There is no consensus on the meaning of the Old Testament sanctuary services, so there is no point in debating any particular interpretation until the fundamentals get straightened out. Is there any agreement on the central features of the parable itself among scholars that believe it’s a parable of the plan of salvation? What are the most respectable introductions to the subject that are available online?
What are the most respectable introductions to the subject that are available online?
The Epistle to the Hebrews. It is available online and it’s helpful because it offers a New Testament interpretation of the typological sanctuary, pointing to both the similarities and also differences between the earthly shadow and the heavenly reality.
There is no consensus on the meaning of the Old Testament sanctuary services, so there is no point in debating any particular interpretation until the fundamentals get straightened out. Is there any agreement on the central features of the parable itself among scholars that believe it’s a parable of the plan of salvation?
There is agreement between scholars regarding the matters concerning the SDA interpretation of the sanctuary: no scholar who’s worth the money agree with it. There is agreement that Jesus entered the Holy of Holies at his ascension and there is no biblical reason for postponing this event for around 1800 years. Adventist teaching on this subject clearly qualifies as heresy, a doctrine that goes against the teaching of the Christian church by postulating the heretical teaching that Jesus blood defiles the sanctuary. You’ll not find one single text in the Bible teaching that Jesus blood brings defilement, on the contrary there are enough texts that explicitly affirms that Jesus cleanse sins.On this point, there is enough consesus in order to make the position of SDA church inexcusable and heretical.
There is agreement between scholars regarding the matters concerning the SDA interpretation of the sanctuary: no scholar who’s worth the money agree with it.
Isn’t the ritual surrounding Azazel on the Day of Atonement connected to the Sanctuary? Isn’t there a lot of scholarly support for Azazel representing Satan as Seventh-day Adventists claim?
GABRIEL PROKSCH - 13 June 2009 02:33 AM
There is agreement that Jesus entered the Holy of Holies at his ascension and there is no biblical reason for postponing this event for around 1800 years.
As I’ve said, I’m not interested in debate. I want to know if there is a holistic presentation of the Old Testament types and shadows that details and integrates all the central features of the ancient sanctuary ceremonies into a single, unified parable.
There is agreement between scholars regarding the matters concerning the SDA interpretation of the sanctuary: no scholar who’s worth the money agree with it.
Isn’t the ritual surrounding Azazel on the Day of Atonement connected to the Sanctuary? Isn’t there a lot of scholarly support for Azazel representing Satan as Seventh-day Adventists claim?
Shubee, I doubt that there is a lot of scholarly support for Azazel representing Satan, because no other evangelical church has adopted this view.
Shubee - 14 June 2009 07:51 PM
As I’ve said, I’m not interested in debate. I want to know if there is a holistic presentation of the Old Testament types and shadows that details and integrates all the central features of the ancient sanctuary ceremonies into a single, unified parable.
The Old Testament types and shadows are less clear than the New Testament books that guide us toward an understanding of their message. Consequently it is less useful to spend time in order to try to reinvent the wheel by looking to the shadow instead to the clarity of the New Testament books which deal with those types and shadows of the Old Testament. In my view, the epistle of the Hebrews is first in creating this single and unified image of the sanctuary about which you’re interested. Adventists had looked exclusively to the Old Testament shadows and neglected the New Testament’s explanations about them and came with their sanctuary message and investigative judgment. Instead of interpreting the obscure or less clear parts of the Bible through the lens of the clear parts, instead of interpreting the Old Testament through the lens of the New Testament, they did the opposite. Of course, this kind of approach produced different conclusions about the sanctuary than the rest of the evangelical world.
I doubt that there is a lot of scholarly support for Azazel representing Satan, because no other evangelical church has adopted this view.
Who are the evangelicals? Weren’t they the so-called pro-Bush Christian Zionists and Reichpublicans that were exalting the power of politics above the gospel?
GABRIEL PROKSCH - 15 June 2009 09:24 AM
The Old Testament types and shadows are less clear than the New Testament books that guide us toward an understanding of their message.
