Issue no. 2: 2005 2nd Quarter; article overview:
Page 1:A critical examination of the destination, authorship and dating of the epistle to the Hebrews;
Page 2:Abraham’s sacrifice:Isaac or Ishmael?;
Page 3:The Law of Kindness;
Page 4:The Day of Atonement -Part one;
Page 5:The Spirit-Part one;
Page 6:A critical review of "Heaven on Earth"
Page 7:Missiology: "To the Jew first"
For the PDF version of this article click here
The Day of Atonement- Yom Kippûr
Yom Kippûr part one – concluding part in the next issue.
The black fast or the Day of Atonement is respected even by non observant Jews as the most solemn in the religious calendar. It is a day set apart for fasting, prayer and remorse for sin and is kept even by those Jews who treat the Passover lightly. The Day of Atonement or Yom Kippûr is a distillation of what the Tôrâh represented. By a round of special sacrifices the high priest made atonement for himself, the other priests, the sanctuary and the people. It took place on the tenth day of the seventh month (Tishri), that is, symbolically when the sacred or Sabbath of months had just obtained its completeness. On the Day of Atonement, not ordinary priests, but the high priest alone officiated, and that not in his ordinary dress, nor yet in that of the ordinary priesthood, but in one peculiar to that day, and peculiarly expressive of purity. The worshippers also appeared in circumstances different from those on other occasions, since they were to “fast and afflict their souls”; the day itself was to be a “Sabbath Sabbatism” (Sabbath of rest [AV]), while its central services consisted of a series of grand expiatory sacrifices.
The Atonement Ritual
1. The high priest disrobed himself from his everyday multi-coloured embroidered garments, bathed himself and dresses in simple white linen. [1]
2. He presents a bullock [2] and two identical goats before the sanctuary. The bullock is a sin offering for the priests and the goat for the people. The two goats are brought to the entrance of the Tabernacle and lots [3] are cast. (He also has two rams for burnt offerings)
3. The goat upon which the “lot for Yahweh” fell was to be used for a sin offering, for the sins of the people.
4. The goat upon which the “lot for Azazel” fell was to be sent into the wilderness at the hand of a fit man after the high priest had laid his hands on the head of the goat and confessed over him all the sins of the people.
5. He offers the bullock for a sin offering for himself and for the other priests. [4] The blood is poured into a bowl.
6. He removes hot coals from the altar of burnt offering, and together with a bowl of the bullocks blood and a supply of incense he enters the holy place. He lights the altar of incense [5] with the hot coals and places the incense on the altar. When the Tabernacle is sufficiently filled with smoke he opens the veil that separates the most holy place and enters with the bowl of blood. He sprinkles the blood using his finger onto the mercy seat, in an easterly direction, and then seven times onto the floor in front of the mercy seat. When he emerges from the Most Holy place he cleanses the altar of incense by smearing the bullocks blood on the horns of the altar and sprinkling it seven times. (He has now made atonement for the Most Holy place and the tabernacle for the sins of the priests). He emerges for the first time from the tabernacle and atones for the altar of burnt offering by smearing the horns and sprinkling the altar seven times.
7. The goat “for Yahweh” or the sin offering is slaughtered and the same procedure is followed as with the bullock in point six above. (Except this time the priest is atoning for the sins of the people). He emerges from the tabernacle for the second time and again atones for the altar of burnt offering.
8. The live goat “for Azazel” was presented; the high priest would lay on his hands upon the head of the goat and confess all the sins [6] of the people. The goat was then sent away at the hand of a fit man into the wilderness and released. [7]
9. The high priest enters the tabernacle takes off his linen garments, washes (there is a special washing bowl left there) and changes into his official priestly garments. When he emerges from the sanctuary for the third and last time, he proceeds to the outer courtyard and pronounces the high-priestly blessing on the waiting people (Num.6:22-27). He then sacrifices both ram’s, one as a burnt offering for himself and one for the people.
10. The “fit man” was to wash himself before entering the camp. The remains of the bullock and the goat (blood, skin and dung) were to be burnt outside the camp and the assistant who did this also had to wash himself before entering the camp.
The origins of Yom Kippûr
The higher critics conclude that the Day of Atonement is essentially a post-exilic feast. They base this conclusion on the fact that it is only mentioned in the book of Leviticus. Nehemiah makes no mention of it when he read the law to the people, and the earliest mention of public fasting is in the post-exilic book of Zechariah (7:35; 8:19). Ezekiel on the other hand enjoined two atonement days – the first day of the first month and the first of the seventh (45:18-20), the ritual being different to that described in Leviticus. According to E.O. James Yom Kippur is of a later origin, he speculates as follows:
“In the book of Ezekiel the sanctuary is said to have been cleansed twice a year--on the first day of the first month and on the first day of the seventh month --but no mention is made of the Day of Atonement as described in the Levitical narrative. Therefore, the post-exilic observance would seem to have been an addition to the autumnal festival after the return from Babylon when the Jewish calendrical sequence was established, the symbolism of which was borrowed from earlier sources. At first it appears to have been a relatively simple expiation instituted in the fourth century B.C., consisting of the sacrificing of a bullock as a sin-offering for the priesthood and a ram for a burnt-offering. Two he-goats were 'set before Yahweh' and lots cast over them for the purpose of assigning one to Yahweh as a sin-offering, and the other to the demon Azazel as the sin-receiver. Yahweh's victim was then slain and Azazel's goat was dispatched alive to 'a solitary land' laden with the uncleanness of Israel and its sanctuary.” (Lev. xvi, 3, 5-10) [8]
The argument from omission is always a weak one, and while it is true that the feast is (apart from Leviticus) only mentioned in later books, we do have an allusion to atonement in Exodus 30: 8-10. A cursory examination shows that the first half of the chapter concerns both the construction of the altar of incense and atoning for it, and the latter half concerns the payment of atonement money as a ransom for the male population whenever a census was taken. The Day of Atonement was not initially introduced with the other feasts but the mention of atonement in connection with the altar of incense reflects the essential historical core that later developed into Yom Kippûr:
“And when Aaron lighteth the lamps at even, he shall burn incense upon it (altar of incense), a perpetual incense before the Lord throughout your generations. Ye shall offer no strange incense thereon, nor burnt offering nor meal offering; neither shall ye pour drink offering thereon. And Aaron shall make atonement upon the horns of it once in the year: with the blood of the sin offering of atonement: once in the year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations: it is most holy unto the Lord.”
The expression “once in the year” demonstrates that we are dealing with the Day of Atonement, although no further mention is made of the feast in the book of Exodus. A cursory examination of chapter 30 shows that the first half of the chapter concerns the construction of the altar of incense, and the latter half concerns the payment of atonement money for a ransom of the male population whenever a census was taken. The author tentatively suggests that 30: 8-10 is a later interpolation that allows the chapter to flow from the subject of incense altar to that of atonement tax. In the light of the above, it is very probable that the Day of Atonement was not originally introduced with the other feasts, [9] but was a later development, necessitated because the altar of incense (and therefore the Tabernacle) had been defiled by the sons of Aaron.
In Leviticus 10 we are informed how Nadab and Abihu [10] are struck down when they offered strange fire on the altar of incense. It is this incident that gave rise to the necessity to cleanse the sanctuary. Our suspicion is confirmed by the opening words of the Atonement chapter, Leviticus 16:
“And the Lord spake unto Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they offered before the Lord and died; [11] and the Lord spake unto Moses, speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place with the vail, before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy-seat.” (v.1, 2)
This passage implies that the sons of Aaron penetrated into the “Most Holy” after offering “strange fire.” The prohibition on drinking alcohol (Lev.10:9) while performing priestly duties, suggests that Aaron’s sons were intoxicated. [12] The smoke from the altar of incense represented prayer rising up to God (Ps.141:2), it is this prayer that allows man into the presence of God, but only if the incense is kindled by fire taken from the brazen altar in the outer court. The brazen (sacrificial) altar in the outer court had already been atoned for (Ex.29: 36, 37) and was therefore holy. To the ancient Israelites it was clear that man could only enter into the divine presence through prayer that was sanctified by an atoning sacrifice. Moreover, it was God, not man, who determined the manner in which he was to be approached.
