'CHAPTER
IX.
THE
SCAPE-GOAT
In
commenting on the position of certain authors on the relations of the death of
Christ, it was remarked that pardon, during probation, is not absolute, but
relative. It is conditional, as the Scriptures clearly show. God never
disregards the claims of his law—of justice. In forgiving the sinner so that he
escapes the penalty he has deserved, God does not overlook the crime, or treat
it as a matter to be lightly passed over. But he transfers the sin to another who bears it in his stead, and
suffers for him. The sin was counted as still existing—an offense
against Heaven’s King. This is further shown by the action of the priest on the
day of atonement. His service did not end with cleansing the sanctuary, or in
blotting out the sins of the people from the book of judgment. The sin still existed, though they were
cleansed; and it was removed from the presence of God to another object.
Two goats were presented before the Lord, and lots were cast upon them; one to
be a sin offering, to be slain, the blood of which was sprinkled in the
sanctuary; the other for a scape-goat, which was not slain, and concerning
which the priest took no action till after the Atonement was made.
Let not
the reader mistake the import of this expression. We do not say that the priest
took no action with the scape-goat until after the sin offering was slain. The
statement reaches far beyond that; he took no action concerning the scape-goat until after he had taken the blood of
the sin offering into the sanctuary and exercised his priestly office there in
blotting out the sins of the people. If this distinction be well considered it
may prepare the mind to see the truth concerning the object and antitype of the
scape-goat.
It has
been supposed that this goat was also a type of Christ; but that is a
supposition for which the Scriptures give not the least warrant. Some authors
consider that, as the sin offering typified the crucified Saviour, so the
scape-goat presented alive before the Lord
- 159 - J.
H. Waggoner
typified
the Lord as risen for the justification of his people. But this view is
inadmissible from the order of the service. We notice that, 1. The goat was
slain as a sin offering; this typified the death of Christ on Calvary. 2. The
priest took the blood and went into the sanctuary for the people; this typified
the risen Saviour going into “Heaven itself, by his own blood, to appear in the
presence of God for us.” 3. After he had made an end of reconciling the holies,
that is, after the atonement was fully made in the sanctuary, then the priest
brought the live goat and laid both his hands upon the head of the goat, and
confessed over him the sins of the children of Israel, putting them upon the
head of the goat. This must certainly typify something in the future to be
performed after the sanctuary in
Heaven is cleansed. But the sins placed on the scape-goat can be of those only
who have “afflicted their souls,” and are accepted of God, for they who are
impenitent and continue to transgress the law of God, bear their own sins—their
sins are on their own heads. And when the sins of God’s people have been
transferred through the priest to the sanctuary of God, and from thence removed
to the head of the scapegoat, the goat is then sent away to “a land not
inhabited,” and there “let go,” or caused to remain. And by this it is clearly seen that the pardon of sin is relative;
that the sin is removed from the penitent believer only by transfer; but such
transfer does not destroy or put out of existence the sin, as a future action
in reference to it is appointed by the Lord.
There is
something analogous to this in the New Testament, and it accords with the
meaning of Lev. 16:8, as given by reputable authorities. The Hebrew word for
scape-goat as given in the margin of Lev. 16:8, is Azazel.
Lev
16:8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD,
and the other lot for the scapegoat.
On this
verse, Jenks in his Comprehensive Commentary remarks, “‘Scape-goat.’ See
different opinions in Bochart. Spencer, after the oldest opinions of the
Hebrews and Christians, thinks Azazel is the name of the devil; and so
Rosenmuller, whom see. The Syriac has Azzail, the angel (strong one) who
revolted.” The devil is evidently here pointed out. Thus we have the definition
of the Scripture term in two ancient languages,
The
Atonement - 160
with the
oldest opinion of the Christians in favor of the view that the scape-goat is a
type of Satan. Charles Beecher in his work, “Redeemer and Redeemed,” makes an
argument that the name Azazel refers to Satan, from which we extract as
follows:—“The use of the preposition implies it. The same preposition is used
on both lots, La-Yehovah, La Azazel; and if the one indicates a person, it
seems natural the other should, especially considering the act of casting lots.
