Leviticus 16:7-8 - Exposition

It must be carefully noted that. as the two goats made one sin offering ( Leviticus 16:5 ), so they are both presented before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. By this solemn presentation they became the Lord's, one as much as the other. After this, Aaron is to cast lots upon the two goats. The two goats, of the same size and appearance as far as possible, stood together near the entrance of the court. And by them was an urn containing two lots. These the high priest drew out at the same moment, placing one on the head of one goat, the other on the head of the other goat. According as the lot fell. one of the goats was taken and at once offered to the Lord, with a view to being shortly sacrificed; the other was appointed for a scapegoat, and reserved till the expiatory sacrifices had been made, when it too was offered to the Lord, and then sent away into the wilderness. After the lot had been chosen, the two goats were distinguished from each other by having a piece of scarlet cloth tied, the first round its neck, the second round its horn. One lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat. The last word is in the original la-azāzel, and being found only in this chapter, it has caused a great discrepancy of opinion among interpreters as to its meaning. It has been diversely regarded as a place, a person, a thing, and an abstraction. The first class of interpreters explain it as some district of the wilderness; the second understand by it an evil spirit; the third take it as a designation of the goat; the fourth translate it, "for removal." The first interpretation may be summarily rejected. If a localized spot were meant, that spot would have been left behind by a people constantly on the move. The second hypothesis—that azāzel was an evil spirit, or the evil spirit—has been embraced by so considerable a number of modern expositors, that it is necessary to dwell upon it at some length. But, indeed, it has little to recommend it. It has been argued that azāzel must be a proper name, because it has no article prefixed to it, la-azāzel. This is a grammatical error. When a noun expresses an office or a function, and has the preposition le or la prefixed to it, it does not take an article in Hebrew any more than in French; e.g; in the verse, "Jehu … shalt thou anoint to be king (or for king) over Israel; and Elisha … shalt thou appoint to be prophet (or for prophet) in thy room" ( 1 Kings 19:16 ), the Hebrew is le-melek and le-navi, without the article. The same idiom will be found in 1 Samuel 25:30 ; 2 Samuel 7:14 . With greater plausibility it is argued that 2 Samuel 7:8 contrasts Jehovah and Azazel, and that if la-Yehovah be translated "for Jehovah," or "for the Lord," la-azāzel must be translated "for Azazel." It may be allowed that there is a prima facie likelihood that, where words are thus contrasted, if one designates a person, the other would designate a person. But it is an incredibly rash assertion that this is always the case. All depends upon the idea which the speaker or writer has in his mind and desires to express. As part of the same argument, it is urged that the preposition, being the same in both clauses of the sentence, must be translated by the same word. This is certainly not the case. The natural meaning of le with a proper name is "for," and with a word expressing the performance of some function (technically called nomen agentis ) it means "to be" (see the passage quoted above from 1 Kings 19:16 ). Unless, therefore, azāzel be a proper name (which has to be proved, not assumed)the preposition need not and ought not to be translated by "for" but by "to be." The word le is used with great latitude, and often in a different sense in the same sentence; e.g; Exodus 12:24 ; Le Exodus 26:12 . The objections to the theory that azāzel means an evil spirit are of overwhelming force. It will be enough to name the following.

1 . The name azāzel is nowhere else mentioned. This could not be, if he were so important a being as to divide with Jehovah the sin offering of the congregation of Israel on the great Day of Atonement.

2 . No suitable etymology can be discerned. The nearest approach to it is very forced—"the separated one."

3 . The notion of appeasing, or bribing, or mocking the evil spirit by presenting to him a goat, is altogether alien from the spirit of the rest of the Mosaic institutions. Where else is there anything like it?

4 . The goat is presented and offered to Jehovah equally with the goat which is slain.

To take that which has been offered (and therefore half sacrificed) to God and give it to Satan, would be a daring impiety, which is inconceivable. That la-azāzel means "for removal" is the opinion of Bahr, Tholuck, Winer, and others. There is nothing objectionable in this interpretation, but the form of the word azāzel points rather to an agent than to an abstract act. Azāzel is a word softened (according to a not unusual custom) from azalzel, just as kokav is a softened form of kav-kav, and as Babel is derived from Balbel ( Genesis 11:9 ). Azalzel is an active participle or participial noun, derived ultimately from azal (connected with the Arabic word azala, and meaning removed), but immediately from the reduplicate form of that verb, azazal. The reduplication of the consonants of the root in Hebrew and Arabic gives the force of repetition, so that while azal means removed, azalzal means removed by a repetition of acts. Azalzel, or azāzel, therefore, means one who removes by a series of acts. "In this sense the word azāzel is strictly expressive of the function which is ascribed to the scapegoat in Exodus 26:21 , Exodus 26:22 ; namely, that he 'be sent away, bearing upon him all the iniquities of the children of Israel into the wilderness.' It properly denotes one that removes or separates; yet a remover in such sort that the removal is not effected by a single act or at one moment, but by a series of minor acts tending to and issuing in a complete removal. No word could better express the movement of the goat before the eyes of the people, as it passed on, removing at each step, in a visible symbol, their sins further and further from them, until, by continued repetition of the movement, they were carried far away and removed utterly". That it is the goat that is designated by the word azāzel is the exposition of the LXX ; Josephus, Symmachus, Aquila, Theodotion, the Vulgate, the Authorized English Version, and Luther's Version. The interpretation is founded on sound etymological grounds, it suits the context wherever the word occurs, it is consistent with the remaining ceremonial of the Day of Atonement, and it accords with the otherwise known religious beliefs and symbolical practices of the Israelites. The two goats were the single sin offering for the people; the one that was offered in sacrifice symbolized atonement or covering made by shedding of blood, the other symbolized the utter removal of the sins of the people, which were conveyed away and lost in the depths of the wilderness, whence there was no return. Cf. Psalms 103:12 , "As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us;" and Micah 7:19 , "He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea." The eighth verse should be translated as it stands in the Authorized Version, or, if we ask for still greater exactness, And Aaron shall east lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and one lot for a remover of sins.