THE GREAT DAY OF
ATONEMENT
Lev 16:1-34
IN the first verse of chapter 16, which ordains the ceremonial
for the great annual day of atonement, we are told that this
ordinance was delivered by the Lord to Moses "after the death of the
two sons of Aaron, when they drew near before the Lord, and died."
Because of the close historical connection thus declared between
this chapter and chapter 10, and also because in this ordinance the
Mosaic sacrificial worship, which has been the subject of the book
thus far, finds its culmination, it seems most satisfactory to
anticipate the order of the book by taking up at this point the
exposition of this chapter, before proceeding in chapter 11 to a
wholly different subject.
This ordinance of the day of atonement was perhaps the most
important and characteristic in the whole Mosaic legislation. In the
law of the offerings, the most distinctive part was the law of the
sin offering; and it was on the great annual day of atonement that
the conceptions embodied in the sin offering obtained their most
complete development. The central place which this day occupied in
the whole system of sacred times is well illustrated in that it is
often spoken of by the rabbis, without any more precise designation,
as simply "Yoma," "The Day." It was "the day" because, on this day,
the idea of sacrificial expiation and the consequent removal of all
sin, essential to the life of peace and fellowship with God, which
was set forth imperfectly, as regards individuals and the nation, by
the daily sin offerings, received the highest possible symbolical
expression. It is plain that countless sins and transgressions and
various defilements must yet have escaped unrecognised as such, even
by the most careful and conscientious Israelite; and that, for this
reason, they could not have been covered by any of the daily
offerings for sin. Hence, apart from this full, solemn, typical
purgation and cleansing of the priesthood and the congregation, and
the holy sanctuary, from the uncleannesses and transgressions of the
children of Israel, "even all their sins" (Lev 16:16), the
sacrificial system had yet fallen short of expressing in adequate
symbolism the ideal of the complete removal of all sin. With
abundant reason then do the rabbis regard it as the day of days in
the sacred year.
It is insisted by the radical criticism of our day that the general
sense of sin and need of expiation which this ordinance expresses
could not have existed in the days of Moses; and that since,
moreover, the later historical books of the Old Testament contain no
reference to the observance of the day, therefore its origin must be
attributed to the days of the restoration from Babylon, when, as
such critics suppose the deeper sense of sin, developed by the great
judgment of the Babylonian captivity and exile, occasioned the
elaboration of this ritual.
To this one might reply that the objection rests upon an assumption
which the Christian believer cannot admit, that the ordinance was
merely a product of the human mind. But if, as our Lord constantly
taught, and as the chapter explicitly affirms, the ordinance was a
matter of Divine, supernatural revelation, then naturally we shall
expect to find in it, not man’s estimate of the guilt of sin, but
God’s, which in all ages is the same. But, meeting such objectors on
their own ground, we need not go into the matter further than to
refer to the high authority of Dillmann, who declares this theory of
the post-exilian origin of this institution to be "absolutely
incredible"; and in reply to the objection that the day is not
alluded to in the whole Old Testament history, justly adds that this
argument from silence would equally forbid us to assign the origin
of the ordinance to the days of the return from Babylon, or any of
the pre-Christian centuries for "one would then have to maintain
that the festival first arose in the first Christian century; since
only out of that age do we first have any explicit testimonies
concerning it."
Again, the first verse of the chapter gives as the occasion of the
promulgation of this law, "the death of the two sons of Aaron,"
Nadab and Abihu, "when they drew near before the Lord and died"; a
historical note which is perfectly natural if we have here a
narrative dating from Mosaic days, but which seems most objectless
and unlikely to have been entered, if the law were a late invention
of rabbinical forgers. On that occasion it was, as we read, {Lev
5:2} that "the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother,
that he come not at all times into the holy place within 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." Into this place of
Jehovah’s most immediate earthly manifestation, even Aaron is to
come only once a year, and then only with atoning blood, as
hereinafter prescribed.
The object of the whole service of this day is represented as
atonement; expiation of sin, in the highest and fullest sense then
possible. It is said to be appointed to make atonement for Aaron and
for his house (Lev 16:6), for the holy place, and for the tent of
meeting (Lev 16:15-17); for the altar of burnt offering in the outer
court (Lev 16:18-19); and for all the congregation of Israel (Lev
16:20-22, Lev 16:33); and this, not merely for such sins of
ignorance as had been afterward recognised and acknowledged in the
ordinary sin offerings of each day, but for "all the iniquities of
the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their
sins": even such as were still unknown to all but God (Lev 16:21).
