Tyler Vela

Pentateuch
Research Paper

The Use of “Azazel” in Leviticus Sixteen

Many of the reasons for a variety of the intricacies of ceremonial practices in

ancient Israel and the surrounding nations, is shrouded in varied degrees of mystery. We

are quite frequently unable to say with any measure of certainty what exactly was

happening in certain cases, or what the worshipper may have been experiencing or what

significance he or she intrinsically understood to be infused in the practice. One such

occurrence is found in the Leviticus 16 treatment on the Day of Atonement. Here two

goats are offered up in the ceremony, one to the shedding of its blood to make atonement

for the people, and the other to be a sin bearer and carry the sins of the people off into the

wilderness. Here is where the difficulty is found, for the goat that is slaughtered is said to

be “for the Lord” while the goat that is spared yet is the sin-bearer is said to be “for

Azazel.” The question then arises of whether Azazel is a place, a person, a thing, or an

abstraction.1 That is, is Azazel (1) a location in the wilderness (or merely a name for

“wilderness”), (2) a demon who lives far out in or exercises dominion over the

wilderness, (3) simply a name denoting the official title for the goat who is sent out into

the wilderness, or (4) the marker for the idea that the sins of the people are carried off

into the wilderness either symbolically or literally on the head of the second goat? In this

paper I will take us through some etymological considerations that will help inform our

understanding of what is being said as well as the various views on what the author of

Leviticus, and surely God himself, had in mind in the institution of this practice.

1
Categories are taken from Feinberg‟s article “The Scapegoat of Leviticus Sixteen” in Biblotheca Sacra
1958, vol 115. pp320-333.
 Etymology of “Azazel”

While this section will be brief and somewhat limited due to my own lack of

knowledge concerning the languages and their uses in the ancient near it, it is still

possible to piece together a sketch of some of the various meanings that are tied up in the

term. I also feel comforted that many of the commentators dealt with this in a cursory

manner, to the extent that Feinberg calls the etymology of the word “obscure” and relays

F.W. Grant‟s label of it as an “insoluble enigma.”2 Yet because this word is used no

where else in the whole of Scripture, some work must be done to understand its meaning.

Thus, I shall attempt to sketch the various strands of thought as to its origin and its

meaning, though with some trepidation.

The first finds its support from the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate. In these two

translations, the word Azazel is seen to be a compound of „ez (meaning “she goat”) and

„azel (meaning “to go away”).3 They therefore translate it to mean roughly “a goat for

sending away,” or “the goat who escapes;” thus, “scapegoat” in our English translations,4

appearing first in Tyndale‟s English Bible in 1530 and continuing on to the Revised

Standard Version and even the New American Standard Version, (though some English

versions simply leave the word untranslated). Here we can see a common etymological

connection to the Arabic word „azala (“to remove”). We will see that this understanding

of the word will inform those of the opinion that Azazel should be translated as something

of an abstraction or as a possible title of the goat.

Another understanding of this word finds support in midrashic writings by men

such as Rashi and Ibn Ezra. This opinion states that Azazel should carry with it a meaning

2
Feinberg, “The Scapegoat of Leviticus Sixteen.” p325
3
Ross, Holiness of the Lord. p319
4
Ibid.
in reference to a location out in the wilderness. For some this will be a specific location

named Azazel but for others it will simply mean “a place far away,” or possibly slightly

more specifically as “a jagged cliff,” “a fierce land,” or a “rocky place.” Subsumed under

this understanding of the word we will find those who wish to interpret this in manner (3)

listed above, that this refers to the location out in the wilderness. Again, this could have a

specific local meaning such as a certain jagged cliff out in the wilderness that the goat

must be taken to, or it could mean simply “a place far away.” It is also possible that this

may refer to a land in which the Israelites were not to go and thus the land is that which is

“cut off”5 and therefore the goat is Azazel-ed (so to speak) to Azazel. Under this

interpretation, Azazel is also seen as merely a synonym for the “wilderness” later spoken

of in v21, to where the designated man must take the goat to.

