Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary
Isaiah 7:16

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

The land that thou abhorrest - The land concerning which thou art so much “alarmed or distressed;” that is, the united land of Syria and Ephraim. It is mentioned here as ‘the land,’ or as one land, because they were united then in a firm alliance, so as to constitute, in fact, or for the purposes of invasion and conquest, one people or nation. The phrase, ‘which thou abhorrest,’ means properly, which thou loathest, the primary idea of the word - קוץ qûts - being to feel a nausea, or to vomit. It then means to fear, or to feel alarm; and this, probably, is the meaning here. Abaz, however, evidently looked upon the nations of Syria and Samaria with disgust, as well as with alarm. This is the construction which is given of this passage by the Vulgate, Calvin, Grotius, Junins, Gataker, and Piscator, as well as by our common version. Another construction, however, has been given of the passage by Vitringa, JohnD. Michaelis, Lowth, Gesenius, Rosenmuller, Hengstenberg, and Hendewerk. According to this, the meaning is not that the “land” should be the object of abhorrence, but that the kings themselves were the objects of dislike or dread; and not merely that the two kings should be removed, but that the land itself was threatened with desolation. This construction is free from the objections of an exegetical kind to which the other is open, and agrees better with the idiom of the Hebrew. According to this, the correct translation would be:

For before the child shall learn to refuse the

Evil and to choose the good,

Desolate shall be the land, before whose two

Kings thou art in terror.’

Of both her kings - Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the temple, and sent it as a present to the king of Assyria. Induced by this, the king of Assyria marched against Damascus and killed Rezin, 2 Kings 16:9. This occurred but a short time after the threatened invasion of the land by Rezin and Remaliah, in the “third” year of the reign of Ahaz, and, consequently, about one year after this prophecy was delivered. Pekah, the son of Remaliah, was slain by Hoshea, the son of Elah, who conspired against him, killed him, and reigned in his stead. This occurred in the fourth year of the reign of Ahaz, for Pekah reigned twenty years. Ahaz began to reign in the seventeenth year of the reign of Pekah, and as Pekah was slain after he had reigned twenty years, it follows that he was slain in the fourth year of the reign of Ahaz - perhaps not more than two yearn after this prophecy was delivered; see 2 Kings 15:27, 2Ki 15:30; 2 Kings 16:1. We have thus arrived at a knowledge of the time intended by Isaiah in Isaiah 7:16. The whole space of time was not, probably, more than two years.

Opinions on the Intrepretation of Isaiah 7:14-16

A great variety of opinions have been entertained by interpreters in regard to this passage Isaiah 7:14-16. It may be useful, therefore, to state briefly what those opinions have been, and then what seems to be the true meaning.

(i) The first opinion is that which supposes that by the ‘virgin’ the wife of Ahaz is referred to, and that by the child which should be born, the prophet refers to Hezekiah. This is the opinion of the modern Jewish commentators generally. This interpretation prevailed among the Jews in the time of Justin. But this was easily shown by Jerome to be false. Ahaz reigned in Jerusalem but sixteen years 2 Kings 17:2, and Hezekiah was twenty-five years old when he began to reign 2 Kings 18:2, and of course was not less than nine years old when this prophecy was delivered. Kimchi and Abarbanel then resorted to the supposition that Ahaz had a second wife, and that this refers to a child that was to be born of her. This supposition cannot be proved to be false, though it is evidently a mere supposition. It has been adopted by the Jews, because they were pressed by the passage by the early Christians, as constituting an argument for the divinity of Christ. The ancient Jews, it is believed, referred it mainly to the Messiah.

(ii) Others have supposed, that the prophet designated some virgin who was then present when the king and Isaiah held their conference, and that the meaning is, ‘as surely as this virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, so surely shall the land be forsaken of its kings.’ Thus Isenbiehl, Bauer, Cube, and Steudel held, as quoted by Hengstenberg, “Christol.” i. p. 341.

