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 Septuagint
(From Forerunner Commentary)

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

2 Timothy 3:14-17

The Bible as we know it was divided into the Old and New Testaments in the late second century AD by theologian and pastor Melito of Sardis. Though Jewish by birth, Melito was a Hellenist who despised Judaism, and in an Easter sermon, given—not by coincidence—on Abib 14, he even accused the Jews of deicide, the murder of God. No wonder he wanted to separate the Old and the New Testaments!

Since the gospels and epistles of the New Testament were not yet written, the only scriptures the fledgling church possessed were the books that had been written centuries earlier in Hebrew and later translated into Greek (the Septuagint). To those pioneer Christians, they were “the Holy Scriptures” (II Timothy 3:15). When the prospective members in Berea “searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether [the things Paul and Silas taught them] were so” (Acts 17:10-11), they studied what we call the “Old Testament.”

It is not surprising, then, that the New Testament directly quotes the Old Testament about 250 times. Including indirect or partial quotations, the New Testament makes more than a thousand allusions to Old Testament passages. By referring to it so often, the New Testament writers clearly desired to show the continuity between God's revelation to Israel and the gospel Jesus preached.

Researcher Roger Nicole, citing biblical scholar Carl F.H. Henry in his “New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” claims that, if we include New Testament passages that allude to or are reminiscent of the Old Testament, every Old Testament book is represented in the New. In all, more than ten percent of the New Testament is comprised of either direct quotations or allusions to the Old Testament.

We can conclude that the apostles and evangelists were not trying to “unhitch” Christianity from its Hebrew beginnings. In fact, we can confidently say the opposite: They gave unqualified authority to Old Testament Scripture.

John Reiss
Do We Need the Old Testament?

Related Topics: Septuagint


 

 




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 1992-2025 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
Hide permanently ×

Subscribe to our Newsletter