I didn’t set nor did I specify any limits on the author or the source of inspiration for an authoritative retelling of a holistic, single, unified, Hebrew sanctuary parable.
GABRIEL PROKSCH - 15 June 2009 09:24 AM
In my view, the epistle of the Hebrews is first in creating this single and unified image of the sanctuary about which you’re interested.
Hebrews 8, 9 and 10 doesn’t strike me as being in parable form.
Azazel is the chief of the Se’irim, or goat-demons, who haunted the desert and to whom most primitive Semitic (most likely non-Hebrew) tribes offered sacrifices. The Old Testament states that Jeroboam appointed priests for the Se’irim. But Josiah destroyed the places of their worship, as the practices accompanying this worship involved copulation of women with goats.
The Se’irim, or hairy demons as the word itself means, are mentioned in Leviticus 17:7 and 2 Chronicles 11:15 as “goat-demons”. Isaiah 34:14 says that the “goat-demons” greet each other amoung the ruins of Edom along with Lilith and other wild beasts.
The name ‘Azazel’ may be derived from ‘azaz’ and ‘el’ meaning ‘strong one of God.’ It is thought that Azazel may have been derived from the Canaanite god, ‘Asiz, who caused the sun to burn strongly. It has also been theorized that he has been influenced by the Egyptian god, Seth.
Azazel in Leviticus
Leviticus 16:8 tells that the Lord ordered his high priest, Aaron, to ‘place lots upon the two goats, one marked for the Lord and the other marked for Azazel’ on the Jewish Day of Atonement. The goat designated by lot for the Lord is to be used as a sin offering, while the goat designated for Azazel “shall be left standing alive before the Lord, to make expiation with it and to send it off to the wilderness for Azazel.” (Lev 16:10) Aaron was to “lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat and confess over it all the iniquities and transgressions of the Israelites, whatever their sins, putting them on the head of the goat; and it shall be sent off to the wilderness through a designated an. Thus the goat shall carry on it all their iniquities to an inaccessible region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness.” (Lev 16:21-22) Leviticus also says that “He who set the Azazel-goat free shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water; after that he may reenter the camp.” (16:26)
From this passage in Leviticus, it would seem that Azazel is conceived of as a personal being, as lots were drawn for the Lord and for him. Also, Leviticus mentions that Azazel lives in the wilderness, as do the Se’irim. Because of this ritual, Azazel is known as the “scapegoat.” The goat that is sent to Azazel is not as a sacrifice, but as a symbol that there is no longer any unexpiated guilt. Both the goat and the man who leads away the goat are unclean, and the only way the man can reenter the camp is by washing his clothes and bathing.
The site from which you’ve quoted is devoted to demonology, mythology and diluting the truths of Christianity, specifically the person and work of Jesus Christ (as explained on this page). As such, it is hardly what I would consider a good resource for illuminating any portion of the Bible.
The site from which you’ve quoted is devoted to demonology, mythology and diluting the truths of Christianity, specifically the person and work of Jesus Christ (as explained on this page). As such, it is hardly what I would consider a good resource for illuminating any portion of the Bible.
Greg
And?
Greg, what better source can there be to discuss the demon nature that Azazel represents than a site on demonology. Your notion about the source that describes what Azazel represents, which clearly is a reference to Satan, is fairly nonsensical frankly. If I want to know the about fires I ask a fireman. If I want to know about demons then I ask an occultist. Why ask a Christian? Most have no idea that they are being deceived.
If I want to know what the occultist thinks, feels and believes it is best to go straight to the source.
But, since you require “Christian” sources for confirmation.......
J. Russell Howden (Church of England) —The goat for Azazel, as it is sometimes misleadingly translated typifies God’s challenge to Satan.
Of the two goats, one was for Jehovah, signifying God’s acceptance of the sin-offering; the other was for Azazel. This is probably to be understood as a person, being parallel with Jehovah in the preceding clause. So Azazel is probably a synonym for Satan.—Sunday School Times, Jan. 15, 1927.