(iii) Others suppose that the ‘virgin’ was not an actual, but only an ideal virgin. Thus Michaelis expresses it: ‘By the time when one who is yet a virgin can bring forth (that is, in nine months), all will be happily changed, and the present impending danger so completely passed away, that if you were yourself to name the child, you would call him Immanuel.’ Thus Eichhorn, Paulus, Hensler, and Ammon understand it; see “Hengstenberg.”

(iv) Others suppose that the ‘virgin’ was the prophet’s wife. Thus Aben Ezra, Jarchi, Faber, and Gesenius. Against this supposition there is only one objection which has been urged that is of real force, and that is, that the prophet already had a son, and of course his wife could not be spoken of as a virgin. But this objection is entirely removed by the supposition, which is by no means improbable, that the former wife of the prophet was dead, and that he was about to be united in marriage to another who was a virgin.

In regard to the prophecy itself, there have been three opinions:

(i) That it refers “exclusively” to some event in the time of the prophet; to the birth of a child then, either of the wife of Ahaz, or of the prophet, or of some other unmarried female. This would, of course, exclude all reference to the Messiah. This was formerly my opinion; and this opinion I expressed and endeavored to maintain, in the first composition of these notes. But a more careful examination of the passage has convinced me of its error, and satisfied me that the passage has reference to the Messtah. The reasons for this opinion I shall soon state.

(ii) The second opinion is, that it has “exclusive and immediate” reference to the Messiah; that it does not refer at all to any event which was “then” to occur, and that to Ahaz the future birth of a Messiah from a virgin, was to be regarded as a pledge of the divine protection, and an assurance of the safety of Jerusalem. Some of the objections to this view I shall soon state.

(iii) The third opinion, therefore, is that which “blends” these two, and which regards the prophet as speaking of the birth of a child which would soon take place of someone who was then a virgin - an event which could be known only to God, and which would, therefore, constitute a sign, or demonstration to Ahaz of the truth of what Isaiah said; but that the prophet intentionally so used language which would “also” mark a more important event, and direct the minds of the king and people onward to the future birth of one who should more fully answer to all that is here said of the child that would be born, and to whom the name Immanuel would be more appropriately given. This, I shall endeavor to show, must be the correct interpretation. In exhibiting the reasons for this opinion, we may, first, state the evidence that the prediction refers to some child that would be born “soon” as a pledge that the land would be forsaken of its kings; and secondly, the evidence that it refers also to the Messiah in a higher and fuller sense.

I. Evidence That the Prophecy Refers to Some Event Which Was Soon to Occur - To the Birth of a Child of Some One Who Was Then a Virgin, or Unmarried

(i) It is the “obvious” interpretation. It is that which would strike the great mass of people accustomed to interpret language on the principles of common sense. If the passage stood by itself; if the seventh and eighth chapters were “all” that we had; if there were no allusion to the passage in the New Testament; and if we were to sit down and merely look at the circumstances, and contemplate the narrative, the unhesitating opinion of the great mass of people would be, that it “must” have such a reference. This is a good rule of interpretation. That which strikes the mass of people; which appears to people of sound sense as the meaning of a passage on a simple perusal of it, is likely to be the true meaning of a writing.

