Sermon: Azazel: Endings

Is There a Scriptural Fulfillment?
#1674
David C. Grabbe
Given 01-Oct-22; 76 minutes

listen:

playlist:
Go to the The Azazel (sermon series) playlist

download:

description: (hide)

In the previous sermon, we saw the need to establish major teachings by using two or three witnesses of Scripture. We covered the problem of basing a doctrine on the meaning of a word, not only because the meaning may not be certain, but also because the meaning is only a single witness. Even Christ said that if He bore witness of Himself, His testimony would not be valid in human terms, and so even He produced multiple witnesses.

We considered the most common starting points for understanding the word azazel, and we saw that none of them is definitive. We spent a lot of time looking at the traditional view, which is based on writings of doubtful authenticity and Jewish folklore, as well as Arabic and Islamic tradition. From such sketchy sources as these arises the assertion that azazel is either a name of Satan or of a lesser demon, depending on which source you use.

We also saw that, rather than beginning with the uncertain meaning of the word, if we instead begin with what happens to the live goat, there is an abundance of clear scriptures that point to the Messiah. He was the one upon whom sins were laid, and who bore them. He was the one who became sin, who was sent away from the Temple, and who became a curse to satisfy the curse of being sent from God’s presence, so we can come back into it.

One Offering, Multiple Animals

Today we will go through the overall ritual in Leviticus 16 in greater detail. However, first we will establish a biblical pattern by looking briefly at another ritual God gave to Israel. Though it is commonly overlooked, the two goats follow the same pattern as the ritual for cleansing from leprosy. This ritual also uses two animals, except it uses two birds instead of two goats:

Leviticus 14:4-7 then the priest shall command to take for him who is to be cleansed two living and clean birds, cedar wood, scarlet, and hyssop. And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water. As for the living bird, he shall take it, the cedar wood and the scarlet and the hyssop, and dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water. And he shall sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed from the leprosy, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose in the open field.

This was the ritual God commanded for the cleansing of leprosy. There were other sacrifices that went along with this ritual, but the key point is the use of two animals with differing roles, used together for the sake of cleansing and removal. One animal was killed so its blood could be used to cleanse. The second animal was left alive and set free to symbolize the removal of the leprosy.

The two birds represent two needed and related functions, yet there is nothing to suggest that they typify two opposing beings, or that the second bird was a type of Satan, or even that the second bird was revealed as the source of the leprosy. Instead, both were sacrificial animals, and each was used for a different role within the overall ritual. The blood of the first bird was shed to provide cleansing. The second bird was released for the complete removal of the leprosy. Its death is not shown because that wasn’t its role. We might tend to lump together the cleansing and removal as being the same thing, but it is important to notice that God makes those elements distinct in this pattern that He establishes.

Keep your place in Leviticus, and please turn to Mark 1, where we see how Jesus fulfilled this:

Mark 1:40-42 Now a leper came to Him, imploring Him, kneeling down to Him and saying to Him, “If You are willing, You can make me clean.” Then Jesus, moved with compassion, stretched out His hand and touched him, and said to him, “I am willing; be cleansed.” As soon as He had spoken, immediately the leprosy left him, and he was cleansed.

Notice that Jesus fulfilled the roles of both birds simultaneously. He both cleansed the leper, and caused the leprosy to be removed. He fulfilled the roles of both birds at the same time, and then sent the man to the priest for the other required offerings.

The two goats of Leviticus 16 follow this pattern of dual roles:

Leviticus 16:5 And he shall take from the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats as a sin offering, and one ram as a burnt offering.

Here, two goats are prescribed as a sin offering, which is unusual because the typical sin offering used only a single animal. So, there is a backstory that we need to cover before going further in the chapter. It has to do with sin offerings in general, so please turn back to Leviticus 4.

Leviticus 4 gives four slightly different sets of instructions for a sin offering, depending on who had committed the unintentional sin. So, beginning in verse 3 are instructions for a sin offering for a priest. Verse 13 talks about a sin offering for the whole congregation. Verse 22 talks about a sin offering for a leader of the people, and then a sin offering for an individual is found in verse 27.

A significant point here is that there are instructions (in verse 13) for a sin offering for the whole congregation, which involves a young bull. However, what happened on the Day of Atonement, with its two goats as a sin offering, does not match those instructions. If a typical sin offering for the congregation would have sufficed, the instructions in verses 13-21 would have been used. But what happened on the Day of Atonement was not typical. God is showing a unique scenario altogether.

Regardless of who sinned, though, the priest used the same basic process in a typical sin offering. This procedure is important to understand because it will help to explain later why two goats were used for the Day of Atonement offering. We will use the sin offering for the priest as an example of how a sin offering was performed.

First (in verse 4), the guilty party—the priest, in this case—laid his hand on the head of the sacrificial animal. This symbolized the animal taking the place of the sinner. Through the laying on of a hand, the substitute was identified, and the sin was figuratively transferred to the animal. Second, the animal was killed. Third (in verses 5-6), some of its blood was sprinkled in front of the veil of the tabernacle. The blood did not go into the Holy of Holies, which is a critical point. Fourth (in verse 7), some of the blood was put on the horns of the golden altar (which was used for incense). The rest of the blood was poured at the base of the other, larger altar, the brazen altar. Fifth (in verses 8-10), select parts of the animal were burned on the brazen altar. Finally (in verses 11-12), the rest of the animal was burned outside the camp. The details vary a little, but the same basic procedure is carried out in each of the four scenarios listed here.

The Qualities of Blood

So, that is part of the backstory, but we need to go back further still to get more of the story. Many don’t realize that the Day of Atonement instructions begin in Exodus 30:

Exodus 30:10 And Aaron shall make atonement upon its horns once a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonement; once a year he shall make atonement upon it throughout your generations. It is most holy to the LORD.

The altar here is the golden altar of incense, which was closest to God’s presence. It was located within the Holy Place, and just outside the Holy of Holies. God commanded the high priest to cover the altar’s horns once a year with the blood of a special offering to purge the uncleanness. But this sin offering also is not the typical one we saw in Leviticus 4. This offering has a name that sets it apart. It is called, “the sin offering of atonements” or “for atonements. It is also referred to in Exodus 29 and Numbers 29. Now, the Hebrew word for atonement in that name is plural because multiple objects were cleansed on this Day. Similarly, in the three places where the phrase, “The Day of Atonement,” is used, the word for “atonement” is also plural. So, it would be technically correct to call this holy day the “Day of Atonements” (Leviticus 23:27-28; 25:9).

So, the horns of the altar had to be purged by blood once a year using the sin offering of atonements. But not just any blood would suffice because of how God views blood and sin. Please turn to Deuteronomy 12:

Deuteronomy 12:23 “Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life; you may not eat the life with the meat.” (see also Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 7:26-27; 17:10-14; 19:26; Deuteronomy 12:16).

Notice that even when an animal is dead, God still considers the blood to be the life of the animal. In this verse, the meat is lifeless, and yet even then, the blood still represents the life. Blood is a symbol of the life, even after it is no longer within a living animal’s body.

Now, let’s carry this through. In a typical sin offering, the transgressor symbolically transfers his sin by laying his hand on an innocent substitute. The animal’s blood, then, which represents life, becomes a representation of the sin being atoned for. In type, the blood becomes a record of the sin.

This ceremonial aspect of blood can be seen by comparing the instructions for the sin offering with other blood sacrifices. We won’t turn to it, but in Leviticus 6:27, it says that if any of the blood of the sin offering was sprinkled or splattered on the priests’ garments, they had to be washed. However, this was not necessary if the blood of either burnt offerings or peace offerings got on the priests’ clothes, because those sacrifices did not involve sin. The blood from those sacrifices was not considered to be defiled. But in a sin offering, the life and the sin of the guilty party were transferred to the substitute, and since the blood is the life, the blood of the substitute was symbolically defiled.

Now, remember that the blood of the typical sin offering was placed on the horns of the altar. Because of what the blood represented, it is as though the horns of the golden altar became a repository for the sins of the priests and the congregation (see Leviticus 4:7, 18). The prophet Jeremiah describes all the accumulated blood and sin:

Jeremiah 17:1 The sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron; with the point of a diamond it is engraved on the tablet of their heart, and on the horns of your altars.

This describes just how sinful Judah was, and God says it is like the sins are engraved on the horns of the altars. With each sin offering, another record of guilt was added to the horns. The word engraved indicates a great deal of repetition. That’s a lot of sin offerings. God’s prescription was an annual cleansing of the golden altar, and specifically the horns, where the defiled blood was put. But the high priest had to use blood from an animal that did not have sins transferred to it. A typical sin offering would just add more sin to the altar. Instead, undefiled blood was needed. Once a year, then, the special sin offering of atonements was made to cleanse the horns of the golden altar.

Much More Than a Typical Sin Offering

So, we have the backstory, and now we can start to understand the first part of the Leviticus 16 ritual:

Leviticus 16:9 And Aaron shall bring the goat on which the LORD’s lot fell, and offer it as a sin offering.

Leviticus 16:15-19 “Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering, which is for the people, bring its blood inside the veil, do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and before the mercy seat. So he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, for all their sins; and so he shall do for the tabernacle of meeting which remains among them in the midst of their uncleanness. There shall be no man in the tabernacle of meeting when he goes in to make atonement in the Holy Place, until he comes out, that he may make atonement for himself, for his household, and for all the assembly of Israel. And he shall go out to the altar that is before the LORD, and make atonement for it, and shall take some of the blood of the bull and some of the blood of the goat, and put it on the horns of the altar all around. Then he shall sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times, cleanse it, and consecrate it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.

Notice that there is no mention of the high priest laying hands on this first goat. Likewise, in verses 11-14, there is no mention of the priest laying his hand on the bull for himself, which was a requirement we saw. One way to view that is that the laying of hands is implied, just as many sin offerings are mentioned in Scripture without the entire procedure being spelled out—otherwise, our Bibles would be even thicker. However, I believe the laying of hands is not mentioned on purpose. Part of the reason is that all the other steps for a sin offering are shown, and I believe God is highlighting something in the differences.

If we take this as it is written and not infer any steps, the bull for the high priest and the first goat have two things in common: First, there is no mention of hands being laid on either of them. Second, their blood was taken inside the Holy of Holies. Both of those are significant differences from a typical sin offering. Everything else for the bull for the high priest is the same—part is burned on the altar, and its carcass is burned outside the camp. But there is no transference shown, and the blood is allowed inside the veil, into God’s very presence.