Samuel M. Zwemer (Presbyterian) —The devil (Sheitan, or Iblis) has a proper name—Azazel. He was expelled from Eden.—Islam, a Challenge to Faith, p. 89.
E. W. Hengstenberg (Lutheran) —The manner in which the phrase “for Azazel” is contrasted with “for Jehovah,” necessarily requires that Azazel should designate a personal existence and if so, only Satan can be intended. If by Azazel, Satan is not meant, there is no reason for the lots that were cast. We can then see no reason why the decision was referred to God, why the high priest did not simply assign one goat for a sin offering, and the other for sending away into the desert. Egypt and the Books of Moses, pp. 170, 171.
J. B. Rotherham (Disciples of Christ) —"And one lot for Azazel” (Lev. xvi. 8).—It seems impossible to dissent from the opinion that “Azazel,” instead of being a name for the (e)scape goat, is the name or title of an evil Being, opposed to Yahweh, to whom the live goat on the great Day of Propitiation was sent. Admitting so much, it still remains to inquire into the meaning of this very peculiar but impressive ceremony of sending the living goat to Azazel. Assuming that Satan is represented by Azazel—and there does not appear anything else which biblically we can assume—it is most important to observe that there is here no sacrifice offered to the evil spirit.—The Emphasized Bible, vol. 3, p. 918.
William Jenks (Congregationalist) —Scapegoat. See different opinion in Bochart. Spencer, after the oldest opinions of the Hebrews and Christian, thinks Azazel is the name of the devil, and so Rosenmuller, whom see. The Syriac has Azzail, the “angel (strong one) who revolted."—The Comprehensive Commentary of the Holy Bible, p. 410.
“Abingdon Bible Commentary” (Methodist) —On the goats lots are to be cast, one for Jehovah, and the other for Azazel. The translation dismissal in the R.V. mg. here (cf. removal in A.S.V. mg.) is inadmissible, being based on a false etymology. What the word meant is unknown, but it should be retained as the proper name of a wilderness demon—Page 289.
The site from which you’ve quoted is devoted to demonology, mythology and diluting the truths of Christianity, specifically the person and work of Jesus Christ (as explained on this page). As such, it is hardly what I would consider a good resource for illuminating any portion of the Bible.
Greg
And?
Greg, what better source can there be to discuss the demon nature that Azazel represents than a site on demonology. Your notion about the source that describes what Azazel represents, which clearly is a reference to Satan, is fairly nonsensical frankly. If I want to know the about fires I ask a fireman. If I want to know about demons then I ask an occultist. Why ask a Christian? Most have no idea that they are being deceived.
If I want to know what the occultist thinks, feels and believes it is best to go straight to the source.
But, since you require “Christian” sources for confirmation.......
J. Russell Howden (Church of England) —The goat for Azazel, as it is sometimes misleadingly translated typifies God’s challenge to Satan.
Of the two goats, one was for Jehovah, signifying God’s acceptance of the sin-offering; the other was for Azazel. This is probably to be understood as a person, being parallel with Jehovah in the preceding clause. So Azazel is probably a synonym for Satan.—Sunday School Times, Jan. 15, 1927.
Samuel M. Zwemer (Presbyterian) —The devil (Sheitan, or Iblis) has a proper name—Azazel. He was expelled from Eden.—Islam, a Challenge to Faith, p. 89.
E. W. Hengstenberg (Lutheran) —The manner in which the phrase “for Azazel” is contrasted with “for Jehovah,” necessarily requires that Azazel should designate a personal existence and if so, only Satan can be intended. If by Azazel, Satan is not meant, there is no reason for the lots that were cast. We can then see no reason why the decision was referred to God, why the high priest did not simply assign one goat for a sin offering, and the other for sending away into the desert. Egypt and the Books of Moses, pp. 170, 171.