(ii) Such an interpretation is demanded by the circumstances of the case. The immediate point of the inquiry was not about the “ultimate and final” safety of the kingdom - which would be demonstrated indeed by the announcement that the Messiah would appear - but it was about a present matter; about impending danger. An alliance was formed between Syria and Samaria. An invasion was threatened. The march of the allied armies had commenced. Jerusalem was in consternation, and Ahaz had gone forth to see if there were any means of defense. In this state of alarm, and at this juncture, Isaiah went to assure him that there was no cause for fear. It was not to assure him that the nation should be ultimately and finally safe - which might be proved by the fact that the Messiah would come, and that, therefore, God would preserve the nation; but the pledge was, that he had no reason to fear “this” invasion, and that within a short space of time the land would ‘be forsaken of both its kings.’ How could the fact that the Messiah would come more than seven hundred years afterward, prove this? Might not Jerusalem be taken and subdued, as it was afterward by the Chaldeans, and yet it be true that the Messiah would come, and that God would manifest himself as the protector of his people? Though, therefore, the assurance that the Messiah would come would be a general proof and pledge that the nation would be preserved and ultimately safe, yet it would not be a pledge of the “specific and immediate” thing which occupied the attention of the prophet, and of Ahaz. It would not, therefore, be a ‘sign’ such as the prophet offered to give, or a proof of the fulfillment of the specific prediction under consideration. This argument I regard as unanswerable. It is so obvious, and so strong, that all the attempts to answer it, by those who suppose there was an immediate and exclusive reference to the Messiah, have been entire failures.

(iii) It is a circumstance of some importance that Isaiah regarded himself and his children as ‘signs’ to the people of his time; see Isaiah 8:18. In accordance with this view, it seems he had named one child Shear-Jashub, Isaiah 7:3; and in accordance with the same view, he afterward named another Maher-shalal-hash-baz - both of which names are significant. This would seem to imply that he meant here to refer to a similar fact, and to the birth of a son that should be a sign also to the people of his time.

(iv) An unanswerable reason for thinking that it refers to some event which was soon to occur, and to the birth of a child “before” the land should be forsaken of the two kings, is the record contained in Isaiah 8:1-4. That record is evidently connected with this account, and is intended to be a public assurance of the fulfillment of what is here predicted respecting the deliverance of the land from the threatened invasion. In that passage, the prophet is directed to take a great roll Isaiah 7:1, and make a record concerning the son that was to be born; he calls public witnesses, people of character and well-known reputation, in attestation of the transaction Isaiah 7:2; he approaches the prophetess Isaiah 7:3; and it is expressly declared Isaiah 7:4 that before the child should have ‘knowledge to say, My father, and my mother,’ that is, be able to discern between good and evil Isaiah 7:16, ‘the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria’ should be ‘taken away before the king of Assyria.’ This is so evidently a completion of the prophecy in Isa. vii., and a solemn fulfilling of it in a manner that should be satisfactory to Ahaz and the people, that it is impossible, it seems to me, to regard it any otherwise than as a real transaction. Hengstenberg, and those who suppose the prophecy to refer “immediately and exclusively” to the Messiah, are obliged to maintain that that was a ‘symbolical transaction’ - an opinion which might, with the same propriety, be held of any historical statement in the Bible; since there is nowhere to be found a more simple and unvarnished account of mere matter of historical fact than that. The statement, therefore, in Isaiah 8:0, is conclusive demonstration, I think, that there was a reference in Isaiah 7:14-16, to a child of the prophet that would be soon born, and that would be a “pledge” of the divine protection, and a “proof or sign” to Ahaz that his land would be safe.

It is no objection to this that Isaiah then had a son Isaiah 7:3, and that, therefore, the mother of that son could not be a virgin. There is no improbability in the supposition that the mother of that son was deceased, and that Isaiah was about again to be married. Such an event is not so uncommon as to make it a matter of ridicule (see Hengstenberg, p. 342); or to render the supposition wholly incredible.

Nor is it any objection that another name was given to the child that was born to Isaiah; Isaiah 8:1, Isaiah 8:3. Nothing was more common than to give two names to children. It might have been true that the name usually given to him was Maher-shalal-hash-baz; and still true that the circumstances of his birth were such an evidence of the divine protection, and such an emblem of the divine guardianship, as to make proper the name Immanuel; see the note at Isaiah 7:14. It may be observed, also, that on the supposition of the strict and exclusive Messianic interpretation, the same objection might be made, and the same difficulty would lie. It was no more true of Jesus of Nazareth than of the child of Isaiah, that he was commonly called Immanuel. He had another name also, and was called by that other name. Indeed, there is not the slightest evidence that the Lord Jesus was “ever” designated by the name Immanuel as a proper name. All that the passage means is, that such should be the circumstances of the birth of the child as to render the name Immanuel proper; not that it would be applied to him in fact as the usual appellation.