These differences indicate the blood of these animals was pure, which is why it could be used to purge the horns of the altar. Only blood that did not represent sin was brought inside the veil. The blood from every other sin offering stopped at the veil.

So, the priest used the blood of the bull and the first goat to purify the various holy objects, beginning with God’s throne—the Mercy Seat—and working outward. Notice, though, in the explanation given what the blood of the first goat is makes atonement for. It says it is used to make atonement for the Holy Place, and for the tabernacles of meeting, and for the altar. It is on account of the people—meaning because of their sinfulness—that these things needed this annual purging, but notice that the stated purpose was for cleansing the things of the LORD. Atonement was made for the objects closest to the LORD since the people were sinful.

Now we will read verses 20-21:

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.

So, the priest laid both his hands on the second goat, and confessed over it the sins of the nation so they could be sent away.

Now, when we compare the regular sin offering with what happened with the two goats for the Day of Atonement sin offering, an intriguing picture emerges. The procedure for each goat individually lacked a critical element found in the regular sin offering. That is, the first goat was killed, but it did not have any sins symbolically transferred to it. The second goat had hands and sins laid on it, but it was not killed by the priest. Each one was missing something found in the regular sin offering, but together, they comprised a sin offering by which something far greater was accomplished.

While the regular sin offering kept adding records of sins to the altar throughout the year, on the Day of Atonement, the record of sins was first cleansed with pure blood, and then all the sins were removed from the nation. One goat had to die for cleansing; the other goat had to remain alive for bearing the sins away and removing them from God’s presence.

Now, even though we have seen how the two goats together were used for this annual cleansing of sin, it may still seem like the azazel was not a sin offering since it was not slain. But before excluding the live goat from being a sin offering, we should note that it certainly was sacrificed in the sense of its life being completely given over to a sacrificial purpose. Its purpose was to bear sins as a substitute rather than to give its blood. Jesus Christ was alive while He bore our sins, but He was still a Sacrifice while that took place.

You might remember from the previous sermon that the Hebrew word for “sin offering,” chatta'ah (Strong’s #2403), is also the word for “sin.” It has multiple meanings. It can indicate sin, a sin offering, guilt as a result of sin, purification from sin, or punishment because of sin. In general, chatta'ah has to do with sin, its effects, or its remediation.

The Hebrew in Leviticus 16:5 literally says, “two kids of the goats as a sin [chatta'ah].” When we substitute some of the other ways chatta'ah is used, verse 5 could be rendered as:

“…two kids of the goats as a purification from sin…”

“…two kids of the goats because of sin…”

In a sin offering, the animal became symbolic of the guilt incurred by sin. It then suffered the judgment of sin, and was thus the purification from sin. This is why the same word is used for both sin and sin offering: The animal becomes synonymous with the sin and its atoning.

In the case of the two goats, both goats became offerings on account of sin, yet they had differing roles in making atonement. The second goat, though not killed by the priest, was still an offering. It was still a substitutionary representative of sin, as chatta'ah is defined.

Casting Lots for the Goats

Verse 8 contains what is probably the most commonly misunderstood part of the chapter:

Leviticus 16:8-10 Then Aaron shall cast lots for the two goats: one lot for the LORD and the other lot for the scapegoat [azazel]. And Aaron shall bring the goat on which the LORD’s lot fell, and offer it as a sin offering. But the goat on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make atonement upon it, and to let it go as the scapegoat [azazel] into the wilderness.

This is where the train most frequently goes off the tracks, especially where Jewish mythology and carnal traditions have clouded the mental environment. You might recall the principle I mentioned last time from John’s “Do You See God?” sermon. He said, “We see what we want to see. We see what we expect to see. We see what we are educated to see.” If we have been educated that Azazel is a name for Satan or another demon, our mind may automatically fill in that the two goats represent opposing personalities, and this scene of lots being cast is then interpreted with that in mind. However, just as with the birds for leprosy, there is nothing that indicates the two roles must to be fulfilled by two different personalities.

The casting of lots here is unique in a couple of ways. First, it is the first place lots are used in Scripture. Second, it is the only place lots are used in the sacrificial system. This means we can’t compare it to other rituals. The next usage is for the assigning of tribal lands, which doesn’t help us here. It isn’t until we get to the time of King David that we find something more helpful, and that is where lots were cast to assign duties, responsibilities, or roles, which is what we see here.

As it says, one lot is designated as "for the LORD." This phrase is commonly taken to mean that the goat chosen by that lot is a representation of the LORD. Now, because of this assumption, it is common to conclude that the second goat, then, must be a representation of Satan. However, the phrase, "for the LORD," has nothing to do with representation.

Please make note of this: God was not telling the Israelites, nor us today, how to interpret the ritual. These are instructions for how the ritual was to be performed, not for identifying later fulfillments. Certainly, we know now that the first goat was fulfilled by Jesus Christ. Indeed, He was the goal, the object, of the whole law. But that isn’t what these particular instructions are about. They are about how to perform the ritual, not interpret it.

This same phrase is used in several other places. I will read these to you for the sake of time:

Exodus 30:37 But as for the incense which you shall make, you shall not make any for yourselves, according to its composition. [Notice:] It shall be to you holy for the LORD.

God designates the holy incense as “for the LORD” because it was for His satisfaction, not because the incense was a representation of Him. The NET Bible says, “belonging to the LORD,” which accurately describes what “for the LORD” indicates.

Numbers 31:3 So Moses spoke to the people, saying, “Arm some of yourselves for war, and let them go against the Midianites to take vengeance for the LORD on Midian.

There is no thought of representation, but instead that this action was on account of the LORD, or for the sake of the LORD, or with respect to the LORD. Later in the chapter (Numbers 31:28, 50), the Israelites were to levy a tribute, which became an offering, “for the LORD.” Again, there is no symbolism implied in this phrase. One more:

Deuteronomy 13:16 And you shall gather all its plunder into the middle of the street, and completely burn with fire the city and all its plunder, for the LORD your God. . ..

As these examples show, the phrase, “for the LORD” means, “in reference to, on account of, or for the sake of the LORD.” It is never used to mean, “representing the LORD.” Rather, it was for the LORD’s service, satisfaction, or appeasement. In other words, through the use of lots, God would designate which goat He wanted to supply the blood that would make atonement for His throne, for His Holy Place, for the altar closest to His holy presence.

Now notice verse 15:

Leviticus 16:15 Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering, which is for the people….

So, this first goat that was “for the LORD” was also “for the people.” As with the phrase, “for the LORD,” the phrase, “for the people” means “on account of” the people, and specifically, on account of the people’s uncleanness. We can see this in verse 16: “So he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, for all their sins; and so he shall do for the tabernacle of meeting which remains among them in the midst of their uncleanness.”

To summarize, then, the priest cast lots so God would choose which animal He wanted for each function. God chose one goat for Himself, meaning for His satisfaction through purging on account of the people’s uncleanness. God chose the second goat “for the azazel,” that is, for the second function of complete removal. The fact that hands were then laid on the second goat means that it became a substitute for the people—not for Satan. Its purpose was for the complete removal—just like the second bird. The casting of lots established God’s will. It was imperative that God choose the roles instead of the priest, even though the two animals were ostensibly equal as far as the priest was concerned.

When it comes to the specifics of worship, God’s thoughts and will are all that matter. When it came to choosing between the goats, the use of lots reminded the high priest that God alone is qualified to determine how He will be worshipped. The Day of Atonement is about cleansing and removal of sin because of the uncleanness of the people, and God’s choice in how that is accomplished is supreme. The high priest had to defer to God as to which goat He wanted for His own satisfaction, and which goat He wanted to become a representation of the people’s sin. The casting of lots simply revealed God’s will. It was not about revealing a representation of the Devil, for God does not acknowledge Satan in the sacrificial system at all.

The First Goat—for the LORD

Part of the confusion about the second goat stems from misunderstanding the role of the first goat, which was different than is assumed. It was only one part of a compound sin offering, and its purpose was cleansing. Certainly, Jesus fulfilled it, just as He fulfilled numerous other sacrificial roles. But the goat for the LORD had a specific role, and the goat for complete removal had a second role. Ultimately, Christ fulfilled them both, but neither one, by itself, represents the totality of His sacrifice, just as neither a burnt offering nor a peace offering represented the totality of His sacrifice. Neither of the birds used for leprosy represented the totality of Christ’s life or death, either. Rather, each offering provides a view or a lens of one aspect of the later work of the Messiah.

As verse 20 summarizes, the first goat was for “atoning for the Holy Place, the tabernacle of meeting, and the altar.” It was on account of the LORD, and because of the uncleanness of the people, that these things had to be cleansed. This goat was not used to add more sin to the altar, but to make an annual purging of the uncleanness. If you would please turn to Hebrews 9, we will see Christ’s fulfillment of the first goat:

Hebrews 9:7 But into the second part the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the people’s sins committed in ignorance;

Hebrews 9:11-14 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Hebrews 9:23-25 Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another—

Verse 7 says that the priest offered (or brought) blood for himself and for the people’s sins, and verse 23 underscores that the part of the ceremony involving bringing blood into the Most Holy Place was for purification or cleansing of the objects. This idea is also found in verse 22, which says that “according to the law almost all things are purified with blood.”

The Levitical priest used animal blood, but our High Priest entered the Holy of Holies in heaven with His own blood. His blood provides an entrance into the presence of the Supreme God. I don’t know if you’ve ever thought about it, but verse 23 says the heavenly things had to be purified. It’s as though simply being in the same universe as humanity meant they had to be cleansed. But Christ’s blood provides a cleansing so complete that we now can “come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” His blood appeases the Father, so we can “draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience.”

The Second Goat—for azazel

Please turn back to Leviticus 16. Notice that the blood of the first goat relates to access by the priest and cleansing of the holy objects. It provided an annual cleansing of the Holy Place, but more was required, even as the first bird did not completely solve the problem of the leprosy—God gave an additional step. Notice what it says in verse 21. After the first goat was killed and its blood atoned the holy objects, then the high priest confessed “all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins” on the goat for removal. If the blood of the first goat had paid for all the sins of the nation, there would be no unaddressed sins left for the high priest to confess. But since the high priest confessed the sins of the nation, we know that first goat did not provide complete propitiation, but rather it cleansed the objects closest to the LORD. And just like a second bird was used to send the leprosy away, the sins of the nation were removed through a substitute that would bear them away. And, again, it is critical to recognize that it is the sins of the nation that are borne away, not the sins of Satan or one of his minions.

We went through the scriptural fulfillment of the azazel last time, so I will just mention the verses. These all correspond with what happens with the live goat:

• Isaiah 53:6 says, “[T]he LORD has laid on [the Messiah] the iniquity of us all.”
• Isaiah 53:11 says, “. . . By His knowledge [the Father’s] righteous Servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities.”
• Isaiah 53:12 says, “. . . He bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”
• Hebrews 9:28 says, “. . . so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.”
• I Peter 2:24 says, “. . . who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness”
• II Corinthians 5:21 says, “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us….”
• Galatians 3:13 says, “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us . . .”

This is how sins are removed—through Jesus Christ becoming sin and being separated from the Father for what must have seemed like eternity. Like the first goat, His sacrifice opened the way into the Holy of Holies. His sinless blood has given us access to and satisfied the Most High God. Like the second goat, Jesus also bore our sins. Through piercing, bruising, and wounding while hanging on a tree for hours outside the gate, our transgressions are removed “as far as east is from the west” (Psalm 103:12).

The Traditional Ending

We have seen the Messianic fulfillment or ending. Now we will look at the fulfillment or ending that is typically proposed when the traditions of carnal men are leaned on, or when they have unknowingly influenced. There are several varieties here, but they all inevitably wind up with the binding of Satan as their fulfillment, which we will get to shortly.

One permutation of the traditional view is that the azazel represents Satan (or a lesser demon), and the sins of mankind will be placed on the head of this being in the future. This view holds that the binding of Satan shows the sins of mankind being placed on Satan’s head. Yet God does not hold Satan responsible for the sins mankind commits. God holds him responsible only for his own sins. Nor can Satan ever be a suitable substitutionary sacrifice to bear the sins of mankind, a role only the Savior can fulfill. It should be noted that the WCG stated quite emphatically that Satan cannot bear human sins. They recognized the complete incongruity of that scenario.

A second permutation is that the azazel represents Satan (or a lesser demon), and his own sins will one day be placed on his head, which is what the WCG taught. This view also holds that the binding of Satan is the fulfillment of what happens to the azazel. However, only human sins are contemplated in Leviticus 16. Verse 21 says that what is confessed onto the goat is “all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins.” Verse 22 says, “goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities.” How those sins turn into the sins of a demon is never explained. Certainly, Satan and the demons will bear their guilt in the future, but their fate is not what God portrays here. That scenario must be read into the chapter—it does not arise naturally.

A third permutation is one that seems to be gaining in popularity among evangelicals, and to me, it is the most disturbing of all. It was never taught by the WCG, but you can find it within the greater church of God today. In this variation, the goat isn’t called azazel, but rather the goat is sacrificial animal that is sent to a demon named Azazel. I will repeat that so you can catch the implication. In this variation, the goat isn’t called azazel, but rather it is something that is sent to a demon named Azazel.

This idea is found in some modern translations of Leviticus 16:10. First we will read it again from the NKJV:

Leviticus 16:10 But the goat on which the lot fell to be the [azazel] shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make atonement upon it, and to let it go as the [azazel] into the wilderness.

Now I will read this verse from the New Revised Standard Version:

Leviticus 16:10 but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the LORD to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel.

If you didn’t catch the difference, I will explain. The NKJV says that the live goat was chosen to be the azazel. In other words, this goat is given the role of “the complete removal”—of being sent away, bearing the sins so they are completely removed. However, the NRSV, as well as the ESV, say that this goat was to be sent to Azazel. They do not interpret the goat as the azazel, but rather the goat is something that is sent to a personality named Azazel.

The translators use the same Hebrew, but they see it differently. And part of what makes the modern translators see the Hebrew differently is Jewish folklore. In the previous sermon, I quoted an excerpt from a book called, The Judgment, Its Events and Their Order, by J. N. Andrews. The last line of the excerpt was this:

In addition to these [other supports], we have the evidence of the Jewish work, Zohar, and of the Cabalistic and Rabbinical writers. They tell us that the following proverb was current among the Jews: 'On the day of atonement, a gift to Sammael.'

In Jewish folklore, Sammael is a name for Satan, and in that folklore, the live goat was seen as a gift, something that was sent to Satan, which is highly problematic all on its own. Notice also the contradictions and the missing explanations in this view. According to some sources, Azazel is a low-ranking demon who is responsible for human sin. But in the Jewish proverb I just read to you, Azazel blends with the Satan character, as myths sometimes do. In one retelling of the Azazel myth, Azazel is the Devil, but he is not responsible for human sins. You can find that in the Apocalypse of Abraham, which is another apocryphal writing. But notice that it contradicts the earlier Azazel myth on two significant points. The character and his story are changeable. They are open to interpretation since there in not a definitive source. This is what happens when we look to myth and fantasy instead of God’s Word.

