Nov
14
‘The Day of Atonement’: Reflections from writings of early Church fathers
Filed Under Atonement
In my book, ‘The Biblical Revelation of the Cross’, I outlined various interpretations that scholars had given to the word ‘azazel’ – as applied to one of two goats chosen by sacred lot in the ritual of the Day of Atonement. My conclusion was that the term should be understood as a proper name – especially as it was used in contraposition to the name of God in the Hebrew text.
One other word contrapositioned to God in Scripture is ‘mammon’ ( ‘riches’ , as trans. from Aramaic): ‘You cannot serve God and mammon’ (Mat.6:24, NKJ). Here, mammon, although not a person, is personified. It is reasonable to believe, therefore, that the term ‘Azazel’, likewise contrapositioned to the name ‘Yahweh’, expresses either a person or a personification standing in opposition to God. The question is, as there were two goats chosen by lot, one for Azazel and one for Yahweh, how are we to understand the symbolism?
The goat chosen by lot ‘for Azazel’ was driven away into the wilderness, bearing the sins of Israel (Leviticus 16). In my book, I expressed the view that this goat personified ‘evil’. However, I now realize that there is more to consider. This I want to share.
The early church writers: Irenaeus (2nd cent.) and Origin (3rd cent.) are known to have held the view that ‘Azazel’ was the name of a demon. Irenaeus, in his book Against Heresies, quoted an unknown ‘elder’ as saying in verse:
“Marcus, thou former of idols, inspector of portents,
Skill’d in consulting the stars, and deep in the black arts of magic,
Ever by tricks such as these confirming the doctrines of error,
Furnishing signs unto those involved by thee in deception,
Wonders of power that is utterly severed from God and apostate,
Which Satan, thy true father, enables thee still to accomplish,
By means of Azazel, that fallen and yet mighty angel,—
Thus making thee the precursor of his own impious actions.”Such are the words of the saintly elder.
Irenaeus Bk 1, Ch.15:6 (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Philip Schaff)
Origin of Alexandria (c.AD 182-251) knew Hebrew, wrote profusely on Christian topics and was a respected Christian writer in his own day, although not entirely orthodox. As with Irenaeus, His view of the term ‘Azazel’ expressed an agreement with a teaching that was then already extant:
For the serpent … he who was the author of destruction to them that obeyed him, and did not withstand his wicked deeds … Moreover (the goat), which in the book of Leviticus is sent away (into the wilderness), and which in the Hebrew language is named Azazel, was none other than this; and it was necessary to send it away into the desert, and to treat it as an expiatory sacrifice, because on it the lot fell. For all who belong to the “worse” part, on account of their wickedness, being opposed to those who are God’s heritage, are deserted by God.
Origen, Contra Celsus, Bk 6, 43 (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Philip Schaff)
Irenaeus (c. AD 120-200), bishop of Lugdunum, Gaul (now Lyons, France), was a pupil of Polycarp, the revered bishop of Smyrna in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) - who was said to have been ordained by the apostles (Irenaeus: letter to the Roman elder Florinus, Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, V. xx, 5 - 6). Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons, in several places in his works, quoted from the writings of the second century apologist ‘Justin Martyr’ (c. AD 100-165) and also made reference to him, as shown here:
Truly has Justin remarked that before the Lord’s appearance Satan never dared to blaspheme God, inasmuch as he did not yet know his own sentence, because it was contained in parables and allegories; but that after the Lord’s appearance, when he had clearly ascertained from the words of Christ and his apostles that eternal fire has been prepared for him as he rebelled against God by his own free will, and likewise for all who unrepentant continue in the rebellion, he now blasphemes by means of such men, the Lord who brings judgment upon him as already condemned, and imputes the guilt of his rebellion to his maker, not to his own voluntary disposition.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Bk. 5, 26 (Ante- Nicene Fathers, trans. A. Roberts and J. Donaldson)
The above comments reveal the beliefs that Satan had no understanding of his condemnation until after the resurrection and that he, the devil, imputes the guilt of rebellion to God, his creator - not to himself. Stated in this quote is the belief that Satan imputes the guilt of sin to God.