A final understanding of the term could be of a demon, or possibly even of an

extra-biblical term (though if this view holds true, would no longer be “extra”) for Satan

himself. This seems to be the interpretation of choice for most non-evangelical scholars,

including many Jewish commentators, though some evangelicals seems to have been

swayed by it. This view also finds much midrashic support. Baruch A. Levine in The JPS

Torah Commentary still allows for the inclusion of “she goat” in the meaning, but

believes it best is a reference to the se„irim, the “goat-demons” listed later in 17:7. He

states, “the form „aza‟zel may have developed through reduplication of the letter zayin:

„ez-„el, “mighty goat,” was pronounced „ezez‟el and, finally, „aza‟zel.”6

This view would also claim a syntactic parallel of “for the Lord” and “for Azazel”

stating that the only proper understanding would be that Azazel is set up as a complement

5
Wenham, NICOT: The book of Leviticus. p235
6
Levine. JPS Torah Commentary: Leviticus. p102
to the Lord. Thus Azazel would be a person name.7 These remote areas of the wilderness

were inhabited by animals whose howls could curdle the blood and thus the ancients may

have seen them as symbols of death and destruction and they were ascribed as the

dwelling places of satyrs and demons. Since the Hebrew word for satyr (sa„ir) literally

means “a hairy one” and is also used to describe goats. It is therefore claimed that the sin

bearing goat was driven to the goat like demon named Azazel.8

In further support of this view, some of the apocalyptic writings during the

intertestamental period, such as 1 Enoch and 11QTemple, ascribed the name to the prince

of demons. Since he is juxtaposed as receiving for himself a goat, against the goat to be

slaughtered “for the Lord,” he is thus seen to these writers as an opposing spiritual force.9

1 Enoch 8:1 reads, “The whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were

taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin.” Then later in vv2-3,

And Azazel taught men to make swords and knives and shields and breastplates;
and made known to them the metals [of the earth] and the art of working them;
and bracelets and ornaments; and the use of antimony and the beautifying of the
eyelids; and all kinds of costly stones and all colouring tinctures. And there arose
much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they were led astray and
became corrupt in all their ways.

While in this later passage he is not directly given the responsibility for the godlessness

or fornication, it is clear that it was by his influence that “they were led astray.” We see

also in other writings such as Tobit, 3 Enoch and the Apocalypse of Abraham, that Azazel

is seen either as the prince of demons or as a specific demon bound up under the crags of

the mountain of Dudael (1 Enoch 10:4-6).

7
Milgrom, The Anchor Bible: Leviticus 1-16. p1020
8
Alexander and Baker, Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. p59
9
Ibid.
 While these summations are in no way exhaustive, we now are in a place to begin

to explore the usage of Azazel in the Leviticus passage. We will now explore the four

options to conclude which one or ones are the most likely explanations.

Azazel as a Place

This is one of the more straightforward understandings of what Azazel means in is

place in Leviticus 16. With its history of interpretation by both Jewish and Christian

scholars as “a jagged place” or some other variant on that same concept, the location of

Azazel as a place seems possible. Yet there are variations on what this may exactly mean.

For some Azazel has in mind a very specific place in mind, though no location has ever

been suggested for it. For these reasons the transliteration into English is perfectly

acceptable. The idea that the name of the location being tied to a demon or other spirit

being besides the Lord, though used as an attack on this view, should hold very little

water in our minds. Just because the Israelites may have possibly referred to this place as

the place of Azazel, does not mean that they thus believed that Azazel actually reigned

over it. We see the half-tribe of Manasseh move to Baal Hermon (literally the Mountain

of Baal) and yet no one attempts to say that they thus believed that Baal reigned on the

mountain. They merely borrowed the term used by their gentile neighbors for the location

and grafted it into their vocabulary. To believe in Azazel as a being would be the exact

type of polytheism that Israel was forbidden to hold to and which set them apart from

many of their neighboring nations.

Yet this form of the place interpretation is not without its difficulties. If we are to

understand Azazel to mean a very specific location, then as the Israelites moved through

the wilderness and finally clear up to Canaan, the length that the designated man must
take the goat from the camp would become quite a lengthy distance. While it makes no

reference to the length of time that the man is to be gone, the fact that this ceremony is

instituted as a single day makes traveling any great distance on foot nearly impossible.

Due to this, others believe that while the term describes a location, it does not

describe a specific location but a type of location, that is, a place far removed,

inhospitable, and possibly full of jagged cliffs or rocky mountains. This would allow for

the continued practice of this ceremony to be done within a single day no matter where

the Israelites traveled. This is the view held by Wenham and various other Old Testament

scholars. Since no arguments seem to be launched against this view, the only thing that

seems to convince people against it is not any major difficulty within itself, but rather it

may simply be the strength of the others.

Azazel as a Person

As we saw previously, many commentators feel that Azazel is best left

untranslated because it relates a proper name of a wilderness demon, or the type of goat-

demon mentioned later in 17:7. The Jewish Encyclopedia it is said that, “after Satan,…

Azazel enjoys the distinction of being the most mysterious extra-human character in

sacred literature. Unlike other Hebrew names, that name itself is obscure,”10 It is because

of this that while there seems to a large number of commentators who would hold to this

view, there is not on exactly what this view entails.