Now, there is a major difference between the goat being chosen “to be” the azazel, and the goat being “sent to” a personality, a demon, named Azazel. Think about this, and let it sink in: If the Israelites sent a goat to Azazel—meaning that there is a second being served, appeased, or even acknowledged in this biblical ritual—the Israelites would be committing blatant idolatry. If the live goat is “for” a demon named Azazel——it would violate foundational biblical principles, most specifically the first commandment (Exodus 20:3-6; see also Exodus 22:20; II Chronicles 34:25; I Corinthians 10:20-22).

Regardless of Jewish folklore, or what translators think the Hebrew suggests, the live goat could not possibly represent a gift or offering that was sent to Satan or one of his minions. Not only is sacrificing to demons directly prohibited in the very next chapter, but God says right in the covenant not to even mention the names of other gods, and the Amplified Bible suggests, “either in blessing or cursing” (Exodus 23:13). Later, God tells Israel to destroy the names of false gods wherever they are found. Yet these translators think the Holy God enshrined the name of a false god within this solemn day as the object of a sacrificial animal, and a name that came from folklore that was not recorded until 1,000 years later.

Some commentators back away from this dangerous line of thinking, and they say instead the live goat wasn’t an offering in the sense of a nice gift, but more like a dirty gift, like taking one’s trash to the dump. They say the live goat was bearing the sins of the nation to the realm of Azazel since Azazel was the source of them. That may sound more reasonable in some regards, but it contains the same problem that we continue to encounter with this subject: It is an assertion without biblical support. There simply are not witnesses of Scripture to support the idea of something—good or bad—being sent to Satan or another demon. And yet there are strong New Testament warnings against Jewish fables and myths because they can turn us away from the truth (I Timothy 4:7; II Timothy 4:4; Titus 1:14).

The Binding of Satan

Now, if you would turn to Revelation 20, we will look at the presumed fulfillment of Leviticus 16 ritual. When one begins with (or leans on) tradition, one always ends in Revelation 20:

Revelation 20:1-3 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.

While we are here, we will also read what happens next with Satan:

Revelation 20:7-8 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea.

Think about what you have been told about verses 1-3, and then look again at what is really in verses 1-3. They contain absolutely nothing that relates to Leviticus 16 at all. There is no mention of atonement, laying of iniquities, bearing, removing, or taking away of sins. This does not show mankind’s sins being laid on Satan, nor Satan’s sins being laid on Satan. There is no support for a gift, either nice or dirty, being sent to Satan. And there is still no clarification as to whether Azazel is a name for Satan or a lesser demon. And yet, verses 1-3 are almost universally pointed to as the fulfillment of the Day of Atonement.

In addition to the complete lack of mention of sins being laid on Satan, or his bearing sins, or any sort of atonement taking place, the actions here fail entirely to match what happens to the live goat. The angel binds Satan, casts him into the bottomless pit, shuts him up, and puts a seal on him. On the other hand, the live goat is not bound, cast, shut up, or sealed. Instead, it is led away.

Verse 3 tells us why Satan is bound: So he will not deceive the nations until after the Millennium. That is what these verses are about. God will restrain Satan and his deceptions, but then God has decreed that Satan must be released. In other words, nothing is truly settled here. Satan is only temporarily restrained. “…[S]o that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished.” That is God’s own explanation. This is about deception being prohibited, not sins being borne or removed by an innocent substitute. This does not show the reconciliation of God and man.

In view of all this, how can Revelation 20:1-3 possibly be seen as the fulfillment of what happens to the live goat? Notice in verse 10 that Satan is finally cast into the Lake of Fire, which is the last mention of him, and yet it is his binding that is focused on, which is odd. But there is a reason for that particular focus instead of his fate. I will read to you the verses that have caused Revelation 20 and the Day of Atonement to be linked:

And again the Lord said to Raphael: ‘Bind Azâzêl hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dûdâêl, and cast him therein. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there forever, and cover his face that he may not see light. And on the day of the great judgment he shall be cast into the fire. . ..

If that sounds foreign to you, it should. As you may have guessed, that comes from the book of I Enoch 10:4-6. That myth, conceived a millennium after Moses recorded Leviticus, joins two unrelated chapters of God’s word. The word azazel from Leviticus 16 is turned into a name. The desert is mentioned; it is a type of wilderness, which is where the live goat was led. Also in that excerpt, the demon is bound and cast, which is what happens to Satan in Revelation 20. Azazel’s face is covered, which is kind of like Satan being sealed. Azazel is restrained until the day of the great judgment when he will be cast into the fire, which is the same thing that will happen to Satan in Revelation 20:10. And the reason for all this happening is also given in the Book of Enoch:

“And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azâzêl: to him ascribe all sin” (I Enoch 10:8).

With a handful of pseudo-scriptures in a Jewish myth, Leviticus 16 is crudely welded to Revelation 20. The idea is introduced that a being named Azazel is responsible for the sins of the world, and that his fate is to be bound. And this unnatural joining continues to today, even though the fictional source is not directly used by the church of God.

