I. Introduction
II. Isaiah Chapter Seven Commentary Verses
7:1-9-Civil War in the Days of Ahaz
7:10-16-The Immanuel Prophecy|The Divinity-consciousness of Immanuel and the Knowledge of Good and Evil
7:17-25-I Will Punish Their Transgression with the Rod and Their Iniquity with Stripes
Figure 1 The Nations around Judah and Israel c. 830 BC
Figure 2 Immanuel Incipient Divinity Consciousness
English to Hebrew Character Mapping
Our purpose is to render a commentary on Isaiah chapter seven. This chapter finds Assyria rolling, looming large and foreboding, like a line-storm rolling south and west into the Levant. And reactions to this storm by both God's people and otherwise catalyze many of the particulars that our Existent God Jehovah a priori revealed through His prophet Isaiah. We find in this chapter Israel and Syria individually vexing Judah, and finally uniting in solidarity in effort to bring Judah into league with themselves. We are told of Judah's great fear over this and its quite secular, compromising response, in spite of God's revelations in this. In spite of His revelations assuring Judah that His promises to David would stand, and therefore that Judah would stand. In spite of God's promises to Judah that He would be with them, by their side, which promise had in view His Spirit-presence with them presently, preserving them in their predicament, and which promise had in view also His physical presence with them ultimately—the Immanuel prophecy—the promise of His physical presence among them in the day of His visitation, which depended on the fulfillment of the former promise of His Spirit-presence preserving Judah. Here are two consummations we fully realize and appreciate in our day. Praised be Jehovah God. The chapter ends with a warning to apostate Judah by way of the other part of God's promises to David—that He would visit their transgressions with the rod and their iniquity with stripes.
We will follow this format:
Verse of Scripture utilizing the YLT text followed by an NASB mouseover of that verse. Key words in the YLT text will be footnoted with a link to a word study based on the Hebrew text, and/or a general discussion relative to the given word. We are not biblical Greek or Hebrew scholars, please consider our grammatical constructions with a critical eye.
Commentary We shall be commenting on this passage keeping before us at all times the crucial fact that every jot and every tittle comprising these verses came forth under the inspiration of the blessed Holy Spirit. We pray that He, by His grace, helps us along the way.
YLT TEXT: And it cometh to pass in the days of Ahaz, son of Jotham, son of Uzziah, king of Judah [1], gone up hath Rezin [2] king of Aram [3], and Pekah [4], son of Remaliah, king of Israel, to Jerusalem, to battle against it, and he is not able to fight against it. And it is declared to the house of David, saying, 'Aram hath been led towards Ephraim [5],' And his heart and the heart of his people is moved, like the moving of trees of a forest by the presence of wind. And Jehovah saith unto Isaiah, 'Go forth, I pray thee, to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shear-jashub [6] thy son, unto the end of the conduit [7] of the upper pool [8], unto the highway of the fuller's [9] field, and thou hast said unto him: 'Take heed, and be quiet, fear not, And let not thy heart be timid, Because of these two tails of smoking brands [10], For the fierceness of the anger of Rezin and Aram, And the son of Remaliah. Because that Aram counselled against thee evil, Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, saying: We go up into Judah, and we vex it, And we rend it unto ourselves, And we cause a king to reign in its midst -- The son of Tabeal [11]. Thus said the Lord Jehovah [12]: It doth not stand, nor shall it be! For the head of Aram is Damascus, And the head of Damascus is Rezin, And within [12a] sixty and five years Is Ephraim broken [12b] from being a people. And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, And the head of Samaria is the son of Remaliah. If ye do not give credence [13], Surely ye are not stedfast [14].' (Isa 7:1-9, cf. Isa 7:1-9, NLT)
COMMENTARY-King Uzziah through God's mighty hand had done much good for Judah, both economically and militarily: “...By the mid-eighth century the dimensions of Israel [under Jeroboam II at this time (15)] and Judah together lacked but little of being as great as those of the empire of Solomon. Since full advantage seems to have been taken of the favorable position in which the country found itself, a prosperity unknown since Solomon ensued. The two states being at peace with each other, and the major trade routes—up and down Transjordan, into northern Arabia, along the coastal plain, into the hinterland from the Phoenician ports—all once more passing through Israelite-held territory, tolls from caravans, together with the free interchange of goods, poured wealth into both countries...” […] “...In short, as the kingdoms of Israel and Judah reached the middle of the second century of their existence, they found themselves better off than they had ever been before. It was, superficially at least, a time of great optimism, and of great confidence in the promises of God for the future...” (cf. 2Ki 14:21-22, 2Chr 26:9,11-15; Bright 258-59). Together with the Assyrian threat in the north, such is the setting for Israel and Judah a couple of decades or thereabouts before the time of our passage.