J. B. Rotherham (Disciples of Christ) —"And one lot for Azazel” (Lev. xvi. 8).—It seems impossible to dissent from the opinion that “Azazel,” instead of being a name for the (e)scape goat, is the name or title of an evil Being, opposed to Yahweh, to whom the live goat on the great Day of Propitiation was sent. Admitting so much, it still remains to inquire into the meaning of this very peculiar but impressive ceremony of sending the living goat to Azazel. Assuming that Satan is represented by Azazel—and there does not appear anything else which biblically we can assume—it is most important to observe that there is here no sacrifice offered to the evil spirit.—The Emphasized Bible, vol. 3, p. 918.
William Jenks (Congregationalist) —Scapegoat. See different opinion in Bochart. Spencer, after the oldest opinions of the Hebrews and Christian, thinks Azazel is the name of the devil, and so Rosenmuller, whom see. The Syriac has Azzail, the “angel (strong one) who revolted."—The Comprehensive Commentary of the Holy Bible, p. 410.
“Abingdon Bible Commentary” (Methodist) —On the goats lots are to be cast, one for Jehovah, and the other for Azazel. The translation dismissal in the R.V. mg. here (cf. removal in A.S.V. mg.) is inadmissible, being based on a false etymology. What the word meant is unknown, but it should be retained as the proper name of a wilderness demon—Page 289.
The aboves quotes (which come from Questions on Doctrine) are used by SDAs to make people think that many Christians agree with their teaching that the scapegoat represents Satan. But nothing could be further from the truth. The authors of Questions on Doctrine (and other SDAs who use such quotes) were simply deceiving Walter Martin and other evangelicals. What these Christian scholars are saying is that Azazel means Satan--but not that the goat represents Satan. Rather, as can be seen clearly in the above J.B. Rotherham quote, they believe that the goat is sent to Azazel (Satan). No Christian church teaches that the goat itself represents Satan--which is nothing short of satanic blasphemy. Such a teaching can, however, be found among groups such as the Church of Satan.
Thus, the SDA usage of these Christian quotes is absolutely despicable and deceitful, and completely disingenuous.
If I want to know about demons then I ask an occultist. Why ask a Christian? Most have no idea that they are being deceived.
Aren’t the Scriptures sufficient for our understanding of demons?
Why would I want someone who argues against the historicity of the New Testament (as the author of the site you linked does) telling me what to believe about the Christian faith, apart from what Jesus and the apostles said themselves? Or do you subscribe to the theories put forth on that site about the apostles not even being the writers of the New Testament?
To carry your analogy further, I suppose I should ask a Satanist to teach me about Satan. Surely you would not advocate this, would you?
As Jeremy said, the quotes you provided do not endorse the Adventist view that the goat represents Azazel. Furthermore, as we discussed on another thread, the typology in the Adventist view falls apart and leads to the conclusion that Satan plays a role in the expiation of sin.
What these Christian scholars are saying is that Azazel means Satan--but not that the goat represents Satan.
Um, I’m pretty sure they mean the goat represents Satan.
J. Russell Howden (Church of England) —The goat for Azazel, as it is sometimes misleadingly translated typifies God’s challenge to Satan.
Of the two goats, one was for Jehovah, signifying God’s acceptance of the sin-offering; the other was for Azazel. This is probably to be understood as a person, being parallel with Jehovah in the preceding clause. So Azazel is probably a synonym for Satan.—Sunday School Times, Jan. 15, 1927.
Samuel M. Zwemer (Presbyterian) —The devil (Sheitan, or Iblis) has a proper name—Azazel. He was expelled from Eden.—Islam, a Challenge to Faith, p. 89.
E. W. Hengstenberg (Lutheran) —The manner in which the phrase “for Azazel” is contrasted with “for Jehovah,” necessarily requires that Azazel should designate a personal existence and if so, only Satan can be intended. If by Azazel, Satan is not meant, there is no reason for the lots that were cast. We can then see no reason why the decision was referred to God, why the high priest did not simply assign one goat for a sin offering, and the other for sending away into the desert. Egypt and the Books of Moses, pp. 170, 171.
