Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 16:8

And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat.

8. for Azazel ] for the scapegoat, A.V. For this peculiar feature of the Day of Atonement see Appendix V, pp. 185 ff.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

The two goats formed a single sin-offering, Lev 16:5. To bring out the meaning of the sacrifice it was necessary that the act of a living being should be performed after death. See Lev 16:22 note. As this could not possibly be visibly set forth with a single victim, two were employed, as in the case of the birds in the rite for the healed leper Lev 14:4-6.

For the scapegoat – Rather, for Azazel. The word occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament but in this chapter, and is probably derived from a root in use in Arabic, but not in Hebrew, signifying to remove, or to separate.

Azazel is the pre-Mosaic name of an evil personal being placed in opposition to Yahweh. Each goat, having been presented to Yahweh before the lots were cast, stood in a sacrificial relation to Him. The casting of lots was an appeal to the decision of Yahweh (compare Jos 7:16-17; Jos 14:2; Pro 16:33; Act 1:26, etc.); it was therefore His act to choose one of the goats for His service in the way of ordinary sacrifice, the other for His service in carrying off the sins to Azazel (see the note at Lev 16:22). By this exppressive outward sign the sins were sent back to the author of sin himself, the entirely separate one, who was banished from the realm of grace.

The goat itself did not lose the sacred character with which it had been endued in being presented before Yahweh. It was, as much as the slain goat, a figure of Him who bore our griefs and carried our sorrows, on whom the Lord laid the iniquity of us all Isa 53:4, Isa 53:6, that we might become a sanctified Church to be presented unto Himself, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing Eph 5:26-27.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 8. Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats] The Jews inform us that there were two lots made either of wood, stone, or any kind of metal. On one was written LASHSHEM, for the NAME, i. e., JEHOVAH, which the Jews will neither write nor pronounce: on the other was written LAAZAZEL, for the SCAPE-GOAT: then they put the two lots into a vessel which was called kalpey, the goats standing with their faces towards the west. Then the priest came, and the goats stood before him, one on the right hand and the other on the left; the kalpey was then shaken, and the priest put in both his hands and brought out a lot in each: that which was in his right hand he laid on the goat that was on his right, and that in his left hand he laid on the goat that was on his left; and according to what was written on the lots, the scape-goat and the goat for sacrifice were ascertained. See the Mishna, in Tract. Yoma.

The determining this solemn business by lot, the disposal of which is with the Lord, Pr 16:33, shows that God alone was to select and point out the person by whom this great atonement was to be made; hence he says: Behold I lay in Zion a stone, elect (that is, chosen by himself) and precious – of infinite value.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

One lot for the Lord; for the Lords use and service by way of sacrifice. Both this and the other goat typified Christ; this in his death and passion for us; that in his resurrection for our deliverance.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats,…. Which should be slain, and which should be kept alive, and let go: the manner of casting lots, according to the Misnah a, was this; the high priest went to the east of the court, to the north of the altar, the Sagan (or deputy priest) at his right hand, and Rosh Beth Ab (or the chief of the house of the fathers) on his left hand, and the two goats were there; and there was a vessel (box or urn, called Calphi), and in it were two lots of box tree: the high priest shook the Calphi (or urn) and took out the two lots; one, on which was written, “for the Lord”, and the other, on which was written, “for Azazel”; if that came up on the right hand, the Sagan said to him, my lord high priest, lift up thy right hand on high; and if that on the left hand came up, Rosh Beth Ab said to him, my lord high priest, lift up thy left hand on high: he put them upon the two goats and said, a sin offering for the Lord; and they answered after him, blessed be the Lord, may the glory of his kingdom be for ever and ever: now these lots, as Ben Gersom observes, were alike, not one greater than another; and they were of the same matter, for if one had been of stone and the other of wood, they might, have been known by feeling, and so the lots would not have been legal: and the same is observed by Maimonides b, that though they might be of any matter, of wood, or stone, or metal, yet one might not be great, and the other small, and the one of silver, and the other of gold, but both alike, for the reason before given:

one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat: one had written upon it, as in the above account, “for the Lord”; and the other had written upon it, “for Azazel”; directing that the goat on which the lot for the Lord fell was to be slain and offered up for a sin offering to him; and the other, on which the lot for Azazel fell, was to be kept alive and let go: now, however casual and contingent the casting of a lot may seem to men, it is certain to God, the disposal of it is of him, and according to his determination, Pr 16:33; and this, in the mystical sense, here denotes, that the sufferings and death of Christ were according to the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, and so were foretold in the Scriptures, and came to pass according to his appointment, will, and command, as was also his resurrection from the dead, Joh 10:18; see Ac 1:23; and likewise his conflict with Satan, Joh 14:30.

a Misn. Yoma, c. 3. sect. 9. & c. 4. sect. 1. b Hilchot Yom Hacippurim, c. 3. sect. 1.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

