“He must also take two male goats from the congregation of the Israelites for a sin offering and one ram for a burnt offering. Then Aaron is to present the sin-offering bull which is for himself and is to make atonement on behalf of himself and his household. Next he must take the two goats and stand them before the LORD at the entrance of the Meeting Tent, and Aaron is to cast lots over the two goats, one lot for the LORD and one lot for Azazel. Aaron must then present the goat which has been designated by lot for the LORD, and he is to make it a sin offering, but the goat which has been designated by lot for Azazel is to be stood alive before the LORD to make atonement on it by sending it away into the desert to Azazel… When Aaron has finished purifying the Holy Place, the Meeting Tent, and the altar, he is to present the live goat. Aaron is to lay his two hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the iniquities (awonot) of the Israelites and all their transgressions (pishehem) in regard to all their sins, and thus he is to put them on the head of the goat and send it away into the desert by the hand of a man standing ready. The goat is to bear (wa’nasa) on itself all their iniquities (awonotam) into an inaccessible (gezerah) land, so he is to send the goat away into the desert.” Leviticus 16:5-10, 20-22

tn The Hebrew term rendered “inaccessible” derives from a root meaning “to cut off” (cf. NAB “an isolated region”). Another possible translation would be “infertile land” (see HALOT 187 s.v. *גָּזֵּר and cf. NRSV “a barren region”; NLT “a desolate land.” New English Translation (NET https://netbible.org/bible/Leviticus+16; emphasis mine)

The scapegoat bears (nasa) the transgression (awon) and sin (pesha) of Israel. And as the NET notes, the word gezerah (Strong’s Hebrew 1509) is derived from the root גָּזַר (gazar), meaning “to cut” or “to decree”:

Strong’s Lexicon

gazar: To cut, to divide, to decree

Original Word: גָּזַר

Part of Speech: Verb

Transliteration: gazar

Pronunciation: gah-ZAR

Phonetic Spelling: (gaw-zar’)

Definition: To cut, to divide, to decree

Meaning: to cut down, off, to destroy, divide, exclude, decide

Word Origin: A primitive root

Corresponding Greek / Hebrew Entries: – G2919 (κρίνω, krinō): To judge, to decide

– G3724 (ὁρίζω, horizō): To determine, to appoint

Usage: The Hebrew verb “gazar” primarily means “to cut” or “to divide.” It is used in various contexts, including physical cutting or dividing, as well as metaphorical uses such as making a decree or decision. The term conveys a sense of separation or determination, often implying authority or finality in the action.

Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Hebrew culture, the act of cutting or dividing was significant in both practical and symbolic terms. Cutting could refer to physical actions, such as cutting wood or dividing land, but it also held ceremonial and legal implications. For example, covenants were often “cut” as a way of formalizing agreements. The concept of decreeing or making a decision was also important in a society where leaders and prophets were expected to make authoritative judgments.

NAS Exhaustive Concordance

Word Origin

a prim. root

Definition

to cut, divide

NASB Translation

cut down (1), cut off (6), decree (1), decreed (1), divide (2), divided (1), slice off (1).

https://biblehub.com/nasec.htm Brown-Driver-Briggs

גָּזַר verb cut, divide (Arabic  , Late Hebrew גָּזַר cut, determine, circumcise; Ethiopic   Aramaic גְּזַר,  ) —

Qal Perfect גָּזַר Habakkuk 3:17; Imperfect וַיִּגְזֹר Isaiah 9:19; 2masculine singular תִּגְזַר Job 22:28; וַיִּגְזְרוּ 2 Kings 6:4; Participle active גֹּזֵר Psalm 136:13; —

1 divide, cut in two, followed by accusative 1 Kings 3:25 (לִשְׁנָ֑יִם ׳ג) compare 1 Kings 3:26 (object not expressed).

2 divide the Red Sea (accusative) Psalm 136:13 followed by לִגְזָרִים.

3 cut down הָעֵצִים 2 Kings 6:4.

4 cut off (piece of meat to eat, but object not expressed “” אכל) Isaiah 9:19.

