2 Corinthians 5.21 - A Tale of Two Goats - Part Catorce

Presentation of the “without Defect” Goats

For the Day’s atonement, the Law called for two goats, which were to be altogether alike in look, size, value, and without any defects. Traditionally, the Jews was so earnest to carry out the idea that the two goats should be considered just one, that they even tried to buy them at the same time. Once the Day’s ceremony began, the goats were brought forth facing the sanctuary and the high priest stood between them, facing the people. An urn was brought to him and he thrust both of his hands in to draw lots for them. For one goat, he drew “la-YHWH” (for Yahweh) and for the other, “la-Azazel” (for Azazel). For the goat to YHWH, the high priest tied a tongue-shaped piece of scarlet cloth around its throat. For the one to Azazel he tied a ribbon to its horn. The Azazel goat was then turned to the people, and stood facing them, as it were, till their sins be laid on him and he be taken out into an uninhabited place.

The One Not Having Known Sin

In the myriad teachings against the so-called heresy of Jesus becoming sin, many of the apologists say that Jesus could not have become sin in the least because of certain New Testament scriptures. The ones found time and time again in the materials that we reviewed are 1 Peter 1.19 and Hebrews 9.14. These scriptures say the following:

but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. (1 Peter 1.19, NASB)

how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself without blemish to God … (Hebrews 9.14, NASB)

Isaiah, who gives us the spiritual backdrop to the cross, echoes the presentation:

Hard pressed - yet he humbled himself, nor opened his mouth - as a lamb to the slaughter is led, And as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, Nor opened he his mouth. (Isaiah 53.7, Rotherham)

When we break down what these scriptures are really saying, it is apparent that they support the Day of Atonement shadow and Jesus becoming sin rather than refute it. Both 1 Peter 1.19 and Hebrews 9.14 carry the context of an “unblemished” or “without defect” sacrificial substitute set to be offered for sin. Neither verse contradicts the idea that Jesus became identified with our sin after he offered himself up.

In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus came into a soul consciousness of the depth of the sacrifice that he would have to make to rescue us from this present evil age. He consecrated himself to “going all the way,” entrusting that the Father would deal with him righteously, raising him back to life (1 Peter 2.23 - “but He kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously”). Thereafter, he presented himself “without blemish” or “as a lamb unblemished and spotless” precisely because he had not known or experienced any sin - he was “without defect.” Similar to the two goats in the shadow and type of the Day of Atonement, Jesus was fit (“without defect”) to be identified with our sin and enter into the second part of 2 Corinthians 5.21: “He Made Him Sin” - the next phase of the sacrificial sequence.

In coming up to the laying on of hands, it is important to keep in mind that the Day’s sacrifice was peculiar for the fact that there were two goats and not just one. If you peruse the internet about the “scapegoat” you’ll find a paucity of preachers actually dealing with it. That is because it doesn’t nicely fit into any kind of theology except the “He Made Him Sin” kind. Indeed, “Why is there an Azazel goat in the Day of Atonement? How does that fit into your theology? and Why is it named Azazel anyway?” are good questions to ask the critics. D.R. McConnell, for instance, didn’t mention the goat at all in his A Different Gospel manifesto (we’re looking forward to the Azazel post). In fact, in our research (which we consider to be not half bad), we did not find a single reference to Azazel in the articles condemning the “He Made Him Sin” doctrine.

The Precious Blood Non-Starter

One argument made against our rendition of the Day and 2 Corinthians 5.21 is this: Jesus could not have been made sin because Hebrews 9.14 speaks of his blood as precious and Jesus’s blood could not be precious if he was made sin. This argument makes a flying leap without any scriptural foundation. If the argument rang true, then there wouldn’t have been a single atoning sacrifice - goat, lamb, or bull - in the Old Testament (or New for that matter). In the Day of Atonement offerings (and the other OT offerings, by the way), the sin goat’s blood was sprinkled on the Mercy Seat after the high priest had transferred the people’s sins to it. The goat’s blood was considered efficacious for atonement (see Hebrews 9.22 - “all things are cleansed with blood”). So it was with Jesus’s blood - sprinkled on the Mercy Seat after becoming sin.