Topical Studies
What the Bible says about
Azazel -goat of "Complete Removal"
(From Forerunner Commentary)
|
Leviticus 16:5
Each year on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), the high priest performed an elaborate ceremony consisting of four sacrificial animals (see Leviticus 16). He offered a ram as a burnt offering, a bullock as a sin offering for the high priest and his household, and two goats together as a sin offering. These two goats receive the most attention on this day. A vital detail in this ceremony is that the two goats together accomplish atonement for the nation. Notice Leviticus 16:5: "And he shall take from the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats as a [singular] sin offering" (emphasis ours throughout). This instruction is unusual, for the ordinary sin offering consisted of a single animal (see Leviticus 4:3, 14, 23, 28; 5:6-7). Why did God command two animals as the sin offering for the nation? To answer this question, we must first examine the typical sin offering, outlined in Leviticus 4. There, God commands four slightly different rituals, depending on who had committed the unintentional sin: a priest (verses 3-12), the whole congregation (verses 13-21), a leader of the people (verses 22-26), or an individual (verses 27-31). Regardless of the transgressor, though, the priest conducted the same basic procedure—one to take note of, for it helps to explain the Day of Atonement ceremony. In the standard sin offering, the guilty party first laid his hands on the sacrificial animal (Leviticus 4:4, 15, 24, 29). This action symbolized the innocent animal taking the place of the sinner, figuratively transferring the guilt of the person to the animal. Second, the animal was killed. Third, the priest sprinkled some of its blood in front of the veil, and he put some on the horns of either the golden altar (used for incense) or the brazen altar (used for burnt offerings), depending on who sinned. He poured the rest of the blood at the base of the brazen altar. Finally, select parts of the animal were burned on the brazen altar, while the rest of the animal was burned outside the camp. The procedure for the sin offering essentially ends there, but more needs to be considered. The offering has symbolically cleansed the guilty party, but is the sin truly gone? In this regard, the book of Hebrews teaches us that 1) animal blood is used for symbolic cleansing and purification (Hebrews 9:13, 22); but 2) the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sins (Hebrews 10:4). In the ritual of the sin offering, then, the transgressor is symbolically cleansed, yet his sin is not taken away—it cannot be removed simply through the shedding of animal blood. To further understand the symbolism of blood and sin, remember that God repeatedly prohibits the eating of blood (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 7:26-27; 17:10-14; 19:26; Deuteronomy 12:16). Even though the animal to be eaten is dead, God still considers the blood of the animal to contain the life of the animal! Deuteronomy 12:23 proclaims, "Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life; you may not eat the life with the [lifeless] meat." Blood is a symbol of life, even after the heart has stopped! It is a representation—even a record—of the life lived. Thus, the first usage of blood in Scripture is anthropomorphic: God considered Abel's blood to have a voice even after Cain had cut his life short by violence (Genesis 4:10). If the blood of an unblemished animal represents an innocent life, the blood of an animal upon whose head sins have been transferred represents a sinful life. Therefore, while the transgressor is symbolically cleansed of his sins after laying his hands on an innocent animal and shedding its blood, the substituted blood still bore witness—a record—of the transgression. In some scenarios, priests could eat the meat of a sin offering, but because of the symbolic defilement of the blood, if any of its blood got on the priests' garments, they had to be washed (Leviticus 6:27). There is no such proscription for the blood of burnt offerings or peace offerings, in which blood is shed yet which do not involve sin. Because of this symbolic, sin-carrying quality of blood, it is as if the horns of the golden or incense altar—covered with the blood of countless substitutionary animals—became a repository for all the nation's sins, sins that still had to be taken away (compare Jeremiah 17:1). This is shown by God's command that the incense altar—specifically the horns, where the defiled blood was placed—had to be cleansed once a year: And Aaron shall make atonement upon [the altar's] horns once a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonement; once a year he shall make atonement upon it throughout your generations. It is most holy to the LORD." (Exodus 30:10) The incense altar was symbolically cleansed once a year through the high priest "mak[ing] atonement" upon it, meaning he would cover it with blood that did not represent sin. This verse gives the essence of what was to happen on the Day of Atonement, while Leviticus 16 provides all the specifics of how God's instructions were to be carried out.
