And Jehovah spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they came near before Jehovah and died;
God dates a new set of instructions from a funeral. Two of Aaron's sons had drawn near to Him and died. Why does the chapter of the day of atonement open with that disaster?
Verse 1 points back to the death of Nadab and Abihu, Aaron's sons. One writer explains why that reminder stands here.
This is a chapter of central importance in the book of Leviticus. It forms a basis for, and is explained in, the letter 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 so that we may be impressed with the seriousness of any approach into the holy presence of God.
Older English Bibles say the two sons "offered" before the Lord. One writer corrects the wording. The point is not what they offered, but that they approached the LORD.
Leviticus 16:1 — It is not when they "offered," but "came near before," or approached, the LORD.
That death led to a rule of distance. Aaron could not enter the holiest, the place behind the veil, whenever he chose. One writer weighs that distance against the joy God's people are meant to have.
Our joy is meant to have the glory of God as its element. We have a right to rejoice in the hope of that glory, just as we have a right to rejoice in God Himself. But such joy assumes nearness to Him. To keep the soul out of the presence of God cannot go together with real enjoyment of Him. Still, it was the failure of Nadab and Abihu that made this distance necessary on man's part. Under the law, and until the cross, no other provision was possible.
The two deaths did not end the matter. Yet the wording of the restriction leaves a door open, and one writer shows how much hangs on a short phrase.
The consequences of their sin did not cease with their death, as the opening verses of this chapter show… How gracious of the Lord to speak this way! "That he come not" would destroy all hope, but "at all times" at once revives it. Without question He has the right to say who should approach Him, and when.
One writer asks what this closed door meant. The high priest did go in, but not for fellowship.
The way into the holiest is closed; Aaron is forbidden to enter there at all times. He never went in wearing his garments of glory and beauty. When he did go in, it was not for communion. He went to cleanse the sanctuary, which the sins of a people among whom God dwelt had defiled. The day of atonement is introduced only with a ban on entering the holy place at all times. It also stands out as taking place after the death of the sons of Aaron. He does it with a cloud of incense, so that he will not die. It was truly a gracious provision, so that the people would not perish because of their defilements. But the Holy Spirit was showing that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made known.
That rule made the holiest a place of death for everyone but Aaron. It is the background for what happened when Jesus died.
It would therefore have been certain death, by the judgment of God, had anyone besides the high priest ventured inside that fearful veil (Lev. 16:1-2; Num. 15, 16). But the moment the sacrifice of Christ was finished, the veil was torn from top to bottom (Matt. 27:51). By His death He glorified God in every attribute of His character on the question of sin. By that one offering He perfected forever those who are sanctified. The veil was therefore torn to show that the way was now open into the holiest of all. "The same thing that tore the veil to let us in has also put away the sin that shut us out."
- Death — God dates the chapter from a funeral. Two priests drew near in their own way and died, and that event frames all that follows.
- Drawing near — the issue is not what they offered but that they approached God, which is never a casual thing.
- Distance — the answer was a limit on access. Under the law no other provision was possible; only the cross could bring us near.
- Grace — the words "at all times" limit the entry without closing it. God keeps the right to say who may approach Him, and when.
- Opening — the shut way was a sign that the true way was not yet open. At the cross the veil tore, and the sin that shut us out was put away.
and Jehovah said to Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the sanctuary inside 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.
Verse 2 draws a line inside the tabernacle: Aaron, the high priest, may not enter the innermost room whenever he pleases, on pain of death. Why did God shut His own priest out of His own dwelling, and what does the cloud over the mercy seat mean?
The wording is not a flat refusal. God restricts the timing rather than closing the door forever, and one writer hears mercy in that small phrase.
How gracious of the Lord to speak like this! "That he come not," would destroy all hope, but "at all times" immediately revives it. Without question He has the right to say who should approach Him, and when.
Stuart quotes an older translation here and below. Where it reads "that he come not at all times," the ESV has "not to come at any time."
The same writer notes whom the ban names — and whom it leaves out.
Aaron only was permitted to visit it once a year, though probably Moses, as mediator, had access to it at all times (Ex. 25:22; 34:34-35); for the prohibition in Lev. 16:2 ran in this form, "Speak to Aaron, your brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil." Not a word was said here about restricting Moses.
A gold slab gave the whole room its name. Its Hebrew name carries its own meaning.
The mercy seat was a slab of pure gold, two and a half cubits long by one and a half cubits wide, resting on the ark. It had its own meaning and its own name. It was not part of the ark, though always joined to it. Scripture calls the holy of holies "the place of the mercy seat" (see Lev. 16:2 and 1 Chr. 28:11). The Hebrew word for mercy seat is Kapporeth = to cover up, to reconcile, to atone.
Where God said He would appear became the seat of His rule over the nation, and the point from which mercy was measured out.
The mercy seat was His throne, the throne on which He sat, from where He governed His people, and from where He dispensed mercy according to the efficacy of the incense and the blood of the sacrifices presented before Him on the great day of atonement.
The threat of death applied even to the high priest himself.
There was not a man to be found in all the earth fit to come into the presence of the holy God, without the blood of a slain victim. No, not one; not even the high priest of Israel. Once a year God's people stood as one nation out of all the nations of the earth, and out of that nation stood one man. Yet even that one man must not come into the presence of God without blood... And the man who dares approach the mercy seat of God without the blood of the sin offering, that man must die.
The closed door matched the state of the people, and the one yearly entry had a narrow purpose.
The way into the holiest is closed; Aaron is forbidden to enter there at all times. He never went in wearing his garments of glory and beauty. When he went in, it was not for communion, but to cleanse the sanctuary defiled by the sins of a people among whom God dwelt... It was truly a gracious provision, so that the people should not perish because of their defilements. But the Holy Spirit was showing that the way into the holiest of all was not yet open.
The curtain that closed the sanctuary did not stay shut forever. One writer sets the old arrangement beside the new.
Here we see a picture of a way into the holiest for sinners, and a standing before God that no one can challenge. But the sacrifices offered then did not open that way or secure that standing. Aaron repeated them each year, and the veil, never torn, kept the inner sanctuary of God closed. Then, one man entered, the high priest; now, all enter who are priests. Then, he went behind the veil; now, we enter through it... "since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus" (Heb. 10:19). That inner sanctuary was empty when Aaron entered it, and empty when he left it. Is the holiest empty now?
- Barrier. God shut His own high priest out of the innermost room; the way into the holiest was not yet open.
- Boundary with hope. God limited when Aaron could come, not whether he could ever come; the door was shut, but not sealed forever.
- Blood. Not one man on earth was fit to stand before God without the blood of a slain victim; approach the mercy seat without it and that man must die.
- Basis. The mercy seat's name means to cover, to reconcile, to atone — God's throne, from which He governed and dispensed mercy on the ground of blood.
- Boldness. Then one man went behind the veil once a year; now all who are priests enter through it, by the blood of Jesus.
In this manner shall Aaron come into the sanctuary with a young bullock for a sin-offering, and a ram for a burnt-offering.
After the death of Aaron's two sons, God fixed one way of approach into His presence. This verse states it: a sin offering and a burnt offering. The words "in this way" rule out every other route. The two animals named carry the two great sides of atonement.
The verse follows a warning that Aaron could not enter whenever he pleased. One writer traces these offerings back to what Aaron himself was:
The death of Aaron's irreverent sons was the occasion for declaring that man is not fit to draw near before Jehovah. Even Aaron must not approach inside the veil at all times, on pain of death (vv. 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 (v. 3)... All this spoke of imperfection and uncleanness in his very nature. He was as he stood in no way fit for access to God; and when he did get there, it was through incense and blood.
The day has no grain offering and no peace offering. Only these two appear, and one writer sees the pair facing in two directions at once:
Here we have the two grand aspects of Christ's atoning work. It perfectly maintains the divine glory, and it perfectly meets man's deepest need. There is no mention, throughout all the services of this unique and solemn day, of a grain offering, or a peace offering. The perfect human life of our blessed Lord is not pictured here. Nor does this day unfold the soul's communion with God that follows His finished work. In a word, the one grand subject is "atonement," and that in a double way. First, it meets every claim of God — the claims of His nature, His character, and His throne. Second, it perfectly meets all man's guilt and all his need.
The two offerings do not do the same work. Each secures something the other does not:
The burnt offering and the sin offering made atonement; the grain and peace offerings did not... Atonement in the sin offering was to secure forgiveness for the sinner. Atonement in the burnt offering is for our acceptance.
He could have stopped at a sin offering. He named a second animal, and one writer sees in that how far His purpose reaches:
"But in this way Aaron shall come into the Holy Place: with a bull from the herd for a sin offering" — that is the first thought — "and a ram for a burnt offering." There is no coming short of blessing, no incompleteness in the thoughts of God. He would not be content with only meeting sin. In this picture He also gives the sign and the means of acceptance. He would not merely blot out the consequences of evil; He would bring us into conscious favour as we draw near to Himself. How full of grace He is! How bent on the blessing of His people!
The bull here is not for the nation. The goats cover Israel, and Aaron's own household has its own offering:
Aaron appears with a bullock for himself and for his house, and then with an offering for the people. The goats, strictly speaking, represented Israel... He was to have a bullock for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering. The ram was always for consecration, or where there had been desecration, which was the opposite of consecration.
