Non Adventist sources affirm Scapegoat or Azazel as a symbol of Satan
"The sending of the sin-laden goat . . . signified the complete removal of the sins of the people and the handing them over, as it were, to the evil spirit to whom they belonged" (The One Volume Bible Commentary, 1975, p. 95).
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
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.
"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 devil himself, the head of the fallen angels, who was afterwards called Satan; for no subordinate evil spirit could have been placed in antithesis to Jehovah as Azazel is here, but only the ruler or head of the kingdom of demons.’ (C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, bk. 1: The Pentateuch, ‘The Third Book of Moses,’ 10 bks. [n.d.], p. 398.)
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.
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.
"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 devil himself, the head of the fallen angels, who was afterwards called Satan; for no subordinate evil spirit could have been placed in antithesis to Jehovah as Azazel is here, but only the ruler or head of the kingdom of demons.’ (C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, bk. 1: The Pentateuch, ‘The Third Book of Moses,’ 10 bks. [n.d.], p. 398.)
The Jewish authority Dr. M. M. Kalisch.—There can be no doubt whatever that Azazel is a personal, a superhuman, and an evil being—in fact a wicked demon. . . . It was approved of by early Christian writers who identified Azazel with Satan (Origen, C. Cels. VI. 43, p. 305 ed. Spencer; Iren. Adv. Haer. 1. 12; Epiphan. Haeres XXXIV. 11), and by many later and modern scholars. (A Historical and Critical Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 2, pp. 328, 329).
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia—By the use of the same preposition . . . in connection with Jehovah and Azazel, it seems natural . . . to think of some personal being.— "Azazel," vol. 1, p. 343.
Smith and Peloubet's "A Dictionary of the Bible."—The best modern scholars agree that it designates the personal being to whom the goat was sent, probably Satan.—Page 65.
Roy Gane's NIV Application Commentary on Leviticus and Numbers, which represents mainstream evangelical thinking gives the same idea. Although Gane is a SDA, his commentary was reviewed and accepted by the best of evangelical scholarship. Also, the standard evangelical commentators, such as Gordon Wenham (New International Commentary on the OT) gives this as a possible interpretation. It is noteworthy that the recent evangelical commentaries no longer argue for Christ as the fulfillment of this typology.
Ron Allen, Pastoral Director of Good News Unlimited, "In my opinion Jesus is not the primary meaning of Azazel in its connection with the YOM KIPPUR ceremonies. There is a body of scholarly opinion which holds that Azazel (Scapegoat) references a the goat-like demons which were believed by ancient peoples to haunt the desert. Leviticus 17:7 hints that the Israelites were tempted to offer sacrifices to these mythical pagan creatures. The sending away of the scapegoat into the desert 'by the hand of a fit man' symbolized the idea of the sins of the people beings sent away or banished to the source of all impurity. Having said that, it is easy, from and illustrative point of view to see hints of Jesus in the scapegoat. He was made sin for us, he was cut of from the land of the living--in order to give us life. (Good News Unlimited is the ministry website of former Adventist pastor/scholar Dr. Desmond Ford)
Consider also the following discussion by John N. Andrews, and his citation of scholars who were not Adventists:
"In view, then, of the difficulties attending any other meaning, and the accumulated evidence in favor of this, Hengstenberg affirms with great confidence that Azazel cannot be anything else but another name for Satan. . . ."
"The meaning of the term, viewed as a proper name, was stated in 1677, by Spencer, Dean of Ely, to be Powerful Apostate, or Mighty Receder."
Mr. Beecher, on the seventy-second page of his [p. 127] work, states that Professor Bush considers Azazel to be a proper name of Satan.
Gesenius, the great Hebrew lexicographer, says:—"Azazel, a word found only in the law respecting the day of atonement. Lev.16:8,10,26. . . . it seems to denote an evil demon dwelling in the desert and to be plac[at]ed with victims . . . . This name Azazel is also used by the Arabs for an evil demon."
The "Comprehensive Commentary" has the following important remarks:—"Scape-goat. See different opinions in Bochart. Spencer, after the oldest opinions of the Hebrews and Christians, thinks Azazel is the name of the devil; and so Rosenmuller, whom see. The Syriac has Azzail, the angel (strong one) who revolted."
"Cassell's Illustrated Bible" speaks thus of the scape-goat:—"We offer the following exposition as much more likely, and much more satisfactory: That Azazel is a personal denomination for the evil one."—J. N. Andrews, The Judgment, Its Events and Their Order, pp. 78-81.
- Presbyterian (William Milligan, James Hastings, William Smith)
- Lutheran (Elmer Flack, H. C. Alleman)
- Congregational (F. N. Peloubet)
- The Society of Friends (George A. Barton)
- Methodist (John M'Clintock, James Strong)
- Reformed Episcopal (James M. Gray)
Cited
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/q34.htm
http://www.ucg.org/booklet/gods-holy-day-plan-promise-hope-all-mankind/atonement-removal-sins-cause-and-reconciliation-/
http://www.ucg.org/booklet/gods-holy-day-plan-promise-hope-all-mankind/atonement-removal-sins-cause-and-reconciliation-/