CHAPTER XXI.

The subject of expiation continued—The atoning efficacy of the Jewish sacrifices consisted in the sprinkling of the blood-The view that the atonement was completed on the cross contradicted by the typical import of the two goats on the Jewish day of atonement-The different explanations given of that portion of Leviticus, chapter xvi., which refers to the two goats-These explanations shown to be erroneousWhy were goats selected on this particular occasion to be sacrificed? -Why did the Lord order neither more nor fewer than two goats?— What reason was there for casting lots? These questions fully and satisfactorily answered-The slain goat typical of Christ's physical death, and the scapegoat prefigured His descent into Hades.

WE may continue in this chapter the subject of expiation, by quoting a passage from the Epistle to the Hebrews (ix. 19-22), where the apostle thus writes: "For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without the sprinkling of blood there is no remission." The reader will observe that I have translated aipaτexyvoía (aimatekehysia) not the "shedding of blood," but the "sprinkling of blood;" because such is manifestly the sense required by the text.

Strictly speaking, we may shed blood without sprinkling it, but we cannot sprinkle the blood without having previously shed it. Now, since the sprinkling of blood alone, and apart from any other portion of the sacrificial rite, is so frequently mentioned as that which made the atonement, while no such expiatory value is ever ascribed ( 154 )

to the rest of the sacrificial rites, independently of the sprinkling of blood, we are bound to conclude that the atoning efficacy of the sacrifice consisted in the sprinkling of the blood. This fact, too, carries reason along with it, for it was at once a direct application of the cleansing element to that which required purging; while the slaying of the victim simply did not include any such application. Hence we perceive the necessity of accurate distinction between the sacrifice itself and that which actually effects the atonement. Though both are connected, and the one cannot be procured without the other, yet the latter, through a divine appointment, certainly possesses a virtue which does not belong to the former.

In order to strengthen our view that the great work of the atonement was not completed on the cross, we shall now submit to the consideration of the reader the typical import of what was done with the two goats on the day of atonement. The leading points connected with these goats we find recorded in the Book of Leviticus (xvi.), and there can be no question as to the important significancy of them. Concerning the goats the word of God thus speaks :-"And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the Lord, at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat. And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the Lord's lot fell, and offer him for a sinoffering. 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. 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: 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: 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. And Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of the congregation, 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 wash his flesh with water in the holy place, and put on his garments, and come forth, and offer his burnt-offering, and the burnt-offering of the people, and make an atonement for himself and for the people. And the fat of the sin-offering shall he burn upon the altar. And he that let go the goat for the scapegoat shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward come into the camp."

The explanation given of this remarkable portion of Scripture by those who maintain that the sufferings of the Redeemer ended with His crucifixion is twofold. One class of expositors regard the goat which was slain as the piacular victim, and the scapegoat as indicating the complete and effectual removal of sin, consequent upon the death of the first goat. The other class of Scriptural expounders, among whom we find Bishop Patrick, to whose valuable commentary I have already referred, view the dead goat as setting forth the atonement by Christ's physical death, and the scapegoat as designed to prefigure the resurrection of Christ. It will now be my duty to examine these opinions which have been so generally and eagerly received and adopted by Christians, and the reader need not be surprised to find, on investigation, that they are not only erroneous, but they really contradict the word of God Himself.

Now, touching this extraordinary narrative about the goats and the important typical bearing, I have to ask and answer the following questions:

1. Why did God command goats to be sacrificed in order to set forth the great work of the atonement which was to be effected by the death of His own Son?

2. Why did He order neither more nor fewer than two goats?

3. What reason was there for casting lots in order to determine which should be the most suitable for the sin

offering, and which for the scapegoat? Would not one goat have answered either purpose?

It appears to my mind that this mode of proceeding is the best way to arrive at the truth of the matter; for there certainly must have been some very cogent reasons why goats and not sheep should have been chosen on the great day of atonement. We should not forget that the sacrifices offered on the day of atonement were more striking representations of the expiation made by Christ than any other; and the two goats in their complete prefiguration of this atoning death must be placed at the head of all the sacrifices.

The first question to be considered is, why goats were selected in preference to other animals.

Two
In

Goats were chosen because, in prophetical language, and, indeed, in the Scriptures generally, they signify bad and wicked men; while sheep denote good men. texts will suffice to prove the truth of this assertion. the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel (xxxiv. 17), God thus speaks: "And as for you, O my flock, thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I judge between cattle and cattle, between the rams and the he goats." This distinction is also recognized in the Gospel of St. Matthew (xxv. 31-33), where our Lord thus speaks: "When the Son of man shall come in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then shall He sit upon the throne of His glory: And before Him shall be gathered all nations: And He shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And He shall set the sheep on His right hand (the position of honor), but the goats on the left" (the place of disgrace and condemnation). These passages of Scripture show that sheep and goats signify respectively the righteous and the wicked, the good and the bad, and also those who shall be finally saved, and such as are to be eternally lost.

Then since goats, in the language of Scripture, signify wicked men, and sheep good men, we can easily perceive why the former, instead of the latter, were appointed to be sacrificed on the "day of atonement." Sheep or lambs would do very well to indicate the innocence and sinless

nature of the Redeemer and His absolute fitness to be made a propitiation for the transgressions of mankind, and even, to some extent, foreshadow Him as a substitute for men, but beyond these limits they could not go. On the other hand, goats set forth the real substitution, and their being chosen was designed to prefigure the actual identification of Christ with sinners, or to demonstrate the fact that He, "who knew no sin," was to become a substitute for sinful man, and to bear the punishment due to his iniquities. The goats, in fact, could represent Christ only in His sacrificial character, or while He was making expiation for human transgression. Sheep, therefore, point out the qualifications of Christ for making satisfaction for sin; the goats go further and represent Him in the very act of making the atonement. Inasmuch, then, as the goats foreshadowed Christ only in His connection with and substitution for sinners, it is manifest that His resurrection could in no way be typified by the scapegoat being led into the wilderness. Substitution ended with the liberation of the Redeemer from Hades. Let the reader be doubly cautious to distinguish between what was done for us by our Lord in the way of substitution, and what He did on our behalf without substitution. Christ died for our sins that we should not die; and He rose again from the dead, not to prevent, but to insure our resurrection.

Had Christ risen from the dead as our substitute, or in the exact sense in which He died for our sins, there would have been no physical resurrection for us. Hence the moment that the pains of death or Hades were loosed, that very moment there was an end of substitution. Christ died to save us from death, and rose again from the dead as the first-fruits of our resurrection. So long as Christ was under the power of death, so long was He dealt with as if He had been a sinner, and in that capacity He was represented by the goats; but further than that point they could not typify Him, because they signify wicked men only, whereas the Redeemer on His deliverance from the prison of the lost, ceased to be numbered among the wicked. Then, since the goats are used only