The Scapegoat and the Atonement

Objection:

I acknowledge your response to my previous objection, but I must stand firm in my belief that your perspective effectively reduces Satan to a sin bearer for you. It’s clearly your stance, because I refuse to let him bear my sins! That sacred role belongs solely to Jesus, who takes on my sins with grace and righteousness. It’s perplexing how anyone could confuse the two, undermining the very essence of what Jesus accomplished. This perspective not only distorts the truth but also diminishes the power of Christ’s sacrifice.

Answer:

As mentioned in this objection, we have previously addressed the idea that both goats symbolize Christ (YOUR VIEW MAKES SATAN YOUR SAVIOR AND VICARIOUS SUBSTITUTE). Since this viewpoint has resurfaced, we will respond to it again in a more comprehensive manner.

The claim that we consider Satan to be our vicarious substitute and savior arises from our belief that the scapegoat represents Satan. A crucial Scripture passage that supports this interpretation is Leviticus 16, which outlines the ritual for the Day of Atonement.

Those who claim that we make Satan our savior argue that the scapegoat represents Christ just as much as the slain goat does. Here are the main reasons they present to support this belief:

1. That the Hebrew word “Azazel,” which is translated as “scapegoat” in the King James Version, should be understood as “goat of departure.” This is derived from two Hebrew words: one meaning “goat” and the other meaning “to depart.”
2. That the Azazel goat is considered a sin offering, just like the Lord’s goat that was sacrificed.
3. The act of the Azazel goat bearing away sins symbolizes Christ’s bearing away of our sins. 
4. Meanwhile, the slain goat represents Christ’s death on Calvary, while the live goat draws attention to the risen and living Savior. It is important to note that both Christ’s resurrection and death are essential components of the plan of salvation. Furthermore, the act of someone accompanying the live goat to a desolate place illustrates the finality of the sins being removed, indicating their impossibility of returning.

Those who accuse us of misrepresenting the concept of the scapegoat often suggest that it symbolizes a specific aspect of Christ’s work. In their critiques, they tend to create the impression that their viewpoint is the widely accepted orthodox belief throughout Christendom. As a result, we are unjustly portrayed as proponents of unusual and heretical doctrines.

Now, let us examine these four reasons.

First Reason Examined

The claim regarding the meaning of the word Azazel cannot be definitively proven, as we will discover through an examination of its etymology later in this chapter.

Second Reason Examined

We do not believe that the Bible teaches that Azazel is a sin offering. If we were limited to just the fifth verse of Leviticus 16, we might conclude that both goats are considered sin offerings. However, the Scriptures quickly clarify that a unique procedure was followed. When the two goats were brought to the door of the tabernacle, lots were cast to determine their roles. This practice of casting lots has no parallel in the sacrificial service elsewhere in the Bible. The main idea conveyed by the use of lots throughout Scripture is that of making a decision between two or more options. For example, two candidates were selected to fill the office of apostleship after Judas, and the casting of lots determined which of the two would take on that role.

This understanding is further supported by the fact that after the lots were cast, the term used for the sin offering refers to a single goat. “Aaron shall bring the goat [not goats] upon which the Lord’s lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering” (Leviticus 16:9). This is also noted in verses 15 and 27.

Those who argue that both the scapegoat and the slain goat represent Christ often reference Leviticus 5:7-10 for a parallel. In this passage, provisions are made for someone who cannot afford a lamb to bring “two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, unto the LORD; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering” (Leviticus 5:7). However:

a. The priest did not cast lots for the birds, so the most significant point of comparison is absent.

b. Both birds were offered to the Lord, but only one goat served that purpose.

c. Both birds were killed by the priest.

In summary, the casting of lots and the specific roles assigned to the goats in Leviticus illustrate a unique and distinct procedure that does not align with other sacrificial practices.

Reference is sometimes made to the two birds brought for the purification of a leprous man (Lev. 14:4-7), but thisreference can be addressed by the comments “a” and “b” above and by the simple observation that there is no allusion to a sin offering or to the purging of sin in this context. Lange’s commentary discusses the dual offering of the poor and notes that the two birds used for the leprous man’s purification were not a sacrifice.

