1. King Rezin of Aram and Pekah of Israel marched on Jerusalem to attack King Ahaz of Judah, but were unable to overcome the city. 2. Isaiah prophesied to Ahaz during this time of the Syro-Israelite invasion, urging him to trust in God rather than form an alliance with Assyria. 3. Ahaz rejected Isaiah's message and instead appealed to the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser for help, resulting in the destruction of Damascus and exile of many Israelites, though it also led to Judah losing its independence to Assyria.

1. ISAIAH 7 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
The Sign of Immanuel
1 When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was
king of Judah, King Rezinof Aram and Pekah son of
Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against
Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it.
1.BARNES, “In the days of Ahaz - Ahaz began to reign about 738 years before Christ. By a
comparison of 2Ki_16:5, ..., with 2Ch_28:5, etc., it will be seen that Judea was twice invaded by
Rezin and Pekah in the reign of Ahaz; see the Analysis of the chapter.
That Rezin ... - This confederacy was formed in the time of Jotham; 2Ki_15:37. But it was
not carried into execution during his reign. It is evident from this place, that it was executed in
the early part of the reign of Ahaz; probably in the first or second year of his reign.
Syria - - ‫ארם‬ 'aram, so called from Aram Gen_10:22-23, a son of Shem, and who populated
its chief provinces. It comprehended the country lying between the Euphrates east, the
Mediterranean west, Cilicia north, and Phenicia, Judea, and Arabia south; see the notes at
Isa_17:1-14. Syria of the two rivers is Mesopotamia. Syria of Damascus, so called because
Damascus was its capital, extended eastward along Mount Libanus, but its limits varied
according to the power of the princes of Damascus. After the reign of the Seleucidae, Syria came
to denote the kingdom or region of which Antioch was the capital. Here it denotes the Syria lying
around Damascus, and of which Damascus was the capital. - “Calmet.”
King of Israel - Of the ten tribes, called the kingdom of Israel, or Samaria; Note, Isa_1:1.
Went up - Jerusalem was situated on hills, and on the highest part of the land. But it is
possible that this language is derived from the fact that it was the capital. The language is used
even when the region from which the traveler comes does not lie lower than the city. Thus it is
not uncommon to speak of “going up” to London, Paris, etc.
Could not prevail - Hebrew, ‘Could not fight against it,’ that is, with happy result, or with
success. He was not able to take it. That the allied kings really besieged Ahaz, is evident from
2Ki_16:5 : They ‘came up to Jerusalem to war, and they besieged Ahaz, but they could not
overcome him.’ The reason why they could not take Jerusalem was, probably, not only because it
was a strong place and well defended, but because there was intelligence that their own
dominions were threatened with an invasion by the Assyrians, and they could not protract their
siege of Jerusalem long enough to take it.

2. 2. PULPIT, “THE PROPHECY GIVEN TO AHAZ AT THE TIME OF THE SYRO-ISRAELITISH WAR.
The Syro-Israelitish war is touched on both in Kings and Chronicles. In Kings the alliance between Rezin
and Pekah is distinctly declared, as also the fact that they conjointly besieged Jerusalem (2Ki_16:5).
From Chronicles we learn that, before the siege, Ahaz was twice defeated with great loss, once by the
Syrians (2Ch_28:5), and once by the Israelites (2Ch_28:6). He was probably, therefore, reduced to great
straits at the time when Isaiah received directions to seek an interview with him, and communicate to him
a comforting message from Jehovah.
Isa_7:1
In the days of Ahaz. The reign of Ahaz covered, probably, the space between B.C. 743 and in B.C. 727.
The march on Jerusalem appears to have fallen somewhat late in his reign. Rezin the King of
Syria. Rezin is mentioned as King of Damascus by Tiglath-Pfieser II. in several of his inscriptions. In one,
which seems to belong to B.C. 732 or 731, he states that he defeated Rezin and slew him. Pekah the
son of Remaliah (see 2Ki_15:25). Pekah had been an officer under Pekahiah, the son and successor of
Menahem; but had revolted, put Pekahiah to death in his palace, and seized the crown. It is probable that
he and Rezin were anxious to form a confederacy for the purpose of resisting the advance of the Assyrian
power, and, distrusting Ahaz, desired to place on the throne of Judah a person on whom they could
thoroughly depend (see Isa_7:6). It was not their design to conquer the Jewish kingdom, but only to
change the sovereign. Toward Jerusalem; rather, to Jerusalem. The allies reached the city and
commenced the siege (2Ki_16:5). Could not prevail against it; literally, prevailed not in fighting against
it.
3. GILL, “And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of
Uzziah king of Judah,.... Here begins a new prophecy under the reign of another king; who,
though a wicked king, had religious ancestors; and who are mentioned, not, as the Jewish
writers (u) generally say, because it was owing to their worthiness that the enemies of Ahaz
could not prevail against him; but because it was under these kings the prophet had prophesied:
what is contained in the first five chapters were delivered in the times of Uzziah; and the vision
in the sixth was in the times of Jotham, in the beginning of his reign; and what is said here, and
in some following chapters, was in the time of Ahaz; so that this is mentioned to fix and carry on
the date of the prophecy:
that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah, the son of Remaliah king of Israel, went up
towards Jerusalem to war against it; at the latter end of Jotham's reign, and the beginning
of Ahaz's; these two separately came up against Judah, and greatly distressed and afflicted the
kingdom, slew many, and carried others captive, 2Ki_15:37 but afterwards, in the third (w) or
fourth (x) year of Ahaz, as it is said, they joined together to besiege Jerusalem, which this refers
to, 2Ki_16:5,

3. but could not prevail against it; or "he could not"; that is, according to Aben Ezra, the king
of Israel, Pekah, the son of Remaliah; but, according to Kimchi, it was Rezin king of Syria, who,
he says, was the principal in the war, and brought Pekah along with him; but it may very well be
understood of them both, since in 2Ki_16:5, the plural number is used; "and they could not";
and so the Septuagint, Vulgate Latin, and Oriental versions here.
4. HENRY, “The prophet Isaiah had his commission renewed in the year that king Uzziah
died, Isa_6:1. Jotham his son reigned, and reigned well, sixteen years. All that time, no doubt,
Isaiah prophesied as he was commanded, and yet we have not in this book any of his prophecies
dated in the reign of Jotham; but this, which is put first, was in the days of Ahaz the son of
Jotham. Many excellent useful sermons he preached which were not published and left upon
record; for, if all that was memorable had been written, the world could not have contained the
books, Joh_21:25. Perhaps in the reign of Ahaz, a wicked king, he had not opportunity to preach
so much at court as in Jotham's time, and therefore then he wrote the more, for a testimony
against them. Here is,
I. A very formidable design laid against Jerusalem by Rezin king of Syria and Pekah king of
Israel, two neighbouring potentates, who had of late made descents upon Judah severally. At the
end of the reign of Jotham, the Lord began to send against Judah Rezin and Pekah, 2Ki_15:37.
But now, in the second or third year of the reign of Ahaz, encouraged by their former successes,
they entered into an alliance against Judah. Because Ahaz, though he found the sword over his
head, began his reign with idolatry, God delivered him into the hand of the king of Syria and of
the king of Israel (2Ch_28:5), and a great slaughter they made in his kingdom, Isa_7:6, Isa_7:7.
Flushed with this victory, they went up towards Jerusalem, the royal city, to war against it, to
besiege it, and make themselves masters of it; but it proved in the issue that they could not gain
their point. Note, The sin of a land brings foreign invasions upon it and betrays the most
advantageous posts and passes to the enemy; and God sometimes makes one wicked nation a
scourge to another; but judgment, ordinarily, begins at the house of God.
5. JAMISON, “Isaiah 7:1-9:7. Prediction of the ill success of the Syro-Israelithish invasion of
Judah. Ahaz’ alliance with Assyria, and its fatal results to Judea. Yet the certainty of final
representation and of the coming of Messiah.
In the Assyrian inscriptions the name of Rezin, king of Damascus, is found among the
tributaries of Tiglath-pileser, of whose reign the annals of seventeen years have been
deciphered. For the historical facts in this chapter, compare 2 Kings 15:37-16:9. Rezin of Syria
and Pekah of Israel, as confederates, advanced against Jerusalem. In the first campaign they
“smote Ahaz with a great slaughter” (2Ch_28:5). Their object was probably to unite the three
kingdoms against Assyria. Egypt seems to have favored the plan, so as to interpose these
confederate kingdoms between her own frontier and Assyria (compare Isa_7:18, “Egypt”; and
2Ki_17:4, Hoshea’s league with Egypt). Rezin and Pekah may have perceived Ahaz’ inclination
towards Assyria rather than towards their own confederacy; this and the old feud between Israel
and Judah (1Ki_12:16) occasioned their invasion of Judah. Ahaz, at the second inroad of his
enemies (compare 2Ch_28:1-26 and 2Ki_15:37, with Isa_16:5), smarting under his former
defeat, applied to Tiglath-pileser, in spite of Isaiah’s warning in this chapter, that he should
rather rely on God; that king accordingly attacked Damascus, and slew Rezin (2Ki_16:9); and
probably it was at the same time that he carried away part of Israel captive (2Ki_15:29), unless

4. there were two assaults on Pekah - that in 2Ki_15:29, the earlier, and that in which Tiglath
helped Ahaz subsequently [G. V. Smith]. Ahaz was saved at the sacrifice of Judah’s
independence and the payment of a large tribute, which continued till the overthrow of
Sennacherib under Hezekiah (Isa_37:37; 2Ki_16:8, 2Ki_16:17, 2Ki_16:18; 2Ch_28:20). Ahaz’
reign began about 741 b.c., and Pekah was slain in 738 [Winer].
Ahaz — In the first years of his reign the design of the two kings against Judah was carried
out, which was formed in Jotham’s reign (2Ki_15:37).
Syria — Hebrew, Aram (Gen_10:22, Gen_10:23), originally the whole region between the
Euphrates and Mediterranean, including Assyria, of which Syria is an abbreviation; here the
region round Damascus, and along Mount Libanus.
Jerusalem — An actual siege of it took place, but was foiled (2Ki_16:5).
5B. MEYER, “THE SIGN OF IMMANUEL
Isa_7:1-17
A new cycle of prophecy begins here, covering the reign of Ahaz. The complete history which
illustrates these chapters is given in 2Ch_28:5. The invasion of Judah by Syria and Samaria was
permitted because a severe warning was needed to enforce Isaiah’s remonstrances and appeals.
See 2Ki_15:37. The Holy City, as Isaiah predicted, was not to be trodden by the invader, though
it would pass through severe suffering and anxiety. This immunity, which neither Ahaz nor his
people deserved, was secured by Isaiah’s faith and prayer, pleading as he did, God’s ancient
covenant.
This great prophecy of the coming Immanuel must have greatly encouraged that generation, as
it has all succeeding ones. It inspired Psa_46:1-11. What greater comfort have we than that Jesus
is the companion of our pilgrimage? See Mat_1:21-23. Though the corn-lands were desolate, the
cattle on the mountain-pastures would yield butter and the wild bees honey; and this would
supply the nation’s needs till the invader had withdrawn. Though God chastens us, He will not
forget our daily bread.
6. K&D, “As the following prophecies could not be understood apart from the historical
circumstances to which they refer, the prophet commences with a historical announcement.”It
came to pass, in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah (Uziyâhu), king of
Judah, that Rezin the king of Aramaea, and Pekah (Pekach) the son of Remaliah (Remalyâhu),
king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, and (he) could not make war upon
it.” We have the same words, with only slight variations, in the history of the reign of Ahaz in
2Ki_16:5. That the author of the book of Kings copied them from the book of Isaiah, will be very
apparent when we come to examine the historical chapters (36-39) in their relation to the
parallel sections of the book of Kings. In the passage before us, the want of independence on the
part of the author of the book of Kings is confirmed by the fact that he not only repeats, but also
interprets, the words of Isaiah. Instead of saying, “And (he) could not make war upon it,” he
says, “And they besieged Ahaz, and could not make war.” The singular yacol (he could) of Isaiah
is changed into the simpler plural, whilst the statement that the two allies could not assault or

5. storm Jerusalem (which must be the meaning of nilcham ‛al in the passage before us), is more
clearly defined by the additional information that they did besiege Ahaz, but to no purpose (tzur ‛
al, the usual expression for obsidione claudere; cf., Deu_20:19). The statement that “they
besieged Ahaz” cannot merely signify that “they attempted to besiege him,” although nothing
further is known about this siege. But happily we have two accounts of the Syro-Ephraimitish
war (2 Kings 16 and 2 Chron 28). The two historical books complete one another. The book of
Kings relates that the invasion of Judah by the two allies commenced at the end of Jotham's
reign (2Ki_15:37); and in addition to the statement taken from Isa_7:1, it also mentions that
Rezin conquered the seaport town of Elath, which then belonged to the kingdom of Judah;
whilst the Chronicles notice the fact that Rezin brought a number of Judaean captives to
Damascus, and that Pekah conquered Ahaz in a bloody and destructive battle. Indisputable as
the credibility of these events may be, it is nevertheless very difficult to connect them together,
either substantially or chronologically, in a certain and reliable manner, as Caspari has
attempted to do in his monograph on the Syro-Ephraimitish war (1849). We may refer here to
our own manner of dovetailing the historical accounts of Ahaz and the Syro-Ephraimitish war in
the introduction to the present work (p. 23ff.). If we could assume that ‫ּל‬‫כ‬ָ‫י‬ (not ‫לוּ‬ ְ‫כ‬ָ‫)י‬ was the
authentic reading, and that the failure of the attempt to take Jerusalem, which is mentioned
here, was occasioned by the strength of the city itself, and not by the intervention of Assyria - so
that Isa_7:1 did not contain such an anticipation as we have supposed, although summary
anticipations of this kind were customary with biblical historians, and more especially with
Isaiah - the course of events might be arranged in the following manner, viz., that whilst Rezin
was on his way to Elath, Pekah resolved to attack Jerusalem, but failed in his attempt; but that
Rezin was more successful in his expedition, which was a much easier one, and after the
conquest of Elath united his forces with those of his allies.
7. BI, “The confederacy against Jerusalem
The reason of this war is not stated: but from the desire of those kings to dethrone Ahaz, and
place on the throne in Jerusalem another, even Ben Tabeal, it may be inferred that
Ahaz refused to join these two powers in a general rising against Assyria.
Obviously, Ahaz was well advised in not taking a step of such decided opposition to Nineveh: for
had he done so, the legions of that empire would only have spread desolation in Judah twenty or
thirty years earlier than they did. To a certain extent, the policy commended by Isaiah was
adopted: Ahaz did not take up his stand against Assyria. The prophet, of course, wanted more.
For he urged an absolute and complete neutrality, in which Ahaz would have nothing at all to do
with this power. So far as
Ahaz acted on the prophet’s advice, he was successful: for this confederacy against Jerusalem
proved a failure. (B. Blake, B. D.)
Ahaz and Isaiah, a contrast
Ahaz is timid and helpless, takes no position, and displays no promptitude or courage. Isaiah, on
the contrary, steps forward with assurance: he is collected and calm: and his complete control of

6. the political situation impresses us forcibly. (Prof. S. R. Driver, D. D.)
Isaiah’s interview with Ahaz
At the date of Isaiah’s interview with
Ahaz the application to Assyria was meditated, but not actually carried into effect. To
understand this interview two things must be borne in mind.
Firstly, Isaiah is aware of the king’s intention to solicit aid from Assyria, but it is not openly
admitted between them. Secondly, the power and resources of the allied kings, especially of
Rezin, so impressed the popular imagination that they were held to be practically invincible;
Isaiah views both differently; describes them as “smoked out firebrands,” and intimates that he
considers the terror of the people to be unreasonable. (Prof. S. R. Driver, D. D.)
The prophet and the king
God speaks comfort to many who not only are not worthy of it, but do not so much as inquire
after it. (M. Henry.)
Unsuccessful attacks upon the Christian stronghold
“We can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth”: clever arguments, witty retorts, brilliant
repartees, criticisms that dazzle by their brightness and exasperate by their acerbity, come and
go, and Jerusalem stands, sunlit, fair, invincible. (J. Parker, D. D.)
8. CALVIN, “1.And it came to pass. Here is related a remarkable prophecy about the wonderful
deliverance of Jerusalem, when it appeared to have been utterly ruined. Now the Prophet explains all the
circumstances, that by means of them the miracle may be more fully displayed, and to make it manifest,
that not by the wisdom or power of man, but by the favor of God, the city has been preserved. For so
ungrateful were the people, that, at the close of this transaction, they would not have understood that they
had been delivered by the hand of the Lord, if all the circumstances had not been expressly brought to
their remembrance. And, indeed, there were very few persons who, in the hour of danger, ventured to
hope what Isaiah promised; because they judged of themselves and of the state of public affairs from
present appearances. In order, therefore, to make known the remarkable kindness of God, he enters into
all the details, that they may perceive from what danger and from whose hand they have been delivered.
Let us also understand that this kindness was conferred on ungrateful men, that the Church might be
preserved, and that Christ might afterwards appear.
It ought to be observed that the Prophet speaks of the second war which was fought by Rezin and Pekah;
and this may easily be inferred from the sacred history; for in the former war Ahaz was vanquished, and a

7. vast multitude were carried into captivity, who were at length restored by the Israelites, when the Prophet,
in the name of God, commanded that it should be done. Having again collected an army, (2Kg_16:5,) the
kings of Israel and Syria attacked Ahaz, because they thought that he had been worn out by the former
war, and had no power to resist. The mention of this second war is intended to show the greatness of the
miracle; for Ahaz had not strength left to resist so great a multitude, the flower of the whole nation having
been swept away by the former war, and such of the people as remained being quite dispirited, and not
yet recovered from the terror arising out of their recent defeat. So much the more, therefore, are the
goodness and power of God displayed, that, pitying so great distress, he gave assistance to his people,
and in a moment rescued them from the jaws of death, when all regarded their condition as hopeless.
Went up. This may be regarded as a statement and summary of the whole transaction; for he mentions
the subjects on which he is about to speak, and in the Hebrew modes of expression briefly glances at
those matters which he will afterwards explain more fully and at large. From the first he tells the result,
that the expedition of the two kings was unsuccessful, and afterwards he will assign the reasons why
Jerusalem could not be stormed; but before coming to that, he briefly notices the plan or design of King
Ahaz.
9. EBC, “THE WORLD IN ISAIAH’S DAY AND ISRAEL’S GOD
735-730 B.C.
UP to this point we have been acquainted with Isaiah as a prophet of general principles,
preaching to his countrymen the elements of righteousness and judgment, and tracing the main
lines of fate along which their evil conduct was rapidly forcing them. We are now to observe him
applying these principles to the executive politics of the time, and following Judah’s conduct to
the issues he had predicted for it in the world outside herself. Hitherto he has been concerned
with the inner morals of Jewish society; he is now to engage himself with the effect of these on
the fortunes of the Jewish State. In his seventh chapter Isaiah begins that career of practical
statesmanship, which not only made him "the greatest political power in Israel since David," but
placed him, far above his importance to his own people, upon a position of influence over all
ages. To this eminence Isaiah was raised, as we shall see, by two things. First, there was the
occasion of his times, for he lived at a juncture at which the vision of the World, as distinguished
from the Nation, opened to his people’s eyes. Second, he had the faith which enabled him to
realise the government of the World by the One God, whom he has already beheld exalted and
sovereign within the Nation. In the Nation we have seen Isaiah led to emphasise very absolutely
the righteousness of God; applying this to the whole World, he is now to speak as the prophet of
what we call Providence. He has seen Jehovah ruling in righteousness in Judah; he is now to
take possession of the nations of the World in Jehovah’s name. But we mistake Isaiah if we think
it is any abstract doctrine of providence which he is about to inculcate. For him God’s
providence has in the meantime but one end: the preservation of a remnant of the holy people.
Afterwards we shall find him expecting besides, the conversion of the whole World to faith in
Israel’s God.

8. The World in Isaiah’s day was practically Western Asia. History had not long dawned upon
Europe; over Western Asia it was still noon. Draw a line from the Caspian to the mouth of the
Persian Gulf; between that line and another crossing the Levant to the west of Cyprus, and
continuing along the Libyan border of Egypt, lay the highest forms of religion and civilisation
which our race had by that period achieved. This was the world on which Isaiah looked out from
Jerusalem, the furthest borders of which he has described in his prophecies, and in the political
history of which he illustrated his great principles. How was it composed?
There were, first of all, at either end of it, northeast and southwest, the two great empires of
Assyria and Egypt, in many respects wonderful counterparts of each other. No one will
understand the history of Palestine who has not grasped its geographical position relative to
these similar empires. Syria, shut up between the Mediterranean sea and the Arabian desert, has
its outlets north and south into two great river-plains, each of them ending in a delta. Territories
of that kind exert a double force on the world with which they are connected, now drawing
across their boundaries the hungry races of neighbouring highlands and deserts, and again
sending them forth, compact and resistless armies. This double action summarises the histories
of both Egypt and Assyria from the earliest times to the period which we are now treating, and
was the cause of the constant circulation, by which, as the Bible bears witness, the life of Syria
was stirred from the Tower of Babel downwards. Mesopotamia and the Nile valley drew races as
beggars to their rich pasture grounds, only to send them forth in subsequent centuries as
conquerors. The century of Isaiah fell in a period of forward movement. Assyria and Egypt were
afraid to leave each other in peace; and the wealth of Phoenicia, grown large enough to excite
their cupidity, lay between them. In each of these empires, however, there was something to
hamper this aggressive impulse. Neither Assyria nor Egypt was a homogeneous State. The
valleys of the Euphrates and the Nile were each of them the home of two nations. Beside Assyria
lay Babylonia, once Assyria’s mistress, and now of all the Assyrian provinces by far the hardest
to hold in subjection, although it lay the nearest to home. In Isaiah’s time, when an Assyrian
monarch is unable to come into Palestine, Babylon is generally the reason; and it is by intriguing
with Babylon that a king of Judah attempts to keep Assyria away from his own neighbourhood.
But Babylon only delayed the Assyrian conquest. In Egypt, on the other hand, power was more
equally balanced between the hardier people up the Nile and the wealthier people down the
Nile-between the Ethiopians and the Egyptians proper. It was the repeated and undecisive
contests between these two during the whole of Isaiah’s day, which kept Egypt from being an
effective force in the politics of Western Asia. In Isaiah’s day no Egyptian army advanced more
than a few leagues beyond its own frontier.
Next in this world of Western Asia come the Phoenicians. We may say that they connected Egypt
and Assyria, for although Phoenicia proper meant only the hundred and fifty miles of coast
between Carmel and the bay of Antioch, the Phoenicians had large colonies on the delta of the
Nile and trading posts upon the Euphrates. They were gathered into independent but more or
less confederate cities, the chief of them Tyre and Sidon; which, while they attempted the
offensive only in trade, were by their wealth and maritime advantages capable of offering at once
a stronger attraction and a more stubborn resistance to the Assyrian arms than any other power
of the time. Between Phoenicia proper and the mouths of the Nile, the coast was held by groups
of Philistine cities, whose nearness to Egypt rather than their own strength was the source of a
frequent audacity against Assyria, and the reason why they appear in the history of this period
oftener than any other state as the object of Assyrian campaigns.
Behind Phoenicia and the Philistines lay a number of inland territories: the sister-States of
Judah and Northern Israel, with their cousins Edom, Moab, and Aram or Syria. Of which Judah
and Israel together were about the size of Wales; Edom a mountain range the size and shape of
Cornwall; Moab, on its north, a broken tableland, about a Devonshire; and Aram, or Syria, a
territory round Damascus, of uncertain size, but considerable enough to have resisted Assyria

9. for a hundred and twenty years. Beyond Aram, again, to the north, lay the smaller state of
Hamath, in the mouth of the pass between the Lebanons, with nothing from it to the Euphrates.
And then, hovering upon the east of these settled states, were a variety of more or less nomadic
tribes, whose refuges were the vast deserts of which so large a part of Western Asia consists.
Here was a world, with some of its constituents wedged pretty firmly by mutual pressure, but in
the main broken and restless-a political surface that was always changing. The whole was
subject to the movements of the two empires at its extremes. One of them could not move
without sending a thrill through to the borders of the other. The approximate distances were
these:-from Egypt’s border to Jerusalem, about One hundred miles; from Jerusalem to Samaria,
forty-five; from Samaria to Damascus, one hundred and fifteen; from Damascus to Hamath, one
hundred and thirty; and from Hamath to the Euphrates, one hundred; in all from the border of
Egypt to the border of Assyria four hundred and ninety English statute miles. The main line of
war and traffic, coming up from Egypt, kept the coast to the plain of Esdraelon, which it crossed
towards Damascus, travelling by the north of the sea of Galilee, the way of the sea. Northern
Israel was bound to fall an early prey to armies, whose easiest path thus traversed her richest
provinces. Judah, on the other hand, occupied a position so elevated and apart, that it was likely
to be the last that either Assyria or Egypt would achieve in their subjugation of the States
between them.
Thus, then, Western Asia spread itself out in Isaiah’s day. Let us take one more rapid glance
across it. Assyria to the north, powerful and on the offensive, but hampered by Babylon; Egypt
on the south, weakened and in reserve; all the cities and states between turning their faces
desperately northwards, but each with an ear bent back for the promises of the laggard southern
power, and occasionally supported by its subsidies; Hamath, their advanced guard at the mouth
of the pass between the Lebanons, looking out towards the Euphrates; Tyre and Sidon attractive
to the Assyrian king, whose policy is ultimately commercial, by their wealth, both they and the
Philistine cities obstructing his path by the coast to his great rival of Egypt; Israel bulwarked
against Assyria by Hamath and Damascus, but in danger, as soon as they fall, of seeing her
richest provinces overrun; Judah unlikely in the general restlessness to retain her hold upon
Edom, but within her own borders tolerably secure, neither lying in the Assyrian’s path to Egypt,
nor wealthy enough to attract him out of it; safe, therefore, in the neutrality which Isaiah
ceaselessly urges her to preserve, and in danger of suction into the whirlpool of the approach of
the two empires only through the foolish desire of her rulers to secure an utterly unnecessary
alliance with the one or the other of them.
For a hundred and twenty years before the advent of Isaiah, the annals of the Assyrian kings
record periodical campaigns against the cities of "the land of the west," but these isolated
incursions were followed by no permanent results. In 745, however, five years before King
Uzziah died, a soldier ascended the throne of Assyria, under the title of Tiglath-pileser II, who
was determined to achieve the conquest of the whole world and its organisation as his empire.
Where his armies came, it was not simply to chastise or demand tribute, but to annex countries,
carry away their populations, and exploit their resources. It was no longer kings who were
threatened; peoples found themselves in danger of extinction. This terrible purpose of the
Assyrian was pursued with vast means and the utmost ferocity. He has been called the Roman of
the East, and up to a certain degree we may imagine his policy by remembering all that is
familiar to us of its execution by Rome: its relentlessness, impetus, and mysterious action from
one centre; the discipline, the speed, the strange appearance, of his armies. But there was an
Oriental savagery about Assyria, from which Rome was free. The Assyrian kings moved in the
power of their brutish and stormy gods-gods that were in the shape of bulls and had the wings as
of the tempest. The annals of these kings, in which they describe their campaigns, are full of talk
about trampling down their enemies; about showering tempests of clubs upon them, and raining
a deluge of arrows; about overwhelming them, and sweeping them off the face of the land, and

10. strewing them like chaff on the sea; about chariots with scythes, and wheels clogged with blood;
about great baskets stuffed with the salted heads of their foes. It is a mixture of the Roman and
Red Indian.
Picture the effect of the onward movement of such a force upon the imaginations and policies of
those little states that clustered round Judah and Israel. Settling their own immemorial feuds,
they sought alliance with one another against this common foe. Tribes, that for centuries had
stained their borders with one another’s blood, came together in unions, the only reason for
which was that their common fear had grown stronger than their mutual hate. Now and then a
king would be found unwilling to enter such an alliance or eager to withdraw from it, in the hope
of securing by his exceptional conduct the favour of the Assyrian, whom he sought further to
ingratiate by voluntary tribute. The shifting attitudes of the petty kings towards Assyria bewilder
the reader of the Assyrian annals. The foes of one year are the tributaries of the next; the state
that has called for help this campaign, appears as the rebel of that. In 742, Uzziah of Judah is
cursed by Tiglath-pileser as an arch-enemy; Samaria and Damascus are recorded as faithful
tributaries. Seven years later Ahaz of Judah offers tribute to the Assyrian king, and Damascus
and Samaria are invaded by the Assyrian armies. What a world it was, and what politics! A world
of petty clans, with no idea of a common humanity, and with no motive for union except fear;
politics without a noble thought or long purpose in them, the politics of peoples at bay-the last
flicker of dying nationalities, -"stumps of smoking firebrands," as Isaiah described two of them.
When we turn to the little we know of the religions of these tribes, we find nothing to arrest their
restlessness or broaden their thoughts. These nations had their religions, and called on their
gods, but their gods were made in their own image, their religion was the reflex of their life.
Each of them employed, rather than worshipped, its deity. No nation believed in its god except
as one among many, with his sovereignty limited to its own territory, and his ability to help it
conditioned by the power of the other gods, against whose peoples he was fighting. There was no
belief in "Providence," no idea of unity or of progress in history, no place in these religions for
the great world-force that was advancing upon their peoples.
From this condemnation we cannot except the people of Jehovah. It is undeniable that the mass
of them occupied at this time pretty much the same low religious level as their neighbours. We
have already seen (chapter 1) their mean estimate of what God required from themselves; with
that corresponded their view of His position towards the world. To the majority of the Israelites
their God was but one out of many, with His own battles to fight and have fought for Him, a
Patron sometimes to be ashamed of, and by no means a Saviour in whom to place an absolute
trust. When Ahaz is beaten by Syria, he says: "Because the gods of the kings of Syria helped
them, therefore will I sacrifice to them, that they may help me". (2Ch_28:23) Religion to Ahaz
was only another kind of diplomacy. He was not a fanatic, but a diplomat, who made his son to
pass through the fire to Moloch, and burnt incense in the high places and on the hills, and under
every green tree. He was more a political than a religious eclectic, who brought back the pattern
of the Damascus altar to Jerusalem. The Temple, in which Isaiah saw the Lord high and lifted
up, became under Ahaz, and by the help of the priesthood, the shelter of various idols; in every
corner of Jerusalem altars were erected to other gods. This religious hospitality was the outcome
neither of imagination nor of liberal thought; it was prompted only by political fear. Ahaz has
been mistaken in the same way as Charles I was-for a bigot, and one who subjected the welfare
of his kingdom to a superstitious regard for religion. But beneath the cloak of religious
scrupulousness and false reverence, (Isa_7:12) there was in Ahaz the same selfish fear for the
safety of his crown and his dynasty, as those who best knew the English monarch tell us was the
real cause of his ceaseless intrigue and stupid obstinacy.
Now that we have surveyed this world, its politics and its religion, we can estimate, the strength
and originality of the Hebrew prophets. Where others saw the conflicts of nations, aided by

11. deities as doubtfully matched as themselves, they perceived all things working together by the
will of one supreme God and serving His ends of righteousness. It would be wrong to say, that
before the eighth century the Hebrew conception of God had been simply that of a national
deity, for this would be to ignore the remarkable emphasis placed by the Hebrews from very
early times upon Jehovah’s righteousness. But till the eighth century the horizon of the Hebrew
mind had been the border of their territory; the historical theatre on which it saw God working
was the national life. Now, however, the Hebrews were drawn into the world; they felt
movements of which their own history was but an eddy; they saw the advance of forces against
which their own armies, though inspired by Jehovah, had no chance of material success. The
perspective was entirely changed; their native land took to most of them the aspect of a petty
and worthless province, their God the rank of a mere provincial deity; they refused the waters of
Shiloah, that go softly, and rejoiced in the glory of the king of Assyria, the king of the great River
and the hosts that moved with the strength of its floods. It was at this moment that the prophets
of Israel performed their supreme religious service. While Ahaz and the mass of the people
illustrated the impotence of the popular religion, by admitting to an equal place in the national
temple the gods of their victorious foes, the prophets boldly took possession of the whole world
in the name of Jehovah of hosts, and exalted Him to the throne of the supreme Providence. Now
they could do this only by emphasising and developing the element of righteousness in the old
conception of Him. This attribute of Jehovah took absolute possession of the prophets; and in
the strength of its inspiration they were enabled, at a time when it would have been the sheerest
folly to promise Israel victory against a foe like Assyria, to asseverate that even that supreme
world-power was in the hand of Jehovah, and that He must be trusted to lead up all the
movements of which the Assyrians were the main force to the ends He had so plainly revealed to
His chosen Israel. Even before Isaiah’s time such principles had been proclaimed by Amos and
Hosea, but it was Isaiah who both gave to them their loftiest expression, and applied them with
the utmost detail and persistence to the practical politics of Judah. We have seen him, in the
preliminary stages of his ministry under Uzziah and Jotham, reaching most exalted convictions
of the righteousness of Jehovah, as contrasted with the people’s view of their God’s
"nationalism." But we are now to follow him boldly applying this faith-won within the life of
Judah, won, as he tells us, by the personal inspiration of Judah’s God-to the problems and
movements of the whole world as they bear upon Israel’s fate. The God, who is supreme in
Judah through righteousness, cannot but be supreme everywhere else, for there is nothing in the
world higher than righteousness. Isaiah’s faith in a Divine Providence is a close corollary to his
faith in Jehovah’s righteousness; and of one part of that Providence he had already received
conviction-"A remnant shall remain." Ahaz may crowd Jerusalem with foreign altars and idols,
so as to be able to say: "We have with us, on our side, Moloch and Chemosh and Rimmon and
the gods of Damascus and Assyria." Isaiah, in the face of this folly, lifts up his simple gospel:
"Immanu-El. We have with us, in our own Jehovah of hosts, El, the one supreme God, Ruler of
heaven and earth."
Isaiah 7:1-9:7
KING AND MESSIAH; PEOPLE AND CHURCH
THIS section of the book of Isaiah (chapters 7-9:7) consists of a number of separate prophecies
uttered during a period of at least three years: 735-732 B.C. By 735 Ahaz had ascended the
throne; Tiglath-pileser had been occupied in the far east for two years. Taking advantage of the
weakness of the former and the distance of the later, Rezin, king of Damascus, and Pekah, king
of Samaria, planned an invasion of Judah. It was a venture they would not have dared had

12. Uzziah been alive. While Rezin marched down the east of the Jordan and overturned the Jewish
supremacy in Edom, Pekah threw himself into Judah, defeated the armies of Ahaz in one great
battle, and besieged Jerusalem, with the object of deposing Ahaz and setting a Syrian, Ben-
Tabeel, in his stead. Simultaneously the Philistines attacked Judah from the southwest. The
motive of the confederates was in all probability anger with Ahaz for refusing to enter with them
into a Pan-Syrian alliance against Assyria. In his distress Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser, and
the Assyrian swiftly responded. In 734-it must have been less than a year since Ahaz was
attacked-the hosts of the north had overrun Samaria and swept as far south as the cities of the
Philistines. Then, withdrawing his troops again, Tiglath-pileser left Hoshea as his vassal on
Pekah’s throne, and sending the population of Israel east of the Jordan into distant captivity,
completed a two years’ siege of Damascus (734-732) by its capture. At Damascus Ahaz met the
conqueror, and having paid him tribute, took out a further policy of insurance in the altar-
pattern, which he brought back with him to Jerusalem. Such were the three years, whose rapid
changes unfolded themselves in parallel with these prophecies of Isaiah. The details are not
given by the prophet, but we must keep in touch with them while we listen to him. Especially
must we remember their central point, the decision of Ahaz to call in the help of Assyria, a
decision which affected the whole course of politics for the next thirty years. Some of the oracles
of this section were plainly delivered by Isaiah before that event, and simply seek to inspire Ahaz
with a courage which should feel Assyrian help to be needless; others, again, imply that Ahaz has
already called in the Assyrian: they taunt him with hankering after foreign strength, and depict
the woes which the Assyrian will bring upon the land; while others (for example, the passage
Isa_9:1-7) mean that the Assyrian has already come, and that the Galilean provinces of Israel
have been depopulated, and promise a Deliverer. If we do not keep in mind the decision of Ahaz,
we shall not understand these seemingly contradictory utterances, which it thoroughly explains.
Let us now begin at the beginning of chapter 7. It opens with a bare statement, by way of title, of
the invasion of Judah and the futile result; and then proceeds to tell us how Isaiah acted from
the first rumour of the confederacy onward.
I. THE KING
(chapter 7)
"And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz, the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah,
that Rezin, the king of Syria, and Pekah, the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up to
Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it." This is a summary of the whole
adventure and issue of the war, given by way of introduction. The narrative proper begins in
Isa_7:2, with the effect of the first news of the league upon Ahaz and his people. Their hearts
were moved like the trees of the forest before the wind. The league was aimed so evidently
against the two things most essential to the national existence and the honour of Jehovah; the
dynasty of David, namely, and the inviolability of Jerusalem. Judah had frequently before
suffered the loss of her territory; never till now were the throne and city of David in actual peril.
But that, which bent both king and people by its novel terror, was the test Isaiah expected for the
prophecies he had already uttered. Taking with him, as a summary of them, his boy with the
name Shear-Jashub-"A-remnant-shall-return"-Isaiah faced Ahaz and his court in the midst of
their preparation for the siege. They were examining-but more in panic than in prudence-the
water supply of the city, when Isaiah delivered to them a message from the Lord, which may be
paraphrased as follows: "Take heed and be quiet," keep your eyes open and your heart still; "fear
not, neither be fainthearted, for the fierce anger of Rezin and Remaliah’s son." They have no
power to set you on fire. They are "but stumps of expiring firebrands," almost burnt out. While
you wisely look after your water supply, do so in hope. This purpose of deposing, you is vain.
"Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass." Of whom are you
afraid? Look those foes of yours in the face. "The head of Syria is Damascus, and Damascus’
head is Rezin": is he worth fearing? "The head of Ephraim is Samaria, and Samaria’s head is

13. Reinallah’s son": is he worth fearing? Within a few years they will certainly be destroyed. But
whatever estimate you make of your foes, whatever their future may be, for yourself have faith in
God; for you that is the essential thing. "If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established."
This paraphrase seeks to bring out the meaning of a passage confessedly obscure. It seems as if
we had only bits of Isaiah’s speech to Ahaz and must supply the gaps. No one need hesitate,
however, to recognise the conspicuous personal qualities-the combination of political sagacity
with religious fear, of common-sense and courage rooted in faith. In a word, this is what Isaiah
will say to the king, clever in his alliances, religious and secular, and busy about his material
defences: "Take unto you the shield of faith. You have lost your head among all these things.
Hold it up like a man behind that shield; take a rational view of affairs. Rate your enemies at
their proper value. But for this you must believe in God. Faith in Him is the essential condition
of a calm mind and a rational appreciation of affairs."
It is, no doubt, difficult for us to realise that the truth which Isaiah thus enforced, on King Ahaz-
the government of the world and human history by one supreme God-was ever a truth of which
the race stood in ignorance. A generation like ours cannot be expected to put its mind in the
attitude of those of Isaiah’s contemporaries who believed in the real existence of many gods with
limited sovereignties. To us, who are full of the instincts of Divine Providence and of the
presence in history of law and progress, it is extremely hard even to admit the fact-far less fully
to realise what it means-that our race had ever to receive these truths as fresh additions to their
stock of intellectual ideas. Yet, without prejudice to the claims of earlier prophets, this may be
confidently affirmed: that Isaiah where we now meet him stood on one side believing in one
supreme God, Lord of heaven and earth, and his generation stood on the other side, believing
that there were many gods. Isaiah, however, does not pose as the discoverer of the truth he
preaches; he does not present it as a new revelation, nor put it in a formula. He takes it for
granted, and proceeds to bring its moral influence to bear. He will infect men with his own utter
conviction of it, in order that he may strengthen their character and guide them by paths of
safety. His speech to Ahaz is an exhibition of the moral and rational effects of believing in
Providence. Ahaz is a sample of the character polytheism produced; the state of mind and heart
to which Isaiah exhorts him is that induced by belief in one righteous and almighty God. We can
make the contrast clear to ourselves by a very definite figure.
The difference, which is made to the character and habits of men if the country they live in has a
powerful government or not, is well-known. If there be no such central authority, it is a case of
every man’s hand against his neighbour. Men walk armed to the teeth. A constant attitude of
fear and suspicion warps the whole nature. The passions are excited and magnified; the
intelligence and judgment are dwarfed. Just the same after its kind is life to the man or tribe,
who believe that the world in which they dwell and the life they share with others have no
central authority. They walk armed with prejudices, superstitions, and selfishnesses. They
create, like Ahaz, their own providences, and still, like him, feel insecure. Everything is
exaggerated by them; in each evil there lurks to their imagination unlimited hostility. They are
without breadth of view or length of patience. But let men believe that life has a central
authority, that God is supreme, and they will fling their prejudices and superstitions to the
winds, now no more needed than the antiquated fortresses and weapons by which our
forefathers, in days when the government was weak, were forced to defend their private
interests. When we know that God reigns, how quiet and free it makes us! When things and men
are part of His scheme and working out His ends, when we understand that they are not
monsters but ministers, how reasonably we can look at them! Were we afraid of Syria and
Ephraim? Why, the head of Syria is this fellow Rezin, the head of Ephraim this son of Remaliah!
They cannot last long; God’s engine stands behind to smite them. By the reasonable government
of God, let us be reasonable! Let us take heed and be quiet. Have faith in God, and to faith will
come her proper consequent of common sense.

14. For the higher a man looks, the farther he sees: to us that is the practical lesson of these first
nine verses of the seventh chapter. The very gesture of faith bestows upon the mind a breadth of
view. The man, who lifts his face to God in heaven, is he whose eyes sweep simultaneously the
farthest prospect of earth, and bring to him a sense of the proportion of things. Ahaz, facing his
nearest enemies, does not see over their heads, and in his consternation at their appearance
prepares to embark upon any policy that suggests itself, even though it be so rash as the
summoning of the Assyrian. Isaiah, on the other hand, with his vision fixed on God as the
Governor of the world, is enabled to overlook the dust that darkens Judah’s frontier, to see
behind it the inevitable advance of the Assyrians, and to be assured that, whether Ahaz calls
them to his quarrel or no, they will very soon of their own motion overwhelm both of his
enemies. From these "two smoking firebrands" there is then no real danger. But from the
Assyrian, if once Judah entangle herself in his toils, there is the most extreme danger.
Isaiah’s advice is therefore not mere religious quietism; it is prudent policy. It is the best
political advice that could have been offered at that crisis, as we have already been able to gather
from a survey of the geographical and political dispositions of Western Asia, apart altogether
from religious considerations. But to Isaiah the calmness requisite for this sagacity sprang from
his faith. Mr. Bagehot might have appealed to Isaiah’s whole policy in illustration of what he has
so well described as the military and political benefits of religion. Monotheism is of advantage to
men not only by reason of "the high concentration of steady feeling" which it produces, but also
for the mental calmness and sagacity which surely spring from a pure and vivid conviction that
the Lord reigneth.
One other thing it is well we should emphasise, before we pass from Isaiah’s speech to Ahaz.
Nothing can be plainer than that Isaiah, though advocating so absolutely a quiescent belief in
God, is no fatalist. Now other prophets there have been, insisting just as absolutely as Isaiah
upon resignation to God the supreme, and the evident practical effect of their doctrine of the
Divine sovereignty has been to make their followers, not shrewd political observers, but blind
and apathetic fatalists. The difference between them and Isaiah has lain in the kind of character,
which they and he have respectively attributed to the Deity, before exalting Him to the throne of
absolute power and resigning themselves to His will. Isaiah, though as disciplined a believer in
God’s sovereignty and man’s duty of obedience as any prophet that ever preached these
doctrines, was preserved from the fatalism to which they so often lead by the conviction he had
previously received of God’s righteousness. Fatalism means resignation to fate, and fate means
an omnipotence either without character, or (which is the same thing) of whose character we are
ignorant. Fate is God minus character, and fatalism is the characterless condition to which belief
in such a God reduces man. History presents it to our view amid the most diverse surroundings.
The Greek mind, so free and sunny, was bewildered and benumbed by belief in an inscrutable
Nemesis: In the East how frequently is a temper of apathy or despair bred in men, to whom God
is nothing but a despot! Even within Christianity we have had fanatics, so inordinately possessed
with belief in God’s sovereignty of election, to the exclusion of all other Divine truths, as to
profess themselves, with impious audacity, willing to be damned for His glory. Such instances
are enough to prove to us the extreme danger of making the sovereignty of God the first article
of our creed. It is not safe for men to exalt a deity to the throne of the supreme providence, till
they are certified of his character. The vision of mere power intoxicates and brutalises, no less
when it is hallowed by the name of religion, than when, as in modern materialism, it is blindly
interpreted as physical force. Only the people who have first learned to know their Deity
intimately in the private matters of life, where heart touches heart, and the delicate arguments
of conscience are not overborne by the presence of vast natural forces or the intricate
movements of the world’s history, can be trusted afterwards to enter these larger theatres of
religion, without risk of losing their faith, their sensibility, or their conscience.

