Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 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, [and] to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.
10. to make atonement for (mg. over) him ] The meaning of this phrase is obscure. It probably refers to some ceremony of atonement performed over the goat, before being sent into the wilderness. Kennedy ( ad loc.) suggests that it was an early purification rite, here reintroduced, but otherwise unknown. The name ‘scapegoat’ is to be traced back to the caper emissarius of the Vulg. Neither this nor the R.V. mg.’s rendering, dismissal, can be obtained etymologically from the Heb.
In Lev 16:3-10 we find prescribed how Aaron is to come into the holy place, the garments which he must wear, the animals which he is to bring, and their destination: the following Lev 16:11-28 contain a detailed account of the whole ceremonial.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
On which the lot fell to be the scapegoat – Rather, on which the lot for Azazel fell.
An atonement with him – The goat for Azazel was to be considered as taking his part along with the other goat in the great symbol of atonement.
For a scapegoat into the wilderness – Rather, to Azazel, into the wilderness.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 10. To be the scape-goat] azazel, from az, a goat, and azal, to dismiss; the dismissed or sent away goat, to distinguish it from the goat that was to be offered in sacrifice. Most ancient nations had vicarious sacrifices, to which they transferred by certain rites and ceremonies the guilt of the community at large, in the same manner in which the scapegoat was used by the Jews. The white bull that was sacrificed by the Egyptians to their god Apis was of this kind; they cut off the head of the victim which they had sacrificed, and after having loaded it with execrations, “that if there be any evil hanging over them or the land of Egypt, it may be poured out upon that head,” they either sold it to the Greeks or threw it into the Nile. – See HEROD. Euterp., p. 104, edit. Gale.
Petronius Arbiter says that it was a custom among the ancient inhabitants of Marseilles, whenever they were afflicted by any pestilence, to take one of the poorer citizens who offered himself for the purpose, and having fed him a whole year with the purest and best food, they adorned him with vervain, and clothed him with sacred vestments: they then led him round their city, loading him with execrations; and having prayed that all the evils to which the city was exposed might fall upon him, they then precipitated him from the top of a rock.-Satiricon, in fine.
Suidas, under the word , observes that it was a custom to devote a man annually to death for the safety of the people, with these words, , Be thou our purifier; and, having said so, to throw him into the sea as a sacrifice to Neptune. It was probably to this custom that Virgil alludes when speaking of the pilot Palinurus, who fell into the sea and was drowned, he says: –
Unum pro multis dabiter caput. – AEn., lib. v., ver. 815.
“One life is given for the preservation of many.”
But the nearest resemblance to the scapegoat of the Hebrews is found in the Ashummeed Jugg of the Hindoos, where a horse is used instead of a goat, the description of which I shall here introduce from Mr. Halhed’s Code of Gentoo Laws; Introduction, p. xix.
“That the curious,” says he, “may form some idea of this Gentoo sacrifice when reduced to a symbol, as well as from the subsequent plain account given of it in a chapter of the Code, sec. ix., p. 127, an explanation of it is here inserted from Darul Shekh’s famous Persian translation of some commentaries upon the four Beids, or original Scriptures of Hindostan. The work itself is extremely scarce, and it was by mere accident that this little specimen was procured: –
“The Ashummeed Jugg does not merely consist in the performance of that ceremony which is open to the inspection of the world, namely, in bringing a horse and sacrificing him; but Ashummeed is to be taken in a mystic signification, as implying that the sacrificer must look upon himself to be typified in that horse, such as he shall be described; because the religious duty of the Ashummeed Jugg comprehends all those other religious duties to the performance of which the wise and holy direct all their actions, and by which all the sincere professors of every different faith aim at perfection. The mystic signification thereof is as follows: The head of that unblemished horse is the symbol of the morning; his eyes are the sun; his breath, the wind; his wide-opening mouth is the bish-waner, or that innate warmth which invigorates all the world; his body typifies one entire year; his back, paradise; his belly, the plains; his hoof, this earth; his sides, the four quarters of the heavens; the bones thereof, the intermediate spaces between the four quarters; the rest of his limbs represent all distinct matter; the places where those limbs meet, or his joints, imply the months, and halves of the months, which are called peche, (or fortnights;) his feet signify night and day; and night and day are of four kinds:
1. The night and day of Brihma;
2. The night and day of angels;
3. The night and day of the world of the spirits of deceased ancestors;
4. The night and day of mortals.
These four kinds are typified in his four feet. The rest of his bones are the constellations of the fixed stars, which are the twenty-eight stages of the moon’s course, called the lunar year; his flesh is the clouds; his food, the sand; his tendons, the rivers; his spleen and liver, the mountains; the hair of his body, the vegetables; and his long hair, the trees; the forepart of his body typifies the first half of the day, and the hinder part, the latter half; his yawning is the flash of the lightning, and his turning himself is the thunder of the cloud; his urine represents the rain, and his mental reflection is his only speech. The golden vessels which are prepared before the horse is let loose are the light of the day, and the place where those vessels are kept is a type of the ocean of the east; the silver vessels which are prepared after the horse is let loose are the light of the night, and the place where those vessels are kept is a type of the ocean of the west. These two sorts of vessels are always before and after the horse. The Arabian horse, which on account of his swiftness is called Hy, is the performer of the journeys of angels; the Tajee, which is of the race of Persian horses, is the performer of the journeys of the Kundherps, (or good spirits;) the Wazba, which is of the race of the deformed Tazee horses, is the performer of the journeys of the Jins, (or demons;) and the Ashov, which is of the race of Turkish horses, is the performer of the journeys of mankind: this one horse which performs these several services on account of his four different sorts of riders, obtains the four different appellations. The place where this horse remains is the great ocean, which signifies the great spirit of Perm-Atma, or the universal soul, which proceeds also from that Perm-Atma, and is comprehended in the same Perm-Atma. The intent of this sacrifice is, that a man should consider himself to be in the place of that horse, and look upon all these articles as typified in himself; and conceiving the Atma (or Divine soul) to be an ocean, should let all thought of self be absorbed in that Atma.”
This sacrifice is explained, in sec. ix., p. 127, of the Code of Hindoo Laws, thus: –
“An Ashummeed Jugg is when a person, having commenced a Jugg, (i. e., religious ceremony,) writes various articles upon a scroll of paper on a horse’s neck, and dismisses the horse, sending along with the horse a stout and valiant person, equipped with the best necessaries and accoutrements to accompany the horse day and night whithersoever he shall choose to go; and if any creature, either man, genius, or dragon, should seize the horse, that man opposes such attempt, and having gained the victory upon a battle, again gives the horse his freedom. If any one in this world, or in heaven, or beneath the earth, would seize this horse, and the horse of himself comes to the house of the celebrator of the Jugg, upon killing that horse he must throw the flesh of him upon the fire of the Juk, and utter the prayers of his deity; such a Jugg is called a Jugg Ashummeed, and the merit of it as a religious work is infinite.”
This is a most curious circumstance; and the coincidence between the religious rites of two people who probably never had any intercourse with each other, is very remarkable. I would not however say that the Hindoo ceremony could not have been borrowed from the Jews; (though it is very unlikely;) no more than I should say, as some have done, that the Jewish rite was borrowed from the Egyptian sacrifice to Apis mentioned above, which is still more unlikely. See particularly Clarke’s note on “Le 1:4“.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
To make an atonement with him, in manner hereafter expressed Le 16:21,22
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
But the goat on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat,…. Or for Azazel, of which more hereafter in the latter part of the verse:
shall be presented alive before the Lord; this seems to be a second presentation; both the goats were presented before the Lord before the lots were cast, Le 16:7; but this was afterwards, when one of the goats, according to the lot, being presented, was ordered to be killed for a sin offering, and the other according to the lot being presented alive, was ordered to remain so:
to make an atonement with him; to make an atonement for the sins of the people of Israel along with the other, for they both made one sin offering, Le 16:6; and this, though spared alive for a while, yet at length was killed; and how, the Jewish writers relate, as will be after observed:
[and] to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness; or, unto Azazel into the wilderness; which, some understand of a mountain in the wilderness called Azazel, to which the Targum of Jonathan has respect, which paraphrases the word,
“to send him to die in a place strong and hard, which is in the wilderness of Zuck;”
