Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary
Isaiah 7:15

Clarke's Commentary

Verse Isaiah 7:15. That he may know - "When he shall know"] "Though so much has been written on this important passage, there is an obscurity and inconsequence which still attends it, in the general run of all the interpretations given to it by the most learned. And this obscure incoherence is given to it by the false rendering of a Hebrew particle, viz., ל le, in לדעתו ledato. This has been generally rendered, either 'that he may know,' or 'till he know.' It is capable of either version, without doubt; but either of these versions makes Isaiah 7:15 incoherent and inconsistent with Isaiah 7:16. For Isaiah 7:16 plainly means to give a reason for the assertion in Isaiah 7:15, because it is subjoined to it by the particle כי ki, for. But it is no reason why a child should eat butter and honey till he was at an age to distinguish, that before that time the land of his nativity should be free from its enemies. This latter supposition indeed implies, what is inconsistent with the preceding assertion. For it implies, that in part of that time of the infancy spoken of the land should not be free from enemies, and consequently these species of delicate food could not be attainable, as they are in times of peace. The other version, 'that he may know,' has no meaning at all; for what sense is there in asserting, that a child shall eat butter and honey that he may know to refuse evil and choose good? Is there any such effect in this food? Surely not. Besides, the child is thus represented to eat those things, which only a state of peace produces, during its whole infancy, inconsistently with Isaiah 7:16, which promises a relief from enemies only before the end of this infancy: implying plainly, that part of it would be passed in distressful times of war and siege, which was the state of things when the prophecy was delivered.

"But all these objections are cut off, and a clear, coherent sense is given to this passage, by giving another sense to the particle ל le. which never occurred to me till I saw it in Harmer's Observat., vol. i., p. 299. See how coherent the words of the prophet run, with how natural a connection one clause follows another, by properly rendering this one particle: 'Behold this Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and thou shalt call his name Immanuel; butter and honey, shall he eat, when he shall know to refuse evil, and choose good. For before this child shall know to refuse evil and choose good, the land shall be desolate, by whose two kings thou art distressed.' Thus Isaiah 7:16 subjoins a plain reason why the child should eat butter and honey, the food of plentiful times, when he came to a distinguishing age; viz., because before that time the country of the two kings, who now distressed Judea, should be desolated; and so Judea should recover that plenty which attends peace. That this rendering, which gives perspicuity and rational connection to the passage, is according to the use of the Hebrew particle, is certain. Thus לפנות בקר liphnoth boker, 'at the appearing of morning, or when morning appeared,' Exodus 14:27; לעת האכל leeth haochel, 'at mealtime, or when it was time to eat,' Ruth 2:14. In the same manner, לדעתו ledato, 'at his knowing, that is, when he knows.'

"Harmer (ibid.) has clearly shown that these articles of food are delicacies in the East, and, as such, denote a state of plenty. See also Joshua 5:6. They therefore naturally express the plenty of the country, as a mark of peace restored to it. Indeed, in Isaiah 7:22 it expresses a plenty arising from the thinness of the people; but that it signifies, Isaiah 7:15, a plenty arising from deliverance from war then present, is evident; because otherwise there is no expression of this deliverance. And that a deliverance was intended to be here expressed is plain, from calling the child which should be born Immanuel, God with us. It is plain, also, because it is before given to the prophet in charge to make a declaration of the deliverance, Isaiah 7:3-7; and it is there made; and this prophecy must undoubtedly be conformable to that in this matter." - Dr. Jubb.

The circumstance of the child's eating butter and honey is explained by Jarchi, as denoting a state of plenty: "Butter and honey shall this child eat, because our land shall be full of all good." Comment in locum. The infant Jupiter, says Callimachus, was tenderly nursed with goat's milk and honey. Hymn, in Jov. 48. Homer, of the orphan daughters of Pandareus: -

Κομισσε δε δι' Αφροδιτη

Τυρῳ και μελιτι γλυκερῳ, και ἡδει οινῳ.

ODYSS. XX., 68.

"Venus in tender delicacy rears

With honey, milk, and wine, their infant years."

POPE.

Τρυφης εστιν ενδειξις; "This is a description of delicate food," says Eustathius on the place.

Agreeably to the observations communicated by the learned person above mentioned, which perfectly well explain the historical sense of this much disputed passage, not excluding a higher secondary sense, the obvious and literal meaning of the prophecy is this: "that within the time that a young woman, now a virgin, should conceive and bring forth a child, and that child should arrive at such an age as to distinguish between good and evil, that is, within a few years, (compare Isaiah 8:4,) the enemies of Judah should be destroyed." But the prophecy is introduced in so solemn a manner; the sign is so marked, as a sign selected and given by God himself, after Ahaz had rejected the offer of any sign of his own choosing out of the whole compass of nature; the terms of the prophecy are so peculiar, and the name of the child so expressive, containing in them much more than the circumstances of the birth of a common child required, or even admitted; that we may easily suppose that, in minds prepared by the general expectation of a great Deliverer to spring from the house of David, they raised hopes far beyond what the present occasion suggested; especially when it was found, that in the subsequent prophecy, delivered immediately afterward, this child, called Immanuel, is treated as the Lord and Prince of the land of Judah. Who could this be, other than the heir of the throne of David; under which character a great and even a Divine person had been promised? No one of that age answered to this character except Hezekiah; but he was certainly born nine or ten years before the delivery of this prophecy. That this was so understood at that time is collected, I think, with great probability, from a passage of Micah, a prophet contemporary with Isaiah, but who began to prophesy after him; and who, as I have already observed, imitated him, and sometimes used his expressions. Micah, having delivered that remarkable prophecy which determines the place of the birth of Messiah, "the Ruler of God's people, whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting;" that it should be Bethlehem Ephratah; adds immediately, that nevertheless, in the mean time, God would deliver his people into the hands of their enemies: "He will give them up, till she, who is to bear a child, shall bring forth," Micah 5:3. This obviously and plainly refers to some known prophecy concerning a woman to bring forth a child; and seems much more properly applicable to this passage of Isaiah than to any others of the same prophet, to which some interpreters have applied it. St. Matthew, therefore, in applying this prophecy to the birth of Christ, does it, not merely in the way of accommodating the words of the prophet to a suitable case not in the prophet's view, but takes it in its strictest, clearest, and most important sense; and applies it according to the original design and principal intention of the prophet. - L.

