The two-goat atonement of Leviticus 16
Nov 14, 2014 23:29:20 GMT
Post by Colossians on Nov 14, 2014 23:29:20 GMT
This material is for the teaching of the Body of Christ, however the author reserves copyright over it.
__________________________________________
THE TWO-GOAT ATONEMENT OF LEVITICUS 16
The reader is invited to spend a few minutes studying the following (abridged) passage from Leviticus concerning the two goats offered on the 10th day of the seventh month of each year, by the head priest of Israel on behalf of the congregation of Israel, the one goat being “for the Lord” and therefore for a sin offering, the other being “for a scapegoat” and therefore to be let loose in the wilderness.
[3] “Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place …
[5] And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering …
[7] And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
[8] And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat.
[9] And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD's lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering.
[10] But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness …
[15] Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:
[16] And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.
[18] And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the LORD, and make an atonement for it; and shall take … of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about.
[19] And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.
[20] And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat:
[21] 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 in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:
[22] And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.
[29] And this shall be a statute for ever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you:
[30] For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD.”
The scapegoat
Although the law was given to the Jew, the Gentile was nevertheless under the law along with the Jew.1 That is, the Jew was both under (the jurisdiction of) the law and “in” 2 (the knowledge of) the law, whereas the Gentile was simply under (the jurisdiction of) the law. Thus the stated advantage of the Jew.3
The law then had necessarily to take into account the whole of humanity4 and thus include a paradigm which was representative not only of the sin of the Jew, but the sin of the Gentile.
In particular, the Jew who unwittingly transgressed the law by being unaware of certain particulars in it (see Lev 4:13,22,27), was necessarily representative of the Gentile who transgressed it by having no particulars at all.5
Hence the scapegoat.
For in being made to exit the congregation of the law where it would not be ‘judged’ but where it would, just as the Gentiles who “perish without law”,6 also perish without (outside the congregation of the) law, the scapegoat was a figure for sins committed in ignorance, whether by Jew or Gentile.
The vital lesson of the scapegoat then is that all sins except the sin against the Holy Spirit,7 are declared by God to be committed in ignorance,8 their ‘parent’ sin being the sin of Adam which was necessarily extant before he received the (experiential) knowledge of good and evil.
1 All flesh are under the law from birth, having descended from them in Eden who were placed under the law which commanded them to not eat of the wrong tree. And so when Gal 4:4 says that Christ was “made of a woman, made under the law”, this is not to be rendered “made of a woman and made a Jew” (which would in fact be saying that He had been made of a woman and made “in” the law – see Rom 2:12,17), but “made of a woman, which is to say, made under the law”.
2 See Rom 2:12,17.
3 See Rom 3:1,2
4 That the law took into account the whole of humanity is indeed typed in Jacob’s taking to himself not one, but two wives, Rachel being she who was first loved and who therefore represented Israel and thus those in the law, and Leah being she who was not at first loved and who therefore represented the Gentiles and thus those not in the law.
5 It will be important however to point out that (forgivable) sin does not consist of transgression of the law, but the transgression of the law (of faith). So Paul: “[ I was ] before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief”, and which transgression is (further) not to be confused with one’s cognisant denial of Christ, which is the sin against the Holy Spirit and which is that to which the following words of Jesus (which primarily focus on the Jew but which are equally applicable to the Gentile) relate: “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin … they [have] both seen and hated both me and my Father” (John 15:22).
6 See Rom 2:12.
7 The sin against the Holy Spirit contrasts with all other sin in that it consists of cognisant rejection of the (Spirit of) Truth. See Mt 12:31; 1 John 2:19, 5:16; Heb 10:25-27.
8 This is regardless of how intentional such sins might appear and/or how aware of them the offender might be: all sin except the sin against the Holy Spirit is declared by God to be committed in ignorance. So our Lord: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Lk 23:34). So (again) Paul: “[ I was ] before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief” 8a (1 Ti 1:13).
8a We see also the paradox generated here that it was the very unbelief responsible for Paul’s sin which (ironically) provided for such sin to be forgivable.
The goat “for the Lord”
Sins committed in ignorance are nevertheless still sins and therefore still incur judgement, a fact attested to within the law: once one of Israel came into the realisation that he had (unwittingly) transgressed the law, specific atonement was to be made. (See again Lev 4:27-30.)
The goat for the Lord then was the figure for the atonement made by the Lord for all sins committed in ignorance and therefore all sins except the sin against the Holy Spirit: it represented forgiveness of the very sins the scapegoat carried into the wilderness.
In concluding …
At 1 Corinthians 4:4 Paul declares:
"For I know nothing by myself [(I'm not aware of any personal sin)]; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord" 1 Cor 4:4,
in which appear respectively both the scapegoat and the goat for the Lord.
The scapegoat aligns with Paul’s being (ultimately) unaware (by himself) of whether there was any sin in his life,9 and the goat for the Lord aligns with the judgement of the Lord.
And so we praise God that He who judges us, happens to also be our sacrifice.10
9 But see again subnote (8) above.
10 See also our work: “Christ our sacrifice, not our substitute”.
Amen.
(See also postscript below.)
__________________________________
Postscript on the love of God to usward
When something is described as being “for” someone, it is usually taken to mean that it is to his benefit.
How great then must the Lord’s love to usward be, for Him to describe the offering up of a goat which would commit Him to the Cross, as that which was “for the Lord”?