The fact of such an ordinance for such a purpose taught a most
impressive lesson of the holiness of God and the sinfulness of man,
on the one hand, and, on the other, the utter insufficiency of the
daily offerings to cleanse from all sin. Day by day these had been
offered in each year; and yet, as we read, {Heb 9:8-9} the Holy
Ghost this signified by this ordinance, "that the way into the holy
place hath not yet been made manifest"; it was "a parable for the
time now present"; teaching that the temple sacrifices of Judaism
could not "as touching the conscience, make the worshipper perfect".
{Heb 9:9} We may well reverse the judgment of the critics, and
say-not that the deepened sense of sin in Israel was the cause of
the day of atonement; but rather, that the solemn observances of
this day, under God, were made for many in Israel a most effective
means to deepen the conviction of sin.
The time which was ordained for this annual observance is
significant-the tenth day of the seventh month. It was appointed for
the seventh month, as the sabbatic month, in which all the related
ideas of rest in God and with God, in the enjoyment of the blessings
of a now complete redemption, received in the great feast of
tabernacles their fullest expression. It was therefore appointed for
that month, and for a day which shortly preceded this greatest of
the annual feasts, to signify in type the profound and most vital
truth, that the full joy of the sabbatic rest of man with God, and
the ingathering of the fruits of complete redemption, is only
possible upon condition of repentance and the fullest possible
expiation for sin. It was appointed for the tenth day of this month,
no doubt, because in the Scripture symbolism the number ten is the
symbol of completeness; and was fitly thus connected with a service
which signified expiation completed for the sins of the year.
The observances appointed for the day had regard, first, to the
people, and, secondly, to the tabernacle service. As for the former,
it was commanded (Lev 16:29) that they should "do no manner of
work," observing the day as a Sabbath Sabbathon, " a high Sabbath,"
or "Sabbath of solemn rest," (Lev 16:31); and, secondly, that they
should "afflict their souls" (Lev 16:30), namely, by solemn fasting,
in visible sign of sorrow and humiliation for sin. By which it was
most distinctly taught, that howsoever complete atonement may be,
and howsoever, in making that atonement through a sacrificial
victim, the sinner himself have no part, yet apart from his personal
repentance for his sins, that atonement shall profit him nothing;
nay, it was declared, {Lev 23:29} that if any man should fail on
this point, God would cut him off from his people. The law abides as
regards the greater sacrifice of Christ; except we repent, we shall,
even because of that sacrifice, only the more terribly perish;
because not even this supreme exhibition of the holy love and
justice of God has moved us to renounce sin.
As regards the tabernacle service for the day, the order was as
follows. First, as most distinctive of the ritual of the day, only
the high priest could officiate. The other priests, who, on other
occasions, served continually in the holy place, must on this day,
during these ceremonies, leave it to him alone; taking their place,
themselves as sinners for whom also atonement was to be made, with
the sinful congregation of their brethren. For it was ordered (Lev
16:17): "There shall be no man in the tent of meeting when the high
priest goeth in to make atonement in the holy place, until he come
out," and the work of atonement be completed.
And the high priest could himself officiate only after certain
significant preparations. First (Lev 16:4), he must "bathe in water"
his whole person. The word used in the original is different from
that which is used of the partial washings in connection with the
daily ceremonial cleansings; and, most suggestively, the same
complete washing is required as that which was ordered in the law
for the consecration of the priesthood, and for cleansing from
leprosy and other specific defilements. Thus was expressed, in the
clearest manner possible, the thought, that the high priest, who
shall be permitted to draw near to God in the holiest place, and
there prevail with Him, must himself be wholly pure and clean.
Then, having bathed, he must robe himself in a special manner for
the service of this day. He must lay aside the bright-coloured
"garments for glory and beauty" which he wore on all other
occasions, and put on, instead, a vesture of pure, unadorned white,
like that of the ordinary priest; excepting only that for him, on
this day, unlike them, the girdle also must be white. By this
substitution of these garments for his ordinary brilliant robes was
signified, not merely the absolute purity which the white linen
symbolised, but especially also, by the absence of adornment,
humiliation for sin. On this day he was thus made in outward
appearance essentially like unto the other members of his house, for
whose sin, together with his own, he was to make atonement.
