III.

(Continued from p. 137.)

Some regard the scapegoat in Lev. 16 as a figure of the element of substitution in Christ's sacrifice, and as the only " full type of this" to be found in Scripture. Starting from this mistaken premise, as we believe it to be, conclusions of great moment are reached and maintained.

"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 the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited" or "cut off" (Lev. 16 :21, 22). Surely such language pictures nothing less than sins so removed from the people as effectually to save them. But is substitution at the cross the thing here portrayed ? If so, the Substitute died only for those who will be saved, and we must embrace the doctrine of a strictly limited atonement.

In that case we must abandon the view that propitiation and substitution are simply two aspects of atonement:propitiation expressing its efficacy to maintain God's righteousness in passing over sins, and substitution expressing the truth that Christ bore sin's penalty for others. For while our Lord is a propitiation for the whole world (i John 2:2), a substitute for the whole world He cannot be if the scapegoat pictures substitution; for, were sins removed from all mankind, like Israel's upon the scapegoat, would not the whole world be saved ?

So too, if the scapegoat typifies substitution, we must deny that "atonement" in the Old Testament is the equivalent of "propitiation" in the New.* *Notwithstanding the fact that in the Septuagint version "atonement" is rendered by substantially the same Greek forms which the Spirit of God subsequently employed for "propitiation " in His New Testament.* For since atonement includes substitution, and propitiation, being for the whole world, cannot include it (if, indeed, the scapegoat represents substitution), atonement and propitiation necessarily are different. And, by the same logic, we must believe that," atonement," which looms up everywhere in the Old Testament, dominating the book, is not once mentioned in the New!

Indeed, once concede that the scapegoat pictures substitution, and at every turn a cramped and limited view of Christ's work is before the mind. Impressed by the far-reaching efficacy which Scripture seems to attribute to the cross, would we fain regard our Lord's infinite sacrifice as a fragrant atonement for all evil ? We may not do so:the yawning brink of universalism threatens! For does not "atonement" include scapegoat-substitution ? and does not this necessarily save ? One died for all-but this is not atonement! Christ gave Himself a ransom-price for all-it cannot mean atonement! He tasted death for everything-but not atoningly! He is a propitiation for the whole world-but did not make atonement for its sins! All things are reconciled by the blood of His cross-but not through atonement! He came to put away sin by His sacrifice-but not by atonement! He sits on high, having effected purification of sins:-but this was not atonement! Behold God's Lamb that takes away the sin of the cosmos-but do not imagine that this is by atonement!

But does the scapegoat figure substitution ? Surely not! The type itself decisively refutes the thought.

1. What is involved in substitutionary sin-bearing ? Is it not the bearing of sins' penalty-death and judgment ? But in the type, the scapegoat is precisely that which bears no penalty. It does not die-does not endure judgment. It is the escape goat, the goat which goes free! Substitution without death – without penalty-bearing? A living goat, "let go," the special figure of sin-bearing by a dying Christ ? Is this interpretation ?

2. Aaron is said to "have made atonement" for himself, his house, Israel, the tabernacle, the sanctuary, and the altar (Lev. 16 :14-20), before he comes out to the scapegoat. "When he hath finished making atonement, … he shall present the live goat" (ver. 20). This atonement was made by sacrificing the bullock and Jehovah's goat, with the rams, anticipatively represented in the burning incense, as if already offered. In accepting these sacrifices, God acknowledged their efficacy; hence every feature of atonement, including substitution, must have been present to His complete satisfaction.

All agree that "atonement" cannot be made without substitution. Since it was made, according to the text, by the sacrifice of the bullock, Jehovah's goat, and the rams, must these not have been substitutes? Who, indeed, can question it ? Were not these innocent victims vicariously offered for the guilt of others ?-and this is substitution.

Again, upon these victims typically fell both items of the penalty in sin-bearing-death and judgment. They were slain for guilt of others; for others' guilt they were consumed by fire. And the scapegoat was '' let go," because Jehovah's goat died thus, bearing judgment, to "make an atonement for it" (ver. 10, Heb.).

All the sacrifices in the Old Testament typify substitution. They died, not for themselves, but for guilty man. But the scapegoat was not sacrificed at all. It removed sins without incurring death. Of what, then, is it a type ? We shall see presently.

3, Ver. 27 speaks of the blood of the bullock and of Jehovah's goat as "brought in to make atonement in the sanctuary." Hence the service of the scapegoat, which took place afterward, and outside, is not included in atonement. Yet since atonement must include substitution, it follows that the blood which could thus "make atonement in the sanctuary " was blood of substitution, and, therefore, that the victims which shed it were substitutes.

And let us weigh the fact that the presence of the blood "in" the sanctuary was regarded as making "atonement." This proves that the blood symbolically represented the complete sacrifice; for, assuredly, not a single element of the sacrifice could be absent from that which "makes atonement."* * In a preceding paper we reached the conclusion that the blood is, symbolically, the sacrifice, from Lev. 16 :3; because the explicit command that Aaron must enter the sanctuary "with the sin-offering " is wholly disregarded if it be not observed in his entrance with the victim's blood. Heb. 13 :11 sets its seal upon this interpretation. "For of those beasts whose blood, as sacrifices for sin, is carried into the holies by the high priest-the bodies of these are burned outside the camp " (Greek ; compare the Revised Version and the New Translation). This, held in mind and logically applied wherever the blood is mentioned in Lev. 16, of itself corrects in any misapprehensions.*

Furthermore, the blood "in the sanctuary " is said to "make atonement" (not propitiation). Who can reconcile with this the view, professedly based upon this very scripture, that "propitiation," and not atonement, was made by the presentation of Christ's blood in heaven ? Indeed, we are first told that "atonement" in the Old Testament is not the same as "propitiation" in the New; and then, in proof that propitiation, as distinct from atonement, has been made by blood in heaven, we are turned to the very dealing with blood in the sanctuary in the type before us, which Scripture expressly and repeatedly says, "makes atonement"! Truth may not walk upon the unequal legs of the lame; and only one consistent interpretation is possible here. What really makes "atonement," throughout the type, is the sacrificial death of the victims-slain outside the sanctuary; and the different acts of blood-sprinkling, "to make atonement for " the various things linked with the tabernacle, do not picture a new work, nor divide atonement into parts, but simply show its efficacy to purify the figurative representations of the heavens and the earth from the people's sin and sins, judged upon the victims.

In God's sight, the tabernacle was purged the instant the sacrifices were offered up. But that Israel might realize this, symbols of the sacrifices were carried in and applied. For God, the entire universe
was purged from sins (Heb. i:3) and sin (Heb. 9:26) the instant Christ died.* *Contrary to the thought that " sin " is not atoned for, the type (ver. 16) explicitly stales that the sanctuary (God's presence) received atonement in view of Israel's " uncleanness " (sin), as well as in view of " their transgressions in all their sins." And so was it with "the tabernacle, which dwelleth among them in the midst of their uncleanness." With "sins" not only atoned for, but removed by the scapegoat, "sin" still remained in Israel, and, as necessarily abiding still in the midst of this, the tabernacle required atonement. In Scripture, a competent dealing with "sins" involves a full dealing with "sin." God never separates a tree's fruits from its roots-from the tree itself; but regards the one as manifesting the other.* But for "our justification," that we might know this, Christ risen appeared to men on earth; and as our Representative, in entering heaven to appear before God's face " for us," He ascended publicly, in the sight of men and angels.

4. Lastly, all the figures of Christ, represented as "atoned for" in view of Israel's sins (as the brazen altar, the tabernacle, the sanctuary and its furniture), are all figures of Christ in heaven now, with His sacrifice completed, and its value perpetuated in and applied through His Person (Heb. 7:24, 25). The scapegoat, another figure of Him, as all agree, likewise was "atoned for" (ver. 10, Heb.). Does not the scapegoat, then, figure the glorified Christ's present work, in actually remitting and removing sins, rather than His work at Calvary, in bearing their penalty ?

The type gains a new significance the moment this interpretation displaces the incongruous view that a goat which dies not, bears no penalty, but goes free, figures sins' judgment upon a dying Christ!

First, we face the literal fact. A year's accumulated sins of the priests and nation of Israel were atoned for, and this atonement applied to the cleansing of sanctuary, tabernacle, and altar, without removing these sins from the guilty people themselves. This last required another thing-the service of the scapegoat. What would God teach by it ?
If we make the work of the scapegoat an element in atonement, we reach the unscriptural view that substitution necessarily saves all for whom Christ died, even though they should remain hardened rejecters of the Substitute and His work. But if the scapegoat figures the risen Saviour, it brings into our type the doctrine of Scripture elsewhere, that although God has been glorified by complete atonement for evil, the eternal consequences of sins are lifted from none who reject God's terms of pardon.

