On the typical annual sanctuary service of the ancient Israel - the final atonement for the year - called the Day of Atonement, two goats enter the scene. Lots are cast upon the two goats and one lot is for the “Lord’s” goat and the other is for “Azazel” [the scapegoat]. The Hebrew term for scapegoat in Leviticus 16:7 is the word Azazel, and it means “the goat of departure”—or the goat of escape.
We are not alone in our understanding that Azazel is symbolic of Satan. However, there are many in the Christendom who believes that the scapegoat represents Christ and not Satan. In this study, we shall see why the "scapegoat" cannot simply be symbolic of Christ.
Two opposing powers
Leviticus 16:7 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for [Azazel] the scapegoat.
Note: Some read this text to mean, one lot “for the Lord”, and the other lot “for the Lord”. The wording of the scripture shows that these are two opposing powers. One lot “for the Lord” and the other “for Azazel”. This power is none other than Satan himself, who is placed in opposition with the Lord God Almighty. Attention must be given due to the fact that, casting of lots signified that God himself would reveal which one is the Lord’s goat and which one is not the Lord’s goat [i.e. which sin offering is for the Lord, which will make the atonement for the people by shedding it's blood and, which offering will not]. It is Christ who offered himself to God. This is clearly represented by the Lord's goat:
Hebrews 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
We like to ask our opponents, if both goats represented Christ, would there be a genuine necessity to cast any lots? The fact of the matter is, God makes a distinction between the two goats and so must we:
Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD [NIV]
Scapegoat is not slain
Leviticus 16:9 And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD’S lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. 10But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.
Note: It is only the Lord’s goat that is offered for a sin offering. What makes atonement for the soul? Is it the offering or the blood?
Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
Hebrews 9:22 And without shedding of blood is no remission
The scapegoat is not slain but “presented alive” and this reason alone makes things clear that the scapegaot had no part in making atonement for the soul. It is only the Lord's goat that makes atonement for the soul and therefore, represents Christ. Did you also know that Christ is represented twice in the sanctuary service on the Day of Atonement? First, by the goat which is slain, and second, by the High priest. However, Christ is not represented by the scapegoat.
Leviticus 16:9 And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD’S lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. 10But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.
Note: It is only the Lord’s goat that is offered for a sin offering. What makes atonement for the soul? Is it the offering or the blood?
Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
Hebrews 9:22 And without shedding of blood is no remission
The scapegoat is not slain but “presented alive” and this reason alone makes things clear that the scapegaot had no part in making atonement for the soul. It is only the Lord's goat that makes atonement for the soul and therefore, represents Christ. Did you also know that Christ is represented twice in the sanctuary service on the Day of Atonement? First, by the goat which is slain, and second, by the High priest. However, Christ is not represented by the scapegoat.
Scapegoat is not for the people
Leviticus 16:15 Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat
Leviticus 16:30 For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD.
Leviticus 16:30 For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD.
Note: Only Lord's goat which is slain is specificaly said to be "for the people". Therefore, scapegoat must no be "for the people". It is Christ, who is for the people [us]:
Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us
Scapegoat enters after the end of Atoning
Leviticus 16:20, 21 And when he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place, the tabernacle of meeting, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat.
NOTE: The scapegoat had no part in "making atonement for the soul" since it was not slain. The word for "reconciling" is the Hebrew word for "atoning". This means that the sins are only put upon him [scapegoat or satan] after the end of the atoning for the confessed sins of the children of Israel. The sanctuary was cleansed, and sins removed by the blood of the Lord's goat, at the end of the atonement for the year. The live goat only enters the picture when the work of the sanctuary is complete.
Satan the instigator of all evil
Leviticus 16:20, 21 And when he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place, the tabernacle of meeting, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat. Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man.”
Note: It is shown that Satan is the responsible agent in sin. The scapegoat, which represents Satan, in no way bears, or pays for, our sins. Only Christ [1 John 1:7] bears the penalty for sin [Isaiah 53]. That's why Lord's goat was slain. Jesus alone "taketh away the sin of the world" [John 1:29]. Scapegoat comes after END of atoning for the people by the blood of the Lord's goat. This service simply shows that Satan is the final responsible agent in sin. He is charged with the sins that he lead the redeemed to commit.