Thus washed and robed, wearing on his white turban the golden crown
inscribed "Holiness to Jehovah," {Exo 28:38} he now took (Lev 16:3,
Lev 16:5-7), as a sin offering for himself and for his house, a
bullock; and for the congregation, "two he-goats for a sin
offering"; with a ram for himself, and one for them, for a burnt
offering. The two goats were set "before the Lord at the door of the
tent of meeting." The bullock was the offering before prescribed for
the sin offering for the high priest, {Lev 4:3} as being the most
valuable of all sacrificial victims. For the choice of the goats
many reasons have been given, none of which seem wholly
satisfactory. Both of the goats are equally declared (Lev 16:5) to
be "for a sin offering"; yet only one was to be slain.
The ceremonial which followed is unique; it is without its like
either in Mosaism or in heathenism. It was ordered (Lev 16:8):
"Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and
the other lot for Azazel"; an expression to which we shall shortly
return. Only the goat on whom the lot fell for the Lord was to be
slain.
The two goats remain standing before the Lord; while now Aaron kills
the sin offering for himself and for his house (Lev 16:11); then
enters, first, the Holy of Holies within the veil, having taken (Lev
16:12) a censer "full of coals of fire from off the altar before the
Lord," with his hands full of incense (Lev 16:13), "that the cloud
of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is upon the testimony
(i.e., the two tables of the law within the ark), that he die not."
Then (Lev 16:13) he sprinkles the blood "upon the mercy seat on the
east"-by which was signified the application of the blood God-ward,
accompanied with the fragrance of intercession, for the expiation of
his own sins and those of his house; and then "seven times, before
the mercy seat,"-evidently, on the floor of the sanctuary, for the
symbolic cleansing of the holiest place, defiled by all the
uncleannesses of the children of Israel, in the midst of whom it
stood. Then, returning, he kills the goat of the sin offering "for
Jehovah," and repeats the same ceremony, now in behalf of the whole
congregation, sprinkling, as before, the mercy seat, and, seven
times, the Holy of Holies, thus making atonement for it, "because of
the uncleannesses of the children of Israel, and because of their
transgressions, even all their sins" (Lev 16:16). In like manner, he
was then to cleanse, by a seven-fold sprinkling, the Holy place; and
then again going into the outer court, also the altar of burnt
offering; this last, doubtless, as in other cases, by applying the
blood to the horns of the altar.
In all this it will be observed that the difference from the
ordinary sin offerings and the wider reach of its symbolical virtue
is found, not in that the offering is different from or larger than
others, but in that, symbolically speaking, the blood is brought, as
in no other offering, into the most immediate presence of God; even
into the secret darkness of the Holy of Holies, where no child of
Israel might tread. For this reason did this sin offering become,
above all others, the most perfect type of the one offering of Him,
the God-Man, who reconciled us to God by doing that in reality which
was here done in symbol, even entering with atoning blood into the
very presence of God, there to appear in our behalf.
AZAZEL
Lev 16:20-28
"And when he hath made an end of atoning for the holy place, and
the tent of meeting, and the altar, he shall present the live goat:
and Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat,
and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel
and all their transgressions, even all their sins; and he shall put
them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand
of a man that is in readiness into the wilderness: and the goat
shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a solitary land: and
he shall let go the goat in the wilderness. And Aaron shall come
into the tent of meeting, and shall put off the linen garments,
which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave
them there: and he shall bathe his flesh in water in a holy place,
and put on his garments, and come forth, and offer his burnt
offering and the burnt offering of the people, and make atonement
for himself and for the people. And the fat of the sin offering
shall he burn upon the altar. And he that letteth go the gent for
Azazel shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and
afterward he shall come into the camp. And the bullock of the sin
offering, and the goat of the sin offering, whose blood was brought
in to make atonement in the holy place, shall be carried forth
without the camp; and they shall burn in the fire theirskins, and
their flesh, and their dung. And he that burneth them shall wash his
clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come
into the camp."
And now followed the second stage of the ceremonial, a rite of the
most singular and impressive character. The live goat, during the
former part of the ceremony, had been left standing before Jehovah,
where he had been placed after the casting of the lot (Lev 16:10).