Next, we interpret our chapter as a type. Israel's sins become the world's. Christ atones for them, and heaven and earth are purged. Does universal-ism follow ? Alas, no. How happy had been " the Father of spirits" had the spectacle of His Son's cross broken the heart of fallen man and angel, and brought them both, repentant, at Christ's feet! Would either have been cast out ? But, no; of itself the sacrificial work removes not one sin from one guilty soul. To accomplish this God must do a further work, in souls-the antitype of the scapegoat's service.

Let the Christian apply this to his unsaved years. Had not Christ made atonement before your birth- before your sins existed ? Was He not your substitute ? If not, He never can be; for, thank God, He dieth no more! Yet with substitutionary atonement wrought for you, were you not still unsaved, with unpurged conscience, "condemned already," God's wrath abiding on you, as completely lost as if no substitute had died ? If substitution lifts not one sin from the elect, apart from faith and repentance, why should it save a wilful world still unbelieving and unrepentant ?

Apply the type to Israel. Was not the Messiah their Substitute ? Did He not make vicarious atonement-die for that nation ? Did not Jehovah lay on Him the iniquity of them all ? And are their sins gone, or still left ?-a horrible weight, upon their souls ! With substitution effected, atonement made, what means this heartbreaking procession of eighteen weary centuries of hopeless Jewish generations ?

Alas, the fault lies not with Israel's compassionate Priest! " How often would I! " He cried, "And ye would not!" He did not fail to fulfil the first part of Lev. 16. True Antitype of bullock, goat, and ram, He gloriously atoned for Israel's sins, purging the universe from their defilement. But Israel will not put out its hands to Him, confessing its sins. The stiff-necked Jew rejects the Priest, rejects the glorified scapegoat. Jesus patiently awaits one motion of faith, that from the souls of Jacob's seed He may remove their awful burden; on the basis of His sacrifice casting their sins behind Him into a land of forgetfulness, while ministering sweet and gracious words of everlasting pardon, "Your sins and iniquities will I remember no more!" In God's time the typical picture will be fulfilled, "and so all Israel shall be saved" (Rom. 11:26).

In a picture of Christ's work so elaborate as Lev. 16, is it not fitting that God should somewhere show how the sins atoned for may be remitted to the guilty ? And the voice of Scripture is one in its doctrine of remission. Christ's sacrifice is the mighty foundation on which salvation rests. Therefore we are "justified in [Gk., εv "in virtue of," or "in the power of "] His blood" (Rom. 5:9). But is any one saved by or through it until faith and repentance are wrought in the soul ?

Not the past work of substitution, but a present work of new birth, on the ground of faith in the Sacrifice once offered, introduces into God's kingdom. Present faith in the soul justifies-not the fact that substitution has been effected for us, apart from faith in us (which alone would involve universalism). Remission of sins is conditioned on repentance; not on whether the work of substitution included those to whom we preach. It did include them; yet they shall perish, if they repent not. God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse" us from all unrighteousness, "if we confess our sins." But Christ's offering to God of a substitutionary sacrifice confers on us no forgiveness, so long as we flout the Substitute that died, and the God who waits to forgive. Until we believe, instead of saving, the substitutionary sacrifice utterly condemns-multiplies our guilt by adding the rejection of God's love and gift to our other sins.

An error of translation in our common version (Lev. 16:10) applying to the scape-goat the words, "To make atonement with him,"may lead one, just because he is subject to God's word, to frame his views in accordance with the supposed scripture. And though the error be corrected, the misapprehensions begotten by it still shaping the thought, may barricade the mind against the sweetest truths. We do not misread the type of the two birds (Lev. 14:4-7). All see a risen Christ ascending, as the living bird flies heavenward, stained with the slain bird's blood. And since we now know that Lev. 16:10 (Heb.) declares that "the scape-goat shall be presented alive before Jehovah, to make an atonement for him [not "with "], to let him go" shall we not apply this type to the present, all-important, heavenly work of our glorified Saviour ?

The type refers not alone to Israel, and to a coming day. On the ground of His atoning sacrifice, offered up at the beginning of this dispensation, day by day and century after century since His cross, Christ in glory has been removing sins from millions of repenting sinners-casting their iniquities behind His back into the "cut-off" land of God's eternal forgetfulness! Could God have made the type and its interpretation plainer, unless, by a special miracle performed on each recurring day of atonement, He had raised the slain goat from the dead, instead of using two ?

F. Allaben

(To be continued.)