Another writer names who stands in the place of Aaron's household today:
Aaron and his sons represent the saints who now form the church as a company of priests. So in the picture they stood apart from the people (Israel), the earthly company who formed the camp.
A type is a picture of Christ drawn in advance, and a picture can only go so far. Aaron's bull was in part for his own sin, and there the shadow cannot be pressed onto Christ:
A shadowy form was all that could be in those days, for Aaron was sinful just as the people were. But the One whom Aaron represented needed no sin offering; instead, He Himself was to be made sin for us... We must not fail to read the type in the light of Christ, instead of reducing Christ to the measure of the type.
Another writer puts the contrast in one sentence:
There is all the difference in the world between Aaron offering FOR himself and Christ offering HIMSELF.
- One way. God names the one way in. The death of Aaron's sons was the occasion, and the lesson was that man is not fit to come near uninvited.
- Two offerings. A sin offering and a burnt offering — no grain offering, no peace offering. Atonement alone is the subject of the day.
- Forgiveness. The sin offering secures forgiveness for the sinner and meets man's deepest need.
- Acceptance. The burnt offering guards God's glory. It brings the worshipper into conscious favour, for God would not stop at blotting out evil.
- Fulfilment. Aaron offered for himself; Christ offered Himself. Read the type by Christ, never Christ by the type.
A holy linen vest shall he put on, and linen trousers shall be upon his flesh, and he shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired these are holy garments; and he shall bathe his flesh in water, and put them on.
Once a year the high priest could pass through the curtain into the innermost room of the tabernacle, Israel's tent of worship. God's presence rested there. Before he took a step toward it, God told him what to wear and how to prepare his body. The clothes God named were plain white linen, not the rich robes Aaron wore the rest of the year.
Aaron hears about the sacrifice before he hears about his clothing. Neither was his to choose.
God prescribed everything. Aaron had no choice in the services of that day, and God left nothing to his own judgment. He could suggest nothing, and he could alter nothing. Who but God knew the reality these things pictured, or what it took to picture Him and His work in advance? To keep Aaron in mind of the only ground of approach, he hears of his sacrifice before he hears of his dress. God had to describe his dress, for he could not have entered the holiest place in any other garments. Yet his garments did not win him acceptance. The blood of the sin offering did.
Aaron's usual high-priestly dress blazed with gold, jewels and colour. On this one day it was set aside.
The high priest appears, not in his official robe, but in the clothing that spoke of spotless righteousness — the holy garments. These were not his regular or proper clothes. A rich dress with gold and jewels in it marked out the high priest. But the atoning work of this day called for the holy "linen garments."
What the day pictured explains why the splendour had to go.
On the day of atonement he must lay aside the garments of glory and wear fine linen only. His duties on that day spoke of the Cross in all its greatness of meaning for God and for creation... All the glory of God rests upon our Lord in that aspect. Even so, that day was not a time for a blaze of glory but a time of woe.
The white linen said one thing to a watching nation.
On the great day of atonement, the High Priest laid aside his ordinary garments of glory and beauty, and wore only spotless white. He was going into the presence of God as the bearer of the blood of atonement. One thought had to stand out in the minds of the people: the absolute need of spotless purity in that holy Presence.
The same linen sets the standard for those who serve God now.
Bible students know linen as a symbol of practical purity and righteousness (see Revelation 19:8). These features belonged to our true High Priest in perfection (Hebrews 1:9 and 7:26). They are also an essential requirement for anyone today who longs for priestly service and is involved in it — and this should be every Christian.
The command to bathe before dressing was not about hygiene. It pointed to what Aaron was inside.
Aaron had to put on the holy linen coat, with the linen undergarment on his flesh. He had to tie the linen sash around his waist and wear the linen turban. He must also bathe his flesh in water before putting them on (verse 4). All this spoke of inward imperfection and uncleanness. As he stood, he was in no way fit to come to God. When he did get there, it was through incense and blood.
Aaron had to be made fit. Christ never did.
It is especially precious to be called to gaze on the Person of our divine Priest, in all His essential holiness... He did not need to do or to wear anything to be pure and spotless. He needed no pure water, no fine linen. He was, in Himself and in practice, "the Holy One of God." What Aaron did, and what he wore — the washing and the robing — are only faint shadows of what Christ is.
The order in the verse — wash first, then put on — still shapes how a believer comes to God.
Before Aaron could put on the holy linen coat, he must wash his flesh in water (Leviticus 16:4). It is the same now — "our bodies washed with pure water." We cannot put on our white robe unless we know what fellowship with the death of Jesus really is. The old man must be put off before the new man can be put on. And this has been done for us, once for all, in the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus.
- Prescribed — God fixed the sacrifice, the dress and the order. Aaron could change nothing, and the blood, not his garments, made him acceptable.
- Stripped — the gold and jewels came off, because the day pictured the cross, which was a time of woe, not a blaze of glory.
- Clothed — plain white linen put one idea before the nation — God's presence demands spotless purity.
- Washed — the bath before the robing exposed Aaron's own uncleanness. The true Priest needed no water and no linen. He was holy in Himself.
- Followed — the same order still holds for us — washed first, then clothed, resting on a death already accomplished.
And of the assembly of the children of Israel shall he take two bucks of the goats for a sin-offering, and one ram for a burnt-offering.
The high priest has already heard what to bring for himself; now God names the animals for the nation, and they come from the people themselves. Two goats stand where one might be expected, and that one detail shapes the whole day of atonement.
The animals themselves draw a line between the priestly family and the nation. One writer shows where the two lists differ and where they match:
Once he was properly dressed, we next read of the sacrifices he was to take for the children of Israel: two male goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering. A distinction is made between the offerings for himself and his house, and those for the congregation of Israel. The burnt offering was the same for both, but the sin offering was not. One bull for himself and his house was God's command, and two male goats for the congregation of Israel. Aaron and his house are classed together, and all through that day they take precedence over the congregation of Israel. This was a distinction and an order which they probably did not understand, but we learn its meaning. All the priests were classed together as one family with the High Priest. All believers now are a holy priesthood, in close association with the High Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ.
The verse names two animals but one sin offering. The pair belong together, and they picture one death with a double effect:
The two goats form one sin offering (Lev. 16:5). One was sacrificed and the other driven into the wilderness. They are a type of the double effect of the death of Christ. That death meets all the demands of a holy God, so that He remembers no more the sins of His people, and removes from them all imputation of sin.
Later in the chapter Scripture links atonement with the living goat, though no one kills it. One commentator answers the puzzle from the wording there and from this verse:
The goat is a scapegoat, a goat that gets away, not one that is offered... Atonement is not made with it, as the older translation has it, but "for it" (Lev. 16:10)... Some find this hard: how can propitiation be made for the goat, or why does it need to be made at all? It is needed because the two goats are for a sin offering (Lev. 16:5), while in fact only one is offered. The "Lord's lot" falls on the one to be offered; the other escapes. The atonement, which the escaping goat was meant to make, is in fact made for him by the one that died.
Because there are two animals, some have read two separate acts into the work of Christ. Aaron set both goats before the Lord together, and that answers them:
Some find it hard to see how the dismissed live goat fills such a weighty place in the rites of atonement. They should remember that God told Aaron plainly to take the "two male goats for a sin offering," and to set both before Jehovah at the door of the tent of meeting (Lev. 16:5, 7)... This picture shows the removal of our sins. That removal hung just as truly on our Lord's death on the cross as the witness to the effectiveness of His blood in the sprinkling of the sanctuary. It is foreign to Christian truth to deduce separate acts of Christ — at distinct times, in different places, and even in another condition of His person.
The verse also names one ram for a burnt offering. That offering adds the second side of the day:
The burnt offering follows, a ram. It witnesses not only to sin removed but to positive acceptance. So atonement is now emphasized on both sides, and the link between Christ and His people is sustained.
Aaron's house had a bull and no escaping goat. One writer explains why God ordered the day that way:
That goat went away never to return. Their sins were carried away on it, never to come back. Everyone could see the goat going away; everyone would know that it did not come back. For Aaron and his house no scapegoat was provided. The reason for this is clear to us. Israel will only know that their sins have been taken away, borne by the substitute, when they see the Lord Jesus... With us Christians, who are a holy priesthood, the putting away of sins is a matter of faith; with Israel it will be a matter of sight.
- Taken — the animals come from the people. Their sin offering differs from the high priest's bull, though the burnt offering is the same for both.
- Two — two goats make one sin offering: one death, seen from two sides. It meets God's holiness and carries sins away.
- One — no one offers the living goat. The goat that died makes atonement for it, so nothing here points to two separate acts of Christ.
- Accepted — the ram witnesses not only to sin removed but to acceptance before God.
- Seen — the priests had no escaping goat. Believers now know forgiveness by faith; Israel will know it by sight.
And Aaron shall present the bullock of the sin-offering, which is for himself, and make atonement for himself, and for his house.
Leviticus 16:6 opens the great day of atonement, and the high priest's first act is to deal with himself. He brings a bullock for himself and his house before he touches the nation's sin — so who is that "house," and how can a sinful priest picture a sinless one?
Aaron must deal with his own sin before he can act for anyone else. One writer traces this order back to what the priest himself was:
Again, Aaron had first to offer the bullock for himself and for his house. As Hebrews 5:1-3 points out, weakness surrounded him, and so he had to offer for his own sins. Our High Priest is "holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens" (Heb. 7:26).
