Yom Kippur and Jesus Christ

By S. Lewis Johnson, Jr.

Lewis Johnson served as a teaching elder and regularly ministered the Word at Believers Chapel in Dallas, Texas for more than thirty years. During his academic career he held professorships in New Testament and Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. At the time of his death in 2004, he was Professor Emeritus of New Testament Literature and Exegesis at Dallas Seminary. Both MP3 files and printed notes of Dr. Johnson’s sermons and theological lectures may be downloaded from the website of the SLJ Institute «www.sljinstitute.net».

An Exposition of Leviticus 16:1-34 [1]

Introduction

The Day of Atonement, or יוֹם כִּפּוּר (yôm kippûr), to use the Hebrew name of the day, [2] was the most important day in the Jewish ritual calendar. It was the greatest feast day, occurring once a year and looking forward to her future national day of atonement. The Talmud’s treatisen on the day was simply called (יוֹמָא, yômāʾ), or “The Day,” which expressed its importance. [3]

There were seven feasts in the festal calendar. The first was Passover, which occurred in the fourteenth day of the month of Nisan. The second was the Feast of Unleavened Bread, on the fifteenth day of Nisan. The third was First Fruits, occurring on the sixteenth. The fourth was Pentecost, which occurred seven weeks later, at about the time of our May to June. The fifth was Trumpets, occurring in the seventh month, or on the first of Tishri. The sixth was the Day of Atonement, on the tenth of the same month, and the final feast was Tabernacles, which occurred on the fifteenth day of Tishri.

The lessons of the Day of Atonement are many and varied. It was first and foremost a ceremony that taught that all the sacrifices composing the Levitical system, faithfully carried out through the year, did not avail for the removal of sin. If the system’s many sacrifices removed sin, why was this day necessary (cf. Heb. 10:1-3)?

Second, the ceremony, in which the high priest was enjoined to enter the Holy of Holies for the only time during the year, taught that the true goal of worship is not reached until the worshipper, in his representative, the high priest, has free access into the presence of the Most High in the Holy of Holies.

Third, it taught the sinfulness of man in a most complete and impressive way (cf. Lev. 16:2, 21). Even the daily offerings and the series of other required offerings for sin could not cleanse the sinner, although they might act as a temporary covering of guilt (cf. Heb. 9:8-10).

Fourth, it taught the holiness of God in a very solemn way. Even the high priest, upon entering the Holiest, must offer incense, typical of a prayer for the grace and mercy of God, even in the performance of divinely required sacrifices.

Fifth it taught, of course, the necessity of blood expiation for the forgiveness of sins (cf. Heb. 9:22). In the fact that the blood was brought into the Holiest of All, into the typical presence of God, it represented the most perfect type of the one offering of Jesus Christ by his blood sacrifice on Calvary.

Sixth, it taught the principle of representation, for Aaron represented the people of Israel in what he accomplished on “the Day.” Typically, by his mediation he secured for them expiation of their sins and redemption for another year. In this work Aaron represents beautifully our great Mediator and High Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Finally, the imperfect realization of the idea of the priestly office was clearly taught. Even ritually pure people, including the high priest himself, still could not enter God’s presence without the “double safeguard of incense and blood.” [4]

Yom Kippur occurred historically at Calvary when the Messiah died, but the completion of the ritual awaits the second advent, when the Lord of Hosts says that he “will remove the iniquity of that land in one day” (Zech. 3:9; cf. Heb. 9:23-28).

The Service Reviewed

The Seven Days Of Preparation

Due to the solemnity of the feast and the fact that the high priest performed the ceremony only once a year, it is likely that he spent the days immediately preceding it in the study of the Scripture that pertained to it, especially Leviticus 16 and 23. The Mishnah states that seven days before the Day of Atonement the high priest took up his abode in the chambers of the temple. [5] In fact, certain aspects of the rite may have been practiced, with the exception of entrance into the Holy of Holies. [6]

The Three Kinds Of Offerings On The Day

There were three kinds of offerings on the Day of Atonement: [7]

1. First, there were the continual burnt offerings, that is, the daily morning and evening sacrifices. [8]
2. Second, there were the festive offerings, i.e. offerings indicating in general the festive nature of the day. [9] These included a ram for a burnt offering for the high priest and the priesthood as well as a bullock, a ram, seven lambs (with their meat offerings), and a kid of the goats for a sin offering (Num. 29:7-11).
3. Third, there were the expiatory sacrifices—a young bullock as a sin offering for the high priest, his house, and the sons of Aaron, and two goats for a sin offering for the people (Num. 29:5-10).

About fifteen animals in all were sacrificed. Only when performing the distinctly expiatory services of the day did Aaron wear his “linen garments” (Lev. 16:4). On performing the others he wore his “golden vestments.” [10] That meant frequent changes of garments during the day, and before each change he also bathed his body. Thus, frequent changes of clothes and much bathing made up the high priest’s day. [11]

The Meaning Of The Changes Of Clothes

[Aaron] shall put on the holy linen tunic, and the linen undergarments shall be next to his body, and he shall be girded with the linen sash and attired with the linen turban (these are holy garments) (Lev. 16:4).

We should not miss the significance of this. The pure white of the linen garments signified the purity which alone fits one for entrance “into the awful presence” [12] of a holy God. The splendor of the garments of glory and beauty, the official dress of the high priest, represented the normal status of the priest as standing before men as God’s appointed representative. Thus, the glory and beauty suggested the Lord God in his splendor.

