Introduction
There is a fundamental difference between ‘atonement’ in the Old Testament and ‘propitiation’ in the New. Essentially, in the Old Testament, atonement involved the idea of ‘covering’, and it was something that needed to be repeated. In contrast, the truth of propitiation is retrospective in character (Rom 3.25), dealing with the ‘passed over’ sins of the Old Testament saints, with a view to Calvary where those sins would be “put away” forever (Heb 9.26).
Leviticus chapter 16 is undoubtedly one of the most precious portions of Holy Scripture in relation to the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. It lies at the epicentre of the books of the law, in the heart of Leviticus itself. It is not only central in terms of its position, but also in terms of its greatness. It is arguably the pre-eminent chapter in the books of Moses, as is Psalm 22 in the poetic books, and Isaiah 53 among the prophecies. In it we have the foreshadowing of the great propitiatory work of Christ. The chapter is full to overflowing, so we need to be selective: we will consider it from the standpoint of four locations in the chapter.
At the Door
Five offerings were needed on the Day of Atonement. For the high priest and his family, a bullock was demanded for a sin offering, and a ram was required for a burnt offering. For the nation, two goats were required for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering. As far as the rams and the bullock were concerned, Moses was told exactly what was to be done with them but, when it came to the two goats, something quite remarkable happened. They were brought to the door of the tabernacle in full view of the people, and their exact destiny was decided by the casting of lots. This procedure was unique in the whole sacrificial economy. Solomon tells us that “the lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord” (Prov 16.33).
Neither Moses nor the high priest, Aaron, decided the destinies of the two goats: that was determined by the Lord alone. We noticed in a previous article that, in Exodus 12, the setting aside of the lamb from the sheep and the goats was perhaps an allusion to Christ being set aside in divine purpose to do the will of God (cf Acts 2.23), and a similar situation is seen here. The sin offering was linked with divine destiny. However, the words of William Kelly are also worth considering: “The reason may be that in all the ritual of Israel no offering has a character so God-ward as those presented on the great Day of Atonement. It was His dealing with sin; and He accordingly moves in the matter - Jehovah alone.”
Within the Vail
Two goats were to be taken for the one sin offering. The two goats are clearly identified with one another, but still there are two goats, not one! If one would ordinarily have been sufficient, why on the Day of Atonement do we have two? Do they not both represent the same thing? It is difficult to improve on the words of C H Mackintosh: “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 necessities.” In summary, the first goat emphasises the death of Christ God-ward: it is the truth of propitiation; while the second goat emphasises His death man-ward, epitomising the great fact of substitution.
The high priest entered within the vail having been washed with water, clothed in holy garments, and shielded by sweet incense. He sprinkled the bullock’s blood upon and before the mercy seat. Aaron’s infirmity is seen in this need for preparation, in contrast to our Lord Jesus, when performing the work of propitiation. Christ did it in all the glorious excellency of His own Person. Perfect and fragrant in Himself, He “offered himself without spot to God” (Heb 9.14). It is vital to see that the character of the work of Christ takes its character from that of His Person, just as the dimensions of the ark fitted perfectly with the dimensions of the mercy seat that rested upon it. Once the high priest had atoned for his own sins, then he would kill the goat “for the Lord” (v 8), which was also said to be “for the people” (v 15). It was for the Lord’s glory, and for the people’s good! The blood was to cover their sins that they might be able to enjoy His presence for another year but, in order to do this, it must meet all the demands of God’s righteousness, and must satisfy His holiness.
When we consider the great Antitype, we bow in worship as we remember One who met every claim of God against sin. His blood typically was sprinkled once, showing the singular sufficiency of His sacrifice. Who cannot read Hebrews chapters 9 and 10 without being impressed by the infinite value of that one offering for sin? The sprinkled blood was directed “upon the mercy seat”; the very throne of God on earth. Christ’s work has met every claim of that throne against sin. The vital point connected with the goat upon which the Lord’s lot fell is that it was for God, first and foremost. The work of Christ had much more in view than the salvation of sinners; it was primarily for the glory of God. If “upon” the mercy seat speaks of acceptance, then “before” the mercy seat is linked with approach, and that approach is based upon the completeness of His finished work, as indicated in the seven-fold sprinkling of blood.
A Land Not Inhabited
The second goat teaches us the truth of substitution, that is, the death of Christ from man’s standpoint. We have dealt with substitution in a little more detail in a previous article, so a few words will suffice here. Aaron would do three things with the goat. Having laid his hands upon it, he would then confess the nation’s sins over it and, finally, he would send it away into the wilderness. In so doing, he symbolically transferred the sins of the nation onto the scapegoat which, in turn, would bear them away as it went into that barren wilderness. It was not slain as the first goat was, but it was sent away alive. Mr Darby notes that “though the scapegoat was sent away alive, he was identified as to the efficacy of the work with the death of the other.” Calvary is thus before us again: there the Lord Jesus “bare our sins in his own body on the tree” (1 Pet 2.24). He bore them into “the wilderness”; into “a land not inhabited”; “a land apart [from men]” (Lev 16.22, JND1); a land of desolation, distance and desertion, unseen by the eye of man. He carried them into the darkness in that ‘mysterious hour’:
Thou didst measure then sin’s distance;
Darkness, wrath and curse were Thine;
Man-betrayed, by God forsaken;
Thus we learn Thy love divine.
(M W Biggs)
Without the Camp
In keeping with the directions of the sin offering (Leviticus 4), the bodies of the bullock and the goat were taken outside the camp to be consumed by the fire. The procedure was clear: if the blood went in, the body went out. It is of significance that this fire was not the slow, lingering, fragrant burning (as with incense), sweet to the nostrils of God and true of the sweet-savour offerings (Leviticus 1-3), but rather a fierce burning that symbolised divine holiness consuming the body of the sin offering and totally reducing it to ashes. We do well to remember the holiness of our God, and His hatred of sin. The cross does more than reveal God’s love; it also displays His abhorrence of sin.
When we reach the end of the epistle to the Hebrews, we read that God would have His people be in the place where His Son is, and He is outside. To quote C H Mackintosh again, “the same cross that brought us inside the vail, has cast us outside the camp.” He is outside everything in this world’s system: its commerce (the gate); its politics (the city); and its religion (the camp). In being drawn to Christ, may we by God’s grace be gladly associated with Him.
(To be continued …)
1 J N Darby, The Holy Scriptures - A New Translation from the Original Languages.