Nor is it any objection to this view, that the mind of the prophet is evidently directed onward “to” the Messiah; and that the prophecy terminates Isaiah 8:8; Isaiah 9:1-7 with a reference to him. That this is so, I admit; but nothing is more common in Isaiah than for him to commence a prophecy with reference to some remarkable deliverance which was soon to occur, and to terminate it by a statement of events connected with a higher deliverance under the Messiah. By the laws of “prophetic suggestion,” the mind of the prophet seized upon resemblances and analogies; was carried on to future times, which were suggested by something that he was saying or contemplating as about to occur, until the mind was absorbed, and the primary object forgotten in the contemplation of the more remote and glorious event; see the Introduction to Isaiah, Section 7. III. (3.)

II. Evidence That the Prophecy Refers to the Messiah

(i) The passage in Matthew 1:22-23, is an evidence that “he” regarded this as having a reference to the Messiah, and that it had a complete fulfillment in him. This quotation of it also shows that that was the common interpretation of the passage in his time, or he would not thus have introduced it. It cannot be “proved,” indeed, that Matthew means to affirm that this was the primary and original meaning of the prophecy, or that the prophet had a direct and exclusive reference to the Messiah; but it proves that in his apprehension the words had a “fulness” of meaning, and an adaptedness to the actual circumstances of the birth of the Messiah, which would accurately and appropriately express that event; see the notes at the passage in Matthew. The prophecy was not completely “fulfilled, filled up, fully and adequately met,” until applied to the Messiah. That event was so remarkable; the birth of Jesus was so strictly of a virgin, and his nature so exalted, that it might be said to be a “complete and entire” fulfillment of it. The language of Isaiah, indeed, was applicable to the event referred to immediately in the time of Ahaz, and expressed that with clearness; but it more appropriately and fully expressed the event referred to by Matthew, and thus shows that the prophet designedly made use of language which would be appropriate to a future and most glorious event.

(ii) An argument of no slight importance on this subject may be drawn from the fact, that this has been the common interpretation in the Christian church. I know that this argument is not conclusive; nor should it be pressed beyond its due and proper weight. It is of force only because the united and almost uniform impression of mankind, for many generations, in regard to the meaning of a written document, is not to be rejected without great and unanswerable arguments. I know that erroneous interpretations of many passages have prevailed in the church; and that the interpretation of many passages of Scripture which have prevailed from age to age, have been such as have been adapted to bring the whole subject of scriptural exegesis into contempt. But we should be slow to reject that which has had in its favor the suffrages of the unlearned, as well as the learned, in the interpretation of the Bible. The interpretation which refers this passage to the Messiah has been the prevailing one in all ages. It was followed by all the fathers and other Christian expositors until the middle of the eighteenth century (“Hengstenberg”); and is the prevailing interpretation at the present time. Among those who have defended it, it is sufficient to mention the names of Lowth, Koppe, Rosenmuller, and Hengstenberg, in addition to those names which are found in the well-known English commentaries. It has been opposed by the modern Jews, and by German neologists; but has “not” been regarded as false by the great mass of pious and humble Christians. The argument here is simply that which would be applied in the interpretation of a passage in Homer or Virgil; that where the great mass of readers of all classes have concurred in any interpretation, there is “presumptive evidence” that it is correct - evidence, it is true, which may be set aside by argument, but which is to be admitted to be of some account in making up the mind as to the meaning of the passage in question.

