The positive reasons which favour this explana tion are the following :— I. The manner in which the phrase for Azazel,' is contrasted with 711;6, for Jehovah,' necessarily requires that Azazel should denote a personal existence, and, if so, only Satan can be intended. 2. If by Azazel, Satan is not meant, there is no ground for the lots that were cast. 1-Ve can then see no reason why the decision was re ferred to God ; why the high-priest did not simply assign one goat for a sin-offering, and the other for sending away into the desert. The circum stance that lots are cast implies that Jehovah is made the antagonist of a personal existence, with respect to which it is designed to exalt the un limited power of Jehovah, and to exclude all equality of this being with Jehovah. 3. Azazel, as a word of comparatively unfrequent formation, and only used here, is best fitted tor the designa tion of Satan. In every other explanation the question remains, Why, then (as it has every ap pearance of being), is the word formed for this occasion, and why is it never found except here ?' By this explanation the third chapter of Ze chariah comes into a relation with our passage, entirely like that in which chap. iv. of the same prophecy stands to Exod. XXV. 3r. Here, as there, the Lord, Satan, and the high-priest ap pear. Satan wishes by his accusations to destroy the favoumble relations between the Lord and his people. The high-priest presents himself before the Lord, not with a claim of purity, according to law, but laden with his own sins and the sins of his people. Here Satan thinks to find the safest occasion for his attacks ; but he is mistaken. For giveness baffles his designs, and he is compelled to retire in confusion. It is evident that the doctrinal part of both passages is substantially the same, and that the one in Zechariah may be considered the oldest commentary extant upon the words of Moses. In substance we have the same doctrine also in Rev. xii. to, ; the accuser of our brethren is cast down, who accuses them before our God day and night, and they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb.' The relation in which, according to this explana tion, Satan is here placed to the desert, finds ana logy in other passages of the Bible, where the deserted and waste places appear as peculiarly the abode of the Evil Spirit. See Matt. xii. 439 where the unclean spirit cast out of the man is re presented as going through dry places ;' also Luke viii. 27 ; and Rev. xviii. 2, according to which the fallen Babylon is to be the dwelling of all unclean spirits.
To the reasons already given, the Egyptian re ference, which the rite bears according to this ex planation, may be added—' a reference so remark able, that no room is left for the thought that it has arisen through false explanation.' Dr. Hengstenberg then proceeds to meet the objections which have been brought to bear against the view adopted by him--' adopted,' for this ex planation is by no means a new one, though he has brought it forward in greater force than be fore, and with new illustrations.
The most important of the objections, and tbe one which has exerted the greatest influence, is this, that it gives a sense which stands in direct opposition to the spirit of tbe religion of Jehovah. It is asked, Could an offering properly be made to the Evil Spirit in the desert, which the common precepts of religion in the Mosaic law, as well as the significance of the ceremony, entirely oppose ?' To this Hengstenberg answers--' Were it really necessary to connect with the explanation of Azazel as meaning Satan, the assumption that sacrifice was offered to him, we should feel obliged to abandon it, notwithstanding all the reasons in its favour. But nothing is easier than to show that
this manner of understanding the explanation is entirely arbitrary. The following reasons prove that an offering made to Azazel cannot be sup posed e 1. Both the goats are, in verse 5, taken together as forming unitedly one single offering, which wholly excludes the thought that one of them was brought as an offerin,g to Jehovah, and the other to Azazel. And further, an offenng which is made to a bad being can never be a sin-offering. The idea of a sin-offering implies holiness, hatred of sin in the being to whom the offering is made.
2. Both the goats were first placed at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord. To him, therefore, they both belong ; and when afterwards one of them is sent to Azazel, this is done in accordance with the wish of Jehovah, and also without destroying the onginal relation, since the one sent to Azazel does not cease to be long to the Lord.
3. The casting of lots also shows that both these goats were considered as belonging to the Lord. The lot is never used in the O. T. except as a means of obtaining the decision of Jehovah. So then, here also, Jehovah decides which of the goats is to be offered as a sin-offering, and which to be offered to Azazel.
4. The goat assigned to Azazel, before lie is sent away, is absolved (xvi. 24 The act by which the second goat is, as it were, identified with the first, in order to transfer to the living the nature which the dead possessed, shews to what the phrase for a sin-offering,' in verse 5, has reference. The two goats (as Spencer had before observed) became, as it were, one goat, and their duality rests only on the physical impossibility of making one goat re present the different points to be exhibited. IIad it been possible, in the circumstances, to restore life to the goat that was sacrificed, this would have been done. The two goats, in this connection, stand in a relation entirely similar to that of the two birds in the purification of the leprous persons in Lev. xiv. 4, of which the one let go was dipped in the blood of the one slain. As soon as the second goat is considered an offering to Azazel, the connection between it and the first ceases, and it cannot be conceived why it was absolved before it went away.
5. According to verse 21, the already forgiven sins of Israel are laid upon the head of the goat. These he bears to Azazel in the desert. But where there is already forgiveness of sin, there is no morc offering.
The other objections which have on different principles been made to this view are of less weight.
One of them, which alleges the apparent equality given under this explanation to the claims of .jeho. vah and of Satan, is answered by showing that it is rather calculated to act against the tendency of an ancient people to entertain that belief The lot is under the direction of Jehovah, and is a means of ascertaining his will ; and not a mediation be tween the two by an independent third agency, which decides to which the one and to which the other shall fall.