Raider Nation Dave - 10 August 2009 08:39 AM

Greg - 09 August 2009 10:01 PM

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.

I objected to your use of a clearly anti-Bible source for explaining the nature of demons and the meaning of Azazel in Lev 16. I asked you if the Bible was sufficient for our understanding of these topics or not. You responded by saying that the Bible is not sufficient, quoting Ephesians 6 as your evidence (using the Bible to support the idea that the Bible is not sufficient). You also said that we needed to look at sources other than the Bible to understand things like Satan and demons. If you did not mean to use Ephesians 6 in support of looking outside the Bible for understanding Satan and demons, please clarify.

Raider Nation Dave - 10 August 2009 08:39 AM

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.

To die in desolation as part of the atonement made for sin.

Raider Nation Dave - 10 August 2009 08:39 AM

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.

If Aaron cast lots and randomly selected one goat for the sacrifice and one to be sent to Azazel, then the goats were of equal purity to begin with, correct? Why would Satan be represented by a goat that could have been randomly selected to represent the blood Jesus would shed on Calvary?

Raider Nation Dave - 10 August 2009 08:39 AM

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.”

You are adding words to the text in your parenthetical statements which fundamentally alter the meaning of the text. Furthermore, your insertion of “the Lord” in place of the pronoun “him” necessitates that you also say “the Lord” will be sent into the wilderness, e.g., “to make an atonement with him (the Lord), and to let him (the Lord) go for a scapegoat into the wilderness”.

Raider Nation Dave - 10 August 2009 08:39 AM

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.

No, because if you read verse 10 without inserting additional words, it is clear that the goat “for Azazel” is part of the atonement. If this goat represents Satan, Satan plays an anti-typical role in the atonement.

Raider Nation Dave - 10 August 2009 08:39 AM

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.

Jesus pays the penalty for sin in his death as the goat who was slain did on the day of atonement, and Jesus also removes sin “as far as the east is from the west” (Psalm 103:12) as represented by the goat who left the camp to wander (and die) in the wilderness.

Here is what Matthew Henry says about this passage:

The bullock was set between the temple and the altar, and the offering of him mentioned in this verse was the making of a solemn confession of his sins and the sins of his house, earnestly praying for the forgiveness of them, and this with his hands on the head of the bullock. He must then cast lots upon the two goats, which were to make (both together) one sin-offering for the congregation. One of these goats must be slain, in token of a satisfaction to be made to God’s justice for sin, the other must be sent away, in token of the remission or dismission of sin by the mercy of God.

Greg

“When a leader sins, doing unintentionally any one of all the things that by the commandments of the Lord his God ought not to be done, and realizes his guilt, or the sin which he has committed is made known to him, he shall bring as his offering a goat, a male without blemish, and shall lay his hand on the head of the goat and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the Lord; it is a sin offering.” (Leviticus 4:22-24 ESV)

Animals used in the Levitical services were to be “without blemish”, so the two goats used in the day of atonement service would necessarily be so.

“And he shall take from the congregation of the people of Israel two male goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering.” (Leviticus 16:5 ESV)

Both goats were part of the sin offering—one was sacrificed and one was expelled from the camp. This is consistent with Leviticus 16:10 which says atonement was made over the goat who left the camp. As stated previously, only Jesus can fulfill the symbolism that requires spotless purity and participation in the atonement for sin.

Greg

JeremyG - 10 August 2009 11:00 AM

How can you miss such plain English?

I don’t know, why don’t you tell us?

“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.”

Raider Nation Dave - 10 August 2009 10:16 PM

JeremyG - 10 August 2009 11:00 AM

How can you miss such plain English?

I don’t know, why don’t you tell us?

“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.”

And he also says that the ceremony consists of “sending the living goat to Azazel.” How can the goat be sent to Azazel, if the goat is Azazel? The goat is sent to itself? Is that what you think he’s saying? Good grief!

Jeremy

The Etymology of Azazel is uncertain but what Azazel and the two goats represents is not. In light of just a few of many passeges of scripture I believe the following from Easton and Barnes help clarify the issue.

Easton’s Bible Dictionary

Azazel
(Lev_16:8, Lev_16:10, Lev_16:26, Revised Version only here; rendered “scape-goat” in the Authorized Version). This word has given rise to many different views. Some Jewish interpreters regard it as the name of a place some 12 miles east of Jerusalem, in the wilderness. Others take it to be the name of an evil spirit, or even of Satan. But when we remember that the two goats together form a type of Christ, on whom the Lord “laid the iniquity of us all,” and examine into the root meaning of this word (viz., “separation”), the interpretation of those who regard the one goat as representing the atonement made, and the other, that “for Azazel,” as representing the effect of the great work of atonement (viz., the complete removal of sin), is certainly to be preferred. The one goat which was “for Jehovah” was offered as a sin-offering, by which atonement was made. But the sins must also be visibly banished, and therefore they were symbolically laid by confession on the other goat, which was then “sent away for Azazel” into the wilderness. The form of this word indicates intensity, and therefore signifies the total separation of sin: it was wholly carried away. It was important that the result of the sacrifices offered by the high priest alone in the sanctuary should be embodied in a visible transaction, and hence the dismissal of the “scape-goat.” It was of no consequence what became of it, as the whole import of the transaction lay in its being sent into the wilderness bearing away sin. As the goat “for Jehovah” was to witness to the demerit of sin and the need of the blood of atonement, so the goat “for Azazel” was to witness to the efficacy of the sacrifice and the result of the shedding of blood in the taking away of sin.

Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Lev 16:8
The two goats formed a single sin-offering, Lev_16:5. To bring out the meaning of the sacrifice it was necessary that the act of a living being should be performed after death. See Lev_16:22 note. As this could not possibly be visibly set forth with a single victim, two were employed, as in the case of the birds in the rite for the healed leper Lev_14:4-6.
For the scapegoat - Rather, for Azazel. The word occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament but in this chapter, and is probably derived from a root in use in Arabic, but not in Hebrew, signifying to “remove”, or “to separate”.
Azazel is the pre-Mosaic name of an evil personal being placed in opposition to Yahweh. Each goat, having been presented to Yahweh before the lots were cast, stood in a sacrificial relation to Him. The casting of lots was an appeal to the decision of Yahweh (compare Jos_7:16-17; Jos_14:2; Pro_16:33; Act_1:26, etc.); it was therefore His act to choose one of the goats for His service in the way of ordinary sacrifice, the other for His service in carrying off the sins to Azazel (see the note at Lev_16:22). By this exppressive outward sign the sins were sent back to the author of sin himself, “the entirely separate one,” who was banished from the realm of grace.
The goat itself did not lose the sacred character with which it had been endued in being presented before Yahweh. It was, as much as the slain goat, a figure of Him who bore our griefs and carried our sorrows, on whom the Lord laid the iniquity of us all Isa_53:4, Isa_53:6, that we might become a sanctified Church to be presented unto Himself, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing Eph_5:26-27.

Isaiah 53:12 Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors. 

Mat 1:21 “She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”

Mat 26:28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

Romans 3:23-26 (NASB) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 

Rom 4:7 “BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED.

Heb 1:3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Heb 8:12 “FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES, AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE.”

Rom 5:10 For if, being enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we will be saved by His life.

1 Peter 2:24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed

John Douglas