I recently offered a distilled response to the question of what’s going on in Leviticus 16, the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) chapter, which mentions (correctly) in some translations that one of the goats was “for Azazel.” Azazel, the comment noted, was a demonic figure. So what’s up with that? I have copied in two responses below. The first is a pre-edited version of an article published in Bible Study Magazine. The second is drawn from the draft of my eventually-to-be-published book on the divine council worldview of the Old Testament. Enjoy.
Short Version: A Goat for Azazel1
Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement described in Leviticus 16, is an important element of Judaism familiar to many Christians. Though not practiced today as it was in ancient times in the absence of the temple and Levitical priesthood, this holy day is still central to the Jewish faith. But while numerous Christians have heard of the day, most would be startled to learn that a sinister figure lurks in the shadows of Leviticus 16. There’s a devil in the details.
The Day of Atonement ritual required a ram, a bull and two goats (vv. 3-5). The ram was for a burnt offering, a general offering aimed at pleasing God (Lev. 1:3-4). The bull, taken from “the herd” served as a sin offering for Aaron, the high priest, and his family. The purpose of the sin offering was purification—restoring an individual to ritual purity to allow that person to occupy sacred space, to be near God’s presence. Curiously, two goats taken “from the congregation” were needed for a single sin offering (v. 5) for the people. Elsewhere the sin offering involved only one animal (e.g., Lev 4:1-12). Why two goats?
The high priest would cast lots over the two goats, resulting in one being chosen for sacrifice “for the Lord.” The blood of that goat would purify the people. The second goat was not sacrificed and was not “for the Lord.” This goat, the one that symbolically carried the sins away from the camp of Israel into the wilderness, was “for Azazel” (ESV; vv. 8-10).
Who or what was Azazel?
The Hebrew term azazel occurs four times in Lev 16 but nowhere else in the Bible. Many translations prefer to translate the term as a phrase: “the goat that goes away” (the idea conveyed in the KJV’s “scapegoat”). Other translations treat the word as a name: Azazel. The former option is possible, but since the phrase “for Azazel” occurs in parallel to “for Yahweh” (“for the Lord”), the wording suggests that two divine figures are being contrasted by the two goats.
Two other considerations argue in favor of Azazel being a divine being—in fact, a demonic figure associated with the wilderness. First, Jewish texts of the Intertestamental period show that Azazel was understood as a demonic figure.2 The Mishnah (ca. 200 AD; Yoma 6:6) records that the goat for Azazel was led to a cliff and pushed over to kill it, ensuring it would not return. This association of the wilderness with evil is evident in the NT, as this was where Jesus met the devil (Mat 4:1). Second, in Lev 17:7 we learn that some Israelites had been accustomed to sacrificing offerings to “goat demons.” The Day of Atonement replaced this illegitimate practice.
It is important to note that this goat was not a sacrifice—it was not sent into the wilderness as an act of sacrifice to a foreign god or demon. Rather, the act of sending the live goat out into the wilderness—unholy ground—was to send the sins of the people where they belonged—the demonic domain. By contrasting purified access to the true God of the first goat with the goat sent to the domain of demons, the identity of the true God and his mercy and holiness was visually reinforced.
Longer Version: Yahweh and Azazel3
The Day of Atonement ritual provides a fascinating convergence of all the ideas we’ve discussed to this point in the chapter: holiness, realm distinction, restoration, sacred and profane space, and Yahweh and his family versus the nations and their elohim.
If you’ve at least flipped through Leviticus on your way to another book of the Bible you may know that the Day of Atonement ritual is described in Leviticus 16. Part of that description goes like this:
7 Then [Aaron] shall take the two goats and set them before the Lord at the entrance of the tent of meeting. 8 And Aaron shall cast lots over the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel. 9 And Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the Lord and use it as a sin offering, 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. (Lev. 16:7-10; ESV)
Why is one of the goats “for Azazel”? Who or what is “Azazel”? Here’s where things get a little strange, unless you are acquainted with the cosmic geographical ideas we’ve been talking about.