The manner in which these two goats were presented before the Lord is unique within the Levitical service. This fact suggests that a fundamentally new and significant truth was intended to be conveyed by this ritual. Critics would likely agree with this general statement, arguing that the presence of these two animals was necessary to accurately represent the work of Christ as a sin offering. However, making such a claim implies that all other aspects of the Levitical ritual concerning various sin offerings, including the Passover Lamb—which the Scripture explicitly identifies as the precise type of Christ’s sacrifice for us (1 Cor. 5:7)—is somehow insufficient in its symbolism. 

Furthermore, how can a live animal be regarded as a sin offering? In every other case related to the sacrificial system, the sin offering was required to be slain. Is this instance an exception where a sin offering remains alive? If that is the case, what happens to the clearly stated principle that underlies the entire sacrificial system: “Without shedding of blood is no remission” of sin (Heb. 9:22)? Given that the priest does not take the life of the second goat, how can it hold any value for the remission of the people’s sins? If it lacks this remission value, how can it be accurately described as a sin offering?

What is the need for remitting the sins of the people twice? The blood of the slain goat is brought into the sanctuary, where the sins of the people have been symbolically transferred throughout the year, in order to “make an atonement for the holy place because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel and their transgressions in all their sins” (Leviticus 16:16). Once the priest has finished reconciling the holy place, the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he then turns to the live goat. The idea that the second goat should atone again for the sins seems puzzling, even to those who support that interpretation.

In an article titled “The Meaning of ‘Azazel'” published in the Moody Bible Institute Monthly, Grant Stroh explores this topic further:

“Since the sins of ‘all the congregation of Israel’ had already been atoned for by the death of the first goat, what is the significance of confessing and placing them upon the head of the live goat that was to carry them away with him?” March, 1932.

However, he tries to prevent this fact from supporting our view by immediately adding:

“If these sins already had been atoned for, it certainly is incongruous to explain this ceremony as an act of judgment. This much ought to be clear.”

The question of whether the concept of judgment is incongruous will be discussed later. However, it should be clear that if the sins of the Israelites were already atoned for by the death of the first goat, then it is inconsistent to view the second goat as a sin offering.

Mr. Stroh continues to support his belief that the live goat directs our attention to the risen and living Savior. He notes that “in the New Testament, the death and resurrection of our Lord are inseparably linked.” He cites Paul’s statement: “If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins” (1 Corinthians 15:17). If “the sins of all the congregation of Israel had already been atoned for by the death of the first goat,” which represents Christ’s death on the cross, then why must the freeing of believers from sin in the antitype depend on a further act, namely, the resurrection?

To maintain that the live goat also represents Christ, those who hold this view of Azazel must overlook, if not entirely contradict, their earlier assertion that complete atonement for sin was achieved at the cross.

Third Reason Examined

Attempting to draw a parallel between the actions of the second goat, which represents the bearing away of sins, and Christ’s role in bearing our sins contradicts the clear statements found in Scripture. The Bible tells us, “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree” (1 Peter 2:24). In the margin, it reads “to the tree,” while the American Revised Version states: “Who his own self bare our sins in his body upon the tree,” with the margin noting “carried up … to the tree.”

It has been suggested that the live goat was necessary to demonstrate a function that the slain goat could not fulfill, specifically the act of bearing away sins. However, John the Baptist (John 1:29) used the image of the Lamb, which for the Jews would symbolize the sacrificial lamb whose blood was poured out, to illustrate Christ’s bearing of our sins. Clearly, John the Baptist understood Christ’s bearing of sins in a manner similar to Peter’s view (1 Peter 2:24), rather than in the way some interpret, who liken the scapegoat to Christ.

The Scriptures are explicit in conveying that the act of bearing, carrying, or taking away sins is directed from us to the “tree.” This understanding effectively dismantles any seemingly plausible parallel between Christ and the second goat, which relies on the word “bear.” Therefore, it’s evident that the significance of the live goat’s act of bearing sins must differ from that of Christ in bearing them.

Fourth Reason Examined

Those who claim that the live goat “directs our attention to the risen and living Savior” must, for consistency in their symbolism, believe that Christ rose from the dead burdened with the sins He had carried to the tree. The ritual clearlyindicates that the second goat should be viewed as so unclean that the man who led it away into the wilderness was required to “wash his clothes and bathe his flesh in water” (Lev. 16:26) before returning to the camp. Do the advocates of this doctrine truly believe they see a parallel between this depiction of the second goat and the glorified Christ, who rose from the tomb and instructed Mary, “Touch me not”?