5 cut off, i.e. destroy, exterminate Habakkuk 3:17 (with accusative; indefinite subject), followed by מִן local

6 decree (Aramaism, compare Biblical Aramaic) Job 22:28 with accusative

Niph`al Perfect נִגְזַר2Chronicles 26:21; Esther 2:1, נִגְזָ֑רְתִּי Lamentations 3:24, נִגְזָ֑רוּ Psalm 88:6, נִגְזַרְנוּ Ezekiel 37:11; Isaiah 53:8; —

1 be cut off, separate, excluded from (מִן) temple 2 Chronicles 26:21, from (מִן) Yahweh’s hand Psalm 88:5 (of the slain), from (מִן) the land of the living Isaiah 53:8 (of the suffering servant of ׳י).

2 be cut off = destroyed Lamentations 3:54; Ezekiel 37:11.

3 be decreed, Esther 2:1 followed by עַל against (compare Qal 6).

https://biblehub.com/bsoft2.htm Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance

cut down off, decree, divide, snatch

A primitive root; to cut down or off; (figuratively) to destroy, divide, exclude, or decide — cut down (off), decree, divide, snatch.

All four of these Hebrew terms are used of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53:

“But he was pierced for our transgressions (mippashaenu), he was crushed for our iniquities (meawonotenu); the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity (awon) of us all… By oppression and judgment he was taken away. Yet who of his generation protested? For he was cut off (nigzar) from the land of the living; for the transgression (mippesha) of my people he was punished… After he has suffered, he will see the light of life[d] and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities (wa’awonotam). Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong,[h] because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore (nasa) the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.” Isaiah 53:6, 8, 11-12 New International Version (NIV)

This shows that the Servant is functioning as the scapegoat who carries away the sins of God’s people, a fact which is recognized by biblical commentators from various theological backgrounds.

THE EXPOSITORS

b. The two goats (16:5–10)

The sin offering of the people comprises two male goats, while a ram is presented for a burnt offering. Aaron commences the formal ceremonies by sacrificing the bullock as a sin offering for the priests. Only when he had been cleansed from sin and had made atonement for his house could he begin to secure forgiveness for the congregation (cf. Heb. 7:26). Aaron’s sacrificial offerings were his own property, with which he had to identify in the usual manner. Having presented the two goats to the Lord, Aaron cast lots upon them (8) as a preliminary to the purificatory rites for the community. The casting of lots (Heb. gôrālôt) probably involved the use of the sacred stones known as Urim and Thummin, and were cast in such a way as to determine which goat was to be sacrificed to the Lord, and which was to be assigned to Azazel. The meaning of this word is far from certain, which is all the more unfortunate since the ritual is otherwise preserved in a clear and straightforward manner. It was evidently such a familiar term in the wilderness and later periods that it was not thought necessary to preserve its meaning by the addition of an explanatory gloss. The word may perhaps signify ‘removal’ or ‘dismissal’, but since it occurs only in this chapter in connection with specific ritual functions, this explanation is both circumstantial and inferential. The av and niv ‘scapegoat’, which follows the Vulgate, describes quite adequately the animal that was allowed to go free, but whether the expression lĕ‘ǎzā’zēl can have this meaning is far from certain. The translation of this word has varied considerably, and includes such renderings as ‘that shall be sent out’ (Wycliffe), ‘for discharge’ (Knox), ‘Azazel’ (rsv), and ‘for the Precipice’ (neb). The idea of ‘precipice’ seems to have been derived from Talmudic tradition, where lĕ‘ǎzā’zēl was translated by ‘steep mountain’. The allusion appears to have been to the precipitous slope or rock in the wilderness from which in the post-exilic period the goat was hurled to death.

Three principal explanations have been suggested: first, that the term describes the abstract concept of removal; secondly, that the word is a proper name synonymous with the powers of evil to which the sin-laden goat quite properly went; and thirdly, that it was the name of a wilderness demon which needed to be propitiated in some manner. Any mythological explanation can be dismissed immediately as having no place whatever in the most sacred ordinance of Hebrew cultic worship. The notion that the Israelites ought to make propitiatory or other offerings to such supposed wilderness demons as satyrs was repudiated in the following chapter (Lev. 17:7), and thus it cannot be associated with the unique character of the day of atonement. Probably the best explanation is that the word was a rare technical term describing ‘complete removal’, i.e. of communal guilt, and that later personifications brought about myths and legends concerning Azazel in Jewish writings.