After all this learned criticism, I think something is still wanting to diffuse the proper light over this important prophecy. On Matthew 1:23 I have given what I judge to be the true meaning and right application of the whole passage, as there quoted by the evangelist, the substance of which it will be necessary to repeat here: -

At the time referred to, the kingdom of Judah, under the government of Ahaz, was reduced very low. Pekah, king of Israel, had slain in Judea one hundred and twenty thousand persons in one day; and carried away captives two hundred thousand, including women and children, together with much spoil. To add to their distress, Rezin, king of Syria, being confederate with Pekah, had taken Elath, a fortified city of Judah, and carried the inhabitants away captive to Damascus. In this critical conjuncture, need we wonder that Ahaz was afraid that the enemies who were now united against him must prevail, destroy Jerusalem, end the kingdom of Judah, and annihilate the family of David? To meet and remove this fear, apparently well grounded, Isaiah is sent from the Lord to Ahaz, swallowed up now both by sorrow and by unbelief, in order to assure him that the counsels of his enemies should not stand; and that they should be utterly discomfited. To encourage Ahaz, he commands him to ask a sign or miracle, which should be a pledge in hand, that God should, in due time, fulfill the predictions of his servant, as related in the context. On Ahaz humbly refusing to ask any sign, it is immediately added, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son; and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat," c. Both the Divine and human nature of our Lord, as well as the miraculous conception, appear to be pointed out in the prophecy quoted here by the evangelist: He shall be called עמנואל IMMANU-EL literally, The STRONG GOD WITH US: similar to those words in the New Testament: The word which was God - was made flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; John 1:1; John 1:14. And God was manifested in the flesh, 1 Timothy 3:16. So that we are to understand God with us to imply, God incarnated - God in human nature. This seems farther evident from the words of the prophet, Isaiah 7:15: Butter and honey shall he eat - he shall be truly man - grow up and be nourished in a human natural way; which refers to his being WITH US, i.e., incarnated. To which the prophet adds, That he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good; or rather, According to his knowledge, לדעתו ledato, reprobating the evil, and choosing the good; this refers to him as GOD, and is the same idea given by this prophet, Isaiah 53:11: By (or in) his knowledge, בדעתו bedato, (the knowledge of Christ crucified,) shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their offenses. Now this union of the Divine and human nature is termed a sign or miracle, אות oth, i.e., something which exceeds the power of nature to produce. And this miraculous union was to be brought about in a miraculous way: Behold, a VIRGIN shall conceive: the word is very emphatic, העלמה haalmah, THE virgin; the only one that ever was, or ever shall be, a mother in this way. But the Jews, and some called Christians, who have espoused their desperate cause, assert that "the word עלמה almah does not signify a VIRGIN only; for it is applied Proverbs 30:19 to signify a young married woman." I answer, that this latter text is no proof of the contrary doctrine: the words דרך גבר בעלמה derech geber bealmah, the way of a man with a maid, cannot be proved to mean that for which it is produced. Besides, one of De Rossi's MSS. reads בעלמיו bealmaiv, the way of a strong or stout man (גבר geber) IN HIS YOUTH; and in this reading the Syriac, Septuagint, Vulgate, and Arabic agree; which are followed by the first version in the English language, as it stands in a MS. in my own possession: the weie of a man in his waxing youth: so that this place, the only one that can with any probability of success be produced, were the interpretation contended for correct, which I am by no means disposed to admit, proves nothing. Besides, the consent of so many versions in the opposite meaning deprives it of much of its influence in this question.

The word עלמה almah, comes from עלם alam, to lie hid, be concealed: and we are told, that "virgins were so called, because they were concealed or closely kept up in their father's houses till the time of their marriage." This is not correct: see the case of Rebecca, Genesis 24:43, and my note there; Genesis 24:43; that of Rachel, Genesis 29:6-9, and the note there also; and see the case of Miriam, the sister of Moses, Exodus 2:8, and also the Chaldee paraphrase on Lamentations 1:4, where the virgins are represented as going out in the dance. And see also the whole history of Ruth. This being concealed or kept at home, on which so much stress is laid, is purely fanciful; for we find that young unmarried women drew water, kept sheep, gleaned publicly in the fields, c., c., and the same works they perform among the Turcomans to the present day. This reason, therefore, does not account for the radical meaning of the word and we must seek it elsewhere. Another well-known and often-used root in the Hebrew tongue will cast light on this subject. This is גלה galah, which signifies to reveal, make manifest, or uncover and is often applied to matrimonial connections in different parts of the Mosaic law: עלם alam, therefore, may be considered as implying the concealment of the virgin, as such, till lawful, marriage had taken place. A virgin was not called עלמה almah, because she was concealed by being kept at home in her father's house, which is not true; but, literally and physically, because as a woman she had not been uncovered - she had not known man. This fully applies to the blessed virgin, see Luke 1:34. "How can this be, seeing I know no man?" And this text throws much light on the subject before us. This also is in perfect agreement with the ancient prophecy, "The seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the serpent," Genesis 3:15; for the person who was to destroy the work of the devil was to be the progeny of the woman, without any concurrence of the man. And hence the text in Genesis speaks as fully of the virgin state of the person from whom Christ, according to the flesh, should come, as that in the prophet, or this in the evangelist. According to the original promise there was to be a seed, a human being, who should destroy sin: but this seed or human being, must come from the woman ALONE; and no woman ALONE could produce such a human being without being a virgin. Hence, A virgin shall bear a son, is the very spirit and meaning of the original text, independently of the illustration given by the prophet; and the fact recorded by the evangelist is the proof of the whole. But how could that be a sign to Ahaz, which was to take place so many hundreds of years after? I answer, the meaning of the prophet is plain: not only Rezin and Pekah should be unsuccessful against Jerusalem at that time, which was the fact; but Jerusalem, Judea, and the house of David should be both preserved, notwithstanding their depressed state, and the multitude of their adversaries, till the time should come when a VIRGIN should bear a son. This is a most remarkable circumstance - the house of David could never fail, till a virgin should conceive and bear a son - nor did it: but when that incredible and miraculous fact did take place, the kingdom and house of David became extinct! This is an irrefragable confutation of every argument a Jew can offer in vindication of his opposition to the Gospel of Christ. Either the prophecy in Isaiah has been fulfilled, or the kingdom and house of David are yet standing. But the kingdom of David, we know, is destroyed: and where is the man, Jew or Gentile, that can show us a single descendant of David on the face of the earth? The prophecy could not fail: the kingdom and house of David have failed; the virgin, therefore, must have brought forth her son, and this son is Jesus, the Christ. Thus Moses, Isaiah, and Matthew concur; and facts the most unequivocal have confirmed the whole! Behold the wisdom and providence of God!

