(Continued-Chapter XII-The Atonement)

Of all the offerings that were brought by the children of Israel, those of the great Day of Atonement stand out most conspicuously. This was the sin offering par excellence of the Mosaic system. Of all days in the year the Day of Atonement is most important. It occurs on the tenth day of the seventh month.

The ritual of this day was most impressive and meaningful. The ceremonies are not to be confused with the offerings about which we have already been studying. They refer to the individual who was guilty of sin or who was grateful for blessings and favors. In contrast with these personal offerings, let us remember, were those of the Day of Atonement which have a national aspect. This thought cannot be emphasized too strongly. Unless one realizes this fact, he cannot see clearly the full import of this ritualism and understand its prophetic significance. In order to grasp the lesson, let us follow this ritual most carefully as set forth in Leviticus, chapter 16.

On this day the high priest was the only one who officiated in the service. On other feast days and special occasions he was arrayed in his garments of beauty and holiness. Not so at this time. On the contrary, he bathed his flesh and put on the holy linen clothes and wore a linen mitre. His laying aside the garments of glory and taking the humble clothing of linen are emphasized to such an extent that there must be some symbolic, prophetic significance indicated. (Exodus, chapter 28, for a description of the priest's garments.) The meaning of this fact we shall learn later in the investigation.

Being thus attired, the high priest brought a young bullock for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering to make atonement for himself and for his house (Lev. 16:3-6). He also received at the hands of the congregation of the children of Israel two he-goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering (vs. 5).

Upon receiving the goats, the high priest "set them before Jehovah at the door of the tent of meeting" (vs. 7). He then cast lots for them; "one lot for Jehovah, and the other lot for Azazel" (vs. 8). Thereupon he presented the goat "upon which the lot fell for Jehovah" to sacrifice as a sin offering; but the goat "on which the lot fell for Azazel," he "set alive before Jehovah, to make atonement for [over is the marginal reading, which is to be preferred] him, to send him away for Azazel into the wilderness" (vss. 9,10).

After casting lots for the goats, the high priest offered the bullock for a sin offering, which was to make atonement for himself and for his house. This done, taking his censer, and filling it with coals from off the golden altar, which was "before Jehovah," he poured incense into his censer and upon the golden altar in order that the smoke rising from it might form a cloud over the mercy seat. Then with the burning incense he entered the most holy place where he sprinkled the blood of the bullock with his finger upon and before the mercy seat seven times. This service being completed, he came forth from the sanctuary.

Thereupon he killed the goat of the sin offering that was for the people. With its blood he also sprinkled the mercy seat and that which was before it to make atonement for the holy place (vs. 16), for the tent of meeting (vs. 16), and for the altar (vs. 18). By this ceremony the sanctuary was cleansed and hallowed "from the uncleannesses of the children of Israel" (vs. 19). When he had thus accomplished this part of the service, he returned to the place at the altar of burnt offerings where the second goat stood that was "alive before Jehovah," and that was to be sent away to Azazel into the wilderness. The account of this part of the service is set forth in the following language:

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 (Lev. 16:20-22).

Let us note the fact that the high priest laid his hands upon the head of the live goat and confessed over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel and all their transgressions, even all their sins, in order that "the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a solitary land." The language is very explicit--all the iniquities, all the transgressions. There is no need of our taking this language except at its face value. Thus there was included in these expressions both the known and the unknown sins of the entire nation that afflicted their soul (vs. 29). Those who did not in genuine repentance and in humiliation for their sins afflict their souls did not enjoy the forgiveness of their sins, but were to be cut off from the commonwealth of Israel according to Leviticus 23:29: "For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day; he shall be cut off from his people."

The live goat upon whose head the high priest laid his hands and confessed all the iniquities and transgressions of Israel was then led forth by someone appointed for that special duty into the wilderness to Azazel. Who was Azazel? What is the meaning of this name? The word has been the occasion of much speculation. To determine its significance and the import of this part of the ceremony is one of the most difficult tasks in connection with this portion of the chapter. In order to approach it properly, let us note the fact that these two goats constituted "a sin-offering" (vs. 5). The two animals formed the one sin offering; One was slain and its blood sprinkled in the sanctuary according to instructions; the other, after the sins of Israel had symbolically been transferred to it, was led away into the wilderness to Azazel. The ceremony of the slaying of the one goat and the leading away of the second with the sins of the people thereupon into the wilderness constituted one act; namely, the removal of the sins of the children of Israel--temporarily of course as we shall see.