The difference between Aaron and Christ decides what Christ's offering could do:
We see then in the type that the high priest offered his bullock for himself as a sin offering. But in Christ, just because His offering was not needed for Himself, it could be perfectly for others. This contrast does not rest only on the general truth of Scripture about the person of Christ. The Holy Spirit states it directly and plainly in the letter to the Hebrews.
Another writer points to how the wording of the chapter repeats itself:
This bullock is recorded three times as the sin offering for himself (16:6, 11). Wherever it mentions the atonement this bullock makes, the text says it is for himself and for his house (16:6, 11, 17). The high priest and his house are linked this closely, no doubt to draw our attention to the oneness between Christ and His house. But there is a striking contrast as well. Aaron's bullock for sin suffered for himself and his house. He was himself a sinner, and his house was made up of sinners like him. Our High Priest knew no sin, and therefore offered up Himself solely on behalf of others.
One writer points out who else these words cover:
In reading verses 6 and 11, "which is for himself" and "make atonement for himself and for his house," one sees that it is for himself along with his sons, not alone.
Commentators read that household as a picture of believers gathered as priests. They are also careful about how far the picture goes:
Aaron and his house represent the Church, not as the "one body," but as a priestly house. This is not the Church as we find it developed in Ephesians and Colossians. It is the Church as we find it in the First Letter of Peter, in this well-known passage: "you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 2:5)... We must always remember that there is no revelation of the mystery of the Church in the Old Testament. Types and shadows there are, but no revelation.
The chapter gives the priest's family one offering, but the people two goats:
For in the case of the priestly family, with Aaron at the head of it, there was but a single act. The bullock was slain, and the sprinkling of its blood alone met all the demands of God's holiness and nature as regarded Aaron and his house. But in the case of the children of Israel we have a far more complicated system.
The bullock also settles something about those it covers. They are not left waiting:
The blood of the bullock has to do only 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 the first goat cannot be separated from the second. They combine and make up the necessary atonement for the people who wait for the coming out of the great High Priest. It is not so with those concerned in the bullock. There is no waiting on His appearing for their acceptance.
- Order. Aaron deals with himself first because he is a sinner. Nothing moves for the people until the priest's own sin is covered.
- Contrast. Christ needed no sin offering for Himself. That is why His offering could be wholly for others.
- House. The atonement covers the priest and his household together. Aaron is never covered alone, and his house pictures believers made a holy priesthood.
- Simplicity. One bullock met every demand for the priest's family. The people's case needed the more complicated picture of two goats.
- Access. Those covered by the bullock do not wait for the High Priest to come out again. Their place is inside the sanctuary now.
And he shall take the two goats, and set them before Jehovah, before the entrance of the tent of meeting.
Once a year the high priest stood at the entrance of the tent of meeting with two goats before him. Neither one was yet marked for death or release. Two questions shape everything that follows. Why does one sin offering need two animals? And why must both stand in God's presence before anything happens to either?
The two animals are not two rituals. They are one sin offering, and both stand in the same place before God.
There were two goats on behalf of Israel. There is no question that together they made up the sin offering (verse 5), and both were set before Jehovah (verse 7). But of the two, the first goat is the more important in its aim. It looks toward Jehovah, not toward the people. Notice this carefully. When a heart is first awakened, its constant danger is to think only of what will relieve its new distress.
Both goats come before God first. One writer notes that even the way they stood carried a message.
The people's goat was for them. It was to make their consciences sure of the value of the atonement God had made in His presence for them. Remember, this goat too had been presented to Jehovah, along with the goat that was slain. In temple times, the way they did this said much. The man who brought the two goats came before Jehovah at the start of the service. The goats stood facing west — that is, toward His throne. Only after God accepted them was the goat chosen for Jehovah's part killed.
In other offerings the worshipper picked the animal within set limits. Here the choice was not a man's to make.
Notice that lot decided between them — Jehovah alone disposed of them. This was quite exceptional among the sacrifices. In the sweet savour offerings the offerer chose the victim, under stated conditions... But here Jehovah Himself decided the choice in a special way.
The same writer gives a reason, and points out who alone acted that day:
Even the high priest himself was not allowed to choose which of them should be Jehovah's lot and which the people's. The reason may be that in all the ritual of Israel no offering is so Godward in character as those presented on the great Day of Atonement. It was His dealing with sin, and so He moves in the matter — Jehovah alone. The high priest is the only man permitted to appear. On other days he had the sons of his house, and the subordinate priests took their part. On that day he acted, and he only. The bearing of these things on our Lord Jesus is plain.
One goat falls to "the Lord's lot." That phrase points to a side of Christ's death that does not turn on who is forgiven.
In these two goats we have the two aspects of atonement. "The Lord's lot" fell on one, and the people's lot fell on the other. With the first, the question was not which persons or which sins would be forgiven, nor God's purposes of grace toward those He has chosen... This one pictures the death of Christ as the place where God has been perfectly glorified about sin in general... God has a portion of His own in the death of Christ. It is a portion quite distinct — a portion that would hold good for ever even if no sinner were ever saved.
From this point the two goats part ways.
They made each goat as much like the other as possible. Yet the two were handled in completely different ways. Jehovah's goat was killed; the people's goat was "let go." The blood of the goat killed for sin went inside the sanctuary. The live goat was sent away with sins confessed on it. Jehovah's goat accomplished atonement and reconciliation. The people's goat blotted out the memory of the sins transferred to it. The effects produced by the second were caused by the atonement accomplished by the first.
Setting both goats before God together keeps the picture whole.
Some find it hard to see how the live goat, sent away, fills so weighty a place in the rites of atonement. They should not forget that Aaron was told to take the "two he-goats for a sin-offering," and to set both before Jehovah at the door of the tent of meeting (Lev. 16:5, 7)... Our sins are removed in this pictured way, but that removal hung on our Lord's death on the cross just as truly as the sprinkling of the sanctuary bore witness to the power of His blood. To make out separate acts of Christ, at different times and in different places, and even in another condition of His person, is foreign to Christian truth.
- Presented first. Both goats stand at the tent door before God before anything happens to either. His acceptance comes first; death or dismissal comes after.
- One offering. The two together make up a single sin offering, so they picture two sides of one work, not two works.
- God's choice. Lot decided the choice, and God kept it in His own hands. No other day's offerings look so Godward.
- God's portion. The first goat shows God perfectly glorified about sin. That portion stands even if no sinner were saved.
- The people's relief. The second goat carries sins away. All it achieves flows from the atonement the first goat made.
And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats one lot for Jehovah, and the other lot for Azazel.
Two goats stood at the tent entrance on the Day of Atonement, alike in every way. A lot marked one "for the LORD" and the other "for Azazel," and that difference shapes what this chapter teaches about the death of Christ.
God leaves nothing here to chance, and nothing to Aaron's preference. Casting lots was Israel's way of handing a decision back to God. Leviticus 16 is the first place where the LORD Himself uses it.
By looking at Joshua 7:14-18 you will see how the lot was used to discern the mind of the LORD among His people... Strikingly, we find this way of choosing first used by the LORD in Leviticus 16:8. It was the divine way of making a selection between the two goats.
The first lot belongs to God, and Aaron offers the goat it falls on as a sin offering. One writer weighs what the title "the Lord's lot" claims about God's own share in the death of Christ.
"The Lord's lot" fell on one, and the people's lot fell on the other. In the first, it was not a question of the persons or the sins to be forgiven, nor of God's counsels of grace toward His elect... This one pictures the death of Christ. In that death God has been perfectly glorified with respect to sin in general. This great truth is fully set out in the remarkable expression, "the Lord's lot." God has a portion of His own in the death of Christ. It is a portion quite distinct — one that would hold good for ever, even if no sinner were ever saved.
The distinction is between sin as a whole and particular sins. The goat under the Lord's lot answers to the first.
The goat on which the Lord's lot fell does not bear the special sins of any particular people... This goat pictures Christ dying to glorify God with respect to sin. Not particular sins, but the sin that entered this world and brought a curse even on the ground.
Older translations read "scapegoat" here, and they write the LORD's name as "Jehovah." The Hebrew word behind "scapegoat" is Azazel, and some have taken it as the name of a person or a place.
Azazel does not mean simply the goat, but the goat of dismissal. It is a mistake to think the phrase points to either a person or a place. The first goat was the one on which Jehovah's lot fell for sacrifice. The second was set apart to give a striking picture of the people's sins sent away into oblivion... The true and only sense is as clear as it is satisfying, adding substitution to propitiation, and so completing atonement as far as the type could.
The lots separate the two goats, yet together they make one sin offering for the people. Each side answers a different need.
Propitiation and substitution were now accomplished facts. The two goats were really only one sin offering (Lev. 16:5). They picture two important parts of the atoning work of the Lord Jesus, and both were needed. The first met the claims of God's holiness. The second freed the guilty from the burden and weight of their sins.
Commentators differ on how the two divide. One writer holds that the first goat alone makes the atonement, and that the release of the second is the freedom that follows:
Being let go is a real freedom, the result of the atonement made... This makes the meaning of "Jehovah's lot" plain. The first goat is Jehovah's lot because it is the real sacrifice, while the other is "let go." It is not a question of two parts or aspects of atonement. The first alone really makes the atonement, and the other expresses the result for the people.
