the other “For Azaʹzel”. The goat selected as Jehovah’s goat was to be used to make atonement for the sins of the nation, but the goat on which the lot fell for Azaʹzel was to be set apart and later to carry these sins of the nation into the wilderness where certain death awaited it. This was made more certain by the rabbis in Jesus’ time, for they had the goat led to a rocky precipice on the edge of the wilderness and pushed over so that before it reached half the way down the hill it was broken in pieces.

The offering of both the bullock and Jehovah’s goat as atonement sacrifices pictures the one purpose of Jesus in the earth as the ransom although for two different groups, whereas the sending away of the goat “for Azaʹzel” pictures his other purpose in the earth, namely, in connection with the vindication of Jehovah’s name. In the type two goats were needed because it would not be possible to kill Jehovah’s goat as an atonement and yet keep it alive to picture God’s further purpose with Christ Jesus. It was for this reason that the two goats were to be as nearly alike as possible, because, in order to picture the two aspects of Jesus’ one death in the reality, it was necessary to employ the two goats in the type. Further, the casting of the lots shows that while the two goats were actually equal they illustrate the twofold ministry of Jesus in that his offering possesses life merit and that he can serve to answer Satan’s challenge.

With the scapegoat left facing the people, the high priest now returns to the bullock and after confessing his sins and the sins of his house over its head he kills the bullock and catches the blood in a golden basin and hands it to an assistant. Before the blood can be sprinkled in the presence of Jehovah, a proper approach must be made; so, as the assistant stirs the blood to prevent coagulation, the high priest enters the Most Holy for the first time in the day’s service, carrying with him a golden censer full of burning coals from off the altar and with a handful of sweet incense on a dish. Reverently, with appropriate prayers, this is burned in the presence of Jehovah in the Most Holy. (Le 16 Vss. 11-13; Heb. 9:4, NW) Returning outside, he takes the blood of the bullock and goes the second time into the Most Holy and sprinkles the blood seven times at the front of the mercy seat.—Le 16 Vs. 14.

This divinely arranged order in the service emphasizes the order of importance in Jesus’ sacrifice. The high priest’s killing of the bullock pictures Jesus presenting himself for baptism at the Jordan river in the fall of A. D. 29 and there showing his willingness to surrender to Jehovah God, his Father, his right to live forever on earth, which right he had by virtue of his perfect humanity. This sacrifice being authorized and accepted, Jesus is begotten of God’s spirit with prospects no longer of living on earth, but of being reunited with his Father in heaven as a spirit son once more. However, before this can be realized, Jesus, now properly The Christ, must establish his perfection of integrity as well, thereby answering Satan’s challenge in vindication of Jehovah’s name. The burning of the incense, therefore, pictures Jesus’ zeal in pleasing Jehovah by this ministry in behalf of God’s house. The sprinkling of the blood represents Jesus’ actual appearing in heaven before the throne with the merit of his human sacrifice; and since the bullock made atonement for the sins of Aaron’s house and tribe, the value of the ransom is thereby applied first in behalf of the bride of Christ, the 144,000 anointed joint heirs in his kingdom.—Heb. 9:11-14.

The value of the ransom of Jesus as applied toward the rest of mankind, who are thereby given earthly hopes, is next represented by the killing of Jehovah’s goat and the sprinkling of its blood. This the high priest does by entering into the Most Holy the third time. (Vs. 15) But there is another feature in connection with the sacrifice of the goat that was mentioned earlier and with which we are particularly interested because it demonstrates how Jesus was legally able to forgive this man’s sins, even though his own life blood had not yet been poured out. This is in connection with the scapegoat.

It is noticed in the account of the atonement that “the goat, on which the lot fell for Azaʹzel, shall be set alive before Jehovah, to make atonement for [or, “over,” margin] him, to send him away for Azaʹzel into the wilderness”. (Vs. 10, AS) This means that atonement for the “alive” goat was derived from its equal, Jehovah’s goat, just slain and, since the sin-atoning merit of Jehovah’s goat was thereby transferred to it, it could carry merit for sin atonement as though its own blood had actually been spilled and yet it could remain alive to serve for Azaʹzel.—Vss. 21, 22.

This was exactly the position of Christ Jesus at the Jordan. Having voluntarily given up all right to life on the earth by surrendering his human life right in sacrifice, Jesus was accounted as already dead although his sacrifice must be consummated by his death on the torture stake, Nisan 14, three and one-half years later. Therefore, although still alive in the flesh as was the “alive” goat, Jesus carried with him throughout his ministry in the wilderness of Satan’s world the value of this sacrifice and, along with incense of praise in integrity, could use it as a sign in further praise to Jehovah by demonstrating this power and authority he had received from the great Giver of Life, Jehovah God.

Truly is this an arrangement of the Most High, and while those men that were cured of their sicknesses in Jesus’ day eventually died, the time is now very near at hand when Jesus as the Lord of the Sabbath will bring in permanent cures and will heal the people and set them on the road to everlasting life, all of which is made possible through the atonement sacrifice of Jesus and the forgiveness of man’s sins.—See “Atonement for the New World” (3 parts), The Watchtower of August 1 to September 1, 1942.

Tolerant or Apathetic?

● Time magazine, May 26, 1952, considered these the “Words of the Week”:

“In nine cases out of ten what goes by the name of tolerance is really apathy. There are too many easy-going Americans who are up in arms against nothing because they have no fixed standards of right and wrong. They do not come out positively and wholeheartedly on the side of anything because, unlike their fathers, they have no robust convictions. Tolerance is a virtue, but it is not the supreme virtue.”—Robert J. McCracken, of Manhattan’s Riverside church.