John Ritenbaugh, reflecting upon the Middle East connotations casting disdain upon dogs, points out that the grounds of comparison may be their inclination to be sneaky, groveling scavengers feeding on the refuse of humanity, including human flesh. God's Word describes the ritual harlot and the sodomite as disgusting, vile dogs on the lowest echelon of humanity. The wages of a harlot or sodomite would defile any offering. God expects offering to Him to be undefiled, meeting His standards. An example is the Passover lamb, which was to be without blemish. The Israelites were not allowed to use livestock or produce from Gentiles or foreigners as offerings because they were contaminated. The very land metaphorically vomited them out. Consequently, the offerings we produce should emanate from the work of our own hands and not from any ill-gotten gains. When we give an offering, it should come from pure unsullied motives.
David Grabbe, focusing on the two goats of Leviticus 16, cautions that there is not a clear definition scripture for the word "azazel." In tradition, Azazel is the name of a fallen angel. The roots of the Hebrew word indicate a goat of departure, or "going away," "disappearance" or "complete removal." Scripture warns us not to base a doctrine on a meaning of a word because a word's meaning can change. The two goats of Leviticus 16:5 represent one sin offering. Importantly, though, this offering represents something beyond the payment for sin. Jesus Christ was and is our perfect sacrifice for sin. The idea that Christ fulfilled the role of one goat, Satan the role of the second goat, is not viable. Because the Bible is consistent in its use of symbols, and because God Himself is consistent, the Bible interprets itself. If Christ fulfilled all the other offerings rehearsed in the Book of Leviticus, the offering of the second goat, the one rehearsed in Leviticus 16, would be a major departure from all the others. In the Pentateuch, there were 40 injunctions that the animals selected for offering be without blemish. Because the priest had to cast lots to decide the fate of these animals (indicating that God alone would decide their fates), we can surmise that both these goats were without blemish or defect, symbolism that could not be applied to Satan, as he is totally unqualified to be represented by an unblemished sacrifice. The first goat is a blood sacrifice to pay for the sins of the people; the second goat is led away and freed (not bound by a chain). In the Scriptures, no one is bound for our sins. The problem of sin is not solved by only paying the death penalty. The function of the second goat will be explained in a future installment.
For years, the church of God has taught that the Azazel goat, found in the instructions for the Atonement (Yom Kippur) offering in Leviticus 16, represented Satan taking man's sins on his own head and being led into outer darkness, taking sin with him. However, Scripture does not support this interpretation. In Part One, David Grabbe focuses on the inappropriateness of Satan as a sacrifice for sin, as well as what the Bible shows that the Azazel goat actually accomplishes.
Members of God's church are required to give offerings during God's holy days (Deuteronomy 16:16), and we are told to give as we are able (verse 17). Both we and God will get more out of our offerings, especially spiritually, when we plan our giving.
Most of our Christian lives will be spent going on to perfection. But what is it? How do we do it? This Bible Study will help explain this broad, yet vital subject.