The word “Azazel” in the Hebrew text can be translated “the goat that goes away.” This is the justification for the common “scapegoat” translation (NIV, NASB, KJV). The scapegoat, so the translator has it, symbolically carries the sins of the people away from the camp of Israel into the wilderness. Seems simple enough.
However, “Azazel” could also be a proper name. In Lev. 16:8 one goat is “for Yahweh” while the other goat is “for Azazel.” Since Yahweh is a proper name and the goats are described in the same way, Hebrew parallelism suggests Azazel is also a proper name, which is why more recent translations, sensitive to the literary character of the Hebrew text, read “Azazel” and not “scapegoat” (ESV, NRSV, NJPS). So what’s the big deal?
The point of importance is that Azazel is the name of a demon in the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient Jewish books. In fact, one scroll (4Q 180, 1:8) Azazel is the leader of the angels that sinned in Genesis 6:1-4. The same description appears in the book of 1 Enoch (8:1; 9:6; 10:4–8; 13:1; 54:5–6; 55:4; 69:2). Recall that in Intertestamental Judaism, the offending sons of God from Genesis 6 were believed to have been imprisoned in a Pit or Abyss in the Netherworld. As we saw in Chapter 6, he apostle Peter uses the Greek term Tartarus for this place (2 Peter 2:4). Tartarus is translated “Hell” in some English versions, but the term actually refers to the lowest place in the Netherworld, which was conceived as being under the earth humans walk upon. In Greek thought, Tartarus was the prison for the divine giant Titans defeated by the Olympian gods. In Jewish theology, Azazel’s realm was somewhere out in the desert, outside the confines of holy ground. It was a place associated with supernatural evil.
I believe Azazel is best taken as a proper name of a demonic entity. In the Day of Atonement ritual, the goat for Yahweh—the goat that was sacrificed—purifies the people of Israel and the Tabernacle/Temple. Sins were “atoned for” and what had been ritually unclean was sanctified and made holy. But purification only described part of what atonement meant. The point of the goat for Azazel was not that something was owed to the demonic realm, as though a ransom was being paid. The goat for Azazel banished the sins of the Israelites to the realm outside Israel. Why? Because the ground on which Yahweh had his dwelling was holy; the ground outside the parameters of the Israelite camp (or, nation, once the people were in the Land) had been consigned to fallen, demonic deities back at Babel. Sin could not be tolerated in the camp of Israel, for it was holy ground. Sins had to be “transported” to where evil belonged—the territory outside Israel under the control of gods set over the pagan nations. The high priest was not sacrificing to Azazel. Rather, Azazel was getting what belonged to him: the ugly sinfulness of the nation.
Taking Azazel as a proper name explains another weird statement in the very next chapter of Leviticus (17:7): “So they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to goat demons, after whom they whore” (ESV). The Day of Atonement ritual was part of the solution to the practice of some Israelites to sacrifice to “goat demons.” We are not told why they did this, but the period of bondage in Egypt may have introduced them to deities identified with goat sacrifices, or they conceptually thought the demons of the wilderness needed to be kept at bay while on the way to the Promised Land. The latter has an Egyptian flavor to it, since Egyptians considered territory outside Egypt to be full of perils and chaotic forces. For Israelites, such sacrifices were ineffective and could descend to idolatry. Restrictions and prohibitions had to be made with respect to sacrifice. All sacrifices needed to occur at the tent of meeting (Lev. 17:1-7), and the Day of Atonement ritual was the only sanctioned “expulsion of sins” ritual.
[1] Jewish texts of this era spell the name “Azazel”, “Azael”, and “Asael”. The figure is cast as either a fallen angel or the serpent of Eden in texts like (1 Enoch 8:1; 9:6; 10:4–8; 13:1; cf. 54:5–6; 55:4; 69:2; Apoc. Abr. 13:6–14; 14:4–6).