Irenaeus would also have been familiar with Justin’s comments concerning the atonement. Notice from the following passages just how Justin understood in what manner Jesus had become ‘a curse for us’ (Gal.3:13):
Nay, more than this, you suppose that He was crucified as hostile to and cursed by God, which supposition is the product of your most irrational mind. (93)
Just as God commanded the sign to be made by the brazen serpent, and yet He is blameless; even so, though a curse lies in the law against persons who are crucified, yet no curse lies on the Christ of God, by whom all that have committed things worthy of a curse are saved. (94)
If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father’s will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? (95)
For the statement in the law, ‘Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,’ [Deut.21:23] confirms our hope which depends on the crucified Christ, not because He who has been crucified is cursed by God, but because God foretold that which would be done by you all, and by those like to you, who do not know. … For you curse in your synagogues all those who are called Christians; and other nations effectively carry out the curse, putting to death those who simply confess themselves to be Christians … (96)
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, (Ante-Nicene Fathers, trans. A. Roberts and J. Donaldson)
He wrote: ‘No curse lies on the Christ of God.’ - That is, not in truth, according to God’s judgment. Justin explained that on the crucified Lord fell not the curse of God, but the curses of man - uttered by man against Him, as indeed upon His followers. Many had wrongly supposed that the crucifixion was proof that Jesus was cursed by the Almighty. To Justin, such a perception was the product of a ‘most irrational mind’. Here, Justin presents us with the prophetic portrayal of the suffering servant - viewed by man as accursed of God, as He hung upon the cross. To Justin, the true reality was that Jesus was prepared to suffer all the curses of mankind in His desire to save mankind from sin.
Do these views help us to understand Justin’s comments regarding the goat ‘for Azazel’ - the goat that was driven into the wilderness? - As a matter of fact, yes.
Justin wrote:
And the two goats which were ordered to be offered during the fast, of which one was sent away as the scape [azazel, goat of departure], and the other sacrificed, were similarly declarative of the two appearances of Christ: the first, in which the elders of your people, and the priests, having laid hands on Him and put Him to death, sent Him away as the scape; and His second appearance, because in the same place in Jerusalem you shall recognise Him whom you have dishonoured, and who was an offering for all sinners willing to repent, and keeping the fast which Isaiah speaks of, loosening the terms of the violent contracts, and keeping the other precepts, likewise enumerated by him, and which I have quoted, which those believing in Jesus do. And further, you are aware that the offering of the two goats, which were enjoined to be sacrificed at the fast, was not permitted to take place similarly anywhere else, but only in Jerusalem. (40)
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, (Ante-Nicene Fathers, trans. A. Roberts and J. Donaldson)
From this we see that Justin understood the ‘goat of departure’ as typifying an appearance of Christ - the priests laid hands upon Him and sent Him away to die. In doing so, they dishonoured and killed the One who made an offering of His life for all who repent of sins, as prophesied.
Therefore, we see that Justin wrote of two appearances of Christ – one by which He came unrecognized, dishonoured and cursed; the second by which He came known and understood by His disciples to be the One who offered His life for all sinners who truly repent and seek the righteousness of God. In this sense, the goat for Azazel prefigured what would happen to Christ during the first appearance. Jesus was rejected as an object of revulsion, just like the goat that was driven away to die in the wilderness.
Likewise, the body of the sin offering was also taken away ‘outside the camp’ - where it was completely burned and destroyed. However, its blood was sprinkled on and before the mercy seat within the Holy of Holies and afterwards sprinkled upon the altar to make atonement (Lev.16:27-28 & 15, 18, 19). This signifies that although the body of Jesus was to be taken and treated by man with contempt, His life would be received by the Father as a holy offering of atonement, acceptable and well-pleasing in His sight. (The ‘life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement,’ Lev.17:11, NKJ.)
To Justin, the two goats of the Day of Atonement spoke prophetically of our Lord’s rejection, suffering and death on the one hand, and of our Lord’s acceptance as a worthy offering sufficient for all on the other. The leaders, priests and people saw only the outward appearance. Nevertheless, the blood of the sin offering, sprinkled before God over the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy Place, amidst a cloud of fragrant incense, revealed the true inner reality of holiness and the Father’s acceptance of His Son: the Lamb of God ‘who takes away the sin of the world’ – though paradoxically the focus of mankind’s sins, curses and rejection.
The goat of departure became reviled as an object of sin, as indicated in The Epistle of Barnabus (c. A.D. 70-130):
‘Notice how the type of Jesus is revealed! “And all of you shall spit upon it and jab it, and tie scarlet wool around its head, and then let it be driven into the wilderness.”’ (The Apostolic Fathers, 7, 7-8: Lightfoot, Harmer, Holmes, pub. Apollos, 1989).
Although the source of this quotation used by Barnabus is unknown, the obvious revulsion shown towards the goat is echoed in a description found in the Mishna:
‘And they made a causeway for him because of the Babylonians, for they used to pull his hair and say to him, ‘Bear [away our sins] and go forth! Bear [away our sins] and go forth!”’ (Yoma, 6:4).
Laden with sin, the goat had come to personify sin and was thus treated with contempt by those who wanted to be free of sin.
In Isaiah, we read the Messianic verse: ‘I gave My back to those who struck Me, and My cheeks to those who plucked out the beard; I did not hide My face from shame and spitting’ (Is.50:6, NKJ). At once, we recognize the figure of Jesus - for whom the goat of departure (spat upon, jabbed at and hair pulled) may be seen as the type.
Jesus knew that He would be delivered up to authorities acting under satanic influence, as we can read: ‘I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming …’ (John 14:30, NKJ). ‘Him, being delivered by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified and put to death’ (Acts 2:23, NKJ). After His trial and scourging, He was led to a place of execution outside Jerusalem. The goat of departure (‘for Azazel’) was delivered up to Azazel in the wilderness, bearing the sins of the nation. Similarly, Jesus carried the sins of the people in His own body to the cross. He bore the sins, but not judiciously as a substitute, for He had been ‘deprived of justice’ and had been ‘taken away by lawless hands’ (Acts 8:33; 2:23). No, what happened signified that atonement for sins can be found through the blood of Christ, shed for us on the cross. His life, poured out in true holiness can be our covering. His righteousness is the garment of salvation for all who truly repent through faith in Jesus Christ.
Jesus was looked upon as one who typified sin, just as the goat for Azazel came to be seen. Nevertheless, in reality, He was the One who pronounced the sentence of God upon the father of sins. Although delivered up in body as an outcast of the nation Himself, Jesus delivered God’s verdict upon the ruler of this world - casting out the power of sin and Satan.
Did the goat for Azazel represent the devil? In the minds of the people, this goat came to symbolize sin. It was thought of as bearing all the sins for which Satan is ultimately guilty. As such, it was treated with hostility and was driven away as an object despised and hated. In truth, it symbolized Christ as the One who would be delivered up, bearing in His body the marks that symbolized mankind’s sin and rebellion against God, for which Satan is also culpable. Did the goat for Azazel represent an aspect of the deliverance to be received through Christ? Yes, this was the hidden truth. Jesus, though delivered up to Satan, maintained His righteousness and revealed His victory over sin and death. The devil lost and received God’s judgment. Through faith, all who look to Christ are truly set free from the power of sin and death. In Him is no condemnation.
Personal note: In the light of the above, I have to make a personal apology for my need to revise the position I expressed previously in my book. We have to admit to our mistakes and move on – this is what I am doing here. At the same time, I recognize that the above does not detract from the overall message of the book. In fact, quite the opposite, as Justin remarked: ‘No curse lies on the Christ of God.’ Though cursed, rejected and regarded as sin by man, He was received as the Lamb without blemish by God. His victory over sin was our victory also, if we are in Christ.