Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Scapegoat or Azazel in Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26

by Leave a Comment

Introduction

Commentators debate the meaning of the Hebrew word עֲזָאזֵל as applied to the goat that was sent into the wilderness. This word occurs only in Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26.

Proposed Solutions

1. עֲזָאזֵל refers to “the goat that departs” (Rooker 216; cf. ABD, 1:536; Morales, 178),or the “scapegoat” (KJV, NIV).

a. This word is made up of the terms for “goat” (`ēz) and “depart” (’āzal) (EDBT, 253; cf. Sklar, 209; Vasholz, 188).

b. This understanding is reflected in the ancient Greek translations and the Vulgate (Bonar, 303; Vasholz, 188).

c. This meaning tracks closely with what was done with the goat (Vasholz, 188) and thus draws the understanding of the obscure term from what is clear in the text (EDBT, 253).

2. עֲזָאזֵל means “entire removal” (Feinberg, 331)or “total destruction” (Wenham, 235).

a. The word is derived from a word for “removal” (‘zl), reduplicated to indicate intensification, “entire removal.”

b. The LXX rendering, using the word ἀποπομπή, “sending away” supports the idea of removal (Feinberg, 331-32; Harrison, 173).

c. The phrase “land of cutting off” in v. 22 could interpret the term עֲזָאזֵל, and support the idea that the term means “total destruction” (Wenham, 235).

3.  עֲזָאזֵל refers to the wilderness terrain.

a. The word could be related to “the Arabic word ‘azâzu (‘rough ground’)” (Sklar, 209).

b. The phrase “land of cutting off” in v. 22 could interpret the term עֲזָאזֵל, and support the idea that the term refers to the “land of cutting off.” (Wenham, 235).

c. The phrase “into the wilderness” could be “an appositional explanation of” עֲזָאזֵל (Rooker, 217).

d. This view is found in the Talmud (Feinberg, 325; Milgrom, 1020) and held by Rashi (Wenham, 235).

4.  עֲזָאזֵל refers to demon in the wilderness.

a. By metathesis, the name could be understood to have been based on words meaning “fierce god” (AB, 1:536; Milgrom, 1021).

b. עֲזָאזֵל best parallels  לַיהוָ֔ה (vv. 9-10) because on this view both would be supernatural beings (AB, 1:536; Milgrom, 1020).

c. The Bible presents the wilderness as the dwelling place of demons (Isa. 13:21-22; 34:11-15; Matt. 12:34; Luke 11:24; Rev. 18:2; cf. Bar. 4:35; Tob. 8:3) (Milgrom, 1020; Hartley, 238).

d. This interpretation appears in intertestamental literature (1 Enoch 8:1; 9:6; 10:4–8; 13:1; cf. 54:5–6; 55:4; 69:2; Apoc. Ab. 13:6–14; 14:4–6; 20:5–7; 22:5; 23:11; 29:6–7; 31:5) (AB, 1:536; Milgrom, 1020-21; Hartley, 238).

e. This does not imply a sacrifice to a demon since it was not slain. Nor does it have any propitiatory role (Milgrom, 1021). It could just be a way of indicating that the sins were returned to the demon (Hartley, 238).

Rejected Solutions:

2. עֲזָאזֵל means “entire removal”  or “total destruction.”

a. The LXX doesn’t truly establish this position; it refers to “to the one carrying away” (cf. Hartley, 222).

b. The lack of parallelism between  לַיהוָ֔ה (“for Yhwh,” v. 9) as parallel to לַעֲזָאזֵ֔ל (“for entire removal,” v. 10) tells against this view (Hartley, 237), though it is not decisive.

3.  עֲזָאזֵל refers to the wilderness terrain.

a. The lack of parallelism between  לַיהוָ֔ה (“for Yhwh,” v. 9) as parallel to לַעֲזָאזֵ֔ל (“to a rough place,” v. 10) tells against this view (Hartley, 237-38), though it is not decisive.

b. Though “into the wilderness” could be appositional, it would also be redundant on this view. It is unclear why two terms would be needed here.

