The Order of Events in the Judgment.
The act of blotting out is not the only event in the final disposal of the sins of those who overcome. The removal of their sins from the sanctuary, at the conclusion of the high priest’s work therein, is followed by a most remarkable transaction. The sins thus removed from the temple of God are placed upon the head of the scape-goat. But our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be typified by this goat; for the sins of men were laid upon him before the work of his priesthood began in the sanctuary; but the scape-goat receives the sins from the sanctuary after the whole work of the priest is completed therein. The sins thus placed on the scape-goat never pass from him to any other being or object. But those goats which were slain in sacrifice for sin, had the sins of the people laid on them before the high priest entered the sanctuary to sprinkle the blood of sin-offering before God. Indeed, it was by this very means that the sins of the people were transferred to the sanctuary. This work represents the sacrifice of the Son of God for us, and his ascension to Heaven to plead the cause of his people. But when his work therein is accomplished, and the sins of the people of God are removed thence (see Heb. 9: 22, 23), that being who receives them at the hand of our High Priest to bear them to a land not inhabited, can be no other than Satan, the author of sin. The fulfillment of this will be when Satan, at the commencement of the 1000 years, is confined to the desolated earth, his dreary prison during the long space between the two resurrections. Rev. 20: 1–7. That the ancient people of God understood the scape-goat to represent not Christ, but Satan, the following testimonies will show. It will be seen, moreover, that there is direct evidence that Satan is intended in the very signification and use of this word. Charles Beecher, in his work entitled, “Redeemer and Redeemed,” pp. 66–70, says: “Two goats were to be presented before the Lord by the high priest. They must be exactly alike in value, size, age, color,—they must be counterparts. Placing these goats before him, the high priest put both hands into an urn containing the golden lots, and drew them out, one in each hand. On the one was engrossed, LA YEHOVAH (for Jehovah), on the other, LA AZAZEL (for Azazel). “The goat on which the lot La Yehovah fell was slain. After its blood had been sprinkled in the holy of holies, the high priest laid his hands on the head of the second goat, confessed the sins of the congregation, and gave him to a fit man to lead away and let go in the wilderness; the man thus employed being obliged to wash his clothes and person before returning to the congregation.” Mr. Beecher states two views respecting the meaning of this term, Azazel, each of which he shows to be manifestly untrue. He then gives his own view as follows: “The third opinion is, that Azazel is a proper name of Satan. In support of this, the following points are urged: The use of the preposition implies it. The same preposition is used on both lots, La Yehovah, 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, 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 Azazel, 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 Rabbinical 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. “The meaning of the term, viewed as a proper name, was stated in 1677, by Spencer, Dean of Ely, to be Powerful Apostate, or Mighty Receder.” Mr. Beecher, on the seventy-second page of his work, states that Prof. Bush considers Azazel to be a proper name of Satan. Gesenius, the great Hebrew lexicographer, says: “Azazel, a word found only in the law respecting the day of atonement. Lev. 16: 8, 10, 26. . . . By this name is probably to be understood originally some idol that was appeased with sacrifices, as Saturn and Mars; but afterwards, as the names of idols were often transferred to demons, it seems to denote an evil demon dwelling in the desert and to be placated with victims, in accordance with this very ancient and Gentile rite. This name Azazel is also used by the Arabs for an evil demon.” Milton represents Azazel as one of the fallen angels, and the standard-bearer of Satan: “That proud honor claimed
Azazel as his right, a cherub tall;
Who forthwith from the glittering staff unfurled
The imperial ensign.” —Paradise Lost, b. 1. The “Comprehensive Commentary” has the following important remarks: “Scape-goat. See different opinions in Bochart. Spencer, after the oldest opinions of the Hebrews and Christians, thinks Azazel is the name of the devil; and so Rosenmüller, whom see. The Syriac has Azazel, the angel (strong one) who revolted.” “Cassell’s Illustrated Bible” speaks thus of the scape-goat: “We offer the following exposition as much more likely, and much more satisfactory: That Azazel is a personal denomination for the evil one.” Certainly, these are very important testimonies to show that Satan is typified by the scape-goat. To show the reasonableness of that act which rolls back upon Satan the sins of the people of God, and also to define the nature of the act, let us carefully state the case. Every sin committed by men is instigated by Satan. This part of the transgression is the sin of Satan alone, and belongs solely to him whether men repent or not. But consenting to the tempter, and obeying him, is the sin of the one tempted. This part of the transgression will, in the case of all who avail themselves of the work of our High Priest, be placed upon the antitypical scape-goat, Satan, and he will have to bear the full punishment of all such sins. One of the most important events, therefore, in the opening of the great day of Judgment, is that of placing the sins of the overcomers upon the head of the great author of sin. The fallen angels will, no doubt, share with their great leader in this fearful burden of guilt. Satan and his angels are reserved to the judgment of the great day. And one of its first events after the righteous are made immortal, is that they are exalted to sit in judgment upon the fallen angels. Jude 6; 2 Pet. 2: 4; 1 Cor. 6: 2, 3.