Leviticus 16:9

And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD'S lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(9) The goat upon which the Lord’s lot fell.—Immediately after the lots decided the destiny of the two goats they were distinguished from each other by peculiar marks. The one which was “for Jehovah had a red woollen thread tied around its neck, whilst the one “for Azazel” had the scarlet thread tied on the head or on the horns.

And offer him for a sin offering.—Better, and shall present, or appoint it for a sin offering (see Leviticus 16:6), as the actual offering of it up took place afterwards. (See Leviticus 16:15.)

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

16:1-14 Without entering into particulars of the sacrifices on the great day of atonement, we may notice that it was to be a statute for ever, till that dispensation be at an end. As long as we are continually sinning, we continually need the atonement. The law of afflicting our souls for sin, is a statue which will continue in force till we arrive where all tears, even those of repentance, will be wiped from our eyes. The apostle observes it as a proof that the sacrifices could not take away sin, and cleanse the conscience from it, that in them there was a remembrance made of sin every year, upon the day of atonement, Heb 10:1,3. The repeating the sacrifices, showed there was in them but a feeble effort toward making atonement; this could be done only by offering up the body of Christ once for all; and that sacrifice needed not to be repeated.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

The two goats formed a single sin-offering, Leviticus 16:5. To bring out the meaning of the sacrifice it was necessary that the act of a living being should be performed after death. See Leviticus 16:22 note. As this could not possibly be visibly set forth with a single victim, two were employed, as in the case of the birds in the rite for the healed leper Leviticus 14:4-6.

For the scapegoat - Rather, for Azazel. The word occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament but in this chapter, and is probably derived from a root in use in Arabic, but not in Hebrew, signifying to "remove", or "to separate".

Azazel is the pre-Mosaic name of an evil personal being placed in opposition to Yahweh. Each goat, having been presented to Yahweh before the lots were cast, stood in a sacrificial relation to Him. The casting of lots was an appeal to the decision of Yahweh (compare Joshua 7:16-17; Joshua 14:2; Proverbs 16:33; Acts 1:26, etc.); it was therefore His act to choose one of the goats for His service in the way of ordinary sacrifice, the other for His service in carrying off the sins to Azazel (see the note at Leviticus 16:22). By this exppressive outward sign the sins were sent back to the author of sin himself, "the entirely separate one," who was banished from the realm of grace.

The goat itself did not lose the sacred character with which it had been endued in being presented before Yahweh. It was, as much as the slain goat, a figure of Him who bore our griefs and carried our sorrows, on whom the Lord laid the iniquity of us all Isaiah 53:4, Isaiah 53:6, that we might become a sanctified Church to be presented unto Himself, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing Ephesians 5:26-27.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

5-10. shall take of the congregation … two kids of the goats … and one ram—The sacrifices were to be offered by the high priest, respectively for himself and the other priests, as well as for the people. The bullock (Le 16:3) and the goats were for sin offerings and the rams for burnt offerings. The goats, though used in different ways, constituted only one offering. They were both presented before the Lord, and the disposal of them determined by lot, which Jewish writers have thus described: The priest, placing one of the goats on his right hand and the other on his left, took his station by the altar, and cast into an urn two pieces of gold exactly similar, inscribed, the one with the words "for the Lord," and the other for "Azazel" (the scapegoat). After having well shaken them together, he put both his hands into the box and took up a lot in each: that in his right hand he put on the head of the goat which stood on his right, and that in his left he dropped on the other. In this manner the fate of each was decided.

Matthew Poole's Commentary

So the lot is said to

fall, Jonah 1:7 Acts 1:26. Heb. went up, to wit, out of the vessel, into which the lots were put, and out of which they were brought up.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

And Aaron shall bring the goat on which the Lord's lot fell,.... Alluding to the manner of taking out the lot by the high priest, who, when he took it out, lifted it up with his hand, and then let it down, and put it on the head of the goat; after which he brought it to the altar to be sacrificed:

and offer him for a sin offering; an offering for the sins of the people, as a type of Christ, who made his soul an offering for sin for his people; but this was not done by Aaron until he had brought and killed the sin offering for himself; after which we read of killing this sin offering for the people, Leviticus 16:11; wherefore some take this offering here to be no other than a setting apart or devoting the goat for this service.