4.  עֲזָאזֵל refers to demon in the wilderness.

a. The intertestamental literature at this point is fanciful, and it cannot be relied on to give an accurate interpretation of Lev. 16 (cf. Feinberg, 328-29; Vasholz, 188).

b. Leviticus 17:7 forbids sacrifices to goat demons, which makes a practice that could be construed that way unlikely (EDBT; 253; Feinberg, 329; Vasholz, 188; Wenahm, 234). Despite a construal that clearly disclaim the sending of a goat is a sacrifice (Milgrom, 1021; Hartley, 238), it is unlikely that something akin to an offering to a demon would be part of the central act of atonement in Israel (cf. Wenham, 234). As Sklar says, “the Lord typically tells his people to have absolutely nothing to do with false gods (Exod. 23:24; 34:13; Deut. 12:3), as he in fact does in the very next chapter (17:7). One wonders whether he would involve a demon in this rite, even in such a negative way, and risk the Israelites turning the rite into some form of appeasement to this demon” (Sklar, 209).

c. This view is too easily construed as teaching that Satan must be paid something as part of atonement (EDBT, 253).

Accepted Solution:

1. עֲזָאזֵל refers to “the goat that departs” or the “scapegoat.”

a. Despite the objection that this view does not treat לַיהוָ֔ה (“for Yhwh,” v. 9) as parallel to לַעֲזָאזֵ֔ל (“as the scapegoat,” v. 10 NIV) (DOTP, 59; Feinberg, 327), this solution is still grammatical. Further, there is still a parallelism: one lot is “in relation to Yhwh” and the other lot is “in relation to the scapegoat” (cf. EDBT, 253; Sklar, 209).

b. The claim that this view requires the translations “to send the goat to the scapegoat in the wilderness” (v. 10) and “and he who taketh away the goat to the scapegoat” (v. 26) (Feinberg, 327) is incorrect. The NIV translations, “by sending it into the wilderness as a scapegoat” (v. 10) and “The man who releases the goat as a scapegoat,” are acceptable (Sklar, 209).

c. There is little dispute that this goat symbolized the taking away of the sin of the people, and this view captures this message most clearly (Sklar, 210).

Bibliography: Dictionaries: “Garrett, “Feasts and Festivals of Israel,” EDBT; Hartley, “Atonement, Day of,” DOTP; D. Wright, “Azazel,” ABD; Commentaries: Bonar; Harrison, TOTC; Hartley, WBC; Milgrom, AYB; Rooker, NAC; Sklar, TOTC; Vasholz, Mentor; Wenham, NICOT; Other: Feinberg, “The Scapegoat of Leviticus Sixteen,” BibSac 115 (1958): 320-33; Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord? A Biblical Theology of the Book of Leviticus, NSBT.

Thoughts on the Translation of Leviticus 26:40–42

by Leave a Comment

The ESV provides a typical translation of Leviticus 26:40–42:

But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers in their treachery that they committed against me, and also in walking contrary to me, so that I walked contrary to them and brought them into the land of their enemies—if then their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they make amends for their iniquity, then I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and I will remember my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land.

Since the KJV, English translations have tended to translate these verses as conditionals (“but if they”), and since the RSV, English translations have tended to translate a key phrase in verse 41, “and they make amends for their iniquity,” or some variant of the same.

A better translation is as follows. Here I use the CSB as main translation, but the bold text is brought over from the NKJV:

40 “But when they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their ancestors—their unfaithfulness that they practiced against me, and how they acted with hostility toward me, 41 and I acted with hostility toward them and brought them into the land of their enemies—and when their uncircumcised hearts are humbled and they accept their guilt, 42 then I will remember my covenant with Jacob. I will also remember my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land.

The CSB, along with the Geneva Bible and the NET Bible, rightly recognize that there is no conditional particle in the Hebrew (as there is earlier in the chapter when the blessings and curses of the Mosaic covenant are outlined). Thus, it is best to translate, as the CSB does, “But when they confess their iniquity” and “when their uncircumcised hearts are humbled.”

