Commentaries:
Notice there is no mention of the high priest laying hands on this first goat. Likewise, in verses 11-14, there is no mention of the priest laying his hand on the bull for himself, which was a requirement of the typical sin offering for the priest (Leviticus 4:4). All the other steps for a sin offering are shown, though, so the differences stand out.
If we take this as it is written and not infer any steps, the bull for the high priest and the first goat share two elements: First, there is no mention of hands being laid on either. Second, their blood was taken inside the Holy of Holies. Both are significant differences from a typical sin offering. Everything else for the bull for the high priest is the same—part is burned on the altar, and its carcass is burned outside the camp. But no transference is shown, and the blood is allowed inside the veil, into God's very presence.
These differences indicate the blood of these animals was pure, which is why it could be used to purge the horns of the altar. Only blood that did not represent sin was brought inside the veil. The blood from every other sin offering stopped at the veil.
So, the priest used the bull's and the first goat's blood to purify the various holy objects, beginning with God's throne—the Mercy Seat—and working outward. Notice, though, in the explanation about what the first goat's blood makes atonement for: to make atonement for the Holy Place, the Tabernacle of Meeting, and the altar. On account of the people—meaning because of their sinfulness—these things needed annual purging, but the stated purpose was for cleansing the things of the LORD. Atonement was made for the objects closest to the LORD since the people were sinful.
David C. Grabbe
Azazel: Endings
The typical approach to this chapter hinges on defining the word azazel, the Hebrew word for the second goat, often translated as “the scapegoat.” However, there is no obvious definition scripture for the word.
Scholars are little help in arriving at a definition, for scholars can be found to support whatever view one desires. A typical explanatory note is found in The Comprehensive Commentary of the Holy Bible, which gives this unrooted viewpoint: “See different opinion in Bochart. Spencer, after the oldest opinions of the Hebrews and Christians, thinks Azazel is the name of the devil, and so Rosenmuller, whom see.” Yet, if the wise of this age cannot give scriptural backing for their views, of what value is their scholarship? Are the “oldest opinions of the Hebrews and Christians” based on the Word of God or dependent upon the traditions of men?
Many have based their understanding of Leviticus 16 on tradition, which claims that azazel is the name of a fallen angel. The original, 58-lesson Ambassador College Correspondence Course says this about azazel: “Ancient Jewish literature knew the Devil by this name. It is, for example, spelled Azalzal and Azael in apocryphal literature” (Lesson 37, p. 4, 1965; emphasis ours).
The updated, 32-lesson edition contains a few more sources (Lesson 37, p. 10, 1986). However, the authors do not use the Bible in their evidence, as the Bible does not identify the live goat as a type of Satan. Instead, the authors quote Arabic tradition that azazel is the name of a demon. They quote a book entitled Islam and Its Founder. They also quote a couple of Protestant theologians on their respective opinions.
The real bombshell, though, is this excerpt:
Let's notice a modern Jewish commentary that makes it clear that the azazel goat represented Satan the devil: "Azazel . . . was probably a demonic being. . . . Apocryphal Jewish works, composed in the last few centuries before the Christian era, tell of angels who were lured . . . into rebellion against God. In these writings, Azazel is one of the two leaders of the rebellion. And posttalmudic documents tell a similar story about two rebel angels, Uzza and Azzael—both variations of the name Azazel. These mythological stories, which must have been widely known, seem to confirm the essentially demonic character of the old biblical Azazel" (Union of American Hebrew Congregations, The Torah-a Modern Commentary, page 859). (Emphasis ours; ellipses theirs).
This last source is a devastating admission. Jewish tradition is used as the final and most important proof, yet its foundation is “apocryphal Jewish works, composed in the last few centuries before the Christian era.” The best-known apocryphal Jewish work from that era is the Book of Enoch.
The Book of Enoch bears the name of one of God's faithful servants, yet it was actually written by individuals during the intertestamental period (circa 300-100 BC). While containing biblical themes and names, it also includes many things that directly contradict the rest of the biblical canon.
In the Book of Enoch, Azazel is a fallen angel who teaches mankind unrighteous ways. As a result, he is bound and sentenced to the desert forever. It also contains another tradition typically taught on the Day of Atonement—that Satan is the author of human sin: “And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin.” In other words, the ascribing of all human sin to a fallen angel is from the very same Jewish tradition that identifies the azazel as a demon. Yet neither aspect of that tradition is backed up by Scripture.
David C. Grabbe
Who Fulfills the Azazel Goat—Satan or Christ? (Part One)
Other Forerunner Commentary entries containing Leviticus 16:15:
Leviticus 16:5
Leviticus 16:5