As to the significance of the word Azazel, lexicographers are agreed that it indicates removal or entire removal, as is shown in the marginal reading of the Revised Version. Accepting this as its fundamental idea, certain outstanding expositors give the following explanation of this portion of the ritual. By the slaying of the goat upon whom the lot for Jehovah fell and by the sprinkling of its blood upon and before the mercy seat, expiation for the sins of all Israel was accomplished. By the laying on of the hands of the high priest on the goat upon which the lot for Azazel had fallen, and by the leading of this same goat into the wilderness, the complete removal of the sins of the nation from the presence of God and from His people was symbolically set forth. Thus by these two parts of the ceremony the complete removal of the sins and the reconciliation of Israel to God for that year was pictured. S.H. Kellogg has set forth this explanation in the following quotation:

"The goat 'for removal' bears away all the iniquities of Israel, which are symbolically laid upon him, into a solitary land; that is, they are taken wholly away from the presence of God and from the camp of His people. Thus, as the spilling and the sprinkling of the blood of the first goat visibly set forth the means of reconciliation with God, through the substitutive offering of an innocent victim, so the sending away of the second goat, laden with those sins, the expiation of which had been signified by the sacrifice of the first, no less vividly sets forth the effect of that sacrifice, in the complete removal of those expiated sins from the holy presence of Jehovah. That this effect of the atonement should have been adequately represented by the first slain victim was impossible; hence the necessity for the second goat ideally identified with the other, as jointly constituting with it one sin offering, whose special use it should be to represent the blessed effect of atonement. The truth symbolized, as the goat thus bore away the sins of Israel, is expressed in those glad words (Psalm 103:12) 'as far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us'; or, under another usage by Micah (7:19) 'thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.' "

As stated above, this explanation is held by many reputable sane commentators and is worthy of one's utmost consideration. There is however one great difficulty standing in the way of our accepting it as final. It is this: According to verse 8, lots were cast upon the two goats--"one lot for Jehovah, and the other lot for Azazel." Since Jehovah is a person, and since Azazel is set over against Him, one naturally sees in this name the possibility of a person.

In view of this fact some expositors have endeavored to explain it upon the basis of heathenism, claiming that Israel here sent the scapegoat to propitiate some demon that was supposed to be inhabiting the desert. This explanation, however, is untenable, especially so in view of Leviticus 17:7-9: "And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the he-goats, after which they play the harlot. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations. And thou shalt say unto them, whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that offereth a burnt offering or sacrifice, and bringeth it not unto the door of the tent of meeting, to sacrifice it unto Jehovah; that man shall be cut off from his people." The sacred writer in Psalm 106 narrates God's dealings with Israel. In doing so, he speaks of certain ones who mingled with the nations, served their idols, and consequently worshipped demons. This conduct was condemned by the psalmist. This interpretation therefore is not worthy of consideration.

Another explanation which is more satisfying and more reasonable, I shall now present for consideration. There is an evil spirit in the world who is known as the great adversary of both God and man--Satan. Concerning him we studied in Chapter IX. He is one of the leading actors in the drama of the Book of Job. He appears very prominently in chapters 1 and 2. Here we see him appearing among the sons of God in the presence of the Almighty in heaven. He can do nothing against any of the servants of God without first obtaining permission from the Almighty. Again, we see him represented under the symbolism of behemoth and leviathan in the closing chapters of the Book of Job. We read of this same sinister spirit in Zechariah 3:1-5. An examination of this scripture shows that Israel as a nation is represented by Joshua the high priest who stands before the Angel of Jehovah. Satan is standing, however, at the right hand of Joshua--occupying the place of a defense attorney, whereas in truth he is endeavoring to prosecute and condemn Joshua before Jehovah. The Lord most sternly rebukes him, asserting that He has chosen Jerusalem and that Joshua, representing Israel, is as a brand plucked out of the fire. Instead of rejecting Joshua, the Lord commands those standing near to remove his filthy garments, to replace them with rich apparel, and to put a clean mitre upon his head, the symbolic significance of which acts is expressed in the following words, which He addresses to Joshua: "Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with rich apparel" (Zech. 3:4). It is quite evident from a study of Zechariah 3:1-5 that the Lord symbolically sets forth the time when Israel will be cleansed, forgiven, and reinstated into the favor of her God.