The rendering of King James’ version, that the goat was so placed,
"to make an atonement with him," assumes a meaning to the Hebrew
preposition here which it never has. Usage demands either that which
is given in the text or the margin of the Revised Version, to make
atonement "for him" or "over him." But to the former the objection
seems insuperable that there is nothing in the whole rite suggesting
an atonement as made for this living goat; while, on the other hand,
if the rendering "over" be adopted from the margin, it may not
unnaturally be understood of the performance over this goat of that
part of the atonement ceremonial described as follows:-
Lev 16:20-22 : "When he hath made an end of atoning for the holy
place, and the tent of meeting, and the altar, he shall present the
live goat and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of
Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins; and he
shall put them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by
the hand of a man that is in readiness into the wilderness: and the
goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a solitary land:
and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness." And with this
ceremony the atonement was completed. Aaron now laid aside the robes
which he had put on for this service, bathed again, and put on again
his richly coloured garments of office, came forth and offered the
burnt offering for himself and for the people, and burnt the fat of
the sin offering as usual on the altar (Lev 16:23-25), while its
flesh was burned, according to the law for such sacrifices, without
the camp (Lev 16:27).
What was the precise significance of this part of the service, is
one of the most difficult questions which arises in the exposition
of this book; the answer to which chiefly turns upon the meaning
which is attached to the expression, "for Azazel" (O.V, "for a
scapegoat"). What is the meaning of "Azazel"?
There are three fundamental facts which stand before us in this
chapter, which must find their place in any explanation which may be
adopted.
1. Both of the goats are declared to be "a sin offering"; the live
goat, no less than the other.
2. In consistency with this, the live goat, no less than the other,
was consecrated to Jehovah, in that he was "set alive before the
Lord."
3. The function expressly ascribed to him in the law is the complete
removal of the transgressions of Israel, symbolically transferred to
him as a burden, by the laying on of hands with confession of sin.
Passing by, then, several interpretations, which seem intrinsically
irreconcilable with one or other of these facts, or are, for other
reasons. to be rejected, the case seems to be practically narrowed
down to this alternative. Either Azazel is to be regarded as the
name of an evil spirit, conceived of as dwelling in the wilderness,
or else it is to be taken as an abstract noun, as in the margin (R.V),
signifying "removal," "dismissal." That the word may have this
meaning is very commonly admitted even by those who deny that
meaning here; and if, with Bahr and others, we adopt it in this
passage, all that follows is quite clear. The goat "for removal"
bears away all the iniquities of Israel, which are symbolically laid
upon him, into a solitary land; that is, they are taken wholly away
from the presence of God and from the camp of His people. Thus, as
the killing and sprinkling of the blood of the first goat visibly
set forth the means of reconciliation with God, through the
substituted offering of an innocent victim, so the sending away of
the second goat, laden with those sins, the expiation of which had
been signified by the sacrifice of the first, no less vividly set
forth the effect of that sacrifice, in the complete removal of those
expiated sins from the holy presence of Jehovah. That this effect of
atonement should have been adequately represented by the first slain
victim was impossible; hence the necessity for the second goat,
ideally identified with the other, as jointly constituting with it
one sin offering, whose special use it should be to represent the
blessed effect of atonement. The truth symbolised, as the goat thus
bore away the sins of Israel, is expressed in those glad words, {Psa
103:12} "As far as the east is from the west, so far hath He removed
our transgressions from us"; or, under another image, by Micah, {Mic
7:19} "Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depth of the sea."
So far all seems quite clear, and this explanation, no doubt, will
always be accepted by many. And yet there remains one serious
objection to this interpretation; namely, that the meaning we thus
give this word "Azazel" is not what we would expect from the phrase
which is used regarding the casting of the lots (Lev 16:8): "One lot
for the Lord, and the other lot for Azazel." These words do most
naturally suggest that Azazel is the name of a person, who is here
contrasted with Jehovah; and hence it is believed by a large number
of the best expositors that the term must be taken here as the name
of an evil spirit, represented as dwelling in the wilderness, to
whom this goat, thus laden with Israel’s sins, is sent. In addition
to this phraseology, it is urged, in support of this interpretation,
that even the Scripture lends apparent sanction to the Jewish belief
that demons are, in some special sense, the inhabitants of waste and
desolate places; and, in particular, that Jewish demonology does in
fact recognise a demon named Azazel, also called Sammael. It is
admitted, indeed, that the name Azazel does not occur in the
Scripture as the name of Satan or of any evil spirit; and, moreover,
that there is no evidence that the Jewish belief concerning the
existence of a demon called Azazel dates nearly so far back as
Mosaic days; and, again, that even the rabbis themselves are not
agreed on this interpretation here, many of them rejecting it, even
on traditional grounds. Still the interpretation has secured the
support of the majority of the best modern expositors, and must
claim respectful consideration.
