Three main arguments can be put
forth in support of this view: (1) if one goat is “for the Lord,” and the other
to “for/to Azazel,” ‘ʿăzāʾzēl more likely represented an entity that
stood in opposition to the Lord, as did הַשָּׂטָן (haśśāṭān); (2) elsewhere in the OT,
the wilderness is seen as the abode of demons, and Leviticus 17:7 forbids
sacrifices to goat-demons; and (3) the development of a demonic persona around
the name ʿăzāʾzēl in Jewish pseudepigraphal literature. The passages
below reveal the pervasive belief that Israel was surrounded by desert demons,
whose influence and worship presented a constant source of covenantal jeopardy
to Israelites.
(1) Leviticus 17:7 warns against
offering sacrifices outside of the confines of the tabernacle, “so that they
may no longer offer their sacrifices for goat-demons [שְׂעִירִם, śeʿîrîm],
to whom they prostitute themselves.”
(2) 2 Chronicles 11:15 describes
Jeroboam’s wickedness: “… and [he] had appointed his own priests for the high
places, and for the goat-demons [śeʿîrîm].”
(3) In an oracle against Babylon
in Isaiah 13:21 predicts that in its ruins, “ostriches will live, and
goat-demons [śeʿîrîm] will dance.”
(4) The oracle against Edom in
Isaiah 34:14 predicts that “wildcats shall meet with hyenas, goat-demons [śāʿîr]
all call to each other; there too Lilith [a female demon-goddess] shall repose,
and find a place to rest.” It is important to note that the coupling of śāʿîr
and lilît here led the LXX translators to render both words as δαμόνια,
“demons.”
(5) The śeʿîrîm mentioned
in the context of the reforms of King Josiah: “he broke down the high places of
the gates that were at the entrance of the gate of Joshua the governor of the
city” (2 Kgs 23:8). According to the punctuation proposed by Hoffmann—via Lev
17:7 and 2 Chr 11:15—the non-sensical construction “the gates that were at the
entrance of the gate” should be replaced with “the high places of the śeʿîrîm,”
which matches the idolatry motif in the passage.
Echoes of the association between
the desert and the demonic also reverberate in the NT when the synoptic Gospels
connect erēmon with diabolos; Jesus is led “into the desert” (eis tēn
erēmon) to be tempted by the devil (Matt 4:1; Mark 1:12–13 [hypo tou
Satana]; Luke 4:1–2). Jesus also expressed this view: “When the unclean
spirit has gone out of a person, it wanders through waterless regions looking
for a resting place, but it finds none” (Matt 12:43).
The preceding evidence on the
demonic origins of the name Azazel begs the question: Why would the Levitical
law-giver forgo the more common term for goat-demons (śeʿîrîm) in favor
of laʿăzāʾzēl? A couple of explanations could be advanced. First, the
author likely wished to avoid a direct association of a sanctuary rite with
pagan deities such as the mythological śeʿîrîm. As Milgrom explains:
“Azazel is the name of a demon who has been eviscerated of his demonic powers
by the Priestly legislators . . . They [demons] can represent the powers of the
physical world . . . but they are not deified . . . and their worship is prohibited.”
Second, the Levitical author likely wished to avoid confusing the purgation
rite with an “offering” to the śeʿîrîm—precisely what Leviticus 17:7
forbids—while still ascribing executing judgment on a being in opposition to
God (e.g., Exod 20:4–5; 22:9; Deut 4:19; 5:7–8; 17:3; Job 5:1). In this case,
sending a toxic goat to Azazel offered a limited, highly controlled parallel
with contemporary Canaanite goat-demon mythology while at the same time
preserving the integrity of the Israelite purification rite within the confines
of their monotheistic covenant. The author might have wanted to avoid
dedicating more attention than necessary to Azazel and relegated this demon to
a lower status, keeping the Lord at the center of the D[ay of]A[tonement]. This entity did not
receive atonement through blood but only the toxic load of all of Israel’s
sins, impurities, and guilt. The goat was not a substitute for loyal Israel,
and a vicarious sacrifice was not implied in this ritual since the “goat for
the Lord” had already assumed this function. Azazel received punishment and
judgment and suffered “the fate of all angels and spirits in Scripture,”
observes Milgrom. (André Reis, Echoes of the Most Holy: The Day of Atonement
in the Book of Revelation [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2022], 53-55, comments in square brackets added for clarification)
