7. And he shall take the two goats. A twofold mode of expiation is here presented to us; for one of the two goats was offered in sacrifice according to the provisions of the Law, the other was sent away to be an outcast, or offscouring ( κάθαρμα vel περίψημα (242)) The fulfillment of both figures, however, was manifested in Christ, since He was both the Lamb of God, whose offering blotted out the sins of the world, and, that He might be as an offscouring, ( κάθαρμα ,) His comeliness was destroyed, and He was rejected of men. A more subtle speculation might indeed be advanced, viz., that after the goat was presented, its sending away was a type of the resurrection of Christ; as if the slaying of the one goat testified that the satisfaction for sins was to be sought in the death of Christ; whilst the preservation and dismissal of the other shewed, that after Christ had been offered for sin, and had borne the curse of men, He still remained alive. I embrace, however, what is more simple and certain, and am satisfied with that; i.e., that the goat which departed alive and free, was an atonement, (243) that by its departure and flight the people might be assured that their sins were put away and vanished. This was the only expiatory sacrifice in the Law without blood; nor does this contradict the statement of the Apostle, for since two goats were offered together, it was enough that the death of one should take place, and that its blood should be shed for expiation; for the lot was not cast until both goats had been brought to the door of the tabernacle; and thus although the priest presented one of them alive “to make an atonement with him,” as Moses expressly says, yet God was not propitiated without blood, since the efficacy of the expiation depended on the sacrifice of the other goat. As to the word Azazel, (244) although commentators differ, I doubt not but that it designates the place to which the scape-goat was driven. It is certainly a compound word, equivalent to “the departure of the goat,” which the Greeks have translated, whether properly or not I cannot say, ἀποπομπαῖον I am afraid that the expiation is decidedly too subtle which some interpreters give, that the goat was so called as “the repeller of evils,” just as the Gentiles (245) invented certain gods, called ἀλεξικάκους. What I have said agrees best with the departure of the goat; although I differ from the Jews, who conceive that this place was contiguous to Mount Sinai; as if the lot for Azazel were not cast every year, when the people were very far away from Mount Sinai. Let it suffice, then, that some solitary and most uninhabitable spot was chosen whither the goat should be driven, lest the curse of God should rest upon the people.
(242) The two Greek words here used are the same as those employed in 1 Corinthians 4:13 ως περικαθάρματα (or, with others, ὡσπερεὶ καθάρματα) τῦ κόσμυ ἐγενήθημεν, πάντων περίψημα ἕως ἄρτι· which our A. V. translates, “we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.” Commentators seem to be agreed that they are citative by St. Paul of the Hebrew words in Lamentations 3:45, which A.V. translates “offscouring and refuse.” C. ( Comment. on Cor., vol. 1, p. 1650 says that κάθαρμα “denotes a man who, by public execrations is devoted, with the view to the cleansing of a city, etc."
(243) “ Piaculum.” — Lat. “ Une beste maudite.” — Fr.
(244) C. adopts the opinion of S. M. in regarding Azazel as the name of a place. Most lexicographers agree that, עזאזל cannot well mean anything else than what is its necessary translation, if divided thus עז אזל, viz., the goat departing. — W
(245) Thus Jupiter is addressed: —
Δῶρον ἀλεξικάκοιο Διὸς — Orph. Λίθικα, i.
and Lactantius says, that an image of Apollonius was worshipped at Ephesus, “ sub Herculis Alexieaci nomine constitutum.” — De Just. v. 3.