He shall take the two goats, and set them before Yahweh at the door of the Tent of Meeting. Aaron shall cast lots for the two goats: one lot for Yahweh, and the other lot for the scapegoat. Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for Yahweh, and offer him for a sin offering. But the goat on which the lot fell for the scapegoat shall be presented alive before Yahweh, to make atonement for him, to send him away as the scapegoat into the wilderness.
“Aaron shall present the bull of the sin offering, which is for himself, and shall make atonement for himself and for his house, and shall kill the bull of the sin offering which is for himself. He shall take a censer full of coals of fire from off the altar before Yahweh, and two handfuls of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the veil. He shall put the incense on the fire before Yahweh, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is on the covenant, so that he will not die. He shall take some of the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it with his finger on the mercy seat on the east; and before the mercy seat he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times.
“Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people, and bring his blood within the veil, and do with his blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and before the mercy seat. He shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, even all their sins; and so he shall do for the Tent of Meeting that dwells with them in the middle of their uncleanness. No one shall be in the Tent of Meeting when he enters to make atonement in the Holy Place, until he comes out, and has made atonement for himself and for his household, and for all the assembly of Israel.
“He shall go out to the altar that is before Yahweh and make atonement for it, and shall take some of the bull’s blood, and some of the goat’s blood, and put it around on the horns of the altar. He shall sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and make it holy from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.
“When he has finished atoning for the Holy Place, the Tent of Meeting, and the altar, he shall present the live goat. Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins; and he shall put them on the head of the goat, and shall send him away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is ready. The goat shall carry all their iniquities on himself to a solitary land, and he shall release the goat in the wilderness.
“Aaron shall come into the Tent of Meeting, and shall take off the linen garments which he put on when he went into the Holy Place, and shall leave them there. Then he shall bathe himself in water in a holy place, put on his garments, and come out and offer his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people, and make atonement for himself and for the people. The fat of the sin offering he shall burn on the altar.
“He who lets the goat go as the scapegoat shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv8, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24 In Hebrew it is called Azazel, which some say,…
In Hebrew it is called Azazel, which some say, is a mountain near Sinai, whither this goat was sent, but rather it is called the Scapegoat, because it was not offered, but sent into the desert, as verse 11.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 Lev 16:7 And he shall take the two goats,…
Lev 16:7 And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the LORD [at] the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
Ver. 7. The two goats.] See on Lev 16:5.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26 One lot for the Lord; for the Lord’s use…
One lot for the Lord; for the Lord’s use and service by way of sacrifice. Both this and the other goat typified Christ; this in his death and passion for us; that in his resurrection for our deliverance.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On vv15, 20 When the priest had come out from the sprinkling…
When the priest had come out from the sprinkling the blood of the bullock before the mercy-seat, 1. He must next kill the goat which was the sin-offering for the people (Lev 16:15) and go the third time into the holy of holies, to sprinkle the blood of the goat, as he had done that of the bullock; and thus he was to make atonement for the holy place (Lev 16:16); that is, whereas the people by their sins had provoked God to take away those tokens of his favourable presence with them, and rendered even that holy place unfit to be the habitation of the holy God, atonement was hereby made for sin, that God, being reconciled to them, might continue with them. 2. He must then do the same for the outward part of the tabernacle that he had done for the inner room, by sprinkling the blood of the bullock first, and then that of the goat, without the veil, where the table and incense-altar stood, eight times each as before. The reason intimated is because the tabernacle remained among them in the midst of their uncleanness, Lev 16:16. God would hereby show them how much their hearts needed to be purified, when even the tabernacle, only by standing in the midst of such an impure and sinful people, needed this expiation; and also that even their devotions and religious performances had much amiss in them, for which it was necessary that atonement should be made. During this solemnity, none of the inferior priests must come into the tabernacle (Lev 16:17), but, by standing without, must own themselves unworthy and unfit to minister there, because their follies, and defects, and manifold impurities in their ministry, had made this expiation of the tabernacle necessary. 3. He must then put some of the blood, both of the bullock and of the goat mixed together, upon the horns of the altar that is before the Lord, Lev 16:18, Lev 16:19. It is certain that the altar of incense had this blood put upon it, for so it is expressly ordered (Exo 30:10); but some think that this directs the high priest to the altar of burnt-offerings, for that also is here called the altar before the Lord (Lev 16:12), because he is said to go out to it, and because it may be presumed that that also had need of an expiation; for to that the gifts and offerings of the children of Israel were all brought, from whose uncleanness the altar is here said to be hallowed.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv7–26 And he shall take the two goats,.... The sin…
And he shall take the two goats,.... The sin offering for the people, a proper emblem of Christ, this creature being clean and fit for food, denoting the purity of Christ, and his being suitable and wholesome food, as his flesh is to the faith of his people; and because comely in its going, as Christ was in his going from everlasting, and in his coming, into this world, travelling in the greatness of his strength; and even by reason of its having something in it unsavoury and offensive, and which made it the fitter emblem of Christ, as a surety of his people; for though he had no sin inherent in him and natural to him, yet he appeared in the likeness of sinful flesh, and had sin imputed to him, which rendered him obnoxious to divine justice: the number of these goats was two, typical either of the two natures in Christ; his divine nature, in which he is impassable, and lives for ever, which may be signified by the goat presented alive and let go; and his human nature, in which he suffered and died, and may be fitly represented by the goat that was slain; or else of the two estates of Christ before and after his resurrection, his being put to death in the flesh and quickened in the Spirit; or rather this may signify the twofold consideration of Christ as Mediator, one with respect to his divine Father, to whom he made satisfaction by his death; and the other with respect to Satan, with whom he conflicted in life, and to whose power he was so far delivered up, as not only to be tempted, and harassed by him, but through his instigation to be brought to the dust of death; See Gill on Lev 16:10; and these two goats, according to the Jewish writers (y), were to be alike in sight or colour, in stature and in value, and to be taken together: Christ, the antitype of them, is the same dying and rising; the same that died, rose again from the dead; the same that suffered, is glorified; and the same that went up to heaven, will come again in like manner:
and present them before the Lord, at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation; at the east of the court, and the north of the altar, as the Misnah (z); so that their faces were towards the west, where the holy of holies, the seat of the divine Majesty, was, and so said to be before the Lord, or over against where he dwelt: this presentation may have respect to the death of Christ, when he presented himself to God as an offering and a sacrifice; and which was done publicly in the sight of great multitudes, and on the behalf of the whole congregation of the Lord's people, and before him against whom sin is committed, and to whom satisfaction is given.
Read full note →
(y) Misn. Yoma, c. 6. sect. 1. (z) Ib. c. 3. sect. 8.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24 For the Lord - For the Lord's use by…
For the Lord - For the Lord's use by way of sacrifice. Both this and the other goat typified Christ; this in his death and passion for us; that in his resurrection for our deliverance.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv7, 8, 10, 21, 26 Verse 7. And he shall take the two goats]…
Verse 7. And he shall take the two goats] It is allowed on all hands that this ceremony, taken in all its parts, pointed out the Lord Jesus dying for our sins and rising again for our justification; being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit. Two goats are brought, one to be slain as a sacrifice for sin, the other to have the transgressions of the people confessed over his head, and then to be sent away into the wilderness. The animal by this act was represented as bearing away or carrying off the sins of the people. The two goats made only one sacrifice, yet only one of them was slain. One animal could not point out both the Divine and human nature of Christ, nor show both his death and resurrection, for the goat that was killed could not be made alive. The Divine and human natures in Christ were essential to the grand expiation: yet the human nature alone suffered, for the Divine nature could not suffer; but its presence in the human nature, while agonizing unto death, stamped those agonies, and the consequent death, with infinite merit. The goat therefore that was slain prefigured his human nature and its death; the goat that escaped pointed out his resurrection. The one shows the atonement for sin, as the ground of justification; the other Christ's victory, and the total removal of sin in the sanctification of the soul. Concerning these ceremonies we shall see farther particulars as we proceed.
