| |
Easton's Bible Dictionary
( Leviticus
16:8 , 16:10
, 16:26
, Revised Version only here; rendered "scape-goat" in the Authorized Version).
This word has given rise to many different views. Some Jewish interpreters regard
it as the name of a place some 12 miles east of Jerusalem, in the wilderness.
Others take it to be the name of an evil spirit, or even of Satan. But when we
remember that the two goats together form a type of Christ, on whom the Lord "laid
the iniquity of us all," and examine into the root meaning of this word (viz.,
"separation"), the interpretation of those who regard the one goat as representing
the atonement made, and the other, that "for Azazel," as representing the effect
of the great work of atonement (viz., the complete removal of sin), is certainly
to be preferred. The one goat which was "for Jehovah" was offered as a sin-offering,
by which atonement was made. But the sins must also be visibly banished, and therefore
they were symbolically laid by confession on the other goat, which was then "sent
away for Azazel" into the wilderness. The form of this word indicates intensity,
and therefore signifies the total separation of sin: it was wholly carried away.
It was important that the result of the sacrifices offered by the high priest
alone in the sanctuary should be embodied in a visible transaction, and hence
the dismissal of the "scape-goat." It was of no consequence what became of it,
as the whole import of the transaction lay in its being sent into the wilderness
bearing away sin. As the goat "for Jehovah" was to witness to the demerit of sin
and the need of the blood of atonement, so the goat "for Azazel" was to witness
to the efficacy of the sacrifice and the result of the shedding of blood in the
taking away of sin.
Hitchcock's Dictionary of Bible Names
the scape-goat
Smith's Bible Dictionary
(no entry)
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
a-za'-zel ('aza'zel apopompaios; the King James Version
Scapegoat, the Revised Version, margin "removal"):
I. THE MEANING OF THE WORD
1. The Passages to Be Considered
This word is found in connection with the ceremony of the Day of Atonement (which
see). According to Leviticus 16:8, Aaron is to cast lots upon the two goats which
on the part of the congregation are to serve as a sin offering (Leviticus 16:5),
"one be lot for Yahweh, and the other lot for Azazel." In Leviticus 16:10, after
the first goat has been set apart as a sin offering for Yahweh, we read: "But
the goat, on which the lot fell for Azazel, shall be set alive before Yahweh,
to make atonement for him, to send him away for Azazel into the wilderness." In
Leviticus 16:26 we read: "And he that letteth go the goat for Azazel shall wash
his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water." Before this, in Leviticus 16:21f mention
had been made of what should be done with the goat. After the purification of
the (inner) sanctuary, of the tent of meeting, and of the altar, the living goat
is to brought, "and Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat,
and confess over him all .... their sins; and he shall put them upon the head
of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a man that is in readiness
into the wilderness: and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto
a solitary land: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness." But in this
last mentioned and most important passage the term under consideration is not
found.
2. The Proposed Interpretations
(1) The Etymology
Some have derived the word from 'az plus 'azal (fortis abiens, "passing away in
his strength" or from an intentional alteration of 'el plus 'azaz, robur Dei,
"strength of God"; compare below the angel of the Book of Enoch); while others
have regarded the word as a broken plural of a substantive in the Arabic 'azala,
and translated it as "lonesomeness," "desert." Now there is an inclination to
regard it as a reduplication from 'azalzel, derived from the root 'azal. If we
accept this view, although it is without certainty and an exact analogue cannot
be found, we could conclude from the way in which this noun has been formed that
we have before us not an abstract term (remotio, "removal," or abitus, "departure"),
but a concrete noun, or an adjective, longe remotus ("far removed") or porro abiens
("going far away").
(2) The Explanation
In Leviticus 16:10 , 22 , 26, we would have an acceptable sense, if we regarded
this word as expressive of a distinct locality in the wilderness. But this interpretation
is impossible, since the law in Leviticus 16 was given during the wanderings in
the wilderness and accordingly presupposed a constant change in the encampment,
even if this should be regarded only as the historical background. By the use
of the same preposition le- in connection with Yahweh and Azazel, it seems natural
to regard the expressions as entirely II and to think of some personal being.
