Verse 8 contains what is probably the most commonly misunderstood part of the chapter:
This is where the train most frequently goes off the tracks, especially where Jewish mythology and carnal traditions have clouded the mental environment. You might recall the principle I mentioned last time from John's Do You See God? sermon. He said, We see what we want to see. We see what we expect to see. We see what we are educated to see. If we have been educated that Azazel is a name for Satan or another demon, our mind may automatically fill in that the two goats represent opposing personalities, and this scene of lots being cast is then interpreted with that in mind. However, just as with the birds for leprosy, there is nothing that indicates the two roles must to be fulfilled by two different personalities.
The casting of lots here is unique in a couple of ways. First, it is the first place lots are used in Scripture. Second, it is the only place lots are used in the sacrificial system. This means we can't compare it to other rituals. The next usage is for the assigning of tribal lands, which doesn't help us here. It isn't until we get to the time of King David that we find something more helpful, and that is where lots were cast to assign duties, responsibilities, or roles, which is what we see here.
As it says, one lot is designated as for the LORD. This phrase is commonly taken to mean that the goat chosen by that lot is a representation of the LORD. Now, because of this assumption, it is common to conclude that the second goat, then, must be a representation of Satan. However, the phrase, for the LORD, has nothing to do with representation!
Please make note of this: God was not telling the Israelites, nor us today, how to interpret the ritual. These are instructions for how the ritual was to be performed, not for identifying later fulfillments. Certainly, we know now that the first goat was fulfilled by Jesus Christ. Indeed, He was the goal, the object, of the whole law. But that isn't what these particular instructions are about. They are about how to perform the ritual, not interpret it.
God designates the holy incense as for the LORD because it was for His satisfaction, not because the incense was a representation of Him. The NET Bible says, belonging to the LORD, which accurately describes what for the LORD indicates.
There is no thought of representation, but instead that this action was on account of the LORD, or for the sake of the LORD, or with respect to the LORD. Later in the chapter (Numbers 31:28, 50), the Israelites were to levy a tribute, which became an offering, for the LORD. Again, there is no symbolism implied in this phrase. One more:
As these examples show, the phrase, for the LORD means, in reference to, on account of, or for the sake of the LORD. It is never used to mean, representing the LORD. Rather, it was for the LORD's service, satisfaction, or appeasement. In other words, through the use of lots, God would designate which goat He wanted to supply the blood that would make atonement for His throne, for His Holy Place, for the altar closest to His holy presence.
So, this first goat that was for the LORD was also for the people. As with the phrase, for the LORD, the phrase, for the people means on account of the people, and specifically, on account of the people's uncleanness. We can see this in verse 16: So he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, for all their sins; and so he shall do for the tabernacle of meeting which remains among them in the midst of their uncleanness.
To summarize, then, the priest cast lots so God would choose which animal He wanted for each function. God chose one goat for Himself, meaning for His satisfaction through purging on account of the people's uncleanness. God chose the second goat for the azazel, that is, … . . .
