nature of this symbol," is such a being as standing on the highest grade of created existence, and containing in itself the most perfect created life, is the best manifestation of God and the divine life. It is a representative of creation in its highest grade, an ideal creature. The vital powers communicated to the most elevated existences in the visible creation are collected and individualized in it." Accordingly the difference would perhaps consist only in this, that in the cherubim, the divine properties were only indirectly symbolized, so far as they came into view in the works of creation, whilst in the sphinx, directly, a difference which cannot be considered important.1

LEVITICUS, CHAP. XVI. AZAZEL.

An Egyptian reference, it appears to us, must necessarily be acknowledged in the ceremony of the great atonement day. But in order to exhibit this reference, we must first substantiate our view of the meaning of the wordy, Azazel, which is, that it designates Satan. And this can only be seen at a right point of view, if we in the first place, in a general survey of the whole rite, point out definitely the position which the word Azazel takes in it.

First, in verses 1-10, the general outlines are given, and then follows in v. 11 seq. the explanation of separate points. It is of no small importance for the interpretation, that this arrangement, a knowledge of which has escaped most interpreters, be understood. Aaron first offers a bullock as a sin-offering for himself and his house. He then takes a fire-pan full of coals from the altar, with fragrant incense, and goes within the vail. There he

The author has signally failed to establish any similarity, much less an identity between the Hebrew cherubim, and the Egyptian sphinxes. It is utterly incredible that Moses would have taken an idolatrous emblem and placed it in the most sacred part of the tabernacle; such a proceeding would have been an indirect sanction of Egyptian corruptions. On the contrary, the great course of the Levitical legislation seems directed to changing the habits, and breaking of the associations which the Israelites formed in Egypt.

T.

puts the incense on the fire before the Lord, and "the cloud of the incense (the embodied prayer) covers the mercy-seat which is upon the testimony, that he die not." Aaron then takes of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkles it seven times before the mercy-seat. After he has thus completed the expiation for himself, he proceeds to the expiation for the people. He takes two he-goats for a sin-offering, N, Lehâtath, for the children of Israel, verse 5. These he places before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, verse 7. He casts lots upon them, one lot for the Lord, La Jehovah, and one lot for Azazel, SINS, La Azazel, verse 8. The goat upon which the lot for the Lord,, La Jehovah, fell, verse 9, he offers as a sin-offering, brings his blood within the vail, and does with it as with the blood of the bullock. In this way is the sanctuary purified from the defilements of the children of Israel, their transgressions and all their sins, so that the Lord, the holy one and pure, can continue to dwell there with them. After the expiation is completed, the second goat, the one on which the lot for Azazel, by, La Azazel, fell, is brought forward, verse 10. He is first placed before the Lord to absolve him, hy, Le kassep alaiv.1 Then Aaron lays both his hands upon his head, and confesses over him the (forgiven) iniquities, transgressions and sins of the children of Israel, puts them upon his head, and gives him to a man to take away, in order that he may bear the sins of the people into a solitary land,2 verse 22, into the desert, for Azazel, verse 10. Then Aaron offers a burnt-offering for himself, and one for the people.

Now, in respect to language, there can be no objection to interpreting Azazel as meaning Satan. The exposition below shows this conclusively.3

1 Verse 10, with 16 and 18.

وعزل

, literally, in terram abscissam, sc. a terra habitata. The Seventy; siç yñv äßatov. Vulgate in terram solitariam. That the Hebrew root ry, Azal, corresponds to the Arabic as was asserted by Bochart as early as his time, and afterwards by Schröder in Scheid and Groenewood, Lex. Hebr. II. 397, is now generally acknowledged. (for by) belongs to the form which repeats the second and third radicals. In reference to this form, Ewald in his smaller Grammar, § 333, remarks: "The form indeed also expresses general in

But this explanation, as far as facts in the case are concerned, is in like manner exposed to no well grounded objections. The doctrinal significance of the symbolic action, so far as it has reference to Azazel, is this, that Satan, the enemy of the people of God, cannot harm those forgiven by God, but they, with sins forgiven of God, can go before him with a light heart, deride him and triumph over him.

The positive reasons, which favour this explanation and oppose every other, are the following:

1. The manner in which the phrase by, for Azazel, is contrasted with, for Jehovah, necessarily requires that Azazel should designate a personal existence, and if so, only Satan can be intended. 2. If by Azazel, Satan is not meant, there is no reason for the lots that were cast. We can then see no reason why the decision was referred to God, why the high priest did not simply assign one goat for a sin-offering, the other for sending away into the desert. The circumstance that lots are cast, implies that Jehovah is made the antagonist of a personal existence, with respect to which it is designed to exalt the unlimited power of Jehovah, and exclude all equality of this being with Jehovah. 3. Azazel, as a word of comparatively infrequent formation and only used here, is best fitted for the designation of Satan. In every other explanation, the question remains, why then (as it has every appearance of being) is the word formed for this occasion, and why is it never found except here?

tension, but the idea of continual, regular repetition, without interruption, is also especially expressed by the repetition of nearly the whole word." In reference to the meaning of the word we are referred to the Arabic. The word signifies in that language, semovit, dimovit, removit,

عزل

descivit; in the pass. remotus, depositus fuit; and the part.