Notwithstanding what has been said above, it may be asked, In what sense could this name, Immanuel, be applied to Jesus Christ, if he be not truly and properly GOD? Could the Spirit of truth ever design that Christians should receive him as an angel or a mere man; and yet, in the very beginning of the Gospel history, apply a character to him which belongs only to the most high God? Surely no. In what sense, then, is Christ GOD WITH US? Jesus is called Immanuel, or God with us, in his incarnation; God united to our nature; God with man, God in man; God with us, by his continual protection; God with us, by the influences of his Holy Spirit, in the holy sacrament, in the preaching of his word, in private prayer. And God with us, through every action of our life, that we begin, continue, and end in his name. He is God with us, to comfort, enlighten, protect, and defend us, in every time of temptation and trial, in the hour of death, in the day of judgment; and God with us and in us, and we with and in him, to all eternity.

Bridgeway Bible Commentary

7:1-12:6 JUDAH IN THE REIGN OF AHAZ

Chapters 7-12 belong to the reign of Ahaz, when Pekah the king of Israel and Rezin the king of Syria (Aram) joined forces to attack Ahaz, with the aim of forcing Judah into their anti-Assyrian alliance. Before reading these chapters, readers should be familiar with the historical background given in the introduction under the heading ‘Israel and Syria attack Judah’.

Isaiah’s message for Ahaz (7:1-25)

When the Judean king Ahaz hears of the approach of the Israelite-Syrian army, he and all his people are terrified (7:1-2). While Ahaz is inspecting Jerusalem’s water supply in preparation for the siege, Isaiah meets him and points out that he need not fear Israel or Syria, nor need he ask Assyria for help. God is on the side of Judah. Pekah and Rezin plan to conquer Judah and put their own king on Judah’s throne, but they will not succeed. They think they can overthrow Judah in a fiery conquest, but they are no more dangerous than the smoke from two smouldering sticks (3-6). Israel and Syria, along with their kings, are nearing the end of their existence. If Ahaz believes God he has nothing to fear; but if he does not, nothing will save him (7-9).
(Only three years after this prophecy, Syria fell to Assyria, and ten years later so did Israel. Within 65 years of Isaiah’s prophecy, people of the former northern kingdom had become so scattered that they no longer had any national identity; see v. 8b.)
God then invites Ahaz to ask for a sign as an assurance of God’s help. Ahaz responds with an attempt to appear religious, by saying that he will not put God to the test (10-12).
Whether Ahaz asks for a sign or not, God promises to give one. Ahaz will have reassurance that God is with Judah when he hears of the birth of a child whose mother has named him Immanuel (meaning ‘God with us’). By the time this child is two or three years old, Israel and Syria will be powerless to trouble Judah further. But at the same time Judah will be troubled by a different enemy, the nation Assyria. There will be extensive damage, particularly to the farmlands. Crops will be ruined and the people will have to rely on animals and insects for their food (13-17; see also notes on 9:1-7 below).
Armies from Egypt and Assyria will invade Judah, covering the the land like insects and leaving it bare and fruitless (18-20). With all the crops destroyed, cultivated land will become wild again. The scattered inhabitants who remain will wander from place to place with their few animals, living off the products of these animals and any other wild food they can find (21-25).

Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible

“And Jehovah spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of Jehovah thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt Jehovah. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; is it a small thing for you to weary men, that ye will weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good, For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou abhorrest shall be forsaken. Jehovah will bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy fathers house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah - even the king of Assyria.”

The first two verses of this paragraph record God’s offer to provide a sign (presumably a miraculous sign) to strengthen the faith of Ahaz, even offering him the choice of what it might be; but hypocritical Ahaz, having already made up his mind to reject God’s counsel, refused to ask, pretending that he did not wish to tempt Jehovah. Of course, he referred to such passages in the Law as that found in Deuteronomy 6:6; but it would not have been `tempting God’ for him to accept God’s offer.

Some believe that, in spite of Ahaz’ unbelieving and hypocritical refusal to cooperate with God in the matter of a miraculous sign, God went ahead and gave him the sign of The Virgin anyway; but we shall explore that possibility later in our special notes on The Virgin. Notice the dramatic shift from “thy” God (Isaiah 7:11) to “my” God (Isaiah 7:13). Notice also that the same Isaiah 7:13 is the place where the prophet ceased from addressing King Ahaz and addressed, instead, the whole House of David. Notice also that the pronoun “he” in Isaiah 7:13 is a reference to Isaiah, not Ahaz.

BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL CONCEIVE AND BEAR A SON - Isaiah 7:10.

This extremely important prophecy is one of the most discussed and debated in the entire Old Testament.; and we wish to begin by our confident allegation that here indeed is a true prophecy of the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ our Lord, who in the only true sense, must be hailed as the unique example of one truly entitled to be called “God with us.” We are familiar with all the objections that evil and unbelieving men have made against this view, and these shall be noted later in this discussion. Here are the reasons for our own confidence in the true meaning of the prophecy.

1.    Note that the prophecy does not say “a virgin,” but “The Virgin” (consult marginal notes on this), a title that could hardly belong to anyone ever born except the Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus. The silly objection that the ultimate fulfillment of this was too far removed to do Ahaz any good is worthless, because it was not designed to do Ahaz any good. That evil man had already refused to see a sign from God; and the notion that God forced the issue and gave him a sign anyway is ridiculous. This sign was for “the House of David,” not for Ahaz.

2.    The Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ the Son of God is the unique and only authenticated example of such an occurrence in the history of the human race; and it was verified by medical testimony and by the unanimous testimony of the first century of the Christian era, the gospels themselves being just about the most historical documents known to mankind; and the apostle Matthew cited this prophecy as a predictive announcement of Christ’s birth. No arrogant and conceited modern seminarian has any right or ability whatever to contradict the testimony of an inspired apostle of Jesus Christ on a subject like this.

3.    But, how about the word [~`almah]? Does it not have a possible meaning of “young woman”; and could the allegation of unbelievers such as Peake be true? He wrote that, “The rendering `virgin’ here is unjustifiable; the Hebrew word employed here means a young woman of marriageable age, without any suggestion that she is not married.”Arthur S. Peake, A Commentary on the Bible, Isaiah (London: T. C. and E. C. Jack, Ltd., 1924), p. 442.

To begin with, this alleged meaning of “[~`almah]” is a disputed matter; but even if the critical rendition of it should be allowed, it could not possibly obscure the true meaning of the word which is “virgin.”

A fact apparently unknown to critical enemies of God’s Word is that the true meaning of any word must finally be determined, not by any etymological data, but by the USAGE of it. Look at the following: hamburgers are not made out of ham; trotlines do not trot; catheads have nothing to do with cats, and a horse-cock reamer has nothing to do with horses! Ask anybody in the oil business!

All right, now let us take a look at the usage of [~`almah]. We are indebted to Homer Hailey for the following summary on the usage of [~`almah] in God’s Word:

“This word was never used of a married woman, nor of an immoral woman. This word occurs six times in Biblical passages in addition to the one before us. In every instance, the word refers to an unmarried, chaste woman. (1) In Genesis 24:43, Rebekah is called [~`almah], and also [~bethuwlah], a woman whom no man had known (Genesis 24:16). (2) In Exodus 2:8, Moses’ sister, Miriam, in her childhood is called [~`almah]. (3) and (4) Twice in the Song of Solomon it refers to a chorus of young women (Song of Solomon 1:3) distinguished from Solomon’s queens and concubines (Song of Solomon 6:8). (5) And in Proverbs 30:19 it refers to a maiden in contrast to an adulterous woman. (6) In Psalms 68:25 the word describes the damsels who played timbrels in the sanctuary; and any assumption that those damsels were anything but virgins is impossible.”Homer Hailey, A Commentary on Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), p. 84.

Remember that there are no Biblical examples of where the word [~`almah] ever referred to anyone except a virgin in the usual sense of the word. That accounts for the existence of the next argument we shall cite, that is, No. 4. below.

4.    Two hundred fifty years before Christ was born, the Septuagint (LXX) version of the Hebrew Scriptures was translated into the Greek language by seventy of the most renowned scholars on earth, their number being reflected in the symbol for that version. A copy of the LXX is before this writer as this paragraph is written. How did they translate this verse 14? Here it is:

“O house of David… Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Immanuel.”Sir Launcelot, C. L. Brenton, The Septuagint (LXX) Version: Greek and English (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), p. 842.

Thus the great scholars who gave us the Hebrew Bible in the Greek language translated the Hebrew [~`almah] with a word that evil men could not possibly misunderstand; and we believe that no group of scholars has yet appeared in human history that outranks the ability and quality of the famed “seventy” who authored the LXX. No Dr. Conceit, or Dr. Smart, or Dr. Anybody else has learned any more about the Hebrew tongue than was most certainly known to the translators of the Septuagint Version of the Bible. In this light we are absolutely certain that the current translators of the Revised Standard Version betrayed the faith when they translated [~`almah] with what is most surely a corrupt rendition, namely,” a young woman.” There is no reason whatever to respect such an erroneous translation. The 20th Century A.D. is not the era in which anyone may expect to find any new information about the meaning of Hebrew words used 2,800 years earlier.

5.    The introduction to this prophecy makes it impossible of misunderstanding. Look at these words: THEREFORE, THE LORD HIMSELF SHALL GIVE YOU A SIGN; BEHOLD, A VIRGIN SHALL CONCEIVE! Can it be imagined for a single moment that such a prelude could appropriately introduce such commonplace information as the fact that some young woman would get pregnant! Ridiculous! Preposterous! Impossible! The information that this would be a tremendous sign from God Himself and which is here preceded by the heavenly order to “Behold!” the marvelous event, has no meaning at all, unless it indicates that an event of world-shaking importance would be indicated by the forthcoming announcement, as indeed it proved to be!

WERE THERE TWO FULFILLMENTS?

The erroneous supposition that there was first an immediate fulfillment of this prophecy given as a sign to Ahaz and that the ultimate remote fulfillment was realized in the birth of Christ is attractive, because many of the prophetic promises of that era were indeed fulfilled twice, a number of which are cited in the New Testament, as in “Rachel weeping for her children” (Matthew 2:18); “Out of Egypt did I call my son” (Matthew 2:15).