(iii) The reference to the Messiah in the prophecy accords with the “general strain and manner” of Isaiah. It is in accordance with his custom, at the mention of some occurrence or deliverance which is soon to take place, to suffer the mind to fix ultimately on the more remote event of the “same general character,” or lying, so to speak, “in the same range of vision” and of thought; see the Introduction, Section 7. It is also the custom of Isaiah to hold up to prominent view the idea that the nation would not be ultimately destroyed until the great Deliverer should come; that it was safe amidst all revolutions; that vitality would remain like that of a tree in the depth of winter, when all the leaves are stripped off Isaiah 6:13; and that all their enemies would be destroyed, and the true people of God be ultimately secure and safe under their great Deliverer; see the notes at Isaiah 34:0; Isaiah 35:1-10.

It is true, that this argument will not be “very” striking except to one who has attentively studied this prophecy; but it is believed, that no one can profoundly and carefully examine the manner of Isaiah, without being struck with it as a very important feature of his mode of communicating truth. In accordance with this, the prophecy before us means, that the nation was safe from this invasion. Ahaz feared the extinction of his kingdom, and the “permanent” annexation of Jerusalem to Syria and Samaria. Isaiah told him that that could not occur; and proffered a demonstration, that in “a very few years” the land would be forsaken of both its kings. “On another ground also it could not be.” The people of God were safe. His kingdom could not be permanently destroyed. It must continue until the Messiah should come, and the eye of the prophet, in accordance with his usual custom, glanced to that future event, and he became “totally” absorbed in its contemplation, and the prophecy is finished Isaiah 9:1-7 by a description of the characteristics of the light that he saw in future times rising in dark Galilee Isaiah 9:1-2, and of the child that should be born of a virgin then.

In accordance with the same view, we may remark, as Lowth has done, that to a people accustomed to look for a great Deliverer; that had fixed their hopes on one who was to sit on the throne of David, the “language” which Isaiah used here would naturally suggest the idea of a Messiah. It was so animated, so ill adapted to describe his own son, and so suited to convey the idea of a most remarkable and unusual occurrence, that it could scarcely have been otherwise than that they should have thought of the Messiah. This is true in a special manner of the language in Isaiah 9:1-7.

(iv) An argument for the Messianic interpretation may be derived from the public expectation which was excited by some such prophecy as this. There is a striking similarity between it and one which is uttered by Micah, who was contemporary with Isaiah. Which was penned “first” it would not be easy to show; but they have internal evidence that they both had their origin in an expectation that the Messiah would be born of a virgin; compare the note at Isaiah 2:2. In Micah 5:2-3, the following prediction occurs: ‘But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler over Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity. Therefore, will he give them up, until the time when she which travaileth hath brought forth.’ That this passage refers to the birth of the Messiah, is demonstrable from Matthew 2:6.

Nothing can be clearer than that this is a prediction respecting the place of his birth. The Sanhedrim, when questioned by Herod respecting the place of his birth, answered without the slightest hesitation, and referred to this place in Micah for proof. The expression, ‘she which travaileth,’ or, ‘she that bears shall bear’ - ילדה יולדה yôlēdâh yālâdâh, “she bearing shall bear” - refers evidently to some prediction of such a birth; and the word ‘she that bears’ (יולדה yôlēdâh) seems to have been used somewhat in the sense of a proper name, to designate one who was well known, and of whom there had been a definite prediction. Rosenmuller remarks, ‘She is not indeed expressly called a virgin, but that she is so is self-evident, since she shall bear the hero of divine origin (from everlasting), and consequently not begotten by a mortal. The predictions throw light on each other; Micah discloses the divine origin of the person predicted, Isaiah the wonderful manner of his birth.’ - “Ros.,” as quoted by Hengstenberg. In his first edition, Rosenmuller remarks on Micah 5:2 : ‘The phrase, “she who shall bear shall bear,” denotes the “virgin” from whom, in a miraculous manner, the people of that time hoped that the Messiah would be born.’ If Micah refers to a well-known existing prophecy, it must evidently be this in Isaiah, since no other similar prophecy occurs in the Old Testament; and if he wrote subsequently to Isaiah, the prediction in Micah must be regarded as a proof that this was the prevailing interpretation of his time.

