Leviticus 16:8

Old Testament Law (Torah) ASV (1901)

What does Leviticus 16:8 say?

The American Standard Version records this verse as: “And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for Jehovah, and the other lot for Azazel.” Read the surrounding verses and the named sources below before drawing broader conclusions.

The verse

And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for Jehovah, and the other lot for Azazel.
Leviticus 16:8 — American Standard Version

Context — Leviticus 16

American Standard Version (1901) — public domain. Click any verse for its study page.
8And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for Jehovah, and the other lot for Azazel.

What do historical commentaries say?

John Gill's Exposition
John Gill (1697–1771) · Exposition of the Old and New Testament · 18th-century historical commentary
“And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats, etc.] Which should be slain, and which should be kept alive, and let go: the manner of casting lots, according to the Misnah f550, was this; the high priest went to the east of the court, to the north of the altar, the Sagan (or deputy priest) at his right hand, and Rosh Beth Ab (or the chief of the house of the fathers) on his left hand, and the two goats were there; and there was a vessel (box or urn, called Calphi), and in it were two lots of box tree: the high priest shook the Calphi (or urn) and took out the two lots; one, on which was written, “for the Lord”, and the other, on which was written, “for Azazel”; if that came up on the right…”
Read attributed excerpt →
Barnes' Notes
Albert Barnes (1798–1870) · Notes on the Whole Bible · 19th-century historical commentary
“The two goats formed a single sin-offering, Leviticus 16:5. To bring out the meaning of the sacrifice it was necessary that the act of a living being should be performed after death. See Leviticus 16:22 note. As this could not possibly be visibly set forth with a single victim, two were employed, as in the case of the birds in the rite for the healed leper Leviticus 14:4-6. For the scapegoat - Rather, for Azazel. The word occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament but in this chapter, and is probably derived from a root in use in Arabic, but not in Hebrew, signifying to “remove”, or “to separate”. Azazel is the pre-Mosaic name of an evil personal being placed in opposition to Yahweh. Each…”
Read attributed excerpt →
Wesley's Explanatory Notes
John Wesley (1703–1791) · Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament and Old Testament notes · 18th-century historical commentary
“For the Lord - For the Lord's use by way of sacrifice. Both this and the other goat typified Christ; this in his death and passion for us; that in his resurrection for our deliverance. Leviticus 16:11”
Read attributed excerpt →
Tyndale Open Study Notes
Tyndale House Publishers · Tyndale Open Study Notes · Modern study notes
“16:8 The Hebrew term ‘aza’zel (Azazel) is found only in 16:8, 10, 26. This word has generally been interpreted in four different ways: (1) as a word meaning “the goat of going away”; (2) as a demon that lived in the wilderness; (3) as a strengthened form of the Hebrew word for “go, leave,” meaning “utter loss”; and (4) as a rocky cliff over which the goat was pushed. Since this goat represented the removal of the sins of Israel from the camp (16:22), the first interpretation is probably the simplest solution.”
Read attributed excerpt →
Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge
R. A. Torrey and contributors · The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge · Cross-reference reference work
“cast lots: Num 26:55, Num 33:54; Jos 18:10, Jos 18:11; Sa1 14:41, Sa1 14:42; Pro 16:33; Eze 48:29; Jon 1:7; Act 1:23-26 scape goats: Heb. Azazel, that is, the goat-gone-away, The Hebrew עזאזל has been supposed by some to be the name of a place, either a mountain or cliff, to which the goat was led. But no place of that name has ever been pointed out, except a mountain near Sinai, which was too distant for the goat to be conducted there from Jerusalem. Other learned men think it was the name of the devil, who was worshipped by the heathen in the form of a goat. But Bp. Patrick justly objects to this opinion; for it is difficult to conceive, that when the other goat was offered to God, this…”
Read attributed excerpt →

Related study paths

Sources and verification