The order of the verse is itself a lesson, and one writer says preaching commonly reverses it.
Is the first place given to God's glory? Do they start where they should, with Jehovah's lot — how Christ has glorified God? No. What they repeat again and again is what Christ is for man... It is quite otherwise in what the Holy Spirit shows us here. He begins with what was for God. The first lot was Jehovah's, not the people's.
- Chosen, not chanced — the lot handed a decision back to God, so the split between the two goats is His choice, not Aaron's.
- God's lot first — God's own portion in the death of Christ holds good even if no sinner were ever saved. Scripture names it before the people's lot, though preaching often reverses the order.
- Sin, then sins — the Lord's goat answers sin in general; the second carries away the people's particular sins.
- Azazel means dismissal — not a person or a place, but the goat that goes away, picturing sins sent into oblivion.
- One offering, two sides — the two goats form one sin offering; commentators differ on how the weight divides, but they agree it is one.
And Aaron shall present the goat upon which the lot fell for Jehovah, and offer it [as] a sin-offering.
Two goats stand at the centre of the day of atonement, and this verse takes up the first of them. Why does God's own portion come first, and what does this goat settle that the other does not?
In some offerings the worshipper chose the animal. Here the choice was taken out of human hands.
Anyone can see on the face of Scripture that there is a marked difference between the two goats. It is useless to suppose that God did not intend each goat to teach a definite truth. Notice that they were decided by lot — the disposal was in Jehovah's hand alone. This was quite exceptional among the sacrifices. In the offerings of pleasing aroma the offerer could choose the animal, within stated conditions. For sin or trespass there was no freedom at all: a command laid down which animal must be offered in which circumstances. But in this case Jehovah Himself decided the choice.
The verse names whose lot this is, and that settles something before any question of forgiveness comes up. The ESV says the lot fell "for the LORD"; the writers below use the older wording, "the Lord's lot."
In these two goats we have two aspects of atonement. "The Lord's lot" fell on one, and the people's lot fell on the other. With the first goat, the question was not which persons or which sins would be forgiven. Nor was it about God's plans of grace toward those He has chosen. These things are of infinite importance, but they are not involved in the case of "the goat on which the Lord's lot fell." This goat pictures the death of Christ as the work in which God has been perfectly glorified about sin in general. God has a portion of His own in that death — a portion quite distinct. It would hold good for ever even if no sinner were ever saved.
Notice what is missing here. Nobody lays hands on this goat's head and names sins over it.
Aaron killed the bullock and the goat called the Lord's lot. He sprinkled the blood on and before the mercy seat and on the altar. He presented that blood to God, whose holy presence sin had dishonoured and offended... The work Christ did glorified God's majesty, righteousness, love, truth — all that He is. The blood was the witness of this in the holy place itself. Our sins gave occasion to it, but God Himself was glorified in it... But no one confessed sins over the head of this goat. It dealt with sin because Israel was sinful. Yet it was simply blood offered to God.
The pair counts as one sin offering, and the order between the two cannot be reversed.
The people's sin offering was made up of two goats — the two together forming one sin offering. Care was taken to have each goat as much like the other as possible. Yet what happened to them was entirely different. Jehovah's goat was killed. The people's goat was "let go." The blood of the goat killed for sin went inside the sanctuary. The live goat was sent away with sins confessed on it. Jehovah's goat accomplished atonement and reconciliation. The people's goat caused the sins transferred to it to be forgotten. The atonement accomplished by the first goat caused the effects produced by the second.
Commentators differ here. Mackintosh calls the two goats two aspects of one atonement. Others press the point that only one goat is the real sacrifice:
The first goat is Jehovah's lot, because it is the real sacrifice, while the other is "let go." It is not a question of two parts or aspects of atonement. The first goat alone really makes the atonement. The other expresses the result for the people.
Propitiation here means blood offered to God Himself, whose presence sin has dishonoured. Because no sins are named over this goat, what it pictures reaches beyond any one group.
Propitiation is not merely a question of God's children. God Himself had to be glorified as to sin, apart from our salvation, His nature in love vindicated as to His worst enemies... The first goat was killed, and its blood brought into the sanctuary, inside and outside. Here is propitiation in picture form. It stands good for the whole world, so far that the good news might be preached to every sinner.
The order in the chapter is itself instruction, and it is easily reversed.
Is the first place given to God's glory? Do they start where they should, from Jehovah's lot — how Christ has glorified God? Not so. What they repeat again and again is what Christ is for man... The first lot was Jehovah's, not the people's. In evangelical preaching the one thought is usually the people's lot. The value of Jehovah's lot, as distinct from the people's, is not known.
- Lot — Aaron did not choose, and the people did not choose. The lot lay in the Lord's hand alone — exceptional among the sacrifices.
- Lord's — The name of the lot tells you whose portion this is. God has His own share in the death of Christ. It would hold good even if no sinner were ever saved.
- Sin — No one lays hands on this goat. No one confesses sins over it. Its blood deals with sin, and Aaron carries it in to God.
- World — No sins are named over this goat. So the propitiation it pictures stands good for the whole world, and the good news can go to every sinner.
- Order — God first, then man. Preaching that starts with the people's lot and never reaches the Lord's has lost the order of the chapter.
And the goat upon which the lot fell for Azazel shall be set alive before Jehovah, to make atonement with it, to send it away as Azazel into the wilderness.
The Day of Atonement used two goats. This verse is about the second one — the goat that stays alive, stands before the LORD, and then goes out into the wilderness. Its wording raises the hardest question in the chapter: how can atonement be made "over" an animal that is never killed?
The chapter never treats the pair as two sacrifices. Aaron took both goats for one sin offering, and set both before the LORD.
Some find it hard to see how the live goat that is sent away fills such a weighty place in the rites of atonement. They should not forget this: Aaron was specifically told to take the "two he-goats for a sin-offering," and to set both before Jehovah at the door of the tent of meeting (Lev. 16:5, 7). The removal of our sins is pictured this way. But it hung on our Lord's death on the cross, just as truly as the sprinkling of the sanctuary witnessed to the power of His blood.
Only one of the two goats is ever killed. Another writer finds the answer to the puzzle there.
The difficulty, of course, is obvious. How can atonement be made, or why does it need to be made, for the goat? But the answer is not far to seek. It is because the two goats are for one sin-offering, while in fact only one is offered (Lev. 16:5). The Lord's lot falls on the one to be offered, the other escapes. The atonement which ideally he was to make is, in fact, made for him by the former one.
Many translations leave the Hebrew word Azazel untranslated, and readers have guessed that it names a person or a place. One writer traces the word instead to the act the verse describes.
Azazel does not mean the goat simply, but the goat of dismissal. It is a complete mistake to think the phrase points to either a person or a place. The first goat was the one on which Jehovah's lot fell for sacrifice. The second was allotted to show, in a striking way, the people's sins sent away into oblivion. The foundation was laid in the goat sacrificed to Jehovah. The goat on which the lot fell for Azazel — that is, for this specific sign of dismissal — was set alive before Jehovah. Atonement was made with or on it, that is, together with the goat that was slain. Then it was sent away as Azazel into the wilderness, or, as verse 22 says, to a land apart.
The day's service ran in a fixed order. The blood went inside first; the live goat left last.
Atonement in its first meaning upholds the claims of the throne of God about human sin. This stands out in what the High Priest did on the Day of Atonement in Israel, described in Leviticus 16. First he carried the blood of the bullock into the holiest for himself and for his house. Then he presented the blood of the goat for the people of Israel. Only when these things were done did the scapegoat go, with all the sins of the people on its head. God was considered first, then man.
The live goat adds one more thing. It carries the people's sins away as their substitute.
In the third place — and this was a separate service — nothing outside was cleansed. Instead the high priest confessed the sins of the people over the scapegoat. That goat was sent away to a land where no one lives, and it carried all the sins away from God, never to be found again. It is here that the idea of substitution is presented most clearly. There are three things: the blood on the mercy-seat, the reconciliation of the sanctuary, and the sins confessed and borne by another.
Kelly also finds two different truths held together in the pair.
It is quite true that in the first goat God has secured His majesty, and His righteous title to send out His message of love to every creature. In the second goat He has cared just as much for the assurance of His people: all their sins and iniquities are completely borne away.
Aaron and his house had no live goat sent away. That gap points to when each group comes to know their sins are gone.
That goat went away never to return. Their sins were carried away on it, never to come back. All could see the goat going away; all would know that it did not come back. For Aaron and his house there was no scapegoat provided. The reason is clear to us. Israel will only know that their sins have been taken away, borne by the substitute, when they see the Lord Jesus… For us Christians, who are a holy priesthood, the putting away of sins is a question of faith. For Israel it will be a question of sight.
- One offering — Two goats, one sin offering. The blood of the goat that died covers the goat that lived.
- One name — Azazel means dismissal, not a person or a place. The word names what happens to the goat.
- God first — The blood goes in before the goat goes out. God's claim is met first, then man's need.
- Sins carried — The living goat pictures substitution. It takes the sins to a land where no one will ever find them.
- Then seen — The priests had no scapegoat. Believers know forgiveness by faith; Israel will know it by sight.
And Aaron shall present the bullock of the sin-offering, which is for himself, and shall make atonement for himself and for his house, and shall slaughter the bullock of the sin-offering which is for himself.