According to Maimonides fifteen beasts were offered on this day. "The daily, or morning and evening sacrifice, was offered as usual: besides a bullock, a ram, and seven lambs, all burnt-offerings; and a goat for a sin-offering, which was eaten in the evening. Then a bullock for a sin-offering, and this they burnt; and a ram for a burnt-offering: these both for the high priest. Then the ram for the consecration, (see Le 16:5) which is called the people's ram. They brought also for the congregation two he-goats; the one for a sin-offering, the other for a scape-goat. Thus all the beasts offered on this great solemn day were FIFTEEN: the two daily sacrifices, one bullock, two rams, and seven lambs: all of these burnt-offerings. Two goats for sin-offerings; one offered without and eaten on the evening, the other offered within and burnt; and one bullock for a sin-offering for the high priest. The service of all these fifteen beasts is performed on this day by the high priest only." See Maimonides and Ainsworth on the place.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24 Lev 16:7. He shall present them before the Lord…
Lev 16:7. He shall present them before the Lord — The scape-goat was presented at the door of the tabernacle before the Lord, as well as the other goat, to signify that they were both consecrated to him; indeed they both made but one sin-offering, Lev 16:5.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv8, 10, 11, 26 The two goats formed a single sin-offering, Lev 16:5.…
The two goats formed a single sin-offering, Lev 16:5. To bring out the meaning of the sacrifice it was necessary that the act of a living being should be performed after death. See Lev 16:22 note. As this could not possibly be visibly set forth with a single victim, two were employed, as in the case of the birds in the rite for the healed leper Lev 14:4-6.
For the scapegoat - Rather, for Azazel. The word occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament but in this chapter, and is probably derived from a root in use in Arabic, but not in Hebrew, signifying to “remove”, or “to separate”.
Read full note →
Azazel is the pre-Mosaic name of an evil personal being placed in opposition to Yahweh. Each goat, having been presented to Yahweh before the lots were cast, stood in a sacrificial relation to Him. The casting of lots was an appeal to the decision of Yahweh (compare Jos 7:16-17; Jos 14:2; Pro 16:33; Act 1:26, etc.); it was therefore His act to choose one of the goats for His service in the way of ordinary sacrifice, the other for His service in carrying off the sins to Azazel (see the note at Lev 16:22). By this exppressive outward sign the sins were sent back to the author of sin himself, “the entirely separate one,” who was banished from the realm of grace.
The goat itself did not lose the sacred character with which it had been endued in being presented before Yahweh. It was, as much as the slain goat, a figure of Him who bore our griefs and carried our sorrows, on whom the Lord laid the iniquity of us all Isa 53:4, Isa 53:6, that we might become a sanctified Church to be presented unto Himself, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing Eph 5:26-27.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 24, 26 The emissary-goat: caper emissarius; in Greek, apopompaios; in Hebrew,…
The emissary-goat: caper emissarius; in Greek, apopompaios; in Hebrew, Hazazel. The goat to go off, or as some translate it, the scape-goat. This goat, on whose head the high priest was ordered to pour forth prayers, and to make a general confession of the sins of the people, laying them all, as it were, on his head; and after that to send him away into the wilderness, to be devoured by wild beasts, was a figure of our Saviour, charged with all our sins, in his passion.
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv11, 20, 23 Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin offering…
Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin offering which is for himself, &c.--The first part of the service was designed to solemnize his own mind, as well as the minds of the people, by offering the sacrifices for their sins. The sin offerings being slain had the sins of the offerer judicially transferred to them by the imputation of his hands on their head (Lev 4:4, Lev 4:15, Lev 4:24, Lev 4:29, Lev 4:33); and thus the young bullock, which was to make atonement for himself and the other priests (called "his house," Psa 135:19), was killed by the hands of the high priest. While the blood of the victim was being received into a vessel, taking a censer of live coals in his right hand and a platter of sweet incense in his left, he, amid the solemn attention and the anxious prayers of the assembled multitude, crossed the porch and the holy place, opened the outer veil which led into the holy of holies and then the inner veil. Standing before the ark, he deposited the censer of coals on the floor, emptied the plate of incense into his hand, poured it on the burning coals; and the apartment was filled with fragrant smoke, intended, according to Jewish writers, to prevent any presumptuous gazer prying too curiously into the form of the mercy seat, which was the Lord's throne. The high priest having done this, perfumed the sanctuary, returned to the door, took the blood of the slain bullock, and, carrying it into the holy of holies, sprinkled it with his finger once upon the mercy seat "eastward"--that is, on the side next to himself; and seven times "before the mercy seat"--that is, on the front of the ark. Leaving the coals and the incense burning, he went out a second time, to sacrifice at the altar of burnt offering the goat which had been assigned as a sin offering for the people; and carrying its blood into the holy of holies, he made similar sprinklings as he had done before with the blood of the bullock. While the high priest was thus engaged in the most holy place, none of the ordinary priests were allowed to remain within the precincts of the tabernacle. The sanctuary or holy place and the altar of burnt offering were in like manner sprinkled seven times with the blood of the bullock and the goat. The object of this solemn ceremonial was to impress the minds of the Israelites with the conviction that the whole tabernacle was stained by the sins of a guilty people, that by their sins they had forfeited the privileges of the divine presence and worship, and that an atonement had to be made as the condition of God's remaining with them. The sins and shortcomings of the past year having polluted the sacred edifice, the expiation required to be annually renewed. The exclusion of the priests indicated their unworthiness and the impurities of their service. The mingled blood of the two victims being sprinkled on the horns of the altar indicated that the priests and the people equally needed an atonement for their sins. But the sanctuary being thus ceremonially purified, and the people of Israel reconciled by the blood of the consecrated victim, the Lord continued to dwell in the midst of them, and to honor them with His gracious presence.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 8. Cast lots upon the two goats — The…
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. Pro_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.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv8, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26 8. for Azazel] for the scapegoat, A.V. For this…
8. for Azazel] for the scapegoat, A.V. For this peculiar feature of the Day of Atonement see Appendix V, pp. 185 ff.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv7–26 (7) And he shall take the two goats.—Having presented…
(7) And he shall take the two goats.—Having presented his own sin-offering, the high priest, accompanied by the two chief priests, now came to the north of the altar. Here the one of his companions who was next in rank to the pontiff placed himself at his right side, whilst the other, who held the office of chief of the principal household (see 1Ch_24:6), stood at his left. It was here that the two goats were presented with their faces to the west, where the Holy of Holies was, and where the Divine majesty was especially revealed.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26 Vers. 7, 8. It must be carefully noted that.…
Vers. 7, 8. It must be carefully noted that. as the two goats made one sin offering (verse 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-azazel, 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 azazel 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 azazel must be a proper name, because it has no article prefixed to it, la-azazel. 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", (1Ki_19:16) the Hebrew is le-melek and le-navi, without the article. The same idiom will be found in 1Sa_25:30 2Sa_7:14. With greater plausibility it is argued that verse 8 contrasts Jehovah and Azazel, and that if la-Yehovah be translated "for Jehovah," or "for the Lord," la-azazel 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 1Ki_19:16) Unless, therefore, azazel 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., Gen_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 azazel, therefore, means one who removes by a series of acts. "In this sense the word azazel is strictly expressive of the function which is ascribed to the scapegoat in verses 21, 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" (Sir W. Martin, "Semitic Languages"). That it is the goat that is designated by the word azazel 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. Psa_103:12, "As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us;" and Mic_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.