J. B. Rotherham (Disciples of Christ) —"And one lot for Azazel” (Lev. xvi. 8).—It seems impossible to dissent from the opinion that “Azazel,” instead of being a name for the (e)scape goat, is the name or title of an evil Being, opposed to Yahweh, to whom the live goat on the great Day of Propitiation was sent. Admitting so much, it still remains to inquire into the meaning of this very peculiar but impressive ceremony of sending the living goat to Azazel. Assuming that Satan is represented by Azazel—and there does not appear anything else which biblically we can assume—it is most important to observe that there is here no sacrifice offered to the evil spirit.—The Emphasized Bible, vol. 3, p. 918.
William Jenks (Congregationalist) —Scapegoat. See different opinion in Bochart. Spencer, after the oldest opinions of the Hebrews and Christian, thinks Azazel is the name of the devil, and so Rosenmuller, whom see. The Syriac has Azzail, the “angel (strong one) who revolted."—The Comprehensive Commentary of the Holy Bible, p. 410.
“Abingdon Bible Commentary” (Methodist) —On the goats lots are to be cast, one for Jehovah, and the other for Azazel. The translation dismissal in the R.V. mg. here (cf. removal in A.S.V. mg.) is inadmissible, being based on a false etymology. What the word meant is unknown, but it should be retained as the proper name of a wilderness demon—Page 289.
Aren’t the Scriptures sufficient for our understanding of demons?
Well, apparently not because we have been warned many times not to be deceived. So I would say it is necessary to put on the whole armour of God and not just take the sword of the Spirit.
Eph 6:11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].
Eph 6:13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Eph 6:14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
Eph 6:15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
Eph 6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Why would I want someone who argues against the historicity of the New Testament (as the author of the site you linked does) telling me what to believe about the Christian faith, apart from what Jesus and the apostles said themselves?
You mean a Satanist can’t tell you about paganism? Did I ask you to believe what a satanist has to say about the NT and the Gospel or did I cite it specifically regarding the meaning behind Azazel?
Or do you subscribe to the theories put forth on that site about the apostles not even being the writers of the New Testament?
Have I given that impression in any of the posts I have made because I certainly don’t think I have.
To carry your analogy further, I suppose I should ask a Satanist to teach me about Satan. Surely you would not advocate this, would you?
To understand what a santanist thinks and feels about Satan? Sure, why not? Great opportunity to witness. Are you so unsure about the Christianity you believe in that you’d be afraid to discuss anything with a satanist?
As Jeremy said, the quotes you provided do not endorse the Adventist view that the goat represents Azazel.
Endorsement? Not at all. Confirmation.
Furthermore, as we discussed on another thread, the typology in the Adventist view falls apart and leads to the conclusion that Satan plays a role in the expiation of sin.
No, not at all - is that what you think? The Azazel goat is “cast in the wilderness” which is clearly symbolic of sin. The sins of the people, that Satan is responsible for are placed back on the goat to show clearly who is responsible for the sin problem. Only the goat sacrificed and killed can be representative of the Messiah, the Azazel goat doesn’t die in place of anyone or anything.
The English word scapegoat is not a correct translation of the Hebrew word God inspired. The original word was azazel. Azazel, among the early Semitic dwellers in the Sinai desert, referred to Satan the Devil! James Moffatt therefore translated this as “Azazel the demon.”
William Gesenius wrote this: “This name was used for that of an evil demon. . . . The name Azazel . . . is also used by the Arabs as that of an evil demon” (Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, page 617). “The devil, named Eblis in the Koran, was once one of the archangels in heaven, and was called Azazil, but by disobedience fell” (J.W.H. Stobart, Islam and Its Founder, p. 114).
Hermann Schultz wrote: “Azazel is . . . an Aramaic . . . name for an unclean and ungodlike power, which has its abode in the wilderness, in the accursed land outside the sacred bounds of the camp” (Old Testament Theology, translated by Paterson, 1892, v. 1, p. 405).
