The strongest evidence that Azazel was not a Watcher, but rather the seed of the Serpent Lilith, comes from none other than the Bible.\u00a0 Leviticus 16 specifies a peculiar role for Azazel in Israel\u2019s Yom Kippur ceremony.\u00a0 As we shall see, this ceremonial role identifies Azazel as the infamous seed of Serpent whom God cursed in the garden.<\/p>\n
As we have seen, First Enoch strongly hints that Azazel was not a fallen Watcher, but rather the firstborn seed of those fallen angels.\u00a0 Certain other clues in First Enoch further hint that Azazel was specifically the firstborn seed of Semjaza, the leader of Watchers, mating with Lilith.\u00a0 Besides Azazel\u2019s proclivity to teach man evil ways, First Enoch provides little other insight into Azazel\u2019s nature and role in mythology.\u00a0 However, if First Enoch is silent on these issues, the Bible is not.\u00a0 Leviticus 16 specifies Azazel\u2019s amazing role in Israel\u2019s Yom Kippur ceremony.\u00a0 That role equates Azazel and his hosts as the counterpart to Israel as the sons of God in a bitter water trial.\u00a0 As such, Azazel is none other the infamous seed of the Serpent, who is locked in eternal conflict with Eve\u2019s promised Messianic seed.\u00a0 Azazel would bruise the heal of that promised seed, but the Messiah would crush the head of Azazel and his mother, the Serpent.<\/p>\n
In Leviticus 16 Azazel plays a critical role in Israel\u2019s Yom Kippur high holiday.\u00a0 On this most important day, Jews believe they are cleansed of all their sins.\u00a0 Their sins are \u201ccovered\u201d from God\u2019s sight, and thus they achieve atonement for their sins.[1]<\/a>\u00a0 In the ancient Temple ceremony outlined in Leviticus 16, the congregation brought two goats to the Temple.\u00a0 There the high priest cast lots upon each to determine which one would be given \u201cto Jehovah\u201d and which would be given \u201cto Azazel\u201d (i.e. the \u201cscapegoat\u201d of the KJV).\u00a0 The goat \u201cto Jehovah\u201d was sacrificed upon the Temple altar, and its blood was sprinkled upon the mercy seat to achieve atonement for the priest and then Israel.\u00a0 However, the goat to Azazel suffered a very different fate. \u00a0The priest laid his hand upon its head and confessed, or literally placed, all the sins of Israel.\u00a0 The priest then tied half a piece of red cloth to the goat\u2019s horn and had the goat given to a ready man, who led it to a particular remote spot in the wilderness.\u00a0 There the man pushed it backwards down a jagged cliff, killing it.\u00a0 In the instant the goat died, the red cloth tied to its horns turned white, as well as the remaining half that remained at the Temple.\u00a0 It was in this moment that the cloth turned white that the sins of Israel were cleansed.<\/p>\n Azazel\u2019s role in the Leviticus 16 is controversial.\u00a0 Many scholars, both ancient and modern, refuse to accept the notion that the name in those passages refers to the popular demon.\u00a0 This is because the religious implications become almost too terrible to fathom.\u00a0 The passages would then seem to indicate that in offering the demon Azazel a sacrificial goat, Israel achieved atonement.\u00a0 In an attempt to downplay the ceremony\u2019s demonic aspects and to not confuse people with such seemingly idolatrous (and worse) notions, Talmudic writers apparently only referred to Azazel as a place in the desert (i.e. this place being Dudael were Azazel was bound in First Enoch).\u00a0 The Sages described the commandment to send a goat to Azazel as a choq<\/em> (qx<\/span>), or a decree that is beyond human intelligence.[2]<\/a>\u00a0 Even modern Christian scholars, who view the Yom Kippur ceremony as a prophetic archetype of Christ\u2019s sacrificial atonement, see equal difficulty in the goat to Azazel.\u00a0 Alfred Edersheim, in scrambling to rectify the symbolism of the two goats in light of Christ\u2019s redemptive act, concludes both goats symbolize Christ.<\/p>\n However, all the disharmony brought about by the goat given to Azazel can be relieved by understanding how the Yom Kippur ceremony parallels the bitter water trial.\u00a0 In doing so, the peculiar roles of Azazel and the goat given to him becomes clear.\u00a0 Azazel mirrors the defiled Sotah, and Israel mirrors the innocent woman who undergoes the trial.\u00a0 The goat given to Azazel mirrors the defiled seed of adultery in the trial, which is a rejected sacrifice that carries the woman\u2019s defilement back to her and brings curses of death.\u00a0 The goat given to Jehovah mirrors the mystical first promised seed of the trial, which is an accepted sacrifice that when slain brings atonement from the curses.\u00a0 Edersheim\u2019s confusion in assigning both goats\u2019 roles to Christ stems from that the fact that he correctly identifies that the sins which the goat to Azazel bears are also the sins which the slain promised seed temporarily bears for Israel.\u00a0 However, the slain promised seed is revised, and the sins it bore away from the people are permanently placed on the head of the Sotah\u2019s adulterous seed, which is modeled by the goat given to Azazel in the Yom Kippur ceremony.\u00a0 The goat to Azazel and the goat to Jehovah are very different and opposite creatures.\u00a0 The one thing they share in common is that they bear the curses of the ceremony.\u00a0 The goat to Jehovah bears the curses for but a brief time before it is revived and elevated to the seat of Jehovah, where it atones for all the sins of Israel.\u00a0 The goat to Azazel bears the curses for eternity while bound in the pit of hell with its wayward Sotah, Azazel.<\/p>\n There exists a remarkable and entertaining video on this aspect of Azazel on Youtube.\u00a0 The author, Sumerias1, using an old Jewish folk song as the narrative, has made a clever video hinting at many various aspects of Azazel in the ceremony.\u00a0 I would not say his interpretation of the song is entirely correct.\u00a0 At the 4 minute mark I am clueless as to why the narration says “The Goodly Aaron hath agreed to the take the Goat’s Place.”\u00a0 It seems quite apparent that he has not.\u00a0 Perhaps it is a simply mistake in the movie captions.<\/p>\n