Regarding the contested phrase in verse 42, the key verb in the sentence (רצה), translated “make amends” by the ESV and “accept” by the NKJV,” is commonly understood be from one of two identically spelled roots. The first means “to be pleased with, to enjoy, to accept.” The second means “to pay for, to restore.” However, I wonder if the second root with its meaning is necessary to posit. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew cites texts in support of this sense the verse under consideration (Lev 26:41) as well as earlier verses in Leviticus 26 which state (in common translation) that the land will “enjoy its Sabbaths.” In fact, the few other verses cited in support of the second root could be translated in line with the first root and its senses.

In addition, the Hebrew word translated by the ESV as “iniquity” can also be understood to indicate “guilt” (as in the NKJV) or “punishment.” Thus, the translation of the NKJV, “and they accept their guilt.”

The UBS Handbook on Leviticus advocates the same translation I’m advocating in this post:

 Make amends for their iniquity: this phrase presents difficulties with regard to the understanding of both the verb, make amends, and the noun, rendered iniquity in RSV, and consequently for the interpretation of the whole. A number of versions have adopted essentially the same interpretation as RSV (NIV, NJV, and NAB). But the noun used here may mean either “guilt” or “punishment for guilt.” The idea of punishment seems more probable in this context, as in 5:1, 7; 10:17; and 16:22; as well as Gen 4:13. The verb translated make amends in RSV is sometimes used in the sense of “accept.” An example of this in Leviticus is God’s accepting a sacrifice in 1:4. MFT translates the whole phrase “submit to be punished for their sins,” while NEB has “accept their punishment in full,” leaving the idea of guilt implicit. It is especially significant that, while JB (1966) rendered the whole phrase “atone for their sins,” the more recent NJB (1985) has “accept the punishment for their guilt.” The latter interpretation is therefore recommended to translators.

René Péter-Contesse and John Ellington, A Handbook on Leviticus, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1992), 420.

What is the theological significance of these translation differences? Leviticus 26 (much like Deuteronomy 28) outlines the covenant blessings and curses of the Mosaic covenant. If Israel kept the covenant, it would enjoy the blessings of the covenant (26:1–13). If Israel spurned and loathed the covenant, and if Israel thus broke the Mosaic covenant and its laws, then all the covenant curses would come upon Israel (26:14–39). But Leviticus 26:40–45 (like Deuteronomy 30) looks ahead to the new covenant. These verses predict Israel’s repentance. Someday Israelites will confess its guilt and the guilt of their fathers, and they will accept their guilt. At that point God will bring to pass the promises of the Abrahamic covenant.

Initial Thoughts on Patrick Schreiner’s Recovery of the Quadriga

by

In a recent article Patrick Schriener seeks to recover the Quadriga.

A few thoughts:

1. Schreiner seems concerned that redemptive-historical readings of a text can marginalize application to the moral life of the Christian. This is a legitimate concern. I recall this concern being raised several decades ago in the book Feed My Sheep. But the Quadriga isn’t the only or best way to ensure that both redemptive-history and personal application are included in readings of Scripture. 

2. Schreiner operates with an idiosyncratic and ahistorical definition of allegory:  “We must read according to salvation history and typology—what the Church Fathers generally called the allegorical sense.” He grants in the conclusion, “In the history of interpretation, people have strayed too far from authorial intent. Other times, an extra-textual philosophical grid was employed to conduct allegory.” But in the patristic and medieval periods these were not just occasional corruptions of the allegorical sense; these were characteristic of the allegorical sense (See: Origins of Allegorical Interpretation and Christian Theology). In the footnote, he appeals to Paul’s use of “allegory” in Galatians 4, but Paul was doing something different from the Fathers. (See: Galatians 4:21-31: An Allegory?) Thus, there is a great deal of equivocation on the term allegory. 