“The high priest . . . cast lots upon the two goats. One was to be for the Lord for a sin-offering. The other was for Azazel (the completely separate one, the evil spirit regarded as dwelling in the desert), to be sent away alive into the wilderness” (F. Watson, The Cambridge Companion to the Bible, 1893, page 161.)
Modern commentaries often misunderstand this azazel goat. This is not too surprising, since Satan has deceived the whole world, and deceived many into thinking he does not exist. Some commentators claim that this azazel goat represents Christ. Such theories have no biblical or symbolic support.
Let’s notice a modern Jewish commentary that makes it clear that the azazel goat represented—Satan the devil: “Azazel . . . was probably a demonic being. . . . Apocryphal Jewish works, composed in the last few centuries before the Christian era, tell of angels who were lured . . . into rebellion against God. In these writings, Azazel is one of the two leaders of the rebellion. And posttalmudic documents tell a similar story about two rebel angels, Uzza and Azzael—both variations of the name Azazel. These mythological stories, which must have been widely known, seem to confirm the essentially demonic character of the old biblical Azazel” (Union of American Hebrew Congregations, The Torah—a Modern Commentary, p. 859).
The word scapegoat carries a wrong connotation. Originally it meant “escape goat"—the goat that was allowed to escape. But today the word scapegoat signifies “one who bears blame or guilt for others.” This is definitely not the meaning that God inspired. Azazel—Satan—bears his own guilt in deceiving mankind. Satan is not a scapegoat for another’s sins. He will be punished for his own guilt.
The real cause—the actual author—of human sin is Satan the Devil (John 8:42-44; Ephesians 2:2). Satan is guilty of inspiring the sins of mankind. Christ paid the penalty for our part in every sin we repent of. But He did not pay for Satan’s part in these sins, or the sins of the other demons. Demons are not offered salvation, and they refuse to repent! So here, in this Levitical ritual, all of man’s Satan-inspired sins were symbolically put back on Satan’s head, where they belong!
When Jesus Christ returns, Satan’s part of the blame for mankind’s sins will be placed on him, and he will then be removed from the presence of man. Justice will be done.
Aren’t the Scriptures sufficient for our understanding of demons?
Well, apparently not because we have been warned many times not to be deceived. So I would say it is necessary to put on the whole armour of God and not just take the sword of the Spirit.
You quote Ephesians 6 as evidence that we should seek out the opinions of Satanists and non-Christians to help us understand the Bible? That is incredible.
Regarding Azazel, the problem with the idea of Satan being represented is that the goat chosen to represent him is identical in quality to the goat offered as the sacrifice for sin, making the two goats equal in purity (Leviticus 16:8-10). Furthermore, Leviticus 16:10 says atonement was “made over” the goat who would leave the camp. If this goat represents Satan, you are stuck with the idea that Satan is identical in quality to Jesus and he participates in the atonement. Only Jesus fits the typology of both goats, responsible for bearing the consequences for sin and its complete removal from the sinner.
You quote Ephesians 6 as evidence that we should seek out the opinions of Satanists and non-Christians to help us understand the Bible? That is incredible.
No, I quoted Ephesians 6 with the express purpose of saying we need to rely on other aspects of the weapons against deception. I think what is incredible is the fact that you twist the plain understanding of language to suit your own understanding....or lack thereof.
Regarding Azazel, the problem with the idea of Satan being represented is that the goat chosen to represent him is identical in quality to the goat offered as the sacrifice for sin,
Not at all. The goat offered for sin was “sacrificed” the Azazel goat was not - it was given up and sent away into the wilderness.
making the two goats equal in purity (Leviticus 16:8-10).
“And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat.” In other words the other goat was “for” Azazel.
How this aspect is missed is truly beyond me.
Furthermore, Leviticus 16:10 says atonement was “made over” the goat who would leave the camp.
“But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat (to be the Azazel), shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him (the Lord), [and] to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.”
If this goat represents Satan, you are stuck with the idea that Satan is identical in quality to Jesus and he participates in the atonement.