and so Saadiah Gaon, Jarchi, Kimchi, and others; and one in Aben Ezra says, it was near Mount Sinai; but as it is rightly observed by some, was this the name of a mountain, Moses would have called it the mountain Azazel, as he does other mountains by their names: nor is there any account of any such mountain in those parts, by such who have travelled in it, and if near Sinai, it was a long way to send it from Jerusalem; and for which there seems to be no reason, since there were many deserts between those two places: Aben Ezra suggests, there is a secret or mystery in the word Azazel, and says, you may know it and the mystery of his name, for he has companions in Scripture; and I will reveal to you, says he, part of it by a hint, when you are the son of thirty three, you may know its meaning, that is, by reckoning thirty three verses from Le 16:8; where this word is first mentioned, which will fall on Le 17:7; “they shall no more offer unto devils”; and so R. Menachem interprets Azazel of Samael, the angel of death, the devil, the prince that hath power over desolate places: there are several Christian writers of great note, that understand this of the devil, as Origen b, among the ancients; and of the moderns, Cocceius c, Witsius d, and Spencer e, who think that by these two goats is signified the twofold respect of Christ our Mediator; one to God, as a Judge, to whom he made satisfaction by his death; the other to the devil, the enemy with whom he conflicted in life; who, according to prophecy, was to be delivered up to Satan, and have his heel bruised by him; and who was to come, and did come into the wilderness of this world, and when Jerusalem was a desert, and became a Roman province; and who was led by the Spirit into wilderness of Judea, in a literal sense, to be tempted of the devil, and had a sore conflict with him in the garden, when he sweat, as it were, drops of blood; and upon the cross, when he submitted to the death of it; during which time he had the sins of all his people on him, and made an end of them, so as to be seen no more; all which agrees with Le 16:21; of which see more there; and it must be owned, that no other sense seems so well to agree with the type as this; since the living goat had all the sins of the people on him, and was reckoned so impure, that he that led him into the wilderness stood in need of washing and cleansing, Le 16:21; whereas, when Christ was raised from the dead, he was clear of all sin, being justified in the Spirit; and in his resurrection there was no impurity, nor could any be reckoned or supposed to belong to him, as Witsius well observes, no, not as the surety of his people; nor in his resurrection was he a sin offering, as this goat was; nor could his ascension to heaven, with any propriety, be represented by this goat being let go into the wilderness: as for the notion of Barabbas, as Origen f, being meant by Azazel, or the rebellious people of the Jews, carried into the wilderness, or into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar, and which is the sense of Abarbinel, and in which he is followed by many Christian writers, they need no confutation.
b Contr. Cels. 1. 6. p. 305. c Comment. in Heb. 9. sect. 25, &c. d De Oeconom. Faederum, l. 4. c. 6. sect. 71, 72, 73. e De Leg. Heb. l. 3. Dissert. 8. c. 1. sect. 2. and of the same mind was our English poet Milton, that Azazel was a demon:
His mighty standard: that proud honour claim’d Azazel as his right, a cherub tall. –Milton’s Paradise Lost, B. 1. l. 533, 534. f In Lev. Homil. 10. c. 16. fol. 82.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(10) On which the lot fell to be the scapegoat.Better, on which the lot for Azazel fell. This one with its distinctive scarlet badge was placed at the spot from whence he was sent away, and thus stood alive, not presented, before the Lord.
To make an atonement with him.Better, to make atonement for it, that is, it was placed before the Lord in order that it might receive expiation and sanctification, and thus be fitted for the sacred purposes it was destined to fulfil. (See Lev. 16:16; Lev. 16:18.)
And to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.Better, to send it to Azazel into the wilderness.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
10. To make atonement with him R.V. “for him.” In Lev 1:4 the same Hebrew words are translated “to make atonement for him.” Bahr says, that the means of atonement is never marked by , upon or for, but always by , with, and that the former regularly marks the object of the atonement. Hengstenberg also concurs with this view, and remarks that by the live goat being said to be atoned for, “he was thereby identified with the first, and the nature of the dead was transferred to the living;” so that “the goats stand here in a relation entirely similar to that of the two birds in the purification of the leper, of which the one let go was first dipped in the blood of the slain.” Lev 14:7.
Into the wilderness Wilderness, with the article, as here, signifies either the desert lying next to the speaker, or the well-known Arabian desert, or that about Petra.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“But the goat, on which the lot fell for ‘azazel, shall be set alive before Yahweh, to make atonement for him, to send him away for ‘azazel into the wilderness.”
