- Sep 23, 2005
- 32,104
- 5,890
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
from: Azazel - Wikipedia
In the Bible, the name Azazel (/əˈzeɪzəl, ˈæzəˌzɛl/; Hebrew: עֲזָאזֵל ʿAzāʾzēl; Arabic: عزازيل, romanized: ʿAzāzīl) appears in association with the scapegoat rite; the name represents a desolate place where a scapegoat bearing the sins of the Jews during Yom Kippur was sent. During the end of the Second Temple period, his association as a fallen angel responsible for introducing humans to forbidden knowledge emerged due to Hellenization, Christian narrative, and interpretation exemplified in the Book of Enoch. His role as a fallen angel partly remains in Christian and Islamic traditions.
This was already addressed:
The text describes the high priest confessing the sins of Israel on the live goat. Then the goat is removed from the camp.
The live goat is said to be for azazel. The meaning of this term is debated. Multiple views have been proposed, based on different etymologies. This post will review the different ideas regarding the meaning of azazel.
Regardless of which etymology and meaning is intended, the result is the same. The text shows the removal of sin from the people, from the camp. The high priest confesses the sins on the live goat which is sent away from the people, into the wilderness. And in fulfillment Jesusremoves sin from His people.
Jesus sheds His blood, represented by the Lord's goat, and makes blood atonement for sin.
But the scapegoat shows another aspect of His atonement, in that He still lives and removes all sin from His people:
Psalm 103:10He has not dealt with us according to our sins,
Nor punished us according to our iniquities.
11 For as the heavens are high above the earth,
So great is His mercy toward those who fear Him;
12 As far as the east is from the west,
So far has He removed our transgressions from us.
As to the various interpretations of the meaning of "azazel", here is an outline of some of the views:
Some see it as a combination of the Hebrew words for "goat" and "to go away".
Strongs:
‛ăzâ'zêl
az-aw-zale'
From H5795 and H235; goat of departure; the scapegoat: - scapegoat.
In this scenario the goat is sent away from the people, showing their sins being removed from them. All the sins are confessed on the goat, and they are then removed from the people.
Another suggested meaning is "total removal", based on the word for removal and what is seen to be a reduplicated intensive.
Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Unabridged - H5799
H5799. Azazel; עֲזָאזֵל noun [masculine] entire removal (reduplicated intensive (Ges§ 30 n. Sta§ 124 a), abstract, √ [עזל] = Arabic remove, see BährSymb. ii. 668 Winii. 659 ff. Me SchenkelBL. i. 256;
This has the same effect as the above, the goat is for total removal from the camp of the sins, showing the sins departing.
Another view is that the word is related to the term for rough ground. This seems to tie in with a later tradition, that shows the goat led to rough ground or a mountain that it is cast down from and killed. If one takes the view of the goat being cast off in the wilderness it still is removal of sin from the camp, where the goat cannot return. But since this is not referenced in the text, this doesn't seem likely to me.
Another view is that azazel is not derived from a word or combination of words, but is a proper name of a demon in the desert. Therefore one goat is "for" the Lord and one goat "for Azazel." This view notes that the later work, the book of Enoch, mentions a demon named Azazel. Though this in itself is debated (see later). The notion that azazel is a proper name is not stated in the text of Scripture, but rather inferred.
If Azazel is a proper name it is also important to note that the goat is not the demon, but is FOR azazel, and sent to him. So again it is picturing removal of the sins of the people from the camp, to the wildnerss where Azazel dwells. Sin is removed from God's people, and sent outside the camp, to the place of uncleanness where the demons dwell, in the desert.
An explanation of this view:
Keil and Delitzsch Commentary:
The two he-goats he was to place before Jehovah (see Lev_1:5), and “give lots over them,” i.e., have lots cast upon them, one lot for Jehovah, the other for Azazel. The one upon which the lot for Jehovah fell (עָלָה, from the coming up of the lot out of the urn, Jos_18:11; Jos_19:10), he was to prepare as a sin-offering for Jehovah, and to present the one upon which the lot for Azazel fell alive before Jehovah, עָלָיו לְכַפֵּר, “to expiate it,” i.e., to make it the object of expiation (see at Lev_16:21), to send it into the desert to Azazel.
So again they see it as sending the sins out of the camp, away form God's people, to the land of Azazel, the desert, land of demons. All sin would be removed from the people by Christ. So even in this view satan would not be the goat, and satan wouldn't be bearing the sins of the righteous, as Adventists indicate. Rather the sins would be separated from the people, and sent to the place where sin and satan and the demons are now relegated.
So whichever of the above views is taken this work involves removal of the sins of the people, which is done by the high priest who represents Jesus. Jesus removes sin from His people, and from the camp.
But the idea that Satan IS the goat is ruled out by the text. The goat is for azazel however it is defined. Both animals involved were sacrificial animals, and represent some aspect of the work of atonement. The scapegoat has atonement made upon it. satan has no part in the atonement of the sins of God's people.
The sins that are confessed are all the sins of the people of Israel. Those sins are seen as removed from the camp, removed from the people. Their sin is taken away.
Much of the discussion of azazel as a name for a demon is in dispute. For instance, some doubt the connection to the book of Enoch.
From De-Demonising the Old Testament, JM Blair.
Moreover, a number of the scholars who hold to the view that azazel is a proper name are approaching the text from a critical view, often looking to other near eastern rites or literature, and proposing that this was borrowed and inserted into the text, not being from God, or mosaic in origin.
Again from the article:
Last edited:
Upvote
0