Some might wonder how the writers of the Book of Enoch came up with a scene that resembles Revelation 20, even though Enoch was written probably 300 years earlier than Revelation. Well, it isn’t difficult. If you combine the prophecies of Satan in Isaiah 14 and Isaiah 24, you can see that Satan’s imprisonment (which could easily include binding) and his being put into a pit were prophesied long before the Book of Enoch. Add in the workings of an active imagination to turn a dreadful role into a name, and you have the essence of the Book of Enoch passage I read to you. Thus, when somebody researches what the Hebrew word azazel means, there is an apocryphal Jewish work that says Azazel is the name of a demon who is blamed for the sins of mankind, and then Leviticus 16 is interpreted with that in mind. And Christ’s own fulfillment is completely overshadowed.

Now, think about the various paths that might lead us to Revelation 20, aside from the Book of Enoch—other reasons that make Christ’s fulfillment seem unlikely. Maybe there is a meaning for the word azazel that is derived from Hebrew roots that seems to hold a great deal of merit. Or maybe the sequence of something that happens in Leviticus seems to demand this or that fulfillment. Or maybe someone feels Satan is the cause of all sin, and we cannot be one with God until Satan is dealt with. Or maybe you disagree with something (or even several things) I have presented—which is fine: If Leviticus 16 were perfectly clear, and all the words in it could only be understood one way, all the commentators would be out of jobs. But whatever the case, if this is where we end up—if Revelation 20 is the ending, the culmination, of the Day of Atonement because of any of these factors or others, please recognize how ill-fitting and forced the entire scenario is. And not only does this fulfillment fail on its own lack of merit, but it especially fails compared to the clear scriptural fulfillment by Jesus Christ.

Satan and Sin

Now, let’s consider Satan and human sin. The Bible does not say that a demon is responsible for all sin—I just read to you where that idea came from. Now, Satan will bear the penalty for his sins, but those sins are nowhere in view in Leviticus 16. It is the sins of the nation that are confessed onto the azazel—sins which the people committed and for which they are responsible.

Our sins are our responsibility, and we bear them unless a substitute is provided to bear them for us—which Jesus Christ did. Eve tried to blame Satan for her sin, and yet God punished her because she disobeyed God. Similarly, God’s curse on Satan in Eden comes from his sin of deception—because of what he did (Genesis 3:14)—but not for Eve’s sin.

Jesus teaches that our own faculties cause us to sin. The Son of God puts the genesis of sin in each individual’s heart—that should be good enough for us. (Matthew 5:29-30; 12:34-35; 15:18-19; 18:8-9; Mark 7:20-23; 9:43-47). James says that temptation would be powerless against us if we were not drawn away by our own desires, which is what gives birth to sin (James 2:14-15). Satan sins when he amplifies those desires through his broadcast, but what we choose to do after listening to him is on us, not on him. God will judge Satan, not because God has ascribed all of mankind’s sins to him, but because Satan has sinned.

The gospel of the Kingdom teaches that God’s ultimate solution to sin does not hinge on anything involving Satan. God’s solution is to create sons and daughters in His image who will not sin—who will not be drawn away by their desires.

Certainly, Satan influences and he deceives, and those are his sins. I am not downplaying his power or his guilt in the least. But as part of God’s plan, He has given mankind the responsibility to choose, which is why we are warned so frequently about Satan’s deceptions and wiles. We should take those warnings very seriously, so we are not deceived. We are warned so we can consider our choices, such as in things like what sources we use to interpret Scripture. But if Satan is responsible for our sins, then we blameless before God without Christ’s sacrifice. Again, Jesus Christ and His work get edged out of the picture, and Satan’s power gets magnified.

Atonement in Prophecy

Some hold onto Revelation 20 as the fulfillment of the azazel because of the sequence of the annual holy days and what is prophesied to take place. That is, just as the Day of Atonement comes between the Feast of Trumpets and the Feast of Tabernacles, so also the binding of Satan seems to fall between Christ’s return and His millennial rule.

In other words, an event is looked for that fits with the sequence, and then the binding of Satan is shoe-horned in. Yet we have no need to latch onto verses that don’t fit the Day of Atonement. What has been overlooked are the numerous prophecies of Israel’s atonement, of God taking away her sins and reconciling her to Him. This is a major part of God's plan, and it receives far more attention in Scripture than the binding of Satan. There are at least 10 prophecies that speak of this, and yet, like all the verses that show a Messianic fulfillment of the azazel, all this rich material has been largely ignored (see Zechariah 3:1-9; Daniel 8:14; 9:24; Isaiah 27:9; 44:22-23; Jeremiah 33:8; 50:19-20; Ezekiel 16:62-63; 36:33; 37:23; Micah 7:18-19; Romans 11:27).

Jesus Christ has fulfilled Leviticus 16. What remains is for that atonement to be applied to the rest of humanity, and especially to Israel. That future event genuinely and easily relates to the symbols and themes of Atonement, unlike the binding of Satan. God will make atonement for Israel in the same way that God has made atonement for the church: through the perfect work of the Savior.

When Jewish mythology serves as the sandy footing for understanding the word azazel, the focus of the Day of Atonement turns to Satan. Because Satan’s genesis lay in his thinking too highly of himself, it should not be surprising that when a holy day becomes an inadvertent contemplation of Satan, his power becomes overemphasized. Notice carefully, though. I am not saying he is not powerful. I am saying he is not more powerful than God. When Satan is identified as the azazel and the source of all sin, it leads to the idea that mankind cannot be reconciled to God until Satan is out of the way. But according to whom? God doesn’t say this. Requiring that Satan must be removed before mankind can be reconciled to God denigrates and insults Jesus Christ.