What precipitated the change in national relations from that just outlined to one of hostility? “... And it cometh to pass in the days of Ahaz, son of Jotham, son of Uzziah, king of Judah, gone up hath Rezin king of Aram, and Pekah , son of Remaliah, king of Israel, to Jerusalem, to battle against it...” Pekah, according to John Bright, represented that element in Israel that sought to resist the Assyrian advances; he, along with Rezin, were the leaders in a coalition that sought to do just that—to resist Assyria's tribute-wearying domination of the Levant. In this view, the crux is that this coalition sought Judah, a formidable (thanks to Uzziah under the hand of God) potential threat to its south to join it (from a military perspective even a position of neutrality on the part of Judah would have been viewed as risky by the coalition); Judah at this time was ruled by Uzziah's son Jotham [1]. Importantly, Judah refused to join, desiring instead to hold a position of neutrality (certainly with an eye to maintaining their independence, which Jotham's father Uzziah had done much to establish). With Syria and Israel potentially “caught in a squeeze” between Assyria to the north and Judah to the south, Pekah/Israel and Rezin/Syria stepped up the pressure on Judah to join the anti-Assyrian coalition ( 2Ki 15:37). At this juncture Jotham died (732/31 BC, E. Thiele), and Ahaz, coregent with Jotham since 736/35, ascended the throne in Judah as sole ruler; he apparently intended to maintain Jotham's posture of neutrality, for he came under fire by the coalition as well. The coalition, individually hurting Judah (2Chr 28:5-7), was not in this manner accomplishing its purposes: “...and he is not able to fight against it [subdue it is meant we think]...” Lately unified: “...And it is declared to the house of David, saying, 'Aram hath been led towards Ephraim' ...”, they arrayed against Jerusalem intending to depose Ahaz, and put one sympathetic to their cause, one ben Tabeal, on the throne: “...We go up into Judah, and we vex it, And we rend it unto ourselves, And we cause a king to reign in its midst -- The son of Tabeal...” [16]. Dr. Bright points out that at this time the Edomites, who had been subject to Judah through most of the eighth century, regained their independence and appear to have joined the coalition in attacking Judah (2Chr 28:17, Bright 274), while the Philistines “raided the Negeb and the Shephelah ['Judean foothills', between Mount Hebron and the Coastal Plain], taking and occupying certain border towns.” Thus Judah was presumably attacked from three directions (Syria/Israel-north, Philistia-west, and Edom-south); and with the Dead Sea directly to its east, Judah was here boxed-in and in straits to be sure ( Fig. 1). So it comes as no surprise that Ahaz is beside himself in fear: “...And it is declared to the house of David, saying, 'Aram hath been led towards Ephraim,' And his heart and the heart of his people is moved, like the moving of trees of a forest by the presence of wind....”—“All in all, when the events of this chapter unfold, the nation of Judah had faced terrible calamity, and was devastated. As the combined armies of Israel and Syria approached Jerusalem, it looked like everything would be lost. Ahaz was challenged to trust God when things were bad, and it looked like soon, all would be lost” (Bright 273). Ahaz, a product of near three generations that knew much blessing (Uzziah->Jotham->Ahaz), having become indifferent and numb to intimacy with Jehovah God, was a bad king of Judah (updated 12/02/14, A.s.). He introduced pagan worship into the very temple of Jehovah God (2Ki 16:10-18), practiced idolatry (one of the first signs that one's seeking intimacy with Jehovah God is waning or is outright lost), and even sacrificed his son to the little god/s he feared in lieu of fearing Jehovah God (2Ki 16:2-3). And there's the problem—a holy Fear of the Lord; a lack of the Fear of God is folding back on Ahaz here (Gal 6:7-8). That is why he is shaking and trembling in fear before the mortals Rezin and Pekah and their armies: “...And his heart and the heart of his people is moved, like the moving of trees of a forest by the presence of wind. ...”—God specifically points out this misplaced fear to him: “...For the head of Aram is Damascus, And the head of Damascus is Rezin, And within sixty and five years Is Ephraim broken from being a people. And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, And the head of Samaria is the son of Remaliah...” (cf. Isa 7:8-9, NLT). From (1) no intimacy with Jehovah God follows (2) no fear of the Lord—and then must needs follow (3) fear of everything else in and under the heavens. Now the One to be feared, the Eternal Mind, the Logos that created the universe, and holds the same in the palm of His holy, pierced hand (Hbr 1:3), as a play thing no less, He who knows the beginning from the end (“The Alpha and the Omega”), speaks a word of Calm to Ahaz by way of His prophet: “...And Jehovah saith unto Isaiah, 'Go forth, I pray thee, to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shear-jashub thy son, unto the end of the conduit of the upper pool, unto the highway of the fuller's field, and thou hast said unto him: 'Take heed, and be quiet, fear not, And let not thy heart be timid, Because of these two tails of smoking brands, For the fierceness of the anger of Rezin and Aram, And the son of Remaliah. Because that Aram counselled against thee evil, Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, saying: We go up into Judah, and we vex it, And we rend it unto ourselves, And we cause a king to reign in its midst -- The son of Tabeal. Thus said the Lord Jehovah: It doth not stand, nor shall it be! For the head of Aram is Damascus, And the head of Damascus is Rezin, And within sixty and five years Is Ephraim broken from being a people...” (red font added). Ahaz was a Godless secularist who queued-up his mind with a truncated reality—earthy, mundane, necessarily superstitious and so forth, a mind out of which he divined his peculiar truth. He could not, therefore, assess Truth, and thus he heard not said Calm in the storm, and therefore had no Basis upon which to believe, to have faith in, the Source of that Calm. Instead he, true to that truncated-reality-thinking that doggedly transcends generations and time, indeed, he true to that truncated-reality-thinking that, at least, believes that God neither is, nor, at most, that He acts, turned to the Assyrians for help (2Ki 16:7), smack in the face of God's willingness even to let him test His Word (imagine that) regarding the revealed positive outcome as we shall see in the next verse set. And thus disdaining Jehovah God, he personally was not established while his house, the house of David, was, even in spite of his iniquity, for our God Jehovah is faithful to His covenantal promises (Psa 89:30-33; already before David consider Gen 49:10): “...If ye do not give credence, Surely ye are not stedfast...” [again 14]. Praised be Jehovah God who is...and who acts... We praise Thee great Jehovah God.
