The Blood of Atonements (plural)
“And Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin- offering of atonements: once in a year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations: it is most holy unto the LORD.” (Exodus 30:10)
In Hebrew the word rendered “atonements” in the King James Version is actually plural even though most translators, including those of the Standard and the Revised Standard versions, have rendered it “atonement” (singular). Rotherham, recognizing that the word is plural, so rendered it in his translation, but used another term, “propitiatory coverings.”
The Hebrew word Elohim, rendered God in Genesis 1:1, is also plural, but it is there regarded as the “plural of majesty” because Jehovah is the God above all gods.
“Elohim is plural in form, but is singular in construction (used with a singular verb or adjective). When applied to the one true God, the plural is due to the Hebrew idiom of a plural of magnitude or majesty. (Genesis 1:1, etc.)” (Pictorial Bible Dictionary, Zondervan)
Since the blood of atonement referred to in Exodus 30:10 is that of the great Atonement Day sin-offerings (see Leviticus 16:16, 18, 19), might not the atonement above all atonements (including those of Leviticus 4) be also in the plural form of the Hebrew showing magnitude or majesty? In any event, it was the only blood which could reconcile the Court, the Tabernacle of the Congregation (Holy), and the Most Holy-the blood of both Atonement Day sin-offerings, the blood of the bullock and the goat.
“Thus he shall make atonement for the sanctuary because of the uncleanness of the Israelites and their transgressions in all their sins. And he shall do the same for the tent of meeting that has its abode with them in the midst of their uncleanness … He must then go outside to the attar which is before the LORD, and make atonement for it; taking some of the bullock’s blood and some of the goat’s blood, he must put it all around the horns of the altar, and sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times to cleanse and sanctify it from the uncleanness of the Israelites” (Leviticus 16:16, 18, 19 -Meek, The Bible, An American Translation)
No mention is made of how many bowls or basins were used to carry the blood of the sin-offerings from the Court into the Most Holy, there to be used in a sprinkling on and before the mercy seat. Perhaps it would not be unreasonable to suppose that there was but one which was used for both the blood of the bullock and the blood of the goat.
The account says that after Aaron had offered the incense at the golden altar, he took with him into the Most Holy the blood of the bullock and there sprinkled it on, and before, the mercy seat. Some of the blood, but not all, was used this way, since Leviticus 16:18-20, referring to a time later than the sprinkling of the mercy seat, states that some of the blood of the bullock was to be used in connection with the reconciliation of the altar. Again, the account definitely states that with the exception of the offering of incense, the blood of the goat was handled in the identical manner as that of the bullock.
“Then shall he kill the goat of the sin-offering [the Lord’s Goat], that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat” (Leviticus 16:15)
Here, too, we must recognize that only some of the blood, not all of it, was used in sprinkling the mercy seat, for the reason mentioned in connection with the blood of the bullock.
If, then, our supposition that there was but one bowl used for all the blood be correct, it stands to reason that when the goat’s blood was caught in the bowl, there was still some of the bullock’s blood therein. Accordingly, there must have been a commingling of the two bloods so that when the High Priest offered the blood of the goat in the Most Holy, he was really offering (some of) the blood of the bullock a second time. This very beautifully sets forth the fact that there really is no merit of atonement in the blood of the goat, aside from that of the bullock; in fact, all the merit of atonement lies in the bullock’s blood.
“When at the end of the Day of Atonement sacrificing the anti-typical High Priest shall make a further presentation of the blood of the goat upon the mercy seat, it will be ‘his own blood’ in two senses of the word:
“(1) It will be his own in the sense that all the merit was originally his and appropriated to us in order that we might have the opportunity to share with him in sacrifice. The sacrificial merit merely passed through us, ‘the Lord’s goat’ class. …
“(2) The blood (merit) which our Lord will apply as soon as the church shall have finished her share in his sacrifice will be ‘his own blood: in the sense that he accepted or adopted us as his members, we losing our personality in the transaction in the same manner that a bride loses her name and her individuality at marriage. All that we have and are belong to the great Bridegroom, and we are delighted that he is pleased to count us in with himself in any sense of the word in connection with his sufferings of this present time, and the glories which will follow.” (R4493:2-4)
– From the notes of Anton Frey
“Let us go forth. unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.”