عازل

signify

NIV

means, a ceteris se sejungens. In like manner, Jl, semotus, remotus, abdicatus. Accordingly two explanations of relating to Satan are furnished, either the apostate (from God) or the one entirely separate. It is in favour of the latter, 1. that the signification, descivit, is only a derived one, and 2. that it is appropriate to the abode in. the desert. The goat is sent to Azazel, in the desert, in the divided land (terram abscissam.) How could he then be designated by a more appropriate name than the separate one?

M

4. By this explanation the third chapter of Zechariah comes into a relation with our passage, entirely like that in which chap. iv. of the same prophecy stands to Exod. chap. xxv. 31. Here as there, the Lord, Satan, and the high-priest, appear. Satan wishes by his accusations to destroy the favourable relations between the Lord and his people. The high-priest presents himself before the Lord not with a claim of purity, according to law, but laden with his own sins, and the sins of the people. Here Satan thinks to find the safest occasion for his attack, but he mistakes. Forgiveness baffles his designs; he is compelled to retire in confusion.' It is evident that the doctrinal import of both passages is substantially the same, and the one in Zechariah may be considered as the oldest commentary extant on the words of Moses. In substance we have the same scene also in the Apocalypse, xii. 10, 11 : "The accuser of our brethren is cast down, who accuses them before our God day and night, and they overcome him by the blood of the Lamb."

5. The relation in which, according to our explanation, Satan is here placed to the desert, finds analogy in other passages of the Bible, where the deserted and waste places appear as peculiarly the abode of the evil spirit. See Matt. xii. 43, where the unclean spirit cast out from the man is represented as going through

dry places," Luke viii. 27, and Apocalypse xviii. 2, according to which the fallen Babylon is to be the dwelling of all unclean spirits. 6. To the reasons already given the Egyptian reference which the rite has according to this explanation, may be addeda reference which is so remarkable that no room can remain for the thought that it has arisen through false explanation.

Among the objections to this explanation, the one which is most important, and has exerted the most influence is this, that it gives a sense which stands in direct opposition to the spirit of the religion of Jehovah. It was this objection which made so many of the ancient theologians disinclined to interpret the passage as we have done.2

1 Christol. Th. S. 33 seq.

Deyling, e. g. who after he has been candid enough to remark, in the Obss. Sac. 1. p. 50: Lamed Jehovae et Azazeli prefixum casum eundem, nempe dativum notat, nec possunt ei significationes diversae in eodem commate attribui, yet, p. 51, shrinks back from the explanation of Azazel as meaning Satan, with these words: Quid fingi potest ineptius absurdi

The objections which so many in modern times, even as late as Bähr, have cherished against this interpretation, proceed almost entirely from this point. Most of its opposers expressly declare themselves as of the same opinion with Baumgarten-Crusius, who in his Biblical Theology says: "In fact, could an offering properly be made to the evil spirit, in the desert, which the common precepts of religion in the Mosaic law, as well as the significance of this ceremony, entirely oppose?'

Now, were it really necessary to connect with the explanation of Azazel as meaning Satan, the assumption that sacrifice was offered to him, we should feel obliged to abandon it, notwithstanding all the reasons in its favour. Especially in the manner in which Gesenius 2 understands the passage, it presents an opposition to the vital being of the religion of Jehovah, so atrociously unjust, that whoever adopts this cannot think of assenting to that.

But nothing is easier than to show that this manner of understanding the explanation is entirely arbitrary. The following reasons prove that an offering made to Azazel cannot be supposed:

1. Both the goats were designated in verse 5 as a sin-offering. "And from the congregation of the children of Israel he shall take two goats for a sin-offering." That these goats were taken together as forming unitedly one sin-offering, wholly excludes the thought that one of them was brought as an offering to Jehovah, and the other as an offering to Azazel: and further, an offering which is given to a bad being, can indeed never be a sin-offering. The idea of a sin-offering implies holiness, hatred of sin in the one to whom the offering is made.3

usque, quam deum ex duobus hircis alterum sibi, alterum diabolo destinasse et offeri jussisse. Nonne Lev. xvii. 7, sacrificare dæmonibus expressis verbis vetat? Lund also gives a similar explanation, S. 1032.

1 S. 294.

* In Robinson's Gesenius, p. 751, it is said: I render it (SIN) with

out hesitation, the averter, the expiator, averruncus aλežikakoç. By this name I suppose is to be understood originally some idol that was appeased with sacrifices; but afterwards, as the names of idols were often transferred to demons, it seem to denote an evil demon dwelling in the desert, and to be placated with victims, in accordance with this very ancient and also gentile rite.

It is acknowledged that this reason would lose its force, if it were