Geneva Study Bible

And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD's lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Pulpit Commentary

Verses 9, 10. - These verses might be translated as follows: - And Aaron shall bring in the goat upon which the lot for the Lord fell, and shall offer him for a sin offering. But the goat, upon which fell the lot for a remover of sins, shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to send him away for a remover of sins into the wilderness. We are justified in inserting the words, "of sins," after "a remover," because "the use of the word azal, from which the word rendered by 'remover' is derived, is confined in the Hebrew dialect to the single purpose or institution which is here under consideration; so that this particular word must have conveyed to the mind of a Hebrew hearer or reader this notion of a removal of sins, and none other" (Sir W. Martin, 'Semitic Languages'). The goat is both presented before the Lord, and subsequently (verse 20) offered to him, the priest laying his hands upon him and making a confession of the sins of the people. After he has thus become the Lord's, how could he be given up to Satan? The purpose of his being set apart is to make an atonement with him (not for him, as some commentators explain it wrongly). As atonement was made by the blood of the sacrificed goat ceremonially covering sin, so it was also made by the live goat symbolically removing sin. But the atonement in both cases has reference to God. How could an atonement be made by an offering to Satan, unless Satan, not God, was the being whose wrath was to be propitiated, and with whom reconciliation was sought? Leviticus 16:9

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

With the bullock Aaron was to make atonement for himself and his house. The two he-goats he was to place before Jehovah (see Leviticus 1:5), and "give lots over them," i.e., have lots cast upon them, one lot for Jehovah, the other for Azazel. The one upon which the lot for Jehovah fell (עלה, from the coming up of the lot out of the urn, Joshua 18:11; Joshua 19:10), he was to prepare as a sin-offering for Jehovah, and to present the one upon which the lot for Azazel fell alive before Jehovah, עליו לכפּר, "to expiate it," i.e., to make it the object of expiation (see at Leviticus 16:21), to send it (them) into the desert to Azazel. עזאזל, which only occurs in this chapter, signifies neither "a remote solitude," nor any locality in the desert whatever (as Jonathan, Rashi, etc., suppose); nor the "he-goat" (from עז goat, and עזל to turn off, "the goat departing or sent away," as Symm., Theodot., the Vulgate, Luther, and others render it); nor "complete removal" (Bhr, Winer, Tholuck, etc.). The words, one lot for Jehovah and one for Azazel, require unconditionally that Azazel should be regarded as a personal being, in opposition to Jehovah. The word is a more intense form of עזל removit, dimovit, and comes from עזלזל by absorbing the liquid, like Babel from balbel (Genesis 11:9), and Golgotha from gulgalta (Ewald, 158c). The Septuagint rendering is correct, ὁ ἀποπομπαῖος; although in Leviticus 16:10 the rendering ἀποπομπή is also adopted, i.e., "averruncus, a fiend, or demon whom one drives away" (Ewald). We have not to think, however, of any demon whatever, who seduces men to wickedness in the form of an evil spirit, as the fallen angel Azazel is represented as doing in the Jewish writings (Book of Enoch 8:1; 10:10; 13:1ff.), like the terrible field Shibe, whom the Arabs of the peninsula of Sinai so much dread (Seetzen, i. pp. 273-4), but of the devil himself, the head of the fallen angels, who was afterwards called Satan; for no subordinate evil spirit could have been placed in antithesis to Jehovah as Azazel is here, but only the ruler or head of the kingdom of demons. The desert and desolate places are mentioned elsewhere as the abode of evil spirits (Isaiah 13:21; Isaiah 34:14; Matthew 12:43; Luke 11:24; Revelation 18:2). The desert, regarded as an image of death and desolation, corresponds to the nature of evil spirits, who fell away from the primary source of life, and in their hostility to God devastated the world, which was created good, and brought death and destruction in their train.