Introduction
Commentators debate the meaning of the Hebrew word עֲזָאזֵל as applied to the goat that was sent into the wilderness. This word occurs only in Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26.
Proposed Solutions
1. עֲזָאזֵל refers to “the goat that departs” (Rooker 216; cf. ABD, 1:536; Morales, 178),or the “scapegoat” (KJV, NIV).
a. This word is made up of the terms for “goat” (`ēz) and “depart” (’āzal) (EDBT, 253; cf. Sklar, 209; Vasholz, 188).
b. This understanding is reflected in the ancient Greek translations and the Vulgate (Bonar, 303; Vasholz, 188).
c. This meaning tracks closely with what was done with the goat (Vasholz, 188) and thus draws the understanding of the obscure term from what is clear in the text (EDBT, 253).
2. עֲזָאזֵל means “entire removal” (Feinberg, 331)or “total destruction” (Wenham, 235).
a. The word is derived from a word for “removal” (‘zl), reduplicated to indicate intensification, “entire removal.”
b. The LXX rendering, using the word ἀποπομπή, “sending away” supports the idea of removal (Feinberg, 331-32; Harrison, 173).
c. The phrase “land of cutting off” in v. 22 could interpret the term עֲזָאזֵל, and support the idea that the term means “total destruction” (Wenham, 235).
3. עֲזָאזֵל refers to the wilderness terrain.
a. The word could be related to “the Arabic word ‘azâzu (‘rough ground’)” (Sklar, 209).
b. The phrase “land of cutting off” in v. 22 could interpret the term עֲזָאזֵל, and support the idea that the term refers to the “land of cutting off.” (Wenham, 235).
c. The phrase “into the wilderness” could be “an appositional explanation of” עֲזָאזֵל (Rooker, 217).
d. This view is found in the Talmud (Feinberg, 325; Milgrom, 1020) and held by Rashi (Wenham, 235).
4. עֲזָאזֵל refers to demon in the wilderness.
a. By metathesis, the name could be understood to have been based on words meaning “fierce god” (AB, 1:536; Milgrom, 1021).
b. עֲזָאזֵל best parallels לַיהוָ֔ה (vv. 9-10) because on this view both would be supernatural beings (AB, 1:536; Milgrom, 1020).
c. The Bible presents the wilderness as the dwelling place of demons (Isa. 13:21-22; 34:11-15; Matt. 12:34; Luke 11:24; Rev. 18:2; cf. Bar. 4:35; Tob. 8:3) (Milgrom, 1020; Hartley, 238).
d. This interpretation appears in intertestamental literature (1 Enoch 8:1; 9:6; 10:4–8; 13:1; cf. 54:5–6; 55:4; 69:2; Apoc. Ab. 13:6–14; 14:4–6; 20:5–7; 22:5; 23:11; 29:6–7; 31:5) (AB, 1:536; Milgrom, 1020-21; Hartley, 238).
e. This does not imply a sacrifice to a demon since it was not slain. Nor does it have any propitiatory role (Milgrom, 1021). It could just be a way of indicating that the sins were returned to the demon (Hartley, 238).
Rejected Solutions:
2. עֲזָאזֵל means “entire removal” or “total destruction.”
a. The LXX doesn’t truly establish this position; it refers to “to the one carrying away” (cf. Hartley, 222).
b. The lack of parallelism between לַיהוָ֔ה (“for Yhwh,” v. 9) as parallel to לַעֲזָאזֵ֔ל (“for entire removal,” v. 10) tells against this view (Hartley, 237), though it is not decisive.
3. עֲזָאזֵל refers to the wilderness terrain.
a. The lack of parallelism between לַיהוָ֔ה (“for Yhwh,” v. 9) as parallel to לַעֲזָאזֵ֔ל (“to a rough place,” v. 10) tells against this view (Hartley, 237-38), though it is not decisive.
b. Though “into the wilderness” could be appositional, it would also be redundant on this view. It is unclear why two terms would be needed here.
4. עֲזָאזֵל refers to demon in the wilderness.
a. The intertestamental literature at this point is fanciful, and it cannot be relied on to give an accurate interpretation of Lev. 16 (cf. Feinberg, 328-29; Vasholz, 188).
b. Leviticus 17:7 forbids sacrifices to goat demons, which makes a practice that could be construed that way unlikely (EDBT; 253; Feinberg, 329; Vasholz, 188; Wenahm, 234). Despite a construal that clearly disclaim the sending of a goat is a sacrifice (Milgrom, 1021; Hartley, 238), it is unlikely that something akin to an offering to a demon would be part of the central act of atonement in Israel (cf. Wenham, 234). As Sklar says, “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” (Sklar, 209).
c. This view is too easily construed as teaching that Satan must be paid something as part of atonement (EDBT, 253).
Accepted Solution:
1. עֲזָאזֵל refers to “the goat that departs” or the “scapegoat.”
a. Despite the objection that this view does not treat לַיהוָ֔ה (“for Yhwh,” v. 9) as parallel to לַעֲזָאזֵ֔ל (“as the scapegoat,” v. 10 NIV) (DOTP, 59; Feinberg, 327), this solution is still grammatical. Further, there is still a parallelism: one lot is “in relation to Yhwh” and the other lot is “in relation to the scapegoat” (cf. EDBT, 253; Sklar, 209).
b. The claim that this view requires the translations “to send the goat to the scapegoat in the wilderness” (v. 10) and “and he who taketh away the goat to the scapegoat” (v. 26) (Feinberg, 327) is incorrect. The NIV translations, “by sending it into the wilderness as a scapegoat” (v. 10) and “The man who releases the goat as a scapegoat,” are acceptable (Sklar, 209).
c. There is little dispute that this goat symbolized the taking away of the sin of the people, and this view captures this message most clearly (Sklar, 210).
Bibliography: Dictionaries: “Garrett, “Feasts and Festivals of Israel,” EDBT; Hartley, “Atonement, Day of,” DOTP; D. Wright, “Azazel,” ABD; Commentaries: Bonar; Harrison, TOTC; Hartley, WBC; Milgrom, AYB; Rooker, NAC; Sklar, TOTC; Vasholz, Mentor; Wenham, NICOT; Other: Feinberg, “The Scapegoat of Leviticus Sixteen,” BibSac 115 (1958): 320-33; Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord? A Biblical Theology of the Book of Leviticus, NSBT.
Leave a Reply