Vers. 7-10, 15, 21, 22. Type and antitype the offering.
Read full note →
The most striking feature of the whole service on the great Day of Atonement was the action of the high priest in regard to the two goats brought to the tabernacle door (verse 7). They clearly point to that "Lamb of God" who came to "take away the sin of the world". (Joh_1:29) That there were two goats rather than one presents no difficulty at all; there might well have been more than one to typify the Sacrifice which they foreshadowed. We learn
I THAT GOD ADMITS VICARIOUS SUFFERING INTO HIS RIGHTEOUS REALM. The innocent goat would shed its blood, would pour out its life, that the guilty human souls might not die, but live. It was a Divine appointment, and shows clearly that the propitiatory element was allowed by the Holy One of Israel. The vicarious principle has a large place in the kingdom of God on earth. Involuntarily and also voluntarily we suffer for others and others for us. Man bears the penal consequences of his brother"s sin. He does so when he cannot avoid so doing; and he does so frequently with his own full consent; indeed, by going far out of his way on purpose to bear it. Vicarious suffering runs through the whole human economy. But there is only One who could possibly take on himself the penalty of the world"s sin only One on whom could possibly be "laid the iniquity of us all." That one is the spotless "Lamb of God," that Son of God who became sin for man; he, "for the suffering of death was made a little lower than the angels," and took on him a mortal form. "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; ... he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities," etc. (Isa_53:4, 5 1Pe_2:24)
II THAT THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST AVAILS TO REMOVE COMPLETELY ALL CONDEMNATION. When the children of Israel saw the live goat, over whose head their sins had been confessed, being led away into the waste wilderness where it would never more be seen (verse 22), they had a very vivid assurance made through their senses to their soul that "their transgressions were forgiven, and their sins covered." No such dramatic assurance have we now, but we may have the utmost confidence that our sins are forgiven us "for his Name"s sake;" that "there is no condemnation to us who are in Christ Jesus," to us "who have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins". (Act_13:39 Rom_5:9) Trusting in the slain Lamb of God, we may see, by the eye of faith, all our guilt and all our condemnation borne away into the land of forgetfulness, where God will remember it no more for ever.
III THAT NO SACRIFICE WILL AVAIL ANYTHING WITHOUT ACTIVE PARTICIPATION ON OUR PART. Useless and unavailing altogether the slaying of the one goat and the sending away of the other without the act of confession and the imposition of hands by the high priest (verse 21); this part of the solemn ceremonial was essential; apart from that everything would have been vain. And without our personal spiritual participation the sacrifice of the Lamb of God will be all in vain.
1. There must be the confession of our sin; a confession of sin which springs from contrition for sin, and is attended by a determination to put all sin away (repentance).
2. Faith in the Divine Redeemer. "Our faith must lay its hand on that dear head of his.
3. And this must be the action of our own individual soul. Whatever guidance and encouragement we may gain from the ministers of Christ, we ourselves must repent and believe. C.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On v20 The goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities.
Lev_16:20-22
The goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities.
Read full note →
The scapegoat a type of Christ
I. The typical sacrifice here enjoined.
1. Appointed by God. Therefore an atonement fully equal to our guilt; a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice; an oblation which satisfies the unbending law and even the infinitely holy mind of the great Jehovah, which leaves justice nothing to ask for, and the redeemed sinner nothing to dread.
2. The efficacy of the sacrifice enjoined in it must be traced to the Divine appointment.
II. The conduct which Aaron was commanded to observe with respect to it. The mere appointment of these two animals as a sin-offering was not sufficient to atone for the transgressions of the Israelites: the one must be slain, and the other must be presented before the Lord and have particular ceremony performed over it, before Israel can be pardoned.
1. A part of this ceremony consisted in the confession of guilt. We are called on to be very earnest in our efforts to become acquainted with the full extent of our depravity; to be often looking into our hearts and reviewing our lives, and to be particular and minute in acknowledging the sins which we discover there.
2. It tells us that the high priest, slier having confessed over the goat the sins of the people, was to transfer them to the victim before him; he was to put them on its head, thus intimating that their guilt no longer rested on them but on the devoted animal on which his hands were laid. The spiritual meaning of this part of the ceremony is plain. It was designed to teach us figuratively the same blessed truth which has now been revealed to us without a figure, and which constitutes the substance and glory of the gospel, that Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; that, He bare our sins in His own body on the tree; that the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquities of us all.
III. The benefits which resulted from Aarons obedience to the injunctions given him. After the appointed confession had been made over it, and the sins of the people put upon its head, the goat was to be sent away into an uninhabited wilderness.
1. This was undoubtedly designed to show us the completeness of that pardon of sin which Christ has purchased by the sacrifice of Himself for the believing sinner. It is a pardon extending, not to a few iniquities, but to all.
2. But the pardon the believing penitent receives through Christ is an everlasting, as well as a complete pardon. This is strongly implied in the text. The goat was not only to bear away all the iniquities of the children of Israel, but it was to bear them away into a wilderness, into a land not inhabited; a land cut off from all other countries; a desolate, unvisited, and almost inaccessible region, in which the devoted animal was to be let go, and where it would remain unseen and forgotten till it perished. The Israelites therefore had not only the assurance that all their past iniquities were pardoned, but they were taught also by this ordinance that they had no reason to fear the return of them, or the revoking of this pardon. (C. Bradley, M. A.)
The scapegoat
I. The scapegoat represented the substitution of christ in the place of sinners.
II. This substitution of christ has made ample satisfaction for sin.
III. This atonement by christ extends to all sins.
1. Iniquities. Some say these refer to our original depravity.
2. Transgressions. The violations of the positive laws of God.
3. Sins. Neglect of His holy commands. Perhaps they are used to denote that the scapegoat bore away sins of every kind and description.
IV. That Christ, as typified by the scapegoat, has effected substitution for all people.
V. In what way the benefits of Christs substitution are received.
1. Faith is requisite.
2. Sins confessed and repented of.
Application:
1. Mans criminal and dangerous condition. Laden with iniquities and sins.
2. The only way of avoiding the terrible results of transgression. By Jesus Christ.
3. The only means by which the blessings of salvation are to be received. By true repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.
4. Let all men thus avail themselves of the redemption that is in Christ. (J. Burns, D. D.)
The scapegoat
I. The innocent victim.
1. Innocent. Had no sins of its own to bear. Thus Jesus Christ (1Pe_2:24). With sins of its own how could it atone for the sins of others? No man selected who might ceremonially bear the sins of the people away, and then return after being ceremonially purified.
2. Divinely selected. Chosen by lot. The lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord. Jesus was the Lamb of God. The lamb of Divine selection. Hence how great should be our confidence in this Saviour!
