SYNOPSIS OF THE PRESENT TRUTH,
THE CLEANSING OF THE SANCTUARY, (CONTINUED).
OF what infinite importance, must then the cleansing of the Sanctuary be! With this event the great plan and work of salvation closes. This finished, the final decision will have passed upon all men; the fiat of the Almighty will have gone forth, "He that is filthy, let him be filthy still, and he that is holy let him be holy still." Rev. 22:11. Momentous period! May he whose mediation for a rebel world is about to close, deeply impress our hearts with those emotions which this mighty truth is calculated to inspire. The ministry in the most holy being finished, it yet remained for the priest to bear out the sins from the sanctuary, place them upon the head of the scapegoat, and send him away by the hand of a fit man into a land not inhabited. Lev. 16:20-22. This ceremony as performed in the type we have already noticed. We now inquire, What service connected with the more perfect tabernacle, answers to this, and to what being shall we look, as the one shadowed forth anciently by the literal and typical goat, as, loaded with the sins of Israel, he went forth from the camp to be heard of no more forever? This point demands more particular notice, as here, again, we are led to differ very materially from the views which have generally obtained upon this subject. Because John says, (chap. 1:29), "Behold the Lamb of God which taketh (margin, beareth,) away the sin of the world," and because it is said of the scape-goat that he "shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited," (Lev. 16:22), it has been concluded, without further consideration, by some, that the latter is a type of the former; and Dr. Clarke, also, in his note on Lev. 16:10, makes this remark: "Did not all this signify that Christ has so carried and borne away our sins, that against them who receive him as the only true atoning sacrifice they should never more be brought to remembrance." From the view, however, that Christ is the antitype of the scape-goat, we are compelled to differ, for what we consider very strong reasons. 1. If Christ, in bearing the sin of the world, fulfilled the antitype of the scape-goat, he must have accomplished it at the crucifixion; for Peter says of him, "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree." 1 Pet. 2:24. But in the type the goat was not sent away till after the cleansing of the sanctuary; hence the antitype of this work cannot be performed till after the termination of the 2300 days; for it is not till after those days have ended that the sanctuary is cleansed. Dan. 8:14; Heb. 9:23. It is therefore impossible to carry this work back to the crucifixion of Christ, which was even before he commenced his ministration in the Sanctuary above; and this is one reason why he cannot be the antitype of the scape-goat. 2. Christ is our great High Priest, the minister of the Sanctuary; but the goat is something to be sent away by the priest; therefore he cannot be the priest himself. In other words, he cannot in this dispensation be Christ; but he must be a being whom Christ, after he has loaded him with the sins borne from the sanctuary, can send away into a land not inhabited. 3. The goat was sent away from Israel into a land not inhabited, to be heard of no more forever. But Christ will dwell in the midst of his people, the true Israel of faith. 4. It is impossible that two goats, one of which was chosen by the Lord, and is called the Lord's, and was for a sin-offering, while the other is not so called, but was left to perform an entirely different office;—it is impossible that these both should typify the same person. From these considerations we think it must be evident to every one that Christ cannot be the antitype of the Levitical scape-goat. Who then can be? We answer, the devil; and our reasons for this position are at hand:— 1. The Hebrew word for scape-goat, as given in the308margin of Lev. 16:8, is Azazel. On this verse, Jenks in his Comprehensive Commentary remarks, "Scapegoat. See diff. opin. in Bochart. Spencer, after the oldest opinion of the Hebrews and Christians thinks Azazel is the name of the devil; and so Rosenmire, whom see. The Syriac has, Azazel, the angel (strong one) who revolted." The devil is here evidently pointed out. Thus we have the definition of the Scripture term in two ancient languages, with the oldest opinion of the Christians in favor of the view that the scape-goat is a type of Satan. 2. In the common acceptation of the word, the term scape-goat, is applied to any miserable vagabond who has become obnoxious to the claims of justice; and while it is revolting to all our conceptions of the character and glory of Christ, to apply this term to him, it must strike every one as a very appropriate designation of the devil, who is styled in Scripture, the accuser, adversary, angel of the bottomless pit, Beelzebub, Belial, dragon, enemy, evil spirit, father of lies, murderer, prince of devils, serpent, tempter, etc., etc. Charles Beecher, in "Redeemer and Redeemed," pp. 67, 68, says:— "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 do not. The Septuagint, or oldest Greek version, renders it by apopompaio, 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 Azazel, 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 Sammael.' 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 Origen: 'He who is called in the Septuagint apopompaio, and in the Hebrew Azazel, is no other than the devil.' "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." On page 70, Mr. Beecher further says: "The meaning of the term [scape-goat] viewed as a proper name, was stated, in 1677, by Spencer, Dean of Ely, to be powerful Apostate, or mighty Receder." Prof. Bush is also quoted on page 72, as regarding Azazel as a proper name of Satan. It is but just to Mr. B. to remark that while he thinks that Azazel is the name for Satan, he does not regard the goat as representing Satan, but looks upon the ceremony as performed in some sense in reference to Satan. This he thinks implied in the words engraved on the lots which the high priest drew for the goats on the day of atonement; one, La-Yehovah, for Jehovah, the other, La-Azazel, for Azazel, for the devil; and he takes the transaction to signify that subjection of Christ to Satan which is implied in the sentence that the serpent should bruise the heel of the seed of the woman. But as this was done at the crucifixion, it can have no reference to the ceremony of the scape-goat, a ceremony not performed till the work in the sanctuary is finished. And inasmuch as the goat upon which the lot fell for the Lord typified Christ himself, so the goat upon which the lot fell for Azazel would typify Azazel, or Satan himself. U. S.