That this was the prevailing interpretation of those times, is confirmed by the traces of the belief which are to be found extensively in ancient nations, that some remarkable person would appear, who should be born in this manner. The idea of a Deliverer, to be born of a “virgin,” is one that somehow had obtained an extensive prevalence in Oriental nations, and traces of it may be found almost everywhere among them. In the Hindoo Mythology it is said, respecting “Budhu,” that be was born of “Maya,” a goddess of the imagination - a virgin. Among the Chinese, there is an image of a beautiful woman with a child in her arms, which child, they say, was born of a virgin. The passsge in Virgil is well known:

Jam redit et Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna:

Jam nova progenies coelo demittitur alto.

Tu modo mascenti puero, quo ferrea primum

Desinet, ac toto surget gens aurea mundo.

Casta fare Lucina: tuus jam regnat Apollo.

Eclog. iv. 4ff.

Comes the last age, by Cumae’s maid foretold;

Afresh the mighty line of years unrolled.

The Virgin now, now Saturn’s sway returns;

Now the blest globe a heaven-sprung child adorns,

Whose genial power shall whelm earth’s iron race,

And plant once more the golden in its place. -

Thou chaste Lucina, but that child sustain,

And lo! disclosed thine own Apollo’s reign.

Wrangham

This passage, though applied by Virgil to a different subject, has been usually regarded as having been suggested by that in Isaiah. The coincidence of thought is remarkable on any supposition; and there is no improbability in the supposition that the expectation of a great Deliverer to be born of a virgin had prevailed extensively, and that Virgil made it up in this beautiful manner and applied it to a prince in his own time. On the prevalent expectation of such a Deliverer, see the note at Matthew 2:2.

(v) But the great and the unanswerable argument for the Messianic interpretation is derived from the conclusion of the prophecy in Isaiah 8:8, and especially in Isaiah 9:1-7. The prophecy in Isaiah 9:1-7 is evidently connected with this; and yet “cannot” be applied to a son of Isaiah, or to any other child that should be then born. If there is any passage in the Old Testament that “must” be applied to the Messiah, that is one; see the notes on the passage. And if so, it proves, that though the prophet at first had his eye on an event which was soon to occur, and which would be to Ahaz full demonstration that the land would be safe from the impending invasion, yet that he employed language which would describe also a future glorious event, and which would be a fuller demonstration that God would protect the people. He became fully absorbed in that event, and his language at last referred to that alone. The child then about to be born would, in most of the circumstances of his birth, be an apt emblem of him who should be born in future times, since both would be a demonstration of the divine power and protection. To both, the name Immanuel, though not the common name by which either would be designated, might be appropriately given. Both would be born of a virgin - the former, of one who was then a virgin, and the birth of whose child could be known only to God - the latter, of one who should be appropriately called “the” virgin, and who should remain so at the time of his birth. This seems to me to be the meaning of this difficult prophecy. The considerations in favor of referring it to the birth of a child in the time of Isaiah, and which should be a pledge to him of the safety of his kingdom “then,” seem to me to be unanswerable. And the considerations in favor of an ultimate reference to the Messiah - a reference which becomes in the issue total and absorbing - are equally unanswerable; and if so, then the twofold reference is clear.

Calvin's Commentary on the Bible

16.Before the child shall know. Many have been led into a mistake by connecting this verse with the preceding one, as if it had been the same child that was mentioned. They suppose that it assigns the reason, and that the particle כי (ki) means for ⁽¹¹⁰⁾ But if we carefully examine the Prophet’s meaning, it will quickly be apparent that he leaves the general doctrine, to which he had made a short digression, and returns to his immediate subject. After having founded the hope of the preservation of the city on the promised Mediator, he now shows in what way it will be preserved.

