Aaron's sacrifice to Azazel

[None of the Above]

Hi I'm new here. But I have loads of questions and just trying to think of the best place to start.

I wonder if anyone could offer me an informed oppinion on the following:

LEVITICUS 16:7-10

If Azazel represents a leader of the fallen angels and therefore a Satan, why does God say Aaron must take two goats (assumed to be equal) and draw lots to select which should be sacrificed to God and which should be cast out as a sacrifice to Azazal (a satan)

Is this passage not actually saying we should sacrifice equally to God and Satan?

Any guidance would be apprieciated.

 

[*Paul*]

Hi I'm new here. But I have loads of questions and just trying to think of the best place to start.

I wonder if anyone could offer me an informed oppinion on the following:

LEVITICUS 16:7-10

If Azazel represents a leader of the fallen angels and therefore a Satan, why does God say Aaron must take two goats (assumed to be equal) and draw lots to select which should be sacrificed to God and which should be cast out as a sacrifice to Azazal (a satan)

Is this passage not actually saying we should sacrifice equally to God and Satan?

Any guidance would be apprieciated.

Leviticus 16:7-10 And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat.
And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD's lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

There is no sacrifice to Azazel here at all, the goat is to carry away sin into the wilderness. Just because the scapegoat is called Azazel in the Hebrew doesn't mean it should be associated with a fallen watcher. The second part of the name which is 'azal simply means to be gone or used up carrying the idea of a wanderer. The name given as is common in Hebrew simply signifes the character or purpose of the creature so this is a goat (āz) that carries away ('azal) the sins of the people, so the peoples representative can come before God.

To say that the bible advocates sacrificing to Satan is a terrible mistake to make.

 

[None of the Above]

Thanks Paul.

It's just where your bible says "the scapegoat" in the below, mine says "Azazel"

"And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat.
And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD's lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness."

Do you mean that Azazel is just another world for scapegoat? Rather than a fallen angel and a remenant of a dualist belief -encouraged in this instance by God - in early biblical times.

And as my bible is translated already from the hebrew -why does the name Azazel remain, instead of using your proposed translation and referring to it only as "a/the scapegoat"?

"To say that the bible advocates sacrificing to Satan is a terrible mistake to make." However if that is what the bible actually says (as it does appear to hint at in this instance) is it not an equally terrible mistake to ignore it, deny it, avoid it or merely sweep it under the carpet as the bit they just missed in translation?

The need for two goats and two offerings already offers a possible arguement for dualism, does it not? :yes:

 

[Rakhel]

According to (some)modern Jewish theology, Azazel is the cliff of a mountain in which the goat was led to. Azaz meaning rugged and el meaning strong.

 

[Levite]

Hi I'm new here. But I have loads of questions and just trying to think of the best place to start.

I wonder if anyone could offer me an informed oppinion on the following:

LEVITICUS 16:7-10

If Azazel represents a leader of the fallen angels and therefore a Satan, why does God say Aaron must take two goats (assumed to be equal) and draw lots to select which should be sacrificed to God and which should be cast out as a sacrifice to Azazal (a satan)

Is this passage not actually saying we should sacrifice equally to God and Satan?

Any guidance would be apprieciated.

Azazel could never have represent a leader of the fallen angels, because in Jewish tradition there is no such thing as a fallen angel.

The traditional Jewish answer to your question is that the goat in question, which is called in Hebrew ha-se'ir hamishtalei'ach ("the goat to be sent out"), was not to be sacrificed to a devil, but was to be killed outside the area in which anyone dwelt, because in confessing upon it, the High Priest transfers all of the sins, transgressions, and ritual impurities of himself, his family, the Priesthood, and all the People Israel, onto that goat. Thus, it cannot be killed in the populated area, lest the impurities return to affect the populace. Therefore, it was led away by a person designated by the High Priest, out into the wilderness, to a designated spot, where it was thrown over a cliff, and a large stone dropped on top of it, killing it in total isolation.

Traditionally, the "goat for Azazael" is either interpreted as a goat which is to be led to the designated spot, and that spot should be called Azazel (which can be translated as "strong, rough height;" or the term se'ir l'azazel is translated instead as "a goat for escaping away," in which case the term azazel is adjectival, and is not actually a proper name.

However, from the academic point of view, the historical answer is that it is almost certain that the ritual of the se'ir hamishtalei'ach is probably a remnant of a ritual dating from the pre-monotheistic days of Israelite henotheism, wherein the goat with the sins was sent off to die in the wilderness, which was was thought of as the domain of a desert demon called Azazel. Giving him the goat with all the sins not only got rid of the sins, but, in doing so, gave an upsetting offering to the demon, which probably was deemed to help keep him at bay. There are several instances in the Torah of old pre-monotheistic rituals being kept and revisioned as monotheistic by later priests, probably because they were too popular to entirely discontinue.