If one is Jehovah, the other would seem for some other person or being; not one
for Jehovah, and the other for the goat itself. “What goes to confirm this is,
that the most ancient paraphrases and translations treat Azazel as a proper
name. The Chaldee paraphrase and the targums of Onkelos and Jonathan would
certainly have translated it if it was not a proper name, but they did not. The
Septuagint, or oldest Greek version, renders it by apopompaiov [apopompaios], a
word applied by the Greeks to a malign deity, sometimes appeased by sacrifices.
“Another confirmation is found in the book of Enoch, where the name Azalzel,
evidently a corruption of Azazel, is given to one of the fallen angels, thus
plainly showing what was the prevalent understanding of the Jews at that day.
“Still another evidence is found in the Arabic, where Azazel is employed as the
name of the evil spirit. “In addition to these, we have the evidence of the
Jewish work Zohar, and of the Cabalistic and Rabbinical writers. They tell us
that the following proverb was current among the Jews: ‘On the day of
atonement, a gift to Sammail.’ Hence Moses Gerundinensis feels called to say
that it is not a sacrifice, but only done because commanded by God. “Another
step in the evidence is when we find this same opinion passing from the Jewish
to the early Christian Church. Origen was the most learned of the Fathers, and
on such a point as this, the meaning of a Hebrew word, his testimony is
reliable. Says Origin: ‘He who is called in the Septuagint apopompaiov, and in
the Hebrew Azazel, is no other than the devil.’
- 161 - J.
H. Waggoner
“Lastly, a
circumstance is mentioned of the emperor Julian, the apostate, that confirms
the argument. He brought as an objection against the Bible, that Moses
commanded a sacrifice to the evil spirit. An objection he never could have
thought of, had not Azazel been generally regarded as a proper name. “In view,
then, of the difficulties attending any other meaning, and the accumulated
evidence in favor of this, Hengstenberg affirms, with great confidence, that
Azazel cannot be anything else but another name for Satan.” Pp. 67, 68.
Also on
the opinion that the scape-goat typified the Saviour after his resurrection,
Mr. Beecher has the following:— “Matthew Henry says: ‘The slain goat was a type
of Christ dying for our sins, the scape-goat a type of Christ rising again for
our resurrection.’ But he forgets that the goat was so unclean that its touch
rendered the man by whom it was sent, unclean, and necessitated a thorough
washing. Was Christ unclean in his resurrection? It is said, 1 Tim. 3:16, that
he was ‘justified in the Spirit;’ and Rom.4:25,‘He was delivered for our
offenses, but raised for our justification.’
1Ti
3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was
manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto
the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Rom
4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our
justification.
Purity is
the grand idea associated with Christ’s resurrection, and therefore such a view
of the type is manifestly impossible.” Irenaeus, writing in A. D. 185, quotes
an elder’s words against Marcus, who was accused of heresy, as follows:—
“Marcus, thou former of idols, inspector of portents, skilled in consulting the
stars, and deep in the black arts of magic. Ever by tricks such as these
confirming the doctrines of error. Furnishing signs unto those involved by thee
in deception, wonders of power that is utterly severed from God, and apostate,
which Satan, thy true father, enables thee still to accomplish, by means of
Azazel, that fallen, yet mighty angel. Thus making thee precursor of his own
impious actions.”—Irenaeus against Heresies, Book 1, chap. xv, p. 68. This
shows that such an opinion was held by Christians at that time.
(To be
continued)
(Excerpt
from-) THE ATONEMENT PART SECOND:
THE
ATONEMENT AS REVEALED IN THE BIBLE
(1884)
BY ELDER J. H. WAGGONER
No comments:
Post a Comment