An interpretation of this kind accords with the general usage of the lxx (‘the one to be dismissed’) and the Mishnah. But whatever the precise meaning of the term, the purpose of this very dramatic portion of the day of atonement ritual was to place before the eyes of the Israelites an unmistakable token that their sins of inadvertence had been removed from their midst. It was a symbol of the fact that both people and land had been purged from their guilt, since a confession of communal sin would be made over the goat’s head by the high priest before it was driven out into the wilderness. The other goat, chosen by lot for the Lord, was presented as a sin offering for the people (9) and sacrificed subsequently (15). Both animals preserve the Old Testament concept of sin being taken away by an agent other than the sinner. This principle of vicarious atonement finds its fullest expression in Christ, the divine Lamb, who takes away human sin by his death (cf. John 1:29). From levitical usage the term ‘scape-goat’ is still employed to describe a person who takes the blame for some misdemeanour committed by another individual or group. (R. K. Harrison, Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 3, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980], 172-174)

Once this had been done, the high priest was to bring the goat to an open area in the tabernacle court, and confess over it all the manifold transgressions of the Israelites, which were then transferred symbolically to the animal by the imposition of Aaron’s hands. The iniquities, transgressions, and sins of the people represented the consequences of ignorance or inadvertence. But this was not all. Because the Hebrew term peša‘ (21) not merely means ‘transgressions’, but also carries with it a consistent sense of revolt or rebellion against an overlord, some of the offences for which atonement was to be made would have been committed despite the known will of God. These latter would be regarded as sins of error or accident if the sinner by true penitence showed that his misdemeanours were mostly the product of ignorance. The goat was then sent out into the wilderness area beyond the camp from which it could not return, typifying the complete removal of the nation’s sin and guilt. The rituals are entirely correct psychologically and spiritually in connecting the forgiveness of sin and the removal of guilt. The antiquity of this passage is indicated by the fact that in later periods of Israel’s history, the goat was hurled to its death from a steep cliff in the wilderness. God’s loving nature is such that he delights in being able to cleanse the sinner and effect complete removal of the sin, whether in the old dispensation (cf. Ps. 103:12; Mic. 7:19) or the new (1 John 1:7, 9). (Ibid., 175–176)

6–10. With the ritual materials identified, verses 6–10 provide an overview of what Aaron must do with the bull and the goats. Verses 11–22 will give further detail.

Aaron was to offer the bull as a ‘purification offering’ (niv sin offering) for himself and the priests (v. 6), indicating that all priests needed atonement (cf. Heb. 7:27). He would cast lots for the two goats, perhaps using the Urim and Thummim (vv. 7–8; see at 8:7–9). The lots would indicate that one goat was for the Lord (v. 8); it was to be sacrificed as a purification offering (v. 9). The other was for ‘ăzā’zēl (often translated as the scapegoat; so niv); it was to be sent into the wilderness (v. 10).

The meaning of the word ‘ăzā’zēl is uncertain; there are three main approaches. First, it could be a name, listed here parallel to the Lord’s personal name: ‘one lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel’ (v. 8, esv; so also Milgrom, 1991: 1020). Those taking this approach often suggest that Azazel would have been an evil spiritual force, such as a demon (cf. Lev. 17:7), but emphasize that the goat was not a sacrifice to this being (note that it was not slaughtered). Rather, it was used as a sign of utmost contempt, sending back to the demon a load of sin and defilement (cf. Noordtzij, 1982: 163).

The difficulty with this view is that the Lord typically tells his people to have absolutely nothing to do with false gods (Exod. 23:24; 34:13; Deut. 12:3), as he in fact does in the very next chapter (17:7). One wonders whether he would involve a demon in this rite, even in such a negative way, and risk the Israelites turning the rite into some form of appeasement to this demon (Wenham, 1979: 234).

Second, ‘ăzā’zēl could refer to a ‘rough’ or ‘rocky place’. Possible support for this approach is found in the Arabic word ‘azâzu (‘rough ground’) (Driver, 1956: 98), and would be another way of referring to the ‘land cut off’ (niv remote place), mentioned in verse 22.