15. The whole course of revelation has been bent upon this: to render men familiarly and
experimentally acquainted with the character of God, before laying upon them the duty of
homage to His creative power or submission to His will. In the Old Testament God is the Friend,
the Guide, the Redeemer of men, or ever He is their Monarch and Lawgiver. The Divine name
which the Hebrew sees "excellent through all the earth" is the name that he has learned to know
at home as "Jehovah, our Lord". (Psa_8:1-9) Jehovah trains His people to trust His personal
truth and lovingkindness within their own courts, before He tests their allegiance and discipline
upon the high places of the world. And when, amid the strange terrors of these and the novel
magnitudes with which Israel, facing the world, had to reckon, the people lost their presence Of
mind, His elegy over them was, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." Even when
their temple is full and their sacrifices of homage to His power most frequent, it is still their
want of moral acquaintance with Himself of which He complains: "Israel doth not know; My
people doth not consider." What else was the tragedy in which Jewish history closed, than just
the failure to perceive this lesson: that to have and to communicate the knowledge of the
Almighty’s character is of infinitely more value than the attempt to vindicate in any outward
fashion Jehovah’s supremacy over the world? This latter, this forlorn, hope was what Israel
exhausted the evening of their day in attempting. The former-to communicate to the lives and
philosophies of mankind a knowledge of the Divine heart and will, gained throughout a history
of unique grace and miracle-was the destiny which they resigned to the followers of the crucified
Messiah.
For under the New Testament this also is the method of revelation. What our King desires
before He ascends the throne of the world is that the world should know Him; and so He comes
down among us, to be heard, and seen, and handled of us, that our hearts may learn His heart
and know His love, unbewildered by His majesty. And for our part, when we ascribe to our King
the glory and the dominion, it is as unto Him that loved us and washed us from our sins in His
blood. For the chief thing for individuals, as for nations, is not to believe that God reigneth so
much as to know what kind of God He is who reigneth.
But Ahaz would not be persuaded. He had a policy of his own, and was determined to pursue it.
He insisted on appealing to Assyria. Before he did so, Isaiah made one more attempt on his
obduracy. With a vehemence, which reveals how critical he felt the king’s decision to be, the
prophet returned as if this time the very voice of Jehovah. "And Jehovah spake to Ahaz, saying,
Ask thee a sign of Jehovah thy God; ask it either in Sheol below or in the height above. But Ahaz
said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord."
Isaiah’s offer of a sign was one which the prophets of Israel used to make when some crisis
demanded the immediate acceptance of. their word by men, and men were more than usually
hard to convince-a miracle such as the thunder that Samuel called out of a clear sky to impress
Israel with God’s opinion of their folly in asking for a king; (1Sa_12:17) or as the rending of the
altar which the man of God brought to pass to convict the sullen Jeroboam; (1Ki_13:3) or as the
regress of the shadow on the sun-dial, which Isaiah himself gave in assurance of recovery to the
sick Hezekiah. (chapter 38) Such signs are offered only to weak or prejudiced persons. The most
real faith, as Isaiah himself tells us, is unforced, the purest natures those which need no signs
and wonders. But there are certain crises at which faith must be immediately forced, and Ahaz
stood now at such a crisis; and there are certain characters who, unable to read a writ from the
court of conscience and reason, must be served with one from a court-even though it be inferior-
whose language they understand; and Ahaz was such a character. Isaiah knew his man, and
prepared a pretty dilemma for him. By offering him whatever sign he chose to ask, Isaiah knew
that the king would be committed before his own honour and the public conscience to refrain
from calling in the Assyrians, and so Judah would be saved; or if the king refused the sign, the
refusal would unmask him. Ahaz refused, and at once Isaiah denounced him and all his house.
They were mere shufflers, playing fast and loose with God as well as men. "Hear ye now, O

16. house of David. Is it a small thing for you to weary men, that ye must weary my God also?" You
have evaded God; therefore God Himself will take you in hand: "the Lord Himself shall give you
a sign." In order to follow intelligently the rest of Isaiah’s address, we must clearly understand
how the sign which he now promises differs in nature from the sign he had implored Ahaz to
select, of whatever sort he may have expected that selection to be. The king’s determination to
call in Assyria has come between. Therefore, while the sign Isaiah first offered upon the spot was
intended for an immediate pledge that God would establish Ahaz, if only he did not appeal to the
foreigner, the sign Isaiah now offers shall come as a future proof of how criminal and disastrous
the appeal to the foreigner has been. The first sign would have been an earnest of salvation; the
second is to be an exposure of the fatal evil of Ahaz’s choice. The first would have given some
assurance of the swift overthrow of Ephraim and Syria; the second shall be some painful
illustration of the fact that not only Syria and Ephraim, but Judah herself, shall be overwhelmed
by the advance of the northern power. This second sign is one, therefore, which only time can
bring round. Isaiah identifies it with a life not yet born.
A Child, he says, shall shortly be born to whom his mother shall give the name Immanu-El-
"God-with-us." By the time this Child comes to years of discretion, "he shall eat butter and
honey." Isaiah then explains the riddle. He does not, however, explain who the mother is, having
described her vaguely as "a"-or "the young woman of marriageable age"; for that is not necessary
to the sign, which is to consist in the Child’s own experience. To this latter he limits his
explanation. Butter and honey are the food of privation, the food of a people, whose land,
depopulated by the enemy, has been turned into pasture. Before this Child shall arrive at years
of discretion not only shall Syria and Ephraim be laid waste, but the Lord Himself will have laid
waste Judah. "Jehovah shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people and upon thy father’s house
days, that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of
Assyria." Nothing more is said of Immanuel, but the rest of the chapter is taken up with the
details of Judah’s devastation.
Now this sign and its explanation would have presented little difficulty but for the name of the
Child-Immanuel. Erase that, and the passage reads forcibly enough. Before a certain Child,
whose birth is vaguely but solemnly intimated in the near future, shall have come to years of
discretion, the results of the choice of Ahaz shall be manifest. Judah shall be devastated, and her
people have sunk to the most rudimentary means of living. All this is plain. It is a form which
Isaiah used more than once to measure the near future. And in other literatures, too, we have
felt the pathos of realising the future results of crime and the length to which disaster lingers, by
their effect upon the lives of another generation:-
"The child that is unborn shall rue
The hunting of that day!"
But why call the Child Immanuel? The name is evidently part of the sign, and has to be
explained in connection with it. Why call a Child "God-with-us" who is not going to act greatly or
to be highly honoured, who is only going to suffer, for whom to come to years of intelligence
shall only be to come to a sense of his country’s disaster and his people’s poverty. This Child who
is used so pathetically to measure the flow of time and the return of its revenges, about whom we
are told neither how he shall behave himself in the period of privation, nor whether he shall
survive it-why is he called Immanuel? or why, being called Immanuel, has he so sordid a fate to
contrast with so splendid a name?
It seems to the present expositor quite impossible to dissociate so solemn an announcement by
Jehovah to the house of David of the birth of a Child, so highly named, from that expectation of
the coming of a glorious Prince which was current in this royal family since the days of its
founder. Mysterious and abrupt as the intimation of Immanuel’s birth may seem to us at this

17. juncture, we cannot forget that it fell from Isaiah’s lips on hearts which cherished as their
dearest hope the appearance of a glorious descendant of David, and were just now the more
sensitive to this hope that both David’s city and David’s dynasty were in peril. Could Ahaz
possibly understand by Immanuel any other child than that Prince whose coming was the
inalienable hope of his house? But if we are right in supposing that Ahaz made this
identification, or had even the dimmest presage of it, then we understand the full force of the
sign. Ahaz by his unbelief had not only disestablished himself (Isa_7:9): he had mortgaged the
hope of Israel. In the flood of disaster, which his fatal resolution would bring upon the land, it
mattered little what was to happen to himself. Isaiah does not trouble now to mention any
penalty for Ahaz. But his resolve’s exceeding pregnancy of peril is borne home to the king by the
assurance that it will devastate all the golden future, and must disinherit the promised King. The
Child, who is Israel’s hope, is born; he receives the Divine name, and that is all of salvation or
glory suggested. He grows up not to a throne or the majesty which the seventy-second Psalm
pictures the offerings of Sheba’s and Seba’s kings, the corn of his land shaking like the fruit of
Lebanon, while they of the city flourish like the grass of the earth-but to the food of privation, to
the sight of his country razed by his enemies into one vast common fit only for pasture, to
loneliness and suffering. Amid the general desolation his figure vanishes from our sight, and
only his name remains to haunt, with its infinite melancholy of what might have been, the
thorn-choked vineyards and grass-grown courts of Judah.
But even if it were to prove too fine a point, to identify Immanuel with the promised Messiah of
David’s house, and we had to fall back on some vaguer theory of him, finding him to be a
personification, -either a representative of the coming generation of God’s people, or a type of
the promised tomorrow, -the moral effect of the sign would remain the same; and it is with this
alone that we have here to do. Be this an individual, or a generation, or an age, -by the Name
bestowed upon it, it was to have been a glorious, God-inhabited age, generation, or individual,
and Ahaz has prematurely spoiled everything about it but the Name. The future shall be like a
boy cursed by his fathers, brought into the world with glorious rights that are stamped in his
title, but only to find his kingdom and estates no longer in existence, and all the circumstances
dissipated in which he might have realised the glorious meaning of his name. Type of innocent
suffering, he is born to an empty title, his name the vestige of a great opportunity, the ironical
monument of an irreparable crime.
If Ahaz had any conscience left, we can imagine the effect of this upon him. To be punished for
sin in one’s own body and fortune, this is sore enough; but to see heaven itself blackened and all
the gracious future frustrate, this is unspeakably terrible.
Ahaz is thus the Judas of the Old Testament, if that conception of Judas’ character be the right
one which makes his wilful desire to bring about the kingdom of God in his own violent fashion
the motive of his betrayal of Jesus. Of his own obduracy Ahaz has betrayed the Messiah and
Deliverer of his people. The assurance of this betrayal is the sign of his obduracy, a signal and
terrible proof of his irretrievable sin in calling upon the Assyrians. The king has been found
wanting.
II. THE PEOPLE
(chapter 8)
The king has been found wanting; but Isaiah will appeal to the people. Chapter 8 is a collection
of addresses to them, as chapter 7 was an expostulation with their sovereign. The two chapters
are contemporary. In Isa_8:1, the narrative goes back upon itself, and returns to the situation as
it was before Ahaz made his final resolution of reliance on Assyria. Isa_8:1-4 imply that the
Assyrian has not yet been summoned by Ahaz to his assistance, and therefore run parallel to
Isa_7:3-9; but Isa_8:5 and following verses sketch the evils that are to come upon Judah and

18. Israel, consequent upon the arrival of the Assyrians in Palestine, in answer to the appeal of
Ahaz. These evils for land and nation are threatened as absolutely to the people as they had been
to the king. And then the people are thrown over, (Isa_8:14) as the king had been; and Isaiah
limits himself to his disciples (Isa_8:16)-the remnant that was foretold in chapter 6.
This appeal from monarch to people is one of the most characteristic features of Isaiah’s
ministry. Whatever be the matter committed to him, Isaiah is not allowed to rest till he has
brought it home to the popular conscience; and however much he may be able to charge national
disaster upon the folly of politicians or the obduracy of a king, it is the people whom he holds
ultimately responsible. The statesman, according to Isaiah, cannot rise far above the level of his
generation; the people set the fashion to their most autocratic rulers. This instinct for the
popular conscience, this belief in the moral solidarity of a nation and their governors, was the
motive of the most picturesque passages in Isaiah’s career, and inspired some of the keenest
epigrams in which he conveyed the Divine truth. We have here a case in illustration. Isaiah had
met Ahaz and his court "at the conduit of the upper pool, in the highway of the fuller’s field,"
preparing for the expected siege of the city, and had delivered to them the Lord’s message not to
fear, for that Syria-Ephraim would certainly be destroyed. But that was not enough. It was now
laid upon the prophet to make public and popular advertisement of the same truth.
Isaiah was told to take a large, smooth board, and write thereon in the character used by the
common people-"with the pen of a man"-as if it were the title to a prophecy, the compound word
"Maher-shalal-hash-baz." This was not only an intelligibly written, but a significantly sonorous,
word-one of those popular cries in which the liveliest sensations are struck forth by the crowded,
clashing letters, full to the dullest ears of rumours of war: "speed-spoil-hurry-prey." The
interpretation of it was postponed, the prophet meantime taking two faithful witnesses to its
publication. In a little a son was born to Isaiah, and to this child he transferred the noisy name.
Then its explanation was given. The double word was the alarm of a couple of invasions. "Before
the boy shall have knowledge to cry, My father, my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil
of Samaria shall be carried away before the king of Assyria." So far nothing was told the people
that had not been told their king; only the time of the overthrow of their two enemies was fixed
with greater precision. At the most in a year, Damascus and Samaria would have fallen. The
ground was already vibrating to the footfall of the northern hosts.
The rapid political changes, which ensued in Palestine, are reflected on the broken surface of
this eighth chapter. We shall not understand these abrupt and dislocated oracles, uttered at
short intervals during the two years of the Assyrian campaign, unless we realise that northern
shadow passing and repassing over Judah and Israel, and the quick alternations of pride and
penitence in the peoples beneath it. We need not try to thread the verses on any line of thought.
Logical connection among them there is none. Let us at once get down into the currents of
popular feeling, in which Isaiah, having left Ahaz, is now labouring, and casting forth these cries.
It is a period of powerful currents, a people wholly in drift, and the strongest man of them
arrested only by a firm pressure of the Lord’s hand. "For Jehovah spake thus to me with a strong
hand, and instructed me, that I should not walk in the way of this people." The character of the
popular movement, "the way of this people," which nearly lifted Isaiah off his feet, is evident. It
is that into which every nation drifts, who have just been loosened from a primitive faith in God,
and by fear or ambition have been brought under the fascination of the great world. On the one
hand, such a generation is apt to seek the security of its outward life in things materially large
and splendid, to despise as paltry its old religious forms, national aspirations and achievements,
and be very desirous to follow foreign fashion and rival foreign wealth. On the other hand, the
religious spirit of such an age, withdrawn from its legitimate objects, seeks satisfaction in petty
and puerile practices, demeaning itself spiritually, in a way that absurdly contrasts with the
grandeur of its material ambitions. Such a stage in the life of a people has its analogy in the

19. growth of the individual, when the boy, new to the world, by affecting the grandest companions
and models, assumes an ambitious manner, with contempt for his former circumstances, yet
inwardly remains credulous, timid, and liable to panic. Isaiah reveals that it was such a stage
which both the kingdoms of Israel had now reached. "This people hath refused the waters of
Shiloah, that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah’s son."
It was natural, that when the people of Judah contrasted their own estate with that of Assyria, or
even of Damascus, they should despise themselves. For what was Judah? A petty principality, no
larger than three of our own counties. And what was Jerusalem? A mere mountain village, some
sixty or seventy acres of barren rock, cut into tongues by three insignificant valleys, down which
there sometimes struggled tiny threads of water, though the beds were oftener dry, giving the
town a withered and squalid look-no great river to nourish, ennoble, or protect. What were such
a country and capital to compare with the empire of Assyria?-the empire of the two rivers,
whose powerful streams washed the ramparts, wharves, and palace stairs of mighty cities! What
was Jerusalem even to the capital of Rezin? Were not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus,
better than all the waters of Israel, let alone these waterless wadys, whose bleached beds made
the Jewish capital so squalid? It was the Assyrian’s vast water system - canals, embankments,
sluices, and the wealth of water moving through them-that most impressed the poor Jew, whose
streams failed him in summer, and who had to treasure up his scanty stores of rainwater in the
cisterns, with which the rocky surface of his territory is still so thickly indented. There had,
indeed, been at Jerusalem some attempt to conduct water. It was called "The Shiloah-conduit or
aqueduct," or literally "emissary" in the old sense of the word-a rough, narrow tunnel of some
thousand feet in length, hewn through the living rock from the only considerable spring on the
east side of Jerusalem, to a reservoir within the walls. To this day "The Shiloah" presents itself
as not by any means a first-class piece of engineering. Ahaz had either just made the tunnel or
repaired it; but if the water went no faster than it travels now, the results were indeed ridiculous.
Well might "this people despise the waters of the Shiloah, that go trickling," when they thought
upon the rivers of Damascus or the broad streams of Mesopotamia. Certainly it was enough to
dry up the patriotism of the Judean, if he was capable of appreciating only material value, to
look upon this bare, riverless capital, with its bungled aqueduct and trickling water supply. On
merely material grounds, Judah was about the last country at that time in which her inhabitants
might be expected to show pride or confidence.
But woe to the people whose attachment to their land is based upon its material advantages,
who have lost their sense for those spiritual presences, from an appreciation of which springs all
true love of country, with warrior’s courage in her defence and statesman’s faith in her destiny!,
The greatest calamity, which can befall any people, is to forfeit their enthusiasm for the soil, on
which their history has been achieved and their hearths and altars lie, by suffering their faith in
the presence of God, of which these are but the tokens, to pass away. With this loss Isaiah now
reproaches Judah. The people are utterly materialised; their delights have been in gold and
silver, chariots and horses, fenced cities and broad streams, and their faith has now followed
their delights. But these things to which they flee will only prove their destruction. The great
foreign river, whose waters they covet, will overflow them: "even the king of Assyria and all his
glory, and he shall come up over all his channels and go over all his banks; and he shall sweep
onward into Judah; he shall overflow and pass through; he shall reach even to the neck; and the
stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel," thou who art "God-
with-us." At the sound of the Name, which floats in upon the floods of invasion like the Ark on
the waters of old, Isaiah pulls together his distraught faith in his country, and forgetting her
faults, flings defiance at her foes. "Associate yourselves, ye peoples, and ye shall be broken in
pieces; and give ear, all ye of far-off countries, gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces.
Take counsel together, it shall be brought to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for

20. Immanu-El"-"With us is God." The challenge was made good. The prophet’s faith prevailed over
the people’s materialism, and Jerusalem remained inviolable till Isaiah’s death.
Meantime the Assyrian came on. But the infatuated people of Judah continued to tremble rather
before the doomed conspirators, Rezin and Pekah. It must have been a time of huge excitement.
The prophet tells us how he was steadied by the pressure of the Lord’s hand, and how, being
steadied, the meaning of the word "Immanuel" was opened out to him. "God-with-us" is the one
great fact of life. Amid all the possible alliances and all the possible fears of a complex political
situation, He remains the one certain alliance, the one real fear: "Say ye not, A conspiracy,
concerning all whereof this people say, A conspiracy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be in dread
thereof. Jehovah of hosts, Him shall ye sanctify; and let Him be your fear, and let Him be your
dread." God is the one great fact of life, but what a double-edged fact-"a sanctuary to all who put
their trust in Him, but a rock of offence to both houses of Israel!" The figure is very picturesque.
An altar, a common stone on steps, one of those which covered the land in large numbers-it is
easy to see what a double purpose that might serve. What a joy the sight would be to the weary
wanderer or refugee who sought it, what a comfort as he leant his weariness upon it, and knew
he was safe! But those who were flying over the land, not seeking Jehovah, not knowing indeed
what they sought, blind and panic-stricken-for them what could that altar do but trip them up
like any other common rock in their way? "In fact, Divine justice is something which is either,
observed, desired, or attained, and is then men’s weal, or, on the other hand, is overlooked.
rejected, or sought after in a wild, unintelligent spirit, and only in the hour of need, and is then
their lasting ruin."
The Assyrian came on, and the temper of the Jews grew worse. Samaria was indeed doomed
from the first, but for some time Isaiah had been excepting Judah from a judgment for which
the guilt of Northern Israel was certainly riper. He foresaw, of course, that the impetus of
invasion might sweep the Assyrians into Judah, but he had triumphed in this: that Judah was
Immanuel’s land, and that all who arrayed themselves against her must certainly come to
naught. But now his ideas have changed, as Judah has persisted in evil. He knows now that God
is for a stumbling-block to both houses of Israel; nay, that upon Jerusalem herself He will fall as
a gin and a snare. Only for a little group of individuals, separate from both States, and gathered
round the prophet and the word of God given to him, is salvation certain. People, as well as king,
have been found wanting. There remains only this remnant.
Isaiah then at last sees his remnant. But the point we have reached is significant for more than
the fulfilment of his expectations. This is the first appearance in history of a religious
community, apart from the forms of domestic or national life. "Till then no one had dreamed of
a fellowship of faith dissociated from all national forms, bound together by faith in the Divine
word alone. It was the birth of a new era in religion, for it was the birth of the conception of the
Church, the first step in the emancipation of spiritual religion from the forms of political life."
The plan of the seventh and eighth chapters is now fully disclosed. As the king for his
unworthiness has to give place to the Messiah, so the nation for theirs have to give place to the
Church. In the seventh chapter the king was found wanting, and the Messiah promised. In the
eighth chapter the people are found wanting; and the prophet, turning from them, proceeds to
form the Church among those who accept the Word, which king and people have refused. "Bind
thou up the testimony, and seal the teaching among my disciples. And I will wait on Jehovah,
who hideth His face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for Him. Behold, I and the children
Jehovah hath given me are for signs and wonders in Israel from Jehovah of hosts, Him that
dwelleth in Mount Zion."
This, then, is the situation: revelation concluded, the Church formed upon it, and the nation
abandoned. But is that situation final? The words just quoted betray the prophet’s hope that it is
not. He says: "I will wait." He says again: The Lord is only "hiding His face from the house of

21. Jacob." I will expect again the shining of His countenance. I will hope for Divine grace and the
nation being once more conterminous. The rest of the section (to Isa_9:7) is the development of
this hope, which stirs in the prophet’s heart after he has closed the record of revelation.
The darkness deepened across Israel. The Assyrian had come. The northern floods kept surging
among the little states of Palestine, and none knew what might be left standing. We can well
understand Isaiah pausing, as he did, in face of such rapid and incontrollable movements. When
Tiglath-pileser swept over the plain of Esdraelon, casting down the king of Samaria and the
Philistine cities, and then swept back again, carrying off upon his ebb the populations east of the
Jordan, it looked very like as if both the houses of Israel should fall. In their panic, the people
betook themselves to morbid forms of religion; and at first Isaiah was obliged to quench the
hope and pity he had betrayed for them in indignation at the utter contrariety of their religious
practices to the word of God. There can be no Divine grace for the people as long as they "seek
unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto the wizards that chirp and that mutter." For such
a disposition the prophet has nothing but scorn, "Should not a people seek unto their God? On
behalf of the living should they seek unto the dead?" They must come back to the prophet’s own
word before hope may dawn. "To the revelation and the testimony! If they speak not according
to this word, surely there is no morning for them."
The night, however, grew too awful for scorn. There had been no part of the land so given to the
idolatrous practices, which the prophet scathed, as "the land of Zebulon and the land of
Naphtali, by the sea beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles." But all the horrors of captivity had
now fallen upon it, and it had received at the Lord’s hand double for all its sins. The night had
been torn enough by lightning; was there no dawn? The darkness of these provinces fills the
prophet’s silenced thoughts. He sees a people "hardly bestead and hungry, fretting themselves,
cursing their king," who had betrayed them, "and their God," who had abandoned them,
"turning their faces upwards" to heaven and "downwards" to the sacred soil from which they
were being dragged, "but, behold, distress and darkness, the gloom of anguish; and into thick
darkness they are driven away." It is a murky picture, yet through the smoke of it we are able to
discern a weird procession of Israelites departing into captivity. We date it, therefore, about 732
B.C., the night of Israel’s first great captivity. The shock and the pity of this rouse the prophet’s
great heart. He cannot continue to say that there is no morning for those benighted provinces.
He will venture a great hope for their people.
Over how many months the crowded verses, Isa_8:21-22; Isa_9:1-7, must be spread, it is useless
now to inquire-whether the revulsion they mark arose all at once in the prophet’s mind, or hope
grew gradually brighter as the smoke of war died away on Israel’s northern frontier during 731
B.C. It is enough that we can mark the change. The prophet’s tones pass from sarcasm to pity;
(Isa_8:20-21) from pity to hope; (Isa_8:22; Isa_9:1) from hope to triumph in the vision of
salvation actually achieved. (Isa_9:2) "The people that walked in darkness have seen a great
light; they that dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, on them hath the light shined." For a
mutilated, we see a multiplied, nation; for the fret of hunger and the curses of defeat, we hear
the joy of harvest and of spoil after victory. "For the yoke of his burden, and the staff of his
shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, Thou hast broken as in the day of Midian." War has rolled
away forever over that northern horizon, and all the relies of war in the land are swept together
into the fire. "For all the armour of the armed man in the tumult, and the garments rolled in
blood, shall even be for burning, and for fuel of fire." In the midday splendour of this peace,
which, after the fashion of Hebrew prophecy, is described as already realised, Isaiah hails the
Author of it all in that gracious and marvellous Child whose birth he had already intimated, Heir
to the throne of David, but entitled by a fourfold name, too generous, perhaps, for a mere
mortal, "Wonderful-Counsellor, Hero-God, Father-Everlasting, Prince-of-peace," who shall
redeem the realms of his great forerunner and maintain "Israel with justice and righteousness
from henceforth, even forever."

22. When, finally, the prophet inquires what has led his thoughts through this rapid change from
satisfaction (Isa_8:16) with the salvation of small "remnant" of believers in the word of God-a
little kernel of patience in the midst of a godless and abandoned people-to the daring vision of a
whole nation redeemed and established in peace under a Godlike King, he says: "The zeal of the
Lord of hosts hath performed this."
"The zeal," translates our English version, but no one English word will give it. It is that mixture
of hot honour and affection to which "jealousy" in its good sense comes near. It is that overflow
of the love that cannot keep still, which, when men think God has surely done all He will or can
do for an ungrateful race, visits "them in their distress, and carries them forward into
unconceived dispensations of grace and glory. It is the Spirit of God, which yearns after the lost,
speaks to the self-despairing of hope, and surprises rebel and prophet alike with new revelations
of love. We have our systems representing God’s work up to the limits of our experience, and we
settle upon them; but the Almighty is ever greater than His promise or than His revelation of
Himself."
2
Now the house of David was told, “Aram has allied
itself with[a]
Ephraim”; so the hearts of Ahaz and his
people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are
shaken by the wind.
1.BARNES, “And it was told the house of David - That is, the royal family; or the king
and princes; the government. Ahaz was the descendant and successor of David.
Syria is confederate with Ephraim - Ephraim was one of the tribes of Israel, and the
kingdom of Israel was often called “Ephraim,” or the kingdom of Ephraim; in the same way as
the tribes of Judah and Benjamin were called the kingdom of Judah. The phrase, ‘is confederate
with,’ is in Hebrew ‘resteth on;’ see the margin. The meaning is, that Syria was “supported by”
Ephraim, or was allied with Ephraim. The kingdom of Israel, or Ephraim, was situated
“between” Syria and Jerusalem. Of course, the latter could not be attacked without marching
through the former, and without their aid. In this sense it was that Syria, or the Arameans, relied
or “rested” on Ephraim. Though Syria was by far the stronger power, yet it was not strong
enough to attack Jerusalem had the kingdom of Israel been opposed to it.
And his heart - The heart of the king - of Ahaz.
Was moved as the trees of the wood - This is a very beautiful and striking image. It
expresses universal trembling, consternation, and alarm, as the trees are moved “together” when

23. the wind passes violently over them. A similar expression is found in Ovid - in “Canaces,” Epist.
xi. ver. 76, 77.
Ut quatitur tepido fraxina virga noto
Sic mea vibrari pallentia membra videres.
2. PULPIT, “It was told the house of David. Before the actual siege began, news of the alliance
reached Ahaz. It is said to have been" told the house of David," because the design was to supersede the
family of David by another—apparently a Syrian—house (see note on Isa_7:6). Syria is confederate
with Ephraim; literally, rests upon Ephraim. Under ordinary circumstances the kingdoms of Syria and
Israel were hostile the one to the other (see 1Ki_15:20; 1Ki_20:1-3;1Ki_22:3-36; 2Ki_5:2; 2Ki_6:8-
24; 2Ki_8:29; 2Ki_10:32; 2Ki_13:3, 2Ki_13:22, 2Ki_13:25). But occasionally, under the pressure of a
great danger, the relations were changed, and a temporary league was formed. The inscriptions of
Shalmaneser II. show such a league to have existed in the time of Benhadad II. and Ahab. The invasion
of Pul, and the threatening attitude of Tiglath-Pileser. It had now once more drown the two countries
together. On the use of the word "Ephraim" to designate the kingdom of Israel, see Hosea, passim. His
heart was moved; or, shook. If the two kings had each been able separately to inflict on him such loss (see
the introductory paragraph), what must he not expect, now that both were about to attack him together? It
is not clear whether Ahuz had as yet applied to Assyria for help or not.
3. GILL, “And it was told the house of David,.... Ahaz, and his family, the princes of the
blood, his court and counsellors; who had intelligence of the designs and preparations of the
Syrians and Israelites against them:
saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim; the ten tribes; or the kingdom and king of
Israel. Some render it, "Syria led"; that is, its army "unto Ephraim" (y); marched it into the land
of Israel, and there joined the king of Israel's army; others, as the Vulgate Latin version, "Syria
rests upon Ephraim" (z); depends upon, trusts in, takes heart and encouragement from
Ephraim, or the ten tribes, being his ally. The Septuagint version is, "Syria hath agreed with
Ephraim"; entered into a confederacy and alliance with each other; which is the sense of our
version; and is confirmed by the Targum, which is,
"the king of Syria is joined with the king of Israel:''
and his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are
moved with the wind; the metaphor denotes the strength and force of the confederate
armies, comparable to a strong, blustering, boisterous wind; see Isa_32:2 and the weakness of
the king and people of Judah, who were like to trees shaken by the wind; and also the fear they
were possessed with, partly through consciousness of guilt, and partly through distrust of divine

24. power and Providence; and also on account of what they had suffered already from these
powerful enemies, when they attacked them singly; and therefore might much more dread them,
as they were combined together against them; see 2Ch_28:5.
4. HENRY, “The great distress that Ahaz and his court were in when they received advice of
this design: It was told the house of David that Syria and Ephraim had signed a league against
Judah, Isa_7:2. This degenerate royal family is called the house of David, to put us in mind of
that article of God's covenant with David (Psa_89:30-33), If his children forsake my law, I will
chasten their transgression with the rod; but my loving-kindness will I not utterly take away,
which is remarkably fulfilled in this chapter. News being brought that the two armies of Syria
and Israel were joined, and had taken the field, the court, the city, and the country, were thrown
into consternation; The heart of Ahaz was moved with fear, and then no wonder that the heart
of his people was so, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind. They were tossed and
shaken, and put into a great disorder and confusion, were wavering and uncertain in their
counsels, hurried hither and thither, and could not fix in any steady resolution. They yielded to
the storm, and gave up all for gone, concluding it in vain to make any resistance. Now that which
caused this fright was the sense of guilt and the weakness of their faith. They had made God
their enemy, and knew not how to make him their friend, and therefore their fears tyrannised
over them; while those whose consciences are kept void of offence, and whose hearts are fixed,
trusting in God, need not be afraid of evil tidings; though the earth be removed, yet will not
they fear; but the wicked flee at the shaking of a leaf, Lev_26:36.
III. The orders and directions given to Isaiah to go and encourage Ahaz in his distress; not for
his own sake (he deserved to hear nothing from God but words of terror, which might add
affliction to his grief), but because he was a son of David and king of Judah. God had kindness
for him for his father's sake, who must not be forgotten, and for his people's sake, who must not
be abandoned, but would be encouraged if Ahaz were. Observe,
1. God appointed the prophet to meet Ahaz, though he did not send to the prophet to speak
with him, nor desire him to enquire of the Lord for him (Isa_7:3): Go to meet Ahaz. Note, God is
often found of those who seek him not, much more will he be found of those who seek him
diligently. He speaks comfort to many who not only are not worthy of it, but do not so much as
enquire after it.
3. He ordered him to take his little son with him, because he carried a sermon in his name,
Shear-jashub - A remnant shall return. The prophets sometimes recorded what they preached
in the significant names of their children (as Hos_1:4, Hos_1:6, Hos_1:9); therefore Isaiah's
children are said to be for signs, Isa_8:18. This son was so called for the encouragement of those
of God's people who were carried captive, assuring them that they should return, at least a
remnant of them, which was more than they could pretend to merit; yet at this time God was
better than his word; for he took care not only that a remnant should return, but the whole
number of those whom the confederate forces of Syria and Israel had taken prisoners,
2Ch_28:15.
5. JAMISON, “is confederate with — rather, is encamped upon the territory of Ephraim
[Maurer], or better, as Rezin was encamped against Jerusalem, “is supported by” [Lowth]
Ephraim, whose land lay between Syria and Judah. The mention of “David” alludes, in sad
contrast with the present, to the time when David made Syria subject to him (2Sa_8:6).
Ephraim — the ten tribes.
as ... trees of ... wood — a simultaneous agitation.

25. 6. K&D, “It is this which is referred to in Isa_7:2 : “And it was told the house of David, Aram
has settled down upon Ephraim: then his heart shook, and the heart of his people, as trees of
the wood shake before the wind.” The expression nuach ‛al (settled down upon) is explained in
2Sa_17:12 (cf., Jdg_7:12) by the figurative simile, “as the dew falleth upon the ground:” there it
denotes a hostile invasion, here the arrival of one army to the support of another. Ephraim
(feminine, like the names of countries, and of the people that are regarded as included in their
respective countries: see, on the other hand, Isa_3:8) is used as the name of the leading tribe of
Israel, to signify the whole kingdom; here it denotes the whole military force of Israel. Following
the combination mentioned above, we find that the allies now prepared for a second united
expedition against Jerusalem. In the meantime, Jerusalem was in the condition described in
Isa_1:7-9, viz., like a besieged city, in the midst of enemies plundering and burning on every
side. Elath had fallen, as Rezin's timely return clearly showed; and in the prospect of his
approaching junction with the allied army, it was quite natural, from a human point of view, that
the court and people of Jerusalem should tremble like aspen leaves. ‫ע‬ַ‫נ‬ָ‫י‬ַ‫ו‬ is a contracted fut. kal,
ending with an a sound on account of the guttural, as in Rth_4:1 (Ges. §72, Anm. 4); and ַ‫ּוע‬‫נ‬,
which is generally the form of the infin. abs. (Isa_24:20), is here, and only here, the infin.
constr. instead of ַ‫נוּע‬ (cf., noach, Num_11:25; shob, Jos_2:16; mot, Psa_38:17, etc.: vid., Ewald,
§238, b).
7.CALVIN, “2.And it was told the house of David. He does not mean that, at the very time when the
two kings were approaching to the city, the king received intelligence about the league; for it would not
have been safe for Ahaz to go out, when the invading army was spread over the country; but before they
had collected their forces, it is said that King Ahaz trembled. Hence there is reason to believe that his
consternation became greater when he saw the danger nearer. The house of David means the king’
palace and court; as if the Prophet had said that Ahaz and his counsellors had been informed about the
conspiracy which had been formed against Judea.
As to the words, ‫נחה‬ (nachah) is variously rendered by interpreters. The signification of this Hebrew word
being to lead, some draw from it this meaning, “ King of Syria led his soldiers to aid the army;” and they
think that ‫על‬ (al) with ‫ע‬ (ain) is put for ‫אל‬ (al) with ‫א‬ (aleph). Others derive it from ‫נוח‬ (nuach), as if the
letter ‫ו‬ (vau) were wanting, and render it, he rested. According to others, it is rather an inversion of the
letters, and ‫נחה‬ (nahah) is put for ‫חנה‬ (chanah), which means to pitch a camp; and, therefore, they
choose to render it, Syria is confederate (101) Nothing else was meant by the Prophet than that a league
in war hath been formed between the Israelites and the Syrians, that with their united forces they might
attack Jerusalem. In the use of the word Ephraim there is a figure of speech (synecdoche) very frequent
in the Prophets, by which a part is taken for the whole. Under Ephraim the whole kingdom of Israel is

26. included, not only because that tribe was superior to the rest in numbers and wealth, but because their
first king, Jeroboam, was descended from it. (1Kg_11:26.)
And his heart was moved. We see that by the house of David is here meant nothing else than “ king’
palace,” from which the terror spread to the whole nation; and indeed it was impossible but that, when
they heard of the alarm of the king and the princes, the body of the people should be moved by the same
kind of terror. As soon as this intelligence was received, all were struck with such dread that no man was
master of himself. He expresses their trembling by an appropriate metaphor, which is also frequently
employed by ourselves, (Il tremble comme la fueille en l’ ,) he trembles like the leaf of a tree. The design
of this is to heighten the miracle; for we learn from it that not only in the opinion of others, but likewise in
their own opinion, their case was desperate. They would therefore have been utterly ruined if the Lord
had not seasonably interposed.
This passage sets before us a very bright mirror, in which we may behold the thoughtlessness of the
ungodly, when they do not feel the hand of God; and, on the other hand, the fearful trembling with which
they are suddenly seized, when the Lord presents to them any danger. In the midst of their prosperity
they are so much at their ease that they hardly believe that they are subject to the government of God,
and undoubtedly imagine that they are placed beyond the reach of all danger. Adversity stuns them in
such a manner that they suddenly fall down, and their senses are so entirely overpowered by terror that
they lie like people who are lifeless or bereft of their senses. Such is the punishment by which the Lord
arouses them from their deep slumber. At first they appear to be firm and immovable, as if nothing could
throw them down from their rank; but now, at the slightest noise, they are suddenly seized with trembling.
That terror is the righteous vengeance of God, to whom they never do homage until they are compelled.
Let us learn, that if we have any spark of faith, we ought not to distrust God when we are in any danger. It
is indeed impossible that we should not be agitated and alarmed when dangers press upon us; but we
ought not to tremble so as to be tossed about by our anxiety in every direction, and unable to see a
harbour to which we may safely direct our course. There must always be this difference between the fear
of the godly and of the ungodly, that the ungodly find no remedy for composing their minds; but the godly
immediately betake themselves to God, in whom, knowing that they have a very safe harbour, though
they be harassed by uneasiness, still they remain calm.
(101) “Syria is arm in arm with Ephraim; leans on the arm of the king of Israel, as on that of a friend.” —
Stock.

27. 3
Then the LORD said to Isaiah, “Go out, you and your
son Shear-Jashub,[b]
to meet Ahaz at the end of the
aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the
Launderer’s Field.
1.BARNES, “Then said the Lord - In regard to the purposes for which Isaiah was sent to
meet Ahaz, and the reason why this place was selected, see the Analysis of the chapter.
Thou and Shear-ashub - The meaning of the name “Shear-jashub” is, ‘the remnant shall
return.’ The names which Isaiah gave to his sons were significant or emblematic of some
important events which were to occur to the Jews. They were for “signs” to the people, and had
been given in order to keep before the nation the great truth that God was their protector, and
that however much they might suffer or be punished, yet the nation would not be totally
destroyed until the great Deliverer should come; see the note at Isa_7:14, and Isa_8:3, note.
Why this name was given to this son, or on what occasion, is not certainly known. It is probable,
however, that was with reference to the future calamities and captivity of the Jews, denoting that
a part of the people would return to the land of their fathers: compare Isa_10:21-22. The name
was a remembrancer given by him as a prophet, perhaps, some time before this, that the nation
was not to be wholly annihilated - a truth which Isaiah everywhere keeps before them in his
prophecies; compare the note at Isa_6:13. “Why” Shear-jashub accompanied Isaiah now is not
recorded. It might be as a pledge to Ahaz of the purpose of the Lord, that the people should not
be destroyed. Ahaz may have been apprized of the reason why the name was given, and his
presence might serve to mitigate his fears.
At the end of the conduit - A “conduit” is a pipe, or other conductor of water. The water
flowed from a fountain, but was conducted to different receptacles for the supply of the city.
Of the upper pool - Or the upper receptacle, or pond. Robinson (“Bib. Researches,” i. p.
483) and Pococke (“Descr. of the East,” ii. pp. 25, 26) suppose that the upper and lower pools
referred to by Isaiah, were on the west side of the city, the ruins of which now remain. The upper
pool is now commonly called by the monks “Gihon,” and by the natives “Birket el Mamilla.” It
lies in the basin forming the head of the valley of Hinnom or Gihon, about seven hundred yards
west-northwest from the Yafa gate, on the west of Jerusalem. The sides of this pool are built of
hewn stones laid in cement, with steps at the corners by which to descend into it. The bottom is
level. The dimensions are as follows:
Length (in Eng. Feet) from east to west 316
Breadth at the west end 200
Breadth at the east end 218
Depth at each end 18

28. There is no water-course, or other visible means, by which water is now brought into this
reservoir, but it is probable that it was filled in the rainy seasons by the waters which flowed
from the higher ground round about. From this upper pool a part of the water was conveyed into
the city to the pool of Hezekiah, lying within the walls, and situated some distance to the
northeastward of the Yafa gate. ‘Hezekiah stopped the upper watercourse of Gihon, and brought
it straight down to the west side of the city of David;’ 2Ch_32:30; compare the notes at
Isa_22:9. This upper pool had a trench or ‘conduit,’ and a considerable part of the waters were
allowed to flow through this to the lower pool. The ‘lower pool’ is mentioned in the Old
Testament only once, and that by Isaiah Isa_22:9, and there without any hint of its locality.
There is now a large lower pool on the western side of Jerusalem, which is not improbably the
one intended, and which stands in contrast with the one mentioned here. This pool is called by
the Arabs “Birket es-Sultan.” There is, at present, no other pool in the vicinity of Jerusalem to
which the description in Isaiah can be well applied. This reservoir is situated in the valley of
Hinnom or Gihon, southward from the Yafa gate. Its northern end is nearly upon a line with the
southern wall of the city. The pool was formed by throwing strong walls across the bottom of the
valley, between which the earth was wholly removed. A road crosses on the causeway at the
southern end. The following are the measurements of this pool:
Length (in Eng. Feet) along the middle 592.
Breadth at the north end 245
Breadth at the south end 275
Depth at north end 85
Depth at south end 42
This reservoir was probably filled from the rains, and from the superfluous waters of the
upper pool. It is now in ruins. The water from this pool would flow off into the valley of Hinnom,
and thence, into the valley of Jehoshaphat or Kedron, or subsequently into the pool of Hezekiah,
situated “within” the city; see the notes at Isa_22:9, Isa_22:11. Why Ahaz was at that place, the
prophet does not say. It is possible he was examining it, to see whether the fountain could be
stopped up, or the water diverted so that it could not be used by the enemy, and so that they
could be prevented from maintaining a protracted siege; compare 2Ch_32:4. It is probable that
the king had gone to this place attended by many of his counselors, and as this was the main
source of the supply of water to the city, a multitude would be there, and Isaiah could have an
opportunity not only to deliver his message to Ahaz and his court, but in the presence of a
considerable concourse of people, and might thus inspire confidence among the alarmed and
dejected inhabitants of the city.
In the highway of the fuller’s field - In the place occupied as a situation on which to
spread, or suspend cloth that was bleached, or dyed. This situation would be chosen because
much water was needed in bleaching or dyeing cloth. The name ‘highway’ denotes the public
path, or road that led to this field. Probably, on one side of this highway was the aqueduct, and
on the other the fuller’s field. Of the fuller’s field, Eusebius and Jerome merely say that it was
shown in their day in the suburbs of the city. - “Onom.” art. “Ager Fullonis.”
2. CLARKE, “Now - ‫נא‬ na, is omitted by two MSS., the Septuagint, Syriac, Arabic, and
Vulgate.

29. 3. GILL, “Then said the Lord unto Isaiah,.... The prophet, the inspired penman of these
prophecies, that go by his name; what follows, the Lord said unto him in vision, or by an
articulate voice, or by an impulse on his mind:
go forth now to meet Ahaz; the prophet was in the city of Jerusalem, and Ahaz was without,
as appears by the place after mentioned, where he was to meet him; perhaps Ahaz was at his
country house, which, upon the news brought him of the designs of his enemies, he leaves, and
betakes himself to Jerusalem, his metropolis, and fortified city, where he might be more safe; or
he had been out to reconnoitre the passes about Jerusalem, and give orders and directions for
the strengthening and keeping of them:
thou, and Shearjashub thy son: whose name signifies "the remnant shall return", and who
was taken with the prophet, to suggest either that the remnant that were left of the former
devastations by those two kings ought to return to the Lord by repentance; or that though the
people of Judah should hereafter be carried captive by the Assyrians, yet a remnant should
return again. The Targum interprets this not of Isaiah's natural son, but of his disciples;
paraphrasing it thus,
"thou, and the rest of thy disciples, who have not sinned, and are turned from sin:''
at the end of the conduit of the upper pool; for there was an upper pool and a lower one;
see Isa_22:9 this was outside the city, and is the same place where Rabshakeh afterwards stood,
and delivered his blasphemous and terrifying speech, 2Ki_18:17,
in the highway of the fuller's field; where they washed and dried their garments, and
whitened them; the pool, conduit, and field, being fit for their purpose.
4. HENRY, “He directed him where he should find Ahaz. He was to meet with him not in the
temple, or the synagogue, or royal chapel, but at the end of the conduit of the upper pool, where
he was, probably with many of his servants about him, contriving how to order the water-works,
so as to secure them to the city, or deprive the enemy of the benefits of them (Isa_22:9-11;
2Ch_32:3, 2Ch_32:4), or giving some necessary directions for the fortifying of the city as well as
they could; and perhaps finding every thing in a bad posture or defence, the conduit out of
repair, as well as other things gone to decay, his fears increased, and he was now in greater
perplexity than ever; therefore, Go, meet him there. Note, God sometimes sends comforts to his
people very seasonably, and, what time they are most afraid, encourages them to trust in him.
4. He put words in his mouth, else the prophet would not have known how to bring a message
of good to such a bad man, a sinner in Zion, that ought to be afraid; but God intended it for the
support of faithful Israelites.
5. JAMISON, “Go forth — out of the city, to the place where Ahaz was superintending the
works for defense and the cutting off of the water supply from the enemy, and securing it to the
city. So Isa_22:9; 2Ch_32:4.
Shearjashub — that is, A remnant shall return (Isa_6:13). His very name (compare
Isa_7:14; Isa_8:3) was a standing memorial to Ahaz and the Jews that the nation should not,

30. notwithstanding the general calamity (Isa_7:17-25; Isa_8:6-8), be utterly destroyed (Isa_10:21,
Isa_10:22).
conduit — an aqueduct from the pool or reservoir for the supply of the city. At the foot of
Zion was Fount Siloah (Isa_8:6; Neh_3:15; Joh_9:7), called also Gihon, on the west of
Jerusalem (2Ch_32:30). Two pools were supplied from it, the Upper, or Old (Isa_22:11), or
King’s (Neh_2:14), and the Lower (Isa_22:9), which received the superfluous waters of the
upper. The upper pool is still to be seen, about seven hundred yards from the Jaffa gate. The
highway leading to the fullers’ field, which was in a position near water for the purposes of
washing, previous to drying and bleaching, the cloth, was probably alongside the aqueduct.
6. K&D, “In this season of terror Isaiah received the following divine instructions. “Then said
Jehovah to Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou and Shear-jashub thy son, to the end of the
aqueduct of the upper pool, to the road of the fuller's field.” The fuller's field (sedeh cobes) was
situated, as we may assume with Robinson, Schultz, and Thenius, against Williams, Krafft, etc.,
on the western side of the city, where there is still an “upper pool” of great antiquity
(2Ch_32:30). Near to this pool the fullers, i.e., the cleaners and thickeners of woollen fabrics,
carried on their occupation (Cobes, from Cabas, related to Cabash, subigere, which bears the
same relation to rachatz as πλύνειν to λούειν). Robinson and his companions saw some people
washing clothes at the upper pool when they were there; and, for a considerable distance round,
the surface of this favourite washing and bleaching place was covered with things spread out to
bleach or dry. The road (mesillah), which ran past this fuller's field, was the one which leads from
the western gate to Joppa. King Ahaz was there, on the west of the city, and outside the
fortifications - engaged, no doubt, in making provision for the probable event of Jerusalem
being again besieged in a still more threatening manner. Jerusalem received its water supply
from the upper Gihon pool, and there, according to Jehovah's directions, Isaiah was to go with
his son and meet him. The two together were, as it were, a personified blessing and curse,
presenting themselves to the king for him to make his own selection. For the name Shear-yashub
(which is erroneously accentuated with tiphchah munach instead of merchah tiphchah, as in
Isa_10:22), i.e., the remnant is converted (Isa_10:21-22), was a kind of abbreviation of the
divine answer given to the prophet in Isa_6:11-13, and was indeed at once threatening and
promising, but in such a way that the curse stood in front and the grace behind. The prophetic
name of Isaiah's son was intended to drive the king to Jehovah by force, through the threatening
aspect it presented; and the prophetic announcement of Isaiah himself, whose name pointed to
salvation, was to allure him to Jehovah with its promising tone.
7.PULPIT, “Thou, and Shear-Jashub thy son. The name Shear-Jashub, "a remnant shall return," may
have been given to Isaiah's son by revelation, as Ewald thinks it was; or Isaiah may have given it to testify
his faith both in the threats and in the promises of which he had been made the mouth-piece. The
command to take him with him on the present occasion was probably given on account of his name, that
the attention of Ahaz might be called to it. The conduit of the upper pool is mentioned also
in 2Ki_18:17. It was probably a subterranean duct which brought water into the city from the high ground

31. outside the Damascus gate. Ahaz may have visited it in order to see that it was made available for his
own use, but not for the enemy's.
8. CALVIN, “3.Then said the LORD. First, we see how God, remembering his covenant, anticipates
this wicked king by sending the Prophet to meet him; for he does not wait for his prayers, but of his own
accord promises that he will grant deliverance. His son Shear-jashub is joined with the Prophet as a
witness of the prediction, and there is reason to believe that his name, Shear-jashub, was not given at
random, but by the secret inspiration of the Spirit, or by an immediate command of God, and in order to
point out the future deliverance of the people. He, therefore, carried in his name what might be regarded
as an engraven seal, both of the approaching captivity and of the return. It is also probable that this
symbol of the prediction was generally known, for he would not have been joined with his father on any
other account than because he bore in his person some authority.
To the way of the fuller’ field. The place is mentioned in order to give authenticity to the history. It is
possible that the king, for the purpose of repelling the enemy, may have set out to watch his approach,
which appears more clearly from the sacred history. (2Kg_18:17.) It is called the way of the fuller’ field,
perhaps because it was customary to wash clothes there, or because the name arose out of some
ancient occurrence. However that may be, it was an evidence of anxiety and dread, that this wretched
hypocrite was running about in all directions, when Isaiah came forth to meet him and to soothe his mind.
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.
1.BARNES, “Take heed - Hebrew ‘Keep thyself;’ that is, from fear.
Neither be fainthearted - Hebrew, ‘Let not thy heart be tender;’ that is, let it not be easily
moved; be strong, fearless.
For the tails ... - There is much beauty and force in this comparison. The “design” of Isaiah
is to diminish the fear of Ahaz. Instead, therefore, of calling them “firebrands” - burning and
setting on fire everything in their way - he calls them the “tails, that is, the ends,” or remains of

32. firebrand - almost consumed themselves, and harmless. And instead of saying that they were
“burning and blazing,” he says that they were merely “smoking” - the half-burned, decaying
remains of what might have been once formidable. The prophet also is just about to announce
their approaching destruction by the Assyrians; see Isa_7:8. He, therefore, speaks of them as
already almost extinguished, and incapable of doing extensive injury.
Son of Remaliah - Pekah, Isa_7:1. ‘It is by way of contempt that the king of Israel is not
called by his own name. The Hebrews and Arabians, when they wish to speak reproachfully of
anyone, omit his proper name and call him merely the son of this or that, especially when his
father is but little known or respected. So Saul names David, in contempt, the son of Jesse;
1Sa_20:27, 1Sa_20:31.’ - “Hengstenberg.”
2. CLARKE, “The Syriac omits ‫וארם‬ vearam, “and Syria;” the Vulgate reads ‫מלך‬‫ארם‬ melech
aram, “king of Syria:” one or the other seems to be the true reading. I prefer the former: or,
instead of ‫וארם‬‫ובן‬ vearam uben, read ‫ופקח‬‫בן‬ vepekach ben, and pekah son, MS.
3. GILL, “And say unto him, take heed, and be quiet,.... Or "keep" thyself, not within the
city, and from fighting with his enemies, but from unbelief, fear, and dread; or, as the Septuagint
version, "keep" thyself, "that thou mayest be quiet" (a); be easy, still, and silent, and see the
salvation of God: the Jewish writers interpret the first word of resting and settling, as wine upon
the lees: see Jer_48:11,
fear not; this explains the former:
neither be fainthearted; or "let thy heart soft" (b), and melt like wax, through dread and
diffidence:
for the two tails of these smoking firebrands: meaning the two kings of Syria and Israel:
and so the Targum,
"for these two kings, who are as smoking firebrands;''
a metaphor used to express the weakness of these princes, their vain wrath and impotent fury,
and the short continuance of it; they being like to firebrands wholly burnt and consumed to the
end; a small part remaining, which could not be laid hold upon to light fires or burn with, and
that only smoking, and the smoke just ready to vanish.
For the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah; this shows who
are meant by the two firebrands, Rezin king of Syria, and Pekah king of Israel; and what by the
smoke of them, their fierce anger; which, though it seemed to threaten with utter destruction, in
the opinion of Ahaz and his court, was only like the smoke of a firebrand burnt to the end, weak
and vanishing.

33. 4. HENRY, “The prophet must rebuke their fears, and advise them by no means to yield to
them, but keep their temper, and preserve the possession of their own souls (Isa_7:4): Take
heed, and be quiet. Note, In order to comfort there is need of caution; that we may be quiet, it is
necessary that we take heed and watch against those things that threaten to disquiet us. “Fear
not with this amazement, this fear, that weakens, and has torment; neither let thy heart be
tender, so as to melt and fail within thee; but pluck up thy spirits, have a good heart on it, and be
courageous; let not fear betray the succours which reason and religion offer for thy support.”
Note, Those who expect God should help them must help themselves, Psa_27:14.
(2.) He must teach them to despise their enemies, not in pride, or security, or incogitancy
(nothing more dangerous than so to despise an enemy), but in faith and dependence upon God.
Ahaz's fear called them two powerful politic princes, for either of whom he was an unequal
match, but, if united, he durst not look them in the face, nor make head against them. “No,” says
the prophet, “they are two tails of smoking firebrands; they are angry, they are fierce, they are
furious, as firebrands, as fireballs; and they make one another worse by being in a confederacy,
as sticks of fire put together burn the more violently. But they are only smoking firebrands: and
where there is smoke there is some fire, but it may be not so much as was feared. Their
threatenings will vanish into smoke. Pharaoh king of Egypt is but a noise (Jer_46:17), and
Rezin king of Syria but a smoke; and such are all the enemies of God's church, smoking flax,
that will soon be quenched. Nay, they are but tails of smoking firebrands, in a manner burnt out
already; their force is spent; they have consumed themselves with the heat of their own anger;
you may put your foot on them, and tread them out.” The two kingdoms of Syria and Israel were
now near expiring. Note, The more we have an eye to God as a consuming fire the less reason we
shall have to fear men, though they are ever so furious, nay, we shall be able to despise them as
smoking firebrands.
5. JAMISON, “Take heed, etc. — that is, See that thou be quiet (not seeking Assyrian aid in
a fit of panic).
tails — mere ends of firebrands, almost consumed themselves (about soon to fall before the
Assyrians, Isa_7:8), therefore harmless.
smoking — as about to go out; not blazing.
son of Remaliah — Pekah, a usurper (2Ki_15:25). The Easterners express contempt by
designating one, not by his own name, but by his father’s, especially when the father is but little
known (1Sa_20:27, 1Sa_20:31).
6. K&D, “No means were left untried. “And say unto him, Take heed, and keep quiet; and let
not thy heart become soft from these two smoking firebrand-stumps: at the fierce anger of
Rezin, and Aram, and the son of Remaliah.” The imperative ‫ר‬ ֵ‫מ‬ ָ ִ‫ה‬ (not pointed ‫ר‬ ֶ‫מ‬ ָ ִ‫,ה‬ as is the
case when it is to be connected more closely with what follows, and taken in the sense of cave
ne, or even cave ut) warned the king against acting for himself, in estrangement from God; and
the imperative hashket exhorted him to courageous calmness, secured by confidence in God; or,
as Calvin expresses it, exhorted him “to restrain himself outwardly, and keep his mind calm
within.” The explanation given by Jewish expositors to the word hisshamer, viz., conside super
faeces tuas (Luzzatto: vivi riposato), according to Jer_48:11; Zep_1:12, yields a sense which
hardly suits the exhortation. The object of terror, at which and before which the king's heart was
not to despair, is introduced first of all with Min and then with Beth, as in Jer_51:46. The two

34. allies are designated at once as what they were in the sight of God, who sees through the true
nature and future condition. They were two tails, i.e., nothing but the fag-ends, of wooden
pokers (lit. stirrers, i.e., fire-stirrers), which would not blaze any more, but only continue
smoking. They would burn and light no more, though their smoke might make the eyes smart
still. Along with Rezin, and to avoid honouring him with the title of king, Aram (Syria) is
especially mentioned; whilst Pekah is called Ben-Remaliah, to recall to mind his low birth, and
the absence of any promise in the case of his house.
The ya‛an 'asher (“because”) which follows (as in Eze_12:12) does not belong to Isa_7:4 (as
might appear from the sethume that comes afterwards), in the sense of “do not be afraid
because,” etc., but is to be understood as introducing the reason for the judicial sentence in
Isa_7:7.
7. PULPIT, “Take heed, and be quiet; or, see that thou keep quiet; i.e. "be not disturbed; do not resort
to strange and extreme measures; in quietness and confidence should be your strength"
(see Isa_30:15). The two tails of these smoking firebrands. Rezin and Pekah are called "two tails," or
"two stumps of smoking firebrands," as persons who had been dangerous, but whose power of doing
harm was on the polar of departing from them. They could not now kindle a flame; they could only
"smoke." The son of Remaliah. Pekah seems to be called "Remaliah's son" in contempt
(comp. Isa_7:5, Isa_7:9), Remaliah having been a man of no distinction (2Ki_15:25)
8. CALVIN, “4.And thou shalt say to him (102) The Hebrew word ‫שמר‬ (shamar,) which signifies to keep,
is here put in the Hiphil; (103) and the greater part of interpreters take it for beware; but they erroneously
apply this to an unnatural and far-fetched meaning, that Ahaz should beware of carrying on war. A more
natural meaning is, that he ought not to waver or wander about in uncertainty, but to remain calm and
serene. Accordingly, I have rendered it refrain. The meaning therefore is, that Ahab should be composed,
and should not be agitated or harass his mind by uneasiness, as fickle and unsteady persons are wont to
do when they are struck with terror.
This interpretation is confirmed by the word which follows, Be quiet; for these two are connected, first, to
keep quiet watch, so as not to be distracted by a variety of opinions, or gaze around in all directions; and,
secondly, to have a calm and composed mind. Such are the highly delightful fruits which are yielded by
faith; for through a variety of attacks unbelievers give way, and wander in uncertainty, and know not to
which hand they ought to turn, while believers keep themselves under restraint, and quietly betake
themselves to God. Ungodliness is never at rest; but where faith exists, there the mind is composed, and
does not tremble to an immoderate degree. These words very fitly express the power of faith.

35. Fear not. After having pointed out the remedy for allaying the distresses of the mind, he likewise bids
them not fear; for faith, which places our salvation in the hand of God, is not more opposite to anything
than to fear. It is impossible, I acknowledge, not to fear when dangers threaten, for faith does not deprive
us of all feeling. On the contrary, the children of God are undoubtedly moved by two kinds of fear, one of
which arises from the feeling of human nature, even though they be endued with perfect faith. The other
arises from the weakness of faith; for no man has made such proficiency as not to have any remains of
that distrust against which we ought continually to strive. We must not, therefore, understand the
exhortation of the Prophet to mean that the Lord forbids every kind of fear, but he enjoins believers to be
armed with such firmness as to overcome fear. As if he had said, “ not suffer yourselves to be
discouraged; and if you are assailed by fierce and severe attacks, maintain unshaken resolution, that you
may not be overpowered by dangers, but, on the contrary, live to God and overcome all your distresses.”
For the same reason he immediately adds, —
And let not thy heart be faint. To be faint means “ melt away,” for not without reason does the Apostle
exhort us to strengthen our hearts by faith. (Heb_11:27.) It is the softness of indolence, when we forget
God and melt away, as it were, through our unbelief. You would not call that man soft or effeminate who
relies on the Spirit of God and steadfastly resists adversity. Hence we infer that the Prophet meant
nothing else than that Ahaz should undauntedly await the accomplishment of what the Lord had promised
to him.
For the two tails. Isaiah employs an elegant metaphor to lessen the conception which the Jews had
formed about those two very powerful kings which had filled their minds with terror. Their rage and cruelty
appeared to be a devouring fire, which was sufficient to consume the whole of Judea, and could not be
quenched. Isaiah, on the other hand, calls them not firebrands, (for that might have been thought to be
something great,) but tails, that is, some fragments or ends of firebrands, and these, too, not burning, but
only smoking, as if some firebrand snatched from the fire were going out, and gave out nothing else than
a slight smoke. This metaphor yields high consolation, for it warns us to form a very different opinion
about the violence of the ungodly from what it appears to be. One would think that they are endued with
so great power that they could burn and destroy the whole world. To put down the excess of terror, the
Lord declares that what we imagined to be a burning, and a perpetual burning, is but a slight smoke and
of short duration.
(102) And say unto him. — Eng. Ver.

36. 5
Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah’s son have
plotted your ruin, saying,
1.CLARKE, “Because - Remaliah - All these words are omitted by one MS. and the Syriac; a
part of them also by the Septuagint.
2. GILL, “Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah,.... Not that there were
three parties in the counsel and confederacy against Judah, only two, the kingdoms of Syria and
Ephraim, or Israel; the king of the former is not mentioned at all, and the latter only as if he was
the son of a private person, which is purposely done by way of contempt:
have taken evil counsel against thee: which is expressed in the next verse;
saying; as follows.
3. HENRY, “He must assure them that the present design of these high allies (so they thought
themselves) against Jerusalem should certainly be defeated and come to nothing, Isa_7:5-7. [1.]
That very thing which Ahaz thought most formidable is made the ground of their defeat - and
that was the depth of their designs and the height of their hopes: “Therefore they shall be baffled
and sent back with shame, because they have taken evil counsel against thee, which is an
offence to God. These firebrands are a smoke in his nose (Isa_65:5), and therefore must be
extinguished.” First, They are very spiteful and malicious, and, therefore they shall not prosper.
Judah had done them no wrong; they had no pretence to quarrel with Ahaz; but, without any
reason, they said, Let us go up against Judah, and vex it. Note, Those that are vexatious cannot
expect to be prosperous, those that love to do mischief cannot expect to do well. Secondly, They
are very secure, and confident of success. They will vex Judah by going up against it; yet that is
not all: they do not doubt but to make a breach in the wall of Jerusalem wide enough for them to
march their army in at; or they count upon dissecting or dividing the kingdom into two parts,
one for the king of Israel, the other for the king of Syria, who had agreed in one viceroy - a king
to be set in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal, some obscure person, it is uncertain whether
a Syrian or an Israelite. So sure were they of gaining their point that they divided the prey before
they had caught it. Note, Those that are most scornful are commonly least successful, for surely
God scorns the scorners.

37. 4. K&D, ““Because Aram hath determined evil over thee, Ephraim and the son of Remaliah
(Remalyahu), saying, We will march against Judah, and terrify it, and conquer it for
ourselves, and make the son of Tab'el king in the midst of it: thus saith the Lord Jehovah, It will
not be brought about, and will not take place.” The inference drawn by Caspari (Krieg, p. 98),
that at the time when Isaiah said this, Judaea was not yet heathen or conquered, is at any rate
not conclusive. The promise given to Ahaz was founded upon the wicked design, with which the
war had been commenced. How far the allies had already gone towards this last goal, the
overthrow of the Davidic sovereignty, it does not say. But we know from 2Ki_15:37 that the
invasion had begun before Ahaz ascended the throne; and we may see from Isa_7:16 of Isaiah's
prophecy, that the “terrifying” (nekı̄tzennah, from kutz, taedere, pavere) had actually taken place;
so that the “conquering” (hibkia‛, i.e., splitting, forcing of the passes and fortifications, 2Ki_25:4;
Eze_30:16; 2Ch_21:17; 2Ch_32:1) must also have been a thing belonging to the past. For history
says nothing about a successful resistance on the part of Judah in this war. Only Jerusalem had
not yet fallen, and, as the expression “king in the midst of it” shows, it is to this that the term
“Judah” especially refers; just as in Isa_23:13 Asshur is to be understood as signifying Nineveh.
There they determined to enthrone a man named Tab'el (vid., Ezr_4:7; it is written Tab'al here in
pause, although this change does not occur in other words (e.g., Israel) in pause - a name
resembling the Syrian name Tab-rimmon),
(Note: The Hauran inscriptions contain several such composite names formed like Tab'el
with el: see Wetzstein, Ausgewählte griechische und lateinische Inschriften, pp. 343-4, 361-
363). By the transformation into Tab'al, as Luzzatto says, the name is changed from Bonus
Deus to Bonus minime.)
a man who is otherwise unknown; but it never went beyond the determination, never was even
on the way towards being realized, to say nothing of being fully accomplished. The allies would
not succeed in altering the course of history as it had been appointed by the Lord.
5.CALVIN, “5.The king of Syria hath taken evil counsel against thee. Though he foretold that empty
would be the threats, and vain the attempts of the enemies of the people of God, yet he does not conceal
that their devices are cruel, if the Lord do not restrain them. By evil counsel he means destructive
counsel, for these two kings had leagued together to destroy Judea. To express it more fully, and to place
it as it were before their eyes, he relates their very words.

38. 6
“Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide
it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king
over it.”
1.BARNES, “And vex it - Margin, ‘Weaken it.’ Probably the word means to throw into
consternation or fear, by besieging it - “Gesenius.”
And let us make a breach therein - Let us break down the walls, etc.
And set a king - Subdue it, and make it tributary to the allied kingdoms of Syria and
Ephraim.
The son of Tabeal - Nothing more is known of this person. He might have been some
disaffected member of the royal family of David, who had sought the aid of Rezin and Pekah,
and who would be allied to them, or tributary to them. It is possible that he had already a party
in Jerusalem in his favor; compare Isa_8:12. Probably, the two kings wished to cut off such
portions of the territory of Judah as should be convenient to them, and to set a king over the
remainder, who should be under their control; or to divide the whole between themselves, by
setting up a king who would be tributary to both.
2. PULPIT, “Make a breach therein. The word employed means properly "making a breach in a city
wall" (2Ki_25:4; 2Ki_2:1-25 Citron. 32:1; Jer_39:2; Eze_26:10), but is used also in a metaphorical sense
for injuring and ruining a country (see especially 2Ch_21:17). The son of Tabeal; or, Tubal. "Tab-ill"
appears to be a Syrian name, founded upon the same pattern as Tab-rimmon (1Ki_15:18), rite one
meaning "God is good, "the other "Rimmon is good." We cannot, however, conclude from the name that
the family of Tabeal was monotheistic (Kay), for El was one of the many Syrian gods as much as
Rimmon.
3. GILL, “Let us go up against Judah, and vex it,.... By besieging or distressing it; or "stir
it up" to war, as Jarchi interprets it:
and let us make a breach therein for us; in the walls of the city of Jerusalem, and enter in
at it; the Targum is,
"let us join, and put it to us;''
and so Jarchi, let us level it with us, as this valley, which is even: the sense may be, let us make a
breach and division among them, and then part the kingdom between us (c); or if we cannot
agree on that, let us set up a king of our own, as follows:
and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal; which Jarchi, by a situation of
the alphabet the Jews call "albam", makes it to be the same with Remala, that is, Remaliah; and

39. so supposes, that the intention was to set Pekah, son of Remaliah, king of Israel, over Judah; but
it is not reasonable to think that the king of Syria should join in such a design; and besides, the
method of interpretation, Aben Ezra says, is mere vanity; and whose sense of the words is much
preferable, taking Tabeal to be the name of some great prince, either of Israel or of Syria; and so
Kimchi thinks that he was a man of the children of Ephraim, whom they thought to make king in
Jerusalem. The Targum understands not any particular person, but anyone that should be
thought proper; and paraphrases it thus,
"let us appoint a king in the midst of it, who is right for us,''
or pleases us; the name seems to be Syriac, see Ezr_4:7. Dr. Lightfoot thinks it is the same with
Tabrimmon, the name of some famous family in Syria. One signifies "good God": and the other
"good Rimmon", which was the name of the idol of the Syrians, 2Ki_5:18.
4. PULPIT, “The designs of the wicked, however well laid, easily brought to naught by God.
It would be difficult to find a scheme, humanly speaking, more prudent and promising than that now
formed by Rezin and Pekah. They had each measured their strength against that of Ahaz singly, and had
come off decided victors from the encounter. What doubt could there be of success when their arms were
united? And success would be a matter of the greatest importance to them. It would enable them to form
a compact alliance of three considerable warlike nations against the aggressive power which was
threatening all Western Asia with subjugation. It would put an end to the perpetual little wars in which they
had been for centuries wasting their strength, and weakening themselves for resistance against an alien
conqueror. But God speaks the word: "It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass;" and the promising
scheme drops through, ends in disaster. Rezin, its framer, instead of triumphing over Ahaz, is himself
attacked by Tiglath-Pileser; his territories are invaded, his capital besieged and taken, his people carried
away captive, and himself slain (2Ki_16:9). Pekah, Rezin's aider and abettor, is then exposed to the full
brunt of Assyrian invasion, is attacked, defeated, loses cities and provinces, and, though not slain by the
Assyrians, is left so weak and so disgraced, that he is shortly dethroned by a new usurper, Hoshea, who
murders him for his own security (2Ki_15:29, 2Ki_15:30). The "house of David," threatened with removal
by the confederates, escapes the crisis unhurt, and continues to occupy the throne of Judah for another
century and a half, while the kingdoms of Syria and Israel fall within a few years, and their inhabitants are
deported to far-distant regions (2Ki_16:9; 2Ki_17:6; 1Ch_15:26). We may learn from this—
I. THE MADNESS OF OPPOSING GOD. Syria and Ephraim were confederate against Judah. They knew
that Judah was in an especial way God's people. They designed to set aside the house of David. They
knew, or at any rate Ephraim knew, that the throne belonged to the descendants of David by God's
promise. Thus they set themselves against God knowingly. They thought their wisdom would be greater
or their strength superior to his. But thus to think is utter madness. The "foolishness of God is wiser than

40. men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men" (1Co_1:24). In vain do "the kings of the earth set
themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his Anointed, saying, Let
us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall
laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision" (Psa_2:2-4). God had only to put it into the heart of the King
of Assyria to make an immediate expedition, and all the fine schemes of the confederates, which needed
time for their execution, came at once to naught, and were confounded. The would-be allies were crushed
separately; their victim escaped them; and "the house of David" outlasted both their own.
II. THE WISDOM OF FULL TRUST IN GOD. When once God had sent him the message, "It shall not
stand, neither shall it come to pass," Ahaz might have rested securely on the promise, and have been
content simply to "stand still and see the salvation of God." But he can only have had a weak and
imperfect trust in Isaiah's words. He must bethink himself how he may escape his foes; he must bring in
another to help him besides God. Accordingly, he "goes to Assyria." He takes the silver and gold out of
the royal palace and out of the temple treasury, and sends them to Tiglath-Pileser, with the offer of
becoming his servant (2Ki_16:7, 2Ki_16:8), and he probably flatters himself that he has done well, and
owes his escape from Rezin and Pekah to himself. But he has really taken a step on the downward path
which will conduct the house of David and the people of Judah to ruin. He has placed himself under an
idolater, and paved the way for new idolatries (2Ki_16:10-16). He has helped to sweep away two states,
which, while they continued, served as a breakwater to keep the waves of invasion off his own kingdom.
He has called in one, who, from the true point of view, has really "distressed him, and strengthened him
not" (2Ch_28:20). How much wiser would he have been to have accepted God's promise in full faith, and
not supplemented it by his own "inventions" (Ecc_7:29) God would have found a way to help him and
save him, which would have involved no such evil consequences as those which flowed from his own
self-willed action.
5. JAMISON, “vex — rather, “throw into consternation” [Gesenius].
make a breach — rather, “cleave it asunder.” Their scheme was to divide a large portion of
the territory between themselves, and set up a vassal king of their own over the rest.
son of Tabeal — unknown; a Syrian-sounding name, perhaps favored by a party in
Jerusalem (Isa_3:6, Isa_3:9, Isa_3:12).
6. CALVIN, “6.Let us go up. That is, Let us make an invasion ‫נקיצנה‬ (nekitzennah) is rendered by
some, Let us distress or afflict; which is also expressed by the derivation of the word. But in this
conjugation it rather signifies “ stir up and arouse.” Though I do not reject the former interpretation, yet I
prefer the latter, because it agrees better with the scope of the passage. Again, I understand the

41. word arouse as meaning to disturb, and to cause revolutions; as we commonly say, to raise
disturbances, (104) so as not to allow the tranquillity of that kingdom to be preserved.
Let us open it to us. The following word, ‫,נבקיענה‬ (nabkignennah,) is interpreted by some, Let us break
into it (105) Others render it, Let us cause it to break up to us. I have rendered it, Let us open; for ‫בקע‬
(bakang) also signifies what we commonly express by the phrase, to make a breach or
opening (106) Now, the way toopen up the entrance to Judea was to rush through its fortifications by the
force of arms, or, through the influence of fear, to induce timid and fickle persons to revolt; for so long as
they continue to be loyal, entrance cannot be obtained; but when everything is disturbed by insurrections,
an entrance is made, so that it becomes easy to break through into the strongest and best fortified
places.
Thus, these two kings hoped that, as soon as they came into Judea, they would immediately terrify the
whole nation by the extent and power of the army, so that there would be no ability or inclination to resist.
When they brought together an army so prodigiously numerous, it is not probable that they placed any
dependence on a long siege; for Jerusalem was strongly fortified; but they thought that the inhabitants of
Jerusalem would be terrified and alarmed at the sight of their forces, and would be induced to make an
immediate surrender. Yet I leave it to every person to adopt any interpretation of these words that he
pleases, for whatever sense be put upon them, the meaning of the Prophet is not doubtful.
The son of Tabeal. Who this Tabeal was cannot easily be learned from history. Probably he was some
Israelite, an enemy of the house of David, whom those kings were desirous to set up as one of their own
dependents.
(104) Remuer les affaires .
(105) Let us make a breach therein for us. — Eng. Ver.
7
Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says:

42. “‘It will not take place,
it will not happen,
1.PULPIT, “Thus saith the Lord God; literally, the Lord Jehovah, as in Isa_28:10; Isa_40:10; Isa_48:16,
etc. It shall not stand; i.e. "the design shall not hold good, it shall not be accomplished." Rezin and
Pekah have planned to set aside the issue of David, to which God had promised his throne (2Sa_7:11-
16; Psa_89:27-37), and to act up a new line of kings unconnected with David. They think to frustrate the
everlasting counsel of God. Such an attempt was of necessity futile.
2. KRETZMANN, “ thus saith the Lord God, It shall not stand, they would not carry out their
plan, neither shall it come to pass, since He Himself had decided to hinder it.
3. GILL, “Thus saith the Lord GOD, it shall not stand,.... That is, the counsel they had
taken against Judah to vex it, make a breach in it, and set a king of their own liking over it; so
the Septuagint and Arabic versions render the words, "that counsel shall not stand"; the counsel
of God shall stand, but not the counsel of men, when it is against him, Pro_19:21,
neither shall it come to pass; or "shall not be"; so far from standing, succeeding, and going
forward, till it is brought to a final accomplishment, it should not take footing, or have a being.
4. HENRY, “God himself gives them his word that the attempt should not take effect
(Isa_7:7): “Thus saith the Lord God, the sovereign Lord of all, who brings the counsel of the
heathen to naught (Psa_33:10), It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass; their measures
shall all be broken, and they shall not be able to bring to pass their enterprise.” Note, Whatever
stands against God, or thinks to stand without him, cannot stand long. Man purposes, but God
disposes; and who is he that saith and it cometh to pass if the Lord commands it not or
countermands it? Lam_3:37. See Pro_19:21.
5. JAMISON, “(Isa_8:10; Pro_21:30).
6.CALVIN, “7.It shall not stand. What he had formerly stated was intended to show more fully that the
deliverance was great and uncommon; for when the Lord intends to assist us in our trials, he represents
the greatness of the danger, that we may not think that he promises less than the necessity requires. He
does not usually give a mitigated view of the evils which press upon us, but rather holds out their full
extent, and afterwards makes a promise, and shows that he is able to deliver us, though we may appear
to be ruined. Such was the method adopted by the Prophet; for he might have told them in plain terms
what would happen, and might have encouraged the king and the nation not to be terrified or discouraged
at the sight of those armies. But he opened up the scheme and design of those kings, with which he now

43. contrasts the promise and decree of God, that his wonderful assistance may be more strikingly
displayed.
This is the sacred anchor which alone upholds us amidst the billows of temptations; for in adversity we
shall never be able to stand if God take away his word from us. Although, therefore, the king was almost
overwhelmed with despair, Isaiah shows that there is nothing so dreadful that it may not be despised,
provided that he fortify himself by the promise of God, and patiently look for that which is not yet seen,
and which even appears to be incredible. He affirms, that whatever men attempt, after the manner of the
giants, in rising up against God, it shall not stand. He uses the word ‫,תקים‬ (thakum,) shall arise, in the
same sense in which that metaphor is employed in the Latin language, that a work is making progress;
and, in a word, he declares that such daring sacrilege shall not stand
Still more emphatic is that which he adds, ‫לא‬ ‫,תהיה‬ (lo thihyeh,) it shall not be; that is, it shall be reduced
to nothing, as if it had never existed. This mode of expression deserves notice, for it was the bare and
naked word of God which was contrasted with the vast army and scheme of the kings.
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.
1.BARNES, “For the head of Syria - The “capital.” The “head” is often used in this sense.
Is Damascus - For an account of this city, see the notes at Isa_17:1; compare the notes at
Act_9:2. The sense of this passage is, ‘Do not be alarmed as if Rezin was about to enlarge his
kingdom, by taking Judea and making Jerusalem his capital. The revolution which these kings
contemplate cannot be accomplished. The kingdoms of Syria and Israel shall not be enlarged by
the conquest of Judah. The center of their power shall remain where it is now, and their
dominion shall not be extended by conquest. The capital of Syria is, and shall continue to be,
Damascus. The king of Syria shall be confined within his present limits, and Jerusalem,
therefore, shall be safe.’
The head of Damascus - The “ruler, or king” of Damascus is Rezin.
And within threescore and five years - There has been some inquiry why “Ephraim” is
mentioned here, as the prophet in the former part of the verse was speaking of “Syria.” But it
should be remembered that he was speaking of Syria and Ephraim as “confederate.” It was

44. natural, therefore, to intimate, in close connection, that no fear was to be apprehended from
either of them. There has been much difficulty experienced in establishing the fact of the exact
fulfillment of this, and in fixing the precise event to which it refers. One catastrophe happened to
the kingdom of Ephraim or Israel within one or two years of this time, when Tiglath-pileser,
king of Assyria, invaded the land and carried no small part of the people to Assyria; 2Ki_15:29.
Another occurred in the next reign, the reign of Hoshea, king of Israel, when Shalmaneser king
of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away captive into Assyria; 2Ki_17:1-6.
This occurred in the twelfth year of Ahaz. But that the Israelites remained in Samaria, and
kept up the forms of a civil community, and were not finally carried away until the time of
Esarhaddon, is evident; compare 2Ch_34:6-7, 2Ch_34:33; 2Ch_35:18; 2Ki_23:19-20.
Manasseh, king of Judah, was taken captive by the king of Assyria’s captains 2Ch_33:2 in the
twenty-second year of his reign; that is, sixty-five years from the second year of Ahaz, when this
prophecy is supposed to have been delivered. And it is also supposed that at this time
Esarhaddon took away the remains of the people in Samaria, and put an end to the kingdom,
and put in their place the people who are mentioned in Ezr_4:3. “Dr. Jubb, as quoted by Lowth.”
The entire extinction of the people of Israel and the kingdom did not take place until
Esarhaddon put new colonists from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from
Hamath, and from Sepharvaim in the cities of Samaria, instead of the children of Israel;
2Ki_17:24; compare Ezr_4:2, Ezr_4:10.
Long before this, indeed, the power of the kingdom had been on the wane; a large portion of
the people had been removed 2Ki_17:5-6, 2Ki_17:18; but its entire extinction was not
accomplished, and the kingdom utterly destroyed, until this was done. Until this occurred, the
land might be still regarded as in the possession somewhat of its former people, and all hopes of
their rising again to the dignity of a kingdom was not extinguished. But when foreigners were
introduced, and took possession of the land; when all the social organization of the ancient
people was dissolved; then it might be said that ‘Ephraim was forever broken,’ and that it was
demonstrated that it ‘should be no more a people.’ Its inhabitants were transferred to a distant
land, no longer to be organized into a unique community, but to mingle with other people, and
finally all traces of their origin as Jews were to be lost. This event, of placing the foreigners in the
cities of Samaria, occurred just sixty-five years after it had been predicted by Isaiah. - “Dr.
Usher.”
It may be asked here, how the statement of what was to occur at so remote a period as sixty-
five years could be any consolation to Ahaz, or any security that the designs of the kings of Syria
and Samaria should “then” fail of being accomplished? To this we may reply:
(1) It was the assurance that Jerusalem could not be finally and permanently reduced to
submission before these dreaded enemies. “Their” power was to cease, and of course Jerusalem
had nothing “ultimately and finally” to dread.
(2) The design was to inspire confidence in Yahweh, and to lead Ahaz to look directly to him.
If these formidable powers could not ultimately prevail, and if there was a certain prediction
that they should be destroyed, then it was possible for God, if Ahaz would look to him, now to
interpose, and save the city. To inspire that confidence in Yahweh was the leading purpose of
Isaiah.
(3) This prediction is in accordance with many which occur in Isaiah, that all the enemies of
the people of God would be ultimately defeated, and that God, as the head of the theocracy,
would defend and deliver his people; see the notes at Isa. 34. A kingdom that was so soon to be
destroyed as Ephraim was, could not be an object of great dread and alarm. Rosenmuller
conjectures, that Isaiah refers to some unrecorded prophecy made before his time, that in sixty-
five years Israel would be destroyed; and that he refers here to that prophecy to encourage the
heart of Ahaz, and to remind him that a kingdom could not be very formidable that was so soon
to come to an end. At all events, there is no contradiction between the prophecy and the

45. fulfillment, for within the time mentioned here, Ephraim ceased to be a kingdom. The ancient
Jewish writers, with one consent, say, that Isaiah referred here to the prophecy of Amos, who
prophesied in the days of Uzziah, and whose predictions relate mainly to the kingdom of Israel.
But as Amos, does not specify any particular time when the kingdom should be destroyed, it is
apparent that Isaiah here could not have referred to any recorded prophecy of his.
Be broken - Its power shall be destroyed; the kingdom, as a kingdom, shall come to an end.
2. CLARKE, “For the head of Syria, etc. - “Though the head of Syria be Damascus, And
the head of Damascus Retsin; Yet within threescore and five years Ephraim shall be broken, that
he be no more a people: And the head of Ephraim be Samaria; And the head of Samaria
Remaliah’s son.
“Here are six lines, or three distichs, the order of which seems to have been disturbed by a
transposition, occasioned by three of the lines beginning with the same word ‫וראש‬ verosh, “and
the head,” which three lines ought not to have been separated by any other line intervening; but
a copyist, having written the first of them, and casting his eye on the third, might easily proceed
to write after the first line beginning with ‫וראש‬ verosh, that which ought to have followed the
third line beginning with ‫וראש‬ verosh. Then finding his mistake, to preserve the beauty of his
copy, added at the end the distich which should have been in the middle; making that the second
distich, which ought to have been the third. For the order as it now stands is preposterous: the
destruction of Ephraim is denounced, and then their grandeur is set forth; whereas naturally the
representation of the grandeur of Ephraim should precede that of their destruction. And the
destruction of Ephraim has no coherence with the grandeur of Syria, simply as such, which it
now follows: but it naturally and properly follows the grandeur of Ephraim, joined to that of
Syria their ally.
“The arrangement then of the whole sentence seems originally to have been thus: -
Though the head of Syria be Damascus, And the head of Damascus Retsin And the head of
Ephraim be Samaria; And the head of Samaria Remaliah’s son: Yet within threescore and five
years Ephraim shall be broken that he be no more a people.” Dr. Jubb.
Threescore and five years - It was sixty-five years from the beginning of the reign of Ahaz,
when this prophecy was delivered, to the total depopulation of the kingdom of Israel by
Esarhaddon, who carried away the remains of the ten tribes which had been left by Tiglath-
pileser, and Shalmaneser, and who planted the country with new inhabitants. That the country
was not wholly stripped of its inhabitants by Shalmaneser appears from many passages of the
history of Josiah, where Israelites are mentioned as still remaining there, 2Ch_34:6, 2Ch_34:7,
2Ch_34:33; 2Ch_35:18; 2Ki_23:19, 2Ki_23:20. This seems to be the best explanation of the
chronological difficulty in this place, which has much embarrassed the commentators: see
Usserii Annal. 5. T. ad an. 3327, and Sir 1. Newton, Chronol. p. 283.
“That the last deportation of Israel by Esarhaddon was in the sixty-fifth year after the second
of Ahaz, is probable for the following reasons: The Jews, in Seder Olam Rabba, and the
Talmudists, in D. Kimchi on Ezekiel iv., say that Manasseh king of Judah was carried to Babylon
by the king of Assyria’s captains, 2Ch_33:11, in the twenty-second year of his reign; that is,
before Christ 676, according to Dr. Blair’s tables. And they are probably right in this. It could not
be much earlier; as the king of Assyria was not king of Babylon till 680, ibid. As Esarhaddon was
then in the neighborhood of Samaria, it is highly probable that he did then carry away the last
remains of Israel, and brought those strangers thither who mention him as their founder,
Ezr_4:2. But this year is just the sixty-fifth from the second of Ahaz, which was 740 before

46. Christ. Now the carrying away the remains of Israel, who, till then, though their kingdom was
destroyed forty-five years before, and though small in number, might yet keep up some form of
being a people, by living according to their own laws, entirely put an end to the people of Israel,
as a people separate from all others: for from this time they never returned to their own country
in a body, but were confounded with the people of Judah in the captivity; and the whole people,
the ten tribes included, were called Jews.” - Dr. Jubb. Two MSS. have twenty-five instead of
sixty-five; and two others omit the word five, reading only sixty.
If ye will not believe “If ye believe not” - “This clause is very much illustrated by
considering the captivity of Manasseh as happening at the same time with this predicted final
ruin of Ephraim as a people. The near connection of the two facts makes the prediction of the
one naturally to cohere with the prediction of the other. And the words are well suited to this
event in the history of the people of Judah: ‘If ye believe not, ye shall not be established;’ that is,
unless ye believe this prophecy of the destruction of Israel, ye Jews also, as well as the people of
Israel, shall not remain established as a kingdom and people; ye also shall be visited with
punishment at the same time: as our Savior told the Jews in his time, ‘Unless ye repent, ye shall
all likewise perish;’ intimating their destruction by the Romans; to which also, as well as to the
captivity of Manasseh, and to the Babylonish captivity, the views of the prophet might here
extend. The close connection of this threat to the Jews with the prophecy of the destruction of
Israel, is another strong proof that the order of the preceding lines above proposed is right.” -
Dr. Jubb.
“If ye believe not in me.” - The exhortation of Jehoshaphat, 2Ch_20:20, to his people, when
God had promised to them, by the prophet Jahaziel, victory over the Moabites and Ammonites,
is very like this both in sense and expression, and seems to be delivered in verse:
“Hear me, O Judah; and ye inhabitants of Jerusalem;
Believe in Jehovah your God, and ye shall be established:
Believe his prophets, and ye shall prosper.”
Where both the sense and construction render very probable a conjecture of Archbishop
Secker on this place; that instead of ‫כי‬ ki, we should read ‫בי‬ bi. “If ye will not believe in me, ye
shall not be established.” So likewise Dr. Durell. The Chaldee has, “If ye will not believe in the
words of the prophet;” which seems to be a paraphrase of the reading here proposed. In favor of
which it may be farther observed that in one MS. ‫כי‬ ki is upon a rasure; and another for the last
‫לא‬ lo reads ‫ולא‬ velo, which would properly follow ‫בי‬ bi, but could not follow ‫כי‬ ki.
Some translate thus, and paraphrase thus: If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be
established. Or, If ye do not give credit, it is because ye are unfaithful. Ye have not been faithful
to the grace already given: therefore ye are now incapable of crediting my promises.
3. GILL, “For the head of Syria is Damascus,.... Damascus was the metropolis of Syria, the
chief city in it, where the king had his palace, and kept his court; of which See Gill on Gen_15:2,
Act_9:2,
and the head of Damascus is Rezin; he was king of it, as of all Syria; the meaning is, that
Syria, of which Damascus was the principal city, was the only country that Rezin should govern,
his dominion should not be enlarged; and Ahaz, king of Judah, might assure himself that Rezin
should never possess his kingdom, or be able to depose him, and set up another; and as for

47. Ephraim or Israel, the ten tribes, they should be so far from succeeding in such a design against
him, that it should befall them as follows:
and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a
people; which is by some reckoned, not from the time of this prophecy, that being in the third
or fourth year of Ahaz, who reigned in all but sixteen years; and in the ninth of Hosea king of
Israel, and in the sixth of Hezekiah king of Judah, Samaria was taken, and Israel carried captive
into Assyria, 2Ki_17:6 which was but about eighteen or nineteen years from this time: some
think indeed the time was shortened, because of their sins; but this does not appear, nor is it
probable: and others think that it designs any time within that term; but the true meaning
undoubtedly is, as the Targum renders it,
"at the end of sixty and five years, the kingdom of the house of Israel shall cease.''
This is commonly reckoned by the Jewish writers (d) from the prophecy of Amos, who
prophesied two years before the earthquake in Uzziah's time, concerning the captivity both of
Syria and Israel, Amo_1:1, Amo_7:11 which account may be carried either through the kings of
Judah or of Israel; Jarchi goes the former way, reckoning thus,
"the prophecy of Amos was two years before Uzziah was smitten with the leprosy, according to
Amo_1:1. Uzziah was a leper twenty five years, lo, twenty seven. Jotham reigned sixteen years,
Ahaz sixteen, and Hezekiah six; as it is said, "in the sixth year of Hezekiah (that is, the ninth year
of Hoshea king of Israel) Samaria was taken", 2Ki_18:10 lo, sixty five years.''
So Abarbinel; but Kimchi goes another way, which comes to the same, reckoning thus,
"the prophecy of Amos, according to computation, was in the seventeenth year of Jeroboam, son
of Joash, king of Israel, how is it? Jeroboam reigned forty one years, Menahem ten, so there are
fifty one; Pekahiah the son of Menahem two, so fifty three; and Pekah twenty, so seventy three;
and Hoshea the son of Elah nine, and then Israel were carried captive, so there are eighty two:
take out of them seventeen (the years of Jeroboam before the prophecy), and there remain sixty
five, the number intended; for we do not reckon the six months of Zechariah, and the month of
Shallum.''
Cocceius reckons from the death of Jeroboam, who died in the forty first year of his reign, and in
the fifteenth of Uzziah, so that there remained thirty seven years of Uzziah; in the twentieth of
Jotham, that is, in the fourth after his death, Hoshea son of Elah was made king, this was the
twelfth of Ahaz, 2Ki_15:30 and in the ninth of Hoshea, Samaria was taken, and Israel carried
captive. But Junius and Tremellius are of a different mind from either of these, and think the
prophecy wholly respects time to come; they observe, that
"Isaiah in these words first shows, that the kingdom of Syria should be immediately cut off, and
the king should die, which at furthest must needs happen four years after; so (say they) we may
suppose that these things were said by the prophet in the first year of Ahaz; thence, from the
destruction of the Syrians, to the full carrying captive of the Israelites, or from the time of this
prophecy, sixty five years must have run out; for although the kingdom of Israel was abolished
in the sixth year of Hezekiah, yet Israel did not immediately cease to be a people when only
some part of it was carried away; but they entirely ceased to be a people when new colonies were
introduced by Esarhaddon, the son of Sennacherib, and all the Israelites were forced into
bondage, which the Samaritans explain, Ezr_4:2 wherefore so we fix the series of the times,
from the fourth year of Ahaz, in which the kingdom of Syria fell, unto the end, are eleven years,

48. Hezekiah reigned twenty nine years, so the last translation of the Israelites was in the twenty
fifth year of Manasseh's reign; but if you begin from the time of the prophecy; the thing will fall
upon the twenty first or twenty second of Manasseh's reign; at which time perhaps, as some say,
Manasseh was carried captive into Babylon.''
And of this mind was the learned Dr. Prideaux (e), who observes, that in the twenty second year
of Manasseh, Esarhaddon prepared a great army, and marched into the parts of Syria and
Palestine, and again added them to the Assyrian empire; and adds,
"and then was accomplished the prophecy which was spoken by Isaiah in the first year of Ahaz
against Samaria, that within threescore and five years Ephraim should be absolutely broken, so
as from thenceforth to be no more a people; for this year being exactly sixty five years from the
first of Ahaz, Esarhaddon, after he had settled all affairs in Syria, marched into the land of
Israel, and there taking captive all those who were the remains of the former captivity (excepting
only some few, who escaped his hands, and continued still in the land), carried them away into
Babylon and Assyria; and then, to prevent the land becoming desolate, he brought others from
Babylon, and from Cutha, and from Havah, and Hamath, and Sephervaim, to dwell in the cities
of Samaria in their stead; and so the ten tribes of Israel, which had separated from the house of
David, were brought to a full and utter destruction, and never after recovered themselves again.''
And this seems to be the true accomplishment of this prophecy; though the sense of the Jewish
writers is followed by many, and preferred by Noldius; so that there is no need with Grotius and
Vitringa to suppose a corruption of the text. Gussetius (f) fancies that ‫שש‬‫ים‬ signifies twice six,
that is, twelve; as ‫עשרים‬ twice ten, or twenty; and so five, added to twelve, makes seventeen; and
from the fourth of Ahaz, to the taking of Samaria, was about seventeen years.
4. HENRY, “He must give them a prospect of the destruction of these enemies, at last, that
were now such a terror to them. [1.] They should neither of them enlarge their dominions, nor
push their conquests any further; The head city of Syria is Damascus, and the head man of
Damascus is Rezin; this he glories in, and this let him be content with, Isa_7:8. The head city of
Ephraim has long been Samaria, and the head man in Samaria is now Pekah the son of
Remaliah. These shall be made to know their own, their bounds are fixed, and they shall not
pass them, to make themselves masters of the cities of Judah, much less to make Jerusalem
their prey. Note, As God has appointed men the bounds of their habitation (Act_17:26), so he
has appointed princes the bounds of their dominion, within which they ought to confine
themselves, and not encroach upon their neighbours' rights. [2.] Ephraim, which perhaps was
the more malicious and forward enemy of the two, should shortly be quite rooted out, and
should be so far from seizing other people's lands that they should not be able to hold their own.
Interpreters are much at a loss how to compute the sixty-five years within which Ephraim shall
cease to be a people; for the captivity of the ten tribes was but eleven years after this: and some
make it a mistake of the transcriber, and think it should be read within six and five years, just
eleven. But it is hard to allow that. Others make it to be sixty-five years from the time that the
prophet Amos first foretold the ruin of the kingdom of the ten tribes; and some late interpreters
make it to look as far forward as the last desolation of that country by Esarhaddon, which was
about sixty-five years after this; then Ephraim was so broken that it was no more a people. Now
it was the greatest folly in the world for those to be ruining their neighbours who were
themselves marked for ruin, and so near to it. See what a prophet told them at this time, when
they were triumphing over Judah, 2Ch_28:10. Are there not with you, even with you, sins
against the Lord your God?

49. 5. JAMISON, “head — that is, in both Syria and Israel the capital shall remain as it is; they
shall not conquer Judah, but each shall possess only his own dominions.
threescore and five ... not a people — As these words break the symmetry of the
parallelism in this verse, either they ought to be placed after “Remaliah’s son,” in Isa_7:9, or else
they refer to some older prophecy of Isaiah, or of Amos (as the Jewish writers represent),
parenthetically; to which, in Isa_7:8, the words, “If ye will not believe ... not be established,”
correspond in parallelism. One deportation of Israel happened within one or two years from this
time, under Tiglath-pileser (2Ki_15:29). Another in the reign of Hoshea, under Shalmaneser
(2Ki_17:1-6), was about twenty years after. But the final one which utterly “broke” up Israel so
as to be “not a people,” accompanied by a colonization of Samaria with foreigners, was under
Esar-haddon, who carried away Manasseh, king of Judah, also, in the twenty-second year of his
reign, sixty-five years from the utterance of this prophecy (compare Ezr_4:2, Ezr_4:3, Ezr_4:10,
with 2Ki_17:24; 2Ch_33:11) [Usher]. The event, though so far off, was enough to assure the
people of Judah that as God, the Head of the theocracy, would ultimately interpose to destroy
the enemies of His people, so they might rely on Him now.
6. K&D, ““For head of Aram is Damascus, and head of Damascus Rezin, and in five-and-
sixty years will Ephraim as a people be broken in pieces. And head of Ephraim is Samaria, and
head of Samaria the son of Remalyahu; if ye believe not, surely ye will not remain.” The
attempt to remove Isa_7:8, as a gloss at variance with the context, which is supported by
Eichhorn, Gesenius, Hitzig, Knobel, and others, is a very natural one; and in that case the train
of thought would simply be, that the two hostile kingdoms would continue in their former
relation without the annexation of Judah. But when we look more closely, it is evident that the
removal of Isa_7:8 destroys both the internal connection and the external harmony of the
clauses. For just as Isa_7:8 and Isa_7:8 correspond, so do Isa_7:9 and Isa_7:9. Ephraim, i.e.,
the kingdom of the ten tribes, which has entered into so unnatural and ungodly a covenant with
idolatrous Syria, will cease to exist as a nation in the course of sixty-five years; “and ye, if ye do
not believe, but make flesh your arm, will also cease to exist.” Thus the two clauses answer to
one another: Isa_7:8 is a prophecy announcing Ephraim's destruction, and Isa_7:9 a warning,
threatening Judah with destruction, if it rejects the promise with unbelief. Moreover, the style of
Isa_7:8 is quite in accordance with that of Isaiah (on ‫עוֹד‬ ְ , see Isa_21:16 and Isa_16:14; and on
‫ם‬ ָ‫,מע‬ “away from being a people,” in the sense of “so that it shall be no longer a nation,” Isa_17:1;
Isa_25:2, and Jer_48:2, Jer_48:42). And the doctrinal objection, that the prophecy is too
minute, and therefore taken ex eventu, has no force whatever, since the Old Testament prophecy
furnishes an abundance of examples of the same kind (vid., Isa_20:3-4; Isa_38:5; Isa_16:14;
Isa_21:16; Eze_4:5., Isa_24:1., etc.). The only objection that can well be raised is, that the time
given in Isa_7:8 is wrong, and is not in harmony with Isa_7:16. Now, undoubtedly the sixty-five
years do not come out if we suppose the prophecy to refer to what was done by Tiglath-pileser
after the Syro-Ephraimitish war, and to what was also done to Ephraim by Shalmanassar in the
sixth year of Hezekiah's reign, to which Isa_7:16 unquestionably refers, and more especially to
the former. But there is another event still, through which the existence of Ephraim, not only as
a kingdom, but also as a people, was broken up - namely, the carrying away of the last remnant
of the Ephraimitish population, and the planting of colonies from Eastern Asia by Esarhaddon.
(Note: The meaning of this king's name is Assur fratrem dedit (Asurachyiddin): vid., Oppert,
Expedition, t. ii. p. 354.)

50. on Ephraimitish soil (2Ki_17:24; Ezr_4:2). Whereas the land of Judah was left desolate after the
Chaldean deportation, and a new generation grew up there, and those who were in captivity
were once more enabled to return; the land of Ephraim was occupied by heathen settlers, and
the few who were left behind were melted up with these into the mixed people of the
Samaritans, and those in captivity were lost among the heathen. We have only to assume that
what was done to Ephraim by Esarhaddon, as related in the historical books, took place in the
twenty-second and twenty-third years of Manasseh (the sixth year of Esarhaddon), which is very
probable, since it must have been under Esarhaddon that Manasseh was carried away to
Babylon about the middle of his reign (2Ch_33:11); and we get exactly sixty-five years from the
second year of the reign of Ahaz to the termination of Ephraim's existence as a nation (viz.,
Ahaz, 14; Hezekiah, 29; Manasseh, 22; in all, 65). It was then that the unconditional prediction,
“Ephraim as a people will be broken in pieces,” was fulfilled (yechath me‛am; it is certainly not
the 3rd pers. fut. kal, but the niphal, Mal_2:5), just as the conditional threat “ye shall not
remain” was fulfilled upon Judah in the Babylonian captivity. ‫ן‬ ַ‫מ‬ ֶ‫א‬ֶ‫נ‬ signifies to have a fast hold,
and ‫ין‬ ִ‫מ‬ ֶ‫א‬ ֶ‫ה‬ to prove fast-holding. If Judah did not hold fast to its God, it would lose its fast hold by
losing its country, the ground beneath its feet. We have the same play upon words in
2Ch_20:20. The suggestion of Geiger is a very improbable one, viz., that the original reading
was ‫י‬ ִ‫ב‬ ‫תאמינו‬ ‫לא‬ ‫,אם‬ but that ‫בי‬ appeared objectionable, and was altered into ‫י‬ ִⅴ. Why should it be
objectionable, when the words form the conclusion to a direct address of Jehovah Himself,
which is introduced with all solemnity? For this ‫י‬ ִⅴ, passing over from a confirmative into an
affirmative sense, and employed, as it is here, to introduce the apodosis of the hypothetical
clause, see 1Sa_14:39, and (in the formula ‫ה‬ ָ ַ‫ע‬ ‫י‬ ִⅴ) Gen_31:42; Gen_43:10; Num_22:29,
Num_22:33; 1Sa_14:30 : their continued existence would depend upon their faith, as this chi
emphatically declares.
7. PULPIT, “For the head of Syria is Damascus, etc. Syria and Ephraim have merely human heads—
the one Rezin, the other (Isa_7:9) Pekah; but Judah, it is implied, has a Divine Head, even Jehovah.
How, then, should mere mortals think to oppose their will and their designs to God's? Of course, their
designs must come to naught. Within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, etc. If this
prophecy was delivered, as we have supposed, in B.C. 733 (see note on Isa_7:1), sixty-five years later
would bring us to B.C. 669. This was the year in which Esar-haddon, having made his son, Asshur-bani-
pal, King of Assyria, transferred his own residence to Babylon, and probably the year in which he sent
from Babylonia and the adjacent countries a number of colonists who occupied Samaria, and entirely
destroyed the nationality, which, fifty-three years earlier, had received a rude blow from Sargon
(comp. Ezr_4:2, Ezr_4:9,Ezr_4:10, with 2Ki_17:6-24 and 2Ch_33:11). It is questioned whether, under the
circumstances, the prophet can have comforted Ahaz with this distant prospect, and suggested that in the
present chapter prophecies pronounced at widely distant periods have been mixed up (Cheyne); but
there is no such appearance of dislocation in Isa_7:1-25; in its present form, as necessitates any such
theory; and, while it may be granted that the comfort of the promise given in Isa_7:8 would be slight, it

51. cannot be said that it would be nil; it may, therefore, have been (as it seems to us) without impropriety
added to the main promise, which is that of Isa_7:7. The entire clause, from "and within" to "not a people,"
must be regarded as parenthetic.
8. CALVIN, “8.For the head of Syria is Damascus. As if he had said, “ two kings shall have their limits,
such as they have them now. They aspire to thy kingdom; but I have set bounds to them which they shall
not pass.” Damascus was the metropolis of Syria, as Paris is of France. He says, therefore, that those
kings ought to be satisfied with their possessions, and that their future condition would be the same as it
then was.
And Ephraim shall be broken. After having said that it is now useless to attempt to extend their
boundaries, he foretells the calamity of the kingdom of Israel; for by the word broken he means that the
kingdom of Israel shall be annihilated, so that it shall no longer exist. The Israelites were carried into
captivity, and incorporated with another nation, just as in our own time a part of Savoy has passed under
the government of France, and has lost its name. This is what the Prophet means, when he says ‫,מעם‬
(megnam,) that it be not a people; for at that time Israel was mixed with foreign nations, and its peculiar
name was blotted out.
Within sixty-five years. The Israelites were led into captivity in the sixth year of King Hezekiah, and Ahaz
reigned not more than sixteen years; and, therefore, it is certain that this calculation ought not to be made
from the day on which Isaiah was sent to deliver this message, for it was only twenty years to the time
when the ten tribes were carried into captivity. Amoz had prophesied of that captivity; and there can be no
doubt that this prophecy of Amoz, (Amo_3:11,) and the time specified in it were generally known, and that
all understood the reckoning of the number of years. If, therefore, we reckon from the time when Amoz
makes this prediction, we shall find it to be sixty-five years; for Jotham reigned sixteen years,
(2Kg_15:33;) Ahaz as many, (2Kg_16:2;) to those must be added six years of King Hezekiah, which
brings us down to the year when the ten tribes were carried into captivity; and if we afterwards add
twenty-seven years, during which Uzziah reigned after the publication of the prophecy, there will be sixty-
five years This conjecture is highly probable; and there ought not to be any doubt that this was Isaiah’
meaning; for there is a prediction of the Prophet Amoz, in which the Lord warned the people that they
might not meet with anything unexpected, and complain that they had been overtaken suddenly. Isaiah
confirms that prediction, and announces the same time which already was universally known.
Moreover, by these words he sharply reproves the thoughtlessness of the Israelitish nation, that, when
they had been warned of the destruction of their country and their name, not only did they freely indulge

52. in despising the judgment of God, but as if they had purposely intended to mock at the heavenly
predictions, they opened their mouth to devour Judea; for a long period was already past, and they
thought that they had escaped. The Prophet ridicules this madness, in imagining that the word of God
grew old in so small a number of years. But because the Israelites were deaf, Isaiah assigns to the Jews
a time when they may look for the destruction of their enemies. Now, this passage shows that the
Prophets faithfully assisted each other, that by their united labors they might serve God.
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.’”
1.BARNES, “And the head of Ephraim - The capital city of Ephraim, or of Israel.
Is Samaria - This was long the capital of the kingdom of Israel. For a description of this city,
see the notes at Isa_28:1. The meaning of the prophet is, that Samaria should continue to be the
head of Ephraim; that is, Jerusalem should not be made its capital.
If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established - There is considerable variety
in the interpretation of these words, though the general sense is evident. The Chaldee renders
them, ‘If ye will not believe the words of the prophet, ye shall not remain.’ It is probable that
Ahaz, who was greatly alarmed, and who trembled at the formidable power of Syria and Israel
united, received the annunciation of the prophet with much distrust. He was anxious about the
means of defense, but did not trust in the promise of God by the prophet. Isaiah, therefore,
assures him, that if he did not believe him; if he did not put confidence in God, and his
promises, he should not be protected from Syria and Ephraim. They would come and destroy his
kingdom. ‘You have no occasion,’ is the language of the prophet, ‘to fear. God has resolved to
protect you, and no portion of your land shall be taken by your enemies. Nevertheless, in order
that you may obtain deliverance, you must believe his promise, and put your confidence in him,
and not in the aid of the Assyrians. If you do this, your mind shall be calm, peaceful, and happy.
But if you do “not” do this; if you rely on the aid of Assyria, you shall be troubled, alarmed,
unsuccessful, and bring ruin upon yourself and nation.’ This, therefore, is an exhortation to
confide solely in the promises of God, and is one of the instances constantly occurring in the Old
Testament and the New, showing, that by faith or confidence in God only, can the mind he
preserved calm when in the midst of dangers.

53. 2. PULPIT, “If ye will not believe, etc. Translate, If ye will not hold this faith fast, surely ye will not stand
fast. Full faith in the promise of Isa_7:7 would have enabled Ahaz to dispense with all plans of earthly
policy, and to "stand fast in the Lord," without calling in the aid of any "arm of flesh." Distrust of the
promise would lead him to take steps which would not tend to "establish" him, but would make his
position more insecure (see 2Ki_16:7-18; 2Ch_28:16, 2Ch_28:20).
3. GILL, “And the head of Ephraim is Samaria,..... Samaria was the metropolis or chief
city of Ephraim, or the ten tribes of Israel:
and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son; Pekah, son of Remaliah, was king of Samaria,
as of all Israel. The sense is, that, until the sixty five years were ended, there should be no
enlargement of the kingdom of Israel; Judah should not be added to it; Samaria should
continue, and not Jerusalem be the metropolis of it; and Pekah, during his life, should be king of
Israel, but not of Judah.
If ye will not believe; the Targum adds,
"the words of the prophet;''
surely ye shall not be established, or remain (g); that is, in their own land, but should be
carried captive, as they were after a time; or it is, "because ye are not true and firm"; in the faith
of God, as Kimchi interprets it; or, "because ye are not confirmed" (h); that is, by a sign;
wherefore it follows:
4. HENRY, “He must urge them to mix faith with those assurances which he had given them
(Isa_7:9): “If you will not believe what is said to you, surely you shall not be established; your
shaken and disordered state shall not be established, your unquiet unsettled spirit shall not;
though the things told you are very encouraging, yet they will not be so to you, unless you
believe them, and be willing to take God's word.” Note, The grace of faith is absolutely necessary
to the quieting and composing of the mind in the midst of all the tosses of this present time,
2Ch_20:20.
5. JAMISON, “believe, ... be established — There is a paronomasia, or play on the words,
in the Hebrew: “if ye will not confide, ye shall not abide.” Ahaz brought distress on himself by
distrust in the Lord, and trust in Assyria.
6. K&D, “Moreover the Lord spake again unto Ahaz,.... By the prophet Isaiah:
saying; as follows:

54. 7.CALVIN, “9.Meanwhile (107) the head of Ephraim is Samaria. As it is a repetition by which he
confirms what he formerly said, that God had set bounds to the kingdom of Israel for an appointed time, I
have rendered the copulative ‫,ו‬ (vau,) meanwhile. Otherwise, it would have been absurd to say that the
metropolis of the kingdom would be preserved, after that the kingdom had been destroyed, as he lately
foretold. The meaning therefore is, “ the meantime, till the sixty-five years are fulfilled, Israel enjoys a kind
of truce. His head shall be Samaria. Let him be satisfied with his boundaries, and not aim at anything
beyond them; for such shall be his condition, until he be utterly destroyed, and be no longer reckoned to
be a people. ”
If you do not believe. The particle ‫כי‬ (ki) is placed in the middle of the sentence, to mark the reason or
cause; and, therefore, some render it, “ you do not believe, the reason is, that you are not believers.”
They limit the former clause to the prophecy of Isaiah, but extend the latter to any part of the word of God,
as if he had said, “ you have no faith in my sayings, this gives a general proof of your unbelief.” But in that
way, the verb ‫,תאמינו‬ (thaaminu,) which is in Hiphil conjugation, will not differ from the verb ‫,תאמנו‬
(theamenu,) which is in the Niphal. It is not without reason, however, that the Prophet has changed the
termination; and, from many passages of Scripture, it is abundantly evident that the Hebrew verb ‫,אמן‬
(aman,) in the Niphal conjugation, signifies to stand, or, to remain fixed in its condition. I interpret it,
therefore, as if he had said, “ is the only support on which you can rely. Wait calmly and without
uneasiness of mind for what the Lord has promised, that is, deliverance. If you do not wait for it, what else
remains for you than destruction?”
The particle ‫,כי‬ (ki,) therefore, as in many other instances, means truly; for he declares that they cannot
stand, if they do not rely on the promise; and indirectly he expresses still more, that God will stand,
though they disbelieve his word, and, as far as lies in their power, endeavor to destroy its stability; but
that they will not stand, unless they rely on the promise which has been made to them.
Hence we ought to draw a universal doctrine, that, when we have departed from the word of God, though
we may suppose that we are firmly established, still ruin is at hand. For our salvation is bound up with the
word of God, and, when this is rejected, the insult offered to it is justly punished by him who was ready to
uphold men by his power, if they had not of their own accord rushed headlong to ruin. The consequence
is, that either we must believe the promises of God, or it is in vain for us to expect salvation.
(107) And the head of Ephraim. — Eng. Ver.

55. 10
Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz,
1.PULPIT, “THE SIGN OF IMMANUEL. The supposition that there was a considerable interval
between Isa_7:9 and Isa_7:10 (Cheyne) is quite gratuitous. Nothing in the text marks any such interval.
God had sent Ahaz one message by his prophet (Isa_7:4-9). It had apparently been received in silence,
at any rate without acknowledgment. The faith had seemed to be lacking which should have embraced
with gladness the promise given (see the last clause of Isa_7:9). God, however, will give the unhappy
monarch another chance. And so he scuds him a second message, the offer of a sign which should make
belief in the first message easier to him (Isa_7:11). Ahaz proudly rejects this offer (Isa_7:12). Then the
sign of "Immanuel" is given—not to Ahaz individually, but to the whole "house of David," and through
them to the entire Jewish people. "A virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, whose name shall be called
Immanuel; and before this child shall have grown to the age of moral discernment, God's people will have
been delivered, and their enemies made a desolation" (Isa_7:14-16). The exact bearing of the "sign" will
be best discussed in the comment upon Isa_7:14.
Isa_7:10
The Lord spake again unto Ahaz. As before (Isa_7:3, Isa_7:4) by the mouth of his prophet.
2. SBC, “I. Isaiah is desired to offer Ahaz a sign either in the depth or the height. That the
Jewish economy was in some sense an economy of signs we all admit. The Jewish prophet was
to call the attention of his countrymen to these signs, to discover the signification of them. Our
Lord laid down the whole doctrine upon this subject when the Pharisees sought a sign from
Him. He had given them signs of healing, life-giving power proofs, that a present God was with
them. But they wanted a sign from heaven, the token of some distant God in the sky. That, He
said, was the craving of an adulterous or sense-bound generation; and He asked them whether
there were not signs in the sky at morning and evening by which they determined whether there
would be a fine or cloudy day on the morrow, and whether there were not signs of the times
which were warning them of evils to come. The new world has been just as rich in these signs as
the old. If we do not use these, we may have others; but it will be because we are an adulterous
and sinful generation, and need the portents and presages of an approaching downfall.
II. Ahaz said, "I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord my God." It was a hypocritical phrase;
he did not fear to tempt the Lord his God; he did not believe Him. He feared lest the God of his
fathers should do him some injury. "O house of David," said Isaiah, "is it not enough for you to

56. weary men, but will you weary my God also?" Do you think you can change His purposes
because you are incredulous and heartless? No; the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: "A Virgin
shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel."
III. From this time we may observe a continual recurrence of these two ideas,—frequently in
direct conjunction, always following close upon each other,—the Assyrian invader, and the
Immanuel, God with us. Isaiah speaks of himself and the children whom God has given him; all
these were to be living signs, continual testimonies of an impending ruin and of a great
Deliverer, of One to whom every Israelite might turn with his heart, and in whom he might find
rest and salvation; but whose presence would stir up all the dark and evil and rebellious
thoughts of those who would not yield themselves to Him.
F. D. Maurice, Prophets and Kings of the Old Testament, p. 235.
3. GILL, “Moreover the Lord spake again unto Ahaz,.... By the prophet Isaiah:
4. HENRY, “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
(Isa_7:10, Isa_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, Heb_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
(Jdg_6:37); let him ask for a sign in the air, or earth, or water, for God's power is the same in all.
5. JAMISON, “
6. K&D, “Thus spake Isaiah, and Jehovah through him, to the king of Judah. Whether he
replied, or what reply he made, we are not informed. He was probably silent, because he carried
a secret in his heart which afforded him more consolation than the words of the prophet. The
invisible help of Jehovah, and the remote prospect of the fall of Ephraim, were not enough for
him. His trust was in Asshur, with whose help he would have far greater superiority over the
kingdom of Israel, than Israel had over the kingdom of Judah through the help of Damascene
Syria. The pious, theocratic policy of the prophet did not come in time. He therefore let the
enthusiast talk on, and had his own thoughts about the matter. Nevertheless the grace of God
did not give up the unhappy son of David for lost. “And Jehovah continued speaking to Ahaz as
follows: Ask thee a sign of Jehovah thy God, going deep down into Hades, or high up to the
height above.” Jehovah continued: what a deep and firm consciousness of the identity of the
word of Jehovah and the word of the prophet is expressed in these words! According to a very
marvellous interchange of idioms (Communicatio idiomatum) which runs through the
prophetic books of the Old Testament, at one time the prophet speaks as if he were Jehovah, and
at another, as in the case before us, Jehovah speaks as if He were the prophet. Ahaz was to ask
for a sign from Jehovah his God. Jehovah did not scorn to call Himself the God of this son of

57. David, who had so hardened his heart. Possibly the holy love with which the expression “thy
God” burned, might kindle a flame in his dark heart; or possibly he might think of the covenant
promises and covenant duties which the words “thy God” recalled to his mind. From this, his
God, he was to ask for a sign. A sign ('oth, from 'uth, to make an incision or dent) was something,
some occurrence, or some action, which served as a pledge of the divine certainty of something
else. This was secured sometimes by visible miracles performed at once (Exo_4:8-9), or by
appointed symbols of future events (Isa_8:18; Isa_20:3); sometimes by predicted occurrences,
which, whether miraculous or natural, could not possibly be foreseen by human capacities, and
therefore, if they actually took place, were a proof either retrospectively of the divine causality of
other events (Exo_3:12), or prospectively of their divine certainty (Isa_37:30; Jer_44:29-30).
The thing to be confirmed on the present occasion was what the prophet had just predicted in so
definite a manner, viz., the maintenance of Judah with its monarchy, and the failure of the
wicked enterprise of the two allied kingdoms. If this was to be attested to Ahaz in such a way as
to demolish his unbelief, it could only be effected by a miraculous sign. And just as Hezekiah
asked for a sign when Isaiah foretold his recovery, and promised him the prolongation of his life
for fifteen years, and the prophet gave him the sign he asked, by causing the shadow upon the
royal sun-dial to go backwards instead of forwards (chapter 38); so here Isaiah meets Ahaz with
the offer of such a supernatural sign, and offers him the choice of heaven, earth, and Hades as
the scene of the miracle.
‫ק‬ ֵ ֲ‫ֽע‬ ַ‫ה‬ and ַ ֵ ְ‫ג‬ ַ‫ה‬ are either in the infinitive absolute or in the imperative; and ‫ה‬ ָ‫ל‬ፎ ְ‫ש‬ is either the
imperative ‫ל‬ፍ ְ‫שׁ‬ with the He of challenge, which is written in this form in half pause instead of
‫ה‬ ָ‫ל‬ ֲ‫א‬ ַ‫שׁ‬ (for the two similar forms with pashtah and zakeph, vid., Dan_9:19), “Only ask, going deep
down, or ascending to the height,” without there being any reason for reading ‫ה‬ ָ‫ל‬ፎ ְ‫שׁ‬ with the tone
upon the last syllable, as Hupfeld proposes, in the sense of profundam fac (or faciendo)
precationem (i.e., go deep down with thy petition); or else it is the pausal subordinate form for
‫ה‬ ָ‫ּל‬‫א‬ ְ‫,שׁ‬ which is quite allowable in itself (cf., yechpatz, the constant form in pause for yachpotz, and
other examples, Gen_43:14; Gen_49:3, Gen_49:27), and is apparently preferred here on
account of its consonance with ‫ה‬ ָ‫ל‬ ְ‫ֽע‬ ָ‫מ‬ ְ‫ל‬ (Ewald, §93, 3). We follow the Targum, with the Sept.,
Syr., and Vulgate, in giving the preference to the latter of the two possibilities. It answers to the
antithesis; and if we had the words before us without points, this would be the first to suggest
itself. Accordingly the words would read, Go deep down (in thy desire) to Hades, or go high up
to the height; or more probably, taking ‫העמק‬ and ‫הגבה‬ in the sense of gerundives, “Going deep
down to Hades, or (‫אוֹ‬ from ‫ה‬ָ‫ו‬ፎ, like vel from velle = si velis, malis) going high up to the height.”
This offer of the prophet to perform any kind of miracle, either in the world above or in the
lower world, has thrown rationalistic commentators into very great perplexity. The prophet, says
Hitzig, was playing a very dangerous game here; and if Ahaz had closed with his offer, Jehovah
would probably have left him in the lurch. And Meier observes, that “it can never have entered
the mind of an Isaiah to perform an actual miracle:” probably because no miracles were ever
performed by Göthe, to whose high poetic consecration Meier compares the consecration of the
prophet as described in Isa_6:1-13. Knobel answers the question, “What kind of sign from
heaven would Isaiah have given in case it had been asked for?” by saying, “Probably a very
simple matter.” But even granting that an extraordinary heavenly phenomenon could be a
“simple matter,” it was open to king Ahaz not to be so moderate in his demands upon the
venturesome prophet, as Knobel with his magnanimity might possibly have been. Dazzled by the
glory of the Old Testament prophecy, a rationalistic exegesis falls prostrate upon the ground;
and it is with such frivolous, coarse, and common words as these that it tries to escape from its
difficulties. It cannot acknowledge the miraculous power of the prophet, because it believes in

58. no miracles at all. But Ahaz had no doubt about his miraculous power, though he would not be
constrained by any miracle to renounce his own plans and believe in Jehovah. “But Ahaz
replied, I dare not ask, and dare not tempt Jehovah.” What a pious sound this has! And yet his
self-hardening reached its culminating point in these well-sounding words. He hid himself
hypocritically under the mask of Deu_6:16, to avoid being disturbed in his Assyrian policy, and
was infatuated enough to designate the acceptance of what Jehovah Himself had offered as
tempting God. He studiously brought down upon himself the fate denounced in Isa_6:1-13, and
indeed not upon himself only, but upon all Judah as well. For after a few years the forces of
Asshur would stand upon the same fuller's field (Isa_36:2) and demand the surrender of
Jerusalem. In that very hour, in which Isaiah was standing before Ahaz, the fate of Jerusalem
was decided for more than two thousand years.
7.CALVIN, “10.And Jehovah added to speak to Ahaz. (108) As the Lord knew that King Ahaz was so
wicked as not to believe the promise, so he enjoins Isaiah to confirm him by adding a sign; for when God
sees that his promises do not satisfy us, he makes additions to them suitable to our weakness; so that we
not only hear him speak, but likewise behold his hand displayed, and thus are confirmed by an evident
proof of the fact. Here we ought carefully to observe the use of signs, that is, the reason why God
performs miracles, namely, to confirm us in the belief of his word; for when we see his power, if we have
any hesitation about what he says to us, our doubt is removed by beholding the thing itself; for miracles
added to the word are seals.
(108) Moreover, the LORD spake again to Ahaz. — Eng. Ver.
11
“Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the
deepest depths or in the highest heights.”
1.BARNES, “Ask thee - Ask for “thyself;” ask a sign that shall be convincing to “thyself,”
since thou dost not fully credit the words of the prophet. It is evident that the words of the
prophet had made no impression on the mind of Ahaz. God, therefore, proposes to him to ask
any “proof or demonstration” which he might select; anything that would be an indication of
divine power that should put what the prophet had said beyond doubt. Had Ahaz put confidence
in God, he would have believed what the prophet said without miraculous proof. But he had no
such confidence. ‘The prophet, therefore, proposes that he should ask any miraculous

59. demonstration that what he said would come to pass. This proposition was made, probably, not
so much from respect to Ahaz as to leave him without excuse, and in order that “the people”
might have the assurance that the city and kingdom were safe.
A sign - A demonstration that shall confirm the promise now made, and that shall be an
evidence that Jerusalem shall be safe. The word used here, and translated “sign” - ‘owt - ‫אות‬ 'oth
- means “a flag,” or “a standard,” Num_2:2; “a memorial or pledge” of a covenant, Gen_17:11;
any “pledge, token, or proof” of a divine mission, Jdg_6:17; or a miracle performed in
attestation of a divine promise or message. This is its sense here. That which Isaiah had spoken
seemed highly improbable to Ahaz, and he asked him to seek a proof of it, if he doubted, by any
prodigy or miracle. It was customary for miracles or prodigies to be exhibited on similar
occasions; see Isa_38:7, where the shadow on the dial of this same Ahaz was carried backward
ten degrees, in proof of what the prophet Isaiah had spoken; compare 1Sa_2:27-34; 1Ki_13:1-3;
Exo_3:12; Jdg_6:36-40. That the word here refers to some event which could be brought about
only by divine power, is evident from the whole connection. No mere natural occurrence could
have satisfied Ahaz, or convey to the people a demonstration of the truth of what the prophet
was saying. And if the prophet had been unable or unwilling to give a miraculous sign, where is
the fitness of the answer of Ahaz? How could he be regarded as in any way tempting God by
asking it, unless it was something which God only could do? And how could the prophet bring
the charge Isa_7:13, that he had not merely offended men, but God also? It is clear, therefore,
that Isaiah was conscious that he was invested by God with the power of working a miracle, and
that he proposed to perform any miracle which Ahaz should suggest that would serve to remove
his doubts, and lead him to put confidence in God.
Ask it either in the depth ... - He gave him his choice of a miracle - any sign or wonder in
heaven, or on earth - above or below; a miracle in the sky, or from beneath the earth. Many of
the versions understand the expression ‘the depth,’ as referring to “the grave,” or to the region of
departed souls - “hades.” So the Vulgate, Aquila, Symmachus. The Chaldee reads it, ‘Seek that
there may be a miracle to thee upon the earth, or a sign in the heavens.’ The literal meaning of
the Hebrew is, ‘make low, ask for;’ that is, ask for a sign below; obtain, by asking for thyself; a
miracle that shall take place below. It may refer to the earth, or to the region under the earth,
since it stands in contrast with that which is above. If it refers to the region under the earth, it
means that Isaiah would raise the dead to life if Ahaz desired it; if to the earth, that any wonder
or miracle that should take place in the elements - as a tempest, or earthquake - should be
performed.
The height above - The heaven, or the sky. So the Pharisees desired to see a sign from
heaven, Mat_16:1.
2. CLARKE, “In the depth “Go deep to the grave” - So Aquila, Symmachus,
Theodotion, and the Vulgate.
3. GILL, “Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God,.... For though Ahaz was a wicked man, yet
the Lord was his God, as he was the God of the people of Israel in general, as a nation; and
knowing his unbelief and diffidence of his word unto him, offers to confirm it by a sign or
miracle:
ask it either in the depth, or in the height above, in earth, or in heaven: so the Targum,

60. "ask that a miracle may be done for thee upon earth, or that a sign may be shown thee in
heaven;''
either that the earth might gape and open its mouth, as in the days of Moses; or that the sun
might stand still, as in the times of Joshua; or that a dead man might be raised out of the depth
of the earth; or that there might be some strange appearances in the heavens.
4. BI, “God’s grace towards the wayward
Jehovah does not scorn to call Himself the God of this son of David who so hardens himself.
(F. Delitzsch, D. D.)
A critical moment
In this hour when Isaiah stands before Ahaz, the fate of the Jewish people is decided for more
than two thousand years. (F. Delitzsch, D. D.)
5. JAMISON, “Ask thee — since thou dost not credit the prophet’s words.
sign — a miraculous token to assure thee that God will fulfil His promise of saving Jerusalem
(Isa_37:30; Isa_38:7, Isa_38:8). “Signs,” facts then present or near at hand as pledges for the
more distant future, are frequent in Isaiah.
ask ... in ... depth — literally, “Make deep ... ask it,” that is, Go to the depth of the earth or of
Hades [Vulgate and Lowth], or, Mount high for it (literally, “Make high”). So in Mat_16:1. Signs
in heaven are contrasted with the signs on earth and below it (raising the dead) which Jesus
Christ had wrought (compare Rom_10:6, Rom_10:7). He offers Ahaz the widest limits within
which to make his choice.
6.PULPIT, “Ask thee a sign. Asking for a sign is right or wrong, praiseworthy or blamable, according to
the spirit in which the request is made. The Pharisees in our Lord's time "asked for a sign," but would not
have believed any the more had they received the sign for which they asked. Gideon asked for a sign to
strengthen his faith (Jdg_6:37, Jdg_6:39), and received it, and in the strength of it went forth boldly
against the Midianites. When God himself proposed to give a sign, and allowed his creature to choose
what the sign should be, there could be no possible wrong-doing in a ready acceptance of the offer, which
should have called forth gratitude and thanks. Ask it either in the depth, or in the height
above; i.e. "Ask any sign thou wilt, either in hell or in heaven"—nothing shall be refused thee.

61. 7.CALVIN, “11.Either in the deep. I understand it simply to mean Either above or below. He allows him
an unrestricted choice of a miracle, to demand either what belongs to earth or what belongs to heaven.
But perhaps in the word deep there is something still more emphatic; as if he had said, “ belongs to you to
choose. God will immediately show that his dominion is higher than this world, and that it likewise extends
to all depths, so that at his pleasure he can raise the dead from their graves.” It was undoubtedly
astonishing forbearance towards this wicked king and people of God, that not only did he patiently bear
their distrust for a time, but so graciously condescended to them that he was willing to give them any
pledge of his power which they chose. Yet he had in his eye not unbelievers only, but he intended
likewise to provide for the benefit of the weak, in whom there was a seed of godliness; that they might be
fully convinced that Isaiah did not speak at random, for he could easily give a proof of the power of God in
confirmation of what he had said.
The same goodness of God is now also displayed towards men, to whom he exercises such forbearance,
when he might justly have been offended at them; for how shockingly do they insult God, when they
doubt his truth? What do you leave to God, if you take that from him? And whatever may be our doubts,
not only does he pardon us, but even aids our distrust, and not only by his word, but by adding miracles;
and he exhibits them not only to believers, but also to the ungodly, which we may behold in this king. And
if he was at that time so kind to strangers, what ought not his own people to expect from him?
8. PULPIT, “Rightful and wrongful asking for signs.
To ask for a sign is sometimes spoken of in Scripture as indicative of want of faith, and therefore as an
offence to God:
"An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign" (Mat_12:39), "This is an evil generation; they
seek a sign" (Luk_11:29). "Jesus sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek
after a sign? Verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given to this generation" (Mar_8:12). "The Jews
require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom' (1Co_1:22). On the other hand, it is sometimes spoken
of without any dispraise, and seems to be viewed as natural, rightful, even as a sort of proof of faith.
Ahaz, in the present passage, is bidden to "ask a sign, and is blamed for refusing to do so. His refusal
"wearies" God (Isa_7:13). The disciples ask our Lord, unrebuked," What shall be the sign of thy coming,
and of the end of the world?" (Mat_24:3). Hezekiah asks Isaiah, "What shall be the sign that the Lord will
heal me, and that I shall go up into the house of the Lord the third day?" (2Ki_20:8; comp. Isa_38:22).
Can any tests be laid down whereby the right and the wrong may be distinguished in this matter? We
think that some may.

62. I. IT IS RIGHT TO ASK FOR A SIGN.
1. When a person comes forward and claims our obedience as a Divine teacher or leader. Moses
anticipated that his countrymen in Egypt would refuse to listen to him if he presented himself to them
without credentials, and was given at once the power of working certain miracles as signs that he was
commissioned by God (Exo_4:1-9). As soon as Jesus came forward to teach and to preach, he was
asked, not unreasonably or improperly, "What sign showest thou?" (Joh_2:18), and responded, without
blaming those who asked him, by a reference to the greatest of his miracles, his resurrection. The
apostles were authorized to work miracles as signs of their Divine mission.
2. When we have an invitation from God through his accredited messenger, as Ahaz had, to ask a sign.
3. When we feel that much depends on our decision in a practical matter—e.g. the lives of others—we
may humbly ask, as Gideon did (Jdg_6:36-40), that God will, if he so please, give us some external
indication, or else such strength of internal conviction as will assure us what his will is; only in such cases
we must be careful to make our request conditional on its being acceptable to him, and we must be
ready, if it be not granted, to act in the matter to the best of our ability on such light as is vouchsafed us.
II. IT IS WRONG TO ASK FOR A SIGN.
1. In a captious spirit, with an intention to cavil at it, and (if possible) not accept it. This was the condition
of mind of the Pharisees, who would not have believed even had Christ come down from the cross before
their eyes, as they asked him to do (Mat_27:42).
2. When we have already had abundant signs given us, and there is no reasonable ground for doubt or
hesitation as to our duty. This was the case of those Jews who still "required a sign" (1Co_1:22) after the
Resurrection and Ascension.
3. When we ask for it merely to gratify our curiosity, as Herod Antipas just before the Crucifixion
(Luk_23:8).
4. When we arbitrarily fix on our own sign, and determine to regard the result, whatever it be, as a sign
from heaven. This is the case of those who choose to decide a practical matter by sortes Virgiliance,
or sortes Biblicae, or any other appeal to chance. They are not entitled to ask God for signs of this kind,
or to regard such signs as significant of his will. To trust to them is not faith, but superstition.

63. 12
But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put
the LORD to the test.”
1.BARNES, “I will not ask - In this case Ahaz assumed the appearance of piety, or respect
for the command of God. In Deu_6:16, it is written, ‘Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God;’
and Ahaz perhaps had this command in his eye. It was a professed reverence for God. But the
true reason why he did not seek this sign was, that he had already entered into a negotiation
with the king of Assyria to come and defend him; and that he was even stripping the temple of
God of its silver and gold, to secure this assistance; 2Ki_16:7-8. When people are depending on
their own devices and resources, they are unwilling to seek aid from God; and it is not
uncommon if they excuse their want of trust in him by some appearance of respect for religion.
Tempt - Try, or do a thing that shall provoke his displeasure, or seek his interposition in a
case where he has not promised it. To tempt God is the same as to put him to the proof; to see
whether he is able to perform what he proposed. It is evident, however, that here there would
have been no “temptation” of God, since a sign had been offered him by the prophet in the name
of God. ‘The answer of Ahaz can be regarded either as one of bitter scorn, as if he had said, “I
will not put thy God to the proof, in which he will be found lacking. I will not embarrass thee by
taking thee at thy word;” or as the language of a hypocrite who assumes the mask of reverence
for God and his command.’ - “Hengstenberg.” Chrysostom and Calvin regard the latter as the
correct interpretation. If it be asked here “why” Ahaz did not put Isaiah to the test, and “secure,”
if possible, the divine confirmation to the assurance that Jerusalem would be safe, the following
may be regarded as the probable reasons:
(1) He was secretly relying on the aid of Assyria. He believed that he could fortify the city, and
distress the enemy by turning away the supply of water, so that they could not carry on a siege,
and that all the further aid which he needed could be derived from the Assyrians.
(2) If the miracle had been “really performed,” it would have been a proof that Yahweh was
the true God a proof which Ahaz had no desire of witnessing. He was a gross idolater; and he
was not anxious to witness a demonstration which would have convinced him of the folly and sin
of his own course of life.
(3) If the miracle could not be performed, as Ahaz seems to have supposed would be the case,
then it would have done much to unsettle the confidence of the people, and to have produced
agitation and alarm. It is probable that a considerable portion of the people were worshippers of
Yahweh, and were looking to him for aid. The pious, and the great mass of those who conformed
to the religion of their fathers, would have been totally disheartened; and this was a result which
Ahaz had no desire to produce.
(4) Michaelis has suggested another reason, drawn from the character of idolatry. According
to the prevailing notions at that period, every nation had its own gods. Those of one people were
more, and those of another less powerful; see Isa_10:10-11; Isa_36:18-20; Isa_37:10-13. If a
miracle had been performed, Ahaz might have believed that it was performed by the god of the
country, who might have had the disposition, but not the power, to defend him. It would have
been to the mind of the idolater no proof that the god of Syria or Samaria was not more

64. powerful, and might not have easily overcome him. Ahaz seems to have regarded Yahweh as
such a God - as one of the numerous gods which were to be worshipped, and perhaps as not the
most powerful of the tutelary divinities of the nations. This was certainly the view of the
surrounding idolaters Isa_10:10-11; Isa_36:18-20; and it is highly probable that this view
prevailed among the idolatrous Israelites.
2. PULPIT, “I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord. Ahaz, who has no wish for a sign, because he
has no wish to believe in any other salvation than flint which will follow from the realization of his own
schemes, finds a plausible reason for declining to ask for one in those passages of the Law which
forbade men to" tempt God" (Exo_17:7; Deu_6:16). But it could not be "tempt-tug God" to comply with a
Divine invitation; rather it was tempting him to refuse compliance.
3. GILL, “But Ahaz said, I will not ask,.... That is, a sign or miracle to be wrought; being
unwilling to take the advice to be still and quiet, and make no preparation for war, or seek out
for help from the Assyrians, and to rely upon the promise and power of God, and therefore chose
not to have it confirmed by a sign; adding as an excuse,
neither will I tempt the Lord, by asking a sign; suggesting that this was contrary to the
command of God, Deu_6:16 so pretending religion and reverence of God; whereas, to ask a sign
of God, when it was offered, could not be reckoned a tempting him; but, on the contrary, to
refuse one; when offered, argued great stubbornness and ingratitude, as Calvin well observes.
4. HENRY, “Ahaz rudely refuses this gracious offer, and (which is not mannerly towards any
superior) kicks at the courtesy, and puts a slight upon it (Isa_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.
5. JAMISON, “neither ... tempt — hypocritical pretext of keeping the law (Deu_6:16);
“tempt,” that is, put God to the proof, as in Mat_4:7, by seeking His miraculous interposition
without warrant. But here there was the warrant of the prophet of God; to have asked a sign,
when thus offered, would not have been a tempting of God. Ahaz’ true reason for declining was
his resolve not to do God’s will, but to negotiate with Assyria, and persevere in his idolatry
(2Ki_16:7, 2Ki_16:8, 2Ki_16:3, 2Ki_16:4, 2Ki_16:10). Men often excuse their distrust in God,
and trust in their own devices, by professed reverence for God. Ahaz may have fancied that
though Jehovah was the God of Judea and could work a sign there, that was no proof that the

65. local god of Syria might not be more powerful. Such was the common heathen notion
(Isa_10:10, Isa_10:11; Isa_36:18-20).
6. BI, “Why did Ahaz refuse to ask a sign?
Ahaz who looked on Jehovah not as his God, but only (like any of his heathen neighbours) as the
god of Judaea, and as such inferior in the god of Assyria, and who had determined to apply to
the King of Assyria, or perhaps had already applied to him as a more trustworthy helper than
Jehovah in the present strait, declines to ask a sign, excusing himself by a canting use of the
words of Moses, “Thou shalt not tempt Jehovah.” He refused the sign, because he knew it would
confirm the still struggling voice of his conscience; and that voice he had resolved not to obey,
since it bade him give up the Assyrian, and trust in Jehovah henceforth. (Sir E. Strachey, Bart.)
A secret disaffection to God
A secret disaffection to God is often disguised with the specious colours of respect to Him. (M.
Henry.)
Making a decision
How often men, like Ahaz, arrive at decisions which are irrevocable and unspeakably
momentous!
1. To have to make decisions that may be solemn in both these senses is one of the things
that make the position of a ruler or statesmen so serious.
2. Every man is at some juncture celled to make a decision, the results of which to him
individually will be of unspeakable importance; e.g., the young ruler. Every one of you will at
some moment be called to decide for or against Christ, and the decision will be final and
irreversible. The test may come to you in the shape of a temptation, appealing to some
passion of the mind or lust of the flesh, and your eternal destiny may be determined by the
manner in which you deal with that one temptation.
3. Like a railway train we are continually arriving at “points,” and the manner in which we
“take” them affects our whole after career. (R. A. Bertram.)
7.CALVIN, “12.And Ahaz said. By a plausible excuse he refuses the sign which the Lord offered to
him. That excuse is, that he is unwilling to tempt the LORD; for he pretends to believe the words of the
Prophet, and to ask nothing more from God than his word. Ungodliness is certainly detestable in the sight
of God, and in like manner God unquestionably sets a high value on faith. Accordingly, if a man rely on
his word alone, and disregard everything else, it might be thought that he deserves the highest praise; for
there can be no greater perfection than to yield full submission and obedience to God.

66. But a question arises. Do we tempt God, when we accept what he offers to us? Certainly
not. Ahaz therefore speaks falsehood, when he pretends that he refuses the sign, because he is unwilling
to tempt God; for there can be nothing fitter or more excellent than to obey God, and indeed it is the
highest virtue to ask nothing beyond the word of God; and yet if God choose to add anything to his word,
it ought not to be regarded as a virtue to reject this addition as superfluous. It is no small insult offered to
God, when his goodness is despised in such a manner as if his proceedings towards us were of no
advantage, and as if he did not know what it is that we chiefly need. We know that faith is chiefly
commended on this ground, that it maintains obedience to him; but when we wish to be too wise, and
despise anything that belongs to God, we are undoubtedly abominable before God, whatever excuse we
may plead before men. While we believe the word of God, we ought not to despise the aids which he has
been pleased to add for the purpose of strengthening our faith.
For instance, the Lord offers to us in the gospel everything necessary for salvation; for when he brings us
into a state of fellowship with Christ, the sum of all blessings is truly contained in him. What then is the
use of Baptism and the Lord’ Supper? Must they be regarded as superfluous? Not at all; for any one who
shall actually, and without flattery, acknowledge his weakness, of which all from the least to the greatest
are conscious, will gladly avail himself of those aids for his support. We ought indeed to grieve and
lament, that the sacred truth of God needs assistance on account of the defect of our flesh; but since we
cannot all at once remove this defect, any one who, according to his capacity shall believe the word, will
immediately render full obedience to God. Let us therefore learn to embrace the signs along with the
word, since it is not in the power of man to separate them.
When Ahaz refuses the sign offered to him, by doing so he displays both his obstinacy and his
ingratitude; for he despises what God had offered for the highest advantage. Hence also it is evident how
far we ought to ask signs, namely, when God offers them to us; and therefore he who shall reject them
when offered, must also reject the grace of God. In like manner fanatics of the present day disregard
Baptism and the Lord’ Supper, and consider them to be childish elements. They cannot do this without at
the same time rejecting the whole gospel; for we must not separate those things which the Lord has
commanded us to join.
But a question may be asked, Is it not sometimes lawful to ask signs from the Lord? For we have an
instance of this in Gideon, who wished to have his calling confirmed by some sign. (Jud_6:17.) The Lord
granted his prayer, and did not disapprove of such a desire. I answer, though Gideon was not
commanded by God to ask a sign, yet he did so, not at his own suggestion, but by an operation of the
Holy Spirit. We must not abuse his example, therefore, so that each of us may freely allow himself that

67. liberty; for so great is the forwardness of men that they do not hesitate to ask innumerable signs from God
without any proper reason. Such effrontery ought therefore to be restrained, that we may be satisfied with
those signs which the Lord offers to us.
Now, there are two kinds of signs; for some are extraordinary, and may be called supernatural; such as
that which the Prophet will immediately add, and that which, we shall afterwards see, was offered to
Hezekiah. (Isa_38:7.) Some are ordinary, and in daily use among believers, such as Baptism and the
Lord’ Supper, which contain no miracle, or at least may be perceived by the eye or by some of the
senses. What the Lord miraculously performs by his Spirit is unseen, but in those which are extraordinary
the miracle itself is seen. Such is also the end and use of all signs; for as Gideon was confirmed by an
astonishing miracle, so we are confirmed by Baptism and the Lord’ Supper, though our eyes behold no
miracle.
13
Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is
it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you
try the patience of my God also?
1.BARNES, “O house of David - Isa_7:2. By this is to be understood not only the king
himself, but the princes and rulers. Perhaps in addressing him thus, there was implied no small
irony and reproach. David confided in God. But “Ahaz,” his descendant, feared to “tempt” God!
As if God could not aid him! Worthy descendant he of the pious and devoted David!
Is it a small thing - You are not satisfied with wearying people, but you would also fatigue
and wear out the patience of God.
Weary - Exhaust their patience; oppose them; prevent their sayings and messages; try their
spirits, etc.
Men - prophets; the men who are sent to instruct, and admonish.
Will ye weary my God also? - Will you refuse to keep his commands; try his patience; and
exhaust his long-suffering? compare Isa_1:14. The sense of this passage seems to be this: When
Ahaz refused to believe the bare prediction of the prophet, his transgression was the more
excusable. He had wearied and provoked him, but Isaiah had as yet given to Ahaz no direct
demonstration that he was from God; no outward proof of his divine mission; and the offence of
Ahaz might be regarded as in a sense committed against man. It was true, also, that Ahaz had,
by his unbelief and idolatry, greatly tried the feelings of the pious, and wearied those who were
endeavoring to promote true religion. But now the case was changed. God had offered a sign,
and it had been publicly rejected. It was a direct insult to God; and an offence that demanded
reproof. Accordingly, the manner of Isaiah is at once changed. Soft, and gentle, and mild before,

68. he now became bold, open, vehement. The honor of God was concerned; a direct affront had
been offered to him by the sovereign of the people of God; and it was proper for the prophet to
show that “that” was an offence which affected the Divine Majesty, and demanded the severest
reproof.
2. PULPIT, “O house of David (comp. Isa_7:2). It is not Ahaz alone, but the "house of David," which is
on its trial. Men are conspiring to remove it (Isa_7:6). If it will not be saved in God's way, it will have to be
removed by God himself. Is it a small thing for you to weary men? i.e. "Are you not content with
wearying men; with disregarding all my warnings and so wearying me? Must you go further, and weary
God" (or, "wear out his patience") "by rejecting his gracious offers?" My God. In Isa_7:11 Isaiah had
called Jehovah "thy God;" but as Ahaz, by rejecting God's offer, had rejected God, he speaks of him now
as "my God."
3. GILL, “And he said,.... That is, the Prophet Isaiah; which shows that it was by him the Lord
spoke the foregoing words:
hear ye now, O house of David; for not only Ahaz, but his family, courtiers, and counsellors,
were all of the same mind with him, not to ask a sign of God, nor to depend upon, his promise of
safety, but to seek out for help, and provide against the worst themselves. Some think that
Ahaz's name is not mentioned, and that this phrase is used by way of contempt, and as
expressive of indignation and resentment:
is it a small thing for you to weary man; meaning such as himself, the prophets of the
Lord; so the Targum,
"is it a small thing that ye are troublesome to the prophets;''
disturb, grieve, and vex them, by obstinacy and unbelief:
but will ye weary my God also? the Targum is,
"for ye are troublesome to the words of my God;''
or injurious to them, by not believing them; or to God himself, by rejecting such an offer of a
sign as was made to them.
4. HENRY, “And he said,.... That is, the Prophet Isaiah; which shows that it was by him the
Lord spoke the foregoing words:
hear ye now, O house of David; for not only Ahaz, but his family, courtiers, and counsellors,
were all of the same mind with him, not to ask a sign of God, nor to depend upon, his promise of
safety, but to seek out for help, and provide against the worst themselves. Some think that

69. Ahaz's name is not mentioned, and that this phrase is used by way of contempt, and as
expressive of indignation and resentment:
is it a small thing for you to weary man; meaning such as himself, the prophets of the
Lord; so the Targum,
"is it a small thing that ye are troublesome to the prophets;''
disturb, grieve, and vex them, by obstinacy and unbelief:
but will ye weary my God also? the Targum is,
"for ye are troublesome to the words of my God;''
or injurious to them, by not believing them; or to God himself, by rejecting such an offer of a
sign as was made to them.
5. JAMISON, “Is it a small thing? — Is it not enough for you (Num_16:9)? The allusion to
“David” is in order to contrast his trust in God with his degenerate descendant Ahaz’ distrust.
weary — try the patience of.
men — prophets. Isaiah as yet had given no outward proof that he was from God; but now
God has offered a sign, which Ahaz publicly rejects. The sin is therefore now not merely against
“men,” but openly against “God.” Isaiah’s manner therefore changes from mildness to bold
reproof.
6. K&D, “The prophet might have ceased speaking now; but in accordance with the
command in Isa_6:1-13 he was obliged to speak, even though his word should be a savour of
death unto death. “And he spake, Hear ye now, O house of David! Is it too little to you to weary
men, that ye weary my God also?” “He spake.” Who spake? According to Isa_7:10 the speaker
was Jehovah; yet what follows is given as the word of the prophet. Here again it is assumed that
the word of the prophet was the word of God, and that the prophet was the organ of God even
when he expressly distinguished between himself and God. The words were addressed to the
“house of David,” i.e., to Ahaz, including all the members of the royal family. Ahaz himself was
not yet thirty years old. The prophet could very well have borne that the members of the house
of David should thus frustrate all his own faithful, zealous human efforts. But they were not
content with this (on the expression minus quam vos = quam ut vobis sufficiat, see Num 16; 9;
Job_15:11): they also wearied out the long-suffering of his God, by letting Him exhaust all His
means of correcting them without effect. They would not believe without seeing; and when signs
were offered them to see, in order that they might believe, they would not even look. Jehovah
would therefore give them, against their will, a sign of His own choosing.
7.CALVIN, “13.And he said, Hear now, O house of David. Under the pretense of honor to exclude the
power of God, which would maintain the truth of the promise, was intolerable wickedness; and therefore

70. the Prophet kindles into warmer indignation, and more sharply rebukes wicked hypocrites. Though it
would have been honorable to them to be reckoned the descendants of David, provided that they imitated
his piety, yet it is rather for the sake of reproach that he calls them the posterity or family of David. It was
indeed no small aggravation of the baseness, that the grace of God was rejected by that family from
which the salvation of the whole world would proceed. Grievous disgrace must have been brought on
them, by naming their ancestry, from which they had so basely and shamefully degenerated.
This order ought to be carefully observed; for we ought not to begin with severe reproof, but with doctrine,
that men may be gently drawn by it. When plain and simple doctrine is not sufficient, proofs must be
added. But if even this method produce no good effect, it then becomes necessary to employ greater
vehemence. Such is the manner in which we hear Isaiah thundering on the present occasion. After
having exhibited to the king both doctrine and signs, he now resorts to the last remedy, and sharply and
severely reproves an obstinate man; and not him only, but the whole royal family which was guilty of the
same kind of impiety.
Is it a small thing for you to weary men? He makes a comparison between God and men; not that it is
possible to make an actual separation between God and the prophets and holy teachers of whom he
speaks, who are nothing else than God’ instruments, and make common cause with him, when they
discharge their duty; for of them the Lord testifies,
He who despiseth you despiseth me.
He who heareth you heareth me. (Luk_10:16.)
The Prophet therefore adapts his discourse to the impiety of Ahaz, and of those who resembled him; for
they thought that they had to deal with men. Those very words were undoubtedly spoken in ancient times
which we hear at the present day from the mouths of the ungodly: “ they not men that speak to us?” And
thus they endeavor to disparage the doctrine which comes from God. As it was customary at that time for
irreligious despisers of doctrine to use the same kind of language, the Prophet, by way of admission, says
that those who performed the sacred office of teaching the word were men. “ it so. You tell me that I am a
mortal man. That is the light in which you view the prophets of God. But is it a small thing to weary us, if
you do not also weary God ? Now, you despise God, by rejecting the sign of his astonishing power which
he was willing to give to you. In vain therefore do you boast that you do not despise him, and that you
have to do with men, and not with God. ” This then is the reason why the Prophet was so greatly enraged.
Hence we see more clearly what I mentioned a little before, that the proper season for giving reproofs is,
when we have attempted everything that God enjoined, and have neglected no part of our duty. We ought

71. then to break out with greater vehemence, and to expose the ungodliness which lurked under those
cloaks of hypocrisy.
My God. He formerly said, Ask a sign for thee from the Lord thy God; for at that time his obstinacy and
rebellion had not been manifestly proved. But now he claims it as peculiar to himself; for Ahaz, and those
who resembled him, had no right to boast of the name of God. He therefore intimates that God is on his
side, and is not on the side of those hypocrites: and in this way he testifies his confidence; for he shows
how conscientiously he promised deliverance to the king; as if he had said, that he did not come but when
God sent him, and that he said nothing but what he was commanded to say. With the same boldness
ought all ministers to be endued, not only so as to profess it, but to have it deeply rooted in their hearts.
The false prophets also boast of it loudly, but it is empty and unmeaning talk, or a blind confidence arising
from rashness.
14
Therefore the Lord himself will give you[c]
a
sign: The virgin[d]
will conceive and give birth to a
son, and[e]
will call him Immanuel.[f]
1.BARNES, “Therefore - Since you will not “ask” a pledge that the land shall be safe,
Yahweh will furnish one unasked. A sign or proof is desirable in the case, and Yahweh will not
withhold it because a proud and contemptuous monarch refuses to seek it. Perhaps there is no
prophecy in the Old Testament on which more has been written, and which has produced more
perplexity among commentators than this. And after all, it still remains, in many respects, very
obscure. Its general original meaning is not difficult. It is, that in a short time - within the time
when a young woman, then a virgin, should conceive and bring forth a child, and that child
should grow old enough to distinguish between good and evils - the calamity which Ahaz feared
would be entirely removed. The confederacy would be broken up, and the land forsaken by both
those kings. The conception and birth of a child - which could be known only by him who knows
“all” future events - would be the evidence of such a result. His appropriate “name” would be
such as would be a “sign,” or an indication that God was the protector of the nation, or was still
with them. In the examination of this difficult prophecy, my first object will be to give an
explanation of the meaning of the “words and phrases” as they occur in the passage, and then to
show, as far as I may be able, what was the design of the passage.
The Lord himself - Hebrew, ‘Adonai;’ see this word explained in the the note at Isa_1:24.
He will do it without being asked to do it; he will do it though it is rejected and despised; he will
do it because it is important for the welfare of the nation, and for the confirmation of his
religion, to furnish a demonstration to the people that he is the only true God. It is clearly
implied here, that the sign should be such as Yahweh alone could give. It would be such as would

72. be a demonstration that he presided over the interests of the people. If this refers to the birth of
a child, then it means that this was an event which could be known only to God, and which could
be accomplished only by his agency. If it refers to the miraculous conception and birth of the
Messiah, then it means that that was an event which none but God could accomplish. The true
meaning I shall endeavor to state in the notes, at the close of Isa_7:16.
Shall give you - Primarily to the house of David; the king and royal family of Judah. It was
especially designed to assure the government that the kingdom would be safe. Doubtless,
however, the word ‘you’ is designed to include the nation, or the people of the kingdom of
Judah. It would be so public a sign, and so clear a demonstration, as to convince them that their
city and land must be ultimately safe.
A sign - A pledge; a token; an evidence of the fulfillment of what is predicted. The word does
not, of necessity, denote a miracle, though it is often so applied; see the notes at Isa_7:11. Here it
means a proof, a demonstration, a certain indication that what he had said should be fulfilled.
As that was to be such a demonstration as to show that he was “able” to deliver the land, the
word “here” denotes that which was miraculous, or which could be effected “only” by Yahweh.
Behold - ‫הנה‬ hinneh. This interjection is a very common one in the Old Testament. It is used
to arrest attention; to indicate the importance of what was about to be said. It serves to
designate persons and things; places and actions. It is used in lively descriptions, and animated
discourse; when anything unusual was said, or occurred; or any thing which especially
demanded attention; Gen_12:19; Gen_16:16; Gen_18:9; Gen_1:29; Gen_40:9; Psa_134:1. It
means here, that an event was to occur which demanded the attention of the unbelieving
monarch, and the regard of the people - an event which would be a full demonstration of what
the prophet had said, that God would protect and save the nation.
A virgin - This word properly means a girl, maiden, virgin, a young woman who is
unmarried, and who is of marriageable age. The word ‫עלמה‬ ‛almah, is derived from the verb ‫עלם‬ ‛
alam, “to conceal, to hide, to cover.” The word ‫עלם‬ ‛elem, from the same verb, is applied to a
“young man,” in 1Sa_17:56; 1Sa_20:22. The word here translated a virgin, is applied to Rebekah
Gen_24:43, and to Miriam, the sister of Moses, Exo_2:8. It occurs in only seven places in the
Old Testament. Besides those already mentioned, it is found in Psa_68:25; Son_1:3; Son_6:8;
and Pro_30:19. In all these places, except, perhaps, in Proverbs, it is used in its obvious natural
sense, to denote a young, unmarried female. In the Syriac, the word alem, means to grow up,
juvenis factus est; juvenescere fecited. Hence, the derivatives are applied to youth; to young
men; to young women - to those who “are growing up,” and becoming youths.
The etymology of the word requires us to suppose that it means one who is growing up to a
marriageable state, or to the age of puberty. The word maiden, or virgin, expresses the correct
idea. Hengstenberg contends, that it means one “in the unmarried state;” Gesenius, that it
means simply the being of marriageable age, the age of puberty. The Hebrews usually employed
the word ‫בתולה‬ be
thulah, to denote a pure virgin (a word which the Syriac translation uses here);
but the word here evidently denotes one who was “then” unmarried; and though its primary idea
is that of one who is growing up, or in a marriageable state, yet the whole connection requires us
to understand it of one who was “not then married,” and who was, therefore, regarded and
designated as a virgin. The Vulgate renders it ‘virgo.’ The Septuagint, ᅧ παρθένος he parthenos, “a
virgin” - a word which they use as a translation of the Hebrew ‫בתולה‬ be
thulah in Exo_22:16-17;
Lev_21:3, Lev_21:14; Deu_22:19, Deu_22:23, Deu_22:28; Deu_32:25; Jdg_19:24; Jdg_21:12;
and in thirty-three other places (see Trommius’ Concordance); of ‫נערה‬ na‛arah, a girl, in

73. Gen_24:14, Gen_24:16, Gen_24:55; Gen_34:3 (twice); 1Ki_1:2; and of ‫עלמה‬ ‛almah, only in
Gen_24:43; and in Isa_7:14.
The word, in the view of the Septuagint translators, therefore conveyed the proper idea of a
virgin. The Chaldee uses substantially the same word as the Hebrew. The idea of a “virgin” is,
therefore, the most obvious and natural idea in the use of this word. It does not, however, imply
that the person spoken of should be a virgin “when the child” should be born; or that she should
ever after be a virgin. It means simply that one who was “then” a virgin, but who was of
marriageable age, should conceive, and bear a son. Whether she was “to be” a virgin “at the
time” when the child was born, or was to remain such afterward, are inquiries which cannot be
determined by a philological examination of the word. It is evident also, that the word is not
opposed to “either” of these ideas. “Why” the name which is thus given to an unmarried woman
was derived from the verb to “hide, to conceal,” is not agreed among lexicographers. The more
probable opinion is, that it was because to the time of marriage, the daughter was supposed to
be hidden or concealed in the family of the parents; she was kept shut up, as it were, in the
paternal dwelling. This idea is given by Jerome, who says, ‘the name is given to a virgin because
she is said to be hidden or secret; because she does not expose herself to the gaze of men, but is
kept with great care under the custody of parents.’ The sum of the inquiry here, into the
meaning of the word translated “virgin,” is, that it does not differ from that word as used by us.
The expression means no more than that one who was then a virgin should have a son, and that
this should be a sign to Ahaz.
And shall call his name - It was usual for “mothers” to give names to their children;
Gen_4:1; Gen_19:37; Gen_29:32; Gen_30:18. There is, therefore, no reason to suppose, as
many of the older interpreters did, that the fact that it is said the mother should give the name,
was a proof that the child should have no human father. Such arguments are unworthy of notice;
and only show to what means people have resorted in defending the doctrines, and in
interpreting the pages of the Bible. The phrase, ‘she will name,’ is, moreover, the same as ‘they
shall name,’ or he shall be named. ‘We are not, then, to suppose that the child should actually
receive the name Immanuel as a proper name, since, according to the usage of the prophet, and
especially of Isaiah, that is often ascribed to a person or thing as a name which belongs to him in
an eminent degree as an attribute; see Isa_9:5; Isa_61:6; Isa_62:4.’ - “Hengstenberg.” The idea
is, that that would be a name that might be “appropriately” given to the child. Another name was
also given to this child, expressing substantially the same thing, with a circumstantial difference;
see the note at Isa_8:3.
Immanuel - Hebrew ‘God with us’ - ‫עמנואל‬ ‛immanu'el - from ‫אל‬ 'el, “God,” and ‫עמנוּ‬ ‛ı mmanu
, “with us.” The name is designed to denote that God would be with the nation as its protector,
and the birth of this child would be a sign or pledge of it. The mere circumstance that this name
is given, however, does not imply anything in regard to the nature or rank of the child, for
nothing was more common among the Jews than to incorporate the name, or a part of the name,
of the Deity with the names which they gave to their children. Thus, “Isaiah” denotes the
salvation of Yahweh; “Jeremiah,” the exaltation or grandeur of Yahweh, each compounded of
two words, in which the name Yahweh constitutes a part. Thus, also in “Elijah,” the two names
of God are combined, and it means literally, “God the Yahweh.” Thus, also “Eliab,” God my
faather; “Eliada,” knowledge of God; “Eliakim,” the resurrection of God; “Elihu,” he is my God;
“Elisha,” salvation of God. In none of these instances is the fact, that the name of God is
incorporated with the proper name of the individual, any argument in respect to his rank or
character.
It is true, that Matthew Mat_1:23 uses this name as properly expressing the rank of the
Messiah; but all that can be demonstrated from the use of the name by Matthew is, that it
properly designated the nature and rank of the Lord Jesus. It was a pledge, then, that God was

74. with his people, and the name designated by the prophet had a complete fulfillment in its use as
applied to the Messiah. Whether the Messiah be regarded as himself a pledge and
demonstration of the presence and protection of God, or whether the name be regarded as
descriptive of his nature and dignity, yet there was an “appropriateness” in applying it to him. It
was fully expressive of the event of the incarnation. Jerome supposes that the name, Immanuel,
denotes nothing more than divine aid and protection. Others have supposed, however, that the
name must denote the assumption of our nature by God in the person of the Messiah, that is,
that God became man. So Theodoret, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lactantius, Chrysostom. Calvin,
Rosenmuller, and others. The true interpretation is, that no argument to prove that can be
derived from the use of the name; but when the fact of the incarnation has been demonstrated
from other sources, the “name is appropriately expressive of that event.” So it seems to be used
by Matthew.
It may be quite true, that no argument can be founded on the bare name, Immanuel; yet that
name, “in its connection here,” may certainly be regarded as a designed prediction of the
incarnation of Christ. Such a design our author allows in the prophecy generally. ‘The prophet,’
says he, ‘designedly made use of language which would be appropriate to a future and most
glorious event.’ Why, then, does he speak of the most pregnant word in the prophecy as if
Matthew had accidentally stumbled on it, and, finding it would appropriately express the nature
of Christ, accomodated it for that purpose? Having originally rejected the Messianic reference,
and been convinced only by a more careful examination of the passage, that he was in error,
something of his old view seems still to cling to this otherwise admirable exposition. ‘The name
Immanuel,’ says Professor Alexander, ‘although it might be used to signify God’s providential
presence merely Psa_46:8, 12; Psa_89:25; Jos_1:5; Jer_1:8; Isa_43:2, has a latitude and
pregnancy of meaning which can scarcely be fortuitous; and which, combined with all the rest,
makes the conclusion almost unavoidable, that it was here intended to express a personal, as
well as a providential presence ... When we read in the Gospel of Matthew, that Jesus Christ was
actually born of a virgin, and that all the circumstances of his birth came to pass that this very
prophecy might be fulfilled, it has less the appearance of an unexpected application, than of a
conclusion rendered necessary by a series of antecedent facts and reasonings, the last link in a
long chain of intimations more or less explicit (referring to such prophecies as Gen_3:15;
Mic_5:2).
The same considerations seem to show that the prophecy is not merely accommodated, which
is, moreover, clear fram the emphatic form of the citation τοሞτο ᆋλον γέγονεν ᅻνα πληρωθሀ touto
holon gegonen hina pleroothe, making it impossible to prove the existence of any quotation in the
proper sense, if this be not one.’ But, indeed, the author himself admits all this, though his
language is less decided and consistent than could be wished on so important a subject.
2. CLARKE, “The Lord “Jehovah” - For ‫אדני‬ Adonai, twenty-five of Kennicott’s MSS., nine
ancient, and fourteen of De Rossi’s, read ‫יהוה‬ Jehovah. And so Isa_7:20, eighteen MSS.
Immanuel - For ‫עמנואל‬ Immanuel, many MSS. and editions have ‫עמנו‬‫אל‬ immanu El, God with
us.

75. 3. GILL, “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign,.... Whether they would ask
one or not; a sign both in heaven and earth, namely, the promised Messiah; who being the Lord
from heaven, would take flesh of a virgin on earth; and who as man, being buried in the heart of
the earth, would be raised from thence, and ascend up into heaven; and whose birth, though it
was to be many years after, was a sign of present deliverance to Judah from the confederacy of
the two kings of Syria and Israel; and of future safety, since it was not possible that this kingdom
should cease to be one until the Messiah was come, who was to spring from Judah, and be of the
house of David; wherefore by how much the longer off was his birth, by so much the longer was
their safety.
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son; this is not to be understood of Hezekiah,
the son of Ahaz, by his wife, as some Jewish writers interpret it; which interpretation Jarchi
refutes, by observing that Hezekiah was nine years old when his father began to reign, and this
being, as he says, the fourth year of his reign, he must be at this time thirteen years of age; in
like manner, Aben Ezra and Kimchi object to it; and besides, his mother could not be called a
"virgin": and for the same reason it cannot be understood of any other son of his either by his
wife, as Kimchi thinks, or by some young woman; moreover, no other son of his was ever lord of
Judea, as this Immanuel is represented to be, in Isa_8:8 nor can it be interpreted of Isaiah's
wife and son, as Aben Ezra and Jarchi think; since the prophet could never call her a "virgin",
who had bore him children, one of which was now with him; nor indeed a "young woman", but
rather "the prophetess", as in Isa_8:3 nor was any son of his king of Judah, as this appears to be,
in the place before cited: but the Messiah is here meant, who was to be born of a pure virgin; as
the word here used signifies in all places where it is mentioned, as Gen_24:43 and even in
Pro_30:19 which is the instance the Jews give of the word being used of a woman corrupted;
since it does not appear that the maid and the adulterous woman are one and the same person;
and if they were, she might, though vitiated, be called a maid or virgin, from her own profession
of herself, or as she appeared to others who knew her not, or as she was antecedent to her
defilement; which is no unusual thing in Scripture, see Deu_22:28 to which may be added, that
not only the Evangelist Matthew renders the word by παρθενος, "a virgin"; but the Septuagint
interpreters, who were Jews, so rendered the word hundreds of years before him; and best
agrees with the Hebrew word, which comes from the root ‫,עלם‬ which signifies to "hide" or
"cover"; virgins being covered and unknown to men; and in the eastern country were usually
kept recluse, and were shut up from the public company and conversation of men: and now this
was the sign that was to be given, and a miraculous one it was, that the Messiah should be born
of a pure and incorrupt virgin; and therefore a "behold" is prefixed to it, as a note of admiration;
and what else could be this sign or wonder? not surely that a young married woman, either
Ahaz's or Isaiah's wife, should be with child, which is nothing surprising, and of which there are
repeated instances every day; nor was it that the young woman was unfit for conception at the
time of the prophecy, which was the fancy of some, as Jarchi reports, since no such intimation is
given either in the text or context; nor did it lie in this, that it was a male child, and not a female,
which was predicted, as R. Saadiah Gaon, in Aben Ezra, would have it; for the sign or wonder
does not lie in the truth of the prophet's prediction, but in the greatness of the thing predicted;
besides, the verification of this would not have given the prophet much credit, nor Ahaz and the
house of David much comfort, since this might have been ascribed rather to a happy conjecture
than to a spirit of prophecy; much less can the wonder be, that this child should eat butter and
honey, as soon as it was born, as Aben Ezra and Kimchi suggest; since nothing is more natural
to, and common with young children, than to take down any kind of liquids which are sweet and
pleasant.

76. And shall call his name Immanuel; which is, by interpretation, "God with us", Mat_1:23
whence it appears that the Messiah is truly God, as well as truly man: the name is expressive of
the union of the two natures, human and divine, in him; of his office as Mediator, who, being
both God and man, is a middle person between both; of his converse with men on earth, and of
his spiritual presence with his people. See Joh_1:14.
4. HENRY, “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 (Isa_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, Isa_7:13) and an assurance that God would not
cast them off. Ephraim did indeed envy Judah (Isa_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,
Gen_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 (Mat_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 (Isa_8:10), that God is with us, and (v. 8) that your land is
Immanuel's land. Let not the heart of the house of David be moved thus (Isa_7:2), nor let Judah
fear the setting up of the son of Tabeal (Isa_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 (Isa_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, Heb_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 Luk_2:40, Luk_2:52.

77. 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.
5. JAMISON, “himself — since thou wilt not ask a sign, nay, rejectest the offer of one.
you — for the sake of the house of believing “David” (God remembering His everlasting
covenant with David), not for unbelieving Ahaz’ sake.
Behold — arresting attention to the extraordinary prophecy.
virgin — from a root, “to lie hid,” virgins being closely kept from men’s gaze in their parents’
custody in the East. The Hebrew, and the Septuagint here, and Greek (Mat_1:23), have the
article, the virgin, some definite one known to the speaker and his hearers; primarily, the
woman, then a virgin, about immediately to become the second wife, and bear a child, whose
attainment of the age of discrimination (about three years) should be preceded by the
deliverance of Judah from its two invaders; its fullest significancy is realized in “the woman”
(Gen_3:15), whose seed should bruise the serpent’s head and deliver captive man (Jer_31:22;
Mic_5:3). Language is selected such as, while partially applicable to the immediate event,
receives its fullest, most appropriate, and exhaustive accomplishment in Messianic events. The
New Testament application of such prophecies is not a strained “accommodation”; rather the
temporary fulfillment of an adaptation of the far-reaching prophecy to the present passing
event, which foreshadows typically the great central end of prophecy, Jesus Christ (Rev_19:10).
Evidently the wording is such as to apply more fully to Jesus Christ than to the prophet’s son;
“virgin” applies, in its simplest sense, to the Virgin Mary, rather than to the prophetess who
ceased to be a virgin when she “conceived”; “Immanuel,” God with us (Joh_1:14; Rev_21:3),
cannot in a strict sense apply to Isaiah’s son, but only to Him who is presently called expressly
(Isa_9:6), “the Child, the Son, Wonderful (compare Isa_8:18), the mighty God.” Local and
temporary features (as in Isa_7:15, Isa_7:16) are added in every type; otherwise it would be no
type, but the thing itself. There are resemblances to the great Antitype sufficient to be
recognized by those who seek them; dissimilarities enough to confound those who do not desire
to discover them.
call — that is, “she shall,” or as Margin, “thou, O Virgin, shalt call;” mothers often named
their children (Gen_4:1, Gen_4:25; Gen_19:37; Gen_29:32). In Mat_1:23 the expression is
strikingly changed into, “They shall call”; when the prophecy received its full accomplishment,
no longer is the name Immanuel restricted to the prophetess’ view of His character, as in its
partial fulfillment in her son; all shall then call (that is, not literally), or regard Him as
peculiarly and most fitly characterized by the descriptive name, “Immanuel” (1Ti_3:16;
Col_2:9).
name — not mere appellation, which neither Isaiah’s son nor Jesus Christ bore literally; but
what describes His manifested attributes; His character (so Isa_9:6). The name in its proper
destination was not arbitrary, but characteristic of the individual; sin destroyed the faculty of
perceiving the internal being; hence the severance now between the name and the character; in
the case of Jesus Christ and many in Scripture, the Holy Ghost has supplied this want
[Olshausen].
6. K&D, ““Therefore the Lord, He will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin conceives, and
bears a son, and calls his name Immanuel. Butter and honey will he eat, at the time that he
knows to refuse the evil and choose the good.” In its form the prophecy reminds one of
Gen_16:11, “Behold, thou art with child, and wilt bear a son, and call his name Ishmael.” Here,

78. however, the words are not addressed to the person about to bear the child, although Matthew
gives this interpretation to the prophecy;
(Note: Jerome discusses this diversity in a very impartial and intelligent manner, in his ep.
ad Pammachium de optimo genere interpretandi.)
for ‫את‬ ָ‫ר‬ ָ‫ק‬ is not the second person, but the third, and is synonymous with ‫ה‬ፎ ְ‫ר‬ ָ‫ק‬ (according to Ges.
§74. Anm. 1), another form which is also met with in Gen_33:11; Lev_25:21; Deu_31:29, and
Psa_118:23.
(Note: The pointing makes a distinction between ‫את‬ ָ‫ר‬ ָ‫ק‬ (she calls) and ‫א‬ ָ‫ר‬ ָ‫ק‬ְ‫ת‬ , as Gen_16:11
should be pointed (thou callest); and Olshausen (§35, b) is wrong in pronouncing the latter a
mistake.)
Moreover, the condition of pregnancy, which is here designated by the participial adjective ‫ה‬ ָ‫ר‬ ָ‫ה‬
(cf., 2Sa_11:5), was not an already existing one in this instance, but (as in all probability also in
Jdg_13:5, cf., Jdg_13:4) something future, as well as the act of bearing, since hinneh is always
used by Isaiah to introduce a future occurrence. This use of hinneh in Isaiah is a sufficient
answer to Gesenius, Knobel, and others, who understand ha‛almah as referring to the young wife
of the prophet himself, who was at that very time with child. But it is altogether improbable that
the wife of the prophet himself should be intended. For if it were to her that he referred, he
could hardly have expressed himself in a more ambiguous and unintelligible manner; and we
cannot see why he should not much rather have said ‫י‬ ִ ְ‫שׁ‬ ִ‫א‬ or ‫ה‬ፎ‫י‬ ִ‫ב‬ְ ַ‫,ה‬ to say nothing of the fact
that there is no further allusion made to any son of the prophet of that name, and that a sign of
this kind founded upon the prophet's own family affairs would have been one of a very
precarious nature.
And the meaning and use of the word ‛almah are also at variance with this. For whilst bethulah
(from batthal, related to badal, to separate, sejungere) signifies a maiden living in seclusion in
her parents' house and still a long way from matrimony, ‛almah (from ‛alam, related to Chalam,
and possibly also to ‫ם‬ ַ‫ל‬ፎ, to be strong, full of vigour, or arrived at the age of puberty) is applied to
one fully mature, and approaching the time of her marriage.
(Note: On the development of the meanings of ‛alam and Chalam, see Ges. Thes., and my
Psychol. p. 282 (see also the commentary on Job_39:4). According to Jerome, alma was
Punic also. In Arabic and Aramaean the diminutive form guleime, ‛alleimtah, was the
favourite one, but in Syriac ‛alı̄mto (the ripened).)
The two terms could both be applied to persons who were betrothed, and even to such as were
married (Joe_2:16; Pro_30:19 : see Hitzig on these passages). It is also admitted that the idea of
spotless virginity was not necessarily connected with ‛almah (as in Gen_24:43, cf., Gen_24:16),
since there are passages - such, for example, as Son_6:8 - where it can hardly be distinguished
from the Arabic surrı̄je; and a person who had a very young-looking wife might be said to have
an ‛almah for his wife. But it is inconceivable that in a well-considered style, and one of religious
earnestness, a woman who had been long married, like the prophet's own wife, could be called
ha‛almah without any reserve.

79. (Note: A young and newly-married wife might be called Callah (as in Homer νύµφη =
nubilis and nupta; Eng. bride); and even in Homer a married woman, if young, is sometimes
called κουριδίη ᅎλοχος, but neither κούρη nor νεᇿνις.)
On the other hand, the expression itself warrants the assumption that by ha‛almah the prophet
meant one of the ‛alamoth of the king's harem (Luzzatto); and if we consider that the birth of the
child was to take place, as the prophet foresaw, in the immediate future, his thoughts might very
well have been fixed upon Abijah (Abi) bath-Zechariah (2Ki_18:2; 2Ch_29:1), who became the
mother of king Hezekiah, to whom apparently the virtues of the mother descended, in marked
contrast with the vices of his father. This is certainly possible. At the same time, it is also certain
that the child who was to be born was the Messiah, and not a new Israel (Hofmann,
Schriftbeweis, ii. 1, 87, 88); that is to say, that he was no other than that “wonderful” heir of the
throne of David, whose birth is hailed with joy in chapter 9, where even commentators like
Knobel are obliged to admit that the Messiah is meant. It was the Messiah whom the prophet
saw here as about to be born, then again in chapter 9 as actually born, and again in chapter 11 as
reigning - an indivisible triad of consolatory images in three distinct states, interwoven with the
three stages into which the future history of the nation unfolded itself in the prophet's view. If,
therefore, his eye was directed towards the Abijah mentioned, he must have regarded her as the
future mother of the Messiah, and her son as the future Messiah. Now it is no doubt true, that in
the course of the sacred history Messianic expectations were often associated with individuals
who did not answer to them, so that the Messianic prospect was moved further into the future;
and it is not only possible, but even probable, and according to many indications an actual fact,
that the believing portion of the nation did concentrate their Messianic wishes and hopes for a
long time upon Hezekiah; but even if Isaiah's prophecy may have evoked such human
conjectures and expectations, through the measure of time which it laid down, it would not be a
prophecy at all, if it rested upon no better foundation than this, which would be the case if Isaiah
had a particular maiden of his own day in his mind at the time.
Are we to conclude, then, that the prophet did not refer to any one individual, but that the
“virgin” was a personification of the house of David? This view, which Hofmann propounded,
and Stier appropriated, and which Ebrard has revived, notwithstanding the fact that Hofmann
relinquished it, does not help us over the difficulty; for we should expect in that case to find
“daughter of Zion,” or something of the kind, since the term “virgin” is altogether unknown in a
personification of this kind, and the house of David, as the prophet knew it, was by no means
worthy of such an epithet.
No other course is left, therefore, than to assume that whilst, on the one hand, the prophet
meant by “the virgin” a maiden belonging to the house of David, which the Messianic character
of the prophecy requires; on the other hand, he neither thought of any particular maiden, nor
associated the promised conception with any human father, who could not have been any other
than Ahaz. The reference is the same as in Mic_5:3 (“she which travaileth,” yoledah). The
objection that ha‛almah (the virgin) cannot be a person belonging to the future, on account of the
article (Hofmann, p. 86), does not affect the true explanation: it was the virgin whom the spirit
of prophecy brought before the prophet's mind, and who, although he could not give her name,
stood before him as singled out for an extraordinary end (compare the article in hanna‛ar in
Num_11:27 etc.). With what exalted dignity this mother appeared to him to be invested, is
evident from the fact that it is she who gives the name to her son, and that the name Immanuel.
This name sounds full of promise. But if we look at the expression “therefore,” and the
circumstance which occasioned it, the sign cannot have been intended as a pure or simple
promise. We naturally expect, first, that it will be an extraordinary fact which the prophet

80. foretells; and secondly, that it will be a fact with a threatening front. Now a humiliation of the
house of David was indeed involved in the fact that the God of whom it would know nothing
would nevertheless mould its future history, as the emphatic ‫הוּא‬ implies, He (αᆒτός, the Lord
Himself), by His own impulse and unfettered choice. Moreover, this moulding of the future
could not possibly be such an one as was desired, but would of necessity be as full of threatening
to the unbelieving house of David as it was full of promise to the believers in Israel. And the
threatening character of the “sign” is not to be sought for exclusively in Isa_7:15, since both the
expressions “therefore” (lacen) and “behold” (hinneh) place the main point of the sign in
Isa_7:14, whilst the introduction of Isa_7:15 without any external connection is a clear proof
that what is stated in Isa_7:14 is the chief thing, and not the reverse. But the only thing in
Isa_7:14 which indicated any threatening element in the sign in question, must have been the
fact that it would not be by Ahaz, or by a son of Ahaz, or by the house of David generally, which
at that time had hardened itself against God, that God would save His people, but that a
nameless maiden of low rank, whom God had singled out and now showed to the prophet in the
mirror of His counsel, would give birth to the divine deliverer of His people in the midst of the
approaching tribulations, which was a sufficient intimation that He who was to be the pledge of
Judah's continuance would not arrive without the present degenerate house of David, which had
brought Judah to the brink of ruin, being altogether set aside.
But the further question arises here, What constituted the extraordinary character of the fact
here announced? It consisted in the fact, that, according to Isa_9:5, Immanuel Himself was to
be a ‫א‬ ֶ‫ל‬ ֶ (wonder or wonderful). He would be God in corporeal self-manifestation, and therefore
a “wonder” as being a superhuman person. We should not venture to assert this if it went
beyond the line of Old Testament revelation, but the prophet asserts it himself in Isa_9:5 (cf.,
Isa_10:21): his words are as clear as possible; and we must not make them obscure, to favour
any preconceived notions as to the development of history. The incarnation of Deity was
unquestionably a secret that was not clearly unveiled in the Old Testament, but the veil was not
so thick but that some rays could pass through. Such a ray, directed by the spirit of prophecy
into the mind of the prophet, was the prediction of Immanuel. But if the Messiah was to be
Immanuel in this sense, that He would Himself be El (God), as the prophet expressly affirms,
His birth must also of necessity be a wonderful or miraculous one. The prophet does not affirm,
indeed, that the “‛almah,” who had as yet known no man, would give birth to Immanuel without
this taking place, so that he could not be born of the house of David as well as into it, but be a
gift of Heaven itself; but this “‛almah” or virgin continued throughout an enigma in the Old
Testament, stimulating “inquiry” (1Pe_1:10-12), and waiting for the historical solution. Thus the
sign in question was, on the one hand, a mystery glaring in the most threatening manner upon
the house of David; and, on the other hand, a mystery smiling with which consolation upon the
prophet and all believers, and couched in these enigmatical terms, in order that those who
hardened themselves might not understand it, and that believers might increasingly long to
comprehend its meaning.
In Isa_7:15 the threatening element of Isa_7:14 becomes the predominant one. It would not
be so, indeed, if “butter (thickened milk) and honey” were mentioned here as the ordinary food
of the tenderest age of childhood (as Gesenius, Hengstenberg, and others suppose). But the
reason afterwards assigned in Isa_7:16, Isa_7:17, teaches the very opposite. Thickened milk and
honey, the food of the desert, would be the only provisions furnished by the land at the time in
which the ripening youth of Immanuel would fall. ‫ה‬ፎ ְ‫מ‬ ֶ‫ח‬ (from ‫א‬ ָ‫מ‬ ָ‫,ה‬ to be thick) is a kind of butter
which is still prepared by nomads by shaking milk in skins. It may probably include the cream,
as the Arabic semen signifies both, but not the curds or cheese, the name of which (at least the

81. more accurate name) if gebı̄nah. The object to ‫ע‬ ַ‫ד‬ָ‫י‬ is expressed in Isa_7:15, Isa_7:16 by infinitive
absolutes (compare the more usual mode of expression in Isa_8:4). The Lamed prefixed to the
verb does not mean “until” (Ges. §131, 1), for Lamed is never used as so definite an indication of
the terminus ad quem; the meaning is either “towards the time when he understands”
(Amo_4:7, cf., Lev_24:12, “to the end that”), or about the time, at the time when he understands
(Isa_10:3; Gen_8:11; Job_24:14). This kind of food would coincide in time with his
understanding, that is to say, would run parallel to it. Incapacity to distinguish between good
and bad is characteristic of early childhood (Deu_1:39, etc.), and also of old age when it relapses
into childish ways (2Sa_19:36). The commencement of the capacity to understand is equivalent
to entering into the so-called years of discretion - the riper age of free and conscious self-
determination. By the time that Immanuel reached this age, all the blessings of the land would
have been so far reduced, that from a land full of luxuriant corn-fields and vineyards, it would
have become a large wooded pasture-ground, supplying milk and honey, and nothing more. A
thorough devastation of the land is therefore the reason for this limitation to the simplest, and,
when compared with the fat of wheat and the cheering influence of wine, most meagre and
miserable food. And this is the ground assigned in Isa_7:16, Isa_7:17. Two successive and
closely connected events would occasion this universal desolation.
7. PULPIT, “Therefore. To show that your perversity cannot change God's designs, which will be
accomplished, whether you hear or whether you forbear. The Lord himself; i.e. "the Lord himself, of his
own free will, unasked." Will give you a sign. "Signs" were of various kinds. They might be actual
miracles performed to attest a Divine commission (Exo_4:3-9); or judgments of God, significative of his
power and justice (Exo_10:2); or memorials of something in the past (Exo_13:9, Exo_13:16); or pledges
of something still future. Signs of this last-mentioned kind might be miracles (Jdg_6:36-40; 2Ki_20:8-11),
or prophetic announcements (Exo_3:12; 1Sa_2:34; 2Ki_19:29). These last would only have the effect of
signs on those who witnessed their accomplishment. Behold. "A forewarning of a great event"
(Cheyne). A virgin shall conceive. It is questioned whether the word translated "virgin," viz. 'almah, has
necessarily that meaning; but it is admitted that the meaning is borne out by every other place in which
the word occurs m the Old Testament (Gen_24:43; Exo_2:8; Psa_68:25; Pro_30:19; Son_1:3; Son_6:8).
The LXX; writing two centuries before the birth of Christ, translate by παρθένος . The rendering "virgin"
has the support of the best modern Hebraists, as Lowth, Gesenins, Ewald, Delitzsch, Kay. It is observed
with reason that unless 'almah is translated "virgin," there is no announcement made worthy of the grand
prelude: "The Lord himself shall give you a sign—Behold!" The Hebrew, however, has not "a virgin," but
"the virgin", which points to some special virgin, pro-eminent above all others. And shall call; better than
the marginal rendering, thou shalt call. It was regarded as the privilege of a mother to determine her
child's name (Gen_4:25; Gen_16:11; Gen_29:32-35; Gen_30:6-13, Gen_30:18-
21, Gen_30:24; Gen_35:18, etc.), although formally the father gave it (Gen_16:15; 2Sa_12:24; Luk_1:62,
83). Immanuel. Translated for us by St. Matthew (Mat_1:23) as "God with us" ( µεθ ἡµῶν ὁ
Θεός ). (Comp. Isa_8:8, Isa_8:10.)
8. CALVIN, “14.Therefore the Lordhimself shall give you a sign. Ahaz had already refused the sign
which the Lord offered to him, when the Prophet remonstrated against his rebellion and ingratitude; yet
the Prophet declares that this will not prevent God from giving the sign which he had promised and
appointed for the Jews. But what sign?
Behold, a virgin shall conceive. This passage is obscure; but the blame lies partly on the Jews, who, by
much cavilling, have labored, as far as lay in their power, to pervert the true exposition. They are hard
pressed by this passage; for it contains an illustrious prediction concerning the Messiah, who is here
called Immanuel; and therefore they have labored, by all possible means, to torture the Prophet’ meaning

82. to another sense. Some allege that the person here mentioned is Hezekiah; and others, that it is the son
of Isaiah.
Those who apply this passage to Hezekiah are excessively impudent; for he must have been a full-grown
man when Jerusalem was besieged. Thus they show that they are grossly ignorant of history. But it is a
just reward of their malice, that God hath blinded them in such a manner as to be deprived of all
judgment. This happens in the present day to the papists, who often expose themselves to ridicule by
their mad eagerness to pervert the Scriptures.
As to those who think that it was Isaiah’ son, it is an utterly frivolous conjecture; for we do not read that a
deliverer would be raised up from the seed of Isaiah, who should be called Immanuel; for this title is far
too illustrious to admit of being applied to any man.
Others think, or, at least, (being unwilling to contend with the Jews more than was necessary,) admit that
the Prophet spoke of some child who was born at that time, by whom, as by an obscure picture, Christ
was foreshadowed. But they produce no strong arguments, and do not show who that child was, or bring
forward any proofs. Now, it is certain, as we have already said, that this name Immanuel could not be
literally applied to a mere man; and, therefore, there can be no doubt that the Prophet referred to Christ.
But all writers, both Greek and Latin, are too much at their ease in handling this passage; for, as if there
were no difficulty in it, they merely assert that Christ is here promised from the Virgin Mary. Now, there is
no small difficulty in the objection which the Jews bring against us, that Christ is here mentioned without
any sufficient reason; for thus they argue, and demand that the scope of the passage be examined: “ was
besieged. The Prophet was about to give them a sign of deliverance. Why should he promise the
Messiah, who was to be born five hundred years afterwards?” By this argument they think that they have
gained the victory, because the promise concerning Christ had nothing to do with assuring Ahaz of the
deliverance of Jerusalem. And then they boast as if they had gained the day, chiefly because scarcely
any one replies to them. That is the reason why I said that commentators have been too much at their
ease in this matter; for it is of no small importance to show why the Redeemer is here mentioned.
Now, the matter stands thus. King Ahaz having rejected the sign which God had offered to him, the
Prophet reminds him of the foundation of the covenant, which even the ungodly did not venture openly to
reject. The Messiah must be born; and this was expected by all, because the salvation of the whole
nation depended on it. The Prophet, therefore, after having expressed his indignation against the king,
again argues in this manner: “ rejecting the promise, thou wouldest endeavor to overturn the decree of
God; but it shall remain inviolable, and thy treachery and ingratitude will not hinder God from being,
continually the Deliverer of his people; for he will at length raise up his Messiah.”
To make these things more plain, we must attend to the custom of the Prophets, who, in establishing
special promises, lay down this as the foundation, that God will send a Redeemer. On this general
foundation God everywhere builds all the special promises which he makes to his people; and certainly
every one who expects aid and assistance from him must be convinced of his fatherly love. And how
could he be reconciled to us but through Christ, in whom he has freely adopted the elect, and continues
to pardon them to the end? Hence comes that saying of Paul, that
all the promises of God in Christ are Yea and Amen.
(2Co_1:20.)
Whenever, therefore, God assisted his ancient people, he at the same time reconciled them to himself
through Christ; and accordingly, whenever famine, pestilence, and war are mentioned, in order to hold out
a hope of deliverance, he places the Messiah before their eyes. This being exceedingly clear, the Jews
have no right to make a noise, as if the Prophet made an unseasonable transition to a very remote
subject. For on what did the deliverance of Jerusalem depend, but on the manifestation of Christ? This
was, indeed, the only foundation on which the salvation of the Church always rested.

83. Most appropriately, therefore, did Isaiah say, “ thou dost not believe the promises of God, but yet God will
fulfill them; for he will at length send his Christ, for whose sake he determines to preserve this city.
Though thou art unworthy, yet God will have regard to his own honor.” King Ahaz is therefore deprived of
that sign which he formerly rejected, and loses the benefit of which he proved himself to be unworthy; but
still God’ inviolable promise is still held out to him. This is plainly enough intimated by the particle ‫,לכן‬
(lachen,) therefore; that is, because thou disdainest that particular sign which God offered to thee, ‫,הוא‬
(hu,) He, that is, God himself, who was so gracious as to offer it freely to thee, he whom thou weariest will
not fail to hold out a sign. When I say that the coming of Christ is promised to Ahaz, I do not mean that
God includes him among the chosen people, to whom he had appointed his Son to be the Author of
salvation; but because the discourse is directed to the whole body of the people.
Will give you a sign. The word ‫,לכם‬ (lachem,) to you, is interpreted by some as meaning to your children;
but this is forced. So far as relates to the persons addressed, the Prophet leaves the wicked king and
looks to the nation, so far as it had been adopted by God. He will therefore give, not to thee a wicked
king, and to those who are like thee, but to you whom he has adopted; for the covenant which he made
with Abraham continues to be firm and inviolable. And the Lord always has some remnant to whom the
advantage of the covenant belongs; though the rulers and governors of his people may be hypocrites.
Behold, a virgin shall conceive. The word Behold is used emphatically, to denote the greatness of the
event; for this is the manner in which the Spirit usually speaks of great and remarkable events, in order to
elevate the minds of men. The Prophet, therefore, enjoins his hearers to be attentive, and to consider this
extraordinary work of God; as if he had said, “ not slothful, but consider this singular grace of God, which
ought of itself to have drawn your attention, but is concealed from you on account of your stupidity.”
Although the word ‫,עלמה‬ (gnalmah,) a virgin, is derived from ‫,עלם‬ (gnalam,) which signifies to hide,
because the shame and modesty of virgins does not allow them to appear in public; yet as the Jews
dispute much about that word, and assert that it does not signify virgin, because Solomon used it to
denote a young woman who was betrothed, it is unnecessary to contend about the word. Though we
should admit what they say, that ‫עלמה‬ (gnalmah) sometimes denotes a young woman, and that the name
refers, as they would have it, to the age, (yet it is frequently used in Scripture when the subject relates
to a virgin,) the nature of the case sufficiently refutes all their slanders. For what wonderful thing did the
Prophet say, if he spoke ofa young woman who conceived through intercourse with a man? It would
certainly have been absurd to hold out this as a sign or a miracle. Let us suppose that it denotes a young
woman who should become pregnant in the ordinary course of nature; (109) everybody sees that it would
have been silly and contemptible for the Prophet, after having said that he was about to speak of
something strange and uncommon, to add, A young woman shall conceive. It is, therefore, plain enough
that he speaks of a virgin who should conceive, not by the ordinary course of nature, but by the gracious
influence of the Holy Spirit. And this is the mystery which Paul extols in lofty terms, that
God was manifested in the flesh. (1Ti_3:16.)
And shall call. The Hebrew verb is in the feminine gender, She shall call; for as to those who read it in the
masculine gender, I know not on what they found their opinion. The copies which we use certainly do not
differ. If you apply it to the mother, it certainly expresses something different from the ordinary custom.
We know that to the father is always assigned the right of giving a name to a child; for it is a sign of the
power and authority of fathers over children; and the same authority does not belong to women. But here
it is conveyed to the mother; and therefore it follows that he is conceived by the mother in such a manner
as not to have a father on earth; otherwise the Prophet would pervert the ordinary custom of Scripture,
which ascribes this office to men only. Yet it ought to be observed that the name was not given to Christ
at the suggestion of his mother, and in such a case it would have had no weight; but the Prophet means
that, in publishing the name,the virgin will occupy the place of a herald, because there will be no earthly
father to perform that office.
Immanuel. This name was unquestionably bestowed on Christ on account of the actual fact; for the only-
begotten Son of God clothed himself with our flesh, and united himself to us by partaking of our nature.
He is, therefore, called God with us, or united to us; which cannot apply to a man who is not God. The

84. Jews in their sophistry tell us that this name was given to Hezekiah; because by the hand of Hezekiah
God delivered his people; and they add, “ who is the servant of God represents his person.” But neither
Moses nor Joshua, who were deliverers of the nation, were so denominated; and therefore
this Immanuel is preferred to Moses and Joshua, and all the others; for by this name he excels all that
ever were before, and all that shall come after him; and it is a title expressive of some extraordinary
excellence and authority which he possesses above others. It is therefore evident that it denotes not only
the power of God, such as he usually displays by his servant, but a union of person, by which Christ
became God-man. Hence it is also evident that Isaiah here relates no common event, but points out that
unparalleled mystery which the Jews labor in vain to conceal.
9. MEYER, “THE SIGN OF IMMANUEL
Isa_7:1-17
A new cycle of prophecy begins here, covering the reign of Ahaz. The complete history which
illustrates these chapters is given in 2Ch_28:5. The invasion of Judah by Syria and Samaria was
permitted because a severe warning was needed to enforce Isaiah’s remonstrances and appeals.
See 2Ki_15:37. The Holy City, as Isaiah predicted, was not to be trodden by the invader, though
it would pass through severe suffering and anxiety. This immunity, which neither Ahaz nor his
people deserved, was secured by Isaiah’s faith and prayer, pleading as he did, God’s ancient
covenant.
This great prophecy of the coming Immanuel must have greatly encouraged that generation, as
it has all succeeding ones. It inspired Psa_46:1-11. What greater comfort have we than that Jesus
is the companion of our pilgrimage? See Mat_1:21-23. Though the corn-lands were desolate, the
cattle on the mountain-pastures would yield butter and the wild bees honey; and this would
supply the nation’s needs till the invader had withdrawn. Though God chastens us, He will not
forget our daily bread.
10. BI, “God’s sign to King Ahaz
Perhaps more perplexity has been produced among commentators by this passage than by any
other in Old Testament prophecy.
The chief difficulties of the passage may be stated as follows: Does the prophecy refer to some
event which was soon to occur, or does it refer exclusively to some event in the distant future? If
it refers to some event which was soon to occur, what event was it? Who was the child intended,
and who the virgin who should bring forth the child?
1. The first step toward the unravelling of the prophet’s meaning is to determine the exact
significance of the words. What, then, is the meaning of the word ‫,אוֹף‬ which is translated
“sign”? Delitzsch defines the word as “a thing, event, or act which may serve to guarantee the
Divine certainty of some other thing, event, or act.” It does not of necessity denote a miracle.
For example, in Gen_17:11, circumcision is said to be a “sign,” or token. The context,
together with the nature of the thing, event, or act, must decide whether the ‫אוֹח‬ is a miracle
or not. All that is necessary to constitute a “sign” to Ahaz is that some assurance shall be
given which Jehovah alone can give. And the certain prediction of future events is the
prerogative of Jehovah alone.

85. 2. We turn now to the word ‫ח‬ ָ‫ס‬ ְ‫ל‬ ַ‫,ע‬ translated “virgin” and shall try to find its exact meaning.
The derivation of it from ‫ם‬ ִ‫ל‬ ָ‫,ע‬ to hide, to conceal, is now generally abandoned. Its most
probable derivation is from ‫ם‬ ִ‫ל‬ ָ‫,ע‬ to grow, to be strong, and hence the word means one who
has come to a mature or marriageable age. Hengstenberg contends that it means one in an
unmarried state; Gesenius holds that it means simply being of marriageable age, the age of
puberty. However this may be, it seems most natural to take the word in this place as
meaning one who was then unmarried and who could be called a virgin. But we must guard
against the exegetical error of supposing that the word here used implies that the person
spoken of must be a virgin at the time when the child is born. All that is said is that she who
is now a virgin shall bear a son.
3. Let us now proceed to consider the interpretation of the prophecy itself. The opinions
which have generally prevailed with regard to it are three—
(1) That it has no reference to any Messianic fulfilment, but refers exclusively to some
event in the time of the prophet.
(2) That it has exclusive and immediate reference to the Messiah, thus excluding any
reference to any event which was then to occur. On this view, the future birth of the
Messiah from a virgin is made the sign to Ahaz that Jerusalem shall he safe from a
threatened invasion
(3) That the prophet is speaking of the birth of a child which would soon take place of
someone who was then a virgin; but that the prophecy has also a higher fulfilment in
Christ. This last view we regards the only tenable one, and the proof of it will be the
refutation of the other two. The following reasons are presented to show that the
prophecy refers to some event which was soon to occur.
1. The context demands it. If there was no allusion in the New Testament to the prophecy,
and we should contemplate the narrative here in its surrounding circumstances, we should
naturally feel that the prophet must mean this. If the seventh and eighth chapters, connected
as they are, were all that we had, we should be compelled to admit a reference to something
in the prophet’s time. The record in Isa_8:1-4, following in such close connection, seems to
be intended as a public assurance of the fulfilment of what is here predicted respecting the
deliverance of the land from the threatened invasion. The prediction was that she who is a
virgin shall bear a son. Now Jehovah alone can foreknow this, and He pronounces the birth
of this child as the sign which shall be given.
2. The thing to be given to Ahaz was a sign or token that a present danger would be averted.
How could the fact that the Messiah would come seven hundred years later prove this?
Let us now look at the reasons for believing that it contains also a reference to the Messiah.
1. The first argument we present is derived from the passage in Is
9:7. There is an undoubted connection between that passage and the oneunder consideration, as
almost all critical scholars admit. And it seems that nothing short of a Messianic reference will
explain the words. Some have asserted that the undoubted and exclusive reference to Messiah in
this verse (9:7) excludes any local reference in the prophecy in Isa_7:14.But so far from this
being the ease, we believe it is an instance of what Bacon calls the “springing, germinant
fulfilment of prophecy.” And we believe that it can be proved that all prophecies take their start
from historical facts. Isaiah here (Isa_9:7) drops the historical drapery and rises to a mightier
and more majestic strain.

86. 2. The second and crowning argument is taken from the language of the inspired writer
Matthew (Mat_1:22-23). (D. M. Sweets.)
11. PULPIT, “Note on the general purport of the Immanuel prophecy. Few prophecies have been the
subject of so much controversy, or called forth such a variety of exegesis, as this prophecy of Immanuel.
Rosenmüller gives a list of twenty-eight authors who have written dissertations upon it, and himself adds
a twenty-ninth. Yet the subject is far from being exhausted. It is still asked:
(1) Were the mother and son persons belonging to the time of Isaiah himself, and if so, what persons? Or,
(2) Were they the Virgin Mary and her Son Jesus? Or,
(3) Had the prophecy a double fulfillment, first in certain persons who lived in Isaiah's time, and secondly
in Jesus and his mother?
I. The first theory is that of the Jewish commentators. Originally, they suggested that the mother was Abi,
the wife of Ahaz (2Ki_18:2), and the son Hezekiah, who delivered Judah from the Assyrian power. But
this was early disproved by showing that, according to the numbers of Kings (2Ki_16:2; 2Ki_18:2),
Hezekiah was at least nine years old in the first year of Ahaz, before which this prophecy could not have
been delivered (Isa_7:1). The second suggestion made identified the mother with Isaiah's wife, the
"prophetess" of Isa_8:3, and made the son a child of his, called actually Immanuel, or else his son Maher-
shalal-hash-baz (Isa_8:1) under a symbolical designation. But ha-'almah, "thevirgin," would be a very
strange title for Isaiah to have given his wife, and the rank assigned to Immanuel in Isa_8:8 would not suit
any son of Isaiah's. It remains to regard the 'almah as "some young woman actually present," name, rank,
and position unknown, and Immanuel as her son, also otherwise unknown (Cheyne). But the grand
exordium, "The Lord himself shall give you a sign—Behold!" and the rank of Immanuel (Isa_8:8), are alike
against this.
II. The purely Messianic theory is maintained by Rosenmüller and Dr. Kay, but without any consideration
of its difficulties. The birth of Christ was an event more than seven hundred years distant. In what sense
and to what persons could it be a "sign" of the coming deliverance of the land from Rezin and Pekah?
And, upon the purely Messianic theory, what is the meaning of verse 16? Syria and Samaria were, in fact,
crushed within a few years of the delivery of the prophecy. Why is their desolation put off, apparently, till
the coming of the Messiah, and even till he has reached a certain age? Mr. Cheyne meets these
difficulties by the startling statement that Isaiah expected the advent of the Messiah to synchronize with
the Assyrian invasion, and consequently thought that before Rezin and Pekah were crushed he would
have reached the age of discernment. But he does not seem to see that in this case the sigma was
altogether disappointing and illusory. Time is an essential element of a prophecy which turns upon the
word "before" (verse 16). If this faith of Isaiah's disciples was aroused and their hopes raised by the
announcement that Immanuel was just about to be born (Mr. Cheyne translates, "A virgin is with child"),
what would be the revulsion of feeling when no Immanuel appeared?
III. May not the true account of the matter be that suggested by Bishop Lowth—that the prophecy had a
double bearing and a double fulfillment? "The obvious and literal meaning of the prophecy is this," he
says: "that within the time that a young woman, now a virgin, should conceive and bring forth a child, and
that child should arrive at such an age as to distinguish between good and evil, that is, within a few years,
the enemies of Judah should be destroyed." But the prophecy was so worded, he adds, as to have a
further meaning, which wan even "the original design and principal intention of the prophet," viz. the
Messianic one. All the expressions of the prophecy do not suit both its intentions—some are selected with
reference to the first, others with reference to the second fulfillment—but all suit one or the other, and
some suit both. The first child may have received the name Immanuel (comp. Ittiel) from a faithful Jewish
mother, who believed that God was with his people, whatever dangers threatened, and may have
reached years of discretion about the time that Samaria was carried away captive. The second child is
the true "Immanuel," "God with us," the king of Isa_8:8; it is his mother who is pointed at in the

87. expression, "the virgin," and on his account is the grand preamble; through him the people of God, the
true Israel, is delivered from its spiritual enemies, sin and Satan—two kings who continually threaten it.
15
He will be eating curds and honey when he knows
enough to reject the wrong and choose the right,
1.BARNES, “Butter and honey - The word rendered “butter” (‫חמאה‬ chem'ah), denotes not
butter, but thick and curdled milk. This was the common mode of using milk as an article of
food in the East, and is still. In no passage in the Old Testament does butter seem to be meant
by the word. Jarchi says, that this circumstance denotes a state of plenty, meaning that the land
should yield its usual increase notwithstanding the threatened invasion. Eustatius on this place
says, that it denotes delicate food. The more probable interpretation is, that it was the usual food
of children, and that it means that the child should be nourished in the customary manner. That
this was the common nourishment of children, is abundantly proved by Bochart; “Hieroz.” P. i.
lib. xi. ch. li. p. 630. Barnabas, in his epistle says, ‘The infant is first nourished with honey, and
then with milk.’ This was done usually by the prescription of physicians.
Paulus says, ‘It is fit that the first food given to a child be honey, and then milk.’ So Aetius,
‘Give to a child, as its first food, honey;’ see “Bochart.” Some have, indeed, supposed that this
refers to the fact that the Messiah should be “man” as well as God, and that his eating honey and
butter was expressive of the fact that he had a “human nature!” But against this mode of
interpretation, it is hoped, it is scarcely needful now to protest. It is suited to bring the Bible into
contempt, and the whole science of exegesis into scorn. The Bible is a book of sense, and it
should be interpreted on principles that commend themselves to the sober judgment of
mankind. The word rendered “honey” - ‫דבשׁ‬ de
bash - is the same word - “dibs” - which is now
used by the Arabs to denote the syrup or jelly which is made by boiling down wine. This is about
the consistence of molasses, and is used as an article of food. Whether it was so employed in the
time of Isaiah, cannot now be determined, but the word here may be used to denote honey;
compare the note at Isa_7:22.
That he may know - As this translation now stands, it is unintelligible. It would “seem”
from this, that his eating butter and honey would “contribute” to his knowing good and evil. But
this cannot be the meaning. It evidently denotes ‘until he shall know,’ or, ‘at his knowing;’ Nord.
“Heb. Gram.,” Section 1026. 3. He shall be no urished in the usual way, “until” he shall arrive at
such a period of life as to know good from evil. The Septuagint renders it, Πρινη γνራναι αᆒτᆵν
Prine gnonai auton - ‘before he knows.’ The Chaldee, ‘Until he shall know.’
To refuse the evil ... - Ignorance of good and evil denotes infancy. Thus, in Nineveh, it is
said there were ‘more than sixscore thousand perons that cannot discern between their right
hand and left hand;’ commonly supposed to denote infants; Jon_4:11; compare Deu_1:39. The
meaning is, that he should be nourished in the usual mode in infancy, and before he should be
able to discern right from wrong, the land should be forsaken of its kings. At what particular

88. period of life this occurs, it may not be easy to determine. A capability to determine, in some
degree, between good and evil, or between right and wrong, is usually manifest when the child is
two or three years of age. It is evinced when there is a capability of understanding “law,” and
feeling that it is wrong to disobey it. This is certainly shown at a very early period of life; and it is
not improper, therefore, to suppose that here a time was designated which was not more than
two or three years.
2. CLARKE, “That he may know “When he shall know” - “Though so much has been
written on this important passage, there is an obscurity and inconsequence which still attends it,
in the general run of all the interpretations given to it by the most learned. And this obscure
incoherence is given to it by the false rendering of a Hebrew particle, viz., ‫ל‬ le, in ‫לדעתו‬ ledato.
This has been generally rendered, either ‘that he may know,’ or ‘till he know.’ It is capable of
either version, without doubt; but either of these versions makes Isa_7:15 incoherent and
inconsistent with Isa_7:16. For Isa_7:16 plainly means to give a reason for the assertion in
Isa_7:16, because it is subjoined to it by the particle ‫כי‬ ki, for. But it is no reason why a child
should eat butter and honey till he was at an age to distinguish, that before that time the land of
his nativity should be free from its enemies. This latter supposition indeed implies, what is
inconsistent with the preceding assertion. For it implies, that in part of that time of the infancy
spoken of the land should not be free from enemies, and consequently these species of delicate
food could not be attainable, as they are in times of peace. The other version, ‘that he may know,’
has no meaning at all; for what sense is there in asserting, that a child shall eat butter and honey
that he may know to refuse evil and choose good? Is there any such effect in this food? Surely
not. Besides, the child is thus represented to eat those things, which only a state of peace
produces, during its whole infancy, inconsistently with Isa_7:16, which promises a relief from
enemies only before the end of this infancy: implying plainly, that part of it would be passed in
distressful times of war and siege, which was the state of things when the prophecy was
delivered.
“But all these objections are cut off, and a clear, coherent sense is given to this passage, by
giving another sense to the particle ‫ל‬ le. which never occurred to me till I saw it in Harmer’s
Observat., vol. i., p. 299. See how coherent the words of the prophet run, with how natural a
connection one clause follows another, by properly rendering this one particle: ‘Behold this
Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and thou shalt call his name Immanuel; butter and honey,
shall he eat, when he shall know to refuse evil, and choose good. For before this child shall know
to refuse evil and choose good, the land shall be desolate, by whose two kings thou art
distressed.’ Thus Isa_7:16 subjoins a plain reason why the child should eat butter and honey, the
food of plentiful times, when he came to a distinguishing age; viz., because before that time the
country of the two kings, who now distressed Judea, should be desolated; and so Judea should
recover that plenty which attends peace. That this rendering, which gives perspicuity and
rational connection to the passage, is according to the use of the Hebrew particle, is certain.
Thus ‫לפנות‬‫בקר‬ liphnoth boker, ‘at the appearing of morning, or when morning appeared,’
Exo_14:27; ‫לעת‬‫האכל‬ leeth haochel, ‘at mealtime, or when it was time to eat,’ Rth_2:14. In the
same manner, ‫לדעתו‬ ledato, ‘at his knowing, that is, when he knows.’
“Harmer (ibid.) has clearly shown that these articles of food are delicacies in the East, and, as
such, denote a state of plenty. See also Jos_5:6. They therefore naturally express the plenty of
the country, as a mark of peace restored to it. Indeed, in Isa_7:22 it expresses a plenty arising

89. from the thinness of the people; but that it signifies, Isa_7:15, a plenty arising from deliverance
from war then present, is evident; because otherwise there is no expression of this deliverance.
And that a deliverance was intended to be here expressed is plain, from calling the child which
should be born Immanuel, God with us. It is plain, also, because it is before given to the prophet
in charge to make a declaration of the deliverance, Isa_7:3-7; and it is there made; and this
prophecy must undoubtedly be conformable to that in this matter.” - Dr. Jubb.
The circumstance of the child’s eating butter and honey is explained by Jarchi, as denoting a
state of plenty: “Butter and honey shall this child eat, because our land shall be full of all good.”
Comment in locum. The infant Jupiter, says Callimachus, was tenderly nursed with goat’s milk
and honey. Hymn, in Jov. 48. Homer, of the orphan daughters of Pandareus: -
Κοµισσε δε δι’ Αφροδιτη
Τυρሩ και µελιτι γλυκερሩ, και ᅧδει οινሩ.
Odyss. XX., 68.
“Venus in tender delicacy rears
With honey, milk, and wine, their infant years.”
Pope.
Τρυφης εστιν ενδειξις; “This is a description of delicate food,” says Eustathius on the place.
Agreeably to the observations communicated by the learned person above mentioned, which
perfectly well explain the historical sense of this much disputed passage, not excluding a higher
secondary sense, the obvious and literal meaning of the prophecy is this:” that within the time
that a young woman, now a virgin, should conceive and bring forth a child, and that child should
arrive at such an age as to distinguish between good and evil, that is, within a few years,
(compare Isa_8:4), the enemies of Judah should be destroyed.” But the prophecy is introduced
in so solemn a manner; the sign is so marked, as a sign selected and given by God himself, after
Ahaz had rejected the offer of any sign of his own choosing out of the whole compass of nature;
the terms of the prophecy are so peculiar, and the name of the child so expressive, containing in
them much more than the circumstances of the birth of a common child required, or even
admitted; that we may easily suppose that, in minds prepared by the general expectation of a
great Deliverer to spring from the house of David, they raised hopes far beyond what the present
occasion suggested; especially when it was found, that in the subsequent prophecy, delivered
immediately afterward, this child, called Immanuel, is treated as the Lord and Prince of the land
of Judah. Who could this be, other than the heir of the throne of David; under which character a
great and even a Divine person had been promised? No one of that age answered to this
character except Hezekiah; but he was certainly born nine or ten years before the delivery of this
prophecy. That this was so understood at that time is collected, I think, with great probability,
from a passage of Micah, a prophet contemporary with Isaiah, but who began to prophesy after
him; and who, as I have already observed, imitated him, and sometimes used his expressions.
Micah, having delivered that remarkable prophecy which determines the place of the birth of
Messiah, “the Ruler of God’s people, whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting;” that
it should be Bethlehem Ephratah; adds immediately, that nevertheless, in the mean time, God
would deliver his people into the hands of their enemies: “He will give them up, till she, who is
to bear a child, shall bring forth,” Mic_5:3. This obviously and plainly refers to some known
prophecy concerning a woman to bring forth a child; and seems much more properly applicable
to this passage of Isaiah than to any others of the same prophet, to which some interpreters have
applied it. St. Matthew, therefore, in applying this prophecy to the birth of Christ, does it, not
merely in the way of accommodating the words of the prophet to a suitable case not in the

90. prophet’s view, but takes it in its strictest, clearest, and most important sense; and applies it
according to the original design and principal intention of the prophet. - L.
After all this learned criticism, I think something is still wanting to diffuse the proper light
over this important prophecy. On Mat_1:23 I have given what I judge to be the true meaning
and right application of the whole passage, as there quoted by the evangelist, the substance of
which it will be necessary to repeat here: -
At the time referred to, the kingdom of Judah, under the government of Ahaz, was reduced
very low. Pekah, king of Israel, had slain in Judea one hundred and twenty thousand persons in
one day; and carried away captives two hundred thousand, including women and children,
together with much spoil. To add to their distress, Rezin, king of Syria, being confederate with
Pekah, had taken Elath, a fortified city of Judah, and carried the inhabitants away captive to
Damascus. In this critical conjuncture, need we wonder that Ahaz was afraid that the enemies
who were now united against him must prevail, destroy Jerusalem, end the kingdom of Judah,
and annihilate the family of David? To meet and remove this fear, apparently well grounded,
Isaiah is sent from the Lord to Ahaz, swallowed up now both by sorrow and by unbelief, in order
to assure him that the counsels of his enemies should not stand; and that they should be utterly
discomfited. To encourage Ahaz, he commands him to ask a sign or miracle, which should be a
pledge in hand, that God should, in due time, fulfill the predictions of his servant, as related in
the context. On Ahaz humbly refusing to ask any sign, it is immediately added, “Therefore the
Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son; and shall call
his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat,” etc. Both the Divine and human nature of
our Lord, as well as the miraculous conception, appear to be pointed out in the prophecy quoted
here by the evangelist: He shall be called ‫עמנואל‬ Immanuel; literally, The Strong God with Us:
similar to those words in the New Testament: The word which was God - was made flesh, and
dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; Joh_1:1, Joh_1:14. And God was manifested in the flesh,
1Ti_3:16. So that we are to understand God with us to imply, God incarnated - God in human
nature. This seems farther evident from the words of the prophet, Isa_7:15 : Butter and honey
shall he eat - he shall be truly man - grow up and be nourished in a human natural way; which
refers to his being With Us, i.e., incarnated. To which the prophet adds, That he may know to
refuse the evil, and choose the good; or rather, According to his knowledge, ‫לדעתו‬ ledato,
reprobating the evil, and choosing the good; this refers to him as God, and is the same idea given
by this prophet, chap. Isa_53:11 : By (or in) his knowledge, ‫בדעתו‬ bedato, (the knowledge of
Christ crucified), shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their offenses. Now
this union of the Divine and human nature is termed a sign or miracle, ‫אות‬ oth, i.e., something
which exceeds the power of nature to produce. And this miraculous union was to be brought
about in a miraculous way: Behold, a Virgin shall conceive: the word is very emphatic, ‫העלמה‬
haalmah, The virgin; the only one that ever was, or ever shall be, a mother in this way. But the
Jews, and some called Christians, who have espoused their desperate cause, assert that “the
word ‫עלמה‬ almah does not signify a Virgin only; for it is applied Pro_30:19 to signify a young
married woman.” I answer, that this latter text is no proof of the contrary doctrine: the words
‫דרך‬‫גבר‬‫בעלמה‬ derech geber bealmah, the way of a man with a maid, cannot be proved to mean that
for which it is produced. Besides, one of De Rossi’s MSS. reads ‫בעלמיו‬ bealmaiv, the way of a
strong or stout man (‫גבר‬ geber) In His Youth; and in this reading the Syriac, Septuagint, Vulgate,
and Arabic agree; which are followed by the first version in the English language, as it stands in
a MS. in my own possession: the weie of a man in his waxing youth: so that this place, the only
one that can with any probability of success be produced, were the interpretation contended for

91. correct, which I am by no means disposed to admit, proves nothing. Besides, the consent of so
many versions in the opposite meaning deprives it of much of its influence in this question.
The word ‫עלמה‬ almah, comes from ‫עלם‬ alam, to lie hid, be concealed: and we are told, that
“virgins were so called, because they were concealed or closely kept up in their father’s houses
till the time of their marriage.” This is not correct: see the case of Rebecca, Gen_24:43 (note),
and my note there; that of Rachel, Gen_29:6-9 (note), and the note there also; and see the case
of Miriam, the sister of Moses, Exo_2:8, and also the Chaldee paraphrase on Lam_1:4, where
the virgins are represented as going out in the dance. And see also the whole history of Ruth.
This being concealed or kept at home, on which so much stress is laid, is purely fanciful; for we
find that young unmarried women drew water, kept sheep, gleaned publicly in the fields, etc.,
etc., and the same works they perform among the Turcomans to the present day. This reason,
therefore, does not account for the radical meaning of the word; and we must seek it elsewhere.
Another well-known and often-used root in the Hebrew tongue will cast light on this subject.
This is ‫גלה‬ galah, which signifies to reveal, make manifest, or uncover; and is often applied to
matrimonial connections in different parts of the Mosaic law: ‫עלם‬ alam, therefore, may be
considered as implying the concealment of the virgin, as such, till lawful, marriage had taken
place. A virgin was not called ‫עלמה‬ almah, because she was concealed by being kept at home in
her father’s house, which is not true; but, literally and physically, because as a woman she had
not been uncovered - she had not known man. This fully applies to the blessed virgin, see
Luk_1:34. “How can this be, seeing I know no man?” And this text throws much light on the
subject before us. This also is in perfect agreement with the ancient prophecy, “The seed of the
woman shall bruise the head of the serpent,” Gen_3:15; for the person who was to destroy the
work of the devil was to be the progeny of the woman, without any concurrence of the man. And
hence the text in Genesis speaks as fully of the virgin state of the person from whom Christ,
according to the flesh, should come, as that in the prophet, or this in the evangelist. According to
the original promise there was to be a seed, a human being, who should destroy sin: but this
seed or human being, must come from the woman Alone; and no woman Alone could produce
such a human being without being a virgin. Hence, A virgin shall bear a son, is the very spirit
and meaning of the original text, independently of the illustration given by the prophet; and the
fact recorded by the evangelist is the proof of the whole. But how could that be a sign to Ahaz
which was to take place so many hundreds of years after? I answer, the meaning of the prophet
is plain: not only Rezin and Pekah should be unsuccessful against Jerusalem at that time, which
was the fact; but Jerusalem, Judea, and the house of David should be both preserved,
notwithstanding their depressed state, and the multitude of their adversaries, till the time
should come when a Virgin should bear a son. This is a most remarkable circumstance the house
of David could never fail, till a virgin should conceive and bear a son - nor did it: but when that
incredible and miraculous fact did take place, the kingdom and house of David became extinct!
This is an irrefragable confutation of every argument a Jew can offer in vindication of his
opposition to the Gospel of Christ. Either the prophecy in Isaiah has been fulfilled, or the
kingdom and house of David are yet standing. But the kingdom of David, we know, is destroyed:
and where is the man, Jew or Gentile, that can show us a single descendant of David on the face
of the earth? The prophecy could not fail: the kingdom and house of David have failed; the
virgin, therefore, must have brought forth her son, and this son is Jesus, the Christ. Thus Moses,
Isaiah, and Matthew concur; and facts the most unequivocal have confirmed the whole! Behold
the wisdom and providence of God!
Notwithstanding what has been said above, it may be asked, In what sense could this name,
Immanuel, be applied to Jesus Christ, if he be not truly and properly God? Could the Spirit of
truth ever design that Christians should receive him as an angel or a mere man; and yet, in the
very beginning of the Gospel history, apply a character to him which belongs only to the most

92. high God? Surely no. In what sense, then, is Christ God with Us? Jesus is called Immanuel, or
God with us, in his incarnation; God united to our nature; God with man, God in man; God with
us, by his continual protection; God with us, by the influences of his Holy Spirit, in the holy
sacrament, in the preaching of his word, in private prayer. And God with us, through every
action of our life, that we begin, continue, and end in his name. He is God with us, to comfort,
enlighten, protect, and defend us, in every time of temptation and trial, in the hour of death, in
the day of judgment; and God with us and in us, and we with and in him, to all eternity.
Isa_7:17
The Lord shall bring “But Jehovah will bring” - Houbigant reads ‫וביא‬ vaiyabi, from the
Septuagint, αλλα επαξει ᆇ Θεος, to mark the transition to a new subject.
Even the king of Assyria - Houbigant supposes these words to have been a marginal gloss,
brought into the text by mistake; and so likewise Archbishop Secker. Besides their having no
force or effect here, they do not join well in construction with the words preceding, as may be
seen by the strange manner in which the ancient interpreters have taken them; and they very
inelegantly forestall the mention of the king of Assyria, which comes in with great propriety in
the 20th verse (Isa_7:20). I have therefore taken the liberty of omitting them in the translation.
3. GILL, “Butter and honey shall he eat..... As the Messiah Jesus no doubt did; since he
was born in a land flowing with milk and honey, and in a time of plenty, being a time of general
peace; so that this phrase points at the place where, and the time when, the Messiah should be
born, as well as expresses the truth of his human nature, and the manner of his bringing up,
which was in common with that of other children. ‫חמאה‬ signifies the "cream of milk", as well as
"butter", as Jarchi, in Gen_18:8, observes; and milk and honey were common food for infants:
that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good; meaning not knowledge of
good and bad food, so as to choose the one, and refuse the other; but knowledge of moral good
and evil; and this does not design the end of his eating butter and honey, as if that was in order
to gain such knowledge, which have no such use and tendency; but the time until which he
should live on such food; namely, until he was grown up, or come to years of discretion, when he
could distinguish between good and evil; so that as the former phrase shows that he assumed a
true body like ours, which was nourished with proper food; this that he assumed a reasonable
soul, which, by degrees, grew and increased in wisdom and knowledge; see Luk_2:52. ‫לדעתו‬
should be rendered, "until he knows"; as ‫לפרש‬ in Lev_24:12 which the Chaldee paraphrase of
Onkelos renders, "until it was declared to them"; and so the Targum here,
"butter and honey shall he eat, while or before the child knows not, or until he knows to refuse
the evil, and choose the good.''
4. HENRY, “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 (Isa_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

93. 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, Heb_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 Luk_2:40, Luk_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.
5. JAMISON, “Butter — rather, curdled milk, the acid of which is grateful in the heat of the
East (Job_20:17).
honey — abundant in Palestine (Jdg_14:8; 1Sa_14:25; Mat_3:4). Physicians directed that the
first food given to a child should be honey, the next milk [Barnabas, Epistle]. Horsley takes this
as implying the real humanity of the Immanuel Jesus Christ, about to be fed as other infants
(Luk_2:52). Isa_7:22 shows that besides the fitness of milk and honey for children, a state of
distress of the inhabitants is also implied, when, by reason of the invaders, milk and honey,
things produced spontaneously, shall be the only abundant articles of food [Maurer].
that he may know — rather, until He shall know.
evil ... choose ... good — At about three years of age moral consciousness begins (compare
Isa_8:4; Deu_1:39; Jon_4:11).
6. PULPIT, “Butter and honey shall he eat. His fare shall be of the simplest kind
(comp. Isa_7:22). That he may know; rather, till he shall know (Rosenmüller); i.e. till he come to years of
discretion.
7.CALVIN, “15.Butter and honey shall he eat. Here the Prophet proves the true human nature of
Christ; for it was altogether incredible that he who was God should be born of a virgin. Such a prodigy
was revolting to the ordinary judgment of men. To hinder us from thinking that his fancy now presents to
us some apparition, he describes the marks of human nature, in order to show, by means of them, that
Christ will actually appear in flesh, or in the nature of man; that is, that he will be reared in the same
manner that children commonly are. The Jews had a different way of rearing children from what is
followed by us; for they used honey, which is not so customary among us; and to this day they still retain
the custom of causing a child to taste butter and honey, as soon as it is born, before receiving suck.
That he may know. That is, until he arrive at that age when he can distinguish between good and evil, or,
as we commonly say, till the years of discretion; ‫ל‬ (lamed) denotes the term and period up to which he
shall be reared after the manner of a child; and this contributes still more to prove the reality of his nature.
He therefore means understanding and judgment, such as is obtained when the period of childhood is
past. Thus we see how far the Son of God condescended on our account, so that he not only was willing

94. to be fed on our food, but also, for a time, to be deprived of understanding, and to endure all our
weaknesses. (Heb_2:14.) This relates to his human nature, for it cannot apply to his Divinity. Of this state
of ignorance, in which Christ was for a time, Luke testifies when he says,
And he grew in wisdom, and in stature,
and in favor with God and with man. (Luk_2:52.)
If Luke had merely said that Christ grew, he might have been supposed to mean with men; but he
expressly adds, with God. Christ must therefore have been, for a time, like little children, so that, so far as
relates to his human nature, he was deficient in understanding.
16
for 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.
1.BARNES, “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 quts - 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.’

95. 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, 2Ki_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 2Ki_15:27, 2Ki_15:30; 2Ki_16:1.
We have thus arrived at a knowledge of the time intended by Isaiah in Isa_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
Isa_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 2Ki_17:2, and Hezekiah was twenty-five years old when he began to reign
2Ki_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.

96. (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 Isa_8:18. In accordance with this view, it seems he had
named one child Shear-Jashub, Isa_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

97. 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 Isa_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 Isa_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 Isa_7:2; he
approaches the prophetess Isa_7:3; and it is expressly declared Isa_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 Isa_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 Isa. 8, is conclusive demonstration, I think, that there was a reference in
Isa_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 Isa_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;
Isa_8:1, Isa_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 Isa_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 Isa_8:8; Isa_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.)

98. II. Evidence That the Prophecy Refers to the Messiah
(i) The passage in Mat_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 Isa_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 Isa. 34; Isa_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

99. 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 Isa_9:1-7 by a description
of the characteristics of the light that he saw in future times rising in dark Galilee Isa_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 Isa_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 Isa_2:2. In
Mic_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 Mat_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 yoledah yaladah, “she bearing shall bear” -
refers evidently to some prediction of such a birth; and the word ‘she that bears’ (‫יולדה‬ yoledah)
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 Mic_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

100. 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 Mat_2:2.
(v) But the great and the unanswerable argument for the Messianic interpretation is derived
from the conclusion of the prophecy in Isa_8:8, and especially in Isa_9:1-7. The prophecy in
Isa_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.

101. 2. PULPIT, “The land, etc. Translate, The land shall be desolate, before whose two kings thou art
afraid. The "land" must certainly be that of the two confederate kings, Rezin and Pekah, the Syro-
Ephraim-itic land, or Syria and Samaria. "Desolate" may be used physically or politically. A land is
"desolate" politically when it loses the last vestige of independence.
3. GILL, “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, Isa_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, 2Ki_15:30 and Rezin was slain by the king of Assyria,
2Ki_16:9.
4. HENRY, “Here is another sign in particular of the speedy destruction of these potent
princes that were now a terror to Judah, Isa_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, Isa_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 (2Ki_15:30), and, before that, the king of
Assyria took Damascus, and slew Rezin, 2Ki_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, 2Ch_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.

102. 5. JAMISON, “For — The deliverance implied in the name “Immanuel,” and the cessation of
distress as to food (Isa_7:14, Isa_7:15), shall last only till the child grows to know good and evil;
for ... the land that ... abhorrest ... forsaken of ... kings — rather, desolate shall be the
land, before whose two kings thou art alarmed [Hengstenberg and Gesenius].
the land — namely, Syria and Samaria regarded as one (2Ki_16:9; 2Ki_15:30), just two years
after this prophecy, as it foretells. Horsley takes it, “The land (Judah and Samaria) of (the
former of) which thou art the plague (literally, ‘thorn’) shall be forsaken,” etc.; a prediction thus,
that Judah and Israel (appropriately regarded as one “land”) should cease to be kingdoms
(Luk_2:1; Gen_49:10) before Immanuel came.
6. K&D, ““For before the boy shall understand to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the
land will be desolate, of whose two kings thou art afraid. Jehovah will bring upon thee, and
upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days such as have not come since the day when
Ephraim broke away from Judah - the king of Asshur.” The land of the two kings, Syria and
Israel, was first of all laid waste by the Assyrians, whom Ahaz called to his assistance. Tiglath-
pileser conquered Damascus and a portion of the kingdom of Israel, and led a large part of the
inhabitants of the two countries into captivity (2Ki_15:29; 2Ki_16:9). Judah was then also laid
waste by the Assyrians, as a punishment for having refused the help of Jehovah, and preferred
the help of man. Days of adversity would come upon the royal house and people of Judah, such
as ('asher, quales, as in Exo_10:6) had not come upon them since the calamitous day (l'miyyom,
inde a die; in other places we find l'min-hayyom, Exo_9:18; Deu_4:32; Deu_9:7, etc.) of the
falling away of the ten tribes. The appeal to Asshur laid the foundation for the overthrow of the
kingdom of Judah, quite as much as for that of the kingdom of Israel. Ahaz became the tributary
vassal of the king of Assyria in consequence; and although Hezekiah was set free from Asshur
through the miraculous assistance of Jehovah, what Nebuchadnezzar afterwards performed was
only the accomplishment of the frustrated attempt of Sennacherib. It is with piercing force that
the words “the king of Assyria” ('eth melek Asshur) are introduced at the close of the two verses.
The particle 'eth is used frequently where an indefinite object is followed by the more precise and
definite one (Gen_6:10; Gen_26:34). The point of the v. would be broken by eliminating the
words as a gloss, as Knobel proposes. The very king to whom Ahaz had appealed in his terror,
would bring Judah to the brink of destruction. The absence of any link of connection between
Isa_7:16 and Isa_7:17 is also very effective. The hopes raised in the mind of Ahaz by Isa_7:16 are
suddenly turned into bitter disappointment. In the face of such catastrophes as these, Isaiah
predicts the birth of Immanuel. His eating only thickened milk and honey, at a time when he
knew very well what was good and what was not, would arise from the desolation of the whole of
the ancient territory of the Davidic kingdom that had preceded the riper years of his youth,
when he would certainly have chosen other kinds of food, if they could possibly have been
found. Consequently the birth of Immanuel apparently falls between the time then present and
the Assyrian calamities, and his earliest childhood appears to run parallel to the Assyrian
oppression. In any case, their consequences would be still felt at the time of his riper youth. In
what way the truth of the prophecy was maintained notwithstanding, we shall see presently.
What follows in Isa_7:18-25, is only a further expansion of Isa_7:17. The promising side of the
“sign” remains in the background, because this was not for Ahaz. When Ewald expresses the
opinion that a promising strophe has fallen out after Isa_7:17, he completely mistakes the
circumstances under which the prophet uttered these predictions. In the presence of Ahaz he

103. must keep silence as to the promises. But he pours out with all the greater fluency his
threatening of judgment.
7.CALVIN, “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’
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, “ 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. (2Kg_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. (2Kg_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

104. 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
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.”
1.BARNES, “The Lord shall bring ... - The prophet having assured Ahaz that his kingdom
should be free from the invasion that then threatened it, proceeds, however, to state to him that
it would be endangered from another source.
Thy father’s house - The royal family - the princes and nobles.
Days that have not come - Times of calamity that have not been equalled.
From the day that Ephraim departed from Judah - From the time of the separation of
the ten tribes from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin.
Even the king of Assyria - This was done in the following manner. Though the siege which
Rezin and Pekah had undertaken was not at this time successful, yet they returned the year after
with stronger forces, and with counsels better concerted, and again besieged the city. This was in
consequence of the continued and increasing wickedness of Ahaz; 2Ch_28:1-5. In this
expedition, a great multitude were taken captives, and carried to Damascus; 2Ch_28:5. Pekah at
this time also killed 120,000 of the Jews in one day 2Ch_28:6; and Zichri, a valiant man of
Ephraim, killed Maaseiah the son of Ahaz. At this time, also, Pekah took no less than 200,000 of
the kingdom of Judah, proposing to take them to Samaria, but was prevented by the influence of
the prophet Oded; 2Ch_28:8-15. In this calamity, Ahaz stripped the temple of its treasures and
ornaments, and sent them to Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria, to induce him to come and defend
him from the united arms of Syria and Ephraim. The consequence was, as might have been
foreseen, that the king of Assyria took occasion, from this, to bring increasing calamities upon
the kingdom of Ahaz. He first, indeed, killed Rezin, and took Damascus; 2Ki_16:7.
Having subdued the kingdoms of Damascus and Ephraim, Tiglath-pileser became a more
formidable enemy to Ahaz than both of them. His object was not to aid Ahaz, but to distress him

105. 2Ch_28:20; and his coming professedly and at the request of Ahaz, to his help, was a more
formidable calamity than the threatened invasion of both Rezin and Pekah. God has power to
punish a wicked nation in his own way. When they seek human aid, he can make this a scourge.
He has kings and nations under his control; and though a wicked prince may seek earthly
alliance, yet it is easy for God to allow such allies to indulge their ambition and love of rapine,
and make them the very instruments of punishing the nation which they were called to defend.
It should be observed that this phrase, ‘even the king of Assyria,’ is by many critics thought to be
spurious, or a marginal reading, or gloss, that has by some means crept into the text. The ground
of this opinion is, that it does not harmonize entirely with the following verse, where “Egypt” is
mentioned as well as Assyria, and that it does not agree with the poetical form of the passage.
2. PULPIT, “THE DANGER TO JUDAH FROM ASSYRIA. The perversity of Ahaz, already rebuked
in Isa_7:13, is further punished by a threat, that upon him, and upon his people, and upon his father's
house, shall come shortly a dire calamity. The very power whose aid he is himself bent on invoking shall
be the scourge to chastise both king and people (Isa_7:17-20). The land shall be made bare as by a razor
(Isa_7:20). Cultivation shall cease; its scant inhabitants will support themselves by keeping a few cows
and sheep (Isa_7:21), and will nourish themselves on dairy produce, and the honey that the wild bees
produce (Isa_7:22). Briers and thorns will come up everywhere; wild beasts will increase; cattle will
browse on the hills that were once carefully cultivated to their summits (Isa_7:23-25).
Isa_7:17
The Lord shall bring upon thee, etc. The transition from promises to threatenings is abrupt, and calculated
to impress any one who was to any extent impressible. But Ahaz seems not to have had "ears to
hear." From the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; i.e. from the time of the revolt under
Jeroboam (1Ki_12:16-24)—an evil day, which rankled in the mind of all true Judaeans. Even the King of
Assyria. The construction is awkward, since "the King of Assyria' cannot well stand in apposition with
"days." Hence many take the words for a gloss that has been accidentally intruded into the text (Lowth,
Gesenius, Hitzig, Knobel, Cheyne). Others, however, see in the grammatical anomaly a grace of
composition.
3. GILL, “The Lord shall bring upon thee,.... These words are directed to Ahaz; and show,
that though he and his kingdom would be safe from the two kings that conspired against him,
yet evils should come upon him from another quarter, even from the Assyrians he sent to for
help, and in whom he trusted; in which the Lord himself would have a hand, and permit them in
his providence, in order to chastise him for his unbelief, stubbornness, and ingratitude in
refusing the sign offered him, and for his other sins; and the calamities threatened began in his
time; and therefore it is said, "upon thee"; for Tilgathpilneser, king of Assyria, to whom he sent
for help, instead of helping and strengthening him, distressed him, 2Ch_28:20,

106. and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house; so in the reign of his son Hezekiah,
Sennacherib, king of Assyria, invaded the land of Judah, took all its fenced cities, excepting
Jerusalem, and came up even to that, 2Ki_18:13 and in the times of Zedekiah, Nebuchadnezzar,
king of Babylon, came up against Jerusalem, and destroyed it, and carried the people of Judah
captive, 2Ki_25:1 and these are the evil days, the days of affliction and adversity, here
threatened:
days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah: meaning
the revolt of the ten tribes from the house of David, in the times of Rehoboam, 1Ki_12:16 which
was a day of great adversity, a great affliction to the house of Judah; and there had been several
evil days since, and that very lately; as when the king of Syria came into the land, and carried
away great multitudes captives to Damascus; and when Pekah, king of Israel, slew in Judah, on
one day, a hundred and twenty thousand valiant men, and carried captive two hundred
thousand women, sons and daughters, with a great spoil, 2Ch_28:5 and yet these were not to be
compared with the calamitous times yet to come:
even the king of Assyria; or "with the king of Assyria", as the Vulgate Latin version renders
it; rather the meaning is, that those days of trouble should come by the king of Assyria (i), as
they did. The Septuagint version renders it, "from the day that Ephraim took away from Judah
the king of the Assyrians"; and the Syriac and Arabic versions, just the reverse, "from the day
that the king of the Assyrians", or "Assyria, carried away Ephraim from Judea"; neither of them
right.
4. HENRY, “After the comfortable promises made to Ahaz as a branch of the house of David,
here follow terrible threatenings against him, as a degenerate branch of that house; for though
the loving-kindness of God shall not be utterly taken away, for the sake of David and the
covenant made with him, yet his iniquity shall be chastened with the rod, and his sin with
stripes. Let those that will not mix faith with the promises of God expect to hear the alarms of
his threatenings.
I. The judgment threatened is very great, Isa_7:17. It is very great, for it is general; it shall be
brought upon the prince himself (high as he is, he shall not be out of the reach of it), and upon
the people, the whole body of the nation, and upon the royal family, upon all thy father's house;
it shall be a judgment entailed on posterity, and shall go along with the royal blood. It is very
great, for it shall be unprecedented - days that have not come; so dark, so gloomy, so
melancholy, as never were the like since the revolt of the ten tribes, when Ephraim departed
from Judah, which was indeed a sad time to the house of David. Note, The longer men continue
in sin the sorer punishments they have reason to expect. It is the Lord that will bring these days
upon them, for our times are in his hand, and who can resist or escape the judgments he brings?
II. The enemy that should be employed as the instrument of this judgment is the king of Assyria.
Ahaz reposed great confidence in that prince for help against the confederate powers of Israel
and Syria, and minded the less what God said to him by his prophet for his encouragement
because he built much upon his interest in the king of Assyria, and had meanly promised to be
his servant if he would send him some succours; he had also, made him a present of gold and
silver, for which he drained the treasures both of church and state, 2Ki_16:7, 2Ki_16:8. Now
God threatens that that king of Assyria whom he made his stay instead of God should become a

107. scourge to him. He was so speedily; for, when he came to him, he distressed him, but
strengthened him not (2Ch_28:20), the reed not only broke under him, but ran into his hand,
and pierced it, and thenceforward the kings of Assyria were, for a long time, grieving thorns to
Judah, and gave them a great deal of trouble. Note, The creature that we make our hope
commonly proves our hurt. The king of Assyria, not long after this, made himself master of the
ten tribes, carried them captive, and laid their country waste, so as fully to answer the prediction
here; and perhaps it may refer to that, as an explication of Isa_7:8, where it is foretold that
Ephraim shall be broken, that it shall not be a people; and it is easy to suppose that the prophet
(at Isa_7:17) turns his speech to the king of Israel, denouncing God's judgments against him for
invading Judah. But the expositors universally understand it of Ahaz and his kingdom.
5. JAMISON, “Isa_7:17-25. Fatal consequences of Ahaz’ Assyrian policy.
Though temporary deliverance (Isa_7:16; Isa_8:4) was to be given then, and final deliverance
through Messiah, sore punishment shall follow the former. After subduing Syria and Israel, the
Assyrians shall encounter Egypt (2Ki_23:29), and Judah shall be the battlefield of both
(Isa_7:18), and be made tributary to that very Assyria (2Ch_28:20; 2Ki_16:7, 2Ki_16:8) now
about to be called in as an ally (Isa_39:1-6). Egypt, too, should prove a fatal ally (Isa_36:6;
Isa_31:1, etc.).
6. BI, 17-25, “The prophecy fulfilled
The calling in of Assur laid the foundation for the overthrow of the kingdom of Judah not less
than for that of the kingdom of Israel Ahaz thereby became a tributary vassal of the Assyrian
king, and although Hezekiah again became free from Assyria through the miraculous help of
Jehovah, nevertheless what Nebuchadnezzar did was only the accomplishment of the frustrated
undertaking of Sennacherib.
(F. Delitzsch.)
Assyria and the Jews
If Isaiah here, in chaps, 7-12, looks upon Assyria absolutely as the universal empire (2Ki_23:29;
Ezr_6:22), this is so far true, seeing that the four empires from the Babylonian to the Roman are
really only the unfolding of the beginning which had its beginning in Assyria. And if, here in
chap. 7, he thinks of the son of the virgin as growing up under the Assyrian oppressions, this is
also so far true, since Jesus was actually born in a time in which the Holy Land, deprived of its
earliest fulness of blessing, found itself under the supremacy of the universal empire, and in a
condition which went back to the unbelief of Ahaz as its ultimate cause. Besides He, who in the
fulness of time became flesh, does truly lead an ideal life in the Old Testament history. The fact
that the house and people of David did not perish in the Assyrian calamities is really, as chap. 8
presupposes, to be ascribed to His presence, which, although not yet in bodily form, was
nevertheless active. Thus is solved the contradiction between the prophecy and the history of its
fulfilment. (F. Delitzsch.)

108. Judah’s loss of national independence
From this application of Ahaz to Tiglath-Pileser was to date the transition of Judah “to a servile
state from which it was never permanently freed, the domination of Assyria being soon
succeeded by that of Egypt, and this by that of Babylon, Persia, Syria, and Rome, the last ending
only in the downfall of the State, and that general dispersion which continues to this day. The
revolt of Hezekiah, and even longer intervals of liberty in later times, are mere interruptions of
the customary and prevailing bondage.” (J. A. Alexander.)
The perspective of prophecy
God makes what was announced by prophecy separate itself in reality into different stages. (E.
Konig.)
History and prophecy
Prophecy never seems to forsake the ground of history. However extended the vista which
stretches before him, that vista begins at the prophet’s feet. (Bishop Perowne.)
Bees and flies
Bees and swarms of flies are used as a Homeric image for swarms of peoples (Il. 2.87)
. Here the images are likewise emblematic. The Egyptian people, being unusually numerous, is
compared to the swarming fly; and the Assyrian people, being warlike and eager for conquest, is
compared to the stinging bee, which is so difficult to turn sway Deu_1:44; Psa_118:12). The
emblems also correspond to the nature of the two countries; the fly to slimy Egypt, which, from
being such, abounds in insects (chap. 18:1), and the bee to the more mountainous and woody
Assyria, where bee-culture still constitutes one of the principal branches of trade in the present
day. (F. Delitzsch.)
Hissing for the fly and the bee
To hiss for them, is to call or summon them, derived from the practice of the bee keepers, who,
with a whistle, summoned them from the hives to the open fields, and, by the same means,
conducted them home again We are assured by St. Cyril that [the practice] subsisted in Asia
down to the fourth and fifth centuries. (J. Kitto, D. D.)
A sentence of doom
I. GOD IS SOVEREIGN IN THE WHOLE EARTH. All governments are but instruments which
He uses when and as He pleases (Isa_7:17-21). A thought full of comfort for the righteous, of
horror for the unrighteous.
II. THE CONSEQUENT INSECURITY OF ALL PROSPERITY THAT IS NOT BASED UPON,
AND PROMOTIVE OF, RIGHTEOUSNESS (Isa_7:23). Britain will be “Great Britain” only so
long as God pleases.

109. III. WHATEVER CHASTISEMENTS GOD MAY HAVE INFLICTED, HE HAS ALWAYS A
MORE TERRIBLE ONE BEHIND (Isa_7:17).
IV. Seeing that all these things were threatened against and inflicted upon God’s chosen people,
learn that NO MERCY THAT GOD HAS SHOWN US WILL FURNISH ANY IMMUNITY FOR
US, IF NOTWITHSTANDING THAT MERCY, WE SIN AGAINST HIM. There is a tendency in
our evil hearts to think that because God has been specially good to us, we may sin with less risk
than others; but the teaching of the Bible is, that those who “turn the grace of God into
lasciviousness” shall be visited with a sorer doom than others. (R. A. Bertram.)
7.CALVIN, “17.The Lordshall bring upon thee. Here the Prophet, on the other hand, threatens the
wicked hypocrite, who pretended that he was unwilling to tempt God, and yet called for those whom the
Lord had forbidden him to call to his aid. (Exo_23:32.) That he might not indulge in undue exultation and
insolence on account of the former promise, he likewise threatens his destruction, and declares that what
he hopes to be his preservation, that is, the aid of the Assyrians, will be utterly destructive to him.
(2Kg_16:7; 2Ch_28:16.) As if he had said, “ promisest everything to thyself from the king of Assyria, and
thinkest that he will be faithful to thee, because thou hast entered into a league and covenant with him,
which God had forbidden; but thou shalt quickly understand of what advantage it will be to thee to
have tempted God. Thou mightest have remained at home and at ease, and mightest have received the
assistance of God; but thou choosest rather to call in the Assyrians. Thou shalt find them to be worse
than thine own enemies;”
This discourse, therefore, agrees with what goes before; for he presses more closely the treachery and
ingratitude of the king, who had rejected both the word of God and the sign, and had rendered himself
unworthy of every promise. And as it is customary with hypocrites, when they have escaped from any
danger and fear, immediately to return to their natural disposition, he affirms that nothing shall protect the
Jews from being likewise involved in just punishments. He expressly declares that the family of David,
which might have claimed exemption on the ground of its peculiar privilege, will be exposed to the same
kind of calamities; for God regulates his judgments in such a manner, that while he spares his Church
and provides for her permanent existence, he does not permit the wicked, who are mingled with the good,
to escape unpunished.
From the day that Ephraim departed from Judah. In this manner does Scripture speak when it describes
any serious calamity; for the Jews could not have received a severer chastisement than when, by the
withdrawing of the ten tribes, (1Kg_12:16,) not only was the kingdom wretchedly divided, but the body of
the nation was rent and torn. The revolt of Ephraim from Judah was, therefore, an indication of the worst
kind of calamity; for the resources of the kingdom of Judah being more seriously affected by that division

110. than it could have been by any defeat by a foreign enemy, he says that since that time the Jews had not
sustained a greater calamity.
Hence, as I have already said, we see how God, while he punishes hypocrites, at the same time
remembers believers, and opens the way for his mercy. We ought to observe this wonderful arrangement,
that amidst the most dreadful deaths still the Church remains safe. Who would ever have thought that
Jerusalem would be delivered from the vast army of the two kings? Or, that the kingdom of Syria, which
was then in a flourishing condition, would quickly be overturned? Or, that Samaria was not far from
destruction? And in the mean time, that the Assyrians, on whom the Jews relied, would do them more
injury than the Israelites and Syrians had ever done? All these things the Lord did for the sake of
preserving his Church, but at the same time in such a manner that he likewise took vengeance on the
wickedness of King Ahaz.
Assyria, the LORD’s Instrument
18
In that day the LORD will whistle for flies from the
Nile delta in Egypt and for bees from the land of
Assyria.
1.BARNES, “In that day the Lord shall hiss - see the note at Isa_5:26.
For the fly - That is, for the army, or the multitude of people. The comparison of a numerous
army with “flies” is not uncommon; see Homer’s “Iliad,” B. ii. 469, etc.
- Thick as insects play,
The wandering nation of a summer’s day.
That, drawn by milky streams at evening hours
In gathered swarms surround the rural bowers;
From pail to pail with busy murmur run
The gilded legions, glittering in the sun.
Pope.
The comparison is drawn probably from the “number,” but also is intended to indicate the
troublesome character, of the invaders. Perhaps, also, there is an allusion here to the well-
known fact that one of the ten plagues of Egypt was caused by numerous swarms of flies;
Exo_8:21-24. An army would be brought up from that country as numerous, as troublesome,
and as destructive as was that swarm of flies. The following description, by Bruce, of a species of

111. flies in Abyssinia and the adjacent regions, will give an idea of the character of this calamity, and
the force of the language used here:
‘This insect is called Zimb; it has not been described by any naturalist. It is, in size, very little
larger than a bee, of a thicker proportion, and has wings, which are broader than those of a bee,
placed separate, like those of a fly: they are of pure gauze, without color or spot upon them; the
head is large, the upper jaw or lip is sharp, and has at the end of it a strong pointed hair, of
about a quarter of an inch long; the lower jaw has two of these pointed hairs; and this pencil of
hairs, when joined together, makes a resistance to the finger, nearly equal to that of a strong
hog’s bristle; its legs are serrated in the inside, and the whole covered with brown hair or down.
As soon as this plague appears, and their buzzing is heard, all the cattle forsake their food, and
run wildly about the plain, until they die, worn out with fatigue, fright, and hunger. No remedy
remains, but to leave the black earth, and hasten down to the sands of Atbara; and there they
remain, while the rains last, this cruel enemy never daring to pursue them further.
Though his size be immense, as is his strength, and his body covered with a thick skin,
defended with strong hair, yet even the camel is not capable to sustain the violent punctures the
fly makes with his pointed proboscis. He must lose no time in removing to the sands of Atbara,
for when once attacked by this fly, his body, head, and legs, break out into large bosses, which
swell, break, and putrefy, to the certain destruction of the creature. Even the elephant and
rhinoceros, who, by reason of their enormous bulk, and the vast quantity of food and water they
daily need, cannot shift to desert and dry places as the season may require, are obliged to roll
themselves in mud and mire, which, when dry, coats them over like armor, and enables them to
stand their ground against this winged assassin; yet I have found some of these tubercles upon
almost every elephant and rhinoceros that I have seen, and attribute them to this cause.
All the inhabitants of the seacoast of Melinda, down to Cape Gardefan, to Saba, and the south
coast of the Red Sea, are obliged to put themselves in motion, and remove to the next sand, in
the beginning of the rainy season, to prevent all their stock of cattle from being destroyed. This
is not a partial emigration; the inhabitants of all the countries, from the mountains of Abyssinia
northward, to the confluence of the Nile, and Astaboras, are once a year obliged to change their
abode, and seek protection in the sand of Beja; nor is there any alternative, or means of avoiding
this, though a hostile band were in their way, capable of spoiling them or half their substance.
This fly has no sting, though he seemed to me to be rather of the bee kind; but his motion is
more rapid and sudden than that of the bee, and resembles that of the gad-fly in England. There
is something particular in the sound or buzzing of this insect; it is a jarring noise together with a
humming, which induces me to believe it proceeds, at least in part, from a vibration made with
the three hairs at his snout.’
The uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt - The remotest part of the land - that is, from
the whole country. Egypt was watered by a single river; the Nile. But this river emptied into the
Mediterranean by several mouths; and from this river also were cut numerous canals to water
the land. These are intended by the “rivers” of Egypt; see the notes at Isa_19:6-7. Those canals
would be stagnant for no small part of the year; and around them would be produced, as is usual
near stagnant waters, great quantities of flies. This prophecy was fulfilled by the invasion of the
land in subsequent times by the Egyptians; 2Ki_23:33-34; 2Ch_35:20, 2Ch_35:24; 2Ch_36:1-2.
And for the bee - That is, for the “army.” An army is compared to “bees” on account of their
number; perhaps also on account of the pungency and severity of the sting. The comparison is
common; see Deu_1:44; Deu_7:20; Psa_118:12. The Chaldee has rendered this verse, ‘The Lord
shall call to a people girded with the armies of the brave, who are numerous as flies, and shall
bring them from the ends of the land of Egypt; and strong armies, strong as bees, and shall bring
them from the land of Assyria.’ No prophecy was ever more completely fulfilled than this by the
successive invasions of Pharaoh-Necho, Esarhaddon and Nebuchadnezzar; see Isa. 36; 37;
2Ch_36:7-21.

112. 2. CLARKE, “Hiss for the fly “Hist the fly” - See note on Isa_5:26.
Egypt, and - Assyria - Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, Pharaoh-necho, and Nebuchadnezzar,
who one after another desolated Judea.
3. GILL, “And it shall come to pass in that day,.... the time when those evil days before
spoken of should take place:
that the Lord shall hiss for the fly that is in the uttermost part of the rivers of
Egypt; or flies, as the Septuagint, Syriac, and Arabic versions render it; the Egyptians, so called
because their country abounded with flies; and because of the multitude of their armies, and the
swiftness of their march; this seems to have had its accomplishment when Pharaohnechoh king
of Egypt slew Josiah, put his son Jehoahaz, that reigned after him, in bands, placed Eliakim his
brother in his stead, and made the land of Judah tributary to him, 2Ki_23:29 though some think
either the Edomites or Philistines, that bordered on Egypt, are meant; who in Ahaz's time
invaded Judah, and brought it low, 2Ch_28:17 or else the Ethiopians, that inhabited on the
furthermost borders of Egypt, and the rivers of it; who either came up separately against Judah,
or served under Nebuchadnezzar; see Isa_18:1,
and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria; the Assyrian army, so called because the
country abounded with bees; and because of the number of their armies, their military order and
discipline, and their hurtful and mischievous nature. The Targum paraphrases the whole thus,
"and it shall be at that time that the Lord shall call to a people, bands of armies, of mighty men,
who are numerous as flies, and shall bring them from the ends of the land of Egypt; and to
mighty armies, who are powerful as bees, and shall bring them from the uttermost parts of the
land of Assyria:''
hissing or whistling for them denotes the ease with which this should be done, and with what
swiftness and readiness those numerous and powerful armies should come; and the allusion is
to the calling of bees out of their hives into the fields, and from thence into their hives again, by
tinkling of brass, or by some musical sound, in one way or another.
4. HENRY, “Summons given to the invaders (Isa_7:18): The Lord shall whistle for the fly
and the bee. See Isa_5:26. Enemies that seem as contemptible as a fly or a bee, and are as easily
crushed, shall yet, when God pleases, do his work as effectually as lions and young lions. Though
they are as far distant from one another as the rivers of Egypt and the land of Assyria, yet they
shall punctually meet to join in this work when God commands their attendance; for, when God
has work to do, he will not be at a loss for instruments to do it with.
5. JAMISON, “hiss — whistle, to bring bees to settle (see on Isa_5:26).
fly — found in numbers about the arms of the Nile and the canals from it (Isa_19:5-7;
Isa_23:3), here called “rivers.” Hence arose the plague of flies (Exo_8:21). Figurative, for
numerous and troublesome foes from the remotest parts of Egypt, for example, Pharaoh-
nechoh.

113. bee — (Deu_1:44; Psa_118:12). As numerous in Assyria as the fly in marshy Egypt.
Sennacherib, Esar-haddon, and Nebuchadnezzar fulfilled this prediction.
6. K&D, ““And it comes to pass in that day, Jehovah will hiss for the fly which is at the end
of the Nile-arms of Egypt, and the bees that are in the land of Asshur; and they come and settle
all of them in the valleys of the slopes, and in the clefts of the rocks, and in all the thorn-hedges,
and upon all grass-plats.” The prophet has already stated, in Isa_5:26, that Jehovah would hiss
for distant nations; and how he is able to describe them by name. The Egyptian nation, with its
vast and unparalleled numbers, is compared to the swarming fly; and the Assyrian nation, with
its love of war and conquest, to the stinging bee which is so hard to keep off (Deu_1:44;
Psa_118:12). The emblems also correspond to the nature of the two countries: the fly to slimy
Egypt with its swarms of insects (see Isa_18:1),
(Note: Egypt abounds in gnats, etc., more especially in flies (muscariae), including a
species of small fly (nemath), which is a great plague to men throughout all the country of the
Nile (see Hartmann, Natur-geschichtlich-medicinische Skizze der Nilländer, 1865, pp. 204-
5).)
and the bee to the more mountainous and woody Assyria, where the keeping of bees is still one
of the principal branches of trade. ‫ּר‬‫א‬ְ‫,י‬ pl. ‫ים‬ ִ‫ּר‬‫א‬ְ‫,י‬ is an Egyptian name (yaro, with the article
phiaro, pl. yarou) for the Nile and its several arms. The end of the Nile-arms of Egypt, from a
Palestinian point of view, was the extreme corner of the land. The military force of Egypt would
march out of the whole compass of the land, and meet the Assyrian force in the Holy Land; and
both together would cover the land in such a way that the valleys of steep precipitous heights
(nachalee habbattoth), and clefts of the rocks (nekike hassela‛im), and all the thorn-hedges (na‛azu
zı̄m) and pastures (nahalolim, from nihel, to lead to pasture), would be covered with these
swarms. The fact that just such places are named, as afforded a suitable shelter and abundance
of food for flies and bees, is a filling up of the figure in simple truthfulness to nature. And if we
look at the historical fulfilment, it does not answer even in this respect to the actual letter of the
prophecy; for in the time of Hezekiah no collision really took place between the Assyrian and
Egyptian forces; and it was not till the days of Josiah that a collision took place between the
Chaldean and Egyptian powers in the eventful battle fought between Pharaoh-Necho and
Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish (Circesium), which decided the fate of Judah. That the spirit of
prophecy points to this eventful occurrence is evident from Isa_7:20, where no further allusion
is made to Egypt, because of its having succumbed to the imperial power of Eastern Asia.
7. MEYER, “A FOREIGN FOE-GOD’S INSTRUMENT
Isa_7:18-25; Isa_8:1-4
Ahaz, as we have seen, summoned the king of Assyria to his aid. This policy, dictated by human
prudence, was fraught with vast peril. He and his advisers would rue their choice, and would
have to pay dearly for introducing Assyria into the complicated politics of these minor states.
Though this policy might effect a temporary success, like that which Isaiah indicated in the
naming of his newborn child, yet ultimately it would work out disastrously, in the depopulation

114. and desolation of the country. The impoverished peasants would have one cow instead of a herd,
and two sheep instead of a flock. Is not this true of all the expedients which we substitute for
faith in God? At first they promise well but they disappoint and fail. It is the old lesson: “Lean
not to thine own understanding,” Pro_3:5.
8. PULPIT, “The Lord shall hiss (see Isa_5:26, and note ad loc.). For the fly that is in the uttermost part
of the rivers of Egypt. The "fly of Egypt," like the "bee of Assyria," represents the military force of the
nation, which God summons to take part in the coming affliction of Judaea. The prophetic glance may be
extended over the entire period of Judah's decadence, and the "flies" summoned may include those which
clustered about Neco at Megiddo, and carried off Jehoahaz from Jerusalem (2Ki_23:29-34). There may
be allusion also to Egyptian ravages in the reigns of Sargon, Sennacherib, and Esar-haddon. In any
general review of the period we shall find it stated that, from the time of Sargon to that of Cyrus, Judaea
was the battle-ground upon which the forces of Assyria (or Assyro-Babylonia) and Egypt contended for
the empire of western Asia. The desolation of the land during this period was produced almost as much
by the Egyptian "fly" as by the Assyrian "bee." The "rivers of Egypt" are the Nile, its branches, and perhaps
the great canals by which its waters were distributed. The bee that is in the land of Assyria. The choice of
the terms "bee" and "fly," to represent respectively the hosts of Assyria and Egypt, is not without
significance. Egyptian armies were swarms, hastily levied, and very imperfectly disciplined. Assyrian were
bodies of trained troops accustomed to war, and almost as well disciplined as the Romans.
9. CALVIN, “18.And it shall be in that day. The Jews thought that the Assyrians were bound by their
league with them; but the Prophet ridicules this folly, and declares that they will be ready at God’ bidding
to drive them in any direction that he thinks fit. Yet instead of command he employs the metaphor hiss, in
allusion to the climate of those kingdoms of which he speaks; for Egypt abounds in flies, because the
country is hot and marshy; and when the air is both hot and moist, there must be produced a great
abundance of flies. Assyria, on the other hand, abounded in bees; and when he says that he will bring
them by a hiss, he alludes to the natural habits of bees and flies, but he means that he will find no
difficulty in sending them. As if he had said, “ will be no need of great exertion; for as soon as I shall give
the sign, they will instantly run.” In this manner he shows what efficacy belongs to his secret operation or
design, that by a hiss he compels the most powerful nations to yield obedience.

115. 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.
1.BARNES, “And they shall come - The idea in this verse is, that they would spread over
the land, and lay it waste. The poetic image of flies and bees is kept up; meaning, that the armies
would be so numerous as to occupy and infest all the land.
And shall rest - As bees do. Thus the “locusts” are said to have “rested” in all the land of
Egypt; Exo_10:14.
In the desolate valleys - The word translated “valleys” usually means “a valley with a
brook,” or a brook itself. The Chaldee translates it, ‘In the streets of cities.’ But the idea is
derived from the habits of flies and bees. The meaning is, that they should fill all the land, as
innumerable swarms of flies and bees - would settle down everywhere, and would infest or
consume everything. Bees, probably, chose situations near to running streams. Virgil, in his
directions about selecting a place for an apiary, gives the following among others:
At liquidi fontes, et stagna virentia musco
Adsint, et tennis fugiens per gramina rivus.
Georg. iv. 18, 19.
But there let pools invite with moss arrayed,
Clear fount and rill that purls along the glade.
Sotheby.
In the holes of the rocks - Probably the same image is referred to here. It is well known
that in Judea, as well as elsewhere, bees were accustomed to live in the holes or caverns of the
rocks. They were very numerous; and the figure here is, that the Assyrians would be numerous
as the swarms of bees were in that land, even in the high and inaccessible rocks; compare
Isa_2:19-21.
Upon all thorns - The image here is kept up of flies and bees resting on everything.
“Thorns” here refer to those trees and shrubs that were of little value; but even on these they
would rest.
All bushes - Hebrew ‘All trees that are commendable, or that are to be praised;’ see the
margin. The word denotes those shrubs and trees that were objects of “praise;” that is, that were
cultivated with great attention and care, in opposition to “thorns” that grew wild, and without
cultivation, and that were of little value. The meaning of the passage is, that the land would be
invaded in every part, and that everything, valuable or not, would be laid waste.
2. CLARKE, “Holes of the rocks “Caverns” - So the Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate,
whence Houbigant supposes the true reading to be ‫הנחללים‬ hannachalolim. One of my oldest
MSS. reads ‫הנחלולים‬ hannochalolim.

116. 3. GILL, “And they shall come,.... The Egyptian and Assyrian armies, when the Lord calls
for them in his providence, and his time is come to make use of them as a scourge to his people:
and shall rest all of them in the desolate valleys: made so by war; this is said in allusion
to flies and bees resting on trees and flowers; and signifies that these armies, after long and
tedious marches, should all of them, without being diminished by the way, enter the land of
Judea, fill all places, and take up their abode there for a while:
and in the holes of the rocks. Kimchi thinks that the former phrase designs cities in valleys,
and this fortified cities which are upon rocks:
and upon all thorns, and upon all bushes; in allusion to flies and bees. Kimchi interprets
this of unwalled towns and villages. The Targum of the whole verse is,
"and they shall all of them come and dwell in the streets of the cities, and in the clifts of the
rocks, and in all deserts full of sedges, and in all houses of praise.''
The sense is, that they should be in all cities, towns, and villages, whether fortified or not, and in
all houses of high and low, rich and poor, in cottages and in palaces; there would be no place
free from them, nor no escaping out of their hands.
4. HENRY, “Possession taken by them, Isa_7:19. It should seem as if the country were in no
condition to make resistance. They find no difficulties in forcing their way, but come and rest all
of them in the desolate valleys, which the inhabitants had deserted upon the first alarm, and left
them a cheap and easy prey to the invaders. They shall come and rest in the low grounds like
swarms of flies and bees, and shall render themselves impregnable by taking shelter in the holes
of the rocks, as bees often do, and showing themselves formidable by appearing openly upon all
thorns and all bushes; so generally shall the land be overspread with them. These bees shall knit
upon the thorns and bushes, and there rest undisturbed.
5. JAMISON, “rest — image of flies and bees kept up. The enemy shall overspread the land
everywhere, even in “desolate valleys.”
thorns — wild, contrasted with “bushes,” which were valued and objects of care (see
Margin).
6. PULPIT, “And rest; or, settle. In the desolate valleys. Gesenius and Vance Smith translate "the
precipitous valleys;" Mr. Cheyne, "the steeply walled valleys." But the cognate word used in Isa_5:6 can
only mean "waste," which supports the rendering of the Authorized Version. The exact word used does
not occur elsewhere. Upon all bushes; rather, upon all pastures.

117. 7.CALVIN, “19.And they shall come. He follows out the same metaphor; for bees commonly seek
nests for themselves in caverns, or valleys and bushes, and such like places; as if he had said that there
would not be a corner in which the enemy would not settle down and dwell. It is unnecessary to give
ourselves much trouble in explaining why he speaks of bushes and thorns rather than of other things, for
the language is figurative. And yet I have no doubt that he intended to state, that whether they hide
themselves in caverns, or seek concealment in valleys, there will be no escape; for the enemy will take
possession of the whole country.
Hence we again infer what has been formerly observed, that nothing takes place at random or by chance,
but that everything is governed by the hand of God. Again, though wicked men may rage and may be
hurried forward in blind attack, still God puts a bridle on them that they may promote his glory. Therefore,
when we see that wicked men throw everything into disorder, let us not think that God has laid the bridle
on their neck, that they may rush forward wherever they please; but let us be fully convinced that their
violent attacks are under control. From this we ought to derive wonderful consolation amidst those
disturbances in which the Christian world is so deeply involved, and by the violence of which it is so
powerfully shaken, that almost everything appears to be in a state of confusion. We should consider that
the Lord has a concealed bridle by which he restrains furious beasts, so that they cannot break through
wherever the madness of their rage drives them, or go beyond the limits which the Lord prescribes to
them.
20
In that day the Lord will use a razor hired from
beyond the Euphrates River—the king of Assyria—to
shave your head and private parts, and to cut off your
beard also.
1.BARNES, “In the same day ... - The idea in this verse is the same as in the preceding,
though presented in a different form. The meaning is, that “God” would bring upon them this
punishment, but that he would make use of the Assyrian as an “instrument” by which to do it.

118. Shave - The act of shaving off the hair denotes punishment or disgrace; compare 2Sa_10:4 :
‘Hanun took David’s servants, and shaved off one half of their beards;’ 1Ch_19:4.
With a razor - Using them as an instrument. God here claims the power of directing them,
and regards them as employed by him; see Isa_10:5-7.
That is hired - This is an allusion to the custom of hiring soldiers, or employing mercenary
armies. Thus Great Britain employed mercenary troops, or hired of the Germans bodies of
Hessians to carry on the war in America. The meaning here is, that God would employ the
Assyrians as his instruments, to effect his purposes, as though they were hired and paid by the
plunder and spoil of the nation.
By them beyond the river - The river Euphrates. The Euphrates is usually meant in the
Scriptures where ‘the river’ is mentioned without specifying the name; Psa_72:8; Psa_80:2.
This was the river which Abraham had passed; and this, perhaps, was, for a long time, the
eastern boundary of their geographical knowledge; see the note at Isa_11:15.
The head - The hair of the head.
The hair of the feet - Or the other parts of the body; of the lower parts of the body.
Shall consume the beard - Shall cut off the beard. This was esteemed particularly
disgraceful among the Jews. It is, at this day, among all Eastern nations. The beard is regarded
as a distinguished ornament; among the Mahometans, it is sworn by, and no higher insult can
be offered than to treat the beard with indignity; compare the note at Isa_50:6. The meaning is
here, that God would employ the Assyrian as his instrument to lay waste the land.
2. CLARKE, “The river - That is, the Euphrates: ‫הנהר‬ hanahar. So read the Septuagint and
two MSS.
Shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired “Jehovah shall shave by the hired
razor” - To shave with the hired razor the head, the feet, and the beard, is an expression highly
parabolical, to denote the utter devastation of the country from one end to the other; and the
plundering of the people, from the highest to the lowest, by the Assyrians, whom God employed
as his instrument to punish the Jews. Ahaz himself, in the first place, hired the king of Assyria to
come to help him against the Syrians, by a present made to him of all the treasures of the
temple, as well as his own. And God himself considered the great nations, whom he thus
employed as his mercenaries; and paid them their wages. Thus he paid Nebuchadnezzar for his
services against Tyre, by the conquest of Egypt, Eze_29:18-20. The hairs of the head are those of
the highest order in the state; those of the feet, or the lower parts, are the common people; the
beard is the king, the high priest, the very supreme in dignity and majesty. The Eastern people
have always held the beard in the highest veneration, and have been extremely jealous of its
honor. To pluck a man’s beard is an instance of the greatest indignity that can be offered. See
Isa_50:6. The king of the Ammonites, to show the utmost contempt of David, “cut off half the
beards of his servants, and the men were greatly ashamed; and David bade them tarry at Jericho
till their beards were grown,” 2Sa_10:4, 2Sa_10:6. Niebuhr, Arabie, p. 275, gives a modern
instance of the very same kind of insult. “The Turks,” says Thevenot, “greatly esteem a man who
has a fine beard; it is a very great affront to take a man by his beard, unless it be to kiss it; they
swear by the beard.” Voyages, i., p. 57. D’Arvieux gives a remarkable instance of an Arab, who,
having received a wound in his jaw, chose to hazard his life, rather than suffer his surgeon to
take off his beard. Memoires, tom. iii., p. 214. See also Niebuhr, Arabie, p. 61.
The remaining verses of this chapter, Isa_7:21-25, contain an elegant and very expressive
description of a country depopulated, and left to run wild, from its adjuncts and circumstances:

119. the vineyards and cornfields, before well cultivated, now overrun with briers and thorns; much
grass, so that the few cattle that are left, a young cow and two sheep, have their full range, and
abundant pasture, so as to yield milk in plenty to the scanty family of the owner; the thinly
scattered people living, not on corn, wine, and oil, the produce of cultivation; but on milk and
honey, the gifts of nature; and the whole land given up to the wild beasts, so that the miserable
inhabitants are forced to go out armed with bows and arrows, either to defend themselves
against the wild beasts, or to supply themselves with necessary food by hunting.
A Very judicious friend has sent me the following observations on the preceding prophecy,
which I think worthy of being laid before the reader; though they are in some respects different
from my own view of the subject.
“To establish the primary and literal meaning of a passage of Scripture is evidently laying the
true foundation for any subsequent views or improvements from it.
“The kingdom of Judah, under the government of Ahaz, was reduced very low. Pekah, king of
Israel, had slain in Judea one hundred and twenty thousand in one day; and carried away
captive two hundred thousand including women and children, with much spoil. To add to this
distress, Rezin, king of Syria, being confederate with Pekah, had taken Elath, a fortified city of
Judah, and carried the inhabitants to Damascus. I think it may also be gathered from the sixth
verse of chap. 8, that the kings of Syria and Israel had a considerable party in the land of Judea,
who, regardless of the Divine appointment and promises, were disposed to favor the elevation of
Tabeal, a stranger, to the throne of David.
“In this critical conjuncture of affairs, Isaiah was sent with a message of mercy, and a promise
of deliverance, to Ahaz. He was commanded to take with him Shearjashub, his son whose name
contained a promise respecting the captives lately made by Pekah, whose return from Samaria,
effected by the expostulation of the prophet Oded and the concurrence of the princes of
Ephraim, was now promised as a pledge of the Divine interposition offered to Ahaz in favor of
the house of David. And as a farther token of this preservation, notwithstanding the incredulity
of Ahaz, Isaiah was directed to predict the birth of another son which should be born to him
within the space of a year, and to be named Emmanuel, signifying thereby the protection of God
to the land of Judah and family of David at this present conjuncture, with reference to the
promise of the Messiah who was to spring from that family, and be born in that land. Compare
Isa_8:8. Hence Isaiah testifies, Isa_8:18 : ‘Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given
me are for signs and for types in Israel.’ Compare Zec_3:8 : ‘Thy companions are men of sign
and type:’ see Dr. Lowth on this verse. The message of Divine displeasure against Israel is in like
manner expressed by the names the prophet Hosea was directed to give his children; see
Hos_1:1-11 and 2.
“Concerning this child, who was to be named Immanuel, the prophet was commissioned to
declare, that notwithstanding the present scarcity prevailing in the land from its being harassed
by war, yet within the space of time wherein this child should be of age to discern good and evil,
both these hostile kings, viz., of Israel and Syria, should be cut off; and the country enjoy such
plenty, that butter and honey, food accounted of peculiar delicacy, should be a common repast.
See Harmer’s Observations, p. 299.
“To this it may be objected that Isaiah’s son was not named Immanuel, but Maher-shalal-
hash-baz; the signification of which bore a threatening aspect, instead of a consolatory one. To
this I think a satisfactory answer may be given. Ahaz, by his unbelief and disregard of the
message of mercy sent to him from God, (for instead of depending upon it he sent and made a
treaty with the king of Assyria), drew upon himself the Divine displeasure, which was expressed
by the change of the child’s name, and the declaration that though Damascus and Samaria
should, according to the former prediction, fall before the king of Assyria, yet that this very
power, i.e., Assyria, in whom Ahaz trusted for deliverance, (see 2Ki_16:7, etc.), should
afterwards come against Judah, and ‘fill the breadth of the land,’ which was accomplished in the

120. following reign, when Jerusalem was so endangered as to be delivered only by miracle. The sixth
and seventh verses of chap. 8 indicate, I think, as I before observed, that the kings of Syria and
Israel had many adherents in Judah, who are said to refuse the peaceful waters of Shiloah or
Siloam, him that is to be sent, who ought to have been their confidence, typified by the fountain
at the foot of Mount Zion, whose stream watered the city of Jerusalem; and therefore, since the
splendor of victory, rather than the blessings of peace, was the object of their admiration,
compared to a swelling river which overflowed its banks, God threatens to chastise them by the
victorious armies of Ashur. The prophet at the same time addresses words of consolation to such
of the people who yet feared and trusted in Jehovah, whom he instructs and comforts with the
assurance (Isa_8:10) that they shall prove the fulfillment of the promise contained in the name
Immanuel.
“But it may still be objected, that according to this interpretation of the fourteenth verse of
chap. 7 nothing miraculous occurs, which is readily admitted; but the objection rests upon the
supposition that something miraculous was intended; whereas the word ‫אות‬ oth, ‘sign,’ does by
no means generally imply a miracle, but most commonly an emblematic representation, (see
Eze_4:3-12; 11; Eze_20:20; Zec_6:14), either by actions or names, of some future event either
promised or threatened. Exo_3:12; 1Sa_2:34; 2Ki_19:29; Jer_44:29, Jer_44:30, are all
examples of a future event given as a sign or token of something else which is also future. The
birth of Isaiah’s son was indeed typical of him whose name he was, at first, appointed to bear,
viz., Immanuel, even as Oshea the son of Nun had his name changed to Jehoshua, the same with
Jesus, of whom he was an eminent type. Hence the prophet, in the ninth chapter, breaks forth
into a strain of exultation: ‘To us a child is born;’ after which follow denunciations against Rezin
and the kingdom of Israel, which are succeeded by declarations, that when Assyria had
completed the appointed chastisement upon Judah and Jerusalem, that empire should be
destroyed. The whole of the tenth chapter is a very remarkable prophecy, and was probably
delivered about the time of Sennacherib’s invasion.
“But still it will be urged, that St. Matthew, when relating the miraculous conception of our
Lord, says, ‘Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the
prophet,’ etc. To this it may readily be answered, that what was spoken by the prophet was
indeed now fulfilled in a higher, more important, and also in a more literal sense, than the
primary fulfillment could afford, which derived all its value from its connection with this event,
to which it ultimately referred.
“In like manner the prophecy of Isaiah, contained in the second chapter, received a complete
fulfillment in our Savior’s honoring Capernaum with his residence, and preaching throughout
Galilee; though there appears reason to interpret the passage as having a primary respect to the
reformation wrought by Hezekiah and which, at the eve of the dissolution of the kingdom of
Israel by the captivity of the ten tribes, extended to the tribes of Asher and Zebulun, and many of
the inhabitants of Ephraim and Manasseh, who were hereby stirred up to destroy idolatry in
their country. See 2Ch_31:1. And without doubt the great deliverance wrought afterwards for
Judah by the miraculous destruction of Sennacherib’s army, and the recovery of Hezekiah in so
critical a conjuncture from a sickness which had been declared to be unto death, contributed not
a little to revive the fear of God in that part of Israel which, through their defection from the
house of David, had grievously departed from the temple and worship of the true God; and as
Galilee lay contiguous to countries inhabited by Gentiles, they had probably sunk deeper into
idolatry than the southern part of Israel.
“In several passages of St. Matthew’s Gospel, our translation conveys the idea of things being
done in order to fulfill certain prophecies; but I apprehend that if the words ᅷνα και ᆇπως were
rendered as simply denoting the event, so that and thus was fulfilled, the sense would be much
clearer. For it is obvious that our Lord did not speak in parables or ride into Jerusalem

121. previously to his last passover, simply for the purpose of fulfilling the predictions recorded, but
also from other motives; and in chap. 2 the evangelist only remarks that the circumstance of our
Lord’s return from Egypt corresponded with the prophet Hosea’s relation of that part of the
history of the Israelites. So in the twenty-third verse Joseph dwelt at Nazareth because he was
directed so to do by God himself; and the sacred historian, having respect to the effect
afterwards produced, (see Joh_7:41, Joh_7:42, Joh_7:52), remarks that this abode in Nazareth
was a means of fulfilling those predictions of the prophets which indicate the contempt and
neglect with which by many the Messiah should be treated. Galilee was considered by the
inhabitants of Judea as a degraded place, chiefly from its vicinity to the Gentiles; and Nazareth
seems to have been proverbially contemptible; and from the account given of the spirit and
conduct of the inhabitants by the evangelists, not without reason.” - E. M. B.
To my correspondent, as well as to many learned men, there appears some difficulty in the
text; but I really think this is quite done away by that mode of interpretation which I have
already adopted; and as far as the miraculous conception is concerned, the whole is set in the
clearest and strongest light, and the objections and cavils of the Jeers entirely destroyed.
3. GILL, “In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired,.... Meaning
the Assyrian monarch, whom he would use as an instrument in his hand to spoil and cut off the
people of the Jews; who is compared to a "razor" for sharpness; and for the thorough work, and
utter ruin and destruction, he should be the means of; and called a "hired" one, either in
reference to the present Ahaz sent to the king of Assyria, by which he prevailed upon him to
come and help him against the kings of Syria and Israel, 2Ki_16:7 or to a reward given by the
Lord to Nebuchadnezzar for the service in which he employed him, see Eze_29:18,
namely, by them beyond the river; not Nile, but Euphrates; even the Assyrians, Chaldeans,
and Babylonians, who lived on the other side that river; which, with what follows, explains the
simile of the razor:
by the king of Assyria; who ruled over those beyond the river:
the head, and the hair of the feet; and it shall also consume the beard; signifying that
as a razor cuts off the hair entirely where it is applied, and leaves nothing behind, whether of the
head, beard, or feet, or privy parts, which are meant by the latter; so the king of Assyria should
carry all clean off captive out of the land of Judea; king, princes, nobles, and common people;
those of the highest, and of the middling, and of the lowest class. The Targum is,
"in that time the Lord shall slay them as one is slain by a sharp sword, by clubs, and by saws, by
those beyond the river, and by the king of Assyria; the king, and his army, and even his rulers,
together shall he destroy.''
So Jarchi explains it. Several of the Jewish writers, as Aben Ezra, Abarbinel, and Kimchi (k),
explain this of the Angel of the Lord destroying Sennacherib's army, when before Jerusalem, in
Hezekiah's time; so the latter interprets it: "the head"; the heads of his armies: "the hair of the
feet"; the multitude of the people: "the beard"; the king, who died, not in the camp, but was
killed by his sons in his own land; but this is not a prophecy of the destruction of the Assyrian
army, but of the Jewish people by it; and the whole denotes the mean and low condition, the
state of slavery and bondage, the Jews should be brought into; of which the shaving of the hair is

122. the symbol; it was usual to shave the head and hair of such as were taken captive, as a sign of
reproach and servitude; see 2Sa_10:4 (l).
4. HENRY, “Great desolations made, and the country generally depopulated (Isa_7:20): The
Lord shall shave the hair of the head, and beard, and feet; he shall sweep all away, as the leper,
when he was cleansed, shaved off all his hair, Lev_14:8, Lev_14:9. This is done with a razor
which is hired, either which God has hired (as if he had none of his own; but what he hires, and
whom he employs in any service for him, he will pay for. See Eze_29:18, Eze_29:19), or which
Ahaz has hired for his assistance. God will make that to be an instrument of his destruction
which he hired into his service. Note, Many are beaten with that arm of flesh which they trusted
to rather than to the arm of the Lord, and which they were at a great expense upon, when by
faith and prayer they might have found cheap and easy succour in God. 4. The consequences of
this general depopulation. (1.) The flocks of cattle shall be all destroyed, so that a man who had
herds and flocks in abundance shall be stripped of them all by the enemy, and shall with much
ado save for his own use a young cow and two sheep - a poor stock (Isa_7:21), yet he shall think
himself happy in having any left.
5. JAMISON, “razor — The Assyrians are to be God’s instrument of devastating Judea, just as
a razor sweeps away all hair before it (Isa_10:5; Eze_29:19, Eze_29:20).
hired — alluding to Ahaz’ hiring (2Ki_16:7, 2Ki_16:8) Tiglath-pileser against Syria and
Israel; namely,
by them beyond the river — namely, the Euphrates; the eastern boundary of Jewish
geographical knowledge (Psa_72:8); the river which Abram crossed; the Nile also may be
included (Isa_7:18) [G. V. Smith]. Gesenius translates, “With a razor hired in the parts beyond
the river.”
head ... feet — the whole body, including the most honored parts. To cut the “beard” is the
greatest indignity to an Easterner (Isa_50:6; 2Sa_10:4, 2Sa_10:5; Eze_5:1).
6. K&D, ““In that day will the Lord shave with a razor, the thing for hire on the shore of the
river, with the king of Assyria, the head and the hair of the feet; and even the beard it will take
away.” Knobel takes the hair to be a figurative representation of the produce of the land; but the
only thing which at all favours the idea that the flora is ever regarded by biblical writers as the
hairy covering of the soil, is the use of the term nazir as the name of an uncultivated vine left to
itself (Lev_25:5). The nation of Judah is regarded here, as in Isa_1:6, as a man stript naked, and
not only with all the hair of his head and feet shaved off (raglaim, a euphemism), but what was
regarded as the most shameful of all, with the hair of his beard shaved off as well. To this end
the Almighty would make use of a razor, which is more distinctly defined as hired on the shore
of the Euphrates (Conductitia in litoribus Euphratis: nahar stands here for hannahar), and still
more precisely as the king of Asshur (the latter is again pronounced a gloss by Knobel and

123. others). “The thing for hire:” hassecı̄rah might be an abstract term (hiring, Conductio), but it may
also be the feminine of sacı̄r, which indicates an emphatic advance from the indefinite to the
more definite; in the sense of “with a razor, namely, that which was standing ready to be hired in
the lands on both sides of the Euphrates, the king of Assyria.” In hassecı̄rah (the thing for hire)
there was involved the bitterest sarcasm for Ahaz. The sharp knife, which it had hired for the
deliverance of Judah, was hired by the Lord, to shave Judah most thoroughly, and in the most
disgraceful manner. Thus shaved, Judah would be a depopulated and desert land, in which men
would no longer live by growing corn and vines, or by trade and commerce, but by grazing alone.
7. PULPIT, “Shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired; rather, with the hired razor; i.e. the razor
that Ahaz will have hired (2Ki_16:8). The metaphor well expresses the stripping of the land bare by
plunder and exaction (comp. Eze_5:1,Eze_5:12, and 2Ch_28:19-21). God would use Tiglath-Pileser
as his instrument to distress Ahaz. By them beyond the river; or, in the parts beyond the river. "The
river" is undoubtedly the Euphrates, and they who dwell beyond it the Assyrians. By the King of Assyria.
Once more a gloss is suspected, as in Isa_7:17. The meaning would certainly be sufficiently plain without
the clause. The head the hair of the feet the beard. These three represent all the hair on any part
of the body. Judah is to be completely stripped.
8. CALVIN, “20.The Lordwill shave with a hired razor. He now employs a different metaphor, and
compares those enemies by whom the Lord had determined to afflict Judea at the appointed time, to a
razor, by which the beard and hair are shaved, and other excrescences of the same kind are removed. ‫ב‬
(beth) is here superfluous, and is only employed in accordance with the Hebrew idiom, to denote an
instrument, and, therefore, I have merely rendered it he will shave with a razor. What he means he
immediately explains; namely, that the Assyrians will serve for a razor in the hand of God, and that they
will come from a distant country.
Who are beyond the river. This means that Euphrates will not hinder them from passing over to execute
the commands of God. He likewise adds, that it will not be some portion of that nation rushing forward of
its own accord into foreign territories, or wandering without a settled leader; but that the king himself will
lead them, so that the nation and the king at the same time will overwhelm Judea, and it will sink under
such a burden.
A hired razor. It is not without reason that he says that this razor is hired; for he expresses by it the
dreadful nature of the calamity which would be brought upon them by the Assyrians. If a man make use of
a hired horse or a hired sword, he will use it the more freely, and will not spare or take care of it as he

124. would do with his own, for men wish to gain advantage from what they have hired to the full value of
the hire. Thus the Lord threatens that he will not at all spare the razor, though he should be under the
necessity of blunting it, which means, that he will send the Assyrians with mad violence and rage. If the
Lord took such dreadful vengeance on the Jews for those reasons which the Prophet formerly
enumerated, we ought to fear lest we be punished in the same manner; or rather, we ought to dread
the razor with which he has already begun to shave us.
The head and the hair of the feet. By the hair of the feet he means the lower parts; for by the feet is
meant all that is below the belly, and it is a figure of speech, by which a part is taken for the whole. (114) In
short, he means that the whole body, and even the beard, must be shaved. Now, if we set aside the
figures, and wish to get at the plain and natural meaning, it is as if he had said, that this shaving will reach
from the top of the head down to the feet, and that kings and princes will not be exempted from that
calamity, but that they also must feel the edge of the razor
21
In that day, a person will keep alive a young cow and
two goats.
1.BARNES, “In that day - In the time specified in the previous verses - in the judgments
that should be brought upon the land by the Egyptians and Assyrians.
A man shall nourish - Hebrew ‘Make to live:’ that is, he shall own, or feed.
A young cow - The Hebrew denotes a heifer that gives milk. The state which is denoted by
this is that of great poverty. Instead of being engaged in agriculture, of possessing great
resources in that time, a man should depend, for the subsistence of himself and his family, on
what a single cow and two sheep would yield. Probably this is intended also as a description of
the general state of the nation, that it would be reduced to great poverty.
And two sheep - Two here seems to be used to denote a very small number. A man, that is,
the generality of people, would be so reduced as to be able to purchase and keep no more.
2. PULPIT, “A man shall nourish a young cow, and two sheep; literally, two ewes. A stop having been
put to cultivation, men shall return to the pastoral life, but shall not possess more than two or three head
of cattle apiece, the Assyrians having swept off most of the beasts. Tiglath-Pileser, in his inscriptions,

125. mentions his carrying off homed cattle and sheep to the amount of many thousands from the countries
which he overran or conquered.
3. GILL, “And it shall come to pass in that day,.... Not in the days of Hezekiah, after the
destruction of Sennacherib's army, when there followed great fruitfulness and plenty, Isa_37:30
as Kimchi and Jarchi interpret it; but in the days of Nebuchadnezzar, after the destruction of
Jerusalem, when some poor men were left in the land to till it, Jer_39:10 for of these, and not of
rich men, are the following words to be understood:
that a man shall nourish a young cow and two sheep; this seems to denote both the
scarcity of men and cattle, through the ravages of the army of the Chaldeans; that there should
not be large herds and flocks, only a single cow, and two or three sheep; and yet men should be
so few, and families so thin, that these would be sufficient to support them comfortably.
4. HENRY, “
5. JAMISON, “Isa_7:21-25. The coming desolate state of the land owing to the Assyrians
and Egyptians.
nourish — that is, own.
young cow — a heifer giving milk. Agriculture shall cease, and the land become one great
pasturage.
6. K&D, ““And it will come to pass in that day, that a man will keep a small cow and a
couple of sheep; and it comes to pass, for the abundance of the milk they give he will eat
cream: for butter and honey will every one eat that is left within the land.” The former
prosperity would be reduced to the most miserable housekeeping. One man would keep a milch
cow and two head of sheep (or goats) alive with the greatest care, the strongest and finest full-
grown cattle having fallen into the hands of the foe ( ָ‫ה‬ ִ‫,ה‬ like ‫ה‬ָ‫י‬ ֱ‫ֽח‬ ֶ‫ה‬ in other places: shte, not shne,
because two female sheep or goats are meant). But this would be quite enough, for there would
be only a few men left in the land; and as all the land would be pasture, the small number of
animals would yield milk in abundance. Bread and wine would be unattainable. Whoever had
escaped the Assyrian razor, would eat thickened milk and honey, that and nothing but that,
without variation, ad nauseam. The reason for this would be, that the hills, which at other times
were full of vines and corn-fields, would be overgrown with briers.
7.CALVIN, “21.And it shall come to pass on that day. In these verses, down to the end of the chapter,
the Prophet describes the state of a country torn and wasted; for he intends to present a striking and
lively picture of such overwhelming distress that, wherever you turn your eyes, nothing is to be seen but
the traces of frightful desolation. Some think that a mitigation of punishment is here promised, but we

126. shall soon see that this does not agree with the context. Though he employs the appellation, a man,
without any limitation, yet strictly it is of the richest men that he speaks; for he does not say that every one
will have so many; but they who formerly were accustomed to rear a large number of oxen and sheep will
be satisfied with having a few. He means, therefore, that all will be reduced to very deep poverty. Some
think that the Hebrew word which the Prophet employs, ‫,יחיה‬ (yechaiyeh,) he shall quicken, means “
deliver from death;” but the meaning which I have adopted is more natural and more generally approved.
22
And because of the abundance of the milk they give,
there will be curds to eat. All who remain in the land
will eat curds and honey.
1.BARNES, “For the abundance of milk ... - On account, or by means of the great
quantity of milk. This image also denotes that the land should be desolate, and abandoned by its
inhabitants. Such a range would the cow and sheep have in the lands lying waste and
uncultivated, that they would yield abundance of milk.
For butter and honey - This shall be the condition of all who are left in the land.
Agriculture shall be abandoned, The land shall be desolate. The few remaining inhabitants shall
be dependent on what a very few cows and sheep shah produce, and on the subsistence which
may be derived from honey obtained from the rocks where bees would lodge. Perhaps, also, the
swarms of bees would be increased, by the fact that the land would be forsaken, and that it
would produce abundance of wild flowers for their subsistence. The general idea is plain, that
the land would be desolate. Butter and honey, that is, butter mingled with honey, is a common
article of food in the East; see the note at Isa_7:15. D’Arvieux being in the camp of an Arab
prince who lived in much splendor, and who treated him with great regard, was entertained, he
tells us, the first morning of his being there, with little loaves, honey, new-churned butter, and
cream more delicate than any he ever saw, together with coffee. - “Voy. dans la Pal.,” p. 24. And
in another place, he assures us that one of the principal things with which the Arabs regale
themselves at breakfast is cream, or new butter mingled with honey. - p. 197. The statement of
the prophet here, that the poor of the land should eat butter and honey, is not inconsistent with
this account of D’Arvieux, that it is regarded as an article of food with which even princes treat
their guests, for the idea of the prophet is, that when the land should be desolate and
comparatively uninhabited, the natural luxuriant growth of the soil would produce an
abundance to furnish milk, and that honey would abound where the bees would be allowed to
multiply, almost without limit; see Harmer’s Obs., vol. ii. p. 55. Ed. Lond. 1808.

127. 2. PULPIT, “For the abundance of milk that they shall give. The small number of the cattle will allow of
each having abundant pasture. Hence they will give an abundance of milk. He shall eat butter; rather,
curds—the solid food most readily obtained from milk (comp. above, Isa_7:15). Curdled milk and wild
honey should form the simple diet of the remnant left in the land. It is, of course, possible to understand
this in a spiritual sense, of simple doctrine and gospel honey out of the flinty rock of the Law; but there is
no reason to think that the prophet intended his words in any but the most literal sense.
3. GILL, “And it shall come to pass, for the abundance of milk that they shall
give,.... The cow and the two sheep, having large pastures, and few cattle to feed upon them,
those few would give such abundance of milk, that the owner of them would make butter of it,
and live upon it, having no occasion to eat milk; and there being few or none to sell it to:
he shall eat butter; the milk producing a sufficient quantity of it for himself and his family:
for butter and honey shall everyone eat that is left in the land: signifying that though
they would be few, they would enjoy a plenty of such sort of food as their small flocks and herds
would furnish them with, and the bees produce. The Targum and Jarchi interpret this of the
righteous that shall be left in the land; but it is rather to be extended unto all, righteous and
unrighteous.
4. HENRY, “The few cattle that are left shall have such a large compass of ground to feed in
that they shall give abundance of milk, and very good milk, such as shall produce butter
enough, Isa_7:22. There shall also be such want of men that the milk of one cow and two sheep
shall serve a whole family, which used to keep abundance of servants and consume a great deal,
but is now reduced. (3.) The breed of cattle shall be destroyed; so that those who used to eat
flesh ( as the Jews commonly did) shall be necessitated to confine themselves to butter and
honey, for there shall be no flesh for them; and the country shall be so depopulated that there
shall be butter and honey enough for the few that are left in it. (4.) Good land, that used to be let
well, shall be all overrun with briers and thorns (Isa_7:23); where there used to be a thousand
vines planted, for which the tenants used to pay a thousand shekels, or pieces of silver, yearly
rent, there shall be nothing now but briers and thorns, no profit either for landlord or tenant, all
being laid waste by the army of the invaders. Note, God can soon turn a fruitful land into
barrenness; and it is just with him to turn vines into briers if we, instead of bringing forth grapes
to him, bring forth wild grapes, Isa_5:4.
5. JAMISON, “abundance — by reason of the wide range of land lying desolate over which
the cows and sheep (including goats) may range.
butter — thick milk, or cream.

128. honey — (See on Isa_7:15). Food of spontaneous growth will be the resource of the few
inhabitants left. Honey shall be abundant as the bees will find the wild flowers abounding
everywhere.
6. KRETZMANN, “v. 22. and it shall come to pass for the abundance of milk that they, the few
animals left him, shall give he shall eat butter; for butter and honey, which was abundant in the wild
state, shall every one eat that is left in the land, for that was the food of a land which had practically
been turned into a wilderness by the enemies.
7.CALVIN, “22.On account of the abundance of milk. Some explain it thus: “ will scarcely be as much
obtained from one cow as would be required for the food of a family;” for those who rear cattle do not feed
on milk alone, but likewise make cheeses, and have butter to sell. When, therefore, he says, that out of all
their abundance nothing more would be produced than what was necessary for the use of the family, in
the opinion of those commentators it denotes poverty. Others think that this is a promise of fertility, that
however small may be the number of their cows and sheep, still they will have abundant means of
support. A third exposition is preferable; for it appears as if the Prophet intended to show that the men will
be so few in number that a small quantity of milk will be sufficient for them all; and it is a far heavier
affliction that a country should want inhabitants than that it should have a small supply of herds and
flocks.
In the preceding verse Isaiah declared, that Judea would be so impoverished, that very few herds and
flocks would be left; but now he adds that the men will be still fewer, for a very little milk will be sufficient
for the inhabitants of the land. I adopt this exposition the more readily, because here a promise would be
inappropriate. The former sense is forced; and he does not speak only of cattle-feeders who had cows,
but of all the inhabitants; for he expressly says, Every one that shall be left, and by that expression he
again denotes the smallness of their number. His statement, therefore, is intended to show, that the
country will be so generally forsaken and so miserably wasted, that no great supply of milk and butter will
be needed; for, when the devastation has taken place, there will be few men left.

129. 23
In that day, in every place where there were a
thousand vines worth a thousand silver
shekels,[g]
there will be only briers and thorns.
1.BARNES, “The remainder of this chapter is a description of great desolation produced by
the invasion of the Assyrians. “Where there were a thousand vines.” Where there was a valuable
vineyard. In every place, that is, that was well cultivated and valuable.
At a thousand silverlings - The word rendered ‘silvertings’ here - ‫כסף‬ keseph - denotes,
properly, silver, of any amount. But it is also used to denote the silver coin which was in use
among the Jews, the shekel. Perhaps this was the only silver coin which, in early times, they
possessed, and hence, the word shekel is omitted, and so many pieces of silver are mentioned.
Thus, in Gen_20:16, Abimelech says, that he had given Abraham, a thousand of silver’ - that is, a
thousand shekels. The shekel was worth about two shillings of our money. It is probable that a
vineyard would be valued, in proportion to the number of vines that could be raised on the
smallest space; and the meaning is here, that the land that was most fertile, and that produced
the most, would be desolate, and would produce only briers and thorns. The land in Judea
admits of a high state of cultivation, and requires it, in order to make it productive. When
neglected, it becomes as remarkably sterile. At present, it generally bears the marks of great
barrenness and sterility. It is under the oppression of Turkish power and exactions; and the
consequence is, that, to a traveler, it has the appearance of great barrenness. But, in the high
state to which the Jews brought it, it was eminently fertile, and is capable still of becoming so, if
it should be placed under a government that would encourage agriculture and bestow freedom.
This is the account which all travelers give of it now.
2. PULPIT, “A thousand vines at a thousand silverlings. By "silverlings" our translators mean "pieces of
silver," probably shekels. "A thousand vines at a thousand shekels" may mean either a thousand vines
worth that amount, or a thousand vines rented at that sum annually (comp. Son_8:11). The latter would
point to vineyards of unusual goodness, since the shekel is at least eighteen pence, and the present rent
of a vineyard in Palestine is at the rate of a piastre for each vine, or 2½d. The general meaning would
seem to be that not even the best vineyards would be cultivated, but would lie waste, and grow only
"briers and thorns."
3. GILL, “And it shall come to pass in that day; that every place shall be,.... Barren
and unfruitful, for want of men to till the ground:
where there were a thousand vines at a thousand silverlings; which were so good, as to
be sold or let out for so many silver shekels (m); or the fruit of them came to such a price; see
Son_8:11,

130. it shall even be for briers and thorns; for want of persons to stock the ground and cultivate
it.
(m) Which was about two shillings and sixpence of our money.
4. HENRY, “Good land, that used to be let well, shall be all overrun with briers and thorns
(Isa_7:23); where there used to be a thousand vines planted, for which the tenants used to pay a
thousand shekels, or pieces of silver, yearly rent, there shall be nothing now but briers and
thorns, no profit either for landlord or tenant, all being laid waste by the army of the invaders.
Note, God can soon turn a fruitful land into barrenness; and it is just with him to turn vines into
briers if we, instead of bringing forth grapes to him, bring forth wild grapes, Isa_5:4.
5. JAMISON, “where there were, etc. — where up to that time there was so valuable a
vineyard as to have in it a 1000 vines, worth a silverling (shekel, about fifty cents; a large price)
each, there shall be only briers (Son_8:11). Vineyards are estimated by the number of the vines,
and the goodness of the kind of vine. Judea admits of a high state of cultivation, and requires it,
in order to be productive; its present barrenness is due to neglect.
6. K&D, “The prophet repeats this three times in Isa_7:23-25 : “And it will come to pass in
that day, every place, where a thousand vines stood at a thousand silverlings, will have
become thorns and thistles. With arrows and with bows will men go, for the whole land will
have become thorns and thistles. And all the hills that were accustomed to be hoed with the
hoe, thou wilt not go to them for fear of thorns and thistles; and it has become a gathering-
place for oxen, and a treading-place for sheep.” The “thousand silverlings” ('eleph ceseph, i.e., a
thousand shekels of silver) recall to mind Son_8:11, though there it is the value of the yearly
produce, whereas here the thousand shekels are the value of a thousand vines, the sign of a
peculiarly valuable piece of a vineyard. At the present time they reckon the worth of a vineyard
in Lebanon and Syria according to the value of the separate vines, and generally take the vines at
one piastre (from 2nd to 3rd) each; just as in Germany a Johannisberg vine is reckoned at a
ducat. Every piece of ground, where such valuable vines were standing, would have fallen a prey
to the briers. People would go there with bow and arrow, because the whole land had become
thorns and thistles (see at Isa_5:12), and therefore wild animals had made their homes there.
And thou (the prophet addresses the countryman thus) comest not to all the hills, which were
formerly cultivated in the most careful manner; thou comest not thither to make them arable
again, because thorns and thistles deter thee from reclaiming such a fallow. They would
therefore give the oxen freedom to rove where they would, and let sheep and goats tread down
whatever grew there. The description is intentionally thoroughly tautological and pleonastic,
heavy and slow in movement. The writer's intention is to produce the impression of a waste
heath, or tedious monotony. Hence the repetitions of hayah and yihyeh. Observe how great the
variations are in the use of the future and perfect, and how the meaning is always determined by
the context. In Isa_7:21, Isa_7:22, the futures have a really future sense; in Isa_7:23 the first
and third yihyeh signify “will have become” (factus erit omnis locus), and the second “was”

131. (erat); in Isa_7:24 ‫בוֹא‬ָ‫י‬ means “will come” (veniet), and tihyeh “will have become” (facta erit
terra); in Isa_7:25 we must render ye‛aderun, sarciebantur (they used to be hoed). And in
Isa_7:21, Isa_7:22, and Isa_7:23, hayah is equivalent to fiet (it will become); whilst in Isa_7:25 it
means factum est (it has become). Looked at from a western point of view, therefore, the future
tense is sometimes a simple future, sometimes a future perfect, and sometimes an imperfect or
synchronistic preterite; and the perfect sometimes a prophetic preterite, sometimes an actual
preterite, but the sphere of an ideal past, or what is the same thing, of a predicted future.
This ends Isaiah's address to king Ahaz. He does not expressly say when Immanuel is to be
born, but only what will take place before he has reached the riper age of boyhood - namely,
first, the devastation of Israel and Syria, and then the devastation of Judah itself, by the
Assyrians. From the fact that the prophet says no more than this, we may see that his spirit and
his tongue were under the direction of the Spirit of God, who does not descend within the
historical and temporal range of vision, without at the same time remaining exalted above it. On
the other hand, however, we may see from what he says, that the prophecy has its human side as
well. When Isaiah speaks of Immanuel as eating thickened milk and honey, like all who survived
the Assyrian troubles in the Holy Land; he evidently looks upon and thinks of the childhood of
Immanuel as connected with the time of the Assyrian calamities. And it was in such a
perspective combination of events lying far apart, that the complex character of prophecy
consisted. The reason for this complex character was a double one, viz., the human limits
associated with the prophet's telescopic view of distant times, and the pedagogical wisdom of
God, in accordance with which He entered into these limits instead of removing them. If,
therefore, we adhere to the letter of prophecy, we may easily throw doubt upon its veracity; but
if we look at the substance of the prophecy, we soon find that the complex character by no
means invalidates its truth. For the things which the prophet saw in combination were
essentially connected, even though chronologically separated. When, for example, in the case
before us (chapters 7-12), Isaiah saw Asshur only, standing out as the imperial kingdom; this
was so far true, that the four imperial kingdoms from the Babylonian to the Roman were really
nothing more than the full development of the commencement made in Assyria. And when he
spoke of the son of the virgin (chapter 7) as growing up in the midst of the Assyrian oppressions;
this also was so far true, that Jesus was really born at a time when the Holy Land, deprived of its
previous abundance, was under the dominion of the imperial power, and in a condition whose
primary cause was to be traced to the unbelief of Ahaz. Moreover, He who became flesh in the
fulness of time, did really lead an ideal life in the Old Testament history. He was in the midst of
it in a pre-existent presence, moving on towards the covenant goal. The fact that the house and
nation of David did not perish in the Assyrian calamities, was actually to be attributed, as
chapter 8 presupposes, to His real though not His bodily presence. In this way the apparent
discrepancy between the prophecy and the history of the fulfilment may be solved. We do not
require the solution proposed by Vitringa, and recently appropriate by Haneberg - namely, that
the prophet takes the stages of the Messiah's life out of the distant future, to make them the
measure of events about to take place in the immediate future; nor that of Bengel, Schegg,
Schmieder, and others - namely, that the sign consisted in an event belonging to the immediate
future, which pointed typically to the birth of the true Immanuel; nor that of Hofmann, who
regards the words of the prophet as an emblematical prediction of the rise of a new Israel, which
would come to the possession of spiritual intelligence in the midst of troublous times,
occasioned by the want of intelligence in the Israel of his own time. The prophecy, as will be
more fully confirmed as we proceed, is directly Messianic; it is a divine prophecy within human
limits.

132. 7.CALVIN, “23.A thousand vines. As to the opinion of those who think that Isaiah here comforts
believers, I pass it by without refutation; for it is sufficiently refuted by the context, and the words plainly
declare that Isaiah continues to threaten destruction, and to describe the desolation of the land. Others
think that the meaning is this, “ a thousand vines were, which were sold for a thousand pieces of silver,
there briers and thorns will be found.” But it is plain that this would be far too low a price, if the statement
were applied to the whole country; for who would think of reckoning a shekel to be the price of a vine,
which is the most precious of all possessions? It is of the same import with a common expression, “ sell
for a trifle,” to give away for a piece of bread; (115) when anything is sold at a very low price. Any field,
however barren or uncultivated, might be sold at a higher price, if due attention were paid to the
cultivation of land, as is usually done where there is a crowded population.
On account of briers and thorns. He assigns a reason for the alteration of the price, which makes it
evident that he speaks of desolation. On account of briers and thorns, says he; for there will be none to
cultivate the land, which usually happens when a heavy calamity has been sustained. ‫,ל‬ (lamed,) which
some render to orfor, means, I think, on account of; for, everything having been thrown into confusion by
the fury of the invading army, there are no vinedressers or laborers, and the most highly cultivated lands
must have been covered over and choked up by briers and thorns. The meaning therefore is, that the
inhabitants will be so few, that you will scarcely find and one that would give the smallest coin to buy the
most valuable estates.
(115) Bailler pour une piece de pain .
24
Hunters will go there with bow and arrow, for the
land will be covered with briers and thorns.

133. 1.BARNES, “With arrows and with bows ... - This is a continuation of the description of its
desolation. So entirely would it be abandoned, so utterly desolate would it be, that it would
become a vast hunting-ground. It would be covered with shrubs and trees that would afford a
convenient covert for wild beasts; and would yield to its few inhabitants a subsistence, not by
cultivation, but by the bow and the arrow. There can scarcely be a more striking description of
utter desolation. But, perhaps, the long captivity of seventy years in Babylon literally fulfilled it.
Judea was a land that, at all times, was subject to depredations from wild beasts. On the banks
of the Jordan - in the marshes, and amid the reeds that sprung up in the lower bank or border of
the river - the lion found a home, and the tiger a resting place; compare Jer_49:19. When the
land was for a little time vacated and forsaken, it would be, therefore, soon filled with wild
beasts; and during the desolations of the seventy years’ captivity, there can be no doubt that this
was literally fulfilled.
2. PULPIT, “With arrows and with bows. Only the hunter will go there, armed with his weapons of
chase, to kill the wild animals that will haunt the thickets.
3. GILL, “With arrows and with bows shall men come thither,.... For fear of wild
beasts, serpents, and scorpions, as Jarchi; or in order to hunt them, as others; or because of
thieves and robbers, as Aben Ezra:
because all the land shall become briers and thorns; among which such creatures, and
such sort of men, would hide themselves.
4. HENRY, “The implements of husbandry shall be turned into instruments of war, Isa_7:24.
The whole land having become briers and thorns, the grounds that men used to come to with
sickles and pruning-hooks to gather in the fruits they shall now come to with arrows and bows,
to hunt for wild beasts in the thickets, or to defend themselves from the robbers that lurk in the
bushes, seeking for prey, or to kill the serpents and venomous beasts that are hid there. This
denotes a very sad change of the face of that pleasant land. But what melancholy change is there
which sin will not make with a people?
5. JAMISON, “It shall become a vast hunting ground, abounding in wild beasts (compare
Jer_49:19).
6. KRETZMANN, “v. 24. With arrows and with bows shall men come thither, to hunt wild beasts
in the former orchards, because all the land shall become briers and thorns.

134. 7.CALVIN, “24.With arrows and bow shall they come thither. The verb ‫,יבא‬ (yabo,) he shall come, is in
the singular number; but it ought to be explained by the plural, that the archers will march through Judea.
Some think that Isaiah speaks of bows and arrows, because such would be the dread of enemies, that no
man unarmed would venture to approach his possessions. But I consider it to be more probable that the
Prophet means that, where the richest cultivation formerly existed, opportunity for hunting will be found;
for there the wild beasts have their dens. Now, it is a most wretched change, when fields formerly
cultivated and fertile are turned into woods and thickets. By bow and arrow here, therefore, I
understand hunting, in this sense: “ shall not be approached by husbandmen but by hunters, and they
shall not plant or dress vines, but chase wild beasts.” In short, it means nothing else than frightful
desolation, which shall change the aspect of the land.
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.
1.BARNES, “And on all hills ... - All the fertile places in the mountains that used to be
cultivated with the spade. Vineyards were often planted on the sides of hills; and those places
were among the most productive and fertile in the land; see Isa_5:1.
The mattock - The spade; the garden hoe; or the weeding-hook. An instrument chiefly used,
probably, in vineyards.
There shall not come thither - There shall not be.
The fear of briers and thorns - This does not make sense; or if it does, it is not a sense
consistent with the connection. The idea of the whole passage is, that the land, even the most
fertile parts of it, should be given up to briers and thorns; that is, to desolation. The Hebrew
here, is ambiguous. It may mean, ‘thou shalt not come there, for fear of the briers and thorns.’
That is, the place that was formerly so fertile, that was cultivated with the spade, shall now be so
completely covered with thorns, and shall furnish so convenient a resting place for wild beasts
and reptiles, as to deter a man from going there. The Septuagint, and the Syriac, however,
understand it differently - as denoting that those places should be still cultivated. But this is
evidently a departure from the sense of the connection. Lowth understands it in the past tense;
‘where the fear of briers and thorns never came.’ The general idea of the passage is plain, that
those places, once so highly cultivated, would now be desolate.
Shall be for the sending forth ... - Shall be wild, uncultivated, and desolate - vast
commons on which oxen and sheep shall feed at large. “Lesser cattle.” Hebrew ‘Sheep, or the
flock.’ Sheep were accustomed to range in deserts and uncultivated places, and to obtain there,

135. under the guidance of the shepherd, their subsistence. The description, therefore, in these
verses, is one of extensive and wide desolation; and one that was accomplished in the calamities
that came upon the land in the invasions by the Egyptians and Assyrians.
2. PULPIT, “On all hills that shall be digged; rather, that shall have been digged in former times,
whether for corn cultivation or for any other. There shall not come thither the fear of briers (so Ewald
and Kay). But almost all other commentators translate, "Thou shalt not come thither for fear of briers," etc.
The briers and thorns of the East tear the clothes and the flesh. It shall be; i.e. "each such place shall
be." For the sending forth of oxen; rather, for the sending in of oxen.Men shall send their cattle into
them, as alone able to penetrate the jungle without hurt.
3. GILL, “And on all hills that shall be digged with the mattock,.... Which could not be
ploughed with a plough, but used to be dug with a mattock or spade, and then sowed with corn:
there shall not come thither the fear of briers and thorns; where thorns and briers used
not to grow, and where there was no fear or danger of being overrun with them, as the vineyards
in the valleys and champaign country; yet those places should become desolate in another way;
or rather, there shall be now no fences made of briers and thorns, which deter cattle from
entering into fields and vineyards thus fenced:
but it shall be for the setting forth of oxen, and for the treading of lesser cattle;
there being no fence of briers and thorns to keep them out, cattle both of the greater and lesser
sort should get into the corn, and feed upon it, and make such places desolate, where much
pains were taken to cultivate them. The Targum is,
"it shall be for a place of lying down of oxen, and for a place of dwelling of flocks of sheep;''
not for pastures, but for folds for them; though the Septuagint, Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Arabic
versions, suggest these places should become pastures; and therefore some understand this as a
prophecy of a change in the country for the better, and of the great fruitfulness of it after the
Jews' return from the Babylonish captivity.
4. HENRY, “.) The implements of husbandry shall be turned into instruments of war,
Isa_7:24. The whole land having become briers and thorns, the grounds that men used to come
to with sickles and pruning-hooks to gather in the fruits they shall now come to with arrows and
bows, to hunt for wild beasts in the thickets, or to defend themselves from the robbers that lurk
in the bushes, seeking for prey, or to kill the serpents and venomous beasts that are hid there.
This denotes a very sad change of the face of that pleasant land. But what melancholy change is
there which sin will not make with a people? (6.) Where briers and thorns were wont to be of use
and to do good service, even in the hedges, for the defence of the enclosed grounds, they shall be
plucked up, and all laid in common. There shall be briers and thorns in abundance where they
should not be, but none where they should be, Isa_7:25. The hills that shall be digged with the
mattock, for special use, from which the cattle used to be kept off with the fear of briers and

136. thorns, shall now be thrown open, the hedges broken down for the boar out of the wood to
waste it, Psa_80:12, Psa_80:13. It shall be left at large for oxen to run in and less cattle. See the
effect of sin and the curse; it has made the earth a forest of thorns and thistles, except as it is
forced into some order by the constant care and labour of man. And see what folly it is to set our
hearts upon possessions of lands, be they every so fruitful, ever so pleasant; if they lie ever so
little neglected and uncultivated, or if they be abused by a wasteful careless heir or tenant, or the
country be laid waste by war, they will soon become frightful deserts. Heaven is a paradise not
subject to such changes.
5. JAMISON, “shall be — rather, “were once.”
digged — in order to plant and rear vines (Isa_5:6).
there shall not come — that is, none shall come who fear thorns, seeing that thorns shall
abound on all sides [Maurer]. Otherwise, “Thou shalt not come for fear of thorns” [Gesenius].
Only cattle shall be able to penetrate the briery ground.
lesser cattle — sheep and goats.
6. KRETZMANN, “v. 25. And on all hills that shall be digged with the mattock, which ordinarily
were hoed and cultivated, there shall not come thither the fear of briers and thorns, that is, no one
will venture there for fear of not being able to cope with the thorns; but it shall be for the sending forth
of oxen, who would make the devastated lands their playground, and for the treading of lesser
cattle. Thus the history of Judah and Jerusalem, till the coming of the promised Messiah, is sketched in a
few bold lines. At that time the former glory of Judah had departed, and the proud nation had become
subject to a heathen world power. Christ Himself, although the eternal Son of God, was born into the
lowliness of this bondage. He is, to this day, with the Gospel proclaimed by His messengers, a savor of
life unto life to those who accept Him, but a savor of death unto death to those who reject Him
7.CALVIN, “25.And on all the hills that are dug with the hoe. Here the Prophet appears to contradict
himself; for, having hitherto spoken of the desolation of the land, he now describes what may be called a
new condition, when he says that, where thorns and briers were, there oxen will feed. The consequence
has been, that some have applied these words to the consolation of the people. But the intention of the
Prophet is totally different; for he means that hills, which were at a great distance from a crowded
population, and which could not be approached without much difficulty, will be fit for pasturage, on
account of the great number of men who go thither; that is, because men will betake themselves to desert
mountains, which formerly were inaccessible, there will be no need to be afraid of briers, (116) for there
will be abundance of inhabitants. Now, this is a most wretched state of things, when men cannot escape

137. death but by resorting to thorns and briers; for he means hillsformerly desolate and uncultivated, in which
men shall seek a residence and abode, because no part of the country will be safe. Thus he describes a
distressful and melancholy condition of the whole country, and destruction so awful that the aspect of the
country shall be altogether different from what it had formerly been.
When he foretold these things to King Ahaz, there can be no doubt that Ahaz despised them; for that
wicked king, relying on his forces and on his league with the Assyrians, settled, as it were, on his lees, as
soon as the siege of the city was raised. But Isaiah was bound to persevere in the discharge of his office,
in order to show that there was no help but from God, and to inform the wretched hypocrite, that his
destruction would come from that quarter from which he expected his preservation.
(116) “ shepherds shall be under no apprehension of finding on those hills hedges of briar and thorn, to
interrupt the free range of their flock.” — Rosenmuller
Footnotes:
a. Isaiah 7:2 Or has set up camp in
b. Isaiah 7:3 Shear-Jashub means a remnant will return.
c. Isaiah 7:14 The Hebrew is plural.
d. Isaiah 7:14 Or young woman
e. Isaiah 7:14 Masoretic Text; Dead Sea Scrolls son, and he or son, and they
f. Isaiah 7:14 Immanuel means God with us.
g. Isaiah 7:23 That is, about 25 pounds or about 12 kilograms
New International Version (NIV)
Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica,
Inc.®Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.