3. Representative. Goat generally regarded as representing evil propensities, and therefore as specially illustrating the wicked (Mat_25:32-46). So Jesus took our nature. Likeness of men and of sinful flesh (Php_2:7; Rom_8:3).
II. The imputed transgressions.
1. Of all the people, and all their iniquities. Vast number, variety, &c., of their sins. Jesus gave Himself a ransom for all. Died for our sins.
2. Transferred from the people by the will of God. By the grace of God Jesus tasted death for us. Our sins laid upon Him according to the mercy of God.
3. Transferred by the priest with confession. They were to be acknowledged as the peoples sins. Confession of sin a condition of our acceptance. Not that God does not know, but that the act of confession brings our guilt home more to our own heart, and tends to promote humility and an earnest desire for mercy. Besides, God has willed it (chap. 5:5; Hos_5:15), and added promises of mercy to such as obey (Lev_26:40-42; Pro_28:13). And pardon follows (Psa_32:5; 1Jn_1:9).
4. Bearing this burden, the goat was then lead away into the wilderness. Away from the camp, whither it might never return to defile it. The iniquity to be clean gone for ever. The people not to be punished for the sins thus removed far from them. Christ bore our reproaches, and was crucified outside the camp.
III. The delivered people.
1. Deliverance from sin the greatest deliverance. Other deliverances being temporal, but this eternal; others bodily, &c., this spiritual.
2. It would promote happiness. They felt that a great load had been removed. Rejoiced in spiritual liberty. The joy of imputed innocence. Now looked upon with favour, their sins being borne away. As far as the east is from the west, so far hath He removed our transgressions from us.
3. It would excite gratitude. Otherwise they would have had to answer for their sins. Apply this to Jesus, and those who are saved from wrath through Him.
Learn--
1. Christ Jesus was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.
2. He made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made, &c.
3. The duty of confession and personal faith. (J. C. Gray.)
The scapegoat
I. That the separation of man from his sins is a subject of tremendous moment.
1. The moral struggles of mankind show the necessity of man being separated from his sins.
2. The influence of sin on human nature shows this. It has mortalised our bodies, clouded our intellects, polluted our affections, burdened our consciences, enfeebled and enslaved our powers.
3. The intervention of Christ shows this.
II. That a penitential approach to God through sacrifice is the divine method of separation.
1. Sin deserves death.
2. Through the death of another, the sinners death may be avoided.
III. That the separation of man from his sin, if effected through the true sacrifice, is complete. (Homilist.)
Mans need of a scapegoat
As soon as man sins, and his conscience becomes at all alive to the fact, and troublesome on account of it, he begins at once to look around for some scapegoat. The sinner always feels, after the first flush and excitement of sin have passed away, and the fire of its passion has died out, that it would be an exceedingly desirable thing to put the guilt, burden, and consequences of sin as completely away from himself as possible. Now that the fleeting pleasure of sin has been extracted and only the bitter dregs remain, the sinner would willingly and by any means get quit of them, and so he casts around a glance of inquiry, hoping to discover some scapegoat with whom he may share the blame of sin, or upon whom he may put it altogether. The first sinners, in this matter, set an example which all sinners from that time to this have diligently copied. Adam shabbily put the blame upon his wife, and Eve foolishly put the blame upon the serpent, and both impiously sought to put the blame upon God. Do we not in the offering of these vain excuses see our first parents looking about for a scapegoat, who shall at least share the burden of their recently contracted and still unacknowledged and unabsolved guilt? And thus has it been with all sinners from that time to this. Still do we find men seeking to explain the fact of sin, and to excuse the guilt of sin, by referring to something outside of themselves. A man, for instance, commits some sin: his conscience calls him to some kind of reckoning. And what, under such circumstances, does he do? He does not, it is to be feared, cry out in penitence before God, Against Thee, Thee only have I sinned, and done this evil in Thy sight, but instead of this he looks about for some scapegoat. His conscience charges him with having told a lie. Well, if it were a lie, it was a very white one; it was certainly told with the very best of intentions; it was to obviate some very unpleasant consequences which would have injuriously affected not only himself but others. A man gets drunk. He cannot but admit that he was overtaken, or overcome, but he would like all his friends to know that the circumstances were very peculiar, indeed, quite exceptional; it was the excitement of the company which led him on, and not the love of the drink. Another man takes some unfair advantage of his neighbour: Well, he dares to say that his neighbours have often taken advantage of him. He swears: Tis an old habit into which he unconsciously lapses. He indulges in ungovernable outbursts of anger: Well, he always had a hasty temper, and no one could know how much he had to annoy and provoke him. You remind a man that he is very seldom found in Gods house on the Lords day, and might be very often met in the fields, or on the river or rail: He knows it isnt altogether the right sort of thing to do; he certainly was brought up differently at home and at school; but then he is so pent up during the week that he wants a little fresh air on Sunday. You expostulate with another who, while rarely or never running into any actual excess, spends a great deal too much time and money in the public-house. He excuses himself by reminding you that persons in his station have not the same comforts at home which those have who live in larger houses and on larger incomes; and that those who expostulate or condemn would moderate their complaints if they knew more about the matter. And thus, but that time would fail us, I might go through a much longer catalogue, and show you how in every case men, as soon as their conscience becomes troublesome, look about instinctively for some scapegoat. They endeavour to discover something in their character, their temperament, their circumstances, their education, their companionship, their occupation--something, in short, outside of themselves, which shall bear in some degree the blame and guilt of sin, which all the while they are indulging and cherishing. All such attempts are vain. All such excuses empty and unavailing. These scapegoats break down under the burden imposed upon them, and have no power to carry the guilt, the bitterness, the clinging memory of one single sin into the wilderness of oblivion. It is my pleasing task to direct your attention to the true Scapegoat: the provision which God Himself has made for separating the sinner from his sins, and from all their terrible consequences, finally and for ever. A provision which in its Divine fulness is sufficient to meet, and more than meet, all the exigences of our sinful nature. (T. M. Morris.)
Heathen imitations of the scapegoat
From this law of God, no doubt, did spring that custom among the heathen who, offering sacrifices, used to ban and curse the head of the beast offered in sacrifice with these words, That if any evil be so come, either upon the sacrificers themselves, or upon the whole country of Egypt, it would please the gods to turn all upon that head. The Massilians also yearly used to make an atonement or expiation for their city with some holy man, whom, decked and set out with holy garments and with garlands, after the manner of a sacrifice, they led through the city, and putting all the evils upon his head that might anyway hang over their city, they cast him into the sea, sacrificing of him so unto Neptune, speaking these words with great solemnity, Sis pro nobis piaculum (Be thou an expiation for us). Thus the heathen caught at things, but not in a right manner, whereby we may well see what a darkness it is to be deprived of the light of the Word of God. In like manner receiving it from the doctrine of the old Fathers, by the tradition of Noahs sons, that there should in time come a Man who, taking upon Him the sins of all men, should become a sacrifice for the salvation of all men; and notwithstanding the manner how this should be, they used in great extremities and perils--as plagues, famine, wars, &c.
to offer up men to their gods to appease their wrath thereby. So in Livy we read Quintus Curtius did in a time of pestilence; the Decii, father and son, in a time of hard war with the Latines and Samnites; Codrus, king of the Athenians, in Lycurgus; Menceceus in Euripides, and the daughters of Erecteus offered themselves to be sacrificed for their country. So Ahaz (2Ki_16:1-20.); Manasseh (chap. 21.), and the King of Moab (chap. 3.), their own sons. This was a great mistaking you plainly see, and therefore let it move you to send up thankful thoughts to God for your better knowledge and understanding. (Bp. Babington.)
The solitary sin-bearer
The solitude of the sin-bearer is something altogether distinct from the solitude of the Holy One. The solitude of holiness separated Him from sinners; but that separation, which made Him lead in His humanity a strange, lonesome life, yet brought Him into such full contact with all the glorious beings and the realities of the spirit-world, that such a solitude could hardly be looked upon with any considerable regret, or be the source of actual pain. The solitude of the sin-bearer is different from that of the representative of holiness and purity. Consider the causes of this solitude.
1. Wherever sin exists it is an isolating principle. Its tendency is to induce seclusion and separation, to shut the person who is possessed of it from all connection with that which is outside itself.
2. The scapegoat was to bear upon its head all the confessed iniquity of the children of Israel, and to bear it into a land of separation. Christ was the Scapegoat of the human family. In the Epistle to the Hebrews we read that He, by the Eternal Spirit, offered Himself to God. The scapegoat finds the land of separation at last, all alone in the darkness. He bore our sins into the land not inhabited. No witnessing spirit can find them there; no denizen of those dreary regions can rediscover them. They are lost sight of by man; the angels find them obliterated from their view; and God Himself has turned His back upon them, and left them in the land of separation. (W. Hay Aitken, M. A.)
And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited
:--When confessed sins are fairly laid upon Him who is appointed to bear them, they will never come back to those who confessed them. He will carry them unto a land not inhabited--a land where there are no talebearers or gossips to keep the story of those sins alive. Forgiven sins will be also forgotten sins: in the day of final account, not one of them will appear against the transgressor. Sins which are not laid upon the Scapegoat must be faced by the sinner in the presence of the universe. Sins which the Scapegoat has borne away into the land not inhabited cannot then be found in all the universe. God Himself will have forgotten them: for His promise is that those sins and those iniquities He will remember no more for ever, (H. G. Trurnbull.)
.
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain On v20 "And when he hath made an end of atoning…
AZAZEL
Lev_16:20-28
Read full note →
"And when he hath made an end of atoning for the holy place, and the tent of meeting, and the altar, he shall present the live goat: and Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel and all their transgressions, even 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. And Aaron shall come into the tent of meeting, and shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there: and he shall bathe his flesh in water in a holy place, and put on his garments, and come forth, and offer his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people, and make atonement for himself and for the people. And the fat of the sin offering shall he burn upon the altar. And he that letteth go the gent for Azazel shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp. And the bullock of the sin offering, and the goat of the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall be carried forth without the camp; and they shall burn in the fire theirskins, and their flesh, and their dung. And he that burneth them shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp."
And now followed the second stage of the ceremonial, a rite of the most singular and impressive character. The live goat, during the former part of the ceremony, had been left standing before Jehovah, where he had been placed after the casting of the lot (Lev_16:10). The rendering of King James version, that the goat was so placed, "to make an atonement with him," assumes a meaning to the Hebrew preposition here which it never has. Usage demands either that which is given in the text or the margin of the Revised Version, to make atonement "for him" or "over him." But to the former the objection seems insuperable that there is nothing in the whole rite suggesting an atonement as made for this living goat; while, on the other hand, if the rendering "over" be adopted from the margin, it may not unnaturally be understood of the performance over this goat of that part of the atonement ceremonial described as follows:-
Lev_16:20-22 : "When he hath made an end of atoning for the holy place, and the tent of meeting, and the altar, he shall present the live goat and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even 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." And with this ceremony the atonement was completed. Aaron now laid aside the robes which he had put on for this service, bathed again, and put on again his richly coloured garments of office, came forth and offered the burnt offering for himself and for the people, and burnt the fat of the sin offering as usual on the altar (Lev_16:23-25), while its flesh was burned, according to the law for such sacrifices, without the camp (Lev_16:27).
What was the precise significance of this part of the service, is one of the most difficult questions which arises in the exposition of this book; the answer to which chiefly turns upon the meaning which is attached to the expression, "for Azazel" (O.V, "for a scapegoat"). What is the meaning of "Azazel"?
There are three fundamental facts which stand before us in this chapter, which must find their place in any explanation which may be adopted.
1. Both of the goats are declared to be "a sin offering"; the live goat, no less than the other.
2. In consistency with this, the live goat, no less than the other, was consecrated to Jehovah, in that he was "set alive before the Lord."
3. The function expressly ascribed to him in the law is the complete removal of the transgressions of Israel, symbolically transferred to him as a burden, by the laying on of hands with confession of sin.
Passing by, then, several interpretations, which seem intrinsically irreconcilable with one or other of these facts, or are, for other reasons. to be rejected, the case seems to be practically narrowed down to this alternative. Either Azazel is to be regarded as the name of an evil spirit, conceived of as dwelling in the wilderness, or else it is to be taken as an abstract noun, as in the margin (R.V), signifying "removal," "dismissal." That the word may have this meaning is very commonly admitted even by those who deny that meaning here; and if, with Bahr and others, we adopt it in this passage, all that follows is quite clear. The goat "for removal" bears away all the iniquities of Israel, which are symbolically laid upon him, into a solitary land; that is, they are taken wholly away from the presence of God and from the camp of His people. Thus, as the killing and sprinkling of the blood of the first goat visibly set forth the means of reconciliation with God, through the substituted offering of an innocent victim, so the sending away of the second goat, laden with those sins, the expiation of which had been signified by the sacrifice of the first, no less vividly set forth the effect of that sacrifice, in the complete removal of those expiated sins from the holy presence of Jehovah. That this effect of atonement should have been adequately represented by the first slain victim was impossible; hence the necessity for the second goat, ideally identified with the other, as jointly constituting with it one sin offering, whose special use it should be to represent the blessed effect of atonement. The truth symbolised, as the goat thus bore away the sins of Israel, is expressed in those glad words, {Psa_103:12} "As far as the east is from the west, so far hath He removed our transgressions from us"; or, under another image, by Micah, {Mic_7:19} "Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depth of the sea."
So far all seems quite clear, and this explanation, no doubt, will always be accepted by many. And yet there remains one serious objection to this interpretation; namely, that the meaning we thus give this word "Azazel" is not what we would expect from the phrase which is used regarding the casting of the lots (Lev_16:8): "One lot for the Lord, and the other lot for Azazel." These words do most naturally suggest that Azazel is the name of a person, who is here contrasted with Jehovah; and hence it is believed by a large number of the best expositors that the term must be taken here as the name of an evil spirit, represented as dwelling in the wilderness, to whom this goat, thus laden with Israels sins, is sent. In addition to this phraseology, it is urged, in support of this interpretation, that even the Scripture lends apparent sanction to the Jewish belief that demons are, in some special sense, the inhabitants of waste and desolate places; and, in particular, that Jewish demonology does in fact recognise a demon named Azazel, also called Sammael. It is admitted, indeed, that the name Azazel does not occur in the Scripture as the name of Satan or of any evil spirit; and, moreover, that there is no evidence that the Jewish belief concerning the existence of a demon called Azazel dates nearly so far back as Mosaic days; and, again, that even the rabbis themselves are not agreed on this interpretation here, many of them rejecting it, even on traditional grounds. Still the interpretation has secured the support of the majority of the best modern expositors, and must claim respectful consideration.
