the highest acts of expiation under the Old Covenant, and also the washing of his body with water, may be regarded as shadowing forth the holiness and glory of Jesus our great High Priest, the one perfect Mediator between God and man; who being the radiation of the glory of God, and the express image of His nature, has succeeded in effecting the perfect cleansing away of the sins of His people, and who as the true High Priest, being holy, innocent, unspotted, and separate from sinners, entered once for all with His own blood into the Most Holy Place,-not the one which human hands made, but into heaven itself, to appear before the face of God for us. Wherever we behold Jesus we discover that He is the same spotless, perfect, glorious, peerless Jesus, "the fairest among ten thousand, yea, altogether lovely." There was no necessity for Him either to do or wear anything in order that He might be pure and spotless; He needed neither the application of pure water nor the covering of white linen, because He was "the Holy One of God." What Aaron was after washing and clothing himself in garments pure and clean, was only a faint shadow of what our great High Priest is. How thankful we should be that the shadow has passed away in consequence of Jesus having come to this world to suffer for our sins, and returned to heaven to appear for us in God's presence.

In the two goats, and the ritual connected with hem, we have brought before our notice the twofold

aspect of the atonement effected by the one offering of Jesus Christ. Aaron placed both of the goats before the LORD, and gave lots for them, or in other words, had lots cast upon them, one lot for Jehovah, Azazel. Provision was thus

= עזאזל and the other for

made for furnishing Jehovah a ground on which He could act in mercy, and supplying the people with a sin bearer, so that their sins might be borne away into oblivion. The life of the Lord's lot was taken by Him in expiation, whereas the other goat which completed the type was sent away with all the sins of the people charged upon and imputed to it. The full result of the One True Sacrifice is so far presented by this twofold type; there was satisfaction to the demands of God's holiness and justice on the one hand, and the remission of the sins of the nation on the other.

It has been said that "If we keep in view that the two goats are spoken of as parts of one and the same sin offering, and that every circumstance connected with them appears to have been carefully arranged to bring them under the same conditions up to the time of the casting of the lots, we shall not have much difficulty in seeing that they form together but one symbolical expression. Why there were two individuals instead of one may be simply this, that a single material object could not, in its nature, symbolically embrace the whole of the truth which was to be expressed. This is implied in the reasoning of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews on the office and sacrifice of Christ (Heb. ix.). Hence some regarding each goat as

a type of Christ, supposed that the one which was slain represented His death, and that the goat set free signified His resurrection. But we shall take a simpler, and perhaps a truer view, if we look upon the slain goat as setting forth the act of sacrifice, in giving up its own life for others to Jehovah,' in accordance with the requirements of the Divine law; and the goat which carried off its load of sin for complete removal,' as signifying the cleansing influence of faith in that sacrifice. Thus in his degree the devout Israelite might have felt the truth of the psalmist's words, As far as the east is from the west, so far hath He removed our transgressions from us.' But for us the whole spiritual truth has been revealed in historical fact, in the life, death, and resurrection of Him who was made sin for us, who died for us, and who rose again for our justification.”*

It must be admitted that there is a difficulty in arriving at an understanding respecting the import of Azazel, which in our version is rendered Scape Goat. The different explanations which have been given may be divided into four classes. First, those which regard it as a description of the place to which the goat was taken. Second, those in which it is understood to be a description of the goat which was sent away into the wilderness. Third, those in which it is regarded as the description of a certain evil demon dwelling in the desert to whom the goat was sent, and Fourth, those which treat it as an abstract noun, signifying, "for

* Smith's "Dictionary of the Bible,” vol. i., p. 139.

complete removal." For the first there is not the slightest support to be gathered from Leviticus xvi. ; the only chapter in God's Word where the word is met with. If it were a place, it would be most intolerable tautology, for it would then be, " For Azazel into the desert," or, "into the solitude for the solitude." In reference to the support which may be adduced in favour of the second, it may be well to observe that it rests upon the etymology of the word which, as some scholars argue, is a compound of az, a goat, and azal, to send away. Against this, however, it may be urged that az never occurs as a name for a buck, or he-goat; and it may still further be urged that in the tenth and twenty-sixth verses, Azazel is expressly distinguished from the goat, the goat being stated there to be for Azazel. Respecting the fourth, it must be granted that Azazel is the intense form of a word which signifies "remove," "separate." It is somewhat remarkable, however, if a word so singular and unparalleled in its kind should have no other and more significant signification, seeing there are many synonyms from which for that purpose only a selection might have been made.

It may be considered by some readers that there is no necessity for any attention being given to the third class of interpretations, as it is not possible for any evidence to be adduced in support of Azazel being an evil demon dwelling in the desert to whom the goat was sent with the sins of the people. As such objections carry but little weight, it may repay us if we look more closely into the subject.

It ought to be understood at the commencement that we have not to think of any demon whatever, who seduces men to wickedness, but of Satan himself, the head of the fallen angels. No subordinate evil spirit could have been placed in antithesis to Jehovah, as Azazel is here, but only the head or ruler of demons. Although it may be beyond the pale of possibility to prove that the old serpent of paradise is Azazel, it is easy to discover some obvious points of coincidence between them, and also some distinct lines of relationship. "They are," as Kurtz observes, "both personal, individual beings, and they both belong to the demon-world, and occupy a prominent and unparalleled position there. However strange the

fact may appear, therefore, that the name Azazel never occurs again in the later portions of the Old Testament, this may possibly be explained to some extent on the supposition, that Azazel was originally simply an adjective or common noun, and may still have continued to be used in this form, whilst the name Satan grew more and more into a proper name. The fact that Satan is never referred to in the Old Testament as dwelling in the desert, may be accidental, and by no means warrants an unqualified denial of his identity with Azazel. On the other hand, the character of Satan as the enemy, the calumniator, and the accuser of the righteous, corresponds precisely to the part assigned to Azazel in relation to the atonement of the Day of Atonement."* We must not lose sight of the * " The Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament," p. 402.

X