p. 116 | Azazel or Satan by Dudley Marvin Canright

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 13, 1866

Azazel or Satan.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

THE evidence is accumulating to confirm the view that the Scape Goat, (called in the margin, Azazel), which was sent away with the sins of the people at the close of the day of atonement, was a type of the Devil. And as we are now in the antitypical day of atonement, and near its close, the question is one of vital interest to the people of God, at the present time. The following testimony on this subject, I find in a work by Charles Beecher, entitled "Redeemer and Redeemed," pp. 66-69. This same Mr. Beecher is the author of the best thoughts on Sectarianism and Creeds, we have seen. He is one of the most independent thinkers and writers of the age, and having both the means and ability for collecting evidence on such a subject, his thoughts will be appreciated by our people.

M. E. CORNELL.

"Placing these goats before him, the High Priest put both hands into an urn containing two golden lots, and drew them out, one in each hand. On the one was engraved LA-YEHOVAH (for Jehovah), on the other, LA-AZAZEL (for AZAZEL.) The same preposition is used on both lots, La-Yehovah, and La-Azazel, and if the one indicates a person, it seems natural the other should. Especially, considering the act of casting lots. If one is for Jehovah, the other would seem for some other person or being; not one for Jehovah, and the other for the goat itself.

"What goes to confirm this is, that the most ancient paraphrases and translations, treat Azazel as a proper name. The Chaldee paraphrase, and the targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, would certainly have translated it if it was not a proper name, but they do not. The Septuagint, or oldest Greek version, renders it by ἀποπομπαῖος (apopompaios), a word applied by the Greeks to a malign deity, sometimes appeased by sacrifices. Another confirmation is found in the book of Enoch where the name Azalzel, evidently a corruption of Azazel, is given to one of the fallen angels, thus plainly showing what was the prevalent understanding of the Jews at that day.

"Still another evidence is found in the Arabic, where Azazel is employed as the name of the Evil Spirit. In addition to these, we have the evidence of the Jewish work Zohar, and of the Cabalistic and Rabinical writers. They tell us that the following proverb was current among the Jews: 'On the day of atonement, a gift to Sammael.' Hence, Moses Gerundinensis feels called to say that it is not a sacrifice, but only done because commanded by God.

"Another step in the evidence is, when we find this same opinion passing from the Jewish to the early Christian church. Origen was the most learned of the Fathers, and on such a point as this, the meaning of a Hebrew word, his testimony is reliable. Says Origen: 'He who is called in the Septuagint ἀποπομπαῖος, and in the Hebrew Azazel, is no other than the Devil.'

"Lastly, a circumstance is mentioned of the Emperor Julian, the apostate, that confirms the argument. He brought, as an objection against the Bible, that Moses commanded a sacrifice to the evil spirit. An objection he never could have thought of, had not Azazel been generally regarded as a proper name.

"In view, then, of the difficulties attending any other meaning, and the accumulated evidence in favor of this, Hengstenberg affirms with great confidence, that Azazel cannot be anything else but another name for Satan.

"If it should be objected that God would not sanction a sacrifice to Satan, even in appearance, and that therefore this view cannot be true, we reply, that it is not necessary to regard the goat as a sacrifice to Azazel; and there is not even an appearance of it, but a studied prohibition.

"A sacrifice, as has been well shown by the English author Outram, implies the taking of life. His words are: 'Offerings which were put to death, divided, consumed, were sacrifices in the vocabulary of the Jews. . . . This would exclude certain things sometimes called sacrifices; for example, the bird used in cleansing the leper, the scape-goat, &c.'

"Hence, not only was there no sacrifice, but there was a studied negation of the idea. It is known that the Egyptians offered such sacrifices to the evil one, under the name Typhon; and that the practice was almost universal. Now, by sacrificing the first goat to Jehovah, and letting the second go alive, and both by casting lots, i. e., by an appeal to God, there was a direct contradiction of the Gentile practice. It said, virtually, this sacrifice is to God alone, and not at all to Satan. There is a relation to Satan, but not a sacrificial one. Hence, in the next chapter, it says, 'And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto demons.'

"To this rite, then, we may attribute the disappearance of all sacrifices to evil deities, as such, forever after in Israel. They, indeed, worshiped idols, but always under the theory of their representing the good, not the evil power.

"Do any object at finding the idea of Satan so prominent in the focal center of all sacrificial analysis?

"Why should it not be prominent, if to destroy him was the very object of Christ's death? He was God's chosen champion; ordained to avenge the cause of God, on man's behalf, against the enemy of God and the seducer of man. . . . Would it not be strange, if in all the symbols of the sacrificial system, there were not a single intimation of the serpent's existence? and where should we expect to see his baleful shadow, if not here, on the great day of atonement."