Once a year the high priest could pass behind the veil, into the innermost room called the holiest. On that day the first blood shed was not for the nation but for the priest himself. Before Aaron could act for anyone else, he had to bring a bull — older versions call it a bullock — for his own sin and his household's. That order, and that animal, carry meaning far beyond the ritual.
Nothing on this day happened at random. The steps run in a fixed order, and the first one settles God's claim before anything touches the people's sins.
Atonement, in its first meaning, upholds the claims of God's throne about human sin. You can see this in what the high priest did on the Day of Atonement. First he carried the blood of the bullock into the holiest for himself and for his house. Then he presented the blood of the goat for the people of Israel. Only when these things were done did he send the scapegoat away with all the sins of the people on its head. The order put God first, then man.
The chapter says three times that this offering is for Aaron himself. At that exact point the likeness between Aaron and Christ turns into a contrast.
Scripture records this bullock three times as the sin offering for himself (16:6, 11). Wherever it mentions the atonement this bullock makes, it says that atonement is for himself and for his house (16:6, 11, 17). The high priest and his house are tied together this closely. No doubt this is to draw our attention to the oneness between Christ and His house — though there is a striking contrast as well. Aaron's bullock for sin suffered for himself and his house. Aaron was himself a sinner, and his house was made up of sinners like himself. Our High Priest knew no sin, and so He offered up Himself only for others.
The bullock covers a household, not a nation. So who is that house? One writer answers by asking who could enter the sanctuary at all.
The letter to the Hebrews says plainly that Christ's offering was not for Himself. But it also shows a priestly house that He offered it for. There were those that God gave to Him, as it is written, "Behold, I and the children God has given me." The true Aaron has a house and a family now on earth — Christians! ... One aim of this letter is to prove that our sins are not only forgiven — we also have the right to enter the sanctuary. And who can enter into the sanctuary but a son of Aaron? An ordinary Israelite could not go there. He could only come as far as the court outside.
Why a bullock for the priest's house, when Israel's offering was a goat? The difference is not just about size.
Now how striking it is to find that on the day of atonement the bullock is for the priestly house — the Church — while the goat is again for Israel. The bullock speaks of service; the goat speaks only of taking the place of sin. With the goat, if sin is removed, that is all; but the bullock speaks of service to God, of glorifying Him in the place taken. And "if God is glorified in Him, God will also glorify Him in Himself" — this opens the sanctuary to His people. He is not only their Substitute upon the cross, but their Representative in glory.
Israel's atonement needed two goats — one killed, one sent away. The priestly house has one bullock and no second animal.
The bullock was offered only for the priestly house. There was no matching bullock to be driven away with their sins confessed and laid on its head, like the second goat which followed the first after a notable interval.
That missing animal also changes the timing. Kelly shows who must wait and who need not.
The blood of the bullock has to do only with those who enter the holy places, 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 the first goat cannot be separated from the second. They combine to make up the necessary atonement for the people who wait for the great High Priest to come out. It is not so with those concerned in the bullock. They do not wait for Him to appear before they are accepted. The bullock has to do at once and only with the presence of God, for those whom grace entitles to enter there.
- God first. The priest's blood went in before the people's goat was touched. Atonement settles God's claim before it eases man's conscience.
- A house, not a crowd. The bullock covered a household. The true High Priest has one too: those God gave Him.
- The contrast that saves. Aaron offered for himself because he was a sinner. Christ knew no sin, so He could offer for others alone.
- The larger animal. The bullock speaks of service and of glorifying God, not only of sin removed. So it opens the sanctuary: a Representative in glory, not only a Substitute on the cross.
- Nothing left pending. Israel's two goats meant waiting for the priest to come out. The one bullock means the house is accepted now, free to enter at once.
And he shall take the censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before Jehovah, and both his hands full of fragrant incense beaten small, and bring it inside the veil.
Once a year the high priest could enter the innermost room of the tabernacle, and God fixed the order of what he did there: incense first, blood after. Every detail counts — coals from the altar outside, incense crushed fine, a cloud rising over the place where God appeared.
Aaron stops in the middle of his sacrificial duties to do this. Why does the incense go in before the blood?
It is not sacrifice; it must not be confused with it. It proclaims the value of Christ Himself, before anything testifies to the value of His work with God. Here the fire of God's holiness tests everything — and how it has tested Him! It only brings out the fragrance of "sweet incense." That fragrance covers the mercy seat, so the priest may sprinkle it with the blood of atonement in safety and in peace.
The fire was not the priest's own. It came from the altar where the sacrifice had burned, and that source gives the incense its meaning.
Notice that it was burnt on the altar. Fire was what brought out its sweet fragrance. The fire used for this came from the bronze altar. So the same fire that consumed the sacrifice brought out the fragrance of the incense. This explains its significance. The fire is a type of the searching judgment of God — of His holiness applied in judgment. Our blessed Lord passed through this on the cross. But the only effect of the holy fire upon Him was to bring out a "cloud" of sweet perfume.
A common reading treats incense as a picture of prayer. Kelly tests that against the places where incense appears and finds it will not hold.
This, with a great deal more elsewhere, makes one thing clear. We cannot take the incense to mean only, or entirely, the prayers of the saints. In Revelation 5 the royal priests present the prayers of the saints as incense. In Revelation 8 the angel high priest adds much incense to the prayers of all the saints. No creature could do that — only He Himself. Where would be the sense in adding the prayers of the saints to the prayers of the saints?
The incense was crushed to powder, not carried in as lumps. Mackintosh finds the same idea in the burnt offering, which was cut into pieces.
This action presents a truth much like that taught in the "sweet incense beaten small" (Leviticus 16). The Holy Spirit delights to dwell on the sweetness and fragrance of the sacrifice of Christ. He dwells on it not only as a whole, but also in all its smallest details. Look at the burnt offering as a whole, and you see it without blemish. Look at it in all its parts, and you see it is the same.
The stated purpose is survival — the cloud covers the mercy seat so the priest does not die. Stuart looks at what the incense was made of, and at how the cloud works in both directions.
The sweet incense pictured the sweet fragrance of the merits of Christ. God chose its four ingredients (Exodus 30:34-36), and three of them are named nowhere else — for there was something in the Lord Jesus Christ, we must all admit, that was acceptable to God and belonged to Him alone. With the cloud of incense between Aaron and the mercy seat, he could stand before it… Aaron could see the glory of God shining on the mercy seat through the cloud of incense. And God saw Aaron, the representative of his house and his nation, through that same cloud. Of course, the One Aaron pictured needed no cloud of incense for God to see Him. He is in the presence of God according to the excellence of His Person… But no human being can stand before God apart from the merits of Christ.
Where does real worship come from? Mackintosh answers, and adds a warning about the fire.
Only the power of the Spirit can produce all this. There is no need to work up nature's devotional feelings by the various devices of a religious system. There must be pure fire as well as pure incense. (Compare Leviticus 10:1 with Leviticus 16:12.) All efforts to worship God by nature's unholy powers come under the heading of "strange fire."
- Fire — the coals came from the altar of sacrifice. The judgment that consumed the offering is the same heat that released the perfume.
- Fragrance — that heat raised no smoke of ruin. It raised a cloud of sweetness: the tested perfections of Christ.
- Fineness — "beaten small" means the excellence reaches the smallest detail, not just the whole.
- Cover — the cloud rises first and shields the man, so the priest can sprinkle the blood in peace instead of dying.
- Access — no one stands before God on his own record. Aaron needed the cloud; we need the merits of Christ.
And he shall put the incense upon the fire before Jehovah, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy-seat which is upon the testimony, that he die not.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle with his finger upon the front of the mercy-seat eastward; and before the mercy-seat shall he sprinkle of the blood seven times with his finger.
On the Day of Atonement the high priest carried the bull's blood past the veil. He did two things with it. He put it once on the mercy seat, then seven times on the ground in front of it. Why the difference in number? And what did this one act settle, for God and for the people outside?
The mercy seat was the lid of the ark, the place where God met His people. What was placed on it decided the character of that meeting.
On the mercy seat God Himself was met. In fact that is what made it a mercy seat, for otherwise it was a throne of judgment. Now it is a throne of government in man's favour, instead of a throne of judgment against him.
The blood touches the mercy seat first, and the ground in front only after that. The order matters.
The mercy seat was the place of God's throne on earth, so the priest sprinkled the blood there first. God's throne had its claims, and those claims came first. On that day the making of propitiation came before all thought of the sinner's standing.
The two numbers answer two different needs.
Suppose a Jew had looked in through the torn veil, what was there to see? The blood on the mercy seat and the blood before the mercy seat. The blood sprinkled once "upon" the mercy seat was enough for God. But man needs every possible means to make him sure, and God graciously grants it. Seven times the priest sprinkled the blood "before" the mercy seat. That gives man full evidence that he may draw near to God in safety and certainty.
That patch of ground in front of the seat was where the priest himself stood, which is why the repeated sprinkling speaks to the one who approaches.
The blood was sprinkled there in testimony that propitiation had been made, and seven times so that it might be a perfect testimony... So whoever receives God's testimony in the gospel comes to the mercy seat — Christ — "through faith in His blood." In God's very presence he finds the perfect witness that propitiation has been made for his sins. He also finds that another has borne those sins, and borne them away for ever.
Seven, taken as the number of completeness, is read as covering every group and every sphere the atonement will ever touch.
In the sprinkling of the blood seven times before the mercy seat we learn that whatever the application of the atonement of Christ may be — whether to things, to places, or to persons — it is perfectly valued in the divine presence. The blood which secures the salvation of the Church... the blood which secures the salvation of the congregation of Israel; the blood which secures the final restoration and blessing of the whole creation. That blood has been presented before God. It was sprinkled and accepted according to all the perfectness, fragrance, and preciousness of Christ. The blood sprinkled on the believer's conscience has been sprinkled seven times before the throne of God.
The direction is not decoration. East was the side the worshippers came from.
He entered the immediate presence of the Lord, where He dwelt alone. There he sprinkled some of the blood on the throne, or mercy seat. He did this "once." He placed the blood "upon the mercy seat eastward" — on the part of it that faced the entrance gate into the sanctuary. That was the gate through which Israel approached the Lord. This was the foundation for all the purifications which followed. Because of the atoning blood, the throne of divine holiness could now look on the people with mercy.
The animal here is the bull, not the goat. Earlier in the chapter the bull belongs to Aaron and his household.
The bull had been for Aaron and his house (v. 6). This points to the Lord Jesus and the priestly family. Today that family is the Church of God, for all believers now are priests (1 Peter 2:5).
The priest had to repeat this act every year. That is where the picture gives way to the reality.
Let us remember that on the mercy seat of propitiation the blood was placed before the eye of God!... This had to be done again; the blood of a bull had to be sprinkled before God on that golden mercy seat once every year. And the blood of other victims often had to be shed. Not so the blood of Christ; that blood, once shed and sprinkled, can never be shed or sprinkled again.
- Once — for God. One touch of blood on the mercy seat met the claims of the throne. God needed only one witness that the sacrifice had been made.
- Seven — for man. The seven sprinklings mark the spot where the priest stood. They give the one who draws near the full assurance man is slow to take in.
- Eastward — toward us. The priest put the blood on the side facing the entrance, so the throne could look on the people with mercy.
- Wide — beyond us. The same perfect value of the blood reaches the Church, Israel, the whole creation — and the believer's own conscience.
- Final — once for all. The bull's blood came back every year. Christ's blood, once shed and sprinkled, is never sprinkled again.
And he shall slaughter the goat of the sin-offering, which is for the people, and bring its blood inside the veil, and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy-seat, and before the mercy-seat;
On the Day of Atonement the high priest first carried the bullock's blood inside the veil for himself and his house. Now he kills a second victim, the goat for the people, and puts its blood in the same place — the mercy seat.
Two animals do not mean two sacrifices. One writer sees in the doubling two purposes held together in one death.
It is not as if there were two offerings of our blessed Lord Jesus; but at least two objects of His work were in the mind of God here... The main picture before us now is the blood of the bullock put on the mercy seat and in front of it — once on it, seven times in front of it. Once was enough for God, where approach to Him was invited; man needed seven times. How slow man has proved to take in the fullest encouragement God gives! It was He who provided all of this in the picture. He despises no one.
The place matters. The mercy seat was the lid of the ark, where God sat enthroned among Israel. Blood on that spot made propitiation — God's holy claims fully met.
First, Aaron sprinkled the blood on the mercy seat. That sprinkling is what made propitiation, because the mercy seat was God's throne in the middle of Israel... The Lord was holy, and as such He claimed holiness from His people... But as soon as God gave the law, Israel broke it and came under its righteous penalty of death. God would have had to carry out that penalty, unless a way could be found to satisfy the claims of a holy God upon a nation of sinners.
The bullock covered the priest's own household; this goat is named for the nation. One writer sees two groups in view, both reached by the same entry into God's presence.
Aaron's house, then, was the priestly family, which pictured the whole Christian family. For them the blood of the bullock was shed. For whom, then, was the blood of the goat? For the people... He has gone in, not with the blood of others, but with His own. He went in not only for us who believe, but for the people as well. And we now have the matchless privilege of entering in spirit into that sanctuary where the forerunner has entered for us.
This goat is only half of the picture. The live goat, sent away later in the chapter, does something different — and that difference shapes how the gospel is preached.
It is not substitution when I say to everyone, "The blood is on the mercy seat." I do not say "your sins are put away," because I do not know that they are. In detail, I can not only say, "Come, and welcome." I can say, "God begs you to come, for the blood is on the mercy seat." The scapegoat goes a step further. If a person does come, it declares that God can never speak to you about your sins again, for they are all put away.
Commentators differ on how far the two goats can be separated. Another writer holds that this goat already pictures one person standing in the place of another:
The goat which is the Lord's lot speaks just as plainly of substitution as it does of propitiation. The goat, the type of the sinner, is the very thing that says so; no figure could convey the thought more precisely. It proclaims that propitiation comes by substitution. So it is for the people in whose place the victim stood, and for no others.
The seven sprinklings in front of the seat carry their own meaning. One writer traces how far the worth of that blood reaches.
"Seven" is the perfect number. The blood sprinkled seven times before the mercy seat teaches us this: wherever the atonement of Christ is applied — to things, to places, or to persons — God values it perfectly in His presence. One blood secures the salvation of the Church, the house of the true Aaron. The same blood secures the salvation of the congregation of Israel. The same blood secures the final restoration and blessing of the whole creation. That blood has been presented before God, sprinkled and accepted according to all the perfectness, fragrance, and preciousness of Christ.
- Blood first. Blood on the mercy seat makes propitiation. That seat was God's throne among a people who had broken His law.
- Blood for God. Once was enough for God. The seven sprinklings in front of the seat were for man, who is slow to take in the encouragement God Himself gives.
- Blood for the people. The bullock covered the priest's household. This goat is named for the nation. One entry into God's presence reaches both.
- Blood, then the scapegoat. The blood on the seat lets God invite everyone to come. The live goat tells the one who comes that his sins will never be raised again.
- Blood beyond Israel. God values that blood perfectly. Its worth reaches the Church, Israel, and creation itself.
and he shall make atonement for the sanctuary, [to cleanse it] from the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and from their transgressions in all their sins; and so shall he do for the tent of meeting which dwelleth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.
Once a year the high priest carried blood inside the veil, and the first thing it cleansed was not the people but the place. Leviticus 16:16 gives the reason: God had chosen to live among a people whose sin reached even the tent where He met them.
A building cannot sin. So why does the verse call it unclean?
Why "uncleanness"? All evil is unclean and defiling. Whatever deals with it is unclean by contact, as Leviticus 15:4-12 and Numbers 19:7-8, 10 show. And uncleanness needs both cleansing and atonement. The building could not be guilty, but it did get unclean, because of "their transgressions in all their sins." Unclean Israel came often to the tabernacle, and the very handling of their uncleanness defiled what was holy. Atonement was needed because uncleanness had been allowed.
Sin never stays private:
What a solemn thought! A man who commits sin may say, It is only myself I am injuring; nobody else has anything to do with it. And he is rightly told that no man is so cut off from his fellows. If someone came into a city with a contagious disease, he would not be allowed to stay. And the sinner can rightly be told, You are not only affected yourself, you influence humanity. You set an example, and you defile those you are associated with. You are lowering the moral level of the human race.
The blood was not only for the people. It was what let God stay among them:
The claims of the sanctuary must be provided for. The Lord's courts, as well as His throne, must bear witness to the value of the blood. God's provisions of atonement must fence in the tabernacle, which stood in the middle of Israel's uncleanness… Without the power of the blood, the Holy One could not have stayed among the congregation for a moment! The blood is what left Him free to dwell, act and rule among a straying people.
Notice which thing surrounds which:
On the day of atonement it is said to be "for the tent of meeting, which dwells with them in the midst of their uncleannesses" (Leviticus 16:16). It is not that the uncleanness is in the midst of the tabernacle, but the tabernacle in the midst of it — quite a different thought.
That surrounding pressure was the problem God Himself had to solve, without lowering His own character:
Israel was, in fact, a people in the flesh, defiled by sin. So the tabernacle of God remained "with them in the midst of their uncleannesses." A holy and righteous God could not tolerate this. To tolerate it, He would have denied His own character. He would have announced that sin does not break every relationship between man and Him. So God had to find a way to receive Israel before Him and still maintain His character… He provided that way for Israel by the offerings of the day of atonement.
Commentators note that the Hebrew allows a slightly different shading of "for the holy place":
The "atonement for the holy place was because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of all their transgressions in all their sins"; or it might perhaps be rendered, "he shall make atonement upon the holy place, from the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and from their transgressions in respect to, or on account of, all their sins."
The same pattern reaches beyond the wilderness tent to heaven itself:
The blood of Christ purifies the heavenly places, just as the blood of bulls and goats purged the tabernacle. Leviticus 16 gives the reason for this rite for the tabernacle in the wilderness… God has set up His dwelling-place among His people. We are in contact with His tabernacle. Our transgressions and our sins are named there. What a thing for sin to be named in heaven!
What Aaron repeated every year is now finished:
On the great day of atonement Aaron carried the blood of the sin offering inside the veil, so that he might "make atonement for the Holy Place." This has now been done once and for ever. The atonement for the holy place lasts — it is as much purged once and for ever as the worshipper himself. No worshipper who enters there need fear bringing defilement. That blood cleanses all sin away, and it is there for ever before God.
