5.22--A bit of theological meta
Hi, I'm Rose. I'm new, been lurking for a bit for academic purposes (and enjoying reading others' thoughts, even when I disagreed), but this bit of meta just begged to be shared, so... I'm sharing it.
So I was doing a bit of research on Azazel for a fic, and this is what Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary has to say:
Azazel
(Lev. 16:8, 10, 26, Revised Version only here; rendered "scape-goat" in the Authorized Version [Ed.: the English Standard Version also uses "Azazel" here; most modern English translations use "scapegoat," which looks like the Septuagint reading (I know just enough Greek to know that "Azazel" isn't there, and the Vulgate uses "capro emissario")]). This word has given rise to many different views. Some Jewish interpreters regard it as the name of a place some 12 miles east of Jerusalem, in the wilderness. Others take it to be the name of an evil spirit, or even of Satan. But when we remember that the two goats together form a type of Christ, on whom the Lord "laid the iniquity of us all," and examine into the root meaning of this word (viz., "separation"), the interpretation of those who regard the one goat as representing the atonement made, and the other, that "for Azazel," as representing the effect of the great work of atonement (viz., the complete removal of sin), is certainly to be preferred. The one goat which was "for Jehovah" was offered as a sin-offering, by which atonement was made. But the sins must also be visibly banished, and therefore they were symbolically laid by confession on the other goat, which was then "sent away for Azazel" into the wilderness. The form of this word indicates intensity, and therefore signifies the total separation of sin: it was wholly carried away. It was important that the result of the sacrifices offered by the high priest alone in the sanctuary should be embodied in a visible transaction, and hence the dismissal of the "scape-goat." It was of no consequence what became of it, as the whole import of the transaction lay in its being sent into the wilderness bearing away sin. As the goat "for Jehovah" was to witness to the demerit of sin and the need of the blood of atonement, so the goat "for Azazel" was to witness to the efficacy of the sacrifice and the result of the shedding of blood in the taking away of sin. (emphasis added)
Ladies and gentlemen, Sam and Dean Winchester, as seen in "Swan Song."
I'd been thinking over the last six or seven episodes that Dean, in particular, was being set up as a type of the Suffering Servant, and there are some pretty strong echoes of Isaiah 53 for him in "Swan Song." There's also been plenty of meta about the visual clues that Sam would be the one to give his life to save the world. But Dean as the sin offering designated for Jehovah, shedding his blood to atone for the blood he shed in Hell, and Sam as the scapegoat chosen by Azazel, going alive into the wilderness of the Pit while bearing his one great sin with him and forcing Dean to live (for a time) with the separation, together fulfilling the prophecy that "the righteous man who began it is the only one who can end it"--well, it makes a great deal more sense.
Not that that's the only, or even the most complete, interpretation of the way "Swan Song" turned out. But it is *an* interpretation, and one that I hadn't seen in quite this form anywhere yet, so here it is, FWIW.
ETA: emphasis added to long quote.
So I was doing a bit of research on Azazel for a fic, and this is what Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary has to say:
Azazel
(Lev. 16:8, 10, 26, Revised Version only here; rendered "scape-goat" in the Authorized Version [Ed.: the English Standard Version also uses "Azazel" here; most modern English translations use "scapegoat," which looks like the Septuagint reading (I know just enough Greek to know that "Azazel" isn't there, and the Vulgate uses "capro emissario")]). This word has given rise to many different views. Some Jewish interpreters regard it as the name of a place some 12 miles east of Jerusalem, in the wilderness. Others take it to be the name of an evil spirit, or even of Satan. But when we remember that the two goats together form a type of Christ, on whom the Lord "laid the iniquity of us all," and examine into the root meaning of this word (viz., "separation"), the interpretation of those who regard the one goat as representing the atonement made, and the other, that "for Azazel," as representing the effect of the great work of atonement (viz., the complete removal of sin), is certainly to be preferred. The one goat which was "for Jehovah" was offered as a sin-offering, by which atonement was made. But the sins must also be visibly banished, and therefore they were symbolically laid by confession on the other goat, which was then "sent away for Azazel" into the wilderness. The form of this word indicates intensity, and therefore signifies the total separation of sin: it was wholly carried away. It was important that the result of the sacrifices offered by the high priest alone in the sanctuary should be embodied in a visible transaction, and hence the dismissal of the "scape-goat." It was of no consequence what became of it, as the whole import of the transaction lay in its being sent into the wilderness bearing away sin. As the goat "for Jehovah" was to witness to the demerit of sin and the need of the blood of atonement, so the goat "for Azazel" was to witness to the efficacy of the sacrifice and the result of the shedding of blood in the taking away of sin. (emphasis added)
Ladies and gentlemen, Sam and Dean Winchester, as seen in "Swan Song."
I'd been thinking over the last six or seven episodes that Dean, in particular, was being set up as a type of the Suffering Servant, and there are some pretty strong echoes of Isaiah 53 for him in "Swan Song." There's also been plenty of meta about the visual clues that Sam would be the one to give his life to save the world. But Dean as the sin offering designated for Jehovah, shedding his blood to atone for the blood he shed in Hell, and Sam as the scapegoat chosen by Azazel, going alive into the wilderness of the Pit while bearing his one great sin with him and forcing Dean to live (for a time) with the separation, together fulfilling the prophecy that "the righteous man who began it is the only one who can end it"--well, it makes a great deal more sense.
Not that that's the only, or even the most complete, interpretation of the way "Swan Song" turned out. But it is *an* interpretation, and one that I hadn't seen in quite this form anywhere yet, so here it is, FWIW.
ETA: emphasis added to long quote.