But if Azazel indeed denotes an evil spirit to whom the second goat of the sin offering is thus sent, laden with the iniquities of Israel, the question then arises: How then, on this supposition, is the ceremony to be interpreted?
The notion of some, that we have in this rite a relic of the ancient demon worship, is utterly inadmissible. For this goat is expressly said (Lev_16:5) to have been, equally with the goat that was slain, "a sin offering," and (Lev_16:10, Lev_16:20) it is placed "before the Lord," as an offering to Him; nor is there a hint, here or elsewhere, that this goat was sacrificed in the wilderness to this Azazel; while, moreover, in this very priest code {Lev_17:7-9, R.V} this special form of idolatry is forbidden, under the heaviest penalty.
That the goat sent to Azazel personified, by way of warning and in a typical manner, Israel, as rejecting the great Sin offering, and thus laden with iniquity, and therefore delivered over to Satan, is an idea equally untenable. For the goat, as we have seen, is regarded as ideally one with the goat which is slain; they jointly constitute one sin offering. If, therefore, the slain goat represented in type Christ as the Lamb of God, our Sin offering, so also must this goat represent Him as our Sin offering. Further, the ceremonial which is performed over him is explicitly termed an "atonement"; that is, it was an essential part of a ritual designed to symbolise, not the condemnation of Israel for sin, but their complete deliverance from the guilt of their sins.
Not to speak of other explanations, more or less untenable, which have each found their advocates, the only one which, upon this understanding of the meaning of Azazel, the context and the analogy of the Scripture will both admit, appears to be the following. Holy Scripture teaches that Satan has power over man, only because of mans sin. Because of his sin, man is judicially left by God in Satans power. {1Jn_5:19, R.V} When as "the prince of this world" he came to the sinless Man, Jesus Christ, he had nothing in Him, because He was the Holy One of God; while, on the other hand, he is represented {Heb_2:14} as having over men under sin "the authority of death." In full accord with this conception, he is represented, both in the Old and the New Testament, as the accuser of Gods people. He is said to have accused Job before God. {Job_1:9-11; Job_2:4; Job_2:5} When Zechariah {Zec_3:1} saw Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of Jehovah, he saw Satan also standing at his right hand to be his "adversary." So, again, in the Apocalypse {Rev_12:10} he is called "the Accuser of our brethren, which accuseth them before our God day and night," and who is only overcome by means of "the blood of the Lamb."
To this Evil One, then, the Accuser and Adversary of Gods people in all ages-if we assume the interpretation before us-the live goat was symbolically sent, bearing on him the sins of Israel. But does he bear their sins as forgiven, or as unforgiven? Surely, as forgiven; for the sins which he symbolically carries are those very sins of the bygone year for which expiating blood had just been offered and accepted in the Holy of Holies. Moreover, he is sent as being ideally one with the goat that was slain. As sent to Azazel, he therefore symbolically announces to the Evil One that with the expiation of sin by sacrificial blood the foundation of his power over forgiven Israel is gone. His accusations are now no longer in place; for the whole question of Israels sin has been met and settled in the atoning blood. Thus, as the acceptance of the blood of the one goat offered in the Holiest symbolised the complete propitiation of the offended holiness of God and His pardon of Israels sin, so the sending of the goat to Azazel. symbolised the effect of this expiation, in the: complete removal of all the penal effects of sin, through deliverance by atonement from the power of the Adversary as the executioner of Gods wrath.
Which of these two interpretations shall be accepted must be left to the reader: that neither is without difficulty, those who have most studied this very obscure question will most readily admit; that either is at least consistent with the context and with other teachings of Scripture, should be sufficiently evident. In either case, the symbolic intention of the first part of the ritual, with the first goat, was to symbolise the means of reconciliation with God; namely, through the offering unto God of the life of an innocent victim, substituted in the sinners place: in either case alike, the purpose of the second part of the ceremonial, with the second goat, was to symbolise the blessed effect of this expiation; either, if the reading of the margin be taken, in the complete removal of the expiated sin from the presence of the Holy God, or, if Azazel be taken as a proper name, in the complete deliverance of the sinner, through expiatory blood presented in the Holiest, from the power of Satan. If in the former case, we think of the words already cited, "As far as the east is from the west, so far hath He removed our transgressions from us"; in the latter the words from the Apocalypse {Rev_12:10-11} come to mind, "The Accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accuseth them before our God day and night. And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb."
On other particulars in the ceremonial of the day we need not dwell, as they have received their exposition in earlier chapters of the law of the offerings. Of the burnt offerings, indeed, which followed the dismissal of the living goat of the sin offering, little is said; it is, emphatically, the sin offering, upon which, above all else, it was designed to centre the attention of Israel on this occasion.
And so, with an injunction to the perpetual observance of this day, this remarkable chapter closes. In it the sacrificial law of Moses attains its supreme expression; the holiness and the grace alike of Israels God, their fullest revelation. For the like of the great day of atonement, we look in vain in any other people. If every sacrifice pointed to Christ, this most luminously of all. What the fifty-third of Isaiah is to his Messianic prophecies, that, we may truly say, is the sixteenth of Leviticus to the whole system of Mosaic types, -the most consummate flower of the Messianic symbolism. All the sin offerings pointed to Christ, the great High Priest and Victim of the future; but this, as we shall now see, with a distinctness found in no other.
As the unique sin offering of this day could only be offered by the one high priest, so was it intimated that the High Priest of the future, who should indeed make an end of sin, should be one and only. As once only in the whole year, a complete cycle of time, this great atonement was offered, so did it point toward a sacrifice which should indeed be "once for all" {Heb_9:26, Heb_10:10}; not only for the lesser aeon of the year, but for the aeon of aeons which is the lifetime of humanity. In that the high priest, who was on all other occasions conspicuous among his sons by his bright garments made for glory and for beauty, on this occasion laid them aside, and assumed the same garb as his sons for whom he was to make atonement; herein was shadowed forth the truth that it behoved the great High Priest of the future to be "in all things made like unto His brethren" {Heb_2:17}. When, having offered the sin offering, Aaron disappeared from the sight of Israel within the veil, where in the presence of the unseen glory he offered the incense and sprinkled the blood, it was presignified how "Christ having come a High Priest of the good things to come, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place," even "into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us". {Heb_9:11-12; Heb_9:24} And, in like manner in that when the sin offering had been offered, the blood sprinkled, and his work within the veil was ended, arrayed again in his glorious garments, he reappeared to bless the waiting congregation; it was again foreshown how yet that must be fulfilled which is written, that this same Christ, "having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for Him, unto salvation". {Heb_9:28} To all this yet more might be added of dispensational truth typified by the ceremonial of this day, which we defer to the exposition of chapter 25, where its consideration more properly belongs. But even were this all, what a marvellous revelation here of the Lord Jesus Christ! The fact of these correspondences between the Levitical ritual and the New Testament facts, let it be observed, is wholly independent of the questions as to the date and origin of this law; and every theory on this subject must find a place for these correspondences and account for them. But how can anyone believe that all these are merely accidental coincidences of a post-exilian forgery with the facts of the incarnation, and the high priestly work of Christ in death and resurrection as set forth in the Gospels? How can they all be adequately accounted for except by assuming that to be true which is expressly taught in the New Testament concerning this very ritual: that in it the Holy Ghost presignified things that were to come; that, therefore, the ordinance must have been, not of man, but of God; not a mere product of the human mind, acting under the laws of a religious evolution, but a revelation from Him unto whom "known are all His works from the foundation of the world"? Nor must we fail to take in the blessed truth so vividly symbolised in the second part of the ceremonial. When the blood of the sin offering had been sprinkled in the Holiest, the sins of Israel were then, by the other goat of the sin offering, borne far away. Israel stood there still a sinful people; but their sin, now expiated by the blood, was before God as if it were not. So does the Holy Victim in the Antitype, who first by His death expiated sin, then as the Living One bear away all the believers sins from the presence of the Holy One into a land of forgetfulness. And so it is that, as regards acceptance with God, the believing sinner, though still a sinner, stands as if he were sinless; all through the great Sin Offering. To see this, to believe in it, and rest in it, is life eternal; it is joy, and peace, and rest! IT IS THE GOSPEL!
