Etymology
The etymology of the name ‘Ăzâ’zêl, cited four times in Leviticus 16 has long been a source of puzzlement. The lots were cast for two goats, one was “for Yahweh”, and the other “for ‘Ăzâ’zêl” (the scapegoat) – in itself this parallelism would suggest that ‘Ăzâ’zêl is a name. D. P. Wright notes four proposals:[1]
- a precipice or cliff face
- the name of a demon
- an abstract noun for “destruction”
- a descriptive noun meaning “scapegoat”
The reasons for these proposals are as follows:
1) The scapegoat was released alive in the wilderness; however, by the first century the custom was changed and the scapegoat was thrown from a cliff (to prevent it returning?). According to Talmudic interpretation,[2] the term ‘Ăzâ’zêl designated a rugged mountain or precipice in the wilderness from which the goat was thrown down.
2) The Book of Enoch brings ‘Ăzâ’zêl into connection with the Biblical story of the fall of the angels; he becomes the leader of the rebellious angels.[3] First century Jews thought of ‘Ăzâ’zêl as denoting a demonic, satanic power in opposition to God. Alternatively, the medieval commentator, Ibn Ezra, proposes that ‘Ăzâ’zêl belongs to the class of “se’irim,” goat-like demons[4] that haunt the desert, to which the Israelites were wont to offer sacrifice.
3) This suggestion is proposed in BDB and derived from the ideas of “strength” (‘az) and “removal” ‘âzal (to go away, remove).
4) This interpretation is derived from the similarity to the Hebrew ‘êz (goat) and ‘âzal (to go away, remove) – the scapegoat of the Septuagint.
In addition to these suggestions, more recently, Jacqueline C.R. De Roo proposes on the grounds of textual, semantic, and contextual evidence that ‘Ăzâ’zêl is a metathesized form of zzl and interprets it as a reference to ‘the powerful wrath of God’.[5]
Proposal
‘Ăzâ’zêl was originally a cognate derived from the roots ‘âzar and êl – meaning: God helps. The difference between ‘Ăzâ’zêl and these roots (one letter) is accounted for – either by a copyist error, or more likely, a deliberate manipulation. The hypothetical form azarel lraz[ (God helps) is virtually identical to azazel lzaz[.
Scapegoat Typology
Yom Kippûr Typology in the Old Testament
Scapegoat typology permeates the Old Testament; Cain is the primary example of being cast away from the divine presence:
“A fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth” (Gen 4:12).
However, his banishment did not mean exclusion from divine care, nor did it negate the possibility of restoration. The Law, and particularly the Day of Atonement, made no provision for capital sins, such as murder or adultery; King David committed both these sins, and like Cain was sent away from the divine presence;
“And David went up the ascent of the Mount of Olives, and wept as he went up” (2 Sam.15:30).
He sent the Ark of the Covenant back to the sanctuary, fully realising the extent of his estrangement:
“And the king said unto Zadok, carry back the ark of God into the city: if I shall find favour in the eyes of the Lord, he will bring me again, and shew both it, and his habitation” (2 Sam.15:25).
This was a terrible punishment for David, and is reflected in his penitentiary Psalms:
“Cast me not away from thy presence, and take not thy Holy Spirit from me” (Ps.51:11).
Although he was punished, David was forgiven and restored to favour (forgiveness and restoration occurred outside the law, for the law could not save David, only condemn him). Earlier in his reign David himself had exercised forgiveness, when one of his sons had murdered the other; his military captain, Joab, perpetrated a ruse (employing an old woman) to remind David of God’s concern for restoration:
“Neither doth God respect any person: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him” (2 Sam.14:14). [6]
The individual examples of Cain and David are applied to the whole nation – also sent away from the divine presence into exile;
“And I will bring you into the wilderness of the people, and there will I plead with you face to face” (Ezek. 20:35).
The release of the sin-bearing scapegoat into the wilderness becomes a metaphor for the nation, alienated and exiled because of their sin;
“My God will cast them away, because they did not hearken unto him: and they shall be wanderers among the nations” (Hos 9:17).
Yom Kippûr Typology in the New Testament
Tertullian interprets the two goats of the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:5-28) typologically to argue that two advents of Christ were prophesied in that text.[7] Tertullian’s interpretation fails to understand the theology of Yom Kippûr – it focuses on the sin-bearing quality of the scapegoat and neglects the banishment (exile) from the divine presence. The scapegoat is not a substitute for the nation – it represents the nation (or individual) who is alienated and exiled from the divine presence because of sin. Jesus was never alienated from God because of personal sin; neither can his death be considered an exile as the consequence of personal sin. Jesus was not the scapegoat, he was the “goat for Yahweh,” destined for sacrifice not for release. Second Temple Judaism had introduced the innovation (contrary to the atonement ritual) of killing the scapegoat by casting it from a cliff:
“And they rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong. But he passing through the midst of them went his way” (Luke 4:29, 30).
They sought to identify Christ with the goat “for ‘Ăzâ’zêl”, but God would not allow it for three reasons:
- It was not yet his time.
- The scapegoat was never killed.
- He was not the goat for ‘Ăzâ’zêl , he was the goat for Yahweh.
The Fourth Gospel combines the typology of Atonement and Passover with the release of Barabbas (John 18:39-40; the scapegoat) and the death of Jesus (the goat for Yahweh). Barabbas means the “son of the father”; he was incarcerated because of rebellion and released by Pilate – the other “son of the Father” was innocent and is sacrificed. Clearly, both men typified different principles – this excludes the scapegoat (goat for ‘Ăzâ’zêl ) from typifying Christ.
The Commentary of Jesus on Yom Kippûr
The words of the Lord Jesus Christ on the atonement ritual are paramount to our understanding, and are an incisive commentary on Second Temple Judaism. His commentary is to be found in Luke 11:21-26 in the form of a prophetic parable (parallel accounts Mk.3:9-30; Mtt.12:22-37). The context is the accusation that he is casting out evil spirits by the power of Beelzebub – the prince of demons. This was an unforgivable accusation for they were blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Jesus highlights the Day of Atonement themes concerning forgiveness of sins and repentance. This is reinforced in Matthew (12:38-42, parallel Luke 11: 29-32) by the saying about the men of Nineveh and the queen of the South, who would rise up and condemn that generation.
Custom dictated that the book of Jonah[8] was read in full on the Day of Atonement – and it still is to this day. The theme of the book of Jonah was seen as suitable to the ritual, for it recounts the repentance of Nineveh at the miraculous appearance of Jonah, after being dead three days in the belly of the whale. Temple sacrifice was still practiced in the time of Jesus, but after the destruction of the temple the book of Jonah would occupy an even more prominent position in the atonement liturgy. To the Jews it came to signify that sacrifice was not necessary for forgiveness, merely repentance. Bearing the context in mind, the passage reads as follows:
“When a strong (man) armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils. He that is not with me is against me: he that gathereth not with me scattereth. When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out. And we he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter in, and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first.”
he background of the parable is the Day of Atonement ritual. The unclean spirit symbolises “all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins” (Lev.16: 21), which are sent into the wilderness (dry places) seeking rest In the original Greek the word “man” is absent (denoted by italics in the AV):
“When a strong fully armed guardeth his palace his goods are in peace.”
The scapegoat ‘Ăzâ’zêl carried the meaning of strong after the exile (although this was probably a corruption of the original meaning). The house into which the unclean spirit returns was the temple; note that the unclean spirit refers to it as my house.[9]
When he returned to his house he found it “swept and garnished.” This is a reference to the feast of unleavened bread. The Jews were commanded to remove the leaven from their houses (Ex.12:15) in preparation for the Passover. Jesus Christ had “swept” the temple and cleansed it just before the Passover (John 2:13-16). The final condition of the “strong” is complete madness (seven unclean spirits). [10] This is obviously a reference to Legion an acted parable that bears many similarities with the “strong” in this chapter. In the parallel account in Marks gospel Christ says the following: “Verily I say unto you, all sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation” (Mk.3:28, 29).
We note that this passage is about forgiveness (Day of Atonement) and that it contains an oblique reference to Enoch.[11] The book of Enoch influenced Jewish theology on the Day of Atonement. The only occasion where the book of Enoch is quoted is Jude 14:
“And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgement upon all, and to convict all works of ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
In the book of Enoch, ‘Ăzâ’zêl was understood as the embodiment of evil – synonymous with the devil, Satan, or a fallen angel. The Day of Atonement ritual entailed sending the goat to ‘Ăzâ’zêl (strong one) in the wilderness and sacrificing the other to Yahweh.
The parable of the wandering spirit can be paraphrased as follows:
ACCUSERS: You cast out devils by Beelzebub (…by ‘Ăzâ’zêl, or by Satan etc).
JESUS: Tells them a parable about the Day of Atonement: “The strong one” has been sent away by one who is stronger. Those who make such accusations will not be forgiven (no Day of Atonement for them) in fact even their own book of Enoch will condemn them for their hard speeches against him – the Ninevites who repented at Jonah’s preaching (which book they read on atonement) will also condemn them.
Conclusion
The scapegoat represents a sinful state of alienation and exile from God – as such it represents the nation. The condition is, however, not irredeemable.
[1] ABD 1:536-537.
[2] b.Yoma 67b, cf. Sifra Lev 16:10, Ps.-J Lev 16:10.
[3] 1 Enoch 8:1, 9:6, 10:4-6, 14:5, 38:1.
[4] The first appearance of śā’ îr occurs in Lev. 17:7, which states that sacrifices for the “goat idols” (NIV) or “goat demons” (NASB) are strictly forbidden. The mention of “goat demons” or devils [literally “hairy ones”] directly after the atonement chapter suggests that the unclean scapegoat became an object of worship. Similarly, the golden calf incident was probably a falsification of the calf-faced cherubim; “And he ordained him priests for the high places, and for the devils, and for the [statues of] calves which he had made” (2 Chron 11:15).
[5] Jacqueline C. R. De Roo, Was the Goat for Azazel Destined for the Wrath of God? (Biblica 81 (2000): 233-242 n.p. [cited 25 April 2007], Online: http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/bibl81/Ani06m.html
[6] The background to this quote is a ruse perpetrated by Joab. It involved an old woman seeking justice from David. She told him the story of her two sons, one whom had killed the other and who was now himself in danger of being killed by the rest of the family (the avenger of blood), leaving her childless. The object of the ruse was to make David forgive his son Absalom for murdering his half-brother Amnon, David’s other son, and to restore Absalom from exile. There is no doubt that Joab was playing on David’s guilt, as he was aware of David’s sin with Bathsheba and employed this to manipulate him for his own nefarious ends. The two sons in the old woman’s story are based on Cain and Abel: the phrase “in the field” demonstrates this, as it is unique to the Samaritan Pentateuch’s narrative of Gen.4:8 (Cain murdered Abel in the field), although it has dropped out of the Masoretic text.
[7] Geoffrey Dunn compares Tertullian’s rhetorical use of Leviticus 16 to those of Barnabas and Justin’s Dialogus. In Barnabas the goats are not two advents, but rather Jesus’ suffering both as sacrificial victim and as the rejected one, whereas Justin’s Dialogus explicitly links the goats to Jesus’ two advents. In Justin and Tertullian, the second goat “was a typological reference to the first coming of Jesus . . . while the first goat referred to the second coming of Jesus”; both authors used this interpretation against the Jewish contention that “Jesus could not be the Messiah because he did not come victoriously. Geoffrey Dunn, “Two Goats, Two Advents, and Tertullian’s Adversus Iudaeos”, Augustinianum 39, (1999): 245-264
[8] The Fourth Gospel employs the thematic of atonement by alluding to Jonah alongside elements associated with atonement theology including the deaths of Nadab and Abihu and the murderer Cain.
| John 7:51-8:44 | Yom Kippûr |
|---|---|
| Out of Galilee no prophet (Jhn.7:52). | The prophet Jonah came from Galilee and was read every Yom Kippûr. |
| The adulteress forgiven (Jhn.8:3-11). | Expiation of sins on Yom Kippûr . |
| I do always those things that are pleasing to him [Yah] (Jhn.8:29). | Nadabiah- willing for Yah. |
| We have one Father even God (Jhn.8:41). | Abiyahu –Yah is my Father. |
| Your Father a murderer from the beginning (Jhn.8:44). | Cain –sent away from the sanctuary because he murdered his brother. |
[9] Jesus said, “Your house (Mtt.23:38) is left desolate” – it was no longer his Fathers house.
[10] The exorcism in Acts 19:13-20 is interesting in this context. Note the term “vagabond” Jews in v.13. This is a reference to Cain condemned to the land of Nod (wandering) – he would be a vagabond in the earth (Gen.4:14). Note also the reference to the “seven sons” of Sceva the chief priest. They attempted to exorcise the “strong man” but could not. The “seven sons” in this incident are obviously a reference to the high priest 1. Annas and his dynasty. (2. Eleazar son of Annas, 3. Caiaphas son-in-law of Annas, 4. Jonathan son of Annas, 5. Theophilius son of Annas, 6. Matthias son of Annas, 7. Annas son of Annas)
[11] Although the Greek spelling of the name Enoch is different, it is phonetically similar, a fact that would not be lost to the listening audience.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One