Azazel

[bloom]

Lev 16:8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat.

The word scapegoat here is translated from the word Azazel, which Strong's says means:

1) entire removal, scapegoat
a) refers to the goat used for sacrifice for the sins of the people
b) meaning dubious

He remarks that this is its definate meaning is "to remove, seperate, etc. But other conjecture that Azazel means the fallen angel or a fallen angel or the devil.

Anybody have an opinion?

 

[tall73]

In my denomination the dominant view is that it is a picture of Satan receiving the sins of the people back on himself.

But I have a few problems with this honestly. The key reason is the following:

LEV 16:6 "Aaron is to offer the bull for his own sin offering to make atonement for himself and his household. 7 Then he is to take the two goats and present them before the LORD at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 8 He is to cast lots for the two goats--one lot for the LORD and the other for the scapegoat. 9 Aaron shall bring the goat whose lot falls to the LORD and sacrifice it for a sin offering. 10 But the goat chosen by lot as the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the LORD to be used for making atonement by sending it into the desert as a scapegoat.

I don't really see how Satan can make atonement for anything. So the alternative is to see this as another symbol of Jesus. But then, why does he not die as the other goat?

It is a difficult passage, no doubt.

 

[bloom]

In my denomination the dominant view is that it is a picture of Satan receiving the sins of the people back on himself.

But I have a few problems with this honestly. The key reason is the following:



I don't really see how Satan can make atonement for anything. So the alternative is to see this as another symbol of Jesus. But then, why does he not die as the other goat?

It is a difficult passage, no doubt.

My understanding is both goats represent Jesus, the one shedding of blood and the other separating those sins, removing them (and taking them to Azazel, possibly).

Didn't Jesus descend into Hades and wrest the keys from Satan, freeing the captives there?

This is all speculation on my part however. I'm with you, how could the devil make an atonement. For me that makes it seem obvious, both goats represented Christ.

 

[justified]

Lev 16:8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat.

The word scapegoat here is translated from the word Azazel, which Strong's says means:

1) entire removal, scapegoat
a) refers to the goat used for sacrifice for the sins of the people
b) meaning dubious

He remarks that this is its definate meaning is "to remove, seperate, etc. But other conjecture that Azazel means the fallen angel or a fallen angel or the devil.

Anybody have an opinion?

There are a lot of issues here. Let me just say that using strong's to define a word is foolhardy, though.

The intertestamental period saw a growing up of traditions surrounding Azazel as a demon or an angel. Thus in I Enoch you have Azazel at the head of the watchers. Azazel is probably a spirit which haunted the desert in Hebrew idea -- this is why the goat is sent into the desert. The translation "scape goat" comes mostly from the LXX.

 

[bloom]

There are a lot of issues here. Let me just say that using strong's to define a word is foolhardy, though.

The intertestamental period saw a growing up of traditions surrounding Azazel as a demon or an angel. Thus in I Enoch you have Azazel at the head of the watchers. Azazel is probably a spirit which haunted the desert in Hebrew idea -- this is why the goat is sent into the desert. The translation "scape goat" comes mostly from the LXX.

I read where the Jews consider this to be a embarrassing text. The assumption is that they were making one sacrifice to appease God, and one sacrifice to appease the evil spirit of Azazel.

Apparently this is one of those references where the best you can do is guess. I'm going to stick with guessing it is a type of Christ, because I can not understand it as either a sacrifice to Satan or as Satan making an atonement.

I read where a parallel is made between Christ and Barabas, also. Christ being the innocent party sacrificed for our sins (sacrificed goat) and Barabas being the scapegoat, or the Azazel (evil spirit) left to live and wander.

All speculation though I suppose.

 

[justified]

I read where the Jews consider this to be a embarrassing text. The assumption is that they were making one sacrifice to appease God, and one sacrifice to appease the evil spirit of Azazel.

Apparently this is one of those references where the best you can do is guess. I'm going to stick with guessing it is a type of Christ, because I can not understand it as either a sacrifice to Satan or as Satan making an atonement.

Do you realise what you just said? You're like a church father. "I'm going to stick with it as a type of Christ" since it doesn't agree with you any other way. Folks, studying scripture is not about finding something that agrees with you. I have been proven wrong on such things that have made me want to throw up. But I'm comitted to understanding this book, whether I like where it leads me or not.

You have you to consider the possibility that at one time the Hebrews were not monotheistic.

 

[bloom]

Do you realise what you just said? You're like a church father. "I'm going to stick with it as a type of Christ" since it doesn't agree with you any other way. Folks, studying scripture is not about finding something that agrees with you. I have been proven wrong on such things that have made me want to throw up. But I'm comitted to understanding this book, whether I like where it leads me or not.

You have you to consider the possibility that at one time the Hebrews were not monotheistic.

Yes, I realize what I just said, do you? I can't understand it any other way. I realize I may be wrong. What's so hard about that? Convince me otherwise. I'll stick with what (I think) I know and understand until and or unless something gives me reason to change my understanding.

The Jews are still under the veil of blindness, so I don't accept their interpretation of scriptures necessarily. Especially when it may concern issues with respect to the Messiah, who they are still looking for.

I KNOW I don't KNOW everything and perhaps you can enlighten me. Some things are hard to understand. From my study on this subject so far it seems there is no CLEAR understanding and many varying opinions... and the best one can do is guess. Which seems to be what all the scholars have done, they've guessed. So have I, is that a crime?