Biblical Authorities Cited

So much for the main reasons presented for the interpretation that views both the live goat and the slain goat as representations of Christ. Now we will look at the testimonies of a representative group of Biblical authorities, including Jews and Christians, both liberal and conservative, regarding Azazel. These quotations will provide additional evidence against the interpretation we have been discussing and offer the reader the chance to determine for themselves whether our belief that Azazel represents Satan is indeed a strange or anti-Christian doctrine.

To ensure brevity, much of the repetitive content in these quotations has been removed. This summary does not attempt to present the complete arguments for the various views related to Azazel. However, enough has been included to highlight the main reasons supporting the principal perspectives. The argument referencing the supposed parallel between the two goats and the dual offering for a person with leprosy has been excluded, as it has already been addressed.

McClintock and Strong’s Encyclopaedia

“Scapegoat (Hebrew, Azazel) is the name given in the A.V. to one of the two goats used in the sin offering for the entire community of Israel on the great Day of Atonement, the goat which was to be sent away into the wilderness. . . . There can be no doubt that this has the appearance of being some sort of personage, or interest personified, standing over against Jehovah, or somehow contra-distinguished from Him. But opinions have front early times been divided on the subject.

1. The one followed by our translators, which regards it as a name for the goat itself, is of great antiquity, and has numbers on its side….
2. By others it has been taken as the name of a place….
3. Others, again, have taken the word as a pealpal form of the Arabic verb to remove, . . . so that the meaning comes to be for a complete removing or dismissal (Tholuck, Steudel, Winer, Bshr). Grammatically, no objection can be urgedagainst this view; and it undoubtedly accords well with the general import of this part of the rite. ‘The true expiation,’ to use the words of Bahr, ‘was effected by the blood of the first goat, which was set apart for Jehovah; on the other hand, the ceremony with the other goat appears as a mere addition made for special reasons, a kind of complement to the wiping away of the sins which had already been effected by means of the sacrifice.’. . .
4. But there is still another class of writers who are disposed to claim for the word a more distinctly personal existence, and who would refer it directly to Satan. This view is certainly of high antiquity. . .

“It was very common with the rabbins, as in later times it has the support of many authorities Spencer, Ammon, Rosemniffier, Gesenius, etc., who hold it to be equivalent to the Roman averruncus, or evil demon, which was supposed to inhabit desert places, and who needed to be propitiated. But adopted also, though purged of this idolatrous connection, by Witsius, Meyer, Alting, Hengstenberg. Also quite recently by Vaihinger and Kurtz. These writers hold that the view in question best preserves the contrast between the two goats, one for Jehovah, and one for the great adversary Azazel. The latter a being as well as the former, and a being who (as demons generally) was supposed to have his peculiar dwelling in the desert. The goat, however, that was sent to this evil spirit-emphatically the removed or separate one-was no sacrifice, but rather a witness that the accepted sacrifice had been made. It proclaimed, as it were, ‘that the horrible wilderness, the abode of impure spirits, is alone the place to which the sins of the people, as originally foreign to human nature and society, properly belong. That Azazel, the abominable, the sinner from the beginning (John 8:44), is the one from whom they have proceeded, and to whom they must again with abhorrence be sent back, after the solemn atonement and absolution of the congregation have been accomplished’ (Vaihinger). No doubt, as thus explained, the leading import of the transaction with this goat is in proper accordance with the service of the day. But it cannot appear otherwise than strange that, in the most sacred rite of the old covenant, Satan should be so formally recognized as, according to this view, he must have been.” (McClintock and Strong, Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, vol. 9, pp. 397, 398, art. “Scapegoat”)

Encyclopedic Dictionary

“Azazel. – 1. In Scripture: A word occurring in Leviticus 16:8, 10, and 26, where it is translated ‘scapegoat’. But the antithesis which makes the one goat be for Jehovah and the other for Azazel, is best preserved by supposing Azazel to he such a being as Satan or some other evil spirit.” (The Encyclopedic Dictionary, Volume 1, 397.)

Hastings’ Bible Dictionary

“Etymology, origin, and significance [of Azazel] are still matters of conjecture. The A.V. designation scapegoat … obscures the fact that the word Azazel is a proper name in the original, and in particular the name of a powerful spirit or demon supposed to inhabit the wilderness or ‘solitary land’ ([Lev.] 16:22, R.V.).” (Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, p. 77, art. “Azazel.”)

Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia

“The meaning of the word [Azazell has occasioned much discussion. Starting from the fact that ‘for Yahweh’ and ‘for Azazel’ stand in opposition (verse 8), many think that it is the name of a being opposed to Yahweh, a desert monster, a demon, or directly Satan. Such as attempt an etymological interpretation then explain it as characterizing the demon or Satan as removed or apostatized from God, or a being repelled by men (averruncus), or one which does things apart and in secret (from azal, ‘to go away’). Others conceive of Azazel, not as a proper name, but as an appellative noun and modified reduplicated form of a root ‘azal,’ ‘to remove, retire.’. . . The contrast between ‘for Yahweh’ and ‘for Azazel,’ however, in verse 8 favors the interpre!ation of Azazel as a proper noun, and a reference to Satan suggests itself. . . . A definite explanation, satisfactory to all, can hardly be looked for.” (The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 1, p. 389, art. “Azazel.”)

Smith’s Bible Dictionary

“In regard to the Hebrew word Azazel (‘scapegoat,’ A.V.), the opinions most worthy of notice are: 1. A designation of the goat itself. The old interpreters in general, the Vulgate, Symmachus, Aquila, Luther, the A.V., etc., supposed it to equal the goat sent away, or let loose. But the application of Azazel to the goat itself involves the Hebrew text in difficulty…. 2. The name of the place to which the goat was sent. But the place is specified in Leviticus 16:10, 21, 22 (Gesenius). 3. A personal being to whom the goat was sent. (a) Gesenius makes Azazel equal averter, expiator, and supposes it to be some false deity who was to be appeased by a sacrifice of the goat. (b) Others have regarded him as an evil spirit, or the devil himself. . . . 4. An explanation of the word which seems less objectionable, if not wholly satisfactory, would render the designation of the lot (Lev. 16:8, etc., ‘for the scapegoat,’ A.V.) ‘for complete sending away. . . . (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, p. 83, art. “Atonement, the Day of.”)

Jewish Encyclopedia

“Azazel (scapegoat, Leviticus 16, A.V.): The name of a supernatural being mentioned in connection with the ritual of the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16). After Satan, for whom he was in some degree a preparation, Azazel enjoys the distinction of being the most mysterious extra human character in sacred literature. Unlike other Hebrew proper names, the name itself is obscure. . . . Most modern scholars . . . have accepted the opinion mysteriously hinted at by Ibn Ezra and expressly stated by Nahmanides to Leviticus 16:8, that Azazel belongs to the class of ‘se’irim,’ goat like demons….

“Far from involving the recognition of Azazel as a deity, the sending of the goat was, as stated by Nahmanides, a symbolic expression of the idea that the people’s sins and their evil consequences were to be sent back to the spirit of desolation and ruin, the source of all impurity. The very fact that the two goats were presented before YHWH [Jehovah] before the one was sacrificed and the other sent into the wilderness, was proof that Azazel was not ranked with YHWH,but regarded simply as the personification of wickedness in contrast with the righteous government of YHWH. . . .

“Azazel would therefore appear to be the head of the supernatural beings of the desert. . . . The fact that such a ceremony as that in which he figured was instituted, is not a contravention of Leviticus 17:7, by which demon worship was suppressed. For Azazel, in the instance, played a merely passive part. Moreover, as shown, the symbolical act was really a renunciation of his authority. Such is the signification of the utter separation of the scapegoat from the people of Israel.” (The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 2, pp. 365-367, art. “Azazel’)

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

“By the use of the same preposition le in connection with Jehovah and Azazel, it seems natural to regard the expressions as entirely parallel and to think of some personal being. Some interpret this word as referring to a demon of the wilderness. . . . and explain the term as ‘one who has separated himself from God,’ or ‘he who has separated himself,’ or ‘he who misleads others.’ But a demon of this kind could not possibly be placed in contrast to Jelinvah in this way. . . In later times the word Azazel was by many Jews and also by Christian theologians, such as Origen, regarded as that Satanhimself who had fallen away from God. In this interpretation the contrast found in verse 8, in case it is to be regarded as a full parallelism, would be perfectly correct. But it must be acknowledged that in Holy Scripture, Satan is nowhere calledby the name of Azazel. . . . It is accordingly advisable to interpret Azazel adjectively, i.e., to forgo finding a completeparallelism in verse 8, and to regard the preposition in connection with Jehovah as used differently from its use with Azazel. . . . With this interpretation a certain hardness yet remains for our linguistic sense, because we cannot find a good translation for the adjective. . . .