(8) And Aaron shall cast lots.The lots consisted of two small tablets which at an earlier time were of box or ebony wood, but which during the later part of the second Temple were made of gold, and were kept in a wooden chest. On the one was engraved the words For Jehovah, and on the other For Azazel, the expression in the original, which is translated scapegoat in the Authorised Version. The high priest, after shaking the chest, put both his hands into the urn and simultaneously took out the two tablets, one in each hand. Hereupon he put the tablet which he had in his right hand upon the goat that was standing on his right side, whilst the tablet in his left hand he put on the goat on his left side. If the tablet with the in scription For Jehovah was in his right hand the chief priest who stood at the right of the pontiff exclaimed Hold up thy right hand on high! and if it happened to be in the left hand, the chief of the principal household, who stood on his left, called out to him Hold up thy left hand. Hereupon the high priest laid the two lots on the two goats, the one in the right hand on the goat at his right, and the one in the left hand on the animal at his left, exclaiming at the same time, To the Lord a sin offering!

And the other lot for the scapegoat.Better, and the other lot for Azazel. The word, which only occurs in this chapter, probably denotes the utterly banished demon, the prince of the evil spirits, who with his legions occupies the desert regions and desolated places. (Comp. Isa. 13:21; Isa. 34:14; Mat. 12:43; Luk. 11:24; Rev. 18:2.) As the removal or pardon of sin is often represented in the Bible by its being banished into the uttermost parts of the earth and seas (Mic. 7:19; Psa. 103:12), nothing could be more striking or convey to the people the idea of absolute forgiveness better than this symbolical act of sending the goat laden with the sins of the congregation to the wilderness, the abode of the prince of darkness, back to the author of all sin. The rendering, scapegoat, is contrary to the manifest antithesis of the verse. If the one member For Jehovah denotes a person, the second member For Azazel, which forms the contrast, must, prim facie, also denote a person. Besides, the translation scapegoat cannot be admitted in the next verse but one, where, if adopted, it would literally be to send the goat to the scapegoat in the wilderness .(see Lev. 16:10), or in Lev. 16:26, where it is, and he who taketh away the goat to the scapegoat.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

8. Cast lots upon the two goats The lots were first of boxwood, afterwards of gold, with an inscription on one “for the Name ” Jehovah was too sacred to write and on the other, “for Azazel.” Delitzsch on the Hebrews, Appendix. These were put into an urn and shaken, and drawn out with both hands of the high priest; that in the right hand was laid upon the goat standing at his right, and that in the left upon its corresponding goat. Divine Providence was supposed to direct the lots. Pro 16:33.

The scapegoat The , Azazel, occurs but four times in this chapter, and nowhere else in the Holy Scriptures. It is the puzzle of the Book of Leviticus, over which the most erudite scholars have uttered the despairing groan of “ locus vexatissimus.” Bochart, the chief of Hebraists, notwithstanding his profound learning, frankly makes the following humiliating confession: “I have nothing certain to offer in regard to this word;” and Fairbairn admits that “its exact and determinate import is not to be pronounced on with certainty.” The chief theories are, 1.) That it is a place, a rough mountain in the vicinity of Mount Sinai: but no such mountain has ever been found. Besides this, the place is described indefinitely as any “land not inhabited the wilderness.” 2.) That it is an appellation of God. This is sustained by the Syriac version of Azazel “the mighty God.” The objection to this view is, that then the lot is a useless formality, since each goat would be allotted to the Deity, either as Jehovah or as the mighty God. 3.) That the word is a personal name for Satan or for one of his satellites. This is favoured by the Book of Enoch, in which Azazel is named as an evil spirit, and by the rabbinical writings, where it occurs as the appellation of one of four demons. The theory that the sins of Israel were confessed over the head of the devil, or over an animal devoted to him, thus making his Satanic majesty co-ordinate with the holy God in the sanctification of his people, so shocks our sense of propriety that we should dismiss it without further comment if the names of modern exegetes as celebrated as Bush, Oehler, Keil, and Ewald, had not given to it the weight of their authority. “The idea that it is a sacrifice to the devil is at utter variance with the whole Levitical system, not to speak of the incongruity of a sin offering to that wicked spirit; this is accordingly generally abandoned. The notion is spun from the interpreter’s own brain, without anything in the text to suggest it, that sin is hereby sent back to Satan as the source from which it has proceeded, or the one to whose realm it properly belongs; or that it is intended as an act of scorn and defiance. This malignant accuser may take these sins and do his worst with them, he can never bring Israel into condemnation for offences which have been expiated and forgiven. 4.) The word ‘Azazel’ is derived from a root meaning ‘to remove;’ and may with greater propriety, as it seems to me, be regarded as an abstract term, meaning, as the British revisers render it in their margin, ‘dismissal,’ or, as the American company prefer, as more descriptive of the function discharged by the goat, ‘removal.’” Dr. W. Henry Green. “We must be very careful in the application of this term. It is one of the terms liable to abuse. The image has always been accepted as one symbolical of the work of Christ in bearing away the sins of the world. Considered strictly as a figure, it is full of beauty and helpful suggestiveness. It has, nevertheless, been open to the most mischievous perversion.” Jos. Parker.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments