Azazel, its meaning (Beecher, Redeemer and redeemed, 1864)

Text: "And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering. ... And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat [Azazel]." Leviticus 16:5,7,8

Quote:

[...] The point on which opinions differ is in regard to the meaning of the word Azazel [...] Three opinions have been maintained.

   The first opinion regards Azazel as the name of a mountain or precipice from which the goat was to be thrown. This opinion, however, has few supporters, since no such mountain existed, and it seems clear, from the record, that the goat must be let go alive.

   A second opinion is, that Azazel is the name of the goat itself, meaning escape-goat. Our English translators give this in the text, but place the word Azazel in the margin, as was their custom in cases where they were in some uncertainty. Against this opinion the following objections may be urged:—

   Azazel is an uncommon word, found nowhere else in the Bible. There was a familiar expression for scape-goat, namely, Sheir Meshullah; and it is improbable Moses would have left a term familiar for one entirely strange.

   This meaning, also, is embarrassed by grammatical difficulties. The root from which the word goat must be taken in composing scape-goat happens to be feminine, making it the escape-she-goat. Again, the use of the prepositions is such that, if rendered literally, they would make the goat to be sent away to itself. Thus, "The goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be . . . . to let him go to Azazel." Hence many of the best Hebrew scholars, such as Witsius, Gesenius, Robinson, Spencer, Stowe, Faber, Hengstenberg, have rejected this meaning.

   The third opinion is, that Azazel is a proper name of Satan. In support of this, the following points are urged:—

   The use of the preposition implies it. The same preposition is used on both lots, La-Yehovah, La- Azazel, and if the one indicates a person, it seems natural the other should. Especially, considering the act of casting lots; If one is for Jehovah, the other would seem for some other person or being; not one for Jehovah, and the other for the goat itself.

   What goes to confirm this is, that the most ancient paraphrases and translations treat Azazel as a proper name. The Chaldee paraphrase and the targums of Onkelos and Jonathan would certainly have translated it if it was not a proper name, but they do not. The Septuagint, or oldest Greek version, renders it by ἀποπομπαῖος, a word applied by the Greeks to a malign deity, sometimes appeased by sacrifices.

   Another confirmation is found in the Book of Enoch, where the name Azalzel, evidently a corruption of Azazel, is given to one of the fallen angels, thus plainly showing what was the prevalent understanding of the Jews at that day.

   Still another evidence is found in the Arabic, where Azazel is employed as the name of the Evil Spirit.

   In addition to these, we have the evidence of the Jewish work Zohar, and of the Cabalistic and Rabbinical writers. They tell us that the following proverb was current among the Jews: "On the day of atonement, a gift to Sammael." Hence Moses Gerundinensis feels called to say that it is not a sacrifice, but only done because commanded by God.

   Another step in the evidence is when we find this same opinion passing from the Jewish to the early Christian Church. Origen was the most learned of the Fathers, and on such a point as this, the meaning of a Hebrew word, his testimony is reliable. Says Origen: "He who is called in the Septuagint ἀποπομπαῖος, and in the Hebrew Azazel, is no other than the Devil."

   Lastly, a circumstance is mentioned of the Emperor Julian, the apostate, that confirms the argument. He brought, as an objection against the Bible, that Moses commanded a sacrifice to the Evil Spirit. An objection he never could have thought of, had not Azazel been generally regarded as a proper name.

   In view, then, of the difficulties attending any other meaning, and the accumulated evidence in favor of this, Hengstenberg affirms, with great confidence, that Azazel cannot be anything else but another name for Satan.

Beecher, Charles, Redeemer and redeemed: an investigation of the atonement and of eternal judgment, Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1864, pp. 66-68.

Online Source: archive.org/details/redeemerredeemed00beec

Book Images: