What is Azazel?
On the Day of Atonement in ancient Israel, the priest was to prepare two male goats—one to be offered to the Lord as a sin offering, and the other to be released into the wilderness, carrying the sins of the Israelites, to "Azazel."
The term “Azazel” appears only four times in the Bible, all in Leviticus chapter 16. Its precise meaning is unclear, and currently, there are four main scholarly interpretations:
1. The Demon Theory
Some believe Azazel is the name of a demon. This view is partly based on the apocryphal Book of Enoch, which describes Azazel as a fallen demon.
2. The Geographic Theory
This view holds that Azazel refers to a specific cliff or geographical location. According to Jewish oral law, the person tasked with releasing the goat to Azazel would push it off a cliff east of Jerusalem into the wilderness—symbolizing the entire removal of Israel’s sin.
3. The Abstract Concept Theory
Some interpret “Azazel” as an abstract concept rather than a literal being or place, meaning something like “entire removal”.
4. The Compound Word Theory
This interpretation sees the Hebrew word “Azazel” as a compound word, possibly combining “goat” and “goes,” meaning something like “goat that goes (away)”. This view is supported by the Septuagint (LXX) translation.
My Viewpoint:
First, I believe the “demon theory” should be rejected. The Book of Enoch is apocryphal and lacks authoritative status. I will later produce a separate video discussing the Book of Enoch. More importantly, this interpretation carries a dualistic theological danger, which is contrary to the Bible. In Scripture, Satan is not God’s equal opponent, but a created being subject to God's judgment. In biblical theology, the true enemy of God is sin, not a cosmic rival.
If we identify Azazel as a demon, how do we reconcile this with Exodus 22:20, which says, “Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the Lord must be destroyed”? When interpreting Scripture, we must never import foreign theological ideas or personal logic into the text. Instead, we must let Scripture interpret Scripture.
Regarding the second view—the geographical cliff theory—I do not completely reject it. However, it is important to note that Jewish oral law developed much later and does not hold the same authority as Scripture. It is possible that later Jews, while practicing Mosaic law, found a specific cliff for this ritual. But the Bible itself does not mention such a cliff, and during Moses' time, Israel had not yet entered Canaan, so it is unlikely that they went near Jerusalem to carry this out. While Azazel may have later become the name of a cliff, it likely was not originally so.
The third view, interpreting Azazel as meaning “entire removal,” can be accepted as a spiritual or theological application. However, our goal is to uncover the original, literal meaning of the word.
Personally, I lean toward the fourth interpretation—that “Azazel” means “goat that goes (away)”. This is linguistically plausible, and the Septuagint, an early translation, supports this reading more than the later Jewish oral law. Therefore, Leviticus 16:8 could be translated as:
“one lot for the Lord and the other for the goat that goes away”. That is to say, I agree with the translation of the NIV Bible.
If you agree that these rituals were shadows of things to come (Colossians 2:17), then both goats point to Jesus.
On one hand, Jesus offered His spotless holiness to God as a gift, reconciling humanity with Him.
On the other hand, He bore the sins of God’s people and carried them away completely.
These two aspects were vividly displayed when Jesus died on the cross.
When He cried, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” He became the Azazel goat, bearing the sins of God’s people and walking alone into the wilderness.
When He shouted, “It is finished,” God tore the temple veil from top to bottom, demonstrating that Jesus was holy and that the Father accepted His sacrifice. The separation between God and humanity was completely removed in Christ.
Why use two goats to represent one Jesus?
Because a goat, lacking moral nature, cannot represent both divine rejection and divine acceptance.
When using simple objects to illustrate complex truths, multiple symbols are often necessary to express different aspects of that complexity.
This is common in the Bible: Jesus used many different parables to describe the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Had Jesus not borne our sins, then we would have been the ones forsaken by God and banished into the wilderness.