The Expiatory Sacrifices

There were two expiatory sacrifices unique to the Day of Atonement: a sin offering, a bullock for the high priest himself and his family, and a sin offering, a goat, for the people. Before the actual sacrifices, the high priest would lay both hands on the head of the bullock and confess his own sins over it. He would then take two goats selected for the occasion and cast lots over them to determine which one would be sacrificed and which would be the scapegoat. [13] The high priest made three entrances into the Holiest of All on the Day of Atonement, each fraught with significance:

1. First, after confessing his sins over the bullock and selecting one of the goats for sacrifice, he would kill the bullock and gives its blood to an attendant to stir it to keep it from coagulating. He then went to the altar of burnt offering and filled a censer with red-hot coals, which he carried in his left hand. He then placed a handful of incense in a dish, which he carried in his right hand. After this he disappeared into the first chamber of the sanctuary, namely, the Holy Place.
2. The curtain, or veil, separating the Holy Place from the second chamber, the Most Holy Place, [14] was folded back, so he stood before the Ark of the Covenant, or the throne of God. He placed the censer with the coals between the staves of the Ark and then emptied the incense into his hand and threw it upon the coals in the censer, waiting for the smoke to fill the Holy Place. Aaron’s heart must have beat faster with the question: “Will God accept it?” The incense signified that the purest of men, even an anointed high priest, robed in white, who has offered sacrifices the year round and is now obedient to all the divine requirements, can still only draw near to God as a suppliant, not entering as one with the right to do so, but with an appeal by the incense for undeserved mercy. The incense did not cover God’s glory that Aaron might not see it, but it covered Aaron typically that Yahweh might not look on him in his sin. [15]
3. He then emerged from the Sanctuary and, when he emerged, there must have been a long drawn out sigh of relief from the worshippers. He was accepted by God in his work for them. He then quickly took from the attendant the blood of the bullock and entered for a second time the Most Holy Place. He sprinkled the blood towards the front of the mercy seat and then before the mercy seat on the ground seven times
4. He again emerged from the sanctuary and killed the goat that had been set apart for Yahweh. He entered the Most Holy Place for the third time taking the goat’s blood inside and sprinkling again the mercy seat as before. Leaving the bowl of the goat’s blood and taking up the bowl containing the bullock’s blood, he sprinkled the blood towards the veil outside the Most Holy Place. He then did the same with the blood of the goat. After this, he poured the blood of the bullock into the bowl containing that of the goat and then the mixture of the two into the bowl that had contained the blood of the bullock. He then sprinkled the horns of the altar of incense, and afterwards seven times on the top of the altar. The expiatory sprinklings, actually forty-three of them, cleansed the sanctuary and its parts. Thus, the continuation of typical sacrificial communion was restored and secured for the year. [16]

The Offering Of The Goats, Verses 7-10, 15-22

He shall take the two goats and present them before the Lord at the doorway of the tent of meeting. Aaron shall cast lots for the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for the scapegoat. Then Aaron shall offer the goat on which the lot for the Lord fell, and make it a sin offering. But the goat on which the lot for the scapegoat fell shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make atonement upon it, to send it into the wilderness as the scapegoat…. 

Then he shall slaughter the goat of the sin offering which is for the people, and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat. He shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the impurities of the sons of Israel and because of their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and thus he shall do for the tent of meeting which abides with them in the midst of their impurities. When he goes in to make atonement in the holy place, no one shall be in the tent of meeting until he comes out, that he may make atonement for himself and for his household and for all the assembly of Israel. Then he shall go out to the altar that is before the Lord and make atonement for it, and shall take some of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat and put it on the horns of the altar on all sides. With his finger he shall sprinkle some of the blood on it seven times and cleanse it, and from the impurities of the sons of Israel consecrate it. When he finishes atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat. Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness. The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness.

The First Goat

The ritual of the two goats was unique, not being found elsewhere in the Mosaic Law or in heathenism. [17] As we have seen, the blood of the slain first goat represented the blood of the expiation of the sins of the people and the propitiation of the claims of God’s holy nature and law.

The Second Goat

The consciences of the worshippers were not yet free from the sense of sin and guilt personally. This deliverance came through the ritual of the scapegoat, the goat for Azazel (cf. 16:8, 20-22), [18] which had been left standing in the courtyard while the blood of the first goat was being sprinkled on the mercy seat. The high priest then laid both his hands upon the second goat of the one sin offering for the people and confessed, “I beseech Thee, O Lord, Thy people the house of Israel have failed, committed iniquity and transgressed before Thee. I beseech Thee, O Lord, atone for the failures, the iniquities and the transgressions which Thy people, the house of Israel, have failed, committed and transgressed before Thee. As it is written in the Torah of Moses, thy servant, to say: For on this day shall atonement be made for you, to cleanse you from all your sins. Before the Lord you shall be clean.” [19] The high priest turned his face toward the people as he uttered the last words, “Ye shall be clean!,” as if to declare their remission. [20]

One can see that the first goal represented the means of the forgiveness in the propitiatory death and blood, while the second, sent off into the wilderness, represented the effects of the sacrifice, the removal of sins by forgiveness (cf. Ps. 103:12; Mic. 7:19).

In the time of the temple the sin-burdened goat was led out the eastern gate toward the Mount of Olives. Edersheim comments, “Tradition enjoins that he should be a stranger, a non-Israelite, as if to make still more striking the type of Him who was delivered over by Israel unto the Gentiles!” [21] The animal was led off into the wilderness, and later pushed over a cliff. [22] The Bible, however, says nothing of this later practice of pushing the scapegoat over a precipice. It only says it was released in the wilderness. Perhaps, since the goat was not killed, only sent far away, indication was given that “sin was not really blotted out, only covered for a time until Christ should come” (cf. Rom. 3:25; Heb. 9:26; 10:1). [23]

The lesson of these things is clear: The Old Testament contained an imperfect realization of the idea of the priestly office. Although ritually pure, the high priest could not enter the divine presence without the double protection of the incense and the blood. “The priest who cleanses others,” Maclaren writes, “is himself unclean.” [24] The sanctuary was tainted by the very services that were meant to atone and purify (cf. Heb. 5:1-2). But the ritual meant ultimately that the office would not always be filled by men too small and sinful for its requirements. A priest of real purity would come, bringing us to God and God to us. He would offer the sacrifice that would need no “after atonement” to expiate its defects.

