What the Bible says about Azazel Beginnings
(From Forerunner Commentary)
Though commonly overlooked, the two goats in Leviticus 16 follow the same pattern as the ritual for cleansing from leprosy. This ritual uses two animals, except two birds instead of two goats.
God commanded this ritual to cleanse leprosy. Other sacrifices went along with this ritual, but the key point is the use of two animals with differing roles, used together for the sake of cleansing and removal. One animal was killed so its blood could be used to cleanse. The second animal was left alive and set free to symbolize the removal of the leprosy.
The two birds represent two needed and related functions, yet nothing suggests that they typify two opposing beings, that the second bird was a type of Satan, or that the second bird was somehow the leprosy's source. Instead, both were sacrificial animals, each used for a different role within the overall ritual. The blood of the first bird was shed to provide cleansing. The second bird was released for the leprosy's complete removal. Its death is not shown because that was not its role. We might want to lump together the cleansing and removal as the same thing, but it is important to notice that God makes those elements distinct in the pattern He establishes.
Mark 1:40-42 shows how these symbols were shadows of the Messianic reality:
Now a leper came to Him, imploring Him, kneeling down to Him and saying to Him, “If You are willing, You can make me clean.” Then Jesus, moved with compassion, stretched out His hand and touched him, and said to him, “I am willing; be cleansed.” As soon as He had spoken, immediately the leprosy left him, and he was cleansed.
Notice that Jesus fulfilled the roles of both birds simultaneously. He cleansed the leper and caused the leprosy to be removed. He fulfilled the roles of both birds at the same time, then sent the man to the priest for the other required offerings. The two goats of Leviticus 16 follow this pattern of dual roles used together to symbolically provide cleansing and removal, not of leprosy, but of the sins of the nation.
David C. Grabbe
Azazel: EndingsRelated Topics: Ritual with the Two Goats
One definition comes from separating the word azazel into two roots. The first root is 'azaz (Strong's #5810), which means “to strengthen” or “to prevail.” The second root is the well-known el (Strong's #410), a title of God. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says combining these roots would give azazel a meaning of “the strength of God.” However, the difficulty with this starting point is that it does not clearly relate to what happens within the chapter, particularly the second goat.
To give an idea of the ambiguity of the Hebrew, other scholars use the exact same roots to suggest that azazel means “a powerful god,” but with a lowercase g, meaning a demon. This is because el is used on rare occasions for a god other than the true One. So, the same roots are used, but they lead to very different interpretations.
David C. Grabbe
Azazel: Beginnings
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: BeginningsRelated Topics: Azazel | Azazel -goat of "Complete Removal" | Azazel Bearing Sins | Azazel Beginnings
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: BeginningsRelated Topics: Azalzal | Azazel | Azazel -goat of "Complete Removal" | Azazel Beginnings | Septuagint
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: BeginningsRelated Topics: Azazel | Azazel - "The Strength of God" | Azazel -goat of "Complete Removal" | Azazel Beginnings | God as Adversary
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
The instructions for the regular sin offering specify that the animals had to be killed at the Tabernacle (Leviticus 4:4, 14, 24, 29). Their carcasses were burned outside the camp (Leviticus 4:11-12, 21), but their deaths took place at the Tabernacle (or later Temple). The exception was the azazel of the Day of Atonement ceremony in Leviticus 16. That the priest left the azazel alive does not preclude it from being a sin offering. The life of the azazel was most certainly dedicated and consumed by its role of becoming sin (II Corinthians 5:21), becoming cursed (Galatians 3:13), and acting as a purification from sin. All that fits within the meaning of chatta'ah, the word for "sin offering," which has a wide variety of uses. So, the life of the azazel did not end at the Tabernacle. Instead, it was sent or led outside the camp, away from God's presence, while bearing the nation's sins (Leviticus 16:20-22).
Where did Christ bear our sins? Hebrews 13:12 says that He “suffered outside the gate.” The standard sin offerings were killed at the Tabernacle or Temple, but Jesus suffered outside the gate. The most likely place for Christ's crucifixion was across the Kidron Valley, on a slope of the Mount of Olives. Christ's crucifixion was at a place where the centurion could see that the Temple veil, which faced east, was torn from top to bottom (Matthew 7:51-54; Mark 15:38-39). To be able to see that required the centurion have a specific angle and a minimum elevation to see over the Temple wall. Jesus did not suffer at the Temple, where the sin offerings had to be killed. The gospels record He was led away and sent from the Temple, from the symbolic presence of God—just like the azazel (Matthew 27:31; Mark 15:20; Luke 23:26; John 19:16). The Second Adam was led and sent away to fulfill the curse on the first Adam, so that we can now come back into God's presence. That was part of the curse He took on our behalf.
Like the second goat, Christ's sacrifice was not an immediate death. He was alive while He “bore our sins in His own body on the tree” (I Peter 2:24). Christ's bearing of our sins took hours, and He felt every second. He became sin and a curse as He hung there, bearing our transgressions, outside the gate.
David C. Grabbe
Azazel: Beginnings