No wonder then that Paul declared:
“If God be for us, who can be against us?” Rom 8:31.
__________________________________________
THE TWO-GOAT ATONEMENT OF LEVITICUS 16
The reader is invited to spend a few minutes studying the following (abridged) passage from Leviticus concerning the two goats offered on the 10th day of the seventh month of each year, by the head priest of Israel on behalf of the congregation of Israel, the one goat being “for the Lord” and therefore for a sin offering, the other being “for a scapegoat” and therefore to be let loose in the wilderness.
[3] “Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place …
[5] And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering …
[7] And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
[8] And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat.
[9] And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD's lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering.
[10] But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness …
[15] Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:
[16] And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.
[18] And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the LORD, and make an atonement for it; and shall take … of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about.
[19] And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.
[20] And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat:
[21] 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 in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:
[22] And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.
[29] And this shall be a statute for ever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you:
[30] For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD.”
The scapegoat
Although the law was given to the Jew, the Gentile was nevertheless under the law along with the Jew.1 That is, the Jew was both under (the jurisdiction of) the law and “in” 2 (the knowledge of) the law, whereas the Gentile was simply under (the jurisdiction of) the law. Thus the stated advantage of the Jew.3
The law then had necessarily to take into account the whole of humanity4 and thus include a paradigm which was representative not only of the sin of the Jew, but the sin of the Gentile.
In particular, the Jew who unwittingly transgressed the law by being unaware of certain particulars in it (see Lev 4:13,22,27), was necessarily representative of the Gentile who transgressed it by having no particulars at all.5
Hence the scapegoat.
For in being made to exit the congregation of the law where it would not be ‘judged’ but where it would, just as the Gentiles who “perish without law”,6 also perish without (outside the congregation of the) law, the scapegoat was a figure for sins committed in ignorance, whether by Jew or Gentile.
The vital lesson of the scapegoat then is that all sins except the sin against the Holy Spirit,7 are declared by God to be committed in ignorance,8 their ‘parent’ sin being the sin of Adam which was necessarily extant before he received the (experiential) knowledge of good and evil.
1 All flesh are under the law from birth, having descended from them in Eden who were placed under the law which commanded them to not eat of the wrong tree. And so when Gal 4:4 says that Christ was “made of a woman, made under the law”, this is not to be rendered “made of a woman and made a Jew” (which would in fact be saying that He had been made of a woman and made “in” the law – see Rom 2:12,17), but “made of a woman, which is to say, made under the law”.
2 See Rom 2:12,17.
3 See Rom 3:1,2
4 That the law took into account the whole of humanity is indeed typed in Jacob’s taking to himself not one, but two wives, Rachel being she who was first loved and who therefore represented Israel and thus those in the law, and Leah being she who was not at first loved and who therefore represented the Gentiles and thus those not in the law.
5 It will be important however to point out that (forgivable) sin does not consist of transgression of the law, but the transgression of the law (of faith). So Paul: “[ I was ] before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief”, and which transgression is (further) not to be confused with one’s cognisant denial of Christ, which is the sin against the Holy Spirit and which is that to which the following words of Jesus (which primarily focus on the Jew but which are equally applicable to the Gentile) relate: “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin … they [have] both seen and hated both me and my Father” (John 15:22).
6 See Rom 2:12.
7 The sin against the Holy Spirit contrasts with all other sin in that it consists of cognisant rejection of the (Spirit of) Truth. See Mt 12:31; 1 John 2:19, 5:16; Heb 10:25-27.
8 This is regardless of how intentional such sins might appear and/or how aware of them the offender might be: all sin except the sin against the Holy Spirit is declared by God to be committed in ignorance. So our Lord: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Lk 23:34). So (again) Paul: “[ I was ] before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief” 8a (1 Ti 1:13).
8a We see also the paradox generated here that it was the very unbelief responsible for Paul’s sin which (ironically) provided for such sin to be forgivable.
The goat “for the Lord”
Sins committed in ignorance are nevertheless still sins and therefore still incur judgement, a fact attested to within the law: once one of Israel came into the realisation that he had (unwittingly) transgressed the law, specific atonement was to be made. (See again Lev 4:27-30.)
The goat for the Lord then was the figure for the atonement made by the Lord for all sins committed in ignorance and therefore all sins except the sin against the Holy Spirit: it represented forgiveness of the very sins the scapegoat carried into the wilderness.
In concluding …
At 1 Corinthians 4:4 Paul declares:
"For I know nothing by myself [(I'm not aware of any personal sin)]; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord" 1 Cor 4:4,
in which appear respectively both the scapegoat and the goat for the Lord.
The scapegoat aligns with Paul’s being (ultimately) unaware (by himself) of whether there was any sin in his life,9 and the goat for the Lord aligns with the judgement of the Lord.
And so we praise God that He who judges us, happens to also be our sacrifice.10
9 But see again subnote (8) above.
10 See also our work: “Christ our sacrifice, not our substitute”.
Amen.
(See also postscript below.)
__________________________________
Postscript on the love of God to usward
When something is described as being “for” someone, it is usually taken to mean that it is to his benefit.
How great then must the Lord’s love to usward be, for Him to describe the offering up of a goat which would commit Him to the Cross, as that which was “for the Lord”?
No wonder then that Paul declared:
“If God be for us, who can be against us?” Rom 8:31.