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On v22
Leviticus
‘THE SCAPEGOAT’
Read full note →
Lev 16:22.
The import of the remarkable treatment of this goat does not depend on the interpretation of the obscure phrase rendered in the Authorised Version ‘for the scapegoat.’ Leaving that out of sight for the moment, we observe that the two animals were one sacrifice, and that the transaction with the living one was the completion of that with the slain. The sins of the congregation, which had been already expiated by the sacrifice, were laid by the high priest on the head of the goat, which was then sent away into the wilderness that he might ‘bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited’ {Lev 16:22}. Nothing depends on the fate of the goat, though, in after times, it was forced over a precipice and so killed. The carrying away of expiated sin, and not the destruction of unexpiated sinners, is the meaning of the impressive rite, and, had it been possible, the same goat that was sacrificed would have been sent into the desert. As that could not be done, an ideal unity was established between the two: the one sacrificed represented the fact of expiation, the one driven away represented the consequences of expiation in the complete removal of sin. The expiation was made ‘within the veil’; but a visible token of its completeness was given to help feeble faith, in the blessed mystery of the unseen propitiation. What was divided in the symbol between the twin goats is all done by the one Sacrifice, who has entered into the holiest of all, at once Priest and Sacrifice, and with His own blood made expiation for sin, and has likewise carried away the sin of the world into a land of forgetfulness, whence it never can return.
The clear meaning of the rite is thus obtained, whatever be the force of the difficult phrase already referred to. ‘Scapegoat’ is certainly wrong. But it may be questioned whether the Revised Version is right in retaining the Hebrew word untranslated, and, by putting a capital letter to it, marking it as a proper name {‘for Azazel’}. The word occurs only here, so that we have no help from other passages. It seems to come from a root meaning ‘to drive away,’ and those who take it to be a proper name, generally suppose it to refer to some malignant spirit, or to Satan, and interpret it as meaning ‘a fiend whom one drives away,’ or, sometimes, ‘who drives away.’ The vindication of such an interpretation is supposed to lie in the necessity of finding a complete antithesis in the phrase to the ‘for Jehovah’ of the previous clause in Lev 16:8. But it is surely sacrificing a good deal to rhetorical propriety to drag in an idea so foreign to the Pentateuch, and so opposed to the plain fact, that both goats were one sin offering {Lev 16:5}, in order to get a pedantically correct antithesis. In the absence of any guidance from usage, certainty as to the meaning of the word is unattainable. But there seems no reason, other than that of the said antithesis, against taking it to mean removal or dismissal, rather than ‘a remover.’ The Septuagint translates it in both ways: as a person in Lev 16:8, and as ‘sending away’ in Lev 16:10. If the latter meaning be adopted, then the word just defines the same purpose as is given more at length in Lev 16:22, namely, the carrying away of the sins of the congregation. The logical imperfection of the opposition in Lev 16:8 would then be simply enough solved by the fact that while both goats were ‘for the Lord,’ one was destined to be actually offered in sacrifice, and the other to be ‘for dismissal.’ The incomplete contrast testifies to the substantial unity of the two, and needs no introduction, into the most sacred rite of the old covenant, of a ceremony which looks liker demon-worship than a parable of the great expiation for a world’s sins.
The question for us is, What spiritual ideas are contained in this Levitical symbolism? There is signified, surely, the condition of approach to God. Remember how the Israelites had impressed on their minds the awful sanctity of ‘within the veil.’ The inmost shrine was trodden once a year only by the high priest, and only after anxious lustrations and when clothed in pure garments, he entered ‘with sacrifice and incense lest he die.’ This ritual was for a gross and untutored age, but the men of that age were essentially like ourselves, and we have the same sins and spiritual necessities as they had.
The two goats are regarded as one sacrifice. They are a ‘sin offering.’ Hence, to show how unimportant and non-essential is the distinction between them, the ‘lot’ is employed; also, while the one is being slain, the other stands before the ‘door of the Tabernacle.’ This shows that both are parts of one whole, and it is only from the impossibility of presenting both halves of the truth to be symbolised in one that two are taken. The one which is slain represents the sacrifice for sin. The other represents the effects of that sacrifice. It is never heard of more. ‘The Lamb of God taketh away the sins of the world.’ ‘As far as the east is from the west, so far hath He removed our transgressions from us.’
I. The perfect removal of all sin is thus symbolised.
Notice {1} the vivid consciousness of sin which marked Judaism.
Was it exaggerated or right?
The same consciousness is part of all of us, but how overlaid! how stifled!
That consciousness once awakened has in it these elements-a bitter sense of sin as mine, involving guilt; despair as to whether I can ever overcome it; and fearful thoughts of my relation to God which conscience itself brings.
{2} The futility of all attempts to remove these fears.
False religions have next to nothing to say about forgiveness. Sacrifices and lustrations they have, but no assurance of absolution. Systems of philosophy and morals have nothing to say but that the universe goes crashing on, and if you have broken its laws you must suffer. That is all, or only the poor cheer of ‘Well! you have fallen, get up and go on again!’ So men often drug themselves into forgetfulness. They turn away from the unwelcome subject, and forget it at the price of all moral earnestness and often of all happiness; a lethargic sleep or a gaiety, as little real as that of the Girondins singing in their prison the night before being led out to the guillotine.
It is only God’s authoritative revelation that can ensure the cure, only He can assure us of pardon, and of the removal of all barriers between ourselves and His love. Only His word can ensure, and His power can effect, the removal of the consequences of our sins. Only His word can ensure, and His power effect, the removal of the power of evil on our characters.
{3} Still the question, Can guilt ever be cancelled? often assumes a fearful significance. Doubtless much seems to say that it cannot be.
{a} The irrevocableness of the past.
{b} The rigid law of consequences in this world.
{c} The indissoluble unity of an individual life and moral nature, confirmed by the experience of failure in all attempts at reformation of self.
{d} The consciousness of disturbed relations with God, and the prophecy of judgment. All this that ancient symbol suggested. The picture of the goat going away, and away, and away, a lessening speck on the horizon, and never heard of more is the divine symbol of the great fact that there is full, free, everlasting forgiveness, and on God’s part, utter forgetfulness. ‘Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow.’ ‘I will remember them no more at all for ever.’
II. The bearing away of sin is indissolubly connected with sacrifice.
Two goats were provided, of which one was offered for a sin offering, indicating that sacrifice came first; then the removal of sin was symbolised by the sending away of the second goat. There is an evident reference to this sequence in the words ‘without shedding of blood there is no remission.’ The two goats represent Christ’s work; the one in its essence, the other in its effect.