The Aaronic priests were both mediators for, and representatives of the people. The action of Nadab and Abihu defiled the sanctuary, and the people. Aaron and the priests were forbidden to mourn for Nadad and Abihu, instead; “let your brethren the whole house of Israel bewail the burning which the Lord hath kindled” (Lev.10:6). The Day of Atonement was therefore in the first instance instituted in order to cleanse the sanctuary, the people and the priesthood from the sins of Nadab and Abihu. The “affliction of the soul” that forms such an integral part of the ceremony found it’s origins in the mourning for the deaths of the two priests.
Thematic connections with Genesis 4
The sin of the sons of Aaron was similar to that of Cain, for although he was aware of the correct sacrifice he deliberately brought his own in defiant contravention of Yahweh’s wishes. After Yahweh rejected his offering he murdered his innocent brother Abel, and as a consequence was sent away from the sanctuary (Eden) to the land of wandering (Gen.4:16). We have here the principle of the two goats; Abel the sin offering and Cain the scapegoat. The scapegoat was sent away from the sanctuary bearing all the sins of the nation. Cain complained that he was being “driven out” from the divine presence in order to become a hunted criminal:
“My sin is greater than I can bear (be forgiven RV)”.
Similar to the scapegoat, driven into the wilderness, Cain was driven away bearing all his sin. Yet it is palpably untrue that even this sin could not be forgiven. The Lord God is compassionate and merciful, and when Cain appealed in his distress he was promised that Yahweh himself would act as the avenger of blood. [13] The sevenfold promise of vengeance is juxtaposed with the sevenfold cleansing by blood sprinkling on the Day of Atonement. In the end man is always left with the choice of either accepting complete forgiveness or experiencing complete wrath.
The scapegoat -‘ăzâ’zêl
According to Talmudic interpretation, the term ‘Ăzâ’zêl
designated a rugged mountain or precipice in the wilderness from which the goat
was thrown down (using for it as an alternative the word (
)
tsuwq, to pour, probably because of the similarity
to precipice (tsuwr), see Yoma vi. 4). An etymology
is found to suit this interpretation. ‘Ăzâ’zêl (
) is regarded as a compound
of ’âz (
),
strong or rough, and êl (
), mighty, it is notable that both words denote
strength and that they bear a resemblance to the name of another angel –
Gabriel – mighty (strong) warrior.
The Rabbis, interpreting ‘Ăzâ’zêl as ‘Ăzâ’z (rugged), and êl (strong), refer it to the rugged and rough mountain cliff from which the goat was cast down (Yoma 67b; Sifra, Aḥare, ii. 2; Targ. Yer. Lev.xiv.10, and most medieval commentators). The cliff was so high and rugged that before the goat had traversed half the distance to the plain below, its limbs were utterly shattered. This is contrary to the Day of Atonement ritual for the scapegoat was released alive in the wilderness. Most modern scholars, after having for some time indorsed the old view, have accepted the opinion mysteriously hinted at by Ibn Ezra and expressly stated by Naḥmanides to Lev. xvi. 8, that Azazel belongs to the class of “se'irim,” goat-like demons, jinn haunting the desert, to which the Israelites were wont to offer sacrifice (Lev. xvii. 7 [A. V. "devils"] This interpretation probably stems from the similarity to the Hebrew ’êz (goat) it also gives rise to another interpretation which is a cognate of ’êz (goat) ’âzal (to go away, remove) – the scapegoat of the Septuagint, although this etymology is regarded as doubtful by most scholars.
‘ăzâ’zêl –leader of the rebellious angels?
This is confirmed by the non-canonical apocrypha, the Book of Enoch, which brings Azazel into connection with the Biblical story of the fall of the angels, [14] located, obviously in accordance with ancient folk-lore, on Mount Hermon as a sort of an old Semitic Blocksberg, a gathering-place of demons from of old (Enoch xiii.; compare Brandt, “Mandäische Theologie,” 1889, p. 38). Azazel is represented in the Book of Enoch as the leader of the rebellious giants in the time preceding the flood; he taught men the art of warfare, of making swords, knives, shields, and coats of mail, and women the art of deception by ornamenting the body, dyeing the hair, and painting the face and the eyebrows, and also revealed to the people the secrets of witchcraft and corrupted their manners, leading them into wickedness and impurity; until at last he was, at the Lord's command, bound hand and foot by the archangel Raphael and chained to the rough and jagged rocks of [Ha] Duduael (= Beth Ḥadudo), where he is to abide in utter darkness until the great Day of Judgment, when he will be cast into the fire to be consumed forever (Enoch viii. 1, ix. 6, x. 4-6, liv. 5, lxxxviii. 1; see Geiger, "Jüd. Zeit." 1864, pp. 196-204). The story of Azazel as the seducer of men and women was familiar also to the rabbis (Tanna d. b. R. Yishma'el).
Conclusion of part one
The lots were cast for two goats one was “for Yahweh” and the other “for Azazel” – in itself this would suggest that Azazel is a personal name. The author believes however that the term has become corrupted by contemporary Jewish beliefs from the book of Enoch. There is no doubt that in first century temple Judaism it carried the meaning of strength or strong and reflected the belief in the personification of an evil supernatural being who had rebelled against Yahweh. It is also certain that this belief led to the practice of throwing the goat of a cliff, for the fate of Azazel in the book of Enoch is to be bound hand and foot, and secure him, under rough and jagged rocks, at a place in the desert called Dudael, until the great day of judgement, when he is cast into the fire. This is however a corruption of the atonement ritual, for the goat was set free in the wilderness, the practice of hurling the goat over a cliff was an innovation, and was not even introduced at the time of the more recent Septuagint translation.
The other alternative offered by rabbinical commentary is the equally unsatisfactory explanation of goat-like evil spirits. While it is true that the ancient Babylonians believed in them, and that Isaiah pronounces Babylon a haunt for the very spirits that their superstitious beliefs dreaded – it must be remembered that according to Jewish law the goat was a clean animal, it was the transfer of sin that made it unclean. It is far more likely that the record of the release of the scapegoat suffered rabbinical corruption during the exile under the influence of Babylonian beliefs. An even more likely explanation is that the nation of Israel itself had become the goat – azazel, sent away from the sanctuary into exile, bearing all its sins. This agrees with the prophecy in Zechariah 5, where after a vision of the destruction of the temple, the prophet recounts how the woman representing “wickedness” is carried away, once again into Babylon. Judaism experienced a renaissance in the Babylonian Jewish academies, where the Babylonian Talmud was written in answer to the crisis of loosing its focal point – the destruction of sacrificial temple worship in AD 70.
In conclusion, we may never be able to retrieve the exact etymology of azazel, however, the present author has the following to contribute to the debate – before corruption it may originally have been a cognate derivative from the root ’âzar and êl - meaning God has protected. In this sense it carries the meaning that God acts as the protector of the sinner, even though he is sent away from his presence (compare the protective ‘mark’ given to Cain).
Notes
[1] Altogether he washed his whole body five times on that day and his hands and feet ten times. The high priest also had the normal daily sacrifices to offer the total number of animals offered was 15 on the Day of Atonement (including the bullock and goat).
[2] The high priest purchased with his own funds the sacrifices brought for himself and his house, the priesthood contributing in order to make them sharers in the offering. The public sacrifice for all the people was paid out the temple treasury.
