Why were goats chosen for the sin offering in 2 Chronicles 29:23? Text of 2 Chronicles 29:23 “Then they brought the male goats for the sin offering before the king and the assembly, who laid their hands on them.” Immediate Setting: Hezekiah’s National Cleansing Hezekiah re-opened the Temple after years of neglect (29:3). Re-dedication required sin offerings on behalf of king, priests, and people. The Chronicler highlights conformity to Mosaic law (v. 25, “by the word of the LORD through His prophets”), so the creatures selected had to match Pentateuchal requirements. Mosaic Prescription for Sin Offerings Leviticus 4 specifies species according to the sinner’s identity: • High priest or whole nation — bull (4:3, 14). • Tribal leader — male goat (4:23). • Common individual — female goat or lamb (4:28, 32). Leviticus 16:5 adds “two male goats for a sin offering” on the Day of Atonement to cover collective guilt. 2 Chronicles 29:21 shows Hezekiah already offered a bull for the kingdom, so the subsequent goat offering completes the pattern for the leaders and people. Why Goats in This Verse? 1. Legal compliance: goats were the stated category for representatives of the community not including the high priest (Leviticus 4:23; Numbers 15:24–26). 2. Plurality: multiple goats mirror Leviticus 16, symbolizing substitution and removal of sin for “all Israel.” 3. Availability: goats were ubiquitous in Judah’s economy (Proverbs 27:26–27); hence, they were immediately obtainable for an urgent national rite. 4. Condition: goats mature quickly and are hardy; Temple guidelines required animals “without blemish.” Goats met this criterion in post-Ahaz Judah where flocks had survived (archaeological faunal lists from Lachish Level III show caprine remains outnumber cattle nearly 4:1). Symbolism of the Goat • Identification with sin-bearer: the ‘scapegoat’ (ʿazāzel) in Leviticus 16 carries iniquity into the wilderness; the goats here receive imposed hands, conveying the same idea. • Duality: goats can picture both judgment (Matthew 25:32–33) and salvation (Leviticus 16)—a tension that anticipates Christ bearing judgment for salvation. • Horn imagery: goat horns symbolize power and substitution (Daniel 8:5-8). Laying hands on the goat’s head (29:23) visually transfers guilt to a creature of “strength,” satisfying divine justice (Leviticus 17:11). Priestly Procedure in 2 Chronicles 29:23 1. Presentation “before the king and the assembly” parallels Leviticus 4:14, ensuring communal recognition of guilt. 2. Imposition of hands—Hebrew samak—signals legal transfer. Philo (On the Special Laws 1.238) confirms Jews of the Second Temple understood this as substitutionary. 3. Slaughter by priests (v. 24) fulfills Leviticus 4:30, with blood sprinkled on the altar’s horns, the locus of atonement. Typological Foreshadowing of Christ Heb 9:12-14 explains Christ entered “the greater and more perfect tabernacle… not by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood.” The chronicled goats pre-figure His sin-bearing work: • Substitution: 2 Corinthians 5:21. • Collective scope: Isaiah 53:6 “the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” • Removal: John 1:29 “takes away the sin of the world,” echoing the scapegoat. Historical and Archaeological Corroboration • Ketef Hinnom silver amulets (7th c. BC) quote the Priestly Blessing, attesting to active priestly liturgy in Hezekiah’s era. • The 2nd-Temple “Seventh Shekel” ostracon records goat offerings for communal feasts, confirming continuity of the practice. • Dead Sea Scroll 4Q180 cites Leviticus 16 in eschatological context, showing 2nd-c. BC scribes still viewed goat sin offerings as paradigmatic. Goats in Ancient Near-Eastern Economy • Caprine husbandry fits Judah’s semi-arid highlands; zooarchaeologist L. K. Horwitz notes goat survivability where cattle fail. • Goats supplied milk, hair, and meat, making them an every-household asset—ideal for a representative communal sacrifice that left no one excluded by poverty. Legal and Theological Coherence Chronicles insists Temple ritual rested on “the commandments of the LORD” (cf. 1 Chronicles 28:19). The goat sin offering here: • Honors Levitical statute. • Complements bull and ram offerings already made (29:21). • Demonstrates covenant fidelity, answering the prior apostasy under Ahaz (28:22–25). New Testament Echoes Hebrews frames the insufficiency of animal blood to perfect conscience (10:4) yet affirms its didactic purpose: to “foreshadow good things to come” (10:1). Thus 2 Chronicles 29:23 both resolves immediate guilt and points forward to the once-for-all atonement. Practical Takeaways 1. Sin demands substitution; God Himself prescribes the means. 2. Collective repentance requires visible, corporate action; leadership must model obedience. 3. Every detail of OT ritual—species, sex, number—unites in a single storyline culminating in Christ. 4. Assurance today rests not in repeating sacrifices but in trusting the finished work the goats anticipated. Conclusion Goats were chosen in 2 Chronicles 29:23 because Mosaic law designated them as fitting substitutes for the nation’s sin, their symbolism underscored the transfer and removal of guilt, their presence was economically practical, and their role prophetically foreshadowed the ultimate sin-bearer, the risen Christ, whose sacrifice secures eternal redemption. |
    |