3. In his description of the literal sense, Schreiner says that Saul’s armor symbolizes “earthly methods of warfare” while the sling and staff represent “simple shepherd’s tools, entirely inadequate by worldly standards.” But it simply isn’t true that slings and stones were inadequate military weapons. Steinman notes, “Slings, along with bows, were the artillery of Iron Age warfare (cf. 2 Ki 3:25; 2 Chr 26:14) (1 Samuel, ConC, 341).  Steinman draws something else from this exchange: “Here another subtle contrast with Saul is brought into play. Saul, the king from Benjamin, ought to have confronted Goliath with a sling. Benjaminites were renown for their skill as slingers—they were even expert left-handed slingers (Judg 20:15–16; 1 Chr 12:2)” (Ibid., 341).

4. There is a great deal of Schreiner’s allegorical section that I would agree with as textually rooted typology. David is a type of Christ. At least some of the serpent connections are valid. What the NASB translates as “scale armor” is used of “scales” of animals in all its other uses. I can see the striking of the head and the cutting off of the head evoking Genesis 3:15. Some of the connections Schreiner makes in this section are a stretch. David being sent by his father to his brothers, bringing bread, is not, I think, typological. David as a type of the Messiah and Goliath as a seed of the serpent could be author-intended typology that was accessible to original readers. Some of the other connections Schreiner is trying to make (like the bringing of bread could not have been author-intended typology or accessible to the original readers). 

5. I’m not opposed to making moral application to individual Christians from this passage. Some of his applications are valid. For instance, the need to trust the Lord and the importance of recalling the Lord’s past faithfulness are valid applications.  But Schreiner also moves back to his flawed amor = self-reliance symbolism. Making Goliath a symbol of personal vices and the stone a symbol of “repentance, prayer, and reliance of the Spirit” do not have textual warrant. There is something that could be done with the vice of pride. That is a theme of both this narrative and the book of Samuel as a whole. But it wouldn’t be addressed the way Schreiner is doing it.

6. Given my willingness to see a typological aspect to the David and Goliath story, I’m not opposed to seeing it prefigure the final victory of Christ over Satan. Indeed, that is inherent in the typology. But again, Schreiner over-eggs the details. Many of them lack textual warrant. 

7. Schriener concludes by claiming, “But if an interpreter stays ruthlessly tied to authorial intent, literary structure, and canonical fulfillment, rather than viewing this as a type of reader-response interpretation, then many missteps can be avoided. To put this another way, a fourfold reading must be found within the text.” The problem is, this did not characterize historical practitioners of the Quadriga, and Schriener in this very post is positing readings that are not rooted in the text or ruthlessly tied to authorial intent. 

8. The Reformation opposed the Quadriga. (See The Reformation and the Fourfold Sense of Scripture). Instead of trying to repristinate the Quadriga, it would be better to insist that redemptive-historical readings of the text also be accompanied with personal application and to encourage sensitivity to authorially intended, textually rooted typology. 

See also

Notes on Leithart’s Deep Exegesis

Mitchell Chase, 40 Questions about Typology and Allegory

Fall 2025 issue of the Journal of Biblical Theology and Worldview released

by

The newest issue of the BJU Seminary journal has been released.

I wrote a review critiquing Simon Kennedy’s book Against Worldview. Here is my concluding paragraph:

Simon Kennedy is correct that the term worldview has proliferated in discussions of Christian education. There is certainly much that flies under the banner of worldview that deserves critique, and some of Kennedy’s critiques legitimately apply to some who claim the worldview label. Nonetheless, Kennedy’s critique falls short on three grounds. First, he has not substantively engaged the thought of the best worldview thinkers. Second, his protest against the intrusion of worldview into the academic subjects and his assertion of the Bible’s irrelevance to much of academic life reveals a superficial approach to the application of Bible to life as well as lack of awareness regarding the theological issues raised in the teaching of the various academic disciplines. Third, Kennedy’s rejection of the antithesis between the wisdom of God and the wisdom of the world is an overreaction to the apologetic emphasis of some worldview thinkers.  

I would also commend Layton Talbert’s article, “A Proverb in the Hand Is Worth Two in the Bush: A Hermeneutical Proposal for Handling Biblical Proverbs.” This article is especially helpful for thinking through what kinds of proverbs may have exceptions and which do not.