We know this because the church of God is becoming one with the Father and the Son right now, despite the freedom and power Satan has in the present. This is what the Head of the Church is doing—He is reconciling us. He is making us one with the Father and Himself, and He will complete this awesome work even before Satan is bound. Satan does not stand in the way of reconciliation or peace with God once one has come under Christ’s blood. What the world needs to be reconciled with God is not Satan’s binding (though that will be a tremendous blessing). What the world needs is what the church has right now: a covenantal relationship with God. That is how peace with God and unity are produced. Satan didn’t keep God from making the covenant with you because he doesn’t have that power. Now, he gives glory to himself by insinuating that he has the power to hold up God’s plan—as though something created can keep the plan of the Most High God from moving forward. And many have fallen for this lie, not understanding that it makes Satan greater than Jesus Christ, who is, in reality, far above all principality and power and might and dominion. Notice this pattern of Christ being sidelined, and Satan becoming the focus. That should tell you about the source.

The Intractability of Ingrained Tradition

The traditional explanation for the Day of Atonement follows the concepts and patterns of Jewish mythology and other carnal traditions. If we remove the traditions from the equation, Leviticus 16 and Revelation 20 have no connection, and yet the reflexive memory remains. We may disavow apocryphal Jewish works, and yet unknowingly follow the patterns of thought those traditions have spawned. Those who see Satan in Leviticus 16 have been educated to see him there, and expect to see him there, and will find reasons for him to be there, not realizing or acknowledging the deceptive source.

Consider a similar pattern in another application. We all know people who keep Christmas. But nobody today starts out keeping Christmas by reading about the Saturnalia and winter solstice celebrations and then deciding he wants to honor Christ that way. Instead, people start with what is handed to them. They begin with the patterns of thinking and explanations that are given to them by their educators—their parents, and also religious teachers and the culture at large. And those educators likewise just passed on what was handed to them, without considering or caring if the source was a polluted spring.

If you ask a typical religious observer why he celebrates Christmas, his response will be about how Christmas honors Christ’s birth, and he will probably reference Luke 2 for support. But when we read Luke 2, we find—like with Revelation 20—that it does not say what is being read into it. We know that Christ’s birth could not have been in winter because the shepherds were in the fields. History records that the Catholic church chose December 25 to coincide with the pagan celebrations already taking place. We also find in Matthew that the wise men came to Jesus when He was a Child, not an infant. They gave Him gifts because He was King, not because it was His birthday. They did not exchange gifts with each other, nor put them under an evergreen tree. These are all obvious extra-biblical traditions.

Now, the typical Christmas observer will verbally distance himself from the paganism of the Saturnalia and other traditions. He will say those origins do not have any bearing on his belief. When he reads Luke 2, he sees Christmas. He sees what he wants to see, and never seriously considers that he could be seeing it incorrectly. But when we understand that the observance began as a pagan celebration, and then scriptures were scrounged much later to prop up something unscriptural, it is obvious that Luke 2 does not support Christmas at all. Yet the ideas and mental imagery are handed down, generation after generation, without any footnotes about where or how it all started. Thus, the tradition becomes ingrained and covered with a thin biblical sheen, and woe to him who suggests it is wrong.

The spirit of the age into which we and our educators were born has its tentacles everywhere. We pick up ideas and explanations and adopt them as our own, not because we have proved them, but because they seem reasonable to us, and they come from sources we consider to be sensible.

This same pattern of accepting a non-biblical belief applies to Leviticus 16. When we come into the church, we accept what is handed to us, confident that our teachers have done their homework. As spiritual babes, that is a fine place to begin, but we still have to prove—test—all things. We must recognize how easy it is to select quotes from something like The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible or maybe The One Volume Bible Commentary without understanding what lies beneath. If a scholar who accepts apocryphal sources writes a definition or an explanation, but leaves out what contributes to his worldview, we can be influenced by those ideas, and then use them to interpret the Bible. We may not know whether the scholars we look to for support have drunk from a polluted stream that affects their reasoning, and then ours. But once an idea has taken root, it is easier to find a proof-text or a scholar for support than it is to entertain the thought we might be mistaken.

Jesus told the Jews that the Scriptures testify of Him (John 5:39). When we study His word, we should be able to see how the various symbols point to Him. God has provided multiple witnesses of His Son as the object of the Day of Atonement. In contrast, the traditional viewpoint begins with stories and myths from peoples opposed to God. It lacks scriptural support at critical junctures. It must be propped up with reasoning and assertion. And finally, it desperately wants for a verse to show a clear fulfillment.

During Christ’s earthly ministry, the question arose as to whether the valid witnesses of Scripture would be accepted in identifying the Messiah, or whether the Word of God would continue to be made of no effect by tradition. The same question is asked of us today.

As we observe the Day of Atonement, here are some questions for you to consider:

Upon whose head were your sins laid?

Who bore your sins outside the gate?

Who became sin and a curse, and endured separation from the Father, so that you can be reconciled with Him and come into His presence?

Whomever did this for you has fulfilled the role of the azazel in your life.

DCG/aws/dcg