“Both goats, according to verse 5, are to be regarded as a single sin sacrifice, even should we interpret Azazel as demon or Satan, and we are accordingly not at all to understand that a sacrifice was brought to these beings…. In the personal interpretation, we could have, in addition to the idea of the removal of the guilt, also a second idea, namely, that Azazel can do no harm to Israel, but must be content with his claim to a goat which takes Israel’s place.” (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 1, pp. 343, 344, art. “Azazel.”)

Kitto’s Encyclopaedia

“The only difficulty here, and that is a great one, is with respect to the meaning of the word Azazel, which our translators, in common with a large class of modern commentators, regard as applied to the goat itself, and render it by ‘scapegoat.’ Others produce reasons, not easily answered, for showing that the word must be taken as a proper name. Then arises the question. What is the name? Several of the rabbinical writers regard it as the name of the place to which the scapegoat was conducted…. A step further, however, brings it more within the range of our recognition-this is, that Azazel is but a name for Satan as was the opinion of most of the Jewish writers and of the early Christian church. And that the meaning of the ceremony is, that while the remission of sin is effected by the sacrificed goat (for without shedding of blood there was no remission, Heb. 9:22). The other was laden with the sins already, through the other goat, pardoned, by way of symbolically notifying the fact of Satan, and of triumphing in his discomfiture…. There is another more common explanation, which, if correct, forms a very beautiful interpretation of the typical rite. This view recognizes the substantial typical identity of the two goats, and in the victim goat sees Christ dying for our sins, and in the liberated goat views Him as rising again for our justification. But it must be admitted that the whole subject forms one of the greatest difficulties of Scripture.” (John Kitto, Encyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, p. 363, art. “Goat, Scape.”)

Lange’s Commentary

“In regard to the meaning of Azazel: in the great variety of etymologies given for the word by scholars of the highest standing, it may be assumed as certain that nothing can be positively determined by the etymology. . . . Not only the roots themselves are varied, but their signification also, and still further the signification of the compound. Little light can be had from the ancient versions. The Sam., and the Targs. of Onk., John., and Jerus., retain the word unchanged: so also does the Syriac…. The Jewish authorities differ, . . . many of them explaining the word of the devil…. The great majority of modern commentators agree with Spencer and Rosenmuller in interpreting the word itself of the devil, although Bahr, Winer. and Tholuck contend for the sense complete removal.” (Lange’s Commentary, Notes on Leviticus 16.)

New Standard Bible Dictionary

“Azazel must … be the name either of the act of sending the goat away into the wilderness or, preferably, of the person to whom it was sent, possibly a demon in the wilderness….

“In Israel it [the Atonement Day ritual] … was used to express the thought that sin belongs to a power or principle hostile to Jehovah, and its complete purgation must include its being sent back to its source.” (New Standard Bible Dictionary, p. 85 (Funk and Wagnalls).)

Teachers’ and Students’ Bible Encyclopedia

“To determine which of the two goats was to be slain, and which sent alive into the wilderness,’ it was ordered that the priest should cast lots upon the two goats. One lot for the Lord (Jehovah), and the other lot for the scapegoat,’ Lev. 16:8, but literally for Azazel, a word nowhere else used. There can he no doubt that this has the appearance of being some sort of personage, or interest personified, standing over against Jehovah, or somehow contradistinguished from him. But opinions have from early times been divided on the subject.” (Rev. Patrick Fairbairn, D.D., Teachers’ and Students’ Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 6, p. 109, art. “Scapegoat.”)

Encyclopedia Biblica

“The meaning of Azazel is much disputed; it is. of course, a subject closely connected with the inquiry’ into the origin of the custom. It is at least certain that, as Azazel receives one goat while Yahwe [Jehovah] receives the other, both must be personal beings.” (T. K. Cheyne, M. A., D. D., and J. Sutherland Black M. A., LL. D., Encyclopedia Biblica, vol. 1, p. 395, art. “Azazel.”)

Eadie’s Biblical Cyclopedia

“A common opinion is, that the one goat which was slain represented Christ dying and dead for the sins of man, and that the other goat, which lived and was dismissed, symbolized Christ risen and pleading our cause. But it might be objected to such a view that the sins of the Hebrew nation were laid on the live goat after its fellow had been sacrificed. An arrangement which does not harmonize with the actual atonement of the Son of God, for our sins were laid, not upon the risen Savior, but upon Him before He died, and in His death. We incline to the oldest view of this subject-a view commonin the church till the period of Julian the apostate, by whom it was abused and caricatured.