David C. Grabbe
Why Two Goats on Atonement? (Part One)
|
|
Leviticus 16:5
The sequence of the common sin offering (Leviticus 4) is noteworthy: The guilty party first laid his hands on the sacrifice's head to symbolize one life being exchanged or substituted for the other. The slain animal's blood was then sprinkled before the veil of the Tabernacle, put on the horns of either the incense altar or the brazen altar (depending on who sinned), and the rest poured at the base of the brazen altar. According to Hebrews 9:13, 22, blood provides symbolic cleansing and purification. However, Hebrews 10:4 states this practical fact: "It is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins," which applies on a couple of levels. In the wider context of Hebrews, it testifies to the transcendent efficacy of Christ's sacrifice—it was so pure and powerful that no animal sacrifice could ever begin to compare. In the immediate context, the author is pointing out that within the sacrificial law, blood could not take away sin—it could only cleanse, purify, or cover. Something else was required to show the sins of the Israelites being symbolically taken away. This removal of sins took place on the Day of Atonement, to which Hebrews 9-10 refers. In type, the blood of the sin offering was a record—a witness—of the sin it covered. Thus, all the blood of sin offerings put on the incense altar (also called the golden altar) throughout the year symbolized all the iniquity committed by the priests and the congregation. As Hebrews 10:3 observes, "In those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year." The Atonement ceremony brought to the Israelites' minds all the sins for which they had to bring their sin offerings. Because of the accumulated sins, God commanded the high priest to cleanse the incense altar with blood each year (Exodus 30:10). The unique sin offering for the congregation on Atonement consisted of two goats (Leviticus 16:5). Through the casting of lots, one goat was designated as "for the LORD," meaning that it was to satisfy or appease the Lord. At this point, God's instructions intentionally leave out a highly significant step: No hands were laid on the first goat! It was simply killed. Its blood did not testify of sin. Rather than contributing more iniquity to the record, its blood cleansed the objects nearest to the Lord (Leviticus 16:15-19). With the blood of the first goat—free of confessed sin—the incense altar and holy objects were atoned for or cleansed. Many translations call the second goat the "scapegoat." The Hebrew word is azazel, which means "goat of departure" or "complete removal." The azazel was the means for all the cleansed sins to be completely or entirely removed from the congregation. In the standard sin offering, hands were laid on the substitutionary sacrifice to symbolize a transference, and then its blood was shed. Notice, though, that on the Day of Atonement, the order is reversed! This explains why the offering required two animals: One animal had its blood shed, while a second animal had all the sins confessed over it so they could be taken away. Because the ceremony began with one animal being sacrificed, a second, living animal was necessary to have hands laid on it. The live goat received, as it were, all the iniquities, transgressions, and sins of Israel. None of that defilement was ever placed on the first goat, whose purpose was simply to provide cleansing. As Romans 10:4 teaches, "Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes" (New International Version). Jesus Christ perfectly fulfilled both aspects of this unique Day of Atonement offering. Hebrews 9:12-14 not only shows His fulfillment of the first goat with His own blood, but also how superior His shed blood was, even to the point of cleansing consciences. Likewise, the Scriptures record Christ's fulfillment of the azazel through bearing and taking away sins. Isaiah 53:6 declares, "And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all" (emphasis ours throughout), just as the high priest laid Israel's sins on the azazel each year. Christ likewise bore our sins, another function of the azazel: -
He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great, and He shall divide the spoil with the strong, because He poured out His soul unto death, and He was numbered with the transgressors, and He bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (Isaiah 53:11-12) -
. . . who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree. . . . (I Peter 2:24) -
. . . so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. (Hebrews 9:28) The blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin. The azazel did this in type, but it merely pointed to Jesus Christ, the only One who could perform this—and did (Colossians 2:14; Romans 11:27; I John 3:5).
David C. Grabbe
Why Two Goats on Atonement? (Part Two)
|
|
Leviticus 16:5
An intriguing picture emerges when we compare the regular sin offering to what happened with the two goats for the Day of Atonement sin offering. The procedure for each goat individually lacked a critical element found in the regular sin offering. The first goat was killed but had no sins symbolically transferred to it. The second goat had hands and sins laid on it, but it was not killed by the priest. Each was missing something found in the regular sin offering, but together, they comprised a sin offering by which something far greater was accomplished. While the regular sin offering kept adding records of sins to the altar throughout the year, on the Day of Atonement, the record of sins was first cleansed with pure blood, and then all the sins were removed from the nation. One goat had to die for cleansing; the other goat had to remain alive for bearing the sins away, removing them from God's presence.
David C. Grabbe
Azazel: Endings
|
|
Leviticus 16:5
While the two goats together were used for this annual cleansing of sin, some have difficulty seeing the azazel was not a sin offering since it was not slain. But before excluding the live goat from being a sin offering, we should note that it was sacrificed in the sense that its life was completely dedicated to a sacrificial purpose. Its purpose was to bear sins as a substitute rather than to give its blood. Jesus Christ was alive while He bore our sins, but He was still a Sacrifice while that took place. The Hebrew word for “sin offering,” chatta'ah (Strong's #2403), is also the word for “sin.” It has multiple meanings. It can indicate sin, a sin offering, guilt resulting from sin, purification from sin, or punishment because of sin. In general, chatta'ah has to do with sin, its effects, or its remediation. The Hebrew in Leviticus 16:5 literally says, “two kids of the goats as a sin [chatta'ah].” When we substitute some of the other ways chatta'ah is used, verse 5 could be rendered as: “. . . two kids of the goats as a purification from sin . . .” or “. . . two kids of the goats because of sin . . ..” In a sin offering, the animal symbolizes the guilt incurred by sin. It then suffers the judgment of sin and is thus purified from sin. This is why the same word is used for both sin and sin offering: The animal becomes synonymous with sin and its atoning. In the case of the two goats, both became offerings on account of sin, yet they had differing roles in making atonement. The second goat, though not killed by the priest, was still an offering. It was still a substitutionary representative of sin, as chatta'ah is defined.
David C. Grabbe
Azazel: Endings
|
|
Leviticus 16:8
Some consider azazel to be the name of a place, specifically a location east of Jerusalem. This interpretation comes from rabbinic Judaism, which developed in the centuries after the Jews returned from Babylon. In this view, azazel describes a particularly hard and difficult land to which the second goat was taken with all the nation's sins. In later practice—many centuries after God gave these instructions—the second goat was brought to a cliff and pushed over the cliff backward. Of course, the Jews have added to God's Word here because those actions are not part of His instructions. This interpretation focuses on a specific, accursed location where the goat bears the sins. In modern Hebrew, the phrase lekh la'aza'zel means “Go to azazel.” It is the Hebrew equivalent of saying, “Go to hell.” In this starting point, azazel represents a bad place. A basic problem with this idea is that Leviticus 16 was given while Israel was in the wilderness, and their camp location always changed. God did not record that Israel always camped in the same place for the Day of Atonement nor stopped each year within walking distance of a specific cliff. This starting point derives a meaning based on a practice developed a thousand years after Leviticus was written and then applies it retroactively. In addition, this interpretation focuses on a specific location, yet the instructions in the chapter focus on how God removes the nation's sins, not where the sins end up.
David C. Grabbe
Azazel: Beginnings
|
|
Leviticus 16:8
A possible definition of azazel comes from separating it into two different roots. The first root is 'ez (Strong's #5795), which means “goat.” The second root is 'azal (Strong's #235), meaning “to go away.” Putting these together, Strong's Concordance defines azazel as “goat of departure.” The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament says a possible meaning is “the goat of entire removal.” The Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words renders it as "the goat for complete sending away." This starting point at least fits with what happens to the second goat, yet it also has its detractors. Some scholars are not certain that the first root, 'ez—the word for “goat”—is correct. However, there is a related interpretation. Some suggest that the word azazel is a reduplication—meaning a doubling up or a repetition—of the word 'azal, the word for “going away” or “removal.” These scholars propose that the original word was azalzel, a repetition of the word 'azal, and it was shortened to azazel. Because the same word is repeated, it has the implication of, “removal-removal,” which is why the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon says azazel means “entire removal.” Looked at in this way, the word azazel is abstract, describing a function rather than an animal or personality. The repetition of the word indicates a series of acts that produce the result; thus, the complete removal comes from a certain procedure. So, instead of azazel meaning “the goat of departure,” it would mean simply “the complete removal.” The Septuagint, written two or three centuries before Christ and often quoted in the New Testament, provides some support for this starting point. In its translation of the Hebrew word azazel, it uses the word apopompaios, which means “sent out.” The translators of the Septuagint did not interpret azazel to mean "Satan" but instead rendered it with the idea of “removal” or “sending away.”
David C. Grabbe
Azazel: Beginnings
|
|
Leviticus 16:8
Some scholars suggest that azazel is a name because compound nouns are frequently used as proper nouns in Hebrew. Azazel appears to be a compound noun; thus, it could be a name. However, it is not definitive. In English, proper nouns are easy to recognize because they begin with a capital letter, but in Hebrew, only the meaning or context will identify them. The question is, if azazel is a name, whom does it identify? Consider this: The word satan (Strong's #7854) means “adversary,” describing the Devil's primary role. However, the first two times the word satan is used, it does not describe the Devil, but rather God, who calls Himself an adversary of the wicked (Numbers 22:22, 32). Thus, even if the word azazel is a proper noun, more biblical support is required before we conclude that it is the name of a demon. Along these lines, the Moffatt translation makes a great leap in Leviticus 16, rendering the word azazel as “Azâzel the demon.” This is not a translation but a risky addition and assumption because the Hebrew in the chapter does not mention demons. Yet that idea is reinforced every time Moffatt's rendering of Leviticus 16 is read.
David C. Grabbe
Azazel: Beginnings
|
|
Leviticus 16:8
In the Day of Atonement ritual involving two goats, the Hebrew text calls the living goat azazel (Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26), often translated as "scapegoat." Scholars present numerous and conflicting interpretations of the living goat, and they cannot even agree on a definition of this word. Given that a basic tenet of Bible study is not to base a doctrine on the meaning of a Hebrew word—nor "to strive about words" (II Timothy 2:14)—we will skip the definition and consider the larger picture. The interpretation with the most biblical support is that this goat prefigures Jesus Christ: The Father laid our sins and iniquities on His innocent head (Isaiah 53:6), and He bore them as a substitutionary sacrifice (Isaiah 53:11-12; Hebrews 9:28; I Peter 2:24), just like the azazel. Paul writes in II Corinthians 5:21 that He became sin for us as the live goat did for the Israelites. Jesus, too, was led "outside the gate" (Hebrews 13:12) as the azazel was led "outside the camp" (see verse 11: The two phrases are parallel). And, just as being sent from God's presence signifies a curse, Christ became a curse for us (Galatians 3:13). Many scriptures readily support Christ's fulfillment of the live goat. A second interpretation is that the live goat represents Satan. Humanity's sins will be placed on Satan's head, and he will bear them. This interpretation is highly problematic, chiefly because the bearing of sin is what the Messiah does, not the Devil! Nowhere does Scripture support the idea that humanity's sins will be confessed over or laid on Satan's head. It is an assertion without any biblical fulfillment. Worldwide Church of God (WCG) leaders recognized that Satan cannot bear human sins and said so adamantly in their writings. Nevertheless, the WCG still interpreted the azazel as a type of Satan, claiming that the Day of Atonement pictures the Devil's sins being put on his own head. Yet, this explanation is also a non-starter because Atonement contemplates only human sins, not those of demons (Leviticus 16:21). This third interpretation is another assertion without biblical backing. It sounds plausible at first, but the Bible nowhere reveals a fulfillment.
David C. Grabbe
Inventing Goddesses and Demons (Part Three)
|
|
Leviticus 16:10
The New King James Version (NKJV) translates Leviticus 16:10 as: But the goat on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat [azazel] shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make atonement upon it, and to let it go as the scapegoat [azazel] into the wilderness. Contrast this with the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) translation: . . . but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the LORD to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel. Did you catch the shocking difference? The NKJV reads that the live goat was chosen to be the azazel. In this translation, azazel describes the role that this goat fills: to be taken away, bearing the nation's sins, so they are completely removed. However, the NRSV (along with some other modern translations) reads that this goat was to be sent to Azazel. In other words, the translators do not interpret the goat as the azazel, but rather that the goat is sent to a personality named Azazel! Some scholars see "Azazel" as a name because compound nouns—nouns made of two words—are often proper nouns (names) in Hebrew. The Hebrew word azazel appears to be a compound noun, so the possibility exists that it is a name. While the Hebrew allows for it, it does not require it. What tips the scale for modern translators is Jewish folklore. Between the testaments, Jewish folklore invented a lesser demon named Azazel, who was blamed for all human sin (see The Book of Enoch). A millennium after Leviticus 16, the word azazel had been turned into a name. Many Jews of this time used a saying that reveals how they intertwined Scripture with folklore: "On the day of atonement, a gift to Sammael" (see The Judgment, Its Events and Their Order by J.N. Andrews, pp. 78-81). These Jews viewed the live goat as an offering sent to Samael, the Devil, who blended with their myth of Azazel, as folklore is wont to do. A significant difference exists between the goat being chosen "to be" the azazel and it being "sent . . . to" a personality, a demon, named Azazel! Let this sink in: If, at God's command, the Israelites sent a sacrificial animal to Azazel—if this biblical ritual was designed to appease or even acknowledge a demon—the Israelites would be committing gross idolatry at God's instigation! It is an appalling assertion. Regardless of the thoughts of some Jews in the centuries before Christ or what translators think the Hebrew suggests, the live goat could not possibly represent a gift or offering sent to a demon. Not only is sacrificing to demons directly prohibited in the very next chapter (Leviticus 17:7), but God says right in the covenant not even to mention the names of other gods (Exodus 23:13). In Deuteronomy 12:3, He commands Israel to destroy the names of false gods wherever they find them. He declares in Exodus 22:20, "He who sacrifices to any god, except to the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed." Yet, modern translators and other scholars would have us believe the holy God not only enshrined the name of a demon in the instructions for this solemn day, but He also intended His people to acknowledge or even placate this false god with a sacrificial animal. He did not. Instead, He commanded an Israelite to lead a substitutionary animal bearing the nation's sins away from the camp, prefiguring the Messiah. God called that animal azazel, "complete removal." If we stick to God's Word, we get a single, cohesive scenario. If, however, we borrow ideas from this anti-God world, something very different and destructive emerges, twisting the truth of God. As Paul writes, such doctrines of demons lead to people departing the faith (I Timothy 4:1). We must reject the cup of demons and drink only from the cup of the Lord (I Corinthians 10:21).
David C. Grabbe
Inventing Goddesses and Demons (Part Three)
|
|
Leviticus 16:20-22
The unique offering on the Day of Atonement for the sins of Israel consisted of two goats (Leviticus 16:5). The first goat was killed, and the high priest cleansed the sanctuary and the holy objects with its blood. The second goat—the azazel, the goat of departure—had all the sins of the people laid on its head, bearing them to an uninhabited land, a land “cut off.” Jesus Christ fulfilled the roles of both sacrificial animals: He died to provide a covering of blood and open the way to the Father, and He also bore the sins of many, taking them to the land of forgetfulness—the grave. Isaiah 53 prophesied that the Messiah would accomplish this. Scripture is silent about sins being placed on Satan's head or his bearing sins in any way. The name of this holy day derives from the Hebrew yom kippur. Kippur means “expiation,” while its root, kaphar, can be translated as “cleanse,” “disannul,” “forgive,” “pardon,” “purge,” “put off,” and “cover.” It is “the Day of Atonement [kippur], to make atonement [kaphar] for you before the LORD your God” (Leviticus 23:28). Leviticus 16:30 summarizes: “For on that day the priest shall make atonement [kaphar] for you, to cleanse you, that you may be clean from all your sins before the LORD.” The holy day deals with providing a solution to the people's defilement—and, therefore, separation from God—through cleansing and removal of sins. As Leviticus 16:21-22 makes plain, the ceremony involves the sins of the people, not of Satan. The identity of the “goat of departure” has been mired in controversy, yet even without poring over the ritual's details, we can see that the name of the day indicates only one logical way this can take place. The expiation of mankind's sins—the atoning, cleansing, disannulling, purging, and putting away of sins—is what theSavior does, by the very definition of the word, rather than what the Adversary does.
David C. Grabbe
Who Fulfills the Azazel Goat— Satan or Christ? (Part Three)
|
|
Leviticus 16:20-22
Though the text does not state it directly, what happened to the live goat indicates that it was cursed. The azazel became cursed, not only through having sins laid on it, but also though being sent away from the Holy Place. Being sent outside the camp symbolized divine rejection. Symbolically, one was separated from fellowship with the Source of life and all good, which is definitely a curse. Sin entered the world through Adam (Romans 5:12), and he was sent away from the Garden of Eden, away from God's holy presence (Genesis 3:17, 23). Notice that Paul says this is precisely what happened with Jesus Christ: Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”). (Galatians 3:13) Paul bases his statement on Deuteronomy 21:23, which says, “. . . he who is hanged is accursed of God.” Those instructions concern the requirement to bury a hanged man on the same day as his execution because he has been cursed by God. To leave an accursed thing hanging would defile the land. Paul applies this to Jesus Christ, recognizing that because Jesus was hanged on a tree, He was cursed. Think about Him crying out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” He knew why: He had become a curse, not because of something He had done, but because of what we have done. This refers to Christ on the tree, which is when and where He bore our sins (I Peter 2:24). The Father laid on Christ “the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6), just as the high priest laid Israel's iniquities on the azazel. Paul testifies Jesus became a curse. He does not say that Jesus is accursed in the present because the curse of the law was fulfilled when Christ died. He was then raised up, and the next time He appears, it will be “apart from sin” (Hebrews 9:28)—apart from what He took on and became. In the present, He is blessed (Romans 1:25; 9:5; I Timothy 6:15). Yet Paul declares that Christ became a curse for us. He fulfilled the awful, shameful role of the azazel, as only He could.
David C. Grabbe
Azazel: Beginnings
|
|
Leviticus 16:29
On the Day of Atonement, God requires that absolutely no work be performed (Leviticus 16:29; 23:28-31; Numbers 29:7), symbolizing that human effort is completely useless in making the proper atonement needed to keep living after sin. The Israelites could do nothing but observe what occurred at the Tabernacle, watching as the young goat was led away with all their sins. Likewise, we can do absolutely nothing to add to Christ's atoning work. Thus, it is a day without work for us as well. Israel's works nearly condemned the nation to obliteration. In particular, the Golden Calf was a work of Aaron's hands (Exodus 32:4-5). No matter how he tried to pass it off, he deliberately fashioned an idol out of gold, something he had to work at. Similarly, the work of Nadab's and Abihu's hands included offering profane fire (Leviticus 10:1). In Haggai 2:14, God remarks on Israel's spoiling of everything she puts her hands to: “'So is this people, and so is this nation before Me,' says the LORD, 'and so is every work of their hands; and what they offer there is unclean.'” The works of men always contain defilement, so on the day when God removes the filth, no work can be done, lest more corruption be introduced. The only work permitted on the Day of Atonement was performed by the high priest and by the man who led the azazel away, and both had to have an atonement made for them. For us, it is a day of solemn remembrance of the perfect work of our High Priest, who gave us precious access to the Father and removed our sins. Atonement is also a day of afflicting one's soul. This requirement could serve as a reminder of the fasting Moses did during his interactions with God. There is overwhelming gravity in all that was involved when he fasted for forty days on back-to-back-to-back occasions. Two of those times involved meeting directly with God, receiving a pattern for life from His incomparable mind. The middle period of fasting reflects how seriously God regarded the sins and the enormity of what was at stake due to Aaron's and the nation's transgressions.
David C. Grabbe
Who Fulfills the Azazel Goat— Satan or Christ? (Part Four)
|
|
Leviticus 23:26-32
It should not come as a surprise that the Day of Atonement is the most unusual holy day of the year. Each holy day has its distinctive traits. As examples, the Feast of Unleavened Bread has us eating unleavened bread for a week, and Pentecost has the unusual aspect of counting. But for outsiders, Atonement is just plain weird. They think it very strange that we will voluntarily not eat or drink for an entire day. Of course, in this distinction—which is called "fasting" or "afflicting our souls"—resides a great deal of the day's spiritual instruction. Fasting teaches us to realize just how dependent we are on God. Every day, every hour, every minute, He supplies us with everything we need for life. If He suddenly failed to do so or forgot or stopped caring, how quickly we would die! This day teaches us how frail and needy we are—how much we need God. When we apply this understanding of how much God supplies to our spiritual life, we come to a stunning realization about how much He provides to us throughout our conversions. It begins with His revealing Himself to us, calling us, forgiving us, and giving us understanding—and so on, all the way to giving us eternal life! He supplies all we need to grow and bear fruit and prepare for His Kingdom. Recognizing this leads us to feel humble and full of awe of Him, as well as eternally grateful for the things that He has done. It should cause us, as shown in Isaiah 58, to make a proper response, which is to treat others better by sacrificing for them and showing them outgoing concern. If God does so much for us, we should reciprocate by doing good things for others. Another strange aspect of the Day of Atonement is that it puts two goats front and center (Leviticus 16). One goat in this Old Testament ritual is chosen for the Lord, and it is sacrificed, its blood sprinkled by the high priest on the Mercy Seat in the Holy of Holies, which he enters just this one time each year. The other goat, the azazel goat, is left alive, and all the sins of the people are laid on its head. Instead of being slain, it is led into the wilderness and abandoned. This ritual contains the heart of this holy day's meaning: the need and the means of atonement for sin. Because of that, the possibility of unity with God opens up. Without such atonement, humankind cannot be at one with Him, which is God's ultimate goal. Many people believe the azazel goat represents Satan, and through the Atonement ritual, God shows how He will deal with the problem of Satan and his broadcasts of his rebellious, anti-God attitudes to humanity as "the prince of the power of the air" (Ephesians 2:2). However, this cannot be correct, as Satan does not—cannot—bear away or remove human sin. That is a job only Christ, the Lord, can do (Hebrews 9:28; I Peter 2:24; Isaiah 53:4-6; 53:11-12), as Psalm 103:12 makes clear: "As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us." Because Jesus Christ's dual roles of paying for sin through His sacrifice and removing sin through complete forgiveness cannot be symbolized in a single ritual, God divides them between the two goats. The Devil and his guilt are nowhere contemplated in the Atonement ritual because Satan has no place or part in God's unilateral initiative to resolve the burdensome problem of human sin. God and Christ took it upon themselves to do what was necessary to bring about reconciliation with sinful humanity (see Romans 5:6-11). (For further information on the Atonement ritual, please see "Who Fulfills the Azazel Goat—Satan or Christ (Part One).") The Day of Atonement is also an extraordinarily solemn day. Realizing the cost of God's grace, our observance of Atonement should make us feel humble, grieved, needy, and absolutely powerless. Even so, we should also feel a kind of joy and a great deal of gratitude knowing that God has provided an effective and powerful means of atonement for us through His Son Jesus Christ. Our Savior endured suffering and death for us, so that we could be cleared of sin, have access to the Father, and in time be united with God forever. Without His atoning work, we would have no hope of good and no future. Atonement contains another oddity, one that has to do with what we do or—more exactly—what we do not do on this particular holy day. God instructs us on all the other holy days not to do any "customary work" (see Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28-29), which is our everyday labor, but for the Day of Atonement, the instruction to do no work on this day is far more emphatic. God even uses a different word for "work" in Numbers 29:7 (mela'kah, Strong's #4399) to stress that He forbids any kind of work on this holy day. In His instructions about this day in Leviticus 23:26-32, God mentions not doing any work on this day three times. He says to do "no work," "[not] any work," and "no manner of work." This is a day in which we are to be completely at rest. His intention in this regard is so insistent that, once, He threatens to take the life of anyone who works on it: "Any person who does any work on that same day, that person I will destroy from among his people." He means it! In Leviticus 23:32, God calls the Day of Atonement "a sabbath of solemn rest." In Hebrew, it is literally "a sabbath of sabbaths," which is a superlative construction unique to that language. "Holy of Holies" and "Song of Songs" are similar phrases, doubling the same word to show that the thing in question is the greatest or best of its kind. Thus, the Holy of Holies was the holiest place of all in the Temple, and the Song of Songs is the most beautiful and best of songs. So the Day of Atonement is the exceptional Sabbath-rest, and as such, of all the Sabbaths of the year, we are to do no work at all. The reason for this has to do with the fact that it is impossible for us to atone for ourselves. Once we sin, no work on our parts could ever make up for our disobedience and the evils that follow. It took the sacrifice of Christ and the grace of God to make that happen (Ephesians 2:4-9). We had no part in it whatever, and Atonement reminds us of that each year. Only God's efforts can bring about forgiveness and reconciliation. God was purposeful in including so many peculiarities in the Day of Atonement. It is intended to be strange for the purpose of capturing our interest. These oddities are supposed to jump out at us, so that we dig deeply for their meanings and receive the full benefit of God's instruction in them.
Richard T. Ritenbaugh
The Peculiarities of Atonement
|
|
Daniel 9:24
The Seventy Weeks prophecy foretells a national cleansing. It is God's assurance that He will intervene to lift Israel out of her degenerate spiritual state. The word translated “reconciliation” is the same one translated as “atonement”—kaphar—throughout Leviticus 16. Nearly everything mentioned in the prophecy relates to the Day of Atonement and what is typified in Leviticus 16 regarding the cleansing and removal of sin. Even the Most Holy Place receives attention (see Daniel 8:14). In other words, the fulfillment of the Seventy Weeks prophecy closely intertwines with the fulfillment of the Day of Atonement. It is for “your people and for your holy city”—for removing the guilt of Israel and Jerusalem, representative of all the land promised to Abraham.
David C. Grabbe
Who Fulfills the Azazel Goat— Satan or Christ? (Part Four)
|
|
Zechariah 3:1-5
Zechariah 3 shows a future fulfillment of the Day of Atonement. This book was written after Judah's return from Babylon. Even after that national chastening, the people were still carnal, just as Israel is today. Here, the prophet receives a vision of the high priest, Joshua. Notably, the chapter contains the same elements and sequence as Leviticus 16. It starts with the cleansing of the high priest and ends with the cleansing of the nation. What is missing is the sacrificial animals, and this is because, here, God is providing the atonement through a different means. The essential function of the high priest was to represent the nation to God, which is part of why the Golden Calf incident was so appalling—the nation's representative was directly involved in the sin of idolatry. Similarly, in Zechariah 3:3, the high priest is depicted in filthy garments, yet in verse 4, the filth and iniquity are taken away. The high priest receives rich robes, symbolic of righteousness from God Himself (compare Revelation 19:8). The high priest's defilement shows that the nation had been completely unclean. But God restores the high priest, giving His explanation in verses 8-9: Hear, O Joshua, the high priest, you and your companions who sit before you, for they are a wondrous sign; for behold, I am bringing forth My Servant the BRANCH. For behold, the stone that I have laid before Joshua: Upon the stone are seven eyes. Behold, I will engrave its inscription, says the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day. Zechariah makes no mention of animal sacrifices. This removal of iniquity can only come through the Messiah, the Branch mentioned in verse 8 (see also Isaiah 4:2; 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15; Zechariah 6:12). Leviticus 18:28 speaks of the land becoming defiled and vomiting out its inhabitants. The Day of Atonement is an annual type of bearing away of sin, out of the land, so the land and its people become clean before God. This national cleansing of land and nation, however, did not happen at Christ's first coming. Though the means of that true cleansing was created through His sacrifice, it has not yet been applied. God's cleansing of the land and people of Israel is still future. The beginning of this vision (verses 1-2) contains another significant factor. Note that God rebukes Satan before He cleanses the nation. There is a possible connection here with Satan's binding (Revelation 20:1-3): In other instances of God rebuking a party, it typically goes beyond divine words and involves divine action (see Psalm 9:5; 68:30; Isaiah 17:1-3). God's rebuke may find its fulfillment in Satan's binding, and Israel's cleansing follows it. The critical point is that atonement—expiation, satisfaction of the legal debt—can come only through Christ's removal of guilt, not through anything that happens to Satan. The nation is cleansed by God removing the iniquity, not through rebuking the accuser. In this vision, if Satan were only rebuked—and in parallel, if Satan were just bound—the nation would remain in its defiled state, still separated from God, unatoned.
David C. Grabbe
Who Fulfills the Azazel Goat— Satan or Christ? (Part Four)
|
|
Colossians 2:13-14
In Colossians 2, Paul warns the churches at Colossae and Laodicea against any philosophy or system of beliefs—specifically mentioning “the tradition of men”—that detracts from Christ's sovereign position and role under the Father (verses 4, 8-9). He points out that the brethren there were already “complete in Him” (verse 10). This does not mean that they had already achieved spiritual perfection or that their salvation was assured, but that they had no need of anything supplementary to what was already available in Christ. This foundational principle answers a suggested fulfillment of the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). That is, some Bible students hold that the Day of Atonement cannot be fulfilled until Satan (the alleged antitype of the azazel goat on whose head sins were laid; Leviticus 16:21) is bound (Revelation 20:1-3). However, if these Colossians were still awaiting Satan's binding before their sins were completely removed from view, how could the apostle write that they were already “complete” in Christ? On the contrary, those who come under Christ's blood are not awaiting the final resolution of their transgressions when Satan is bound; their previous sins have already been completely taken care of. Paul continues: And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. (Colossians 2:13-14) Notice the definitive wording. There is no hint here—or anywhere else—that God's people are awaiting Satan's binding so their sins can finally be expiated. “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23), and those wages have already been paid in full. Therefore, we are alive in Christ now, and not waiting for an imagined final payment on the debt when Satan is bound. The phrase “having wiped out the handwriting of requirements” in Colossians 2:14 is often misinterpreted as meaning that God's law has been done away, yet in the Greek sentence structure, it is parallel with “having forgiven you all trespasses.” The “handwriting of requirements” is the written record of violations against God's ordinances. Paul says that this “handwriting”—the record of sins, not the laws—was expunged, reiterating that our sins have been forgiven. Other translations say He “erased,” “blotted out,” or “destroyed” it. The record is completely obliterated, in God's reckoning. Verse 14 says that Christ has “taken it out of the way.” Strong's Concordance states that the Greek word for “taken,” airo, means “to lift up; by implication, to take up or away; . . . by Hebraism to expiate sin.” It means the same as the Hebrew word used for “bearing” in Leviticus 16:22, nasa' (Strong's #5375). In addition, airo is in the perfect tense, indicating action completed in the past. The live goat lifts up, carries, and takes away the sins placed on its head by the high priest (Leviticus 16:21-22). In Colossians, Christ is declared to have lifted up, taken away, and expiated the record that was against us—an exact match to what is said about the goat of departure.
David C. Grabbe
Who Fulfills the Azazel Goat— Satan or Christ? (Part Three)
|
|
Hebrews 10:1-4
Part of the problem with animal sacrifices is that a consciousness of sins remains. The Israelites went through the ceremony, but spiritually, nothing happened. Christ's sacrifice, though, includes the removal of sins from consciousness, which is implied in the role of the azazel but not actually accomplished. Along these lines, the author of Hebrews notes three times that Christ's sacrifice cleanses the conscience (Hebrews 9:9, 14; 10:22). Hebrews 10:4 uses significant wording when speaking of taking away sins. The Greek word, aphaireo, has familiar meanings and implications. Its basic meaning is “to remove,” while it can also be translated as “cut off.” The author uses terminology that exactly describes the azazel, the goat of “complete removal” (as The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon renders it) that bears the sins to a land that is “cut off.” Certainly, nothing involving animals can do that. Christ's sacrifice, though, was both necessary and entirely sufficient to deal with sin. He became sin for us (II Corinthians 5:21) and was cut off. He paid the death penalty, giving us access to the Father, as well as bearing the sin into forgetfulness and cleansing the consciences of those who accept Him.
David C. Grabbe
Who Fulfills the Azazel Goat— Satan or Christ? (Part Three)
|
Start Your Day with Scripture
Begin each morning with God's Word — the Berean delivers a daily verse and insightful commentary to spark reflection and growth.
Join 140,000+ fellow believers on this journey.
|
|