Third, ‘ăzā’zēl could be a compound term, consisting of the noun ‘ēz (‘goat’) and the verb ’āzal (‘go away, disappear’), that is, a ‘goat that departs/goes away’ (cf. lxx). This leads to the traditional rendering of scapegoat (av, niv), since the goat departs bearing all the Israelites’ sins.

The second and third approaches do not deny the parallelism of verse 8; they simply recognize that it does not require ‘ăzā’zēl to be a proper name (Hess, 2008: 721; cf. niv, which maintains the parallelism nicely). Moreover, they avoid the difficulty of involving a demon in this rite. Finally, their proposed etymologies are at least plausible. At this point in our knowledge, however, it is impossible to prove either is correct, so the old advice of Bochart is perhaps best to follow: ‘… the more prudent leave the Hebrew word uninterpreted’ (cited in Bush, 1842: 147). The notes that follow will therefore refer to this goat as ‘the ‘ăzā’zēl goat’.

Regardless of the approach taken to the translation of ‘ăzā’zēl, the overall function of the goat remains clear: to make atonement on the Israelites’ behalf by bearing their sins far away (v. 10). (In this regard, the traditional rendering scapegoat actually does a good job of capturing the role the goat played on this day; see at vv. 20–22.) (Jay Sklar, Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary, ed. David G. Firth, vol. 3, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries [Nottingham, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2013], 208-210)

ii. The ‘ăzā’zēl goat: atoning for Israel by removing their sins from the camp (16:20–22)

The previous rites addressed impurity and sin as a defiling substance that had to be cleansed from the sanctuary (vv. 11–19). This rite addressed sin as a lethal substance that had to be removed from the camp (vv. 20–22).

Aaron began by confessing all the Israelites’ sins and placing them on the goat. This is in keeping with the biblical principle that confession is the necessary first step when seeking atonement (5:5; cf. Ps. 32:5; 1 John 1:9). The goat then ‘bore on itself all their sins to a land cut off’ (v. 22; my trans.). This removed the lethal substance of sin from the camp very publicly. Unlike the rites within the Most Holy Place, this rite was performed in full view of all the Israelites, who could watch the goat—laden with their sin—disappear into the wilderness, never to return (cf. Ps. 103:12).

The goat bore not only their sins, but also the penalty their sins deserved, as the following observations suggest. First, the sins were put on the goat’s head (v. 21), implying that the goat was now responsible for them (just as someone with bloodguilt on his head was responsible for it; 2 Sam. 1:15–16). Second, the goat is said to bear on itself all their sins (v. 22), and the phrase ‘to bear sin’ is used elsewhere to refer to bearing sin and its penalty (see at 5:1). Finally, the goat was sent to a ‘land cut off’ (v. 22; my trans.). The word for ‘cut off’ (gĕzērâ) is built on a root used elsewhere to describe people being cut off from worship at the temple (2 Chr. 26:21, nasv), from life (Lam. 3:54), or from the Lord himself (Ps. 88:5). In short, the lethal burden and penalty of the Israelites’ sin was taken off their shoulders and placed on the goat, which bore it away and endured its consequences on their behalf. (Cf. Isa. 53, which uses the language of this chapter to describe the suffering servant as the one who ‘bore the sin of many’ [v. 12] and was ‘cut off’ from the land of the living [v. 8]. The New Testament sees Jesus as the ultimate suffering servant who bears the sins of others [Heb. 9:28; 1 Pet. 2:24].) (Ibid., 212–213)

Meaning

The Israelites had a serious problem: the holy Lord now dwelt in their midst, but their sins and impurities defiled his holy dwelling. True, they would have atoned for many of these properly (Lev. 4–5; 11–15), but they would have missed many others, which then defiled the tabernacle more and more (see Context). How could the holy Lord continue in their midst without bringing his justice to bear against them? By means of a regular atonement ceremony—the Day of Atonement—that would cleanse and remove the Israelites’ sins and impurities so that they could continue in covenant fellowship with him.

Three rites formed the heart of the ceremony, each making atonement in its own way. First, the purification offerings focused on cleansing the Lord’s home from the defilement caused by the sins and impurities of the Israelites, including Aaron and his family (16:11–19). Next, the ‘ăzā’zēl goat functioned to bear the lethal burden of their sins and carry them far away, never to be seen again (vv. 20–22). Finally, the burnt offerings—as the third rite in the series—underscored the atonement being made (vv. 23–24; cf. at Lev. 12, Context). Taken together, these rites fully atoned for the Israelites; their sins and impurities no longer remained, and the slate was completely clean (cf. Ps. 103:12). The holy God who is offended by sin and impurity is also the compassionate and gracious God who delights to cleanse and forgive it (cf. v. 21 with Exod. 34:6b–7a; see also Mic. 7:19; 1 John 1:9).

It was of course necessary for the Israelites to accompany these rites with repentant hearts. The Lord is not interested in his people’s ability to perform ritual, but in whether they embrace him from the heart (vv. 29, 31). As with a wedding, a ceremony is an empty event if the participants are not fully committed to one another.

The New Testament describes the day of Jesus’ crucifixion as the ultimate Day of Atonement, by which he entered into the heavenly throne room itself to atone for sin (Heb. 9:24). Unlike Aaron, Jesus had no need to atone for himself, because he is a perfect high priest (cf. Heb. 5:1–3 with Heb. 4:15; 7:26–28). It is in fact because of this perfection that he can bear away others’ sins, offering his own blood to cleanse these sins fully and finally away (Heb. 9:12, 14, 28; cf. Isa. 53:11–12; see further at Introduction, pp. 73–74). If Israelite believers felt the burden of their sin lifted because of Aaron’s ministry on the Day of Atonement, how much more the believer today because of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross! (Ibid., 215–216)

16:8–10 to the wilderness of Azazel … Azazel in the wilderness. The meaning of the term “Azazel” is much debated (see ABD 1.536–537; Milgrom 1991:1020–1021). Since word meanings come from the contexts in which they are used, and this chapter contains the only four uses of the term in the OT (16:8, 10 [twice in Heb.], 26), any understanding must start from this chapter. Since the first goat was dedicated to a deity, one suggestion is that the other was as well and that Azazel was some desert demon (17:7; see 1 Enoch 8:1; 9:6; 10:4–8), the desert wilderness being a haunt of such beings (e.g., Isa 13:21–22; 34:14; Matt 12:43; Rev 18:2). A second possibility is that Azazel was a geographical term for a desert region (see 16:10, which literally reads “to Azazel, to the desert,” and 16:21–22, where the goat goes to the wilderness, also called in 16:22 “a desolate land”). The NLT seems to translate with this in mind. These two interpretations could in fact be related, with the habitation of the demon either becoming the demon’s identification (such as a Moabite coming from Moab) or the two becoming interchangeable, such as the equivalent colloquialisms “go to hell” and “go to the devil.” The identification of place with person is known elsewhere (cf. Matt 5:34–35; 23:16–22), including the phrase “the Kingdom of Heaven,” which is used in Matthew in place of “the Kingdom of God” used by the other Evangelists (cf. Matt 3:2 and Mark 1:15). A third option is that instead of the preposition le- [3807.1, 4200], which governs Azazel, being one of direction or ownership (“to/for Azazel”), it could describe its function as a goat that carries away the sins of others, though the etymological background of “Azazel” (‘aza’zel [5799, 6439]) is unknown. This is the preferred interpretation of some of the earlier versions and is followed in some modern versions (LXX, Vulgate, KJV, NASB, NIV). Since demonic worship was banned for Israel (17:7; Deut 32:16–17; Ps 106:34–39), and this goat, too, was presented “before the Lord” (16:10), the first interpretation is doubtful, though the other two have merit. Whichever interpretation is correct, the important point in this passage is that the goat was far removed from the camp of Israel. David W. Baker, “Leviticus,” in Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, ed. Philip W. Comfort, vol. 2 (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996), 114)

Commentary

When all of the sanctuary and its implements had been cleansed, Aaron turned his attention to the remaining goat, which had been chosen by God to be “for Azazel” (16:8). Standing outside the Tabernacle (16:7), and thus in sight of all of the people, Aaron laid both of his hands on the goat’s head and made confession. The laying on of hands was a part of the burnt offering of a bull (1:4), the peace offering of a bull (3:2), and also the bull purification offering for sin (4:4, 15, 24, 29, 33; 8:14), but this case was different. In those, only one of the priest’s hands was used, while here both of the high priest’s hands were specified. This special action indicated that this goat was not a sacrifice in the same way that the other animals were. In some cases, a two-handed gesture such as this transferred something from one party to the other (see Num 27:23; Deut 34:9, Moses transferring his authority to Joshua), and this could be such a transference of the sins to the goat (so NLT). Transference was not always evident, however (see 24:14, where it is an indication of the guilty party).

Confession was an oral acknowledgment of wrongdoing and was done as part of the sin (5:5) and guilt (cf. Num 5:7) offering ceremonies. The use of “confess” indicates that the ceremonies here in this chapter, and most probably all of those in the book, were not done in silence. While we do not have any actual words recorded, there were probably prayers and other words that accompanied most of the ceremonies. As people looking in on the life of ancient Israel, we often have only “video” of their lives (i.e., descriptions of the visual aspects) and lack much of the “audio.” This verse helps us understand at least the content, if not the actual wording, of what might have been said. The Mishnah (m. Yoma 6:2) suggests the wording was “O Lord, your people, the house of Israel, have committed iniquity, transgressed, and sinned before you. O, by the Lord, grant atonement, I pray, for the iniquities and sins that your people the house of Israel have committed and transgressed and sinned before you, as it is written in the Torah of your servant Moses: ‘For on this day shall atonement be made for you to purify you from all of your sins; thus you shall become pure before the Lord’ [16:30].”

Three things were confessed: wickedness, rebellion, and sin. The first term (Heb., ‘awon [5771, 6411]) appears to have been the most general and also the most significant for this occasion since it is the only one of the three mentioned in the description of the results of the event (16:22, cf. “sin,” NLT). It was also the term most frequently found first in lists of different types of wrongdoing. The sin offering was made to remove its guilt (5:1; 10:17). All of the people, including the priests, would have heard this confession and, presumably, assented to its truthfulness. All of these confessed sins would now be associated with the goat, which was sent to a distant, desolate place without Israelite inhabitants (cf. Deut 32:10; Job 38:26; Jer 17:6), carrying their sins with it.

Contemporary application of this part of the ceremony is clear at several levels, even though it is not physically enacted today. Confession of wrongdoing is necessary for forgiveness and a restored relationship with God or one’s fellows (1 John 1:9–10). While different traditions handle the public confession of private sins in different ways, it is entirely appropriate and necessary, if the sins are corporate, to confess them in a corporate context. For the Christian, wrongdoings were also carried by another, but not a goat—rather, a Lamb (John 1:29), who suffered for all of our sins (Isa 53:6; Heb 9:28). The Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, was not unclean in himself, but he took on the sins of others (2 Cor 5:21; 1 Pet 2:24). (Ibid., 117–118)

There is widespread discussion regarding the interpretation of the term “scapegoat” (Hb. ʿăzāʾzēl). Four major explanations have been proposed. First, it is argued that the word describes the goat’s function. The support for this view comes from the etymology of the word, the root ʾzl, meaning “go away,” and ʿz, meaning “goat,” thus together “the goat that departs.” From the combination of these two words comes the traditional English rendering “scapegoat,” which originated in the early English Tyndale translation in 1530. This understanding is supported by both the Septuagint and the Vulgate. The second position understands ʿăzāʾzēl to be an abstract noun meaning “entire removal.” The name thus would refer specifically to the theological concept that the goat’s departing into the wilderness never to be seen again pictures the entire removal of sin. The third position, which gained wide acceptance in Jewish tradition, understands the ʿăzāʾzēl to refer to the location where the goat departed. Proponents of this view often argue that the first part of the word ʿăzāʾzēl is from the root ʿzz, meaning “strong, fierce,” which probably depicts the terrain of the goat’s destination. The fourth position understands ʿăzāʾzēl to refer to a demon in the wilderness. This view has gained recent popularity and is also supported by reference to a demon ʿăzāʾzēl in the intertestamental work of 1 Enoch. There is nothing in Scripture, however, to indicate that Satan or his demons carried out an atoning function.²³ Thus of these interpretations options one and three seem to have the strongest support. Of these two the context seems to best support position three. Note the parallel in Lev 16:8 and, more significantly, the phrase into hammidbārâ, “into the desert” (16:10), which appears to be an appositional explanation of ʿăzāʾzēl. Regardless of the precise meaning of the term, the overall understanding of the passage is clear: the releasing of the goat indicated that the sins of the Israelites had been removed never to visit them again. (Mark F. Rooker, Leviticus, vol. 3A, The New American Commentary [Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000], 216–217)

16:20–21 After atonement was made for the Most Holy Place, the tabernacle, and the altar, Aaron laid his hands on the live goat, and confessed over it the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites. He then sent the goat into the desert under the supervision of a designated man.

Another unique feature of the Day of Atonement emerges here. Instead of placing a single hand upon the sacrificial animal as in earlier contexts (1:4; 3:2, 8, 13; 4:4, 24, 29, 33), here Aaron as the high priest places both of his hands upon the live goat (16:21). Zohar argues that this intensification is significant because it indicates that intentional sins are being transferred. Moreover, unlike the sacrificial procedures described in Leviticus 1–7, it is Aaron, not the individual worshiper, who places his hand on the animal. Aaron, as the representative for the nation, mediates for the entire nation, and sin will be dealt with in the most thoroughgoing way. This is the second occurrence of the term for confession in the Book of Leviticus (see 5:5), though we must assume that confession played a critical role in the concept of atonement for the Israelites. The root meaning of ydh is “to throw, cast” and may carry the sense “to reveal oneself.” It is clear from the context that the confession is to pertain primarily to the comprehensive nature of Israel’s sinfulness and subsequent need of forgiveness, since three separate terms for sin are mentioned in Lev 16:21.

According to the Mishnah, the high priest said the following prayer as he placed his hands upon the scapegoat:

O God, thy people, the House of Israel, have committed iniquity, transgressed, and sinned before thee. O God, forgive, I pray, the iniquities and transgressions and sins which thy people, the House of Israel, have committed and transgressed and sinned before thee; as it is written in the law of thy servant Moses, For on this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you: from all your sins shall ye be clean before the Lord (Lev 16:30; Yoma 6:2).

Perhaps the theology of confession is best stated in Prov 28:13: “He who conceals his sins does not prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercy.” Other formal confessions in the Bible occur in Neh 9:1–38; Dan 9:4–19. After confession was made, the live goat was sent out into the wilderness…

16:22 The goat carried away all the sins of the Israelites. The destiny of the goat was to a solitary place (gĕzērâ). According to Jewish tradition the goat was subsequently thrown over a cliff to prevent it from returning to camp carrying the sins of Israel.³⁹

In the Day of Atonement ceremony the first animal pictures the means for atonement, the shedding of blood in the sacrificial death. The scapegoat pictures the effect of atonement, the removal of guilt. What is accomplished in the scapegoat ritual is expressed by David in the Psalms: “As far as east is from west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us” (Ps 103:12). Both these aspects of this special day have their fulfillment in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. The scapegoat ritual also may have been in Isaiah’s mind when he described the suffering of the Suffering Servant as bearing griefs and sins (Isa 53:4, 6). The term nāśāʾ used in Lev 16:22 in reference to the scapegoat’s “bearing” iniquities is used in the same sense in Isa 53:4, 12. (Ibid., 220–221)

7. Conclusion of Day of Atonement

The Day of Atonement, the most solemn day of the year in Judaism, was also extremely important for the writers of the New Testament. As Rylaarsdam has stated: “The New Testament passion narratives, the Letter to the Hebrews, and the writings of Paul are all in various ways under its impact.” The fulfillment of the Day of Atonement in Christ is the theme of the Book of Hebrews. For the writer to the Hebrews the Day of Atonement was a type of the atoning work of Jesus Christ that emphasized the perfection of Christ and the ultimate inadequacy of the Old Testament ritual.⁵⁴ Or as Feinberg states, the aim of Hebrews is “to demonstrate the fulfilling finality of the central event of the Scriptures, the atonement of Christ on Calvary.”