The child. I interpret this word as referring, not to Christ, but to all children in general. Here I differ from all the commentators; for they think that the demonstrative ה points out a particular child. But I view הנער, (hannagnar,) so that ה is indeed added for the purpose of making it more definite, but is intended to point out the age, and not any particular child; as when we say, The child, ⁽¹¹¹⁾ and add the article The ⁽¹¹²⁾ for the purpose of giving greater definiteness. This is very customary in Scripture. If he had pointed out a particular child, he would have added הזה, (hazzeh,) as is frequently done in other passages. It is not probable that this promise of the overturn of the kingdoms of Syria and Samaria, which immediately followed, would be deferred for five hundred years, that is, till the coming of Christ; and, indeed, it would have been altogether absurd. The meaning therefore is, “Before the children, who shall be born hereafter, can distinguish between good and evil, the land which thou hatest shall be forsaken.”

The land. By the land I understand Israel and Syria; for though they were two, yet on account of the league which had been formed between the two kings, they are accounted one. Some understand by it Judea; but that cannot agree on account of the plural noun which follows, her kings. That these things happened as they are written may be easily inferred from the sacred history; for when Ahaz called the Assyrians to aid him, Rezin was slain by them. (2 Kings 16:9.) Not long afterwards, Pekah, king of Israel, died, in the twelfth year of King Ahaz, and was succeeded by Hoshea, the son of Elah. (2 Kings 15:30.) Thus, before the children who should afterwards be born were grown up, both countries would be deprived of their kings; for before that time both Rezin and Pekah were removed out of the land of the living. Now the discourse is addressed to Ahaz, and God promises to him, by way of consolation, that he will inflict punishment on the enemies of Ahaz, but for no other purpose than to render him more inexcusable.

Which thou hatest. As to the word hatest, Syria and the land of Israel are said to be hated or abhorred by King Ahaz, because from that quarter he was attacked by invading armies. He therefore promises that those kings will soon perish. Some render מפני, (mippenei,) on account of; ⁽¹¹³⁾ and I admit that this word is generally used in this sense. But I adopt here a more natural rendering, as if he had said, It shall be forsaken from the face or from the presence of the two kings, and shall be left by them, so that they shall no more be seen. And by these words it is sufficiently evident that this must be understood as referring to both kingdoms.

(110) Bishops Lowth and Stock concur in rendering כי (ki) for, which indeed is its ordinary meaning. FOR before this child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. — Ed

(111) L’enfant .

(112) Le .

(113) “At whose kings thou dost fret אתה קץ מפני, (attah kaz mippenei,) thou art fretting by reason of. See Exodus 1:12.” — Bishop Stock

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

For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good,.... This may be understood of Isaiah's child, Shearjashub, he had along with him, he was bid to take with him; and who therefore must be supposed to bear some part, or answer some end or other, in this prophecy; which it is very probable may be this, viz. to assure Ahaz and the house of David that the land which was abhorred by them should be forsaken of both its kings, before the child that was with him was grown to years of discretion; though it may be understood of any child, and so of the Messiah; and the sense be, that before any child, or new born babe, such an one as is promised, Isaiah 7:14, arrives to years of discretion, even in the space of a few years, this remarkable deliverance should be wrought, and the Jews freed from all fears of being destroyed by these princes:

the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings; meaning not the land of Judea, now distressed by them, which they should leave; for that could not be said to be abhorred by Ahaz, or the house of David; but the land of Israel and Syria, called one land, because of the confederacy between the kings of them, Rezin and Remaliah's son, which Ahaz and his nobles abhorred, because of their joining together against them; and so it was, that in a very little time both these kings were cut off; Pekah the son of Remaliah was slain by Hoshea the son of Elah, who reigned in his stead, 2 Kings 15:30 and Rezin was slain by the king of Assyria, 2 Kings 16:9.

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.