Packer 1

The Azazel Goat of Leviticus 16: A Brief Exegetical and Theological Analysis

By Andrew Packer

Introduction

The significance of Leviticus 16 in understanding the Old Testament sacrificial system,

and even more importantly Christ’s work upon the cross cannot be overestimated. Within this

beautiful chapter are the instructions of what to do with two different goats - one sacrificed to

YHWH and the other sent into the wilderness to “Azazel”. The meaning and significance of this

second goat, this scapegoat, has generated a lot of debate and many conflicting explanations.

This paper will explore the importance of the meaning of this Azazel/scapegoat both exegetically

and theologically.1

Exegetical Study

Before discussing the role this “scapegoat” plays in the rite, it is important to establish

meaning of the word lzEaz"[];. Holladay simply defines the word as “desert demon”.2 BDB gives

a fuller explanation that includes that definition but also explains that it includes the “entire

removal of sin and guilt from sacred places into desert on back of goat, symb. of entire

forgiveness.”3 In The Theological Workbook of the OT there is an excellent discussion of this

issue written by Carl Schultz.4 He points out that the actual meaning of this word is uncertain. If

it is a Hebrew word it could mean “the goat that departs”.5 If it is of Arabic origin it could mean

“banish, remove, for entire removal”. The Rabbi’s believe Azazel referred to the place in the

1
Given the brevity of this paper not everything can or will be covered.
2
269
3
736
4
See "BibleWorks 7." 2007. The following discussion is all taken from the TWOT entry 1593.0 Bibleworks 7
version.
5
This how the LXX, Symmachus, Theodotian, the Vulgate, and Luther understood it.
 Packer 2

wilderness that the goat was sent to. Also, many Jewish and Christian interpreters have taken

Azazel to refer to a demonic being6 or even the devil himself.7 Clearly there is a lot of

disagreement over what the word actually means. Schultz points out that the most important

thing, regardless of what the word actually means, is that the focus is on the removal of the sins

of the nation.8

As Schultz’s points out there is not enough exegetical evidence to really determine the

precise meaning. Those arguing for the “demon” view (the most popular one currently) often

base this on things from outside the text with the only textual basis being that it would be a nice

parallel with YHWH. Since in the Old and New Testament the desert/wilderness is the place of

Satan, a godless wasteland, it could be that all the various nuances are correct. There is an

interesting parallel in Leviticus 14 that must be looked at as well. There two birds are used for

the cleansing of the leper - one is killed, the other is dipped in the blood of the slain one, used to

sprinkle the leper and then set free carrying the sin/leprosy into hd<F'h; ynEP.-l[;.9 This would
seem to indicate that a demon was not in view in Leviticus 16 either - given all the parallels

between the two chapters. However, this paper will not attempt to settle the debate surrounding

the term lzEaz"[. Whether the Hebrews understood that their sins were be carried away into the

desert only or to a demonic being in the desert does not really affect the main focus of this

section one way or another - that the sins are carried away by the goat is the focus.

The next exegetical issue that continues to present problems is whether or not the

“Azazel” is part of the sin offering or serves a separate function in the rite. Angel Rodriguez

6
Including Kleinig, 346-347 and most modern commentators (Kleinig 330).
7
Origen for example. See entry in ISBE Bible Dictionary BibleWorks 7 edition.
8
TWOT entry 1593.0.
9
See Wilhelm Mohler article on “Azazel” in ISBE Bible Dictionary and TWOT entry 1593.0 both for BibleWorks 7.
 Packer 3

argues that either one of the goats could have made up the taJ'x;, but that after the placing10 of

lots only the one goat would make up the sin offering.11 There are two key problems with this

interpretation of the goats. First of all, 16:5 clearly states that the two goats make up the sin

offering. Second, understanding the goats in this way destroys the Christological typology (in

that it separates what Christ’s sacrifice does) that is so clearly present in the text.12

The two goats are necessary to represent exactly what is taking place in the ritual.13 As

the Easton Bible Dictionary states, “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.”14 As

Mohler further elaborates, “The second is necessary to make clear what the first one, which has

been slain, can no longer represent, namely, the removal of the sin, and accordingly has quite

often aptly been called the hircus redivivus.” If one says that only one of the goats truly makes

up the sin offering, then it destroys the full meaning of the sin offering. Not only have the

Israelites sins been atoned for but also “as far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove

our transgressions from us” (Ps. 103:12). This rite on the Day of Atonement atoned for the sins of

all the people of Israel, making them clean in before YHWH. Since they were now cleansed

10
See Kleinig on 16:8 (page 330), as to why is should be “placing” and not “casting” lots in this passage.
11
Rodriguez, Angel Manuel. "Leviticus 16: Its Literary Structure." Andrews University Seminary Studies 34, no. 2
(1996): 275. His footnote contains a list of those opposed to his view.
12
As Rodriguez points out the separating of the two goats comes at the center of the chiasm that makes up verses
6-10. However this emphasis should be seen as pointing to the importance of the two goats in making up the one
sin offering. They are part of one rite, not two.
13
Kiuchi argues that all the sacrifices are incomplete without this scapegoat carrying the sins away. Kiuchi,
Nobuyoshi. "Living Like the Azazel-Goat in Romans 12:1B." Tyndale Bulletin 57, no. 2 (2002): 259.
14
Entry 374 “Azazel”, BibleWorks 2007.
 Packer 4

they could come before YHWH with their sacrifices and offerings. They had “access to his grace

and blessing.”15

Theological Significance

The theological significance has briefly been touched on, but here it shall be developed a

little more explicitly. John calls Jesus the “Lamb who takes away the sin of the world”( John

1:29). While this imagery clearly draws on Isaiah 53, it also is a picture of the scapegoat of

Leviticus 16.16 Jesus is THE scapegoat. The one upon whom the sins of the whole world are

laid. Thus He must go outside the gate to be crucified (Heb. 13:11ff.). He was the one who

knew no sin but yet still became sin so that we might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor.

5:21). Jesus Christ bears the sins of the whole world atoning for them and removing them as far

as the east is from the west. This means that all believers in Christ have access to the grace and

blessing of God. They are no longer unclean, but have been cleansed by the blood of Christ.

They have this redemption applied to them in their baptisms so that now they have full access to

their Holy God. As Hebrews says,

19
Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the

blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the

curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the

house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with

our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with

pure water. (10:18-22)

15
Kleinig, 347.
16
TWOT entry 1593.0.
 Packer 5

It is also the body and blood of this sacrifice that sustains them and cleanses them week

after week in the Lord’s Supper. In Romans 12:1 Paul says that Christians are to present

themselves as living sacrifices. Nobuyoshi Kiuchi argues that Paul is drawing on the imagery of

the “Azazel” goat here and that Christians are to bear the sins of one another just as Christ has

done with our sins.17 So that Christians fed by Christ’s body and blood live out their lives in

love as “scapegoats” just as Christ was their scapegoat.

The implications for properly understanding the “Azazel” and its relation to the other

goat are profound, but when properly understood present a beautiful and glorious picture of the

work of Christ.

Conclusion

The “Azazel” goat is only mentioned in Leviticus 16. Yet the few verses devoted to this

goat are packed with meaning. Though interpreters may never fully agree on what exactly

“Azazel” means, the “Azazel” goat presents all readers and hearers with a rich picture of what

Christ has done with their sins for them. Sometimes it is the small, even odd, portions of

Scripture that give the clearest picture of Christ.

My soul looks back to see

The burdens Thou didst bear

When hanging on the cursèd tree,

And hopes her guilt was there.

(LSB 431)

17
Kiuchi, Nobuyoshi. "Living Like the Azazel-Goat in Romans 12:1B." Tyndale Bulletin 57, no. 2 (2002): 251-261.
 Packer 6

Bibliography

"BibleWorks 7." 2007.

Brown, F., S. Driver, and C. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon.
Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999.

Engelbrecht, Edward A., ed. The Lutheran Study Bible. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House,
2009.

Keil, C.F., and F. Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament: Genesis - Leviticus. Ages
Software. 1999.

Kiuchi, Nobuyoshi. "Living Like the Azazel-Goat in Romans 12:1B." Tyndale Bulletin 57, no. 2
(2002): 251-261.

Kleinig, John W. Leviticus. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2003.

Leithart, Peter. "Bible: Scapegoat." Leithart.com. December 12, 2008.

http://www.leithart.com/2008/12/16/scapegoat/ (accessed May 4, 2010).

—. "Bible-OT-Levitcus: Structure of Leviticus 16." Leithart.com. September 9, 2009.

http://www.leithart.com/2009/09/29/structure-of-leviticus-16/ (accessed May 4, 2010).

—. "Theology-Soteriology: Lots Again." Leithart.com. December 23, 2008.

http://www.leithart.com/2008/12/23/lots-again/ (accessed May 4, 2010).

Rodriguez, Angel Manuel. "Leviticus 16: Its Literary Structure." Andrews University Seminary
Studies 34, no. 2 (1996): 269-286.