“The language in the original is precise and peculiar- It reads, ‘And Aaron shall cast lots on the two goats-ONE FOR JEHOVAH, ONE FOR AZAZEL.’ What we are to understand by Azazel has been much disputed. The language appears to us to imply the personality of Azazel-‘one for Jehovah, one for Azazel.’ By Azazel we venture to understand Satan, as do almost all the ancient versions, which leave the word, as they do the names of other persons, un-translated. Satan is not here, as some allege against this opinion, put on an equality with God; for the two goats were both brought ‘to Jehovah,’ and were His. While the very casting of lots, which was in itself a solemn appeal to God, shows that Jehovah claimed the power of disposal. Neither can it be objected that this was in any sense a sacrifice to Satan, for the animal was not slain to him; it was only sent to him in disgrace. Bearing upon it sins which God had already forgiven, it was sent to, Azazel in the wilderness.

“The phrase’ scapegoat,’ by which the strange term Azazel is rendered in our version, came from the ‘hircus emissarius’ of the Vulgate. The term Azazel may mean the ‘apostate one’ a name which Satan merits, and which he seems to have borne among the Jews. It was Satan that brought sin into the world; and this seduction of man adds to his guilt, and consequently to his punishment. Sin is now pardoned in God’s mercy. The one goat was sacrificed as a sin offering; its blood was carried into the holy place, and the mercy scat was sprinkled with it. Guilt was therefore canceled; by this shedding of blood there was remission. But sin, though pardoned, is yet hateful to God, and it cannot dwell in His sight: it is removed away to a ‘land not inhabited’ severed from God’s people, and sent away to man’s first seducer. The sins of a believing world are taken off them, and rolled back on Satan, their prime author and instigator. Though the penalty is remitted to believers, it is not remitted to him who brought them into apostasy and ruin. The tempted are restored, but the whole punishment is seen to fall on the arch tempter.” (Eadie’s Biblical Cyclopedia, from the Original Text of John Eadie, D. D., LL. D., late professor of Biblical Literature and Exegesis to the United Presbyterian Church, art. “Scapegoat,” p. 577. Preface to the new edition written by A. H. Sayce, of Oxford, and bears date of 1901.)

Sunday School Times

“Of the two goats, one was for Jehovah, signifying God’s acceptance of the sin offering; the other was for Azazel. This is probably to be understood as a person, being parallel with Jehovah in the preceding clause. So Azazel is probably a synonym for Satan. The goat for Azazel, the scapegoat, as it is somewhat misleadingly translated, typifies God’s challenge to Satan (cf. Job 1:8; Eph. 3:10).” (J. Russell Howden, Notes on the Sunday School Lessons in Sunday School Times, Jan. 15, 1927.)

Bible Translations

Following is a partial list of the translations of the Bible that retain the original word “Azazel” in the text:

• English Revised Version
• American Revised Version
• American Baptist Improved
• Rotherharn’s
• Moulton’s
• Moffatt’s
• Darby’s
• Smith’s
• J. Powis
• Leeser’s (Jewish translation of the Old Testament) Jewish Publication Society translation, 1917. (The Old Testament by a committee of Jewish scholars. Probably the most authoritative translation among English-speaking Jews.)

Conclusions From Quotations

Based on the previous quotations, we can draw several important conclusions:

