Understanding how the Jews interpreted the Day of Atonement before Christianity existed is one of the most important keys to interpreting Leviticus 16 correctly. If the original audience never believed the scapegoat represented Satan, then any theology assigning the scapegoat to Satan bears a significant burden of proof.
Why This Question Matters
One of the most debated subjects in the doctrine of the Day of Atonement is the identity of the live goat commonly called the "scapegoat" or the goat "for Azazel" in Leviticus 16.
This issue is far more than an academic discussion. It directly affects how one understands the gospel, the sufficiency of Christ's atoning work, and the biblical doctrine of salvation.
Throughout nearly two thousand years of Christian history, the overwhelming majority of theologians understood both goats in Leviticus 16 to typologically represent different aspects of Christ's one atoning work. By contrast, Seventh-day Adventist theology uniquely assigns the live goat to Satan, arguing that he ultimately bears the sins of God's redeemed people after Christ completes the heavenly phase of the atonement. Our research identifies this as a major point of divergence between historic Christianity and Seventh-day Adventist doctrine.
Before evaluating either position, however, we must first ask an essential historical question:
Q1: HOW DID THE JEWS WHO ACTUALLY PRACTICED THE DAY OF ATONEMENT UNDERSTAND THE RITUAL?
If the original custodians of the Mosaic Law never interpreted the scapegoat as Satan, that historical fact does not by itself settle the theological debate, but it does establish an important interpretive starting point.
The Historical Setting of Yom Kippur
Leviticus 16 records Israel's most sacred annual ceremony: Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement.
Unlike the daily sacrifices, this ceremony occurred only once each year. On that day, the high priest entered the Holy of Holies to make atonement for:
- the sanctuary,
- the altar,
- the priesthood,
- and the entire covenant community.
The ceremony emphasized not merely forgiveness but the complete purification of God's dwelling place and the removal of Israel's accumulated ceremonial uncleanness.
This annual ritual dramatized two complementary truths:
- Atonement requires the shedding of blood.
- The forgiven sins are completely removed from God's covenant people.
These themes later find their ultimate fulfillment in the once-for-all work of Jesus Christ (cf. Hebrews 9–10), though that christological connection belongs to a later stage of the discussion rather than to the Jewish interpretation itself.
One of the most frequently overlooked observations appears near the beginning of Leviticus 16.
Before any lots were cast, God instructed Aaron:
"And he shall take from the congregation of the people of Israel two male goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering." Leviticus 16:5(ESV)
Notice the grammar.
- The text does not introduce two different sacrifices.
- It introduces one sin offering consisting of two goats.
This observation is significant because the two animals function together within a single divinely ordained rite. Although they perform different ceremonial roles after the lots are cast, they remain parts of one unified atonement ritual. The Bible presents the Day of Atonement as a single, unified purification rite for the covenant community rather than two competing acts of redemption.
The Two Goats Had to Be Identical
According to the Mishnah (Tractate Yoma), the two goats had to be remarkably alike.
“The mitzva of the two Yom Kippur goats, the goat sacrificed to God and the goat sent to Azazel that are brought as a pair, is as follows, ab initio: That they will both be identical in appearance, i.e., color, and in height, and in monetary value, and their acquisition must be as one, i.e., they must be purchased together. And even if they are not identical, nevertheless, they are valid. And similarly, if he acquired one today and one tomorrow, they are valid.” (Mishnah Yoma 6:1 (ca. 200 CE, Tractate Yoma, Seder Moed)
Rabbinic tradition required them to be identical in:
Rabbinic tradition required them to be identical in:
- appearance,
- size,
- color,
- age,
- and monetary value.
Only after the goats stood together before the Lord did the high priest cast lots.
One lot read:
"For Yahweh."
The other read:
"For Azazel."
This requirement demonstrates that the distinction between the goats did not arise from their nature but from God's sovereign designation through the casting of lots.
In other words, the ritual began with two indistinguishable animals that became differentiated only by divine appointment, underscoring that both remained integral parts of the same sacred ceremony.
Unified Ritual: This underscores that both goats are part of the same sacred ceremony, representing two aspects of atonement: sacrifice and removal of sin.
Rabbinic Tradition: Later commentaries (e.g., Bartenura) emphasize that “appearance” meant both goats should be the same color (either both white or both black).
The Scarlet Thread and the Journey into the Wilderness
The Mishnah further describes how the live goat was prepared for its final role. A scarlet thread was fastened to the goat, after which a designated escort led it far into the wilderness.
“What did he do? He divided a strip of crimson cloth; one end of it he tied to the rock, and one end he tied between [the scapegoat’s] two horns. He pushed it backward [over the cliff until] it was tumbling down. By the time it was halfway down the mountain, its body was dislocated. [The one who led the goat] came and sat in the final booth until it was dark. And from what time were his clothes ritually unclean? From when he exited completely through the wall of Jerusalem. Rabbi Shimon says, from the time that he pushed it over the cliff.” (Mishnah Yoma 6:6, ca. 200 CE)
At a remote precipice, the scarlet thread was divided, half attached to a nearby rock and half left between the goat's horns.
The animal was then pushed backward over the cliff to ensure that it died and could never return to the camp.
This detail highlights an important symbolic function: the ritual portrayed the irreversible removal of Israel's sins from the covenant community. The emphasis falls on the sins being carried away, not on the goat making an independent sacrifice.
The Crimson Thread Turned White
The Babylonian Talmud preserves a tradition associated with the priesthood of Simon the Righteous.
According to Tractate Yoma 39a, the crimson thread sometimes turned white, symbolizing God's acceptance of the atonement and echoing the promise of Isaiah 1:18.
“During all the days of Shimon the Righteous, the lot for the Lord always came up in the right hand, and the crimson thread always turned white. But after his death, sometimes it turned white, and sometimes it did not.” (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yoma 39a)
Whether one treats this report as historical memory or later rabbinic tradition, it illustrates how Jewish interpreters understood the ritual: the focus remained on God's gracious forgiveness of His covenant people.
Q2: WHAT DID "AZAZEL" MEAN?
The Hebrew term עֲזָאזֵל (ʿAzāzēl) has generated extensive debate.
Three major proposals have historically been advanced:
- Azazel is the name of a wilderness demon.
- Azazel refers to a rugged, inaccessible cliff.
- Azazel denotes the destination of complete removal.
Some Second Temple literature, such as 1 Enoch 10:8, personified Azazel as a fallen angel, while also emphasizing that the functioning temple ritual itself treated the live goat as a consecrated instrument within God's appointed means of expiation rather than as an unholy rival sacrifice.
“And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin.” (1 Enoch 10:8, ca. 3rd–1st century BCE, preserved in Ethiopic manuscripts; English translation from R.H. Charles, The Book of Enoch, 1912, p. 31)
In 1 Enoch, Azazel is depicted as a fallen angel who corrupted humanity by teaching forbidden arts (weapon-making, cosmetics, sorcery). This is a personification of the name “Azazel” found in Leviticus 16, where one goat is sent “for Azazel” on Yom Kippur.
Despite Azazel’s portrayal as a demonic figure in 1 Enoch, the Mishnah and Temple practice treated the live goat not as a rival sacrifice but as a consecrated instrument within God’s appointed ritual of expiation.
“For all transgressions that are in the Torah, whether one repented or did not repent, the goat that is sent [to Azazel] makes atonement for them, for all Israel, as it is said: ‘And he shall make atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting, and for the altar; he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the congregation’ (Leviticus 16:33).” (Tosefta Shevuot 1:6, 250 AD (Palestinian redaction, Vol. 1, p.682)
Jewish thought in the Second Temple era wasn’t all the same; some writings painted Azazel as evil, while the Temple ritual itself treated the goat as holy and part of God’s plan. The ceremony showed that both goats, the one sacrificed and the one sent away, worked together in the same system of atonement, not as competing offerings. Later on, Christian writers like Barnabas and Justin Martyr re‑read the goats as symbols of Christ’s mission, giving the ritual a new meaning through a Christ‑centered lens.
Q3: How Did First-Century and Rabbinic Sources View the Function of the Scapegoat?
The first-century Jewish historian Josephus described the goat sent into the wilderness as serving for the expiation of the sins of the people.
“On the tenth day of the same lunar month, they fast till the evening; and this day they sacrifice a bull, and two rams, and seven lambs, and a kid of the goats, for sins. And, besides these, they bring two kids of the goats; the one of which is sent alive out of the limits of the camp into the wilderness for the scapegoat, and to be an expiation for the sins of the whole multitude; but the other is brought into a place of great cleanness, within the limits of the camp, and is there burnt, with its skin, without any sort of cleansing.” (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 3, Chapter 10)
“On the tenth day of the same lunar month, they fast till the evening; and this day they sacrifice a bull, and two rams, and seven lambs, and a kid of the goats, for sins. And, besides these, they bring two kids of the goats; the one of which is sent alive out of the limits of the camp into the wilderness for the scapegoat, and to be an expiation for the sins of the whole multitude; but the other is brought into a place of great cleanness, within the limits of the camp, and is there burnt, with its skin, without any sort of cleansing.” (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 3, Chapter 10)
Likewise, the Tosefta affirms that the goat sent to Azazel "makes atonement" for Israel's transgressions, citing Leviticus 16:33. Second Temple Judaism viewed the scapegoat as an integral element of God's atoning ritual rather than an alternative payment for sin.
“The goat that is sent to Azazel makes atonement for Israel’s transgressions, as it is said: ‘And he shall make atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting, and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests, and for all the people of the assembly’ (Leviticus 16:33).” (Tosefta Yoma 4:13, 3rd century CE (compiled after the Mishnah, expanding rabbinic traditions)
Second Temple Judaism consistently treated the scapegoat as part of the same sacred system of atonement. Josephus confirms its expiatory function for the whole community, while the Tosefta ties it directly to Leviticus 16:33, underscoring that the goat’s role was consecrated, not pagan. Both sources highlight that the scapegoat was not an alternative sacrifice but an integral part of God’s appointed means of atonement.
Key Observations:
The evidence surveyed in our study supports several important historical conclusions:
- The Day of Atonement was understood as one unified purification ceremony.
- The two goats belonged to a single sin-offering rite.
- The goats were intentionally matched before the lots were cast.
- The live goat functioned within God's appointed ritual of cleansing and removal of sin.
- Jewish sources emphasized the corporate purification of Israel through the ceremony.
These observations establish the historical backdrop against which later Christian interpretation developed.
FORMER ADVENTISTS PHILIPPINES
“Freed by the Gospel. Firm in the Word.”
For more inquiries, contact us:
Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/formeradventistph
Partner with me in advancing this ministry. Be part of this mission! Your support helps us continue gospel-centered outreach and resources.
• GCash: 0969-514-3944
• PayPal: paypal.me/formeradventistsph
• Ko-Fi: ko-fi.com/ronaldobidos
No comments:
Post a Comment