The sacrifice of the sin offerings on the Day of Atonement corresponds to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on a number of levels. Only the high priest could enter behind the veil on this special day (16:2, 29). He entered an earthly sanctuary annually, which indicated that the daily, weekly, and monthly offerings already outlined in Leviticus were not sufficient to remove sin. Jesus Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary, of which the tabernacle was but a copy, once for all (Heb 9:23–24). He entered once for all into the Most Holy Place with his own blood as the sin offering (Heb 9:12). Indeed, Laubauch believes that Leviticus 16 is critical to the understanding of the concept of the blood of Christ in the New Testament. He observes that the blood of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:2), the blood of Jesus (Heb 10:19; 1 John 1:7), the blood of Christ (1 Cor 10:16; Eph 2:13; Heb 9:14), the blood of the Lord (1 Cor 11:27), the blood of the Lamb (Rev 7:14; 12:11), occupies the central position in New Testament thought. The meaning of the blood, he argues, is derived particularly from the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement (Lev 16).

When Christ died on the cross, the veil of the temple that separated the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place was torn in two (Matt 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45). This veil, which could only be entered into on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:1–2), corresponds to the tearing of Jesus’ flesh, whereby not just the high priest once a year but all now have access to the very presence of God (see Heb 10:19–22).

Other limitations of the Day of Atonement, however, are implied in the narrative; for it is emphasized that this ordinance is to be a permanent statue, that is, it is to be repeated every year. Moreover, there is great emphasis given to the fact that the high priest had to make an offering for himself (seven times in the text). By contrast, Jesus Christ was the sinless High Priest who presented himself as a sacrifice once for all (Heb 10:10).

The sending of the scapegoat outside the camp also was fulfilled in Christ’s death in that he too was sent outside the camp (Jerusalem) and took away the sins of his people (Heb 13:12). Although reference to Christ as the antitype of the scapegoat is not mentioned specifically in the New Testament, the correspondence seems to be warranted. Reference to Christ as “being made sin for us” (2 Cor 5:21), “becoming a curse for us” (Gal 3:13), and appearing “to take away sins” (1 John 3:5) have been proposed as allusions to the scapegoat ritual. Moreover, Ben-Shammai argues that the role of the scapegoat is carried out by the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 who bears the sins of many. Since the New Testament writers clearly understood Isaiah 53 as referring to Christ’s crucifixion, we have grounds for seeing typological significance for the scapegoat. The scapegoat was clearly understood to be a type of Christ in the epistle of Barnabas.

There also has been much discussion regarding the possible typological significance of the reference to Christ as the hilastērion, “mercy seat” (Rom 3:25). The Hebrew term for “mercy seat,” kāppōret, was normally translated by the term hilastērios in the LXX.

L. Morris denies any typological significance in the use of hilastērion in Rom 3:25 for two reasons. First, the Greek word does not have the article as it does in Heb 9:25, a clear reference to the mercy seat. Second, he implies that it would be trivial for a piece of furniture to have this important typological significance. The first argument, the lack of the article with hilastērion, seems too subtle and underestimates the technical nature of this term, which represented the most holy item of the entire tabernacle complex. As for the second, Morris seems to forget that Christ is the antitype to the Old Testament tabernacle (John 1:14), and thus the most important article of the tabernacle can indeed lend itself to a typological interpretation. There is nothing wrong with associating Christ with an object like the mercy seat. After all, Peter calls Christian believers a spiritual house (1 Pet 2:5). Morris’s alternative is to interpret as “the means of propitiation.”

D. Moo, on the other hand, argues that the reference to the mercy seat could not be Christ in Rom 3:25 because this would assume too much familiarly with the Old Testament Scriptures among the Roman Christians. Given the fact that the Corinthian believers would have relatively the same level of Old Testament knowledge and yet Paul does not hesitate to make applications to their lives from the Old Testament, this argument also does bear up under scrutiny. In fact, Paul stated that the Old Testament revelation had been written down for the Corinthian church (1 Cor 10:11)! Moreover, the Romans must have had some awareness of the Jewish law, otherwise Romans 7 would be incomprehensible.

The use of this technical term hilastērion warrants the assertion that Paul is referring to Christ as the Old Testament mercy seat. In the person of Jesus Christ we find the locus of propitiation. The mercy seat is then a type of Christ since the temple object was a mere shadow of the coming heavenly reality (Heb 10:1). (Ibid., 224–227)

FURTHER READING

Addressing Muslim Polemicist Abdullah Kunde’s Biblical Distortions [Part 2]

Did God Really Ordain Sacrifices to Satan? [Part 1], [Part 2], [Part 3], [Part 4]

DANIEL 8 & HANUKKAH