He would be able to stand in the Holiest of All for us without incense and blood for himself. Thus, the imperfections of the Old Testament office holders and sacrifices were prophecies of better things to come.

“The Day” And Jesus Christ

“The Day” And Its Redemptive Truths

There are a number of important redemptive truths that are typically illustrated in the ritual of the Day of Atonement. First, and very important, is the clear acknowledgement of the sin of the people. The sanctuary, the high priest, and the people are each seen as unfit for the presence of God apart from divine redemptive cleansing. The fact that this day must be repeated each year adds to the proclamation of Israel’s sin (cf. Heb. 10:1-4).

Second, the entire ceremony placarded the holiness of God, as in the command that Aaron must not enter the Holiest but once a year, that even then he must be clothed in special garments of holiness (cf. 16:4), that he must burn the incense in merciful appeal that God would not look upon him in his sin, that even the sanctuary itself must be cleansed (v. 16), that the directions must be followed scrupulously, that the participants must bathe themselves even after doing God’s requirements, and that the elaborate ceremony still did not really purify the people as it had to be repeated each year.

Third, the truth of representative atonement is taught. That Aaron acted for the people is plain, both by the nature of his office, the clothes he wore, and his sole privilege and responsibility to slay the atoning goat in the expiation of sins. It is also seen in his responsibility to enter the Holiest of All with the blood in the propitiation of God by sprinkling the blood on the mercy seat and then by confessing the nation’s sin over the scapegoat, sending it off into the wilderness in expression of the redemptive removal of the nation’s sin.

The means of effecting the atonement was the blood of the sacrificial animal. Look at Leviticus 17:11: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.” “The atonement is effected through the life which is in the blood.” [25] William Harvey (1578-1657), who discovered how blood circulates in the human body, wrote of blood: “It is the fountain of life, the first to live, the last to die, and the primary seat of the (human) soul.” [26] To shed blood is to pour out life, that is, to die violently (Heb. 9:22; cf. Eph. 1:7; 5:9; Col. 1:14; Heb. 9:14; 10:19; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 7:14). To God, the blood is important (cf. Exod. 12:13), expiating sin and propitiating him. Compare Luke 18:13: “God be propitiated (ἱλάσθητί, hilasthēti) to me a sinner.” [27] In this chapter to atone for sin is to propitiate God with respect to it [28] or to make a penal satisfaction for it, making it possible for a holy God to cancel it and put it away. But let us remember that in Old Testament times the sin was only covered until the Fulfiller of the Levitical ceremonies should come. [29]

Fourth, the truth of substitution stands out (cf. 16:21-22). It is the death of the goat that expiates sin and propitiates God as the means of atonement. It is the sending off of the live goat with the sins typically upon its back which expresses the effects of atonement in pictorial fashion. The two goats, of course, formed one offering (cf. v. 5). As in the Passover experience, when God said, “When I see the blood, I will pass over you,” so here God sees not the sin, but its expiation in blood. It is not morality, nor integrity, nor civilization, nor culture, nor character-building, but the blood that redeems. To see this, to believe it, and rest upon it is to enter into life eternal. It is peace and joy and rest. “It is the gospel!” [30]

Fifth, associated closely with substitution is the truth of imputation. The sins of the people are imputed, or reckoned, to the animal, while the departure of the sins with the scapegoat is reckoned to the people. This is the subject of the great song of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53, the sixth verse of which contains the line: “The Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.” Paul expresses the truth plainly in 2 Corinthians 5:21: “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (cf. Gal. 3:13). Our sin-bearer bore and exhausted the curse of the broken law that was due us, and God has given us his righteousness in grace.

Sixth, the goal of the divine ministry is clearly delineated by Aaron’s privilege of entering the presence of God on “the Day.” While the repetition of the ceremony each year proclaimed the inadequacy of the Levitical system to take away sin, the entrance of the high priest into the Holiest on this special day was a divine acknowledgement and declaration that the true end of the divine work is not completed until the worshiper has free access to the Most High who dwells in the real Holiest of All in heaven (cf. Heb. 8:1-2). The thought is overwhelming in its statement of our privilege in worship now that the High Priest of our confession, Jesus Christ, has opened the way for us into the holy presence of the Father. This is the burden of the epistle to the Hebrews and its glorious word of affirmation and invitation: “Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb. 10:19-22; cf. 4:14-16).

The imperfect realization of the priestly office, seen so clearly in the fact that men, while ritually pure, still could not enter the divine presence without the double safeguard of incense and blood, was itself a promise and prophecy that there would one day come a high priest of genuine purity who would bring us to God and God to us. And now he, of whom Aaron was a dim shadow, has come. Oh, may we hasten to him for communion, mercy, and grace!

Seventh, there is one final note that should be sounded. In verse 31 Moses is told that on this day the children of Israel were to “afflict [their] souls” (KJV), that is, they were to enter spiritually into the nature of the day. The mere observance of the ceremony was of limited value. In fact, if one were not to afflict one’s soul in personal confession of sin to the Lord and in appeal to him for mercy as represented typically in the services of the day, then he would be “cut off from his people” (Lev. 23:29). In other words, ceremonies do not save, even when they so beautifully portray the work of the Redeemer. One must enter experientially into the things signified by them. In our language of the new covenant it simply means that Christ’s work does not save apart from personal faith in him.

“The Day” And Jesus Christ

First, let us compare our Lord and his ministry with Aaron and his. Both our Lord and Aaron were to act under divine direction. [31] One notices the numerous “shalls” of the English text in Leviticus 16. Of course, Old Testament priests were never able to perfectly carry out the Lord’s commands in body and in spirit. Our Lord, however, although also under the divine compulsion to do and say the things the Father commanded him, always obeyed. “I always do the things that are pleasing to Him” is the confession of Jesus the Messiah (John 8:29).

Both Aaron and our Lord divested their garments of glory and beauty to carry out the atoning work—Aaron typically in the putting off of the normal priestly garments for the special ones of the Day of Atonement and our Lord in reality in his self-humiliation of leaving his heavenly glory for the lowly status of a carpenter among men (cf. Phil. 2:5-11)

Both did their work alone—Aaron being alone in his special ministry of the Day of Atonement (cf. Lev. 16:17) and Jesus, too, being alone in the infinite suffering of the penal expiation of sin and the propitiation of God. Christ, too, was the lonely sufferer who at his most intense spiritual pain cried out, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (Matt. 27:46). [32]

And, second, let us contrast our Lord with Aaron. [33] The contrasts are so many that I will only mention a few of them. Aaron offered a sacrifice for his own sins before he was able to offer one for the people, while Christ had no need to offer a sacrifice for himself, being a sinless high priest (cf. Heb. 7:26-27). Aaron’s offerings availed for one year, but Christ’s one offering avails for eternity (cf. Heb. 9:12, 26). Aaron offered bulls, rams, and goats, which cannot take away sin, but Christ offered himself, gaining an eternal redemption (cf. Heb. 7:26-28; 9:11-14, 24-28). Aaron “stood daily” in the exercise of his work (the tabernacle contained no chair!), for he never finished his work, but Christ offered one sacrifice and “sat down” forever, having accomplished a finished work (cf. Heb. 1:3; 10:11-12). His presence in heaven now is both proof and assurance of its completion.

Conclusion

A question that constantly arises from the study and exposition of the Old Testament, and especially the typical passages that look on to the Messiah’s first advent, is this: “What did the Old Testament ritual do for its worshipers?” More than one attempt has been made to answer the question, but there is general agreement on some major points.

First, the sacrifices at the brazen altar served to maintain Israelites in fellowship with God. They did not, of course, form the ground of their salvation, for the blood of bulls and goats did not—in fact could not—save. Salvation rested upon an individual’s faith in the coming of a redeemer as set out in the Scriptures that they possessed at that time (cf. Heb. 11:1-40).

Second, the sacrificial system served to keep vividly before the Old Testament saints the hope of the Messiah’s coming and ministry that God had given them. Thus, at every observance of the Day of Atonement there was not only a graphic reminder of their sin and the insufficiency of animal sacrifices to remove it, there was also a pictorial pointer to the One who was to come. The fact that no work was to be done during “the Day” not only gave them time to reflect on the meaning of the ceremony, it also suggested to them that the work of the Fulfiller of the ceremonies was not to be supported or added to by their own works (cf. vv. 29, 31).

Third, the Old Testament rituals were in a graphic sense prophecies of the coming ages. In fact, the ceremonial law attains its supreme expression here in Leviticus 16. It has been said that what Isaiah 53 is to messianic prophecy, the Day of Atonement is to Mosaic typology. The types pointed to him, just as the prophecies did, and this type is one of the most distinctly messianic ones.

Those who entered into the provisions for salvation in the Old Testament times, that is, into the word concerning the coming Redeemer and faith in him, experienced the new life from God. While they were saved in a sense on credit, they nevertheless had a genuine saving hope in him (cf. Heb. 11:39-40). And none were happier than they when Christ finally came and offered up the sacrifice that completed their hope. Speaking of his representative work, the author of Hebrews writes: “For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance” (Heb. 9:15). The cross of Christ, then, had a retroactive effect as to sin, its efficacy radiating over the past as well as the future. [34] As Lindsay wrote, “This great event threw its blessings back upon all preceding times. Not posterity merely, but ancestors, were benefited by the self-denying scenes of Calvary. The river of mercy flowed backward from the cross to the creation, as well as onwards to the end of the world.” [35]

This article is incomplete, as we have not discussed the Day of Atonement in the epistle to the Hebrews, where it is so prominent and receives so much clarifying comment from the inspired author. We must leave that for another time. [36] In the meantime let me close with an exhortation to twenty-first century readers, namely, that we be sure that the atonement adumbrated in the ancient typology is the possession of us all.

Addendum:

Azazel In Leviticus 16

By David J. MacLeod

There has been considerable debate over the expression “for the scapegoat” or “for Azazel” (לַעֲזָאזֵל, laʿǎzāʾzēl). [37] The term עֲזָאזֵל (ʿǎzāʾzēl) occurs four times in the Old Testament, all of them in this passage (vv. 8, 10 [twice], 26). There are several views as to its meaning:

1. It refers to a thing, namely the live goat itself. According to proponents the word is a combination of the noun עֵז (“goat”) and אֶָזַל (“to go away”), hence, “departing goat” or “goat of departure,” [38] “escape goat.” [39] This view is old (LXX, Vulgate) and has wide support up to the present (KJV, NASB, NIV). [40] The difficulty with this interpretation is that the verses when translated literally would then say that the live goat goes to the scapegoat or for the scapegoat, i.e., “to itself” or “for itself” (vv. 10, 26).
2. It refers to an abstract idea, namely, that of “entire removal.” Proponents understand the word to be derived from the Arabic cognate ʿazal (“remove”), which is a possibility. The live goat was thus chosen as “the goat for removal.” [41] Two objections have been leveled against the view. First, there are “few abstract terms in Leviticus; in fact, the entire ritual of the Day of Atonement, including the release of this goat, is a symbolic enactment of spiritual realities.” One might have expected a more concrete expression, e.g., “the goat for the removal of the iniquities of Israel.” Second, this meaning does not establish a good parallel with “for Yahweh” in verse 8 (cf. view # 4, below). [42]
3. It refers to a place, namely the place to which the goat departs. Rashi (1040-1105), the noted medieval French rabbi and commentator, understood the word to be a compound of עזז (“to be strong”) and אל (“mighty”) and asserted that it meant “a precipitous and flinty rock.” He cited the Talmud (a “hard and rough place” or “the hardest of mountains”) in support of his view. It has also been defended by G. R. Driver, who argued that the term was a place name based on the root עזז, which is a cognate of the Arabic ʿazâzilu, “jagged cliffs” or “precipice.” [43] In this view, says Driver, “the second goat was taken into the wilderness to the precipice called ‘Azazel’ or ‘jagged rocks’ and driven over them to its death, carrying the sins of the people with it.” The Bible, however, says nothing of killing the second goat. Two objections have been raised against this third view. First, as with the second view, it does not account for the parallel expression, “for Yahweh,” which suggests that Azazel is a personal being rather than a place. Second, the expressions מִדַבָּר (“wilderness,” or “desert” v. 10) andאֶרֶץ גְּזֵרָה (“solitary place,” v. 22) already designate the place to which the live goat is to be taken. It seems redundant to add that the goat is to be taken “to a rocky precipice.” [44]
4. It is the proper name of a desert demon, [45] or of the devil himself. [46] The view that “Azazel” is a proper name is widely held. [47] In support of this interpretation the following arguments have been advanced: First, the parallel syntactic structure in verse 8 wherein “for יהוה (Yahweh)” is balanced by “for עֲזָאזֵל (Azazel)” suggests that Azazel, like Yahweh, is a proper name. The prefixל (‘for”) is a lamed auctoris, i.e., it indicates the name of the owner. [48] Second, in the Pseudepigrapha, non-canonical literature of the intertestamental period (1 Enoch 8:1; 9:6; 10:4-8; 13:1-2; 54:5; 55:4; 69:2), Azazel is the name of a chief demon. [49] Third, the Old Testament sometimes describes the appearance of demons as goat-like or satyr-like [50] (comp. Leviticus 16:8 where the two goats as designated by the expression הַשְּׂעִירִם [haśśěʿîrīm, “he-goats,” “bucks,” lit. “hairy ones”] and Leviticus 17:7, where, aside from a change in prefix, the same expression [לַשְּׂעִירִם] is translated, “to the goat demons” [also see 2 Chron. 11:15; Isa. 13:21; 34:14]). Fourth, in both the Old and New Testaments the wilderness, or desert, is portrayed as the abode of evil spirits (Isa. 13:1; 34:13; Matt. 12:43; Luke 11:24; Rev. 18:2).

The fourth view is the most commonly held view today, but it has been understood in three different ways by scholars:

1. Some critical works have held that the second goat was led out to Azazel, an evil demon or Satan, who had to be appeased by sacrifice. This was the view of Gesenius and others. [51] Proponents assert that this practice was a very ancient pagan rite borrowed by the Israelites. S. P. Tregelles, Gesenius’s translator, responded to this interpretation by saying that no one who believed in the inspiration of Scripture could hold to such a view. “God could never mix up idolatrous rites with his own worship.” [52] The following objections have been raised against this interpretation: (1) First, This form of idolatry/demon worship is strictly forbidden in the very next chapter (17:7-9). (2) Second, the text clearly states that both of the goats—the goat that was slaughtered and the goat that was led to Azazel—were declared to be a sin offering (16:5). The two goats are thus identified with each other—the living goat is regarded as ideally one with the goat which is slain. Each goat represents a different aspect of atonement. The slain goat portrays the vicarious death of a substitute for the sins of the people; the live goat pictures the forgiveness of their sins and the carrying of them away. (3) Third, both were placed at the gate of the tabernacle and consecrated to the Lord. It says the living goat “was presented alive before the Lord” as an offering to him (vv. 7, 10, 20); there is no indication that it was to be sacrificed to another. (4) Fourth, the function of the live goat is explicitly stated in verses 20-22; it was to completely remove the transgressions of Israel that had been symbolically transferred to him by the laying on of hands by Aaron, the high priest. No other function is given in the text. [53] (5) Fifth, there is in the Old Testament a striking contrast between Israel and her pagan neighbors. The surrounding nations were awash in demonism and idolatry. They were geniuses at creating a sensational mythology of demons. Israel’s Scriptures, on the other hand, have a very muted view of demons and the occult. The biblical writers totally reject the mythology of the nations of the ancient Near East. They accepted the reality of the demonic, but they refused to dramatize it or offer worship to it. [54]
2. A second interpretation agrees that Azazel should be viewed as a demon, but as “an inactive one with no real role to play in the rite except to indicate the place to which the sins are dispatched.” The main proponent of this interpretation, David P. Wright, continues, “The purpose of the biblical scapegoat rite is to rid the community of the sins which are the cause of impurity in the sanctuary. The sins are placed on the goat and then sent to the wilderness in order to remove them from the people and from the sanctuary. The goat does not appear to be a propitiatory offering to Azazel, but only serves as a vehicle for transporting the sins. Azazel, to whom the goat is sent, is apparently not an active personality.” [55] The problem with this thesis is that it seems to deny the reality of the demonic. Israel, however, took spiritism and the occult very seriously and would not use a mythological symbol for such an important ritual—especially since her Scriptures so violently oppose that mythology (Lev. 17:7; cf. Deut. 18:9-14).
3. A third interpretation, held by a number of evangelical scholars, is that Azazel is a major demonic power, most likely Satan himself. The living goat, representing one aspect of the sin offering, carries the forgiven sins of the people away into the wilderness. What then of Azazel? Only the later teaching of Scripture regarding Satan can give us an answer. Because of sin, mankind is judicially left by God “in the power of the evil one” (1 John 5:19). When as “the ruler of this world” (John 14:30) Satan came against the sinless man, Jesus Christ, he found nothing to charge him with; he was “the Holy One of God” (Mark 1:24). On the other hand, Satan has “the power of death” over all other men (Heb. 2:14). In both the Old and New Testaments Satan is said to be the accuser and adversary of God’s people (Job 1:9-11; 2:4-5; Zech. 3:1; Rev. 12:10). It is to this Evil One that the live goat is sent bearing the sins of Israel. He is sent, furthermore, as “being ideally one with the goat that was slain.” The first part of the ritual, with the slaughter of the first goat, symbolized the means of reconciliation with God, namely, through the offering unto God of the life of an innocent victim. The purpose of the second part of the ritual, with the goat sent to Azazel, was to symbolize the effect of that atoning sacrifice, namely, the complete deliverance of the sinner, through expiatory blood presented in the Holy of Holies, from the power of Satan. [56] What God did was to return evil to its source by removing it completely from Israel. [57] “Nothing,” wrote Ginsburg, “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.” [58]

As sent to Azazel he symbolically announced to the devil that with the atonement for sin by sacrificial blood the basis of his power over God’s forgiven people was broken. His accusations have no force now that the matter of Israel’s sin has been settled. “Thus, as the acceptance of the blood of the one goat offered in the Holiest symbolized the complete propitiation of the offended holiness of God, his pardon of Israel’s sin, and the cleansing of the sanctuary, so the sending of the goat to Azazel symbolized the effect of this expiation in the complete removal of all the penal effects of sin through deliverance by atonement from the power of the Adversary as the executioner of God’s wrath.” [59]

In New Testament theology the atoning work of Christ breaks Satan’s power over people (Heb. 2:14-16), destroys his works (1 John 3:8), and exposes his forces to humiliation (Col. 2:15). Furthermore, the apostle Peter suggests that, subsequent to his death, Christ announced his victory to the demonic forces in the abyss (1 Pet. 3:18-20), and the apostle John prophesied that one day in the future Satan will be thrown into the lake of fire forever (Rev. 20:10). Viewing the ritual of the two goats through the lens of Christian typology, the sin offering of the Day of Atonement incorporates both the idea of penal substitution and the idea of victory over Satan.

Notes

1. This is article six in a twelve-part series, “Anticipations of the Messiah in the Old Testament.”
2. Leviticus 23:27 uses the expression (יוֹם הַכִּפֻּרִים, yôm hakippurim), lit., “day of atonements.” The plural has been understood in various ways: (1) As an abstract plural, i.e., the plural noun here speaks of the quality of the day or the action performed therein [BDB, s.v. “כִּפֻּרִים,” 498]. (2) As a tantum plural, or a “plural-invariable noun,” i.e., the plural here accords with Hebrew’s lexical structure much as in English a plural may speak of a singular item, e.g. “pants, pliers, scissors, glasses, etc. [HALOT, s.v. “כִּפֻּרִים,” 1:495]. (3) As an intensive plural, i.e., the wording indicates that this is a day of full and complete atonement [John E. Hartley, Leviticus, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1992), 388]. (4) As a plural of composition, i.e., the plural includes all the atoning acts of the day [Allen P. Ross, Holiness to the Lord (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 313, n.2]. On the grammar, cf. P. Jouon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 2d ed. (Rome: Gregorian and Biblical Press, 2009), § 90f, 136b, f, i (249-50; 469-71); Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), § 7.1d, 7.4.1b, 7.4.2a-c, 7.4.3a (112, 119-122).
3. The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Mo‘ed, ed. I. Epstein, Tractate Yoma, trans. Leo Jung (London: Soncino Press, 1938), 3:1-475.
4. Alexander Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture: Exodus through Numbers (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1974), 252.
5. The Mishnah is the compilation of early Jewish oral tradition compiled about ad 200 which forms the basic part of the Talmud. See Order Moed, Tractate Yoma 1.1, in Mishnayoth, trans. Philip Blackman (New York: Judaica Press, 1963), 2:273. Cf. Alfred Edersheim, The Temple: Its Ministry and Services (1874; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950), 307.
6. Mishnayoth, Yoma 1.2-3 (2:274); Edersheim, The Temple, 308.
7. Edersheim, The Temple, 306.
8. Mishnayoth, Yoma 2.5 (2:280).
9. Emil Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, eds. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Matthew Black (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979), 2:308.
10. Edersheim, The Temple, 96-97, cf. 98.
11. In the temple service of the Day of Atonement the high priest changed his clothes and washed his body five times. He washed his hands and feet ten times (Mishnayoth, Yoma 3.3, n. 6 [2:283]; cf. Edersheim, The Temple, 309).
12. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture: Exodus through Numbers, 250.
13. The procedure for casting lots over the two goats is described in the Mishna and by Maimonides (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, 1135-1204), one of the greatest Torah scholars of the Middle Ages. When the ritual of the two goats was to take place, the animals were placed in front of the high priest, one to his right and the other to his left. The lots were two small tablets of equal size originally made of wood, but in the second temple they were made of gold. On one tablet was the inscription, “For the Lord” (lit. “for Yahweh) and on the other, “For Azazel.” The tablets were kept in a chest (called “the urn”), the opening of which was large enough for two hands to be inserted at once. After shaking the chest, the high priest put his hands into the urn and withdrew the tablets, one in each hand. The tablet in his right hand was placed on the head of the goat at his right, and the tablet in his left hand was placed on the goat to his left. The goat with the tablet inscribed “For Azazel” had crimson wool looped around its horns, and the goat with the tablet inscribed “For the Lord” had crimson wool looped around its neck. The former was led into the wilderness, and the latter was slaughtered. See The Code of Maimonides, Book 8: The Book of Temple Service, Treatise 8: “Laws Concerning the Service on the Day of Atonement” 3.1-4, trans. Mendell Lewittes (New Haven: Yale, 1957), 394-395; Mishnayoth, Yoma 3.9; 4:1-2 (2:286, 288-89); cf. Edersheim, The Temple, 311-12; C. D. Ginsburg, Leviticus, LHC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1961), 150.
14. The Most Holy Place is also designated “the Holiest of All” or “the Holy of Holies” in various English versions.
15. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture: Exodus through Numbers, 251.
16. Edersheim, The Temple, 315-316. The number of sprinklings has been calculated as follows: (1) The sprinkling of the bullock’s blood on the mercy seat on top of the ark, once upward and seven times downward, or eight sprinklings. (2) The sprinkling of the goat’s blood, once upward and seven times downward, or eight sprinklings. (3) The sprinkling of the bullock’s blood toward the veil, once upward and seven times downward, or eight sprinklings. (4) The sprinkling of the goat’s blood toward the veil, once upward and seven times downward, or eight sprinklings. (5) The sprinkling of the mixture of bull’s and goat’s blood on each of the four horns of the altar of incense, and the sprinkling of the top of the altar of incense seven times or eleven sprinklings.
17. S. H. Kellogg, The Book of Leviticus, 3d ed. (New York: A. C. Armstrong, 1899; reprint ed., Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1978), 263.
18. See addendum at the end of this article.
19. Mishnayoth, Yoma 6.2 (300); Babylonian Talmud, Yoma 66a (308).
20. Edersheim, The Temple, 317-18.
21. Edersheim, The Temple, 318. See Babylonian Talmud, Yoma 66a (309), which says, “But the priests made it a definite rule not to permit an Israelite to lead it away.” In a footnote, however, the translator indicates that this meant a non-priest could not lead it away. Maimonides (Day of Atonement 3.7 [396]) also says that the rule stipulated that “a lay Israelite” could not lead it away.
22. The later tradition that the scapegoat was to be hurled to its death from a precipice at Beth-Hidure, three miles from Jerusalem is found in the Mishna (Yoma 6.6-8 [2:302-303]) and Maimonides (Day of Atonement 3.7 [396]). When the ritual was first initiated by Moses, the living goat “was most likely sent away from the camp to roam freely in the wilderness until its death” (Hartley, Leviticus, 238).
23. Edersheim, The Temple, 320-21.
24. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture: Exodus through Numbers, 252.
25. W. G. Moorehead, Studies in the Mosaic Institutions (New York: Revell, 1895), 107.
26. William Harvey, quoted by Moorehead, Studies in the Mosaic Institutions, 107.
27. The Hebrew word for atonement, כָּפַר (kāpār) and its cognates, is rendered ten times by the Greek verb ἐξιλάσκομαι or compounds in Leviticus 16. The noun ἱλαστήριον (Hebrew = כַּפֹּרֶת, kappōreṯ) is usually translated mercy seat (vv. 14, 15; cf. Rom. 3:25). Both the Hebrew and Greek terms refer to the golden cover of the sacred chest (ark of the covenant) in the inner sanctuary of the tabernacle or temple. It was above the mercy seat that God promised to meet with men (Num. 7:89). The translation “mercy seat” is not felicitous in that the word is not related to mercy nor was the ark a seat. The word is derived from the root “to atone” and is best translated “place of propitiation.” The lid of the Ark was the place where the blood was sprinkled on the Day of Atonement, signifying that God’s wrath against sin has been satisfied by the sacrifice of a substitute. R. Laird Harris, “kappōreṯ,” TWOT, 1:453.
28. Propitiation speaks of the satisfaction of God’s holy anger against sin by diverting it to a substitutionary sacrifice.
29. Older works understood the verb כָּפַר to be related to an Arabic root meaning “to cover over” (cf. BDB, s.v. “כָּפַר,” 497). It was suggested that the OT sacrifices only covered sin until it was dealt with in fact by the sacrifice of Christ. More recently scholars have concluded that there is little evidence for an Arabic connection and that the term does not mean “to cover over temporarily.” Rather, it means “to make atonement” or “to propitiate” (R. Laird Harris, “כָּפַר,” TWOT, 1:452-53). Having noted the correct translation of the Hebrew, we must hasten to add that the author of the epistle to the Hebrews certainly implies that the OT sacrifices were something like a temporary covering and that it was the sacrifice of Christ that ultimately dealt with sin and truly put it away (Heb. 10:1-14).
30. Kellogg, The Book of Leviticus, 274.
31. Moorehead, Studies in the Mosaic Institutions, 200-202.
32. The great Old Testament scholar, Franz Delitzsch, has correctly called the Day of Atonement “the Good Friday of the Old Testament” (quoted by Wilhelm Moller, “Atonement, Day of,” ISBE 1[1929]: 326).
33. Moorehead, Studies in the Mosaic Institutions, 202-203.
34. Moorehead, Studies in the Mosaic Institutions, 205-206.
35. William Lindsay, Lectures on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Edinburgh: William Oliphant, 1867), 2:42.
36. Editor’s note: Dr. Johnson’s sermons on the epistle to the Hebrews are available on two websites: «www.believerschapeldallas.org/temp/online.htm», as well as «www.sljinstitute.net».
37. Harrison wrote, “The meaning of this word is far from certain, which is all the more unfortunate since the ritual is otherwise preserved in a clear and straightforward manner. It was evidently such a familiar term in the wilderness and later periods, that it was not thought necessary to preserve its meaning by the addition of an explanatory gloss” (R. K Harrison, Leviticus, TOTC (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity, 1980), 170.
38. William Kelly, The Day of Atonement (London: F. E. Race [C. A. Hammond], 1925), 166.
39. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. “The Book of Leviticus,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, eds. Leander E. Keck et al (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994), 1:1112. As Kaiser notes, “Escape-goat” is a better term than the older Scapegoat, (a word that apparently was coined by William Tyndale, the sixteenth-century English Bible translator) since in today’s parlance a scapegoat is one who gets stuck with doing jobs others do not wish to do, and therefore, it would have been more appropriately applied to the first goat.”
40. Derek Tidball, The Message of Leviticus, BST (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 190-91.
41. BDB, s.v. “עֲזָאזֵל,” 736; Charles L. Feinberg, “The Scapegoat of Leviticus Sixteen,” BibSac 115 (Oct., 1958): 320-33 (esp. 331-33); also Hertz, who asserts that the term is a contraction of a rare Hebrew word, עזלזל, meaning “dismissal” or “complete removal” (J. H. Hertz, ed., The Pentateuch and Haftorahs [London: Soncino, 1961], 481; cf. Harrison, Leviticus, 171; G. J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 235).
42. John E. Hartley, Leviticus, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1992), 237; Kellogg, The Book of Leviticus, 267-268.
43. Rashi, Commentary on Leviticus 73b, in Chumash with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Rashi’s Commentary, vol. 3, trans. A. M. Silbermann and M. Rosenbaum (Jerusalem: Silbermann Family, 1934); Babylonian Talmud: Yoma 67b (316); G. R. Driver, “Three Technical Terms in the Pentateuch,” JSS 1 (1956): 92-105 (esp. 98); also Mark F. Rooker, Leviticus, NAC (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2000), 216-17. The NEB has “precipice.”
44. Hartley, Leviticus, 237-38.
45. Hartley, Leviticus, 238.
46. C. F. Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, K & D, vol. 2: The Pentateuch, trans. James Martin (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1864; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n. d.), 398, 404; E. W. Hengstenberg, Egypt and the Books of Moses (Andover, MA: Allen, Morill and Wardell, 1843; reprint ed., Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2005), 168.
47. HALOT, s.v. “עֲזָאזֵל,” 1:806; Darby, JB, NRSV, REB, ESV, NET; HCSB, TEV; Paul D. Hanson, “Rebellion in Heaven, Azazel, and Euhemeristic Heroes in 1 Enoch 6-11,” JBL 96 (1977): 195-233 [esp. 220-25]; Hayim Tawil, “‘Azazel The Prince of the Steepe [sic]: A Comparative Study,” ZAW 92 (1980): 43-59.
48. Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, AncB (New Haven: Yale, 1991), 1020.
49. Cf. R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, vol. 2: Pseudepigrapha (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1913), 188-277.
50. BDB, “שָׂעִיר,” 972.
51. Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, s.v. “עֲזָאזֵל,” Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, ed. (London: Samuel Baxter and Sons, 1847; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 617; Martin Noth, Leviticus: A Commentary, OTL, trans. J. E. Anderson, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 125; Tawil, “‘Azazel The Prince of the Steepe [sic],” 45-46. Tawil notes that in post-biblical and medieval commentators ‘Azazel is identified with the devil to whom the living goat was offered as a bribe.
52. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, 617. Harrison concurred, “Any mythological explanation can be dismissed immediately as having no place whatever in the most sacred ordinance of Hebrew [tabernacle/temple] worship” (Leviticus, 170).
53. Kellogg, The Book of Leviticus, 266, 268-69; cf. Hengstenberg, Egypt and the Books of Moses, 173-75.
54. Dennis F. Kinlaw, “The Demythologization of the Demonic in the Old Testament,” in Demon Possession, ed., John Warwick Montgomery (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1976), 19-35. For examples of the demonism in the nations surrounding Israel, see David P. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature, SBL Diss. Series 101 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1987), 31-74.
55. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity, 24, 30.
56. It must be repeated that there is no indication whatsoever in this passage of worship of Azazel or of a bribe or ransom paid to him. “The ceremony,” says Noordtzij, “must have been viewed by Israel’s neighbors not as an act of reverence for Azazel but as a strong expression of contempt. The surrounding nations were accustomed to presenting offerings to the desert demons (17:1-9), but on the Day of Atonement Israel’s sins were fed to Azazel!” (A. Noordtzij, Leviticus, BSC, trans. Raymond Togtman [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982], 163).
57. Kellogg, The Book of Leviticus, 271; cf. Tidball, The Message of Leviticus, 191.
58. C. D. Ginsburg, Leviticus, LHCB (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1961), 150-51.
59. Kellogg, The Book of Leviticus, 269-71; cf. Hengstenberg, Egypt and the Books of Moses, 176-84; Hartley, Leviticus, 238; M. V. Van Pelt and W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “עֲזָאזֵל,” NIDOTTE, 3:362-64.