitute. And a fit man, one appointed for the purpose, leads it away down the courts, in the presence of all the people, slowly and carefully, till he has gone out of sight and reached the wilds of some rugged spot, some uninhabited waste. The fit person returns and attests that he left it there, and Israel feels the joy of pardon. Wrath against these confessed sins now alights in the desert, not upon them. The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all, is their song. (Bonar)

FACT QUESTIONS 16:2022

369.

Show how perfectly this goat represents our Lord.

370.

Who does the man represent who led the goat into the wilderness?

371.

What present-day hymn seems appropriate as an expression of the meaning of this text to us?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(20) And when he hath made an end.Having finished the expiation for himself, his fellow priests, and the sanctuary with its utensils, the goat destined by lot for Azazel, which was standing in the court before the Lord, was now brought to the high priest, that he might complete the sin-offering for the Israelites.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

20. Reconciling the holy place Purifying by atonement. Thus the R.V. The Hebrew for reconcile is commonly rendered atone.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments