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.