It is important to note that, for complete reconciliation between man and God, requires the entire salvation process, including the mediation of Christ, the sanctification of His people, and the eventual destruction of sin's originator. This latter fact is why the scapegoat is described in Leviticus 16:10 as making "atonement". Satan, the instigator of all evil is charged with "all the inquity" he lead the redeemed to commit, not for our salvation, nor as our Sin-bearer [for Christ completes this, for He alone is our Sin-bearer], but as for his punishment and ultimate end.
Scapegoat is presented alive "to make atonement with him [scapegoat]"
Leviticus 16:10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him [lekapper alaw], and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.
Note: Scapegoat is presented alive to make atonement "with him [Scapegoat]". Not to make atonement "for us" by its blood for it is not slain unlike the Lord's goat. How does the Lord God Almighy make "atonement" or reconciliation upon or over it - the Scapegoat [Satan]? How else but through judgment or punishment. This is done by charging the evil one with all the sins of the people (Leviticus 16:21). This placing of sins on Satan has everything to do with the punishment of the great rebel who has caused so much misery on planet earth.
Punishment of sinners is also called atonement:
- When an Israelite brought a prostitute into his tent, Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, took a javelin and killed them both. By punishing the sinner for his crime he "made an atonement for the children of Israel" (Num. 25:13). A similar instance is the "atonement" made for the murder of the Gibeonites (2 Sam. 21:1 ,3).
Deut. 32:43 Rejoice, O nations, with his people, for he will avenge the blood of his servants; he will take vengeance on his enemies and make atonement for his land and people.[NIV]
Note: The scapegoat was presented alive to make "atonement with him". Punishment for sin is considered atonement. Satan will be punished (as will all other sinners—Revelation 20:12-15) for his own sins [1 John 3:8], which will include responsibility for (1) the existence of sin, (2) his own evil actions, and (3) influencing every person on earth to sin. God will clearly hold him accountable for evil.
- When an Israelite brought a prostitute into his tent, Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, took a javelin and killed them both. By punishing the sinner for his crime he "made an atonement for the children of Israel" (Num. 25:13). A similar instance is the "atonement" made for the murder of the Gibeonites (2 Sam. 21:1 ,3).
Deut. 32:43 Rejoice, O nations, with his people, for he will avenge the blood of his servants; he will take vengeance on his enemies and make atonement for his land and people.[NIV]
Note: The scapegoat was presented alive to make "atonement with him". Punishment for sin is considered atonement. Satan will be punished (as will all other sinners—Revelation 20:12-15) for his own sins [1 John 3:8], which will include responsibility for (1) the existence of sin, (2) his own evil actions, and (3) influencing every person on earth to sin. God will clearly hold him accountable for evil.
Scapegoat contaminates
Leviticus 16:26 And he that let go the goat for the scapegoat shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward come into the camp”
Note: Another reason why the Scapegoat cannot represent Christ is because it contaminated people who came into contact with it. Surely, this can’t be a symbol Christ (John 1:29).
Christ will appear the second time without sin
Hebrews 9:27 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Note: Once the antitypical [real] final atonement is over, in the heavenly sanctuary, Jesus our High priest will appear, second time “without sin”. Whom would Jesus put the sins of God's people upon after He has finished the atonement? Himself again? If so, why would He need to have sins placed upon Himself after the atonement is finished? This is why the typical annual sanctuary service shows that Satan is the final responsible agent in sin and he is charged with the sins that he led the redeemed to commit.
Elsewhere, Paul says that "the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your [redeemed] feet shortly" (Rom. 16:20). While it is easy to see how Christ will crush Satan's head, what part do the redeemed have in all this? If after the atonement process is over, Christ were to place their sins upon Satan, and Satan were to suffer punishment for those sins, then the redeemed would indeed have a part to play in the crushing of his head (Psalms 149: 5-9).
Leviticus 16:26 And he that let go the goat for the scapegoat shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward come into the camp”
Note: Another reason why the Scapegoat cannot represent Christ is because it contaminated people who came into contact with it. Surely, this can’t be a symbol Christ (John 1:29).
