Leviticus 16:5–22

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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."

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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!

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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."

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

There is no sign that anyone put the scapegoat to death. Aaron offered the goat on which the Lord's lot fell as a sin offering. He presented the other alive before the Lord, as we know... Both were needed to give anything like an adequate picture of Christ's atonement. The first shows Christ toward God, glorifying Him up to and in death. By the blood sprinkled on and before the mercy seat, it enabled God, so to speak, to act in a way worthy of Himself. The second presents Christ as the substitute of those whose sins He bore, and bore away, so that they should never be found again.

Sending the goat to a land not inhabited means out of sight, out of remembrance, out of everything.

Loaded with the people's sins, that goat went away into a land not inhabited, never to return. Everyone could see it going, and could watch it slowly disappear until it was lost from view... That man could make sure it went there; but who could keep it from coming back? There was full provision for its departure, but no word about its return. The man took it away. The Lord made sure it never came back... The goat led away was azazel, "the goat of departure," going away with all their sins on its head into the wilderness.

The words normally mean "to make atonement for him." The sense is simple once we see that the two goats are one sin offering. The first goat makes the whole atonement, and so makes it for the other... What happens to the second goat is not called "atonement." Atonement is made for that goat, so that it may be let go. Being let go is real freedom, the result of atonement already made. And the "land cut off" is not death or anything like it, as I once thought. The sins are carried away as the result of atonement. Sins on the goat's head do not mean penalty for the goat. They mean freedom for the people — a freedom in which their sins are found no more.

The sins of the people pass over to the goat. All the iniquities of the children of Israel are laid on him, and the goat carries them away, to be remembered no more. Now suppose the Lord Jesus bore the sins of all people in this way. Suppose all the sins of all people were laid on Him and carried away, to be remembered no more. Then all people would be saved. But Scripture never says so. In the picture, the substitute who carried sins away was only for the children of Israel. In the same way, the true substitution of Jesus is only for those who believe and are saved... while the death of Christ, as the propitiation, is for the whole world.

Israel rejected the blessing when it was offered. So for them, the putting away of sins, pictured in the scapegoat, is separated by a gap of time from the work that actually puts them away. This is exactly what is pictured in the two goats.

I trust that no believer will be content just to see that his or her sins are gone forever, which is what the scapegoat pictured — Christ as the substitute for His people. I trust each one will also grasp, by faith and the power of the Holy Spirit, what is theirs now: access to God in the unclouded light of His own presence.