1. The meaning of the word “Azazel” is so obscure that no doctrine can be firmly based on its attempted translation. Notably, many translations of the Bible, including Jewish versions, leave the term “Azazel” untranslated. With very few exceptions, all Bible translations either follow the King James Version and use the term “scapegoat” or leave “Azazel” as is. This decision to retain the original term suggests that translators believed the meaning was too uncertain to translate or considered “Azazel” a proper name that does not require translation. However, if “Azazel” is indeed a proper name, it must represent a being in contrast to Jehovah.
2. Throughout history, there has been a wide divergence of interpretation regarding the meaning of the Atonement Day ritual.
3. A view that has persisted among many theologians, both Jewish and Christian, is that Azazel symbolizes Satan. Lange’s commentary, which is one of the most thorough and reliable works on the subject, asserts that “the great majority of modern commentators” view Azazel as Satan (Comments on Leviticus 16).
4. This interpretation, which positions Azazel as a personal being in opposition to Jehovah, finds strong support in the Hebrew construction itself. One goat is designated “for Jehovah,” while the other is “for Azazel.” To avoid the natural conclusion of opposing personalities, implied by the similar preposition “for,” one must resort to the questionable interpretation that the preposition “in connection with Jehovah” is used differently than it is with Azazel. Nevertheless, as the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia points out, this approach introduces a “linguistic” difficulty. While technically not violating any grammatical rules, this reasoning could be seen asdubious. A significant burden of proof lies with those who assert that the preposition “for” should have different meanings in these two closely related phrases. The lack of convincing evidence has led many theologians throughout history to maintain that Azazel represents a personality opposed to Jehovah.
5. Even among theologians who do not include Satan in their interpretations and restrict the symbolism of both goats to Christ, there is a viewpoint (notably supported by Bahr) that suggests “the true expiation was effected by the blood of the first goat,” while the “ceremony with the other goat appears as a mere addition made for specific reasons,” serving as a complement to the sins already atoned for through the sacrifice. This perspective reduces the role of the “risen and living Savior,” if He is equated with the Azazel goat, to a rather pointless “mere addition.”
6. The many theologians, from ancient rabbis to recent contributors to the Sunday School Times, who believe that Azazel represents Satan, do not consider him as a substitutionary sacrifice or savior; rather, they reject that idea outright.
7. Among those who interpret Azazel as Satan, there is a recurring theme of judgment, where the pardoned sins of God’s children return to their demonic source. The idea of judgment in the Atonement Day ritual does not seem incongruous to a broad group of both Jewish and Christian theologians; in fact, many expositors find the concept of judgment to be essential to their understanding.

A Brief Survey of Our Position

We do not claim that our belief about Azazel is correct solely because many Christian leaders throughout history have held that belief. However, when our critics attempt to undermine us by suggesting that we promote strange, un-Christian doctrine regarding Azazel, it is relevant to point out the historical acceptance of this doctrine since ancient times.

This post does not allow for an extensive exploration of our teachings on the sanctuary, which provide the necessary background for our belief concerning Azazel. Detailed discussions of the sanctuary doctrine can be found in various works we have produced. Nonetheless, a brief outline is appropriate:

In the sacrifice of the Passover lamb, we see Christ, our Passover, who was slain (1 Corinthians 5:7). The Levitical service, which included priests ministering the spilled blood of various sin offerings, reflects our great High Priest in heaven who administers His blood for those who accept His sacrifice. 

The Atonement Day service, the culminating event of the Levitical cycle, was the day when all sins confessed throughout the year were finally disposed of. This acts as a type of Christ’s ultimate work in His priestly ministry for repentant sinners.

We believe that when Christ completes this final work of cleansing the heavenly sanctuary, the eternal fate of all individuals will be determined. At that time, the proclamation will be made: “He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.” (Revelation 22:11).

Azazel Enters Picture After Atonement Is Made

In the typical ritual of the high priest’s atonement for the congregation of Israel, we see parallels to Christ’s work. After completing His atonement, Christ leaves the sanctuary and places the primary guilt for sin back onto his head—the instigator of all sin. This act occurs in the context of the now-pardoned and eternally saved believers.

Furthermore, the scapegoat, which is led away into the wilderness, serves as a symbol of Satan, who is described as the scapegoat of the universe. In the Book of Revelation (20:1-3), a strong angel binds Satan and casts him into the “bottomless pit.” The Greek term for “bottomless pit” is abussos, which is also used in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament to describe the chaotic state of the earth at the beginning of creation: “Darkness was upon the face of the deep [abussos]” (Gen. 1:2). The abussos into which the devil is cast reflects an earth that has returned to a lifeless, barren state following the Second Advent. This scenario parallels the wilderness destination of the goat. We believe this interpretation of the sanctuary service provides a rational and Scriptural understanding of the role of Azazel.

Contrary to the notion that a judgment is “incongruous” as a conclusion to the work of atonement, the opposite is true. One of the most striking facts in Scripture is that after completing His intercessory work for humanity, Christ will don the garments of vengeance to execute judgment.