For some, Azazel then that means the goat is now the embodiment of evil, in

which there would be strong parallels to the ceremony seen in Zechariah 5:5-11 in which

“wickedness” is contained and cast out. From here, the personification of evil, it is then

quite easy to see the transition to the one being feared the most and already depicted as
10
Singer, The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 2. p365
the personification of evil, Satan himself. This was what swayed even the church father

Origen to identify Azazel as Satan in Contra Celsum 6:43.

For others still, Azazel, because of his place also in Mandaean, Sabean, and

Arabian mythology, is also deemed probable that he is then a Babylonian deity.11

Although to this, Feinberg points out that if Azazel were in fact a foreign deity, the ritual

of the live goat would be impossible to understand.12

As noted before, many commentators feel that this is a reference to a demon who

inhabited the desert and predated Mosaic religion. To this some will say that the Israelites

were not thus breaking the law to not sacrifice to idols expressly stated in 17:7 but that

Azazel plays a passive role and is merely receiving the sins of the people, which he led

them into, back to himself at the behest of the Lord. This would not only assure the Jews

that their sins had indeed been removed from their presence but that they were returned to

the source and were not lurking for them just outside the camp. They would say that since

he the goat is sent out to him, Azazel must then be a person able to have things sent to

him.

Yet again this view is not without its difficulties. First, outside of this passage

there is no reference in scripture to Azazel as being a demonic being or even a being at

all. One would wonder if such a major ceremony in the calendar of Israel which included

a reference to another deity besides God would go wholly unmentioned. In tandem with

this, is the idea that God would in no way allow any form of idol worship and to send a

goat as a sin offering to a demon power in the wilderness, no matter how passive that

being may be in the process, clearly violates God‟s own command about sacrificing to

11
Ibid. p366.
12
Feinberg, “The Scapegoat of Leviticus Sixteen.” p328-329
idols just one chapter later. It is also clear that this goat is on the same level and equally

responsible for atonement in the eyes of the Lord. While it is not seen as a sacrifice for

atonement, it is unmistakably portrayed as carrying the burden of the sins of the people

away from the camp and into the wilderness, thus sharing the equal role of providing

atonement by God for the people. This seems to be the common objection to this view

held by Feinberg, McClintock and O.T. Allis.13

Azazel as a Thing

The third view is that Azazel is a thing, or more specifically another name for the

goat. Due to the fact that the etymology of the word can be quite easily shown to mean

something like “the goat that is sent out” (or “scapegoat”) some will claim that here the

word, when left untranslated, does much more to cause confusion than to answer it. It is

for this reason that translations like the Septuagint, the Vulgate and, in English,

Tyndale‟s, the RSV or the NASB all render it as “scapegoat” or as some title referencing

the goat itself.

Under this view the idea of casting of lots seems to play an important part in

understanding verse 8. Here one lot is cast for which goat is to be slaughtered “for the

Lord” while the other lot is cast for which goat will be for “scape-goating” or “sending

out.” While this is indeed a possible explanation for what is meant by the term, most who

critique this view will point out the awkward construction of the preposition “for” in

regards to the purpose of the goats. Because the term already carries with it the idea of

“goat” it seems grammatically odd to say that we will cast lots over the goat that will be

“goat-sent out,” or “scape-goated.” They will also say that the parallel between the Lord

and Azazel is lost in this understanding. While there may be some validity to the
13
Feinberg, “The Scapegoat of Leviticus Sixteen.” p331
grammatical argument against this view, neither seem very compelling. It seems that to

accuse the translation of it as being awkward ignores first, how some languages deal with

prepositions in connection to their subjects, and second, is unwilling to think of other

possible translations besides what is considered awkward. It is clear that if we assume

that we should translate it as “one goat is for the Lord” then the parallel of “one goat is

for the casting out goat” is obviously strange. Yet in the NASB it is not the goat that is

for the Lord, it is the lots cast over them. In this manner it would be fair to say that one

lot is for the goat that is for the Lord, and the other lot is for the goat to be cast out. Thus,

we may render it, “one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for Azaze,l” that is, “for which

goat will be cast out.” The other rejection also seems very contrived. In stating that to

render Azazel as scapegoat destroys the parallelism being set up, begs the question of if

the parallelism is there in the first place. It seems obvious that if Azazel is translated as

“scapegoat” then the parallelism is no longer required.

Yet this interpretation is not of the woods yet. Later in v10 it is said that this goat

is designated “for Azazel” and sent off into the wilderness “for Azazel” While again some

grammatical problems can be worked out, it seems that in the first instance it is the goat

and not the lot which is “for Azazel.” Even in the NASB the translation is clumsy here.

