Mar 6, 2009

Azazel and the “Scapegoat” (Leviticus 16)


See the post for background issues related to Azazel and the so-called "scapegoat" in Leviticus 16.

8 comments:

danwaggoner said...

"Therefore, Azazel is most likely some kind of demon (so Jewish tradition recorded in 1 En. 10:4–5), who dwells in an uninhabited region."

So, what you're saying, then is that God commanded His people to sacrifice a goat to a demon? Nonsense. God commands the very opposite. The Septuagint version translates azazel as "apopompaio" - the one sent away. Clearly the Hebrew speaking Jews who translated the LXX understood the word to mean "sent away" (as the prefix "apo-" indicates - whence apostle). The much later translation of "azazel" as a proper name was promoted after the time of Christ, first by the Talmudic writers and much later by the medieval Kabbalists at a time when Hebrew was no longer spoken and words that fell into disuse were guessed at or given folk etymologies. This idea is a modern interpretation of the Bible that is meant to discredit the Levitical priesthood and Penteteuch in general by infering that ancient Israelites practiced a form a Satan worship. This idea is popular with liberal scholars and satanists - neither of whom are ver reputable when it comes to telling the truth.

Dan Waggoner

danwaggoner said...

"Therefore, Azazel is most likely some kind of demon (so Jewish tradition recorded in 1 En. 10:4–5), who dwells in an uninhabited region."

So, what you're saying, then is that God commanded His people to sacrifice a goat to a demon? Nonsense. God commands the very opposite. The Septuagint version translates azazel as "apopompaio" - the one sent away. Clearly the Hebrew speaking Jews who translated the LXX understood the word to mean "sent away" (as the prefix "apo-" indicates - whence apostle). The much later translation of "azazel" as a proper name was promoted after the time of Christ, first by the Talmudic writers and much later by the medieval Kabbalists at a time when Hebrew was no longer spoken and words that fell into disuse were guessed at or given folk etymologies. This idea is a modern interpretation of the Bible that is meant to discredit the Levitical priesthood and Penteteuch in general by infering that ancient Israelites practiced a form a Satan worship. This idea is popular with liberal scholars and satanists - neither of whom are ver reputable when it comes to telling the truth.

Dan Waggoner

Charles Savelle said...

Hi Dan,

Just to clarify, I am not saying anything. I have merely provided a link to a discussion written by someone else related to background issues. As to the merits of your assertions I don't know. I've not investigated the issue sufficiently to render a knowledgeable opinion. That being said, I don't read the article to suggest that the author is suggesting that the Israelites were practicing a form of Satan worship.

Anonymous said...

I have been doing a study on calvinism arminianism. How does the levitical scapegoat fit in to the atonement controversy?

Charles Savelle said...

Great question. To be honest, I have not really given sufficient thought to the possible implications of the scapegoat to the debate.

Do you have any thoughts on the matter since you have been studying in this area?

Anonymous said...

I am still studying and may be a little confused. Is Jesus the fulfillment of both sacrifices on th day of atonement? I have found that the word azazel is defined as 'sent to hell' and 'scapegoat' is what Tyndale translated it as. I feel as if I have stumbled on to something inadvertently larger than my abilities of comprehension. Without going towards heresy, I don't know how to explain this unorthodox anomaly. I never acquainted myself with the calvinist/arminian debate until recently. I would say I used to be an accidental arminian but now I am leaning towards calvinism. I try not to intellectualize or oversimplify biblical doctrine, but just search the scriptures in prayer. Well recently I have been engaged in discussion with a brother who is dogmatically arminian and He gave me a verse that led to this blog. He gave me 1 Tim. 2:6 which talks about Christ "giving Himself as a ransom for all". I then found in my footnotes that some scholars thought that Paul was paraphrasing Mk. 10:45 and that Mark was referring to Is. 53:12 which is referring to Leviticus 16. So the question was; are all the sins of all mankind dealt with on the cross? Hence the limited atonement debate. Sorry for so much info. I just wanted you to understand where I am coming from. The scapegoat is what provided atonement, and the sacrificed goat forgave the sins. Also were the sacrifices meant only for the Israelites?, and does that mean if the Israelites were God's chosen that believers in Christ are now the spiritual chosen? Sorry to unload on you so much. Maybe you can unpack it with me?

Charles Savelle said...

Hi Scott,

Thanks for your response. Let me attempt to offer a commendation and some suggestions.

Commendation:
I appreciate your attitude which appears to me humble and earnest in your attempt to understand the issue at hand. Let me encourage you by noting that when it comes to this issue we are all, or should be, "still studying."

Suggestions:

1. I think that before we examine the significance of Lev 16 to the doctrine of election, we need to examine what Lev 16 means in the context of the book, the Old Testament, and the Scriptures as a whole. That is, what did the Day of Atonement mean to Israel. what did it accomplish theologically, and what role does it play within salvation history.

2. I would suggest that Christ indeed fulfilled the entirety of the sacrifical system. Concerning this, I would point you to the book of Hebrews.

3. While I appreciate the chain of passages that brought you to my blog (1 Tim 2:6; Mark 10:45; Isa 53:12), caution should be exercised in such a train of argumentation. One problem is that there are a number of assumptions made in every step that would need to be properly validated exegetically.

4. A better course, I think, would be to see whether the Day of Atonement presents a pattern (or type) concerning who was covered in the DOA and what that meant. However, this presents a set of its own challenges concerning, among other things, the identity and spiritual status of Israel, what was actually accomplished in the sacrifice, etc.

Not sure how much this helps, but these are some of my preliminary thoughts on the matter.

Anonymous said...

Thank you. I look forward to whatever else you find on this subject.