- A pre-edited version of the article, “There’s a Devil in the Details,” Bible Study Magazine 5:6 (Sept-Oct, 2013). ↩
- Texts of this era spell the name “Azazel”, “Azael”, and “Asael”. The figure is cast as either a fallen angel or the serpent of Eden. See 1 Enoch 8:1; 9:6; 10:4–8; 13:1; cf. 54:5–6; 55:4; 69:2; Apoc. Abr. 13:6–14; 14:4–6. ↩
- Drawn from the first draft of my Myth That is True book. ↩
Hi, Dr. Heiser. Cool topic. My question is: if the fallen sons of God (which I assume includes Azazel as the ringleader) were believed to have been imprisoned in a pit or abyss why is it that he is now free to roam in the wilderness and deserts outside Yahweh’s camp or nation? I just think it seems like a discrepancy for the head honcho to be locked up beneath the earth in the netherworld (tartarus) yet somehow have domain above (where the goat is sent). Have you come across an explanation for this? Thanks.
There is no wandering of Azazel going on in Lev 16. The goat is wandering into the region associated with him/them, and so is unholy ground. The goat isn’t a sacrifice; sins are carried to unholy ground. The gods of the nations (Deut 32:8-9) are not the same characters as in Gen 6, so their “freedom” is assumed. Jewish tradition was divided no doubt for some of the reasons you note. Satan, for example, is thought of in terms of the Gen 3 nachash in second temple / NT lit., and he wasn’t in the Gen 6 picture, so he is “free to roam.” Some Jews linked the Gen 6 leader to him, others didn’t because of the inconsistencies you note. It’s interesting that eschatological speculation may be behind some of that. The wording for the imprisonment is often associated with “the time of the end.” Some Jewish sects thought their own time (second temple, first century) was in view, and so they may have reasoned that Azazel had been released. When it comes to the NT, I think Rev 9 points to the release idea.
I see, so do you believe Azazel best fits one of the gods of the nations or one of the original sons who fell in Genesis 6? I ask because concerning where the goat is sent you stated “the territory outside Israel (is) under the control of gods set over the pagan nations” and that “Azazel’s realm was somewhere out in the desert, outside the confines of holy ground. It was a place associated with supernatural evil.” I don’t see how being punished and imprisoned (if one of the Gen 6 sons) can equate to the entity getting their own real or domain to rule over. How do you rule if you’re imprisoned?
I agree Lev 16 doesn’t state Azazel is free to roam the desert, but the idea that he rules *does* imply this (as you mentioned Satan ‘roams’ and Jesus stated he is ‘the ruler of this world’ John 12:31) The sins the goat carries (symbolically? literally through some sort of spiritual transference?) must go to where evil belongs, in the realm (or domain?) of Azazel. Agreed, it’s not some sort of sacrifice owed to the deity, but it does imply that it is a place where that deity reigns (thus my confusion as to him being locked up in abyssmal darkness; especially as Enoch lumps him together with the Gen 6 gang). Thanks again!
Anywhere other than Israel is under the domain of a lesser elohim, so in that sense, the wilderness is under dominion. That doesn’t mean Azazel is to be identified with Deut 32:8-9. It’s just that the place where the offenders were imprisoned isn’t in Israel.
Since Azazel was (in one tradition) the leader of the Gen 6 offenders, it’s easy to see how this leader, when sent to the abyss, could be conflated with the nachash and/or satan figure (again, depending on the texts) who was cast down to erets (“earth” or Sheol – the latter being more unusual, but present in the Hebrew Bible; cp. Jonah 2:6 this “land” is under the sea and has bars.
Just to clarify is the idea of scapegoat found in these verses?
“scapegoat” is a term based on a different understanding of the Hebrew term azazel (which ignores the parallel phrasing of “for Yahweh” and “for azazel” – preposition + proper noun).
Thanks for the concise summary. As a college OT professor, I’ve been teaching this same view for years. Now I can point to this post and show them I’m not crazy (or at least not the only one!). As an aside: having a goat demon in Leviticus sure makes it easier to teach; the students love it!
This was a great comment!
I’ve read that the wilderness was a domain for evil spirts since it was chaotic and without order. Is this correct?
The wilderness was “that domain that isn’t occupied by Yahweh and his people”. This is one reason Yahweh traveled with them – and the camp was arranged around the tabernacle. The whole arrangement was “portable sacred space” in the midst of unholy ground – on the way to occupying the land, in which Yahweh would dwell in a temple. There are chaotic elements in other passages (i.e., comparing the wilderness to the sea, that sort of thing).
I recently wrote a brief article at another website coming to the same conclusion. Good to see we’re on the same page.
In the New Testament, therefore, is there any attempt to equate Jesus’ Crucifixion and taking on of sins and the affliction of death with the Scapegoat? And, if the Scapegoat was associated with Azazel, doesn’t that seem like a rather perverse metaphor?
Unless, of course, the ironic twist is that the divine Scapegoat goes out into the netherworld only to be a Conqueror and rescue from its terrors – which isn’t exactly made clear in the text? Otherwise, we end up with the Old Testament version of the atonement debates of the first centuries about debt being paid either to God or as ransom.
Sin is simply being sent where it belongs – out of the sacred space reserved for Yahweh. Azazel isn’t being “pacified.”
Dr Heiser,
Looking forward to your book – for some time now, actually.
Thanks for the article. I am teaching on Joshua 7:10-12 on Sunday. Your article provides a number of insights to help understand why all of Israel was guilty for Achan’s sin as long as he was in the camp.
Perfect timing!
So why did they not call the goat Helel ben-Shachar since he originally drove humans into the wilderness of chaos, so to speak? Is it because they were associating Azazel with Helel or is because the name Azazel has goats associated with it already? Why choose the one elohim over the other for this ceremony?
Hi Michael.
Could you let me know what you think the word nazareth means? I have tried to find out ,
the aramaic translation for the greek version of nazareth, yet to no avail. also what do you think about how the word developed ? there are some convincing towns from O/T time maps ,I wonder if the word nazareth ( only being in the N/T ) had something to do with a new name for an old town because of the messiah being born there?
a reply would be greatly appreciated as i am highly interested in this topic considering the recent archaeological finds around the area.
thanks.
chris dealany
send me an email
Since the the sacrifice of the Lamb of God is what all were looking to through the symbology sacrificial system, can you tell us your thoughts on how this Goat for azazel fits in with the cross.
Jesus descended to the lowest depths to the spirits in prison ? it seems he was there to proclaim something, proclaim seems be the key word in 1 Peter 3.19 but could this be an additional reason for the descension ? Could He be proclaiming all this sin has been dealt with now, i atonned for it, now here have it back ! type thing.
The two goats are two aspects of what Yom Kippur means. One removes the sin of the nation; the other allows the high priest to enter God’s immediate presence. Jesus’ death accomplishes both for the “people of God” (believers) in that their sins are borne by another and God grants access. (In this case, the [great] high priest and the goat that carries sin away from the holy presence are the same. It’s a vicarious act, not a geographical one in a spatial sense).
Further to the previous comment, i was thinking that the goat for azazel was sent outside Israel carrying the sins of Gods people, so it seems the major theme is the geographical element to this symbology. Hell/Tartarus is the place where the sins of the world belong ?
in the eschaton there will be a new heaven and new earth with no sin but there will be a hell with sin and never the twain shall meet. Thats only geographical (if i can use that word) parallel i can think of that possibly relates to the cross, Without the cross sin would be permeating the holy land which encompasses the whole earth now. So the cross of Christ has eliminated sin and death and He has singlehandedly put them in their rightful place which is hell/Tartarus. Perhaps this is the corporate clean up side of the cross that nobody hears much about ? or maybe i have lost the plot completely … appreciate your thoughts.