Christ will appear the second time without sin
Hebrews 9:27 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Note: Once the antitypical [real] final atonement is over, in the heavenly sanctuary, Jesus our High priest will appear, second time “without sin”. Whom would Jesus put the sins of God's people upon after He has finished the atonement? Himself again? If so, why would He need to have sins placed upon Himself after the atonement is finished? This is why the typical annual sanctuary service shows that Satan is the final responsible agent in sin and he is charged with the sins that he led the redeemed to commit.
Elsewhere, Paul says that "the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your [redeemed] feet shortly" (Rom. 16:20). While it is easy to see how Christ will crush Satan's head, what part do the redeemed have in all this? If after the atonement process is over, Christ were to place their sins upon Satan, and Satan were to suffer punishment for those sins, then the redeemed would indeed have a part to play in the crushing of his head (Psalms 149: 5-9).
Instigator of Evil is held responsible
Leviticus 16:21 Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man.”
Psalms 7:14-16 Behold, he travaileth with iniquity, and hath conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood. He made a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made. His mischief shall return upon his own head, and his violent dealing shall come down upon his own pate.
Leviticus 19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, that thou bear not sin for him [NKJV].
Note: As seen in the above two scriptures, while the wicked must pay the price for the sin or crime of another, the price they pay simply does not make them a savior or substitute for the actual perpetrator. It is only the price paid by a guiltless substitute that can buy one's pardon. Thus, even if "all sins" are laid upon Satan at some point in the future, he, the guiltiest of all, can never be a savior or a substitute. Only Christ, the Guiltless One can fill that role, for He alone is "OUR" sin bearer.
Thought questions answered:
1) After the shedding of blood by the first goat, didn't the second goat demonstrate the removal of sins thus represneting a complete atonement by the two goats?
Answer: It is the blood that makes atonement for the Soul (Leviticus 17:11). The final atonement for the year focused on a cleansing [removal of sins] atonement (Leviticus 16: 29,30) and was atoned by the blood of the Lord’s goat, but not the Scapegoat; for it was not slain. It was the blood of the Lord's goat that cleansed [removed the sin record of] the sanctuary (Leviticus 16:20). Shedding of the blood of the Lord’s goat demonstrated blotting out or removal of sins from the people and the sanctuary. Scapegoat [Satan] carrying away the sins of the people had everything to do with his punishment and symbolised Satan separated from the saints of God.
2) Didn’t Ellen White say Satan is our “sin-bearer”?
“It was seen, also, that while the sin offering pointed to Christ as a sacrifice, and the high priest represented Christ as a mediator, the scapegoat typified Satan, the author of sin, upon whom the sins of the truly repentant will be placed” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 422p.).
Answer: Ellen White is simply explaining what is portrayed in Leviticus 16:20, 21 - “He shall bring the live goat. Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel”. This goat comes after the atonement is complete and has nothing whatsoever to do with the reconciliation of God’s people.
The term "sin-bearer" appears in Mrs. White's published writings at least 186 times, but she not once said that Satan is Our "sin-bearer". She consistently taught that Christ is our "only sin-bearer":
How hard poor mortals strive to be sin-bearers for themselves and for others! But the only sin-bearer is Jesus Christ. He alone can be my substitute and sin-bearer. The forerunner of Christ exclaimed, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."—Review and Herald, June 9, 1896.
In His intercession as our advocate, Christ needs no man's virtue, no man's intercession. He is the only sin-bearer, the only sin-offering.—Signs of the Times, June 28, 1899.
Now if Jesus is our "only sin-bearer," how can Satan be one too?
Placing sins upon the scapegoat after the atonement is over has nothing to do with our salvation. It has everything to do with the punishment of the great rebel who has caused so much misery on planet earth.
3) If the scapegoat was a representation of Satan, then the goat should have been burned alive as Satan will, instead of being set free?
This is like saying that the lambs and other offerings representing Christ should have been crucified in order to symbolize Jesus.
4) The two goats that were chosen for a sin offering had to be without defects for the atonement to God (Lev. 4:3,23,28,32). We ask this question, could the scapegoat without defects be a representation of Satan?
