Just some thoughts on this holy evening…
Two male goats are selected for Yom Kippur, one is “for YHVH” and the other “for Azazel.” Both are said to be “for a sin offering” (v. 5).
One is slain and the other is sent away into the wilderness. What has been confusing to me and many others who have discussed this passage is that BOTH goats are spoken of as somehow providing “atonement,” or better translated “covering.” So why the difference?
Many have favored the interpretations that make the two goats positive and negative, and it is the case that Azazel in ancient Jewish texts (1 Enoch, and various rabbinic traditions, etc.) is the name for an “angel” who opposes YHVH. But if one is negative and one positive, how can both provide “covering”?
What is easy to miss here is that the first goat, the one that is “for YHVH,” that is slain, makes “covering for the Holy Place because of the uncleanness of the people and because of their transgressions, all their sins” (v. 16). In other word, the blood off that goat is to cleanse the Tabernacle that has become unclean because of the sins of the people, NOT to removed the sins of the people per se.
In contrast, the sins of the people themselves are PUT ON the head of the live goat. That goat is not killed, yet that goat too is spoken as a “sin offering” (v.5), ,making atonement/covering (v. 10), and that goat “bears all their iniquities” into a remote area.
This distinction seems to be an important one. There seems to be no evidence in this text that the slain goat is for the forgiveness of the people’s sins as such, yet this is how the many have read this (see Hebrew 9), as applying it to “Christ.” The other goat is not even spoken of in the N.T. texts and yet it seems THAT goat is the “sin bearer.”
A lot of the reason this mystery of the two hairy goats is difficult to grasp, and engenders many opinions, is that we come to the text with presuppositions from our backgrounds, assumptions, and the history of interpretation. It is hard to actually read the text with “new eyes” and allow it to say what it appears to say.
It might well be that the “two hairy goats” represent two related pictures of the “Covering” or redemption from sins that come each year on Yom Kippur, the Day of Covering…One is related to YHVH dwelling in the Tent of Meeting, the other to Azazel…It is the latter that has gotten people confused, because many have transferred the meaning of the latter to the former, and read about the blood of the slain goat as if it brings redemption from moral sins.
According to Leviticus 16 both goats are spoken of as “sin-offerings,” and both “atone,” but one by dying and the other by being driven into the wilderness. They seem to be closely related, rather than one “good” and the other “evil.” This creates a real problem for the view that these two hairy goats represent a good/evil contrast.
An important key might be to look at Lev 16:15-20. The goat that is KILLED and the blood that is shed is specifically said to be for the “covering” (atoning) for the sins of the people, but as related to the “uncleaness” of the HOLY PLACE. In other words, Aaron going in, with blood from the bull for himself and household, and blood from the goat for the people, is related to making the TENT or Tabernacle holy where YHVH dwells–among an unclean people–see v. 16. This seems very clear. This is what we would call “ritual” cleansing. It is specifically related to the Tent/Tabernacle.
Accordingly, the way the slain goat on YK is interpreted by the Christians, as in Hebrews 9, as a picture of the atoning for sins in general, especially for “moral” failures, through the shedding of blood, is incorrect. The statement “without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins” is often quoted, but seems to be without basis in the Torah. Notice, with the live goat there is no shedding of blood mentioned, and yet there is “atonement” or “covering” by its removal.
The goat that really “bears the sins” is the one sent away, into the desert. Notice v. 22. All the sins and iniquities and transgressions are put on the head of this LIVE goat and he is send away TO Azazel! This seems to be what really brings the thorough REMOVAL of the sins of the people, the ultimate “covering” that comes on Yom Kippur–not the blood of that first goat that was for the cleansing of the Tent of Meeting. It is as if to say–to hell with your sins! They are cast FAR AWAY, to the desert places, where Azazel and the demons dwell.
In 2nd Temple times there is the tradition of casting this second goat off a cliff and killing it. And this might be appropriate. But if one sticks with the text itself, there is an emphasis on the LIVE goat–not a dead one. It is the SENDING forth, to the desert, to Azazel, that seems to be the point. No SHED BLOOD is mentioned or involved.
This insight seems to provide a kind of “breakthrough” in thinking about Yom Kippur in the Biblical texts. What it means is that the MAIN image of ATONEMENT, the one GREAT atonement, on the DAY of atonement/ covering, is the REMOVAL of sins borne by a LIVE animal–NOT the via the shedding of blood. This has implications in taking one beyond the sacrificial system of ritual cleansing that was set up in connection with the Mishkan, upon which so many have put their focus.
This line of understanding makes the Haphtarah readings for Yom Kippur all the more powerful. The story of Jonah is read. And then the passage in Micah 7:18-20–where sins are CAST AWAY…into the depths of the sea. The whole emphasis is on TURNING, and then sins being carried away–on “mercy not sacrifice” as the Prophets put it.