Mike,
You may have run out of time with regards to answering my question (I know you’re busy!), or maybe you’ve already answered in the original post or in another response, and I just missed it. But I’ll paste it in down below. I’m really curious about why they focused on Azazel for this ritual–if there is even a clear reason to be given. Here’s my original post:
So why did they not call the goat Helel ben-Shachar since he originally drove humans into the wilderness of chaos, so to speak? Is it because they were associating Azazel with Helel or is because the name Azazel has goats associated with it already? Why choose the one elohim over the other for this ceremony?
email this to me so I don’t lose it. Just can’t get to it now. It’s that time of year (mid Nov – conferences looming for us).
Please Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
You’ll have to subscribe to a feed for updates (I think you’ll get an option for email). Let me know if that isn’t an option.
Would the blood of the goat for Yahweh have been on the hands of the high priest when he put them on the goat for Azazel?
Does Leviticus 16 say so (that’s my way of asking you to read the account of the ritual).
The HP does not wash until after performing the ceremony. That being the case I would say that yes, the blood of the goat for Yahweh would have been on the HP’s hands when he laid them on the other goat.
The text does not actually say he washes his hands until after. It doesn’t say anything about washing the hands. It refers to washing his body and clothes, so unless we’re going to imagine the HP hugging or wrestling with the goat, I don’t see a clear connection. The blood in the ritual in fact was not to cleanse people. The text is clear that the blood was for sanctifying the Holy Place (to make sure it is unpolluted and undefiled from people) and the altar. In other words, the atonement “for the people” (if you read the text carefully) is to atone for their defilement *of sacred space*, not to wipe away their sins. The point is not moral forgiveness, but the purification of the Holy Place and removal of any defilement caused by the people. … so I’m not sure what point you’d be arguing for.
I’ve copied (it’s lengthy) some of the discussion from Jacob Milgrom’s commentary on Leviticus that pertains to this passage and the larger issue. He’s an expert on Leviticus and sacrifice (he’s also Jewish).
http://www.michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/Lev16notes.pdf
I love digging through these old posts. Great stuff. Any who, my question arises from a sort of discomfort. I totally understand the need to separate the holy from the profane. The camp of God is holy and anything outside of it is profane. So why not have the text simply imply you have to send the goat out and not give it a proper name? With giving it a name, I feel like there is this demon that is Lord of all Earth (physical Earth) and he reins supreme everywhere that God does not descend. [God is the Lord of the heavenly realm]. Why else give it a name (Azazel) and why else imply that EVERYWHERE not within the camp or borders of Israel belongs to Azazel?
Is the USA ‘Azazel’ too?
(Also I am uncomfortable with God creating demons. For what?)
>Sins had to be “transported” to where evil belonged—the territory outside Israel under the control of gods set over the pagan nations. The high priest was not sacrificing to Azazel. Rather, Azazel was getting what belonged to him: the ugly sinfulness of the nation.
I guess God must really hate the rest of the other Bnei Elohim and all the rest of humanity. Why else would he want to send evil to them?
Entities had names / were given names. In this case, without the parallel to the divine name, the point that an entity was in view couldn’t be made (grammatically or stylistically).
The incident/ritual was designed to teach and reinforce the concept of sacred space. In NT theology, the concept of “where the Presence is” shifts to the indwelling of the Spirit in believers. So, in terms of the scriptural motif of reclaiming the nations that were not Israel, the USA is not holy ground. In terms of the motif that “everywhere the presence is” is holy ground, and believers being the new temple (1 Cor 3:16; 6:19), then there is “holy ground” everywhere believers are (and there are plenty of those in the USA).