Satan was once a perfect angel until iniquity was found in him (Ezekiel 28:15), so scapegaot is a fitting symbol for Satan. Note that the 4 verses quoted from Leviticus 4, however, mentions about a sin offering that is to be taken "without blemish", and points out that it's "blood is shed" - this is in contrast to the scapegoat.
5) Doesn’t Hebrews 13:12 say that Jesus "also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood (NIV)”? Even the scapegoat was taken outside the Israelite camp?
Jesus made “atonement for the soul” by his blood, but the scapegoat was sent “ALIVE” for it did not make people holy through its own blood. Besides, contextually Hebrews is dealing with the regular sin offering and not with the goat for Azazel.
6) There was a service where two birds were required for the cleansing of a person with an infectious disease. The priest was to take two birds, and slay one of them and the other was dipped in its blood and then released. Lev. 14:1-7. The two birds are symbolic of Christ's work. Doesn't the bird set free represents Jesus removing the sins of the people like the scapegoat?
There are significant differences in the two ceremonies. For instance, the bird was set free in a true sense whereas the scapegoat wasn't. Scapegoat was taken "away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man". This parallels the scene described in (Revelation 20:1-3) when Satan will be bounded by an angel which signify the separation of Satan from the people of God. Live bird was dipped with the blood (Lev. 14:6) and flew through the air that is laden with germs of disease and sin (Jer. 9:21). This signified that the blood of Christ will ultimately give a new heaven–a new atmosphere–to this sin-cursed earth. Scapegoat had no connection, whatsoever to do anything specifically with the "BLOOD"; while the two birds did. Scapegoat cannot symbolic of Christ given the weight of evidence we have seen. Afterall, these are two separate ceremonies and the bird set free did not represent removing sins of the people. Click the following [external] link to see what the bird set free really represented - Cleansing of the Leper.
7) What happens to those who do not place their sin on the great sin bearer?
Every bible believing Christian knows that those who do not place their sins on the great Sin-bearer Jesus Christ will have to bear the full punishment of their own sins. Does then the unsaved person become his own sin-bearer? Of course not. Even though he has to bear the full punishment of his own sins, he does not become a sin-bearer. The term "sin-bearer" carries the connotation of Savior, substitute, and mediator. This the unsaved can never be. Only Christ can!
8) Scapegoat typifes Satan on the annual Day of Atonement. Thus, Satan has a meaningful, salvific role to perform in our salvation by eventually having to suffer for all our sins that are recorded in heaven. Only through Satan can our sins be finally blotted out. In the truest sense, Adventism teaches that God rewards Satan for his busy deviltry—the more people he can keep from becoming Christians the less suffering he will have to endure for confessed sins.
The opposit is true to what is stated. Sins are blotted out by the Lord's goat. Scapegoat enters after making an end of atoning for the sanctuary and the people (Lev. 16:20,21). Sins are laid upon the scapegoat and sent away as sign of separation of the instigator of all evil from the saints of God. In the end, Satan will suffer for all the sins he has tempted God's people to commit, so the more people accept Christ, the more suffering Satan must endure. Adventists do not view Satan as having any role in our salvation. We are saved, secure, and in fact in heaven before Satan receives his due reward for his part in harassing us with temptations and doubts.
9) Doesn't say both goats were to constitute one sin offering (Lev. 16:5)?
On the contrary, few verses after Lev. 16:5 makes it clear that, it is the Lord's goat which constitute 'a' sin offering:
Leviticus 16:9,10 And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD’S lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness
Notice also the word, "BUT" signifying a contrast between the sin offering [represented by the Lord's goat] and the scapegoat which was presented alive.
Leviticus 16:15 Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people....
10) Hebrews 9:28 “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.” Isa 53:6 “… and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” The wording of Isaiah 53:6 and Hebrews 9:28 is comparable to the high priest’s laying on of hands and confessing all sin over the living goat on the Day of Atonement.
The difference is Christ bore our sins to atone for our sins by shedding his blood. The scapegoat had not part in recociling people or the sanctuary by its blood for it was not slain.
11) Could you cite non-adventist sources which expresses the same view about "Azazel"?
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.
"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.)
[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!]
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.
"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.)
[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!]
See also:
Investigative Judgment Gospel in the Old Testament
Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary