Isaiah 7

Isa 7:1 When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it.

Kidner’s summary: ‘These chapters have been called “The book of Immanuel,” after the promised child of 7:14; 8:8, whose nature and reign emerge in 9:1-7 and 11:1-10 against a background of local menace (7:1-9.) and worldwide dispersion (11:11-16.). The prophecies arise straight out of a contemporary crisis, but they extend to the last days (9:1) and the whole earth (11:9-10; 12:4-5).’ (NBC)

‘Isaiah 7:1-12:6, a section often called “The Book of Immanuel,” begins by stating that Rezin king of Aram and Pekah king of Israel marched out against Ahaz king of Judah with the intention of capturing Jerusalem and replacing Ahaz with a certain “son of Tabeel” (perhaps an Aramean; cf. Ezr 4:7). In 735/4 B.C.; they slaughtered large numbers of people in Judah and took captive even larger numbers. {2Ch 28:5-8} The ferocity of the attack may have been prompted by the posited refusal of Ahaz to join Rezin and Pekah in a western alliance against Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria. In any event Ahaz appealed to the Assyrian king for help, sending him tribute and becoming his vassal in the bargain. {2Ki 16:7-8 2Ch 28:16-21} The Assyrians were only too willing to oblige; they destroyed Damascus the capital of Aram {2Ki 16:9} in 732 and Samaria the capital of Israel in 722. It was probably shortly before the Aramean-lsraelite invasion of Judah in 735/4 that Isaiah uttered his famous Immanuel oracle to Ahaz.’ {Isa 7:10-17} (ISBE)

The kingdom of Judah was in serious peril. Rezin, king of Syria (Aram), and Pekah, king of Samaria, had already, in the time of Jotham, begun to harass Judah, 2Ki 15:37. Now they formed a conspiracy to dethrone the young Ahaz, and replace him with a puppet king, Isa 7:6. The two kings advanced on Jerusalem, but failed to overthrow it, cf. 2Ki 16:5. But the country was ravaged, and large numbers were taken captive, 2Ch 28:5ff. But instead of trusting in the Lord, Ahaz appealed to the king of Assyria for help 2Ki 16:7 2Ch 28:16.

The events described in this chapter are thought to have taken place around 735 BC.

‘We do not know the specific reason why Syria and Israel are attacking Judah. However, it seems probable that they are attempting to force Judah to join a coalition with them against the Assyrians.’ (Oswalt) Alternatively, it may be that Ahaz has already aligned himself with Assyria, and Syria and Israel are set on punishing him for this. At any rate, these two neibours of Judah intend to depose Ahaz and enthrone the son of Tabeel in his place, v6.

The question raised in this passage is whether Ahaz will live by God’s promises, 2Sa 7. If he does, he need not panic.

Aram = Syria, originally applied to the whole region between the Euphrates and the Mediterranean.

Isa 7:2 Now the house of David was told, “Aram has allied itself with Ephraim;” so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.

“Ephraim” – Another name for Israel, so called because its first king, Jeroboam I, was an Ephraimite {1Ki 11:26} and Ephraim was one of its leading tribes.

The hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken – Ahaz was terrified at the prospect of invasion by Syria and Israel

Isa 7:3 Then the LORD said to Isaiah, “Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub, to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Washerman’s Field.”

One man stood firm in the general consternation. One man set himself to turn the tide of popular opinion. Isaiah, obedient to the Lord’s instruction, met with Ahaz.

“Your son Shear-Jashub” – Isaiah is pointedly told to take his son with him to meet Ahaz. The son’s name can mean either ‘a remnant shall return’ or ‘a remnant shall repent’. In view of the faith-unbelief theme in the present context, Webb thinks that the latter meaning is ‘almost certainly the primary one’.

Shear-Jashub – means “a remnant will return” (Herbert). ‘Like the prophet Hosea’s children, {Ho 1:4-9} the names of Isaiah’s children carry symbolic meanings that had a bearing on the fate of Israel (cf. 8:18). Mention has already been made of the remnant in 6:13. It is unclear whether this name was meant in a positive way, i.e., that despite the coming crisis Judah would not be totally annihilated; or negative, i.e., that the majority would be destroyed and only a small segment would survive (Grogan). This ambiguity may be deliberate, depending on Ahaz’s response to God’s word (Kaiser).’ (NCB)

“Meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool” – Ahaz is evidently inspecting the water supply in preparation for the coming siege. But the safety of the city depends less on the security of its water supply, and more on his trust in the Lord.

Isa 7:4 Say to him, ‘Be careful, keep calm and don’t be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood-because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah.

Note the repeated emphasis on Ahaz’ fearfulness: “Be careful, keep calm and don’t be afraid. Do not lose heart…”

Isaiah’s message to Ahaz was not to fear these two firebrands: like burned-out logs at the edge of a fire that has gone out, they would soon be extinguished. Ahaz should not seek Assyrian aid at this time of panic.

Isaiah’s reassurance was well-founded. ‘Syria was crushed in 732, while Israel lost her northern territories as early as 734, her national existence in 722, and her racial identity through a series of re-peoplings which continued to at least the reign of Esarhaddon. {cf. Ezr 4:2} By the end of this (669 BC) she was indeed too shattered to be a people (8).’ (Kidner)

“Keep calm and don’t be afraid” – This would become a frequent message from Isaiah, cf. v 9b; 8:12-13; 28:16; 30:15.

Isa 7:5 Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah’s son have plotted your ruin, saying,

But it does not matter what Rezin and Pekah say, v5f. What counts is what the Lord says, v7, and he says that their threats will amount to nothing.

Isa 7:6  “Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it.”

Isa 7:7  Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says: “‘It will not take place, it will not happen,

Isa 7:8 for the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is only Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people.

The head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is only Rezin – Whereas (the implication is), the only true God is the head of Judah.

Ephraim – = Israel, identified by its dominant northern tribe.

Within sixty-five years…too shattered to be a people - Within one person’s lifetime, the deportations of Israelites and the importing of other groups will have rendered those who ramined scarcely a people at all.

Isa 7:9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah’s son. If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.’”

“If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all” – ‘An entire doctrine of the role of faith is in this verse.’ (Watts) See 1Pe 5:12.

‘The young king is clearly uncertain and frightened, as well he might be. He is reminded of God’s faithfulness and of God’s assurance. But in v 9b he is reminded that he has a task to fulfill, like that outlined for Solomon and Jeroboam, before he can be confirmed on his throne. V 10a offers Yahweh’s sign. This is his risk. He tests Ahaz through the offer, just as he tested Abraham. {Ge 22:1} When Abraham obeyed the bizarre command, he clearly tested God in return. Every encounter in faith consists of a mutual testing. God’s actions toward his people is a test and a risk. {cf. De 4:34} God’s blessings and providential acts are tests. {Ex 15:25 20:20 De 8:2} Test and countertest are the very stuff of personal encounter and growth in faith.

But this encounter can go wrong. De 6:16 speaks of a bitter experience at Massah when Israel tested God and warns against testing God. Apparently the right encounter begins with God’s initiative, with God’s offer of a test. In Isaiah, this is the case. God offers a sign (v 11). This will clearly become a test both ot Ahaz?s faith and of God?s faithfulness. There is a risk. But without risk there is no reward.’ (Watts)

Isa 7:10 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz,

Failing to gain Ahaz’s confidence the first time, the Lord speaks to him again (presumably through Isaiah).

Isa 7:11 “Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.”

The Lord offers to reinforce Ahaz faith with a sign, but Ahaz has already made up his mind, v12.

“A sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights” – Ahaz is to ask the Lord for a sign of any magnitude. God is ‘pulling out all the stops’ to move the king to faith.

Isa 7:12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test.”

“I will not put the Lord to the test” – Ahaz refused the offer of a sign with an appeal to piety. The reference is to Nu 14:22 De 6:16. ‘But the testing referred to in the Torah is not believing God’s promises! To obey the command of God and step out in faith in his promises is nothing like the rebellions in the desert, where the Israelites doubted God’s goodness and essentially dared him to do what he had said he would. Ahaz’s supposed piety is only a mask for the same kind of unbelief.’ (Oswalt)

Ahaz refuses to ask the Lord for a sign, even though the Lord himself has told him to. Perhaps Ahaz had already dispatched his envoys to Assyria. Those ambassadors had taken with them a large amount of money to buy the Assyrian king’s favour, 2Ki 16:8.

‘Behind the smooth scriptural talk (12; cf. Dt. 6:16) lay a plan to outwit his enemies by making friends with the biggest of them.’ {cf. 2Ki 16:7-10} (Kidner)

Ahaz has the form of godliness, 2Ti 3:5, but not the substance.

‘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.’ (MHC)

‘Piety is not the same as faith. Piety is the appearance of religion while trust in God is the substance of religion. Ahaz does not have the substance and tries to cover this up with a veneer of appearance. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for the same sin. They tithed and prayed and gave charity to the poor, but it was all a show. They were worshiping themselves being pious. True piety follows as a result of trusting in God.’ (Oswalt)

Isa 7:13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also?”

Because Ahaz has rejected the word of the prophet, 7-9, and rejected the offer of a sign to confirm it, 10-12, he is given a sign which is ‘veiled and enigmatic’ (Webb), in fulfilment of 6:9f. (So veiled and enigmatic, in fact, that scholars have debated it ever since!)

‘The records show that within his reign Ahaz actually designed and built an altar of Damascene style specifically to “inquire before.” He also was very active in rearranging the Temple and its worship. The editors of Kings judge his motivation to have been political and pagan. {cf. 2Ki 16:10-18} The accumulation of testimony is that Ahaz was religious enough, but that his real gods were idols.’ (Watts)

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

“The Lord himself will give you a sign” – although Ahaz had refused the offer of a sign, v12.

‘The sign is revealed anyway. A young woman who is apparently present or contemporary, but not yet married (i.e., a virgin) will in due course bear a child and call his name Immanuel meaning God-(is)-With-Us. By the time the child is old enough to make decisions, the land of the two opposing kings will be devastated. The sign is simple. It has to do with a period by which time the present crisis will no longer be acute or relevant. This is parallel to the statement in v 8b but indicates a much shorter period. The shorter period accords with history. Tiglath-Pileser’s reactions to Rezin and the son of Remaliah came in 733 b.c. when he reduced most of Israel to the status of an Assyrian province.’ (Watts)

‘The message was that by the time the unmarried woman (the meaning of “virgin”) had married, conceived and given birth – that is, in the space of a year or so – Assyria would destroy Aram and Ehraim (the northern kingdom of Israel) the communities which were conspiring against Judah.’ (The Bible Application Handbook)

The coming deliverer is referred to again in Isa 9:6-7 11:1-5. ‘Enough, so far, that while the king calls in an army, God looks to the birth of a child.’ {cf. Ge 17:19} (Kidner)

“The virgin will be with child” – Kidner (NBC) comments that ‘the nearest English equivalent is “girl.” The Hebrew word describes a potential bride in Ge 24:43, and the young Miriam in Ex 2:8; it presumes rather than states virginity and is a term outgrown at marriage. Before its NT fulfilment its miraculous implications would pass unnoticed.’

Watts concludes his word study by referring to ‘two different and contrasting semantic implications which provide an invitation to double entendre. The one implies the spotless candidate for marriage. The other implies a type of available sexual partner not condoned by Yahwistic norms or the Law. The common meaning signifies one who is sexually mature. It is difficult to find a word in English that is capable of the same range of meaning. “Virgin” is too narrow, while “young woman” is too broad.’

We cannot be sure of the identity of the child of Ahaz’s time. We are given no information about the father, and the mother is spoken of in only the most general terms. Some (e.g. Watts) think that the reference is to the birth of Hezekiah. However, he was 25 years old at his accession in 516 {2Ki 18:2} and was therefore born in 741, at least six years before these events. In any case, there would be no reason to refer to if mother – already married – in this way. Another alternative is the the child is Maher-shalal-hash-baz. However, the description of this same child in 9:6,7 shows that the ultimate fulfilment is in the Messiah.

Notice that the description carries the definite article. So, some particular person is being referred to. Perhaps Isaiah is referring to some maiden in the crowd.

It is sometimes objected that the word translated ‘virgin’ does not necessarily bear this meaning, and only denotes a young woman, or maiden. However, the context seems to emphasise the unmarried state (and by implication, virginity). After all, what would be miraculous (i.e. a ‘sign’) about a young woman having a baby? There is no known instance where the word is used definitely to refer to a woman who is not a virgin. The Septuagint certainly understood the word to mean ‘virgin’, rendering it ‘parthenos’ (and Matthew, in quoting this, gives us clear authority for this translation, Mt 1:23). On the other hand, it is significant that the Jews themselves do not seem to have applied this prophecy at any time to the Messiah – a circumstance which tends to disprove the theory that it was this text that suggested the story of a virgin birth to the early church.

Oswalt says that if it were not for Matthew’s use of this saying, it would have provoked little controversy. ‘On the surface the sign seems to be that before a child conceived at the time of the sahing is twelve years of age, the two nations that so frighten the house of David will be destroyed, 7:16. However, there are three factors in the sign itself that raise some question about this apprently straighforward niterpretation:-

1. God himself urges Ahaz to ask for a remarkable sign. On the surface, there seems nothing remarkable about the sign that God actually gives.

2. The second unusual feature is the choice of the word used to identify the mother of the child. The word is not the normal one for “woman” or “girl,” but a relatively unusual one meaning “younhg woman of marriageable age.” When we discover that the LXX translates the word with “virgin,” the mystery is deepened.

3. Finally, the choice of a name for the child is a bit strange since its immedite relevance to the historic situaiton is not clear, whereas there is a direct relevance in the names of the other two children mentioned, 7:3, 8:3. The mentioned of this second child highlights another oddity. The verbs describing the conception, birth, and naming of that child are the same as those in 7:14.’

Oswalt concludes that there is more to this prophesy than first meets the eye, and that Matthew was not wrong in appropriating the text to his own day. The text has ‘a single meaning but a double significance. Its meaning is that God is with us and we need not fear what other human beings may do to us. The first significance is for Ahaz’s own day. He need to go to Assyria because God is with Judah…In its first significance the virginity of the mother at the time of the announcement of the sign is all that is being intended. Thus, the typical word for “virgin” is not used; it would have called too much attention to itself. Yet for the real significance of the sign to be realised, the virginity of the mother at the time of the birth is critical. Thus, the common words for “woman” or “girl” cannot be used.’

‘If the “young woman” is Zion cf. 1:8, then her son is the faithful remnant who will emerge from her sufferings cf. 66:7f. That is why he is given the name Immanuel, “God with us.” God will be with the faithful remnant who gather round Isaiah, cf. 8:16, not with the unbelieving Ahaz and the rebellious nation as a whole.’ (Webb)

Will call him Immanuel – When we think of the being and character of our Maker, we might well conclude that he either he would distance himself from us, or visit us as ‘God-agianst-us’.

‘For Isaiah and his followers the Immanuel sign meant the promise of God’s protecting presence and the eventual fulfilment of God’s good purposes for his people. The preservation of the remnant in Isaiah’s day was part of a process which led finally to the coming of Jesus, the perfectly faithful and righteous one, in whom all God’s promises come to fulfilment. So Matthew was right to see the ultimate fulfilment of the Immanuel saying in Jesus Christ.’ (Webb)

‘Society never actually wanted the Incarnation. “Emmanuel, God-with-us” does not sell computer games or cologne. Society wanted the cute stuff-rustic stable, adoring shepherds, fluffy sheep, cows, donkey, holy family, infant Jesus, gift-bearing kings, stars, angels, St. Nicholas, reindeer, fir trees, holly, and presents. The pagan stuff they will retain-even if they do dye the trees powder blue and decorate them with miniature hanging appliances and Disney ornaments. …

The marketplace will also retain some of the traditional hymnody, but in upbeat arrangements that remove them from the realm of traditional worship. Ancient chants are popular, too. They sound religious and profound and-best of all-nobody understands Latin, so no shoppers are offended.’ (Maureen Jais-Mick)

The idea of God’s being ‘with’ people is prominent in the OT (Oswalt):-

1. the Garden of Eden, Ge 3:8

2. Isaac, Ge 26:28

3. Joseph, Gen 39:2f

4. the tabernacle, Ex 40:38

5. Gideon, Judg 6:12f

6. David, 1Sa 18:12,14

7. Asa, 2Ch 15:9

8. Hezekiah, 2Ki 18:7

9. Ezra, 1:3

When God is not with us, disaster results, Nu 14:43. But when he is with us, like can not only be endured, it can triumphed over. God’s presence is not a metaphor, but a reality. In Christ, God has taken on our human flesh, and in that flesh has even taken our sins upon himself. The truth of ‘God with us’ is more fully explicated in the NT, Mt 28:20 Joh 1:14 14:3,17,Re 21:3.

‘Emmanuel, God with us in our nature, in our sorrow, in our lifework, in our punishment, in our grave, and now with us, or rather we with him, in resurrection, ascension, triumph, and Second Advent splendour.’ (Spurgeon)

Carson (on Matthew) asserts that ‘Isa 7:1-9:7 must be read as a unit – i.e. 7:14 must not be treated in isolation. The promised Immanuel, 7:14, will possess the land, 8:8, thwart all opponents, 8:10, appear in Galilee of the Gentiles, 9:1, as a great light to those in the land of the shadow of death, 9:2. He is the Child and Son called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” in 9:6, whose government and peace will never end as he reigns on David’s throne forever, 9:7.’

‘In a sense, “God with us” is the story of Scripture in summary. The key covenant statement of relationship, “I will be their God, and they will be my people,” is sometimes called the “Immanuel theme” in covenant theology. From the fellowship with God that mankind enjoyed in Eden to “the grace of the Lord Jesus … with all” God’s people in Re 22:21, the concept of God’s search for his children and his dwelling with them {cf. Joh 1:14} is prominent throughout the Bible. As “God with us” was the sign to Ahaz and his people in Isa 7:14, so also “I will be with you” (rather than “you will serve me on this mountain;” cf. the MT accentuation) was the sign to God’s people at the beginning of their pilgrimage as a nation. {Ex 3:12} God’s relationship “with us” distinguishes us “from all other people that are upon the face of the earth.” {Ex 33:16} It is “with us” that God enters into covenant; {De 5:2f} it is “with us” that God speaks; {AV Ho 12:4} it is “with us” that God walks as he gives help and guidance and protection.’ {Jud 6:12-18 1Ki 8:57 2Ch 13:12 32:7f} (ISBE)

Isa 7:15 he will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right.

Although curds and honey sometimes represent the food of royalty, v22 makes it clear that here they indicate the generally depopulated nature of the region.

When he know enough to reject the wrong and choose the right – Probably the age of accountability, about the age of twelve. This suggests that the events narrated here took place in 735 BC, some twelve or thirteen years before the fall of Samaria and the final destruction of the northern kingdom of Israel.

Isa 7:16 But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

By the time the boy has reached the age of accountability, the land of the two kings now invading Judah will be laid waste. Syria fell to the Assyrians in 732 BC, 2Ki 15:29, and Israel fell in 722, 2Ki 17:1-6.

Isa 7:17 “The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah-he will bring the king of Assyria.”

But ‘by depending on himself rather than on God, Ahaz had unleashed a whirlwind which will not be content to devour his troublesome northern neighbours. Led by the God he has disdained, it will come sweeping over him and his nation as well.’ (Oswalt)

Isa 7:18  In that day the LORD will whistle for flies from the distant streams of Egypt and for bees from the land of Assyria.

Isa 7:19  They will all come and settle in the steep ravines and in the crevices in the rocks, on all the thornbushes and at all the water holes.

Isa 7:20  In that day the Lord will use a razor hired from beyond the River -the king of Assyria-to shave your head and the hair of your legs, and to take off your beards also.

Isa 7:21 In that day, a man will keep alive a young cow and two goats.

‘The point of vs 21-25 is the sad spectacle of the promised land reverting to jungle for lack of Israelites, its abundance (22) a rebuke to their sparseness, and its wild state a proof of their decline. It is the kind of reproach that a failing church might receive from inherited glories and commitments which it can no longer sustain.’ (Kidner)

Isa 7:22  And because of the abundance of the milk they give, he will have curds to eat. All who remain in the land will eat curds and honey.

Isa 7:23  In that day, in every place where there were a thousand vines worth a thousand silver shekels, there will be only briers and thorns.

Isa 7:24  Men will go there with bow and arrow, for the land will be covered with briers and thorns.

Isa 7:25 As for all the hills once cultivated by the hoe, you will no longer go there for fear of the briers and thorns; they will become places where cattle are turned loose and where sheep run.

Webb draws attention to two important themes in Ch. 7, which are developed from earlier chapters:-

1. The Lord’s sovereignty. This is set forth in 6:1-3, and shown in the present chapter as exercised as he summons the nations to do his bidding.

2. The absolute necessity of wholehearted reliance on the Lord. The alternative is posed in 2:22; the choice put clearly in 7:9. ‘Whatever we rely on instead of trusting in God will eventually turn and devour us.’ (Oswalt)