GOAT, SCAPE. A reference to this head is made under the article AZAZEL. The article is re tained as presenting the view of Hengstenberg.
It appears to Hengstenberg that an Egyptian reference must necessarily be acknowledged in the ceremony of the Great Atonement day ; and in order to establish this reference, he first en deavours to substantiate his view of the meaning of the word 9tKir, Aza:el ; which is, that it desig nates Satan. But this notion can only be placed in a right point of view by taking a general survey of the whole rite, in order to point out definitely the position which Azazel holds in it.
The account of this remarkable ceremony is contained in Lev. xvi.
First, in verses 1- ro, the general outlines are given ; and then follows, in verses I I, sq., the ex planation of separate points. It is of no small importance for the interpretation that this arrange ment, which has been recognised by few interpre ters, should be clearly understood. Aaron first offers a bullock as a sin-offering- for himself and his house. He then takes a firepan full of coals from the altar, with fragrant incense, and goes within the vail. There he puts the incense on the fire before the Lord, and the cloud of the in cense ' (the embodied prayer) covers the mercy seat which is upon the ark of the covenant, that he die not. Aaron then takes the blood of the bullock and sprinkles it seven times before the mercy-seat. After he has thus completed the ex piation for himself, he proceeds to the expiation for the people. He takes two he-goats for a sin offering for the children of Israel (xvi. 5). These he places before the Lord at the door of the ta bernacle (xvi. 7). He casts lots upon them ; one lot for the Lord ' and one lot for Azazel ' (xvi. S). The goat upon which the lot for the Lord fell (xvi. 9) he offers for a sin-offering, brings the blood within the vail, and does with it as with the blood of the bullock. In this way is the sanctuary purified from the defilements of the child ren of Ismel, their transgressions, and all their sins, so that the Lord, the holy one and pure, can continue to dwell there with tbem. After the ex piation is completed, the second goat, on which fell the lot for Azazel, is brought forward (xvi. to).
He is first placed before the Lord to absolve him (”51) -1=). Then Aaron lays his hands upon his head, and confesses over him the (forgiven) iniqui ties, transgressions, and sins of the children of Israel, puts them upon his head, and gives him te a inan to take away, in order that he may bear thc sins of the people into a solitary land (xvi. 22), into the desert, for Azazel (xvi. ro). Then Aaron offers a bumt-offering for himself, and one for the people.
Now, in respect to language, there can be no objection to interpreting Azazel as meaning Satan.
That the Hebrew 911), Azal, corresponds to the aArabic •- w s long ago asserted by Bochart and others, and is now generally admitted ; and Azazel, belongs to the form which repents the second and third radicals. In reference to this form, Ewald remarks (Gramm. sec. 333), that it expresses general intension, and that the idea of continual, regular repetition, without interrup tion, is also specially expressed by the repetition of nearly the whole word. The Arabic word Azakt signifies in that language semovit, dimovit, removit, descivit ; ' in the passive it signifies re motus, depositus fuit ;' and the participle, azul, means a cteris se sejungens.' In like manner azal, mazul, denote `semotus, remotus, abdicatus.' FrOM this two explanations of Azazel, as relating to Satan, may be educed ; either the apostate' (from God), or, the one entirely separate.' It is, in favour of the latter that the signification desci vit ' is only a derived one, and that it is appro priate to the abode in the desert. The goat is sent to Azazel in the desert, in the divided land (‘ terra abscissa'). How then could he be designated by a more appropriate name than the separate one?' And this explanation, as far as the facts of the case are concerned, is, in Hengstenberg's opinion, equally free from any well grounded objection. The doctrinal signification of the symbolical action, as far as it has reference to Azazel, is this, that Satan, the enemy of the people of God, cannot harm those forgiven by God, but that they, with sins forgiven of God, can go before him with a light heart, deride him, and triumph over him.