In the ritual of the Day of Atonement Azazel represented Satan, Israel's inveterate enemy. The sin offering for the nation, let us keep in mind, consisted of two goats--yet one "sin-offering"--a single transaction, having two aspects which centered around the two goats. The blood of the slain goat made atonement for sin. The scapegoat--laden with the same sins, transferred to it symbolically by the laying on of hands of the high priest and his confession of all the sins of the nation over it--went forth to Azazel into the wilderness, revealing the effect of the atonement that had been made by the blood of the slain goat. By the scapegoat's going to Azazel, announcement was made to Satan that Israel's sins, which were many, had been removed and that atonement had been made for them. By this act the announcement was made to the evil one that his power over and claim upon Israel have been broken, and that she now stands approved in the sight of her God and is restored to fellowship with Him. Of course we must ever bear in mind that the sins of the nation were rolled forward by the sin offering of the Day of Atonement for one year only. This ritual had to be observed annually. In this way the sins of the people were for the ensuing year removed typically. This symbolism is rich in meaning as we shall later see.

This explanation is most beautifully expressed by Dr. Kellogg in the following paragraph:

"To this evil One, then, the Accuser and Adversary of God's people in all ages--if we assume the interpretation before us--the live goat was symbolically sent, bearing on him the sins of Israel. But does he bear their sins as forgiven, or as unforgiven? Surely, as forgiven: for the sins which he symbolically carries, are those very sins of the bygone year for which expiating blood has just been offered and accepted in the Holy of Holies. Moreover, he is sent as being ideally one with the goat that was slain. As sent to Azazel, he therefore symbolically announces to the evil one that with the expiation of sin by the sacrificial blood the foundation of his power over forgiven Israel is gone. His accusations are now no longer in place: for the whole question of Israel's sin has been met and settled in the atoning blood. Thus, as the acceptance of the blood of the one goat offered in the Holiest symbolized the complete propitiation of the offended holiness of God and His pardon of Israel's sin, so the sending of the goat to Azazel symbolized the effect of this expiation, in the complete removal of all the penal effects of sin, through deliverance by atonement from the power of the Adversary, as the executioner of God's wrath."

Only the high priest could go with the blood into the sanctuary to make atonement for the people. He had to perform the ritual exactly as prescribed in order for it to be acceptable. Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, attempted to force themselves and to offer strange fire upon the altar, as we learn in Leviticus, chapter 10. When they did this thing, fire from the Lord came and consumed them. Good old King Uzziah once forced himself into the priest's office, attempted to burn incense, and was smitten with leprosy as punishment for his presumption (II Chron. 26:16-23). When the priest, therefore, went into the sanctuary to make atonement for the nation, the multitude of worshipers stood--may I say in breathless expectation? --eagerly awaiting his return. Doubtless there was always a question in the minds of the worshipers as to whether the atonement would be acceptable--until the priest reappeared in order to continue the ritual. As an illustration of this historic fact one should read the account of Zacharias the father of John the Baptist and of his ministrations at the Temple (Luke 1:8-22). Because this priest tarried longer than usual, the multitude seemed to be apprehensive lest something might be wrong. We are told that "the people were waiting for Zacharias, and they marveled while he tarried [at his tarrying marginal reading] in the temple" (Luke 1:21). There was uneasiness because of the delay in his return.

As already seen, after the blood of the slain goat had been sprinkled upon and before the mercy seat and atonement had been made for the sins of the people, the high priest returned to the altar of burnt offerings and there laid his hands upon the goat which was to bear the canceled sins to Azazel. Let us remember constantly in this connection that the actual cancellation of the sins was accomplished by the shedding of the blood of the first goat and that the effects of this sacrifice was announced to Azazel by the live goat's bearing symbolically the canceled sins to him. Moreover we should ever take note of the further fact that in this great national atonement one goat was put to death and the other remained alive. We must also bear in mind that in this special ritual of the Day of Atonement these two he-goats--the dead one and the live one--constituted but one "sin offering." Thus death and life are both set forth symbolically in connection with the removal of Israel's sin nationally. The full force of these momentous and weighty facts will come to us in the light which is thrown upon it from the New Testament records.

But why these two different aspects of Israel's atonement? This is a most important question. In fact, there is nothing in the world that is more important for the children of Israel, primarily, and for the world in general than the answer to this question. But at this stage of the investigation we cannot answer this all-important question here and now lest we should be presuming upon the information given us in the New Testament records, which will be discussed at the proper time--in the examination of the fulfillment of the ritual of the Day of Atonement.