The second he-goat, a part of the purification for sin offering, is to be sent live into the wilderness where it would be left with God for Him to do with as He will. It is given into His hands. For it is part of the purification for sin offering and makes atonement. It is probable therefore that we are to see the two he-goats as ‘one’, and to see the second as having been ‘sacrificed’ in its clone, the first he-goat, for it is the blood that makes atonement, and then being dismissed with all the sins of Israel as a visual evidence of the sins of the whole of the sins and uncleannesses of Israel having gone. It was intended to be as close a picture as was obtainable of the effects of purification for sin on this one great day of the year.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Lev 16:10. The scape-goat The opinions respecting this scape-goat, and the meaning of the original word, have been as various as absurd. The true and mystical meaning of the ceremony has been pointed out in the observation from Spencer on the 2nd verse. The sacrifice was evidently of the same kind with that of the two birds, appointed for the purification of the leper. It is not easy to devise a ceremony more strongly expressive of the great Sin-offering of the world; who, though impassible in his Divine Nature, yet suffered and died in his human, the iniquities of us all being laid upon him; fully expiating which, he entered into heaven itself, to appear in the presence of God for us, bearing our sins, upon our true confession, and as it were transferring them to him, Lev 16:21 into the land of separation or forgetfulness, never more to be remembered against us. Heb 9:24-26. With respect to the original word azazel, or ozazel, it may be necessary just to remark, as so much has been said concerning it, that it is derived from ez, a goat, and azel, to go away; a scapegoat: Accordingly the LXX, with us, render it by , sent away; Aquila, , the goat dismissed; and Symmachus, , going away, See Parkhurst on the word.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
There needed two goats, in order to represent both offices of JESUS; the one dying for our sins: the other rising again, and ascending to glory for our justification. Rom 8:34 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
“Handfuls of Purpose”
For All Gleaners
“… a scapegoat” Lev 16:10
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. We use the term now too freely in describing the action of a man who wishes to lay upon another the blame of actions which he himself has done We speak of certain men as being “mere scapegoats”; as if they had been dragged in to meet the necessities of a situation and to relieve others from the burden of just penalties. The figure is not the less appropriate that it is open to perversion. Sometimes the value of an analogy depends upon the fineness and even subtlety of its relations. We are never at liberty to abuse an analogy. Jesus Christ comes before us in the aspect of one who voluntarily takes upon himself our sins and bears them away so that they never can be found again. Notice that he accepts the position voluntarily. Notice that he himself actually proposes to become, in this sense, the Scapegoat of the human family. Notice also that the sinner must be a consenting party to this most mysterious arrangement. The Scapegoat does not come into the world and carry away the sins of mankind in any arbitrary fashion. Every sinner must put his hands, as it were, upon the Christ of God, and by that act intimate his desire that Christ would bear his sins away. Do not make a mere convenience of Christ. Do not consider the presence of the Scapegoat a licence to sin. The deceitful heart may say, Take your own course, do just what you please, and at the end of the sinful day place all your iniquities upon the head of the Scapegoat, and he will bear them away into the wilderness of oblivion. This is perversion; this is more than perversion, it is unpardonable blasphemy. Blessed is the thought that the sin is borne away where it can never be found any more. To have the memory of sin, to be for ever reminded of the commission of sin, to suffer all the inflictions possible to imagination in connection with sin, would be to destroy the very heaven which is connected with forgiveness. In some mysterious way, not to be measured by human words or even conceived by human thought, sin is cast away where even the accuser cannot find it, or the enemy bring it back to fling it in our burning face. This is a divine dispensation. It is therefore not to be explained or made easy to the comprehension of mere reason. It is rather to be accepted by faith and by love, and being so accepted, the heart is aware of its certainty of preciousness by the sweet peace which steals into it and rules it into profound repose.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
to be the scapegoat. Hebrew “to be for ‘Azazel” (see Lev 16:8 and Lev 16:22).
presented = made to stand.
with him. Hebrew “for him”. See verses: Lev 16:16, Lev 16:18. The scapegoat was not used to make atonement, but atonement was made for it. Hence he was to be “let go” free. See Lev 16:22.
wilderness: or desert, symbol of abode of all evil things (Isa 13:21; Isa 34:14. Mat 12:43. Luk 8:27; Luk 11:24. Rev 18:2). ‘Azazel probably the personification of all that is “great and terrible” there (Deu 1:19; Deu 8:15. Jer 2:6).
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
the scapegoat: Lev 16:21, Lev 16:22
to make: Isa 53:5, Isa 53:6, Isa 53:10, Isa 53:11, Rom 4:25, 2Co 5:21, Heb 7:26, Heb 7:27, Heb 9:23, Heb 9:24, 1Jo 2:2, 1Jo 3:16
let him: Lev 14:7
Reciprocal: Lev 16:17 – and have made Lev 16:26 – he that
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Lev 16:10. For a scape-goat This seems to be the most literal and obvious meaning of the original word , Azazel, evidently derived from , ez, or gnez, a goat, and , azel, to go away. In this sense the Seventy understand it, rendering the word , sent away; Aquila also, who translates it , dismissed; and Symmachus, who renders it , going away. Nor does there appear to be any solid reason for thinking it was the name of a mountain, to which the goat was sent, much less that the angel of death, or the devil, was intended by the word, as some have said; for surely in that case it could be no type of Christs resurrection, as it is generally supposed to have been.