BibleTools

Topical Studies

 A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z


What the Bible says about Two Goats of Leviticus 16
(From Forerunner Commentary)

Leviticus 16:5

The two goats of the unique Day of Atonement ceremony are first mentioned in Leviticus 16:5, which contains an often-overlooked detail: “And he shall take from the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats as a sin offering, and one ram as a burnt offering” (emphasis ours throughout unless otherwise noted).

The “two kids of the goats” together are a single sin offering. That is, the two young goats are distinct elements that jointly accomplish this offering for sin; both parts are absolutely required for the offering to be accepted. A typical sin offering consists of only one animal, but this sin offering consists of two. This shows that something additional is being accomplished here, something beyond just the payment for sin.

The biblical sin offering, detailed in Leviticus 4, is God's prescribed way to show sins being paid for through a death. While “it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4), God still required blood to be shed to remind the people that sin incurs the death penalty.

A critical part of the sin offering involves the priest placing his hands on the head of the animal before it was slain to show that the animal would stand in the place of the party under judgment. The unblemished, innocent animal, representing the guilty party, symbolically received the guilt. This detail is reiterated four times within the instructions for the sin offering (Leviticus 4:4, 15, 24, 29), as well as in the initial consecration ceremony for Aaron and his sons (Exodus 29:10). A sin offering is incomplete without this symbolic transference taking place.

Every sacrificial animal—through the requirement of it being unblemished—is portrayed as being sinless (Deuteronomy 17:1; Leviticus 22:17-25). The Pentateuch contains at least forty injunctions that the sacrificial animals, either in specific offerings or in general, had to be without blemish or defect. In addition, Malachi 1:6-14 records God's indignation at later priests for offering blind, maimed, and diseased animals. A reason the animals had to be of the highest quality is that they were offered to God, who deserves only the best. A second reason is that every sacrificial animal prefigured the Savior, who was entirely without blemish or defect.

In the symbolism of a substitutionary sacrifice, an innocent participant is chosen to bear the sins of the guilty. However, this utterly fails to apply to Satan, for his millennia of sin make it impossible for him to be pictured as unblemished or innocent. Not by any means!

David C. Grabbe
Who Fulfills the Azazel Goat—Satan or Christ? (Part One)

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 16:8

The Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) is a Sabbath of solemn rest, set apart by its unique requirements to afflict one's soul and do absolutely no work (Leviticus 23:26-32). Within its instructions are a few rituals that make it even more extraordinary. Chief among these is the ceremony of the two goats found in Leviticus 16, part of a larger cleansing ritual performed once a year by the high priest.

With the passage of time and the difficulties of translation, the instructions for the two goats are far less clear to us than they were to their original recipients. In particular, the Hebrew word azazel, used for the second goat (Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26), is surrounded by speculation and contradictory assertions. A common belief among Sabbatarians is that azazel is the name of a wilderness demon. From this foundation springs the conclusion that the azazel goat—often translated as “scapegoat”—represents Satan.

If we solely use the Bible as our source, we will find no definitive statement for azazel representing Satan. What appears instead is that Satan—whose original name was Helel—has coopted the term to apply to himself in the same way he coopted one of the titles of Jesus Christ, “light-bringer” or “light-bearer” (Lucifer), for himself (see Isaiah 14:12; II Peter 1:19; Revelation 22:16). Yet it is not possible for Satan to be a part of the atonement God provides for His people, a role that can be fulfilled only by the Savior.

Strong's Concordance does not define azazel as a name at all, instead giving the meaning as “goat of departure.” It identifies two roots for this word, the first of which means “goat” or “kid” (#5795). The second root (#235) means “to go away, hence, to disappear.” The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon says it means “complete removal.” These definitions not only fit with the Hebrew, but they also align with the instructions in Leviticus 16.

But to start with azazel as the name of a fallen angel—representative of Satan—is, at best, to begin with a conclusion, and at worst, to base crucial understanding on an apocryphal tradition. When we look at the totality of what Scripture says, a very different picture emerges.

There is wisdom in not basing a doctrine on the meaning of a word, since meanings can change or become lost with time. A far more solid foundation beyond a word's common definition must be laid. Moving past the definition of azazel, then, another foundational principle of Bible study is that significant matters—especially doctrinal ones—must be established by “two or three witnesses.” By comparing what the azazel goat accomplishes with the rest of God's revelation, its role—and thus, its identity—becomes clear. There is no second, let alone third, witness for Satan playing a role within this chapter or in the atonement for sin.

David C. Grabbe
Who Fulfills the Azazel Goat—Satan or Christ? (Part One)


 




The Berean: Daily Verse and Comment

The Berean: Daily Verse and Comment

Sign up for the Berean: Daily Verse and Comment, and have Biblical truth delivered to your inbox. This daily newsletter provides a starting point for personal study, and gives valuable insight into the verses that make up the Word of God. See what over 150,000 subscribers are already receiving each day.

Email Address:

   
Leave this field empty

We respect your privacy. Your email address will not be sold, distributed, rented, or in any way given out to a third party. We have nothing to sell. You may easily unsubscribe at any time.
 A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z
©Copyright 1992-2024 Church of the Great God.   Contact C.G.G. if you have questions or comments.
Share this on FacebookEmailPrinter version
Close
E-mail This Page