One final objection warrants consideration, stemming from Leviticus 16:10: “But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him.” Critics often cite this verse and assert, “If you believe the scapegoat symbolizes Satan, then you believe Satan is your savior.” We respond emphatically, “No.” We further argue, “If you interpret the scapegoat as symbolizing Christ, then you are believing in a savior who is not found anywhere in Scripture.” Please consider the following facts:

1. We firmly hold the belief that without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. As previously stated, the scapegoat’s blood was not shed; therefore, this goat cannot represent a Being capable of providing us with remission of sins. Some may try to see the atonement for our sins symbolized by an animal that is not slain and whose blood is not poured out. However, based on Scripture, we cannot agree with this view.
2. Earlier in this post, we established that only one goat, referred to as the “Lord’s goat,” is offered as a sin offering. Thus, our hope of salvation must be based on the Being represented by the goat that was sacrificed for sin. This is the only type of Savior described in the Bible. Those who suggest that a savior can come from one who was not sacrificed are teaching an unbiblical understanding of salvation. Therefore, we cannot view the living goat as representing Christ, who saves us from our sins.
3. The blood of the slain goat provided atonement “for all the congregation of Israel” for “all their sins” (Verses 16, 17). When the priest had finished applying its blood, he had “made an end of reconciling” (Verse 20). These statements are so clear that, as noted at the beginning of this chapter, our critics openly admit that “the sins of ‘all the congregation of Israel’ had already been atoned for by the death of the first goat when the high priest came out to the live goat.” Thus, the people had already been freed from their guilt and were no longer in need of a Savior from their sins when the high priest emerged from the sanctuary.
4. The Savior described in the Bible comes to our aid “while we were yet sinners” (Rom. 5:8). Poor sinners do not need a Savior who does not engage with their sins until after those sins have been atoned for. Where in the text can we find even a hint of support for the belief that sins that have already been atoned for are then transferred to Christ? This is the kind of Savior we would have if we viewed the scapegoat as a type of Christ. However, we find no such representation in Scripture. Therefore, if we believe that Azazel represents a personal being, we are logically led to view the scapegoat as typifying Satan.

Explain a Hard Passage by Simpler Ones

We willingly acknowledge, as theologians have throughout the years, that Leviticus 16:10 presents a perplexing passage. In addressing this, we have made an effort to adhere to the established principle of Bible interpretation: that is, understanding difficult passages through the lens of other, clearer texts. The various verses in Leviticus 16 concerning the function of the two goats, as well as the texts elsewhere that discuss the work of Christ for sinners, certainly prohibit us from viewing the scapegoat as representing Christ. By similar reasoning, we cannot interpret the term “atonement” in verse 10 as indicating a work akin to that performed by the slain goat.

To clarify our position, we will revisit an illustration provided under the post “YOUR VIEW MAKES SATAN YOUR SAVIOR AND VICARIOUS SUBSTITUTE,” which sheds light on the relationship of Satan, the archfiend, to the plan of salvation:

Imagine a group of men who have been arrested, tried, and convicted of various crimes. A heavy fine is imposed on them. They find themselves in a hopeless situation, as they are penniless. However, their despair turns to joy when a wealthy philanthropist offers to pay their fine. They accept the offer, and are set free. The case seems resolved, but the court continues its investigation and uncovers that a person of fiendish cunning has truly influenced these men, leading them into wrongdoing. This manipulator is then apprehended, and justice is served upon him. He is forced to pay a fine much heavier than that which relieved the poor men, as the court reasons that the fiend is doubly guilty.

Although it can be said that the philanthropist atones, or satisfies justice for the crimes of these men, we can also speak in a different sense of the archfiend atoning for those same crimes. Each of these actions satisfies justice in fundamentally different ways without creating any confusion over their meanings. Recognizing that the archfiend also provides satisfaction for these crimes does not diminish in any way the adequacy and sufficiency of the philanthropist’s generous act toward the impoverished men.

We believe this analogy clarifies the statement in Leviticus 16:10. The sins of the people are atoned for by a Substitute, represented by the slain goat. Subsequently, these atoned sins are transferred onto the head of the archfiend, Satan, symbolized by the Azazel goat, who must bear the guilt of primary responsibility for those sins. In the words of Dr. John Eadie:

“The sins … are … rolled back on Satan, their prime author and instigator. Though the penalty is remitted to believers, it is not remitted to him who brought them into apostasy and ruin. The tempted are restored, but the whole punishment is seen to fall on the arch tempter.” (Eadie’s Bible Cyclopedia, p. 577.)

There is another objection that is hardly even worth mentioning. Some argue that even if Azazel represents Satan, the goat itself does not represent Satan; instead, it is merely designated “for Azazel.” However, those who put forth this argument generally believe that the slain goat, chosen “for the Lord,” represents the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Therefore, it is consistent to affirm that the goat “for Azazel” represents Satan.