Thoughts on Proverbs 1:8–19

by

These verses form the first section of Proverbs after the Prologue. It begins with the words “Hear, my son,” and the phrase “my son” is repeated three times in this section: vv. 8, 10, 15. Thus Proverbs opens with instruction from a father and mother to a son. More particularly, it opens with instruction from the Davidic king to the Davidic son.

Steinmann argues that there are ten of these “my son” sections in Proverbs 1–9: “(1) 1:8-19; (2) 2:1-22; (3) 3:1-20; (4) 3:21-35; (5) 4:10-19; (6) 4:20-27;(7) 5:1-23; (8) 6:1-19; (9) 6:20-35; and (10) 7:1-27” (Steinmann, ConcC, 61). He excludes 4:1–9 from this count on the grounds that sons, plural, are addressed. I don’t find this entirely convincing. And yet, there is something different about 4:1–9. Much of this section is a quotation of the father’s father’s instructions. Also, the latter verses of the section are similar to a personified wisdom section (e.g., “love her, and she will guard you,” “She will honor you if you embrace her,” etc.). Perhaps Steinmann is correct, and perhaps these ten addresses are intended to evoke the Decalogue.

In any event, the command not to murder is the first command of the second table of the law after the transitional command about obedience to parents. Thus, it is notable that after an exhortation to obey the fifth commandment (1:8-9), the father speaks to his son regarding the sixth commandment.

Thoughts on Proverbs 1:7

by

I owe the following insights to a conversation with Bryan Smith:

יִרְאַ֣ת יְ֭הוָה רֵאשִׁ֣ית דָּ֑עַת חָכְמָ֥ה וּ֝מוּסָ֗ר אֱוִילִ֥ים בָּֽזוּ׃

Note that the first and last words of the verse relate to dispositions: fear and despise.

Note that there is no waw after the athnach. It is possible, this being poetry, that “knowledge, wisdom, and instruction” should be read together as applying to both those who fear Yhwh and those who are fools who despise: “Fear of Yhwh is the beginning of knowledge, wisdom, and instruction; fools despise knowledge, wisdom, and instruction.” Subsequent verses indicate that fools hate knowledge (דַּעַת, Prv 1:22, 29).

This kind of thick, poetic meaning is the kind of thing one would expect in the thesis statement for the book.

Notably, Bruce Waltke says something similar:

The punctuation of the MT in this verse creates an enjambment. The parallel in 1:2a suggests that knowledge (da’at) in v. 7a spills over into wisdom (hokmâ) and instruction (mûsār) in verset B. Mutatis mutandis, “wisdom and instruction” in verset B spill over into “knowledge” in verset A. Fools (wîlîm; see pp. 112 13), however, are incapable of this prerequisite for understanding the sage’s teaching and knowing wisdom, for they willfully make the corrupt moral choice to refuse the sage’s moral teachings.

Waltke, NICOT, 1:181.

Three Views on the Rapture, 2nd edition on Sale

by

Amazon has the second edition of Three Views on the Rapture on sale today. Criag Blaising defends the pretribulational position, Alan Hultberg the prewrath position, and Doug Moo the postribulational position.

In the first edition, I thought that Doug Moo had the strongest argued essay even though I was not ultimately persuaded of his position. Moo’s essay is updated and reprised in this edition. The essays by Blaising and Hultberg are new to this edition. I think Blaising’s essay is the strongest defense of pretribulationalism that I’ve read. Also, though Blaising was a pioneer of Progressive Dispensationalism, he constructed his argument in a way that it does not rely on any specifically dispensational commitments.

Related:

Review of Three Views on the Rapture by Craig Blaising, Alan Hultberg, and Douglas J. Moo
Resources on the Pretribulation Rapture

Thoughts on the Purposes of Proverbs according to Proverbs 1:2–7

by

  • The first purpose is general: to know wisdom and instruction. Note the three words knowledge, wisdom, and instruction all appear in verse 7, creating an inclusio.
  • The second purpose is “to understand words of understanding.” This parallels verse 6, “to understand a proverb and a saying, the words of the wise and their riddles,” which indicates that the “words of understanding” = proverbs, sayings, words of the wise, and riddles of the wise.
  • The third purpose is to receive instruction in wise dealing, which is explicated as righteousness, justice, and equity. Thus wisdom involves not just the mind (to know, to understand) but also action (righteousness, justice, and equity) (Brown, “Righteousness, Justice, and Rectitude,” in The Old Testament Yesterday and Today: Essays in Honor of Michael P. V. Barrett, 202). These words also clarify that wisdom is not just cunning (Waltke, NICOT, 1:177).
  • The fourth purpose highlights and audience “to the simple”, “to the youth.” They especially need prudence, knowledge, and discretion.
  • Verse 5 breaks the pattern with a command. The command is addressed to the wise. This is a second audience. They have learning, but they are to increase in it. They understand, but they still need guidance.
  • This fifth purpose is directed at the wise. They need to understand a proverb, a saying, the words of the wise and the riddles of the wise. This links back to 2b, but it is an advance upon “words of insight.”
  • The prologue comes to a climax in verse 7.

Thoughts on the Study Assistant in Logos 46

by

Logos 46 has now been released, and the new main feature is Study Assistant, an AI tool with the familiar chat interface found in ChatGPT or Copilot.

Previous versions of Logos have made use of AI in different tools. For instance, a smart search with the search tool will generate an AI generate synopsis of the topic being searched.

Below the synopsis is the normal listing of resources. Hovering the mouse to the right of the resource title will reveal a summarize button which will provide an AI generated summary of the resource.

I find these summaries genuinely helpful in choosing which resources to dig into.

Often AI is used in a way that hinders true education. Instead of doing personal research and writing, this task is outsourced to the computer. The computer not only produces an inferior product, but the human person fails to grow his abilities to research and write. This summarize feature avoids this trap by being a means toward finding the best resources rather than serving as a substitute for research.

The other danger of finding answers from AI chatbots is unreliable sourcing. A chatbot that draws on the entire internet is bound to draw on poor sources. The Study Assistant in Logos, which is an expansion of the synopsis feature in search (note the Continue in Study Assistant button that now appears below the synopsis), mitigates that problem by drawing on a more select number of resources.

The Study Assistant advances upon the search tool in allowing for continued interaction. For instance, here is a query that I generated in the Study Assistant:

One of the current limitations of the Study Assistant is that it limits itself to around four to five resources. They are not always the resources that I would select as the most reliable or most fitting for the question asked.

In this case I followed my query with an attempt to pull in additional sources:

The attempt was not entirely successful. The same resources were used with an additional one added to the mix. I then refined the query by specifying a particular author.

This example shows how the Study Assistant advances upon the synopsis provided in smart searches, but it also reveals some of the limitations of the Study Assistant.

For instance, I would like to be able to delimit the Study Assistant’s search to one of the collections I’ve made using the Collections tool. The Study Assistant does not seem able to do this at present (see the query below), though this is the kind of feature that I would expect to see added in the future.

Note also, that while the first source is an excellent source I probably have other resources in Logos that are more pertinent to the question that I posed than Phillps’s commentary on John (though Phillips does discuss John Flavel’s teaching about the covenant of redemption on p. 408. However, what I really wanted was a ransacking of my Puritan volumes on the topic of the covenant of redemption. Perhaps in a future release. This is, after all, the first version of a new tool.

The Study Assistant also has some built in limitations that are wise. For instance, the Study Assistant won’t write a sermon or a research paper.

All-in-all the Study Assistant is a new tool that shows some promise. It is an improvement over asking these kinds of questions of a generic AI chatbot. Even in the instance above where I complained a bit about the Study Assistant not returning quite the resources I wanted, the resources presented were still superior to resources on the open web. In addition, there was usually a top-quality resource in the mix. I hope the next step will be to allow greater user control over the sources the assistant draws upon.

Isaiah 7:14

by

1. The sign given must be something “as deep as Sheol or as high as heaven” (7:11; Minnick, Sermon on 18 Dec 11; Mackay, EPSC, 204; Rydelnik, 818). It is a notable thing to which Isaiah can say, “Behold!” A young woman having a son is not a sign of this nature.