Some very respected commentators have accepted this view. For example, Dummelow has this:

“In the first place, the sign must have been intended by Isaiah as a sign of encouragement to Ahaz - meaning that before a child shortly to be born could arrive at the years of observation, the enemies of Judah would be brought to naught.”J.R. Dummelow, J. R. Dummelow’s Commentary, p. 418

There are several considerations that are contrary to this interpretation. First, the child to be born who is referred to here was not just “a child,” but a very special person named IMMANUEL even before he was born! Moreover, the mother was designated as The Virgin, not in any sense, merely “some young woman.” Furthermore, the text indicates that the prophecy was not to Ahaz at all, but to the “House of David.” Ahaz had already refused any sign from God. Dummelow himself admitted the essential truth here as follows:

“At the same time, it is evident that the child is no ordinary one, from the way in which the prophet refers to him as Lord of the land (Isaiah 8:8), and from the titles given to him in Isaiah 9:6. The child is in fact the Messiah.”Ibid.

The notion that this prophecy occurred at this place because of Isaiah’s expectation of the advent of the Messiah in the very near future is quite gratuitous, because the text indicates no such thing. Besides that, let it be remembered that God Himself here spoke through Isaiah, and that it is immaterial what Isaiah might have thought.

THE NECESSITY FOR THE VIRGIN BIRTH

Observe the word Immanuel. It means God with us; and right here is the citadel and fortress of the Christian faith. God entered the ranks of humanity, became a man in the person of his son Jesus Christ, and paid the penalty for human sin, laying upon himself in the person of his Son the iniquity of us all. f All of the nonsense one encounters in such studies as “Comparative Religions” runs completely out of “comparisons” in this very event. In all of the ethnic cults, it is man who always pays. The most valiant young man goes out to fight the dragon, or it is the fairest daughter in the tribe that becomes the sacrifice. It is some Prometheus who is forever chained to the rocks where the vultures eat out his liver; but in the Christian religion, God Himself pays the penalty of redemption.

But consider what this entails. God will become a man? How? Would God kill a man and take his body? All of the unbelievers on earth have never come up with a better suggestion as to how God could become a human being than the plan prophesied and executed in the Holy Bible. Human procreation always produces a new person; but Christ was not a new person! He was present even in Creation (John 1:1 ff). Here in this word Immanuel we have the prophecy of what took place when Christ was born, the same prophecy repeated by Zacharias at a time much closer to the event itself, namely, The Dayspring from on High shall visit us (Luke 1:78)!

Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

Butter and honey - The word rendered “butter” (חמאה chem'âh), denotes not butter, but thick and curdled milk. This was the common mode of using milk as an article of food in the East, and is still. In no passage in the Old Testament does butter seem to be meant by the word. Jarchi says, that this circumstance denotes a state of plenty, meaning that the land should yield its usual increase notwithstanding the threatened invasion. Eustatius on this place says, that it denotes delicate food. The more probable interpretation is, that it was the usual food of children, and that it means that the child should be nourished in the customary manner. That this was the common nourishment of children, is abundantly proved by Bochart; “Hieroz.” P. i. lib. xi. ch. li. p. 630. Barnabas, in his epistle says, ‘The infant is first nourished with honey, and then with milk.’ This was done usually by the prescription of physicians.

Paulus says, ‘It is fit that the first food given to a child be honey, and then milk.’ So Aetius, ‘Give to a child, as its first food, honey;’ see “Bochart.” Some have, indeed, supposed that this refers to the fact that the Messiah should be “man” as well as God, and that his eating honey and butter was expressive of the fact that he had a “human nature!” But against this mode of interpretation, it is hoped, it is scarcely needful now to protest. It is suited to bring the Bible into contempt, and the whole science of exegesis into scorn. The Bible is a book of sense, and it should be interpreted on principles that commend themselves to the sober judgment of mankind. The word rendered “honey” - דבשׁ d^ebash - is the same word - “dibs” - which is now used by the Arabs to denote the syrup or jelly which is made by boiling down wine. This is about the consistence of molasses, and is used as an article of food. Whether it was so employed in the time of Isaiah, cannot now be determined, but the word here may be used to denote honey; compare the note at Isaiah 7:22.

That he may know - As this translation now stands, it is unintelligible. It would “seem” from this, that his eating butter and honey would “contribute” to his knowing good and evil. But this cannot be the meaning. It evidently denotes ‘until he shall know,’ or, ‘at his knowing;’ Nord. “Heb. Gram.,” Section 1026. 3. He shall be no urished in the usual way, “until” he shall arrive at such a period of life as to know good from evil. The Septuagint renders it, Πρινη γνῶναι αὐτὸν Prinē gnōnai auton - ‘before he knows.’ The Chaldee, ‘Until he shall know.’

To refuse the evil ... - Ignorance of good and evil denotes infancy. Thus, in Nineveh, it is said there were ‘more than sixscore thousand perons that cannot discern between their right hand and left hand;’ commonly supposed to denote infants; Jonah 4:11; compare Deuteronomy 1:39. The meaning is, that he should be nourished in the usual mode in infancy, and before he should be able to discern right from wrong, the land should be forsaken of its kings. At what particular period of life this occurs, it may not be easy to determine. A capability to determine, in some degree, between good and evil, or between right and wrong, is usually manifest when the child is two or three years of age. It is evinced when there is a capability of understanding “law,” and feeling that it is wrong to disobey it. This is certainly shown at a very early period of life; and it is not improper, therefore, to suppose that here a time was designated which was not more than two or three years.

Calvin's Commentary on the Bible

15.Butter and honey shall he eat. Here the Prophet proves the true human nature of Christ; for it was altogether incredible that he who was God should be born of a virgin. Such a prodigy was revolting to the ordinary judgment of men. To hinder us from thinking that his fancy now presents to us some apparition, he describes the marks of human nature, in order to show, by means of them, that Christ will actually appear in flesh, or in the nature of man; that is, that he will be reared in the same manner that children commonly are. The Jews had a different way of rearing children from what is followed by us; for they used honey, which is not so customary among us; and to this day they still retain the custom of causing a child to taste butter and honey, as soon as it is born, before receiving suck.