The one teaches that sacrifice is a necessary condition of pardon. Forgiveness was not given because the offerer confessed his guilt or because ‘God was merciful,’ but because the goat had been slain as a sin offering. There is deep spiritual truth for us in this symbolism. We do not need to enter on the philosophy of atonement, but simply to rest on the fact-that the only authority on which we can be sure of forgiveness at all indissolubly associates the two things, sacrifice and pardon. We have no reason to believe in forgiveness except from the Bible record and assurance.
Was the Mosaic ritual a divinely appointed thing? If so, its testimony is conclusive. But even if it were only the embodiment of human aspirations and wants, it would be a strong evidence of the necessity of some such thing as forgiveness.
The shallow dream that God’s forgiveness can be extended without a sacrifice having been offered does not exalt but detracts from the divine character. It invariably leads to an emasculated abhorrence of evil, and detracts from the holiness of God, as well as introduces low thoughts of the greatness of forgiveness and of the infinite love of God.
III. The bearing away of sin is associated with man’s laying of his sins on the sacrifice appointed by God.
We have seen that the two goats must be regarded as together making one whole. The one which was slain made ‘atonement . . .because of the uncleannesses of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, even all their sins,’ but that expiation was not actually effective till Aaron had ‘laid his hands on the head of the live goat, and confessed over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, . . .and put them on the head of the live goat, and sent him away into the wilderness.’ The sacrifice of the slain goat did not accomplish the pardon or removal of the people’s sins, but made it possible that their sins should be pardoned and removed.
Then the method by which that possibility is realised is the laying hands on the scapegoat and confessing the sins upon it. The sins which are actually forgiven, by virtue of the atonement made for all sins, are those which it bears away to the wilderness.
This answers, point for point, to repentance and faith. By these the possibility is turned into an actuality for as many as believe on Christ.
Christ has died for sin. Christ has made atonement by which all sin may be forgiven; whether any shall actually be forgiven depends on something else. It is conceivable that though Christ died, no sin might be pardoned, if no man believed. His blood would not, even then, have been shed in vain, for the purpose of it would have been fully effected in providing a way by which any and all sin could be forgiven. So that the whole question whether any man’s sin is pardoned turns on this, Has he laid his hand on Christ? Faith is only a condition of forgiveness, not a cause, or in itself a power. There was no healing in the mere laying of the hand on the head of the goat.
It was not faith which was the reason for forgiveness, but God’s love which had provided the sacrifice.
God’s will is not a bare will to pardon, nor a bare will to pardon for Christ’s sake, but for Christ’s sake to pardon them who believe. ‘Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world.’ ‘Dost thou believe on the Son of God?’ ‘Through this Man is preached the remission of sins.’
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On vv11, 16, 18, 20 atonement (See Scofield "Exo 29:33").
atonement (See Scofield "Exo 29:33").
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On v15 The offerings for the People
The offerings for the People
v. 15. Then shall he kill the goat of the sin-offering that is for the people, the slaying taking place, of course, outside in the court, and bring his blood within the veil, into the Most Holy Place, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy-seat and before the mercy-seat;
Read full note →
v. 16. and he shall make an atonement for the Holy Place, the Sanctuary itself being in need of cleansing, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins, for it was exposed to defilement in the midst of a sinful people; and so shall ha do for the Tabernacle of the Congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness. Thus both the sins of the priests, with which they had contaminated the Sanctuary, and the transgressions of the people, which also defiled the habitation of God in their midst, had to be expiated on the great Day of Atonement.
v. 17. And there shall be no man in the Tabernacle of the Congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the Holy Place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, for the entire priesthood, and for all the congregation of Israel. Everything and every person that was defiled had to be kept away from the Most Holy Place during this most solemn part of the ceremony, and the entire responsibility rested upon the high priest alone. While all the members of the congregation were, on this day, to feel the damnable nature of sin, the high priest was to be particularly conscious of this fact, since he acted in the name of all the children of Israel.
v. 18. And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the Lord, to the altar of incense, and make an atonement for it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about. So the blood of both kinds of sin-offering was mingled in the expiatory rite, the faults of both the priests and the people being atoned for in the sight of God by this third stage of the day’s sacrificial ceremonies. Note that even the altar, as an instrument used for purposes of purification and atonement, had to be cleansed of the defilement clinging to it by reason of the worship of sinners.
v. 19. And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel. The ceremonies of the great Day of Atonement were largely Messianic types. Christ is the true High Priest, holy, blameless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens, Heb 7:26. By His own blood He entered in once into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption for us, Heb 9:12.
v. 20. And when he hath made an end of reconciling the Holy Place and the Tabernacle of the Congregation and the altar, he shall bring the live goat, the second animal of the sin- offering.
v. 21. And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, not only one, as in the ordinary sacrifices, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, individually and collectively, and all their transgressions in all their sins, all the misdeeds and trespasses which brought upon them the wrath of Jehovah, putting them upon the head of the goat, the "remover of sins," and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man in to the wilderness, one who stood ready to go upon the instant, without loss of time;
v. 22. and the go at shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited, into a desert and desolate place, for complete removal; and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness. Thus the fourth part of the special ceremonies of the day was brought to a close.
v. 23. And Aaron shall come in to the Tabernacle of the Congregation, and shall put off the linen garments which he put on when he went in to the Holy Place, and shall leave them there, since they were used only in the rite of atonement on this one day in the year;
v. 24. and he shall wash his flesh with water in the Holy Place, where the ablutions of the priests were ordinarily performed, at the laver near the entrance of the Tabernacle, and put on his garments, the ordinary vestments of his office made of the fine variegated cloth, and come forth, and offer his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people, in either case a ram, and make an atonement for himself and for the people.
v. 25. And the fat of the sin-offering shall he burn upon the altar. All this could be done only after the defilement of sin had been entirely removed.
v. 26. And he that let go the goat for the scapegoat, for the complete removal of the sin placed upon his head, shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward come into the camp, thus also cleansing himself of the impurity of contact with the sin-offering.
v. 27. And the bullock for the sin-offering, and the goat for the sin-offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the Holy Place, shall one carry forth without the camp; and they shall burn in the fire their skins and their flesh and their dung.
v. 28. And he that burneth them shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp. He also had to be cleansed from the contamination which came to him by touching the sin-offering. The second goat is also a type of Christ, who is the true "Remover of Sin. " The Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all, Isa 53:6, and He not only bore them, but He took them away, Joh 1:29, removed them so completely that their guilt no longer rests upon us. Thus Christ has earned an eternal redemption for us.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 20, 23, 25 the scapegoat
the scapegoat
"the goat that is sent away." Aaron was to have someone set the goat free in the wilderness.
Read full note →
on which the lot fell
"which the lot designated"
But the goat ... must be brought alive before Yahweh
This can be stated in active form. AT: "But Aaron must bring the goat ... alive before Yahweh" (See: Active or Passive)
translationWords
lots
life
send
desert
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv8, 16, 23 16:8 The Hebrew term ‘aza’zel (Azazel) is found only…
16:8 The Hebrew term ‘aza’zel (Azazel) is found only in 16:8, 10, 26. This word has generally been interpreted in four different ways: (1) as a word meaning “the goat of going away”; (2) as a demon that lived in the wilderness; (3) as a strengthened form of the Hebrew word for “go, leave,” meaning “utter loss”; and (4) as a rocky cliff over which the goat was pushed. Since this goat represented the removal of the sins of Israel from the camp (16:22), the first interpretation is probably the simplest solution.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.