In these modern days there are those who tell us that the Lord did not command the offering of animal sacrifices, but that Israel adopted them from heathen nations. Her worship has frequently been called a religion "of shambles." In order to prove this point, attention is frequently called to Isaiah 1:10-17.

10 Hear the word of Jehovah, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. 11 What unto me is the multitude of your sacrifices? saith Jehovah: I have had enough of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. 12 When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to trample my courts? 13 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; new moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies,--I cannot away with iniquity and the solemn meeting. 14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth; they are a trouble unto me; I am weary of bearing them. 15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood. 16 Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; 17 learn to do well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.

Does this passage from the great statesman-prophet actually prove that God did not command the sacrifices about which we have been studying? If this language is proof that He did not authorize them, it is also evidence that He did not command the burning of incense, the observance of the first of the month, together with the calling together of assemblies of worship. Moreover, it would prove also that He did not authorize the coming with uplifted hands and praying to Him. Logicians tell us that that which proves too much proves nothing. All the evidence shows that from the beginning God did urge His people to pray, to worship in sincerity and truth, to hold certain assemblies for worship, to observe the Sabbath, and to keep the new moon. As he ordered these things, He also commanded that they offer the various sacrifices.

But what is the message of Isaiah in this passage? To the one who wishes the facts, it becomes apparent that the thing which he was condemning was the rendering of worship and the offering of sacrifices by people who had sunk to the depths of sin. Notice what the prophet says in verses 3 and 4 of this chapter: "The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib; but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider. Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evil-doers, children that deal corruptly! they have forsaken Jehovah, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they are estranged and gone backward." In verse 6 the prophet compared the body politic to the human frame and declared that from the sole of the foot to the head there was no soundness.

He than addressed the leaders and called them "ye rulers of Sodom." By so doing, he compared them to the rulers of Sodom, and the people, to the inhabitants of Gomorrah. A people not knowing God and laden with sin could not render acceptable service to the Holy God. Speaking for Jehovah, he continued, "And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood." He then urged them, "Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith Jehovah: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool" (Isa. 1:15-18). An impartial view of the facts leads one to conclude that the prophet was condemning the offering of worship to God by people who were hypocritical and who were practicing sin daily. He was not condemning the kind of worship rendered but was denouncing one's living in sin and at the same time engaging in worshipping Jehovah, the Holy One of Israel. In the light of these facts, one can easily see that an incorrect interpretation has been placed upon this passage. It does not therefore prove in the least that Israel borrowed her sacrificial system for the heathen.

Micah, a contemporary of Isaiah, is likewise understood to condemn the offering of sacrifices to the Lord. The passage to which reference is often made in this connection is Micah 6:6-8:

6 Wherewith shall I come before Jehovah, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt-offerings, with calves a year old? 7 will Jehovah be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? 8 He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth Jehovah require of thee, O man, what is good; and what doth Jehovah require of thee, but to do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God?

Micah was a contemporary of Isaiah and addressed the same people. A casual reading of the Book of Micah shows that the writer was confronted by a people laden with iniquity just as Isaiah has revealed. Hence, in the same tone with Isaiah, Micah condemned their bringing their offerings, because God would not accept any worship from people whose hands were dripping with blood and whose hearts were lusting after the evil things of the world. The first things that they were commanded to do was to get right with God and live righteous, just lives--consistent with their profession. Had the people been living holy, separated lives, their sacrifices and their offerings would have been a delight to the heart of Almighty God.

Jeremiah is also quoted as an authority to prove that God did not authorize animal sacrifices by the hand of Moses. The scripture to which reference is made is Jeremiah 7:21-26:

21 Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel: Add your burnt-offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat ye flesh. 22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices: 23 but this thing I commanded them, saying, Hearken unto my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people; and walk ye in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you. 24 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in their own counsels and in the stubbornness of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward. 25 since the day that your fathers came forth out of the land of Egypt unto this day, I have sent unto you all my servants the prophets, daily rising up early and sending them: 26 yet they hearkened not unto me, nor inclined their ear, but made their neck stiff: they did worse than their fathers.