That he may know. That is, until he arrive at that age when he can distinguish between good and evil, or, as we commonly say, till the years of discretion; ל (lamed) denotes the term and period up to which he shall be reared after the manner of a child; and this contributes still more to prove the reality of his nature. He therefore means understanding and judgment, such as is obtained when the period of childhood is past. Thus we see how far the Son of God condescended on our account, so that he not only was willing to be fed on our food, but also, for a time, to be deprived of understanding, and to endure all our weaknesses. (Hebrews 2:14.) This relates to his human nature, for it cannot apply to his Divinity. Of this state of ignorance, in which Christ was for a time, Luke testifies when he says,

And he grew in wisdom, and in stature,
and in favor with God and with man. (Luke 2:52.)

If Luke had merely said that Christ grew, he might have been supposed to mean with men; but he expressly adds, with God. Christ must therefore have been, for a time, like little children, so that, so far as relates to his human nature, he was deficient in understanding.

Smith's Bible Commentary

Chapter 7

Now Uzziah is dead and his grandson Ahaz is reigning.

It came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, the king of Judah, that Rezin was the king of Syria, and Pekah was the son of Remaliah, the king of Israel ( Isaiah 7:1 ),

So Pekah was ruling in Israel. He had assassinated the previous king. And Syria and Israel, the Northern Kingdom, had confederated together to attack Judah, the Southern Kingdom. And so they

came up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but they could not prevail against it. And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria has confederated with Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of the people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind ( Isaiah 7:1-2 ).

In other words, they began to tremble because they said, "Oh, there's a confederacy. Those two nations are coming against us, you know. What are we going to do?"

Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub ( Isaiah 7:3 )

Now Shearjashub means a remnant shall return. That was the name of his son, Shearjashub. Quite a name for a boy, but he's got one with a better name-Mahershalalhashbaz. That's quite a tag to put on a kid, isn't it? And meet them.

[at the conduit,] the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway that is the fuller's field; And say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be faint-hearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin, and because of the son of Remaliah [or Pekah]. Because ( Isaiah 7:3-4 )

Don't be afraid, don't be fainthearted. Just be quiet before God.

Because Syria and Ephraim have taken evil counsel against thee, saying, Let us go up to Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal: Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand ( Isaiah 7:5-7 ),

Their confederacy isn't going to stand.

neither shall it come to pass. For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin [who was the king]; and within sixty-five years Ephraim will be broken, that it be not a people ( Isaiah 7:7-8 ).

So the Northern Kingdom of Israel, of which Ephraim was the chief tribe, in sixty-five years they're not going to exist any longer. And sure enough, within sixty-five years the Assyrians destroyed them.

The head of Ephraim is Samaria ( Isaiah 7:9 ),

That was the capital city of the Northern Kingdom.

and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son ( Isaiah 7:9 ).

Which was Pekah.

If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established ( Isaiah 7:9 ).

Now don't be afraid, don't be fainthearted, God's going to take care of it. The confederacy that they've made against you isn't going to stand. God's going to break it.

Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that you abhor shall be forsaken of both of her kings ( Isaiah 7:10-16 ).

So these kings, Rezin and Pekah, are going to be wiped out.

Now herein is where the prophets wrote as they were inspired of the Holy Spirit, but did not understand the things that they were writing about, and how that he was writing of a local instance, but yet it had a prophetic aspect towards the future. And much of prophecy has a two-fold interpretation. They call it the near and the far. And this is true of much prophecy. In fact, it says that these men wrote of things that they did not understand. Earnestly they desired to know these things of which they wrote. But they really didn't understand but they were writing, inspired of the Holy Spirit.

And in the near prophecy, a child was to be born. Or, before a child born at that period was old enough to know evil, to choose good, or the age of accountability, twelve, thirteen years old, or what he is saying, within twelve or thirteen years, both Pekah and Rezin are going to get wiped out. They'll no longer be reigning over Syria and over Samaria within twelve or thirteen years.

But the prophecy in its long-term was a prophecy of the birth of Jesus Christ in that, "The Lord Himself shall give you a sign. Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." We know that that is a prophecy of Jesus Christ, because it is interpreted by the Holy Spirit in Matthew's gospel, chapter 1, verse Isaiah 7:23 as a prophecy. When it speaks there of how Mary and Joseph were engaged; before they had had relations, Mary was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit, that it might be fulfilled according to the word of the prophet saying, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." So Matthew's gospel, as Matthew writing by the Holy Spirit interprets this passage of scripture. He interprets it to be a prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Now the Hebrew scholar Gesenius who has written a Hebrew lexicon and is recognized as one of the outstanding Hebrew scholars has suggested that the Hebrew word here translated virgin should be translated "a young maiden." You know why he suggests that? Because he said he doesn't believe in miracles and it will be a miracle for a virgin to have a child. And so that's why he said, and that's why he translates this young maiden. And of course, Revised Standard and a lot of the new translations pick up the unbelief of Gesenius and translate this, "a young maiden shall conceive."

Well, what so much of a sign about that? That happens every day. It takes away the whole thrust of the scripture. But a virgin shall conceive. The Greek word that was translated by these seventy scholars who translated the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament 200 years before Christ, they chose to translate this Hebrew word with a Greek word that can only mean virgin. And that God intended virgin is obvious because of Mary. "Therefore, the Lord Himself shall give you a sign. Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Which means, "God is with us." Beautiful name. God is with us.

So that is the far interpretation of this prophecy. The near was that within twelve years a child born now within twelve years, by the time he's age of accountability, knows good from evil, both these kings that have conspired against you will be wiped out, and that was true.

Now he does predict the impending invasion of Judah.