Some interpret this word as referring to a demon of the wilderness (compare Psalms
106:37 ; Deuteronomy 32:17 ; Leviticus 17:7 ; 2 Chronicles 11:15 ; Isaiah 13:21
; 34:14 ; Matthew 12:43 ff; Luke 11:24 ff; Revelation 18:2) and explain the term
as "one who has separated himself from God," or "he who has separated himself,"
or "he who misleads others." But a demon of this kind could not possibly be placed
in contrast to Yahweh in this way; and as in the Book of Enoch 6:6 ; 8:1 ; 9:6
; 10:4 ; 13:1 ; 69:2 one of the most prominent of the fallen angels who taught
mankind the arts of war and luxury, revealed secrets to them, and is now bound
in the wilderness, and is there preserved for the final judgment, because he was
mainly responsible for the presence of evil in the world, is called Azael (also
Azazel, or Azalzel), it is highly probable that this name was taken from Leviticus
16. In later times the word Azazel was by many Jews and also by Christian theologians,
such as Origen, regarded as that Satan himself who had fallen away from God. In
this interpretation the contrast found in Leviticus 16:8, in case it is to be
regarded as a full parallelism, would be perfectly correct. But it must be acknowledged
that in Holy Scripture, Satan is nowhere called by the name of Azazel, and just
as little is the wilderness regarded as his permanent place of abode. Against
these last two interpretations we must also recall that in the most significant
passage, namely, Leviticus 16:20, the term Azazel is not found at all. The same
is true in the case of the ceremony in connection with the purification of leprous
people and houses (Leviticus 14:7 , 49 ff), which throughout suggests Leviticus
16. In this place we have also the sevenfold sprinkling (compare Leviticus 14:16
with Leviticus 16:14 f); and in addition two animals, in this case birds, are
used, of which the one is to be slain for the purpose of sprinkling the blood,
but the other, after it has been dipped into the blood of the one that has been
slain, is to be allowed to fly away. In this way the essential thought in Leviticus
16 as also in Leviticus 14 seems to be the removal of the animal in either case,
and it is accordingly advisable to interpret Azazel adjectively, i.e. to forego
finding a complete parallelism in Leviticus 16:8, and to regard the preposition
in connection with Yahweh as used differently from its use with Azazel, and to
translate as follows: "And Aaron shall cast lots over both goats, the one lot
[i.e. for the one goat] for Yahweh, and one lot for the goat that is destined
to go far away." On the preposition le- used with the second Azazel in Leviticus
16:10, compare Exodus 21:2. With this interpretation a certain hardness yet remains
for our linguistic sense, because we cannot find a good translation for the adjective.
But in favor of this interpretation and against the personal interpretation we
can appeal also to the feeling of the Septuagint translators who translate apopompaios,
diestalmenos, and also to that of Aquilos, who translates tragos apoluomenos,
apolelumenos, kekrataiomenos, and of Symmachus who translates aperchomenos, aphiemenos.
(The general idea expressed by all these words is "removal," "sending away," "releasing"
or "dismissal.") It is true that the Septuagint in one place translates eis ten
apopompen, which however could be also an abstract circumlocution for a conception
that, though used elsewhere, is yet awkward. In the Vulgate, we have caper emissarius
and Luther says "der ledige Bock," which are probably based on a wrong etymology,
since 'ez signifies only a goat or perhaps this word "Bock" is here only supplied
from the connection, and that quite correctly, so that Luther and the Vulgate
can also be cited in favor of our interpretation. |
|
II. WHAT IS DONE IN CONNECTION WITH AZAZEL
1. The Significance of This Action
Both goats, according to Leviticus 16:5, are to be regarded as a single sin-sacrifice,
even should we interpret Azazel as demon or Satan, and we are accordingly not
at all to understand that a sacrifice was brought to these beings. This too is
made impossible by the whole tenor of the Old Testament in general, as of Leviticus
16 in particular, so that in 16:8 the two members introduced by the preposition
le- would not at all be beings of exactly the same importance. Both goats, so
to say, represent two sides of the same thing. The second is necessary to make
clear what the first one, which has been slain, can no longer represent, namely,
the removal of the sin, and accordingly has quite often aptly been called the
hircus redivivus. But what is to be represented finds its expression in the ceremony
described in Leviticus 16:20f. Whatever may be the significance of the laying
on of hands in other connections, whether the emphasis is placed more on the disposal
or on the appropriation of the property, at this place it certainly is only a
symbol of the transfer of guilt, which is confessed over the goat and is then
carried into the wilderness by the goat upon which it has been laid. In order
to make this transfer all the more impressive, both the hands are here brought
into action, while e.g. in Leviticus 1:4 only one hand is used. The fact that
the goat is accompanied by somebody and that it is to be taken to an uninhabited
place is to indicate the absolute impossibility of its return, i.e. the guilt
has been absolutely forgiven and erased, a deep thought made objectively evident
in a transparent manner and independently of the explanation of Azazel, which
is even yet not altogether certain. In the personal interpretation, we could have,
in addition to the idea of the removal of the guilt, also a second idea, namely,
that Azazel can do no harm to Israel, but must be content with his claim to a
goat which takes Israel's place.
2. The Jewish Liturgy
The actions in connection with Azazel, as was also the case with the Day of Atonement,
were interpreted more fully by the Talmud and the traditions based on it (compare
\ATONEMENT, DAY OF\, sec. III, 2). The lots could be made of different materials;
in later times they were made of gold. The manner of casting the lots was described
in full. The goat that was to be sent into the wilderness was designated by a
black mark on the head, the other by one on the neck. On the way from Jerusalem
to the wilderness, huts were erected. From a distance it was possible to see how
the goat was hurled backward from a certain cliff, called Beth-Hadudu (Beth-chadedun,
12 miles East of Jerusalem). By means of signals made with garments, news was
at once sent to Jerusalem when the wilderness had been reached. |
Wilhelm Moller
Tags:
azazel, bible commentary, bible history, bible reference, bible study, define, evil spirit, scape-goat
Comments:
|
 |
|