- Contact defiles. The tent could not sin. But a sinful people came to it, and handling their uncleanness made it unclean.
- Contact spreads. No one sins alone. A person's sin lowers the moral level of everyone around him.
- Blood answers contact. Atonement for the holy place left God free to dwell, act and rule among a straying people, without denying His own character.
- Contact surrounds. The tent stood inside the uncleanness, not the uncleanness inside the tent. God placed His dwelling in the middle of the defilement.
- Contact now cleanses. The picture rises to heaven itself, where the blood stays for ever, so the worshipper enters without fear of defiling the place.
And there shall be no man in the tent of meeting when he goeth in to make atonement in the sanctuary until he come out; and he shall make atonement for himself, and for his house, and for the whole congregation of Israel.
Once a year the high priest carried blood behind the curtain, and while he was inside the tent had to be empty — no other priest, no helper, no witness. Why did God want him alone, and what were the people outside meant to do?
The phrase is easy to misread. In this chapter it stands for the innermost room, not the outer one. One writer points to the italics in older printings as the clue.
"The holy place," throughout this chapter where the word "place" is in italics, means the "most holy," verses 2, 16, 17, 20, 23, 27. It is called "the holy sanctuary" in verse 33. No one was to be with him, or to enter the tabernacle, until he had completed that important work of atonement. Atonement, strictly speaking, is all Godward, and one person alone accomplishes it.
The empty tent says something about the work itself. One writer ties it to what the work had to be worth.
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. It had to be fully fit for the divine glory, and the highest perfection for His own to enjoy. So He does the work in His own person, and shuts out every other. This made all sure.
The same command that shuts people out of the work opens the benefit of it to them without limit. Notice how both sides stand together — and notice what the nation was doing meanwhile.
In the picture Aaron acted alone, but the great High Priest did the real work, and all the glory of it must always go to Him. Thank God, all who believe on the Lord Jesus share in the results of it, and share for ever. In the doing of it they had no part, and could have had none. See how carefully God cared for the glory of His Son. See also how plainly He taught that the people it was done for could take no part in the work… In the camp the people were resting from all work, though afflicting their souls.
The same solitude appears at the cross, where darkness covered the scene.
At the last stage of this great transaction there is darkness over all the earth. How fitting that it should be so! God and Christ were alone there. Long before, these words had pictured the scene: "No one may be in the tent of meeting from the time he enters to make atonement in the Holy Place."… God meant to withdraw His Son in that hour. No one was to see what passed between Him and Christ while the Blessed One bore the judgment of God against sin.
Only one man could be inside the tent. One writer draws out what that rules out today.
The high priest alone conducted its services. He alone made the atonement. No fellow priest helped him. Israel could only look on, with hope centred in him. He stood as the picture of the great Worker acting for man. No one could be inside the Holy place until the high priest came out. In the same way, the idea of co-mediators and co-redeemers with Christ in heaven contradicts the divine reality.
One writer describes what the people could know while the priest was inside, and how they waited.
They could not know whether he was even alive in the sanctuary, or what he had done there. They did not stand outside praying or pleading; they waited in silence and suspense until he came out. Then they knew he had met all God's requirements, and the proof was that he was alive.
The verse names three groups the atonement covers: the priest himself, his house, and all Israel. One writer says we are living now in the gap before he comes out, and that believers and Israel stand differently in it.
This whole period is, strictly speaking, the day of atonement. The true Aaron has 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 out to lead the congregation of Israel into the full results of His accomplished work. Meanwhile His house — that is, all true believers — are joined with Him. They have boldness to enter the holiest, brought near by the blood of Jesus.
- Alone — in place. The "holy place" here is the innermost sanctuary. God emptied the tent of everyone else while the work went on.
- Alone — in doing. He does it all Himself. Nothing mingled with the atonement of Christ, and that is what made it sure.
- Alone — in darkness. At the cross darkness covered the earth, and no eye saw what passed between God and His Son.
- Alone — so no one else can be added. No fellow priest helped Aaron, which rules out any co-mediator or co-redeemer with Christ.
- Alone — but not for Himself. Those shut out of the doing share for ever in the results, and wait for the High Priest to come out again.
And he shall go out unto the altar which is before Jehovah, and make atonement for it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about;
The Day of Atonement does not end at the mercy seat inside the veil. The high priest comes out to an altar and puts blood on its horns. Two questions sit in this verse. Which altar is meant? And why should a piece of furniture need atonement at all?
Commentators differ here. One reading takes the altar's own description as the clue:
"The altar that is before the LORD," verse 18, seems to be the bronze altar, because it is described in this way. Aaron sprinkles the blood on the mercy seat first. Then he makes atonement for the holy place, and next for the tent of meeting. Then "he shall go out to the altar that is before the LORD and make atonement for it." The bronze altar was "before the LORD." Exodus 29:42 uses the words that way, and verse 43 says, "There I will meet with the people of Israel."
Others read the same "going out" as a move from the holiest into the holy place. That would make it the golden altar of incense:
On further consideration I have no doubt that the altar for which atonement is made in Leviticus 16:18 is the altar of incense. The "go out" that misled me for a moment is from the holiest (v. 16) to the holy place. What decides it for me is that the whole scene is the tabernacle (v. 16) and what is inside it.
Whichever altar it is, it stands where the people met God, and their uncleanness has defiled it. That says something about sin itself:
But more was needed. Acting for the earthly people, the priest had to put the blood on the horns of the golden altar. That is the altar before the LORD in verse 18, the ordinary place where they stood... They knew nothing of such an entrance into the holiest. So the blood was put on their behalf where they stood as a nation before God. It made atonement for the altar, cleansed it, and set it apart from all the uncleanness of the people of Israel. They were also taught that their uncleanness was found in a place they themselves never reached. They never entered the sanctuary on any pretext, yet their uncleanness counted as reaching into it — a reminder that the effects of sin reach far beyond the person who commits it.
The cleansing has a purpose beyond the day itself. It keeps the altar fit for use afterwards:
This picture shows what the letter to the Hebrews calls the "purification of the heavenly things" (Hebrews 9:23). The blood of atonement is what makes it right for the tabernacle — and so for God's presence — to remain among a sinful people. Right after this, the altar too is purified, so that it may remain among them to sanctify their gifts.
The blood goes on the horns of the altar, and the horns carry a meaning of their own:
The horn is a symbol of strength. So when the blood was sprinkled on the horns, the whole strength of the altar was shown in full. That strength had been against the sinner. Now it works on his behalf. The horns of the altar became a place of refuge, a shelter no one could break into, for everyone who had a right to their protection on the ground of the sprinkled blood.
The verse names both bloods — the bull's and the goat's. Commentators see two different groups behind that pairing:
The blood of the bull has to do only with those who enter the holy places, the sanctuary of God. The blood of the goat was brought there too, for God must be glorified in reconciling Israel or anyone else. But the first goat cannot be separated from the second. They belong together and make up the atonement needed for the people who await the coming out of the great High Priest. It is not so with those concerned in the bull. There is no waiting for His appearing for their acceptance.
The high priest's exit is not just procedure. Commentators read it as a picture of what is still ahead:
But He will come out. Has He come out yet? No... "And he shall go out," etc. (Lev. 16:18), just as we know the Lord Jesus Christ is coming from the right hand of God in heaven.
What He does on coming out reaches wider than one nation:
When the Lord does come, He will come to reign over this world. He will take the lower heavens and the earth under His own power and rule, for the glory of God. The letter to the Colossians says that by the blood of His cross He not only made peace, but is to reconcile all things, whether in heaven or on earth. This matches what we have here. The blessing of all creation comes together with the forgiveness of Israel.
- Blood first. Atonement moves outward from the mercy seat. The blood goes to God first, then to the places where the people stand.
- Blood on the place. Sin defiles ground the sinner never stood on. So the blood cleanses even the altar. Sin reaches further than the sinner.
- Blood on the horns. The horns speak of strength. The altar's full power once stood against the sinner. Now it shelters everyone covered by that blood.
- Blood for two companies. Bull and goat together: Aaron's house is accepted now; the people still wait for the High Priest to come out.
- Blood then coming out. Aaron's exit points to Christ coming out from heaven. Then He forgives Israel and reconciles all things.
and he shall sprinkle upon it of the blood with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleannesses of the children of Israel.
The day of atonement did not end inside the veil, where the high priest sprinkled blood on the mercy seat. He then came out and put blood on the altar too, which raises a question: why does an object of wood and metal need cleansing?
This sprinkling is the last stop on a route the blood travelled all day. One writer follows it from end to end:
So the atoning blood was sprinkled everywhere. It went from the throne of God inside the veil out to the altar that stood in the court of the tent of meeting.
Israel's people never entered the sanctuary, yet their uncleanness is named there, and atonement is made for the altar where they did stand. One commentator draws out both halves of that:
Israel had no entrance into the holiest. So the high priest put the blood on their behalf where they stood before God as a nation. It made atonement for the altar, cleansed it, and set it apart from all the uncleanness of the people of Israel (verses 18, 19). They were also taught something more: their uncleanness was found in a place they themselves never reached. They never entered the sanctuary on any pretext, yet their uncleanness still counted as reaching into it. The effects of sin reach far beyond the person who commits it.
Notice what the verse cleanses: the altar, not the people who used it.