The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house ( Isaiah 7:17 ),

Remember he's talking to Ahaz the king.

days that have not come, upon the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall hiss for the fly that is in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. And they shall come, and shall rest all of them in the desolate valleys, and in the holes of the rocks, and upon all thorns, and upon all bushes. In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired, namely, those that are beyond the river, by the king of Assyria, the head, and the hair of the feet: and it shall also consume the beard ( Isaiah 7:17-20 ).

Now what God is talking about is that God is going to raise up another kingdom, and that is the kingdom of Assyria. And Assyria is going to invade and wipe out Syria. Assyria was over a little further north and east from Syria, and so sometimes people get confused with Syria and Assyria. Syria is going to be destroyed. Here they're planning an invasion, but Syria will be destroyed by Assyria. And God is going to bring Egypt up in an invasion within the land.

And it shall come to pass in that day, that a man shall nourish a young cow and two sheep ( Isaiah 7:21 );

And he speaks of

the abundance of milk that they shall give ( Isaiah 7:22 ),

Actually, because there's not very many people left around, the land, the tilled land is turned into briers and thorns.

And all of the hills will be digged with the mattock, and there shall not come thither the fear of briers and thorns: but it shall be for the sending forth of oxen, and for the treading of lesser cattle ( Isaiah 7:25 ). "

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

The sign of Immanuel 7:10-17

Isaiah next tried to move Ahaz to faith (Isaiah 7:10-12), then denounced the king for his failure to trust Yahweh (Isaiah 7:13-15), and finally forecast a calamity worse than the division of Israel’s United Kingdom (Isaiah 7:16-17).

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

Eating curds (thick, sour milk) and honey, the diet of the poor, pictures a time of poverty in the land (cf. Isaiah 7:22) following the Assyrian invasion that would follow relief from the Syro-Ephraimitic threat. The child born in Ahaz’s day would eat this type of food when he became personally responsible for his decisions, an age that Isaiah left ambiguous intentionally. However, before this child became responsible, both of Judah’s threatening neighbors, Syria and Ephraim, would cease to exist. Assyria invaded Syria and Israel in 733-32 B.C., only a year or two after this prophecy. Damascus fell in 732, and Samaria fell in 722 B.C. Jesus Christ also grew up in the Promised Land when it was under the rule of an oppressive foreign power and when life was hard.

Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible

Butter and honey shall he eat..... As the Messiah Jesus no doubt did; since he was born in a land flowing with milk and honey, and in a time of plenty, being a time of general peace; so that this phrase points at the place where, and the time when, the Messiah should be born, as well as expresses the truth of his human nature, and the manner of his bringing up, which was in common with that of other children. חמאה signifies the "cream of milk", as well as "butter", as Jarchi, in Genesis 18:8, observes; and milk and honey were common food for infants:

that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good; meaning not knowledge of good and bad food, so as to choose the one, and refuse the other; but knowledge of moral good and evil; and this does not design the end of his eating butter and honey, as if that was in order to gain such knowledge, which have no such use and tendency; but the time until which he should live on such food; namely, until he was grown up, or come to years of discretion, when he could distinguish between good and evil; so that as the former phrase shows that he assumed a true body like ours, which was nourished with proper food; this that he assumed a reasonable soul, which, by degrees, grew and increased in wisdom and knowledge; see Luke 2:52. לדעתו should be rendered, "until he knows"; as לפרש in Leviticus 24:12 which the Chaldee paraphrase of Onkelos renders, "until it was declared to them"; and so the Targum here,

"butter and honey shall he eat, while or before the child knows not, or until he knows to refuse the evil, and choose the good.''

Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible

      10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,   11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.   12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.   13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?   14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.   15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.   16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

      Here, I. God, by the prophet, makes a gracious offer to Ahaz, to confirm the foregoing predictions, and his faith in them, by such sign or miracle as he should choose (Isaiah 7:10; Isaiah 7:11): Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; See here the divine faithfulness and veracity. God tells us nothing but what he is able and ready to prove. See his wonderful condescension to the children of men, in that he is so willing to show to the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel,Hebrews 6:17. He considers our frame, and that, living in a world of sense, we are apt to require sensible proofs, which therefore he has favoured us with in sacramental signs and seals. Ahaz was a bad man, yet God is called the Lord his God, because he was a child of Abraham and David, and of the covenants made with them. See how gracious God is even to the evil and unthankful; Ahaz is bidden to choose his sign, as Gideon about the fleece (Judges 6:37); let him ask for a sign in the air, or earth, or water, for God's power is the same in all.

      II. Ahaz rudely refuses this gracious offer, and (which is not mannerly towards any superior) kicks at the courtesy, and puts a slight upon it (Isaiah 7:12; Isaiah 7:12): I will not ask. The true reason why he would not ask for a sign was because, having a dependence upon the Assyrians, their forces, and their gods, for help, he would not thus far be beholden to the God of Israel, or lay himself under obligations to him. He would not ask a sign for the confirming of his faith because he resolved to persist in his unbelief, and would indulge his doubts and distrusts; yet he pretends a pious reason: I will not tempt the Lord; as if it would be a tempting of God to do that which God himself invited and directed him to do. Note, A secret disaffection to God is often disguised with the specious colours of respect to him; and those who are resolved that they will not trust God yet pretend that they will not tempt him.

      III. The prophet reproves him and his court, him and the house of David, the whole royal family, for their contempt of prophecy, and the little value they had for divine revelation (Isaiah 7:13; Isaiah 7:13) "Is it a small thing for you to weary men by your oppression and tyranny, with which you make yourselves burdensome and odious to all mankind? But will you weary my God also with the affronts you put upon him?" As the unjust judge that neither feared God nor regarded man,Luke 18:2. You have wearied the Lord with your words,Malachi 2:17. Nothing is more grievous to the God of heaven than to be distrusted. "Will you weary my God? Will you suppose him to be tired and unable to help you, or to be weary of doing you good? Whereas the youths may faint and be weary, you may have tired all your friends, the Creator of the ends of the earth faints not, neither is weary." Isaiah 40:28-31; Isaiah 40:28-31. Or this: "In affronting the prophets, you think you put a slight only upon men like yourselves, and consider not that you affront God himself, whose messengers they are, and put a slight upon him, who will resent it accordingly." The prophet here calls God his God with a great deal of pleasure: Ahaz would not say, He is my God, though the prophet had invited him to say so (Isaiah 7:11; Isaiah 7:11): The Lord thy God; but Isaiah will say, "He is mine." Note, Whatever others do, we must avouch the Lord for ours and abide by him.

      IV. The prophet, in God's name, gives them a sign: "You will not ask a sign, but the unbelief of man shall not make the promise of God of no effect: The Lord himself shall give you a sign (Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 7:14), a double sign."

      1. "A sign in general of his good-will to Israel and to the house of David. You may conclude it that he has mercy in store for you, and that you are not forsaken of your God, how great soever your present distress and danger are; for of your nation, of your family, the Messiah is to be born, and you cannot be destroyed while that blessing is in you, which shall be introduced," (1.) "In a glorious manner; for, whereas you have been often told that he should be born among you, I am now further to tell you that he shall be born of a virgin, which will signify both the divine power and the divine purity with which he shall be brought into the world,--that he shall be a extraordinary person, for he shall not be born by ordinary generation,--and that he shall be a holy thing, not stained with the common pollutions of the human nature, therefore incontestably fit to have the throne of his father David given him." Now this, though it was to be accomplished above 500 years after, was a most encouraging sign to the house of David (and to them, under that title, this prophecy is directed, Isaiah 7:13; Isaiah 7:13) and an assurance that God would not cast them off. Ephraim did indeed envy Judah (Isaiah 11:13; Isaiah 11:13) and sought the ruin of that kingdom, but could not prevail; for the sceptre should never depart from Judah till the coming of Shiloh, Genesis 49:10. Those whom God designs for the great salvation may take that for a sign to them that they shall not be swallowed up by any trouble they meet with in the way. (2.) The Messiah shall be introduced on a glorious errand, wrapped up in his glorious name: They shall call his name Immanuel--God with us, God in our nature, God at peace with us, in covenant with us. This was fulfilled in their calling him Jesus--a Saviour (Matthew 1:21-25), for, if he had not been Immanuel--God with us, he could not have been Jesus--a Saviour. Now this was a further sign of God's favour to the house of David and the tribe of Judah; for he that intended to work this great salvation among them no doubt would work out for them all those other salvations which were to be the types and figures of this, and as it were preludes to this. "Here is a sign for you, not in the depth nor in the height, but in the prophecy, in the promise, in the covenant made with David, which you are no strangers to. The promised seed shall be Immanuel, God with us; let that word comfort you (Isaiah 8:10; Isaiah 8:10), that God is with us, and (Isaiah 7:8; Isaiah 7:8) that your land is Immanuel's land. Let not the heart of the house of David be moved thus (Isaiah 7:2; Isaiah 7:2), nor let Judah fear the setting up of the son of Tabeal (Isaiah 7:6; Isaiah 7:6), for nothing can cut off the entail on the Son of David that shall be Immanuel." Note, The strongest consolations, in time of trouble, are those which are borrowed from Christ, our relation to him, our interest in him, and our expectations of him and from him. Of this child it is further foretold (Isaiah 7:15; Isaiah 7:15) that though he shall not be born like other children, but of a virgin, yet he shall be really and truly man, and shall be nursed and brought up like other children: Butter and honey shall he eat, as other children do, particularly the children of that land which flowed with milk and honey. Though he be conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, yet he shall not therefore be fed with angels' food, but, as it becomes him, shall be in all things made like unto his brethren,Hebrews 2:17. Nor shall he, though born thus by extraordinary generation, be a man immediately, but, as other children, shall advance gradually through the several states of infancy, childhood, and youth, to that of manhood, and growing in wisdom and stature, shall at length wax strong in spirit, and come to maturity, so as to know how to refuse the evil and choose the good. See Luke 2:40; Luke 2:52. Note, Children are fed when they are little that they may be taught and instructed when they have grown up; they have their maintenance in order to their education.

      2. Here is another sign in particular of the speedy destruction of these potent princes that were now a terror to Judah, Isaiah 7:16; Isaiah 7:16. "Before this child (so it should be read), this child which I have now in my arms" (he means not Immanuel, but Shear-jashub his own son, whom he was ordered to take with him for a sign, Isaiah 7:3; Isaiah 7:3), "before this child shall know how to refuse the evil and choose the good" (and those who saw what his present stature and forwardness were would easily conjecture how long that would be), "before this child be three or four years older, the land that thou abhorrest, these confederate forces of Israelites and Syrians, which thou hast such an enmity to and standest in such dread of, shall be forsaken of both their kings, both Pekah and Rezin," who were in so close an alliance that they seemed as if they were the kings of but one kingdom. This was fully accomplished; for within two or three years after this, Hoshea conspired against Pekah, and slew him (2 Kings 15:30), and, before that, the king of Assyria took Damascus, and slew Rezin, 2 Kings 16:9. Nay, there was a present event, which happened immediately, and when this child carried the prediction of in his name, which was a pledge and earnest of this future event. Shear-jashub signifies The remnant shall return, which doubtless points at the wonderful return of those 200,000 captives whom Pekah and Rezin had carried away, who were brought back, not by might or power, but by the Spirit of the Lord of hosts. Read the story, 2 Chronicles 28:8-15. The prophetical naming of this child having thus had its accomplishment, no doubt this, which was further added concerning him, should have its accomplishment likewise, that Syria and Israel should be deprived of both their kings. One mercy from God encourages us to hope for another, if it engages us to prepare for another.