This all contributes to the question (perhaps a conundrum) of whether geographic / political / national Israel today is still holy ground – or has that point of biblical cosmic geography been displaced by the NT concept.
Neither Scripture nor Jewish tradition have God *creating* demons.
Im returning to this discussion because we were discussing this very concept at synagogue today. This rule in Lev. 16 seems to only work in the desert wanderings no? I mean, once they settled in the land, what were they supposed to do with the goat? There is no longer a camp to take the goat OUT of. If you just let a goat wander outside of Jerusalem, most likely he will just find some village to return to, which will defeat the whole point of removing the sin completely. So how was this commandment supposed to be applied once they settled the land? Now I know the Mishna records pushing the goat off a cliff, but clearly that goes against the plane meaning of the text of letting the goat out alive.
Azazel the second goat sent out to the wilderness is a type of Christ…it is the Scapegoat which is what azazel means goat of departure, the scapegoat…how Mr Heiser can turn this into something other than what God meant is beyond me…I perceive anti-semetic ideas and thoughts being disseminated… this is absurd and unnecessary.
Azazel” or “the scapegoat” is mentioned in Leviticus 16 as part of God’s instructions to the Israelites regarding the Day of Atonement. On this day, the high priest would first offer a sacrifice for his sins and those of his household; then he would perform sacrifices for the nation. “From the Israelite community [the high priest was instructed] to take two male goats for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering” (v. 5). The priest brought the animals before the Lord and cast lots between the two goats – one to be a sacrifice and the other to be the scapegoat. The first goat was slaughtered for the sins of the people and its blood used to cleanse the Most Holy Place, the tent of meeting and the altar (v. 20). After the cleansing, the live goat was brought to the high priest. Laying his hands on the scapegoat, the high priest was to “confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites – all their sins – and put them on the goat’s head. He shall send the goat away into the wilderness in the care of someone appointed for the task. The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a remote place; and the man shall release it in the wilderness” (vv. 21-22). Symbolically, the scapegoat took on the sins of the Israelites and removed them (v. 10). For Christians, this is a foreshadowing of Christ.
Christ is the complete atonement for our sins. In many ways, He embodies each aspect of the Day of Atonement. We are told that He is our great High Priest (Hebrews 4:14). He is also the “Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world” (Revelation 13:8) as a sacrifice for our sins. And He is our scapegoat. Second Corinthians 5:21 says, “God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.” Our sins were laid on Christ – He bore our sins just as the scapegoat bore the sins of the Israelites. Isaiah 53:6 prophesies Christ’s acceptance of the sin burden: “We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” After the sins were laid on the scapegoat, it was considered unclean and driven into the wilderness. In essence, the goat was cast out. The same happened to Jesus. He was crucified outside of the city. “He was despised and rejected by men … He poured out His life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For He bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors” (Isaiah 53:3a, 12). Jesus embodied what the scapegoat represented – the removal of sins from the perpetrators.
Truly, the Old Testament rituals carry a depth and richness that only God could create. The Day of Atonement foreshadowed the ultimate atonement Christ provides. No longer do we need to sacrifice animals to cover our sins, nor do we need to impute our sins to a scapegoat to have them carried away. Jesus has been sacrificed and “scapegoated” for us. Our sins have been atoned for and removed. “The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming – not the realities themselves,” we are told in Hebrews 10:1. “For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. … Those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. … We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Hebrews 10:3-4, 10).
Dr Heiser …you mistranslate all the time…I do not know why you do it except you obviously do not use the original text but, these terrible modern translations which is no excuse…azazel is not the name of a demon it means a departure, a scapegoat which is what the type of Christ foreshadows in the the Day of Atonement…but there is no reason to tell someone the truth who should know better than to use the modern silly abusive translations of men meant to demean the Jews, Christ and God! Absurdly we bought the Unseen Realm..Not impressed but learned how it is you study and read the Word of God…we have bought other books we did not approve or would suggest to any as well and yours are some of these!