Or, and more properly, we can see clearly “who” the ultimate responsibility for the sin problem falls upon. When looked at in this vain one can clearly see and understand that this is a perfect symbol of when then sin problem is done away with and Satan himself is cast into the wilderness.
Only Jesus fits the typology of both goats, responsible for bearing the consequences for sin and its complete removal from the sinner.
I thought it was Jesus that delivered the sinner from darkness (the wilderness) and who came out of the wilderness - not the other way around. Oh well. I suppose if one wants to believe in the notion that both goats represent Jesus then it would be incumbent on such a belief to find out how the Azazel goat equates to anything in the life and ministry of Jesus.
What these Christian scholars are saying is that Azazel means Satan--but not that the goat represents Satan.
Um, I’m pretty sure they mean the goat represents Satan.
J. Russell Howden (Church of England) —The goat for Azazel, as it is sometimes misleadingly translated typifies God’s challenge to Satan.
Of the two goats, one was for Jehovah, signifying God’s acceptance of the sin-offering; the other was for Azazel. This is probably to be understood as a person, being parallel with Jehovah in the preceding clause. So Azazel is probably a synonym for Satan.—Sunday School Times, Jan. 15, 1927.
Samuel M. Zwemer (Presbyterian) —The devil (Sheitan, or Iblis) has a proper name—Azazel. He was expelled from Eden.—Islam, a Challenge to Faith, p. 89.
E. W. Hengstenberg (Lutheran) —The manner in which the phrase “for Azazel” is contrasted with “for Jehovah,” necessarily requires that Azazel should designate a personal existence and if so, only Satan can be intended. If by Azazel, Satan is not meant, there is no reason for the lots that were cast. We can then see no reason why the decision was referred to God, why the high priest did not simply assign one goat for a sin offering, and the other for sending away into the desert. Egypt and the Books of Moses, pp. 170, 171.
J. B. Rotherham (Disciples of Christ) —"And one lot for Azazel” (Lev. xvi. 8).—It seems impossible to dissent from the opinion that “Azazel,” instead of being a name for the (e)scape goat, is the name or title of an evil Being, opposed to Yahweh, to whom the live goat on the great Day of Propitiation was sent. Admitting so much, it still remains to inquire into the meaning of this very peculiar but impressive ceremony of sending the living goat to Azazel. Assuming that Satan is represented by Azazel—and there does not appear anything else which biblically we can assume—it is most important to observe that there is here no sacrifice offered to the evil spirit.—The Emphasized Bible, vol. 3, p. 918.
William Jenks (Congregationalist) —Scapegoat. See different opinion in Bochart. Spencer, after the oldest opinions of the Hebrews and Christian, thinks Azazel is the name of the devil, and so Rosenmuller, whom see. The Syriac has Azzail, the “angel (strong one) who revolted."—The Comprehensive Commentary of the Holy Bible, p. 410.
“Abingdon Bible Commentary” (Methodist) —On the goats lots are to be cast, one for Jehovah, and the other for Azazel. The translation dismissal in the R.V. mg. here (cf. removal in A.S.V. mg.) is inadmissible, being based on a false etymology. What the word meant is unknown, but it should be retained as the proper name of a wilderness demon—Page 289.
Not a single one of those quotes says that the goat itself represents Satan. In fact, one of them very explicitly says that the goat is sent to Satan. Take a look:
J. B. Rotherham (Disciples of Christ) —"And one lot for Azazel” (Lev. xvi. 8).—It seems impossible to dissent from the opinion that “Azazel,” instead of being a name for the (e)scape goat, is the name or title of an evil Being, opposed to Yahweh, to whom the live goat on the great Day of Propitiation was sent. Admitting so much, it still remains to inquire into the meaning of this very peculiar but impressive ceremony of sending the living goat to Azazel. Assuming that Satan is represented by Azazel—and there does not appear anything else which biblically we can assume—it is most important to observe that there is here no sacrifice offered to the evil spirit.—The Emphasized Bible, vol. 3, p. 918.
