“532. SCARLET SINS—ISAIAH 1:18”

Scarlet Sins—Isa_1:18

In Leviticus 16 is a minute account of an interesting ceremonial prescribed for the great day of atonement. Two goats were to be taken and presented before the Lord. There a lot was to be taken—“one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scape-goat.” The goat upon which the former lot fell, was to be offered in sacrifice for a sin-offering; and the other goat was to be “presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scape-goat into the wilderness.”

There has been much learned discussion respecting this “scape-goat,” but into this we mean not to enter, as we refer to this ceremonial only for the sake of a particular circumstance which is, however, not reported in the sacred text of the law, but is among the additional particulars transmitted by the early Rabbinical writers, who may be presumed to have known what the actual practice was, at least in the shape which that ceremonial eventually assumed. These authorities inform its that, when the lot had been taken, the high-priest fastened a long narrow fillet of scarlet to the head of the scape-goat; and that after he had, as the law directed, confessed his own sins and the sins of his people over its head, or (for we are not quite certain as to the point of time) just before the goat was finally dismissed, the fillet changed its scarlet color to white, if the atonement were accepted by the Lord, but if not, it retained its scarlet hue. It is to this that the Jewish interpreters understand Isaiah to allude, when he says, in the text before us—“Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.”

After the confession over the head of this goat, the animal was consigned to the charge of a trusty person, previously appointed, who conveyed it away into the wilderness. There, as we should have understood the text (Lev_16:22), the goat was to be set free, bearing upon him all the iniquities that had been confessed over his head, “unto a land not inhabited.” But the Rabbis say it was not so. They tell us that, under the Temple, the goat was taken away to a place about twelve miles from Jerusalem, where there was a formidable rocky precipice, on arriving at which the animal was cast down from the summit, and, by knocking against the projecting points of the cliff, was usually dashed to pieces before it had half reached the bottom. It is added, that the result of this execution was speedily made known by signals, raised at proper distances, to the people, who were anxiously awaiting the event at the Temple. It is also said that a scarlet fillet, fastened at the entrance of the Temple, turned white at the same instant of time, in token of the Divine acceptance of the expiation which had been offered. We do not clearly understand whether this latter change of color in the scarlet fillet is intended to be represented as additional to the one which had previously taken place, or that the two are different accounts of a single chance. Perhaps the change said to have taken place in the fillet attached to the goat’s horns, occurred at the moment of precipitation, and that then a corresponding change took place in the fillet at the Temple. It is, however, added, that this miracle ceased forty years before the destruction of the Temple. However understood, it is a singular fact that the Jews themselves should thus assign the cessation of the alleged miracle to a date coinciding with the death of Christ—an event which is usually regarded by Christians as having been prefigured by atoning sacrifices, and which they believe to have been done away with by that final consummation and fulfillment of sacrificial institutions. Thus, according to the account of the Jews themselves, the usual signs of the acceptance of the blood of bulls and goats, as an atonement for sin, was from that time withheld.

The colors that are mentioned in the text, “scarlet” and “crimson,” claim a moment’s consideration.

“Scarlet” is often associated with purple and blue in Scripture; and was a bright red color highly esteemed by the ancient. It was sought after, and worn by princes, and occasionally by the rich. It is mentioned to the honor of Saul, that he clothed the daughters of Israel in scarlet. 2Sa_1:24. The idea of dignity associated with this color, is still preserved in some parts of the East. In Persia, for instance, a scarlet outer coat or mantle is the distinction of a khan or noble. But we need not go to the East for illustration, as there is no people in the world who attach such pre-eminence to this color as we do. Besides being the military color with us, the robes of our peers, of the chiefs of the law, of doctors in all the faculties, and of the principal civic functionaries—mayors and aldermen—are all of this hue. It is worthy of note, however, that the color was not exactly of the same hue with our present “scarlet,” which, moreover, is not the color our translators had in view in their use of the term. It was rather a deep red or vermilion, approaching to a bright rich crimson. Accordingly, sacred poesy identities it with the hue of a woman’s lips—“Thy lips are like a thread of scarlet”—(Solomon’s Son_4:3); and this was the color intended by our translators, for the present “scarlet” was not known in their time.

The “scarlet” intended in Scripture was obtained from the female or grub of an insect (cocus ilicis) of the same family as the cochineal (cocus cactus), by which it has now been superseded for European use, although still employed in Persia and India. It attains the size and form of a pea, is of at violet black color, covered with a whitish powder, adhering to plants, chiefly various species of oak, and so clearly resembling grains or berries, that its insect nature was not known for many centuries. All the ancients concur in describing the dye as obtained from a sort of small berries which were gathered from the holm oak. They not only call them berries, but speak of them as the product of the oak itself. The tree is common in the Levant, and is also found in Spain. In Palestine it is chiefly found in the Quercus coccifera, or kermes oak. It was not until the middle ages that the insect character of this product became known, and then the color acquired the name of vermiculata, a term preserved essentially in our vermilion.

Branch with the Coccus Ilicis, or the Scarlet Grub

The word translated “crimson” in this verse, is but another word for this same “scarlet;” it being a usage of Hebrew poetry to give intensity of expression by repeating the some idea, with slight variation of phrase. If we had two words for the same color, the effect of the original would have been best preserved by employing them—but as that is not the case, and the repetition of the same word in both clauses would have been awkward, it would, perhaps, have been better to use the more nearly allied terms, “scarlet” and “vermilion,” than “scarlet” and “crimson.” A recent commentator Note: Barnes’ Notes on Isaiah. is altogether wrong in saying that the “crimson” of this test is the same word usually rendered “blue.” For blue there is a very different word in the Hebrew. But he is right in his observation, that the scarlet was regarded as the most fast or fixed of colors: “Neither dew, nor rain, nor washing, nor long usage, could remove it.” Hence it is used to represent the fixity or permanency of sins in the heart. No human means will wash them out. No effort of man, no external rite, no tears, nor sacrifices, nor prayers, are of themselves sufficient to take them away. They are deeply fixed in the heart, as the scarlet color was in the web of cloth, and an almighty power is needful to remove them. The prophet means to say, that although they are thus fixed, and immovable by any human means, yet that the mercy of God can take away all the stains.

Autor: JOHN KITTO