2. The term עַלְמָה refers to “a young unmarried woman who is a virgin.” This sense “fits all seven uses and can be denied in none of them” (Compton, 8; cf. Motyer, Isaiah, 84–85; Hess, Song, BCOT, 51; Rydelnik, 820-21). The LXX confirms this understanding of the Hebrew by translating with a word that unambigously means virigin. Thus the sign in Isaiah 7:14 is that a virigin will be pregnnat. (On the term בְתוּלָה referring to a maiden but not necessarily a virgin, see Wenham, “A Girl of Marriageable Age” VT 22.3 (Jul 1972); Bush, Ruth, WBC, 361; Adele Berlin, Lamentations, OTL, 122).

3. There is a parallel between the sign in Isaiah 7:14–16 and the oracle that accompanies Maher-shalal-hash-baz in 8:3–4. Before each boy reaches a certain age, Syria and Israel will be eliminated as a threat. However, Maher-shalal-hash-baz cannot be the Son of Isaiah 7:14

3.1. Isaiah’s wife (the prophetess) is not a virgin; Isaiah already has a son, Shear-jashub (Compton, 9).

3.2. Isaiah 8:4  seems to refer to events that took place in 732 BC, when Assyria defeated Israel and Assyria and took captives (1 Kings 15:29; 16:9). However, the kingdom of Israel continued for some time, so Isaiah 7:16 may refer to the fall of the kingdom in 722 BC (1 Kings 17:6). Note: The statement  in Isa. 7:8 that within 65 years “Ephraim will be shattered, so that it is no longer a people” (NASB) seems to have been fulfilled in  671 BC (1 Kings 17:2).

3.3. Immanuel also appears in Isaiah 8:8. The land is identified as “your land, O Immanuel,” which links Immanuel to the Davidic royal line and thus distinguishes him from Maher-shalal-hash-baz, the son of Isaiah.

4. The name Immanuel, God with us, points to this Son truly being God with us. This is especially the case within the context of Isaiah 2–12. In chapter 2 Yhwh was said to reign from Zion, in chapter 4 the branch (a Davidic title; 11:1) is implied to rule in Zion, in chapter 7 the birth of a child who is named God with us is prophesied, in 8:8 Immanuel is said to be the possessor of the land (implying a kingly role), in 9:7 a Davidic king who is called “Mighty God” is promised, and in Isiaah 11 the Spirit-empowered Davidic king rules over all the nations with justice. Thus, within this section of Isaiah, the reader should be primed to see the birth of a child, in connection with the Davidic covenant, who is also identified as God.

Conclusion: Isaiah 7:14 is a direct messianic prophecy.

• The most significant challenge to the direct messianic prophecy view is the claim that Immanuel must be a certain age before the lands of Israel and Syria are deserted. There are two options here:

1. Even though Immanual is born many years after these events, the time frame of “before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good” is abstracted from his actual life an applied to the period between this prophecy and the conquest of Israel and Damascus in 732 BC (1 Kings 15:29; 16:9) or fall of Israel in 722 BC (1 Kings 17:6).

1.1. In support of this view, it is important to note that there are two threats that Isaiah is addressing. The threat to the Davidic house, addressed with plural pronouns to the whole house of David (7:14–15). The threat to Ahaz’s kingdom, addressed singularly to Ahaz (7:16–17) (Compton, 11–12; cf. Rydelink, 818).

1.2. The birth of Immanuel addresses the first threat; the time frame addresses the second threat.  This provides a rational for abstracting the time frame from the actual life of Immanuel.

2. Because Ahaz lacked faith, the fulfillment of the sign will take place many years after the events. It will be long “before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good” that the lands of Israel and Syria will be deserted.

2.1 There are two types of signs in Scripture: (1) Present persuader (Ex. 4:8),  (2) Future confirmation (Ex. 3:12).

2.2. Ahaz was offered a sign that would be a present persuader in verse 11, but due to his unbelief the sign given is a future confirmation (Jaeggli, Lecture, 20 January 2006). 

At present I’m inclined toward option 1.