[3] The lots were probably the Urim and Thummim- during second temple Judaism an urn called Calpi was used, it stood in the court of the priests. Inside were two golden lots of the same shape, size, and ; the one bearing the inscription ‘la-Yahweh’ for Yahweh, the other ‘la-Azazel’, for Azazel. The high priest tied a tongue-shaped piece of scarlet cloth to the horn of the goat for Azazel and another around the throat of the goat for Yahweh, which was to be slain.
[4] Before offering the bullock he would lay his head on the animal and confess as follows: Ah, Yahweh! I have committed iniquity; I have transgressed; I have sinned – I and my house. Oh, then, Yahweh, I entreat Thee, cover over (atone for, let there be atonement for) the iniquities, the transgressions, and the sins which I have committed, transgressed, and sinned before Thee, I and my house – even as it is written in the law of Moses, Thy servant: “For, on that day will he cover (atone) for you to make you clean; from all your transgressions before Yahweh ye shall be cleansed.” The name Yahweh is repeated three times in this confession, it was repeated a further three times when he confessed the priesthoods sins, also on the bullock. It was pronounced a seventh time when he cast the lots to determine the goat for Yahweh, and then a further three times in the confession of the scapegoat Azazel. All these ten times the high-priest pronounced the very name of Yahweh, and, as he spoke it, those who stood near cast themselves with their faces on the ground, while the multitude responded: ‘Blessed be the Name; the glory of his kingdom is for ever and ever.’
[5] The altar of incense stood right in front of the veil, the veil itself was suspended from a rod, leaving a gap with the roof, thus allowing smoke to penetrate into the most holy place.
[6] This does not include capital sins such as murder or adultery; it does include minor infringements of the law, sins of omission and cultic sins that would make the sinner ritually unclean.
[7] Second temple Judaism introduced an innovation to the rite, whereby the goat was not released, but instead taken to a cliff and thrown off.
[8] James E.O., Seasonal Feasts and Festivals, page 119 (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1963)
[9] Passover was instituted before the giving of the law – but was incorporated into the covenant. Similarly evidence suggests that the feast of Tabernacles was originally a harvest festival adapted to memorializing the deliverance of the nation out of Egypt.
[10] The original forms of the name are probably Nadabiah – willing for Yah and Abiyahu – Yah is my Father.
[11] The altar of incense is associated with the cessation of the Aaronic priesthood – the death of the first two priests to inherit the office, but also with the announcement of the birth of the last legitimate Aaronic priest – John the Baptist (Lk.1: 10,18,20).
[12] As a priest on duty, Jesus Christ refused to drink wine again (after the last supper) until the establishment of the kingdom (Mtt.26: 29).
[13] This was the prerogative of close relatives.
[14] Rebellious angels – the belief in rebellious angels is a late rabbinical development based on a misinterpretation of Genesis 6. Unfortunately, despite it being a theological absurdity it has been unquestioningly adopted by most Christian denominations. Scripture teaches that a divided house cannot stand, how then can an all powerful, omnipotent God allow his angels to rebel against him? The angels are his ministering Spirits (Heb.1:14) and all of them obey his will, even Satan, who cannot act without his permission (Job 1:6-12). The “Sons of God” is a term that has a dual use - either for angels or for believers who share in the messianic hope. The sons of God in Genesis 6 are the descendants of Adam and Eve who followed the way of Cain and became the “fallen mighty ones” (Nephelim). Genesis 6 is about the intermarriage of the descendants of Abel and Seth (the sons of God =seed of the woman Gen.3:15) with those of Cain (daughters of men). A similar occasion occurred when Solomon (the “son of God” – see 2 Sam.7:14) “loved many strange women” (1 Kgs.11:1) and intermarried (for political reasons) foreign wives. The nation of Israel was meant to be holy and separate (sons of God) and forbidden intermarriage with the daughters of men (Deut.7:1-4 cp Num.25:1-5).
For further reading see:
http://www.shef.ac.uk/~biblst/Department/Staff/BibsResearch/DJACcurrres/Postmodern1/Sons.html