What had to be cleansed was what belonged to God: the holy place and the altar of incense, the place where God dwelt. It was not the people. This was not forgiving them, though it was the basis of that. It was "Jehovah's lot" cleansing the place of His presence. It showed the character of Him who dwelt there, who could not bear sin and uncleanness.
Earlier that day the high priest also sprinkled blood seven times before the mercy seat. One writer explains what the number means:
"Seven" is the perfect number. In the sprinkling of the blood seven times before the mercy seat we learn this: whatever the atonement of Christ is applied to, whether things, places, or persons, God values it perfectly in His presence.
Commentators differ about which altar this is. Some place it in the outer court, where ordinary Israelites brought their offerings:
The third great act took place in the court, where Israel could enter and approach God at the altar. Here the worshipper had stood with his offering of pleasing aroma. Here too sin had driven the wrongdoer to bring his sin offering. The court and its altar needed cleansing. The high priest first put the blood of the sacrifices on the horns of the altar. Then he "sprinkled some of the blood on it with his finger seven times." For sin offerings the priest put blood on the horns of the altar. For offerings of pleasing aroma he threw the blood against the altar walls. So this double action — blood on the horns, and blood sprinkled on the altar — stood for every offering in which life was given up to God in sacrifice.
Others follow the movement of the chapter and reach a different answer:
After further thought, I have no doubt that the altar atoned for in Leviticus 16:18 is the altar of incense. The words "go out" misled me for a moment. They mean going out from the holiest (verse 16) into the holy place. What decides it for me is that the whole scene is the tabernacle (verse 16) and what is inside it.
This cleansing of places reaches beyond the tabernacle. One writer states it plainly:
The heavenly things themselves need better sacrifices. Satan and his angels are there, and cleansing is needed. This cleansing is not forgiveness. God must have His house cleansed as well as His people made righteous.
- Reach. Sin spreads further than the sinner. Israel's uncleanness reached a sanctuary no Israelite ever entered.
- Route. The blood follows that reach step by step: throne, tent, altar. It covers every place sin had touched.
- Object. Here the blood cleanses God's place, not the people. It shows the character of the One who dwells there and cannot bear uncleanness.
- Measure. Seven sprinklings mean God values that blood perfectly, whether for things, for places, or for persons.
- Scale. The same principle reaches heaven itself. God will have His house cleansed as well as His people made righteous.
And when he hath ended making atonement for the sanctuary, and the tent of meeting, and the altar, he shall present the living goat;
The Day of Atonement runs in a fixed order, and this verse is the turning point: the blood work inside is done, and only now does the live goat come forward. Where the ESV says "atoning", older translations read "made an end of reconciling" — which raises two questions: why did the sanctuary itself need cleansing, and why must the people's goat wait?
One Hebrew verb lies behind both "atoning" here and "reconciling" in older versions.
Except in 1 Samuel 29:4 and 2 Chronicles 29:24, the Hebrew word is kaphar. It is translated "to make an atonement" more than sixty times. That same translation fits well enough in the places where older versions read "reconciliation" — Leviticus 6:30; Leviticus 8:15; Leviticus 16:20; Ezekiel 45:15, 17, 20; Daniel 9:24.
The holy place, the tent and the altar were objects, not sinners. They needed blood because God had chosen to live among a sinful people.
In this picture we have what the letter to the Hebrews calls the "purification of the heavenly things" (Hebrews 9:23). The blood of atonement is what makes it right for the tabernacle, and so for God's presence, to stay in the middle of a sinful people. And so straight after, the altar is also purified, so that it may remain among them to make their gifts holy.
Nothing is done with the people's goat until the work toward God is complete. One writer traces that order back to God Himself.
God begins with His throne in the great work of atonement and reconciliation. His way is from Himself in His holiness to man in his sinfulness... God made peace through the blood of the cross of Christ, and He reconciles all things in heaven and on earth to Himself (Colossians 1:20). But first, the peace on which He reconciles had to be made... On the Great Day of Atonement this was assured and established, before the part of the sin offering that was the people's lot was dealt with. Only "when the high priest had made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar," was he to "bring the live goat."
Our hearts read the cross the other way round, starting with ourselves.
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 second thing, blessed be God, is only a secondary, lesser application of the atonement. Yet our foolish hearts love to treat it as the very highest view of the cross — to see in it what puts away all our sins. This is a mistake. God's glory is the first thing; our salvation is the second.
Being second in order does not make forgiveness second-rate.
We may ask, Where are our sins? Put away. By what? By that act of Christ on the cross in which God has been eternally glorified... 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.
Commentators differ on how to describe the pairing. One writer sets the two goats side by side, with the second depending entirely on the first:
Jehovah's goat was killed — the people's goat was "let go." The blood of the goat killed for sin was taken inside the sanctuary. The live goat was sent away with sins confessed on it. Jehovah's goat accomplished atonement and reconciliation. The people's goat brought about the forgetting of the sins that had been transferred to it. The atonement the first goat accomplished caused everything the second produced.
Another writer presses the distinction further. He refuses to call the live goat an aspect of atonement at all:
The first goat is Jehovah's lot, because it is the real sacrifice, while the other is "let go." It is not a question of two parts or aspects of atonement. The first goat alone makes the atonement. The other expresses the result for the people.
- Word. "Atoning" here translates kaphar, the standard word for making atonement. Older versions sometimes render it "reconciling."
- Place. God chose to live in the middle of an unclean people. Blood on the sanctuary, tent and altar is what made that dwelling possible.
- Order. The live goat is brought only after that work is finished — God's side is settled before the people's burden is touched.
- Priority. God's glory comes first, our salvation second. The second loses nothing by it: forgiveness is as complete as the glory.
- Pairing. Commentators differ on wording. Some see two sides of one act; others see one real sacrifice, with the second goat showing its result. Both agree the sending away rests wholly on the blood already offered.
and Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the living goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, and he shall put them on the head of the goat, and shall send him away to the wilderness by the hand of a man standing ready;
On the Day of Atonement the high priest first carried the blood in to the mercy seat; then he turned to the living goat and spoke. Two questions follow: why the second goat is not killed, and how far this transfer of guilt reaches.
The chapter uses two goats because the death of Christ meets two needs. The blood inside meets God — that side is called propitiation; the live goat carries away the people's actual sins.
That is the other part of the sin offering, and it is plain substitution. Just as the blood on the mercy seat met God in His nature and character, so in the scapegoat you have substitution for transgressions. Substitution does not include everything. It does not include the full glorifying of God. It means our sins borne by Christ.
Hands pressed on the head mean the offerer and the victim count as one. The words spoken over it move the guilt across.
Aaron laid his hands on its head, and in that position confessed over it all the iniquities of Israel. Laying his hands on its head expressed identification with the goat. Through confession it also transferred the transgressions and sins of the people to the goat. The goat then bore away their sins into the wilderness. Only believers are identified with the sacrifice of Christ.
Until now the priest had worked in silence. Now he speaks — and he does not ask for anything.
This was the first time in the whole service of that day that Aaron had to speak, after he had killed the sin offering.… He was not there to plead for the people. He was there as their representative, to confess all their iniquities, and all their transgressions in all their sins. Confession, not prayer, was in season then. Once Aaron had confessed it all over the head of the scapegoat, with both his hands resting on it, the iniquities and sins of the people were no longer on them… The people had not shifted their burden to the live goat. They had no active part in doing it.
No sinner could ever make a confession this complete. The picture points to someone who knows the sins better than the sinner does.
He was also the responsible man. He knew every secret thing of every man. He told out all the sins and iniquities of every believer to God, with the same perfection with which He suffered as the sacrifice. He became man so that there might be an adequate representative for our sins — sins laid out, felt and hated before God… This is not priestly work inside the holy place. It is the Holy One, our substitute, confessing with complete integrity, pictured here by the high priest.
The verse piles up words: iniquities, transgressions, sins. The size of the list is the point. So is the destination — "a land not inhabited" in older translations, "a remote area" in the ESV.
How many of the sins of Israel did the scapegoat carry away? "All." Precious word! Not one left behind. And where did he carry them? "Into a land not inhabited" — a land where they could never be found, because there was no one there to look for them.
The confession in the type was over Israel's sins, not the world's. Writers draw a careful line from that.
Suppose the Lord Jesus bore the sins of all men in this way. Suppose all the sins of all men were laid on Him and carried away, to be remembered no more. Then it is clear that all men would be saved. But Scripture never says so. In the type, the substitute who bore sins away carried the sins of the children of Israel only. In the same way, the true substitution of Jesus is limited to those who believe and are saved… Yet the death of Christ, as the propitiation, is for the whole world.
Some read the surviving goat as a figure of resurrection. Commentators differ here, and Kelly argues the details rule it out.
When Christ rose from the dead, He rose with a view to going to heaven. But the live goat here is sent 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 at all in this type. Here God is only giving a vivid picture: the sins that were confessed are sent away, where they could never be found again.
- All confessed. The priest names iniquities, transgressions and sins. He leaves nothing off the list.
- All transferred. Both hands on the head mean identification. The guilt moves from the people to the victim, and the people do nothing to move it.
- All borne by One. Christ is the One competent to tell out every secret sin to God, and to carry it.
- All reaching believers. Propitiation faces the whole world; sin-bearing is for those identified with the sacrifice.
- All gone. The sins go to a land with no inhabitant — no one there to look for them, and nothing left behind.