Ptr. Paul Mojica

The Day of Atonement prescribed two sacrifices, and the difference between them is the heart
of what exile means (Lev 16:1–22). The first shall offer its life through the shedding of blood (vv.
11–19). The sprinkling of blood symbolizes the cleansing of both the priest and the people
before they can appear before God. Then, the second sacrifice shall be sent away.
Commentators suggest that the removal of guilt from the community is portrayed in the sending
of the animal into exile. Rightly so — after the act of transferring the sins of the people to the
goat, why would it remain inside the community? The purpose of the first sacrifice is to
symbolize cleansing and the canceling of debt; the second is the removal of sin.

Yet, was the blood from the initial sacrifice insufficient in capturing the reality that “sin is
exterminated from Israel”? I propose that the emphasis here lies in the distinction between the
manner of death for each sacrifice. The second sacrifice is destined to offer its life not through
the shedding of blood but by enduring the life of banishment. By bearing the sins of the people,
it forfeited its covenantal claim to dwell in the land where God’s presence abides. Specifying the
destination — wilderness, a place of solitude and deprivation (vv. 10, 21–22) — supports this
reading.

The second sacrifice foreshadows Christ’s exilic experience on the cross, where he was
abandoned by the Father (i.e., homelessness, displacement from God’s presence [Matt 27:46]),
identified with sin (i.e., alienation [2 Cor 5:21]), and mocked, stricken, and killed (i.e.,
oppression). What the scapegoat enacted in shadow, Christ fulfilled in substance: just as the
goat bore Israel’s sin into the wilderness and forfeited its place among the living, Christ bore our
sin into the desolation of divine judgment — and forfeited his rightful place — so that the exiled
might come home. For sinners like us to abide in God’s presence, it required the exile of
another.