But if Azazel indeed denotes an evil spirit to whom the second goat
of the sin offering is thus sent, laden with the iniquities of
Israel, the question then arises: How then, on this supposition, is
the ceremony to be interpreted?
The notion of some, that we have in this rite a relic of the ancient
demon worship, is utterly inadmissible. For this goat is expressly
said (Lev 16:5) to have been, equally with the goat that was slain,
"a sin offering," and (Lev 16:10, Lev 16:20) it is placed "before
the Lord," as an offering to Him; nor is there a hint, here or
elsewhere, that this goat was sacrificed in the wilderness to this
Azazel; while, moreover, in this very priest code {Lev 17:7-9, R.V}
this special form of idolatry is forbidden, under the heaviest
penalty.
That the goat sent to Azazel personified, by way of warning and in a
typical manner, Israel, as rejecting the great Sin offering, and
thus laden with iniquity, and therefore delivered over to Satan, is
an idea equally untenable. For the goat, as we have seen, is
regarded as ideally one with the goat which is slain; they jointly
constitute one sin offering. If, therefore, the slain goat
represented in type Christ as the Lamb of God, our Sin offering, so
also must this goat represent Him as our Sin offering. Further, the
ceremonial which is performed over him is explicitly termed an
"atonement"; that is, it was an essential part of a ritual designed
to symbolise, not the condemnation of Israel for sin, but their
complete deliverance from the guilt of their sins.
Not to speak of other explanations, more or less untenable, which
have each found their advocates, the only one which, upon this
understanding of the meaning of Azazel, the context and the analogy
of the Scripture will both admit, appears to be the following. Holy
Scripture teaches that Satan has power over man, only because of
man’s sin. Because of his sin, man is judicially left by God in
Satan’s power. {1Jn 5:19, R.V} When as "the prince of this world" he
came to the sinless Man, Jesus Christ, he had nothing in Him,
because He was the Holy One of God; while, on the other hand, he is
represented {Heb 2:14} as having over men under sin "the authority
of death." In full accord with this conception, he is represented,
both in the Old and the New Testament, as the accuser of God’s
people. He is said to have accused Job before God. {Job 1:9-11; Job
2:4; Job 2:5} When Zechariah {Zec 3:1} saw Joshua the high priest
standing before the angel of Jehovah, he saw Satan also standing at
his right hand to be his "adversary." So, again, in the Apocalypse
{Rev 12:10} he is called "the Accuser of our brethren, which
accuseth them before our God day and night," and who is only
overcome by means of "the blood of the Lamb."
To this Evil One, then, the Accuser and Adversary of God’s people in
all ages-if we assume the interpretation before us-the live goat was
symbolically sent, bearing on him the sins of Israel. But does he
bear their sins as forgiven, or as unforgiven? Surely, as forgiven;
for the sins which he symbolically carries are those very sins of
the bygone year for which expiating blood had just been offered and
accepted in the Holy of Holies. Moreover, he is sent as being
ideally one with the goat that was slain. As sent to Azazel, he
therefore symbolically announces to the Evil One that with the
expiation of sin by sacrificial blood the foundation of his power
over forgiven Israel is gone. His accusations are now no longer in
place; for the whole question of Israel’s sin has been met and
settled in the atoning blood. Thus, as the acceptance of the blood
of the one goat offered in the Holiest symbolised the complete
propitiation of the offended holiness of God and His pardon of
Israel’s sin, so the sending of the goat to Azazel. symbolised the
effect of this expiation, in the: complete removal of all the penal
effects of sin, through deliverance by atonement from the power of
the Adversary as the executioner of God’s wrath.
Which of these two interpretations shall be accepted must be left to
the reader: that neither is without difficulty, those who have most
studied this very obscure question will most readily admit; that
either is at least consistent with the context and with other
teachings of Scripture, should be sufficiently evident. In either
case, the symbolic intention of the first part of the ritual, with
the first goat, was to symbolise the means of reconciliation with
God; namely, through the offering unto God of the life of an
innocent victim, substituted in the sinner’s place: in either case
alike, the purpose of the second part of the ceremonial, with the
second goat, was to symbolise the blessed effect of this expiation;
either, if the reading of the margin be taken, in the complete
removal of the expiated sin from the presence of the Holy God, or,
if Azazel be taken as a proper name, in the complete deliverance of
the sinner, through expiatory blood presented in the Holiest, from
the power of Satan. If in the former case, we think of the words
already cited, "As far as the east is from the west, so far hath He
removed our transgressions from us"; in the latter the words from
the Apocalypse {Rev 12:10-11} come to mind, "The Accuser of our
brethren is cast down, which accuseth them before our God day and
night. And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb."