Does this passage actually teach that God did not command animal sacrifices when He brought Israel out of the land of Egypt--as is supposed by certain rationalistic critics? One is not justified in taking this passage out of its connection and building up a theory independent of the historical facts. This quotation is a part of a message which Jeremiah delivered at the Temple and which is found in full in chapters 7,8, and 9. In order that we might see the force of our quotation, I wish to present the message of the first fifteen verses of chapter 7:

7 The word that came to Jeremiah from Jehovah, saying, 2 Stand in the gate of Jehovah's house, and proclaim there this word, and say, Hear the word of Jehovah, all ye of Judah, that enter in these gates to worship Jehovah. 3 Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel, Amend your ways and your doings, and I will cause you to dwell in this place. 4 Trust ye not in your lying words, saying, The temple of Jehovah, the temple of Jehovah, the temple of Jehovah, are these. 5 For if ye thoroughly amend your ways and your doings: if ye thoroughly execute justice between a man and his neighbor; 6 if ye oppress not the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, neither walk after other gods to your own hurt: 7 then will I cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers, from of old even for evermore.

8 Behold, ye trust in lying words, that cannot profit. 9 Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods that ye have not known, 10 and come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered; that ye may do all these abominations? 11 Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, I even I, have seen it, saith Jehovah.

12 But go ye now unto my place which was in Shiloh, where I caused my name to dwell at the first, and see what I did to it for the wickedness of my people Israel. 13 And now, because ye have done all these works, saith Jehovah, and I spake unto you, rising up early and speaking, but ye heard not; and I called you, but ye answered not: 14 therefore will I do unto the house which is called by my name, wherein ye trust, and unto the place which I gave to you and to your fathers, as I did to Shiloh. 15 And I will cast you out of my sight, as I have cast out all your brethren, even the whole seed of Ephraim (Jer. 7:1-15)

From verse 4 it is quite evident that the Israelites of Jeremiah's day interpreted the fact of the standing of the Temple of God in their midst as a guarantee of His protection against evils and calamities. In other words, they looked upon the Temple as a superstitious person does upon a talisman or amulet. Jeremiah informed them that they could not live immoral corrupt lives and expect God to bless and protect them. To enforce his lesson, he called attention to the barren condition of Shiloh. At one time the Tabernacle rested there; but because of Israel's sins the stroke of judgment had wiped out this ancient holy city. The thing uppermost in Jeremiah's mind was the wickedness and sin of the people. His contemporaries were continuing the sacrifices at the Temple in a perfunctory manner. They believed that their observing the ritualism was a guarantee that God would be with and protect them. Thus great emphasis was laid upon the externals of religion. The people of that day divorced religion from ethics, morals, and daily conduct. Such a religion as that God never instituted. His charge at Sinai and through the centuries has been to hearken to His voice and do His will in the spirit of love and obedience, putting first things first. This is the message of verses 21-26, and not the thought that God never commanded the animal sacrifices when He brought Israel out of Egypt. In order to show them this fact, the prophet used very strong language.

Paul used the same method. At Corinth divisions had arisen in the church. It appears that various groups were attempting to follow the man who baptized them. In order to dissuade them from party spirit, the apostle declared that Christ had not sent him to baptize but to preach the gospel. "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made void" (I Cor. 1:17). How are we to take this language? Did he mean that he had no right to baptize his converts? Certainly not that, for according to verses 14 and 15, he did baptize certain ones there at Corinth. By saying that Christ had not sent him to baptize but to preach the gospel, he meant that the converts were not to follow him but to follow Christ whom he preached and that they were not to emphasize baptism unduly and to attach a significance to it which it does not have. Jeremiah used the language under consideration in the same way.

On the contrary, all the evidence shows conclusively that God did institute the ritualism found in the Book of Leviticus when Israel was at Mount Sinai. Jeremiah condemned the people for the breach of the covenant which God made with them when he brought their fathers out of the land of Egypt (Jer., chap. 11). In this passage he clearly and unmistakably referred to the covenant that was made at Mount Sinai in which was included all the ritualism found in the Books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

As we have seen, God actually commanded the sacrifices recorded in the law of Moses. He wanted Israel to observe this ritualism; otherwise He would never have commanded it. Nevertheless, in Psalm 40:6-10, the Almighty declared that He did not take pleasure in sacrifices and offerings:

6. Sacrifice and offering thou hast no delight in;
   Mine ears hast thou opened:
   Burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou not required.

7. Then said I, Lo, I am come;
   In the roll of the book it is written of me:

8. I delight to do thy will, O my God;
   Yea, thy law is within my heart.

9. I have proclaimed glad tidings of righteousness in the great assembly;
   Lo, I will not refrain my lips,
   O Jehovah, thou knowest.

10. I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart;
    I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation;
    I have not concealed thy lovingkindness and thy truth from the great assembly.