“But the goat on which the lot for the scapegoat fell…” Again, we could say that if the

term designates the position of “scapegoat” or the role that it will play, then the

distinction between the goat who will be the scapegoat and the scapegoat itself should

help us to understand that apparent difficulty. We could say that there were many princes

up for the position of the prince of England and when we cast lots, the lot of the prince
fell to the prince. While it may be inelegant grammatically, it is nevertheless entirely

accurate and true.

Azazel as an Abstraction

The final option is not so much in stark contrast to the others. While it can be held

independently, it seems that it is the final conclusion we must draw no matter which of

the other three interpretations that we hold to. This view holds that the goat represents the

entire removal and obliteration of the sins of the people from among their midst. This

view is most elegantly stated by F. Meyrick.

Azazel is an active participle noun, derived ultimately from azal (connected to the
Arabic word azala, and meaning removed), but immediately from the reduplicate
form of the verb, Azazel. The reduplication of the consonants of the root in
Hebrew and Arabic gives the force of repetition, so that while azal means
removed, Azazel means removed by repetitious acts. Azazel, or azazel, therefore,
means one who removes by a series of acts… it properly denotes on that removes
or separates; yet a remover in such sor that the removal is not effected by a single
act or at one moment, but by a series of minor acts tending to and issuing a
complete removal. No word could better express the movement of the goat before
the eyes of the people, as it passed on, removing at each step, in a visible symbol,
their sins further and further from them, until, by continued repetition of the
movement, they were carried far away and removed utterly.14

As stated before, this view is quite compatible with all of the other views. At the end of

nearly all of the treatments on this term, this single concept reappears nearly every time:

that whatever opinion one takes of this passage, the idea and the image that we should

take from this, and that indeed the Israelites were expected to take with them and to

understand, was that when God atones of a persons sin, it is completely removed,

completely destroyed and no longer a reality in their life. Feinberg adds that even in our

Christology, this imagery is consistent in that neither goat represents Christ but that when

both are combined we see “visibly and strikingly the truth of complete removal and

14
Feinberg, “The Scapegoat of Leviticus Sixteen.” p332
dismissal… That which was represented by both goats pointed to the finished work of

Christ on Calvary.”15 Wenham states that no matter what view we hold the basic idea is

“that sin is exterminated.”16

No matter our view on what the term Azazel precisely means, it should be clear to

us what its application was for the children of Israel and for us today. We know that when

God steps in and deals with sin, he does not handle it in the same manner that we do and

simply brush it under the rug, or deny it, or hide it. When the Lord says that he will

remove our sin, he takes it off of us and removes it utterly from our midst. We can know

this not only by looking to the day of atonement, but also to the day of the crucifixion of

Christ when this was done for us once and for all.

15
Ibid.
16
Wenham, NICOT: Leviticus. p235
 Bibliography

1. Alexander, T. Desmond and David W. Baker. Dictionary of the Old Testament

Pentateuch. Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL. 2003.
2. Baily, Lloyd R. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary: Leviticus – Numbers.
Smyth and Helwys Publishing Inc., Macon, GA. 2005.
3. Feinberg, Charles L. “The Scapegoat of Leviticus Sixteen,” Bibliotheca Sacra 115
(1958): 320-333
4. Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Leviticus. Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville,
KY. 1996.
5. Harrison, R.K. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries: Leviticus. Intervarsity
Press, Downers Grove, IL. 1980.
6. Hartley, John. Word Biblical Commentary: Leviticus. Word Books, Dallas, TX.
1992.
7. Kellogg, S.H. The Book of Leviticus. George H Doran Co., New York, NY. 1908.
8. Kleinig, John W. Concordia Commentary: Leviticus. Concordia Press, St Louis,
MO, 2003.
9. Kohlenberger III, John R. The NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament,
vol 1/Gen.-Deut. Zondervan Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI. 1979.
10. Kiuchi, Nobuyoshi. Apollos Old Testament Commentary: Leviticus. Intervarsity
Press, Downers Grove, IL. 2007.
11. Levine, Baruch. The JPS Torah Commentary: Leviticus. The Jewish Publication
Society, New York, NY. 1989.
12. McCurdy, J. Frederic, “Azazel” Jewish Encyclopedia Volume 2, Apo – Ben,
p365-367.
13. Milgrom, Jacob. The Anchor Bible, Leviticus 1-16. Double Day, New York, NY.
1991.
14. Rooker, Mark F. The New American Commentary: Leviticus. Broadman and
Holman Publishers, Nashville, TN. 2000.
15. Ross, Allen P. Holiness of the Lord. Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI. 2002.
16. Wenham, Gordon J. New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The
Book of Leviticus. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI.
1979.