On other particulars in the ceremonial of the day we need not dwell,
as they have received their exposition in earlier chapters of the
law of the offerings. Of the burnt offerings, indeed, which followed
the dismissal of the living goat of the sin offering, little is
said; it is, emphatically, the sin offering, upon which, above all
else, it was designed to centre the attention of Israel on this
occasion.
And so, with an injunction to the perpetual observance of this day,
this remarkable chapter closes. In it the sacrificial law of Moses
attains its supreme expression; the holiness and the grace alike of
Israel’s God, their fullest revelation. For the like of the great
day of atonement, we look in vain in any other people. If every
sacrifice pointed to Christ, this most luminously of all. What the
fifty-third of Isaiah is to his Messianic prophecies, that, we may
truly say, is the sixteenth of Leviticus to the whole system of
Mosaic types, -the most consummate flower of the Messianic
symbolism. All the sin offerings pointed to Christ, the great High
Priest and Victim of the future; but this, as we shall now see, with
a distinctness found in no other.
As the unique sin offering of this day could only be offered by the
one high priest, so was it intimated that the High Priest of the
future, who should indeed make an end of sin, should be one and
only. As once only in the whole year, a complete cycle of time, this
great atonement was offered, so did it point toward a sacrifice
which should indeed be "once for all" {Heb 9:26, Heb 10:10}; not
only for the lesser aeon of the year, but for the aeon of aeons
which is the lifetime of humanity. In that the high priest, who was
on all other occasions conspicuous among his sons by his bright
garments made for glory and for beauty, on this occasion laid them
aside, and assumed the same garb as his sons for whom he was to make
atonement; herein was shadowed forth the truth that it behoved the
great High Priest of the future to be "in all things made like unto
His brethren" {Heb 2:17}. When, having offered the sin offering,
Aaron disappeared from the sight of Israel within the veil, where in
the presence of the unseen glory he offered the incense and
sprinkled the blood, it was presignified how "Christ having come a
High Priest of the good things to come, through the greater and more
perfect tabernacle, not made with hands nor yet through the blood of
goats and calves, but through His own blood, entered in once for all
into the holy place," even "into heaven itself, now to appear before
the face of God for us". {Heb 9:11-12; Heb 9:24} And, in like manner
in that when the sin offering had been offered, the blood sprinkled,
and his work within the veil was ended, arrayed again in his
glorious garments, he reappeared to bless the waiting congregation;
it was again foreshown how yet that must be fulfilled which is
written, that this same Christ, "having been once offered to bear
the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to
them that wait for Him, unto salvation". {Heb 9:28} To all this yet
more might be added of dispensational truth typified by the
ceremonial of this day, which we defer to the exposition of chapter
25, where its consideration more properly belongs. But even were
this all, what a marvellous revelation here of the Lord Jesus
Christ! The fact of these correspondences between the Levitical
ritual and the New Testament facts, let it be observed, is wholly
independent of the questions as to the date and origin of this law;
and every theory on this subject must find a place for these
correspondences and account for them. But how can anyone believe
that all these are merely accidental coincidences of a post-exilian
forgery with the facts of the incarnation, and the high priestly
work of Christ in death and resurrection as set forth in the
Gospels? How can they all be adequately accounted for except by
assuming that to be true which is expressly taught in the New
Testament concerning this very ritual: that in it the Holy Ghost
presignified things that were to come; that, therefore, the
ordinance must have been, not of man, but of God; not a mere product
of the human mind, acting under the laws of a religious evolution,
but a revelation from Him unto whom "known are all His works from
the foundation of the world"? Nor must we fail to take in the
blessed truth so vividly symbolised in the second part of the
ceremonial. When the blood of the sin offering had been sprinkled in
the Holiest, the sins of Israel were then, by the other goat of the
sin offering, borne far away. Israel stood there still a sinful
people; but their sin, now expiated by the blood, was before God as
if it were not. So does the Holy Victim in the Antitype, who first
by His death expiated sin, then as the Living One bear away all the
believer’s sins from the presence of the Holy One into a land of
forgetfulness. And so it is that, as regards acceptance with God,
the believing sinner, though still a sinner, stands as if he were
sinless; all through the great Sin Offering. To see this, to believe
in it, and rest in it, is life eternal; it is joy, and peace, and
rest! IT IS THE GOSPEL!
|