Leviticus 16:8

8. Cast lots upon the two goats The lots were first of boxwood, afterwards of gold, with an inscription on one “for the Name ” Jehovah was too sacred to write and on the other, “for Azazel.” Delitzsch on the Hebrews, Appendix. These were put into an urn and shaken, and drawn out with both hands of the high priest; that in the right hand was laid upon the goat standing at his right, and that in the left upon its corresponding goat. Divine Providence was supposed to direct the lots. Proverbs 16:33.

The scapegoat The עזאזל , Azazel, occurs but four times in this chapter, and nowhere else in the Holy Scriptures. It is the puzzle of the Book of Leviticus, over which the most erudite scholars have uttered the despairing groan of “ locus vexatissimus.” Bochart, the chief of Hebraists, notwithstanding his profound learning, frankly makes the following humiliating confession: “I have nothing certain to offer in regard to this word;” and Fairbairn admits that “its exact and determinate import is not to be pronounced on with certainty.” The chief theories are, 1.) That it is a place, a rough mountain in the vicinity of Mount Sinai: but no such mountain has ever been found. Besides this, the place is described indefinitely as any “land not inhabited the wilderness.” 2.) That it is an appellation of God. This is sustained by the Syriac version of Azazel “the mighty God.” The objection to this view is, that then the lot is a useless formality, since each goat would be allotted to the Deity, either as Jehovah or as the mighty God. 3.) That the word is a personal name for Satan or for one of his satellites. This is favoured by the Book of Enoch, in which Azazel is named as an evil spirit, and by the rabbinical writings, where it occurs as the appellation of one of four demons. The theory that the sins of Israel were confessed over the head of the devil, or over an animal devoted to him, thus making his Satanic majesty co-ordinate with the holy God in the sanctification of his people, so shocks our sense of propriety that we should dismiss it without further comment if the names of modern exegetes as celebrated as Bush, Oehler, Keil, and Ewald, had not given to it the weight of their authority. “The idea that it is a sacrifice to the devil is at utter variance with the whole Levitical system, not to speak of the incongruity of a sin offering to that wicked spirit; this is accordingly generally abandoned. The notion is spun from the interpreter’s own brain, without anything in the text to suggest it, that sin is hereby sent back to Satan as the source from which it has proceeded, or the one to whose realm it properly belongs; or that it is intended as an act of scorn and defiance. This malignant accuser may take these sins and do his worst with them, he can never bring Israel into condemnation for offences which have been expiated and forgiven. 4.) The word ‘Azazel’ is derived from a root meaning ‘to remove;’ and may with greater propriety, as it seems to me, be regarded as an abstract term, meaning, as the British revisers render it in their margin, ‘dismissal,’ or, as the American company prefer, as more descriptive of the function discharged by the goat, ‘removal.’” Dr. W. Henry Green. “We must be very careful in the application of this term. It is one of the terms liable to abuse. The image has always been accepted as one symbolical of the work of Christ in bearing away the sins of the world. Considered strictly as a figure, it is full of beauty and helpful suggestiveness. It has, nevertheless, been open to the most mischievous perversion.” Jos. Parker.