YLT TEXT: And Jehovah addeth to speak unto Ahaz, saying: 'Ask for thee a sign [17] from Jehovah [12] thy God [18], Make deep the request, or make it high upwards.' And Ahaz saith, 'I do not ask nor try [17a] Jehovah.' And he saith, 'Hear, I pray you, O house of David, Is it a little thing for you to weary [19] men, That ye weary [19a] also my God? Therefore the Lord Himself giveth to you a sign, Lo, the Virgin [20] is conceiving, And is bringing forth a son [21], And hath called his name Immanuel [22], Butter [23] and honey he doth eat, When he knoweth to refuse evil, and to fix on good. For before the youth [24] doth know To refuse evil, and to fix on good, Forsaken is the land thou art vexed with, because of her two kings.(Isa 7:10-16, cf. Isa 7:10-16, NLT).
COMMENTARY-God is prepared to confirm His Word to Ahaz by performing a miracle: “...And Jehovah addeth to speak unto Ahaz, saying: 'ask for thee a sign'...”, and condescends even to do a dramatic one of Ahaz' choosing: “...'Make deep the request, or make it high upwards'...” Please store away this (God's) focus on the miraculous with respect to confirming His Word. God's willingness to perform this miracle is highly significant, not so much with respect to Ahaz and his truncated reality faith-complex vis-a-vis his predicament, though that has near term implications for Judah that are foreboding, but because the Immanuel prophecy soon uttered comes contextually therefore against the backdrop of the miraculous. It is worth restating the interplay in this context: (1) God, using both His eternal Name Jehovah and His mighty acts Name Elohim condescends to let Ahaz ask of Him a dramatic sign: '...Ask for thee a sign from the Existent One Jehovah, thy Mighty Elohim...'; (2) significantly, the Mighty One is prepared to perform a mighty act: “...Make deep the request, or make it high upwards...”; (3) and all this as a miraculous sign to confirm His Word regarding a dire predicament. So allow us to let this stand right here for the moment—we shall point back to it presently when we discuss the Immanuel prophecy. Well in response, Ahaz all of the sudden acts like some kind of a “pious pickle” (we borrowed that apropos identifier from Dr. McGee): “...'I do not ask nor try Jehovah'...”, which pretense of piety leads to God's utterance of one of the most remarkable and blessed of prophecies in Scripture: “...And he saith, 'Hear, I pray you, O house of David, Is it a little thing for you to weary men, That ye weary also my God? [starting here] Therefore the Lord Himself giveth to you a sign, Lo, the Virgin is conceiving, And is bringing forth a son, And hath called his name Immanuel'...” This sign was not meant for Ahaz personally because a sign was not needed in the first place but for Ahaz' sake—and of course he refused it, thus Ahaz did not receive a sign (updated 12/01/14, A.s.). The Eternal Mind did not waste His breath on Ahaz though when He offered a sign—upon Ahaz' refusing it He literally escalated it to the house of David to which Ahaz belonged (Mat 1:6-9): “...hear, I pray you, O house of David...” In fact, on the shoulders of His sign, God escalates His interests on two fronts: (1) from Ahaz, God escalates His interests to the whole house of David, and by default Messiah, and (2) from Ahaz' predicament, God escalates His interests to the whole house of David's predicament, which, escalated again, is the same as our (humankind's) predicament, all addressed by Messiah. And what of the escalating carrier, the sign? The sign would be a miraculous one (thus it escalates), which is clear also from the context—here we point back to the text we let stand. The context requires a miraculous conception: “...Lo, the Virgin is conceiving, And is bringing forth a son, And hath called his name Immanuel...”—this cannot be an ordinary conception, wherein a young woman, a virgin, in the natural way between a man and a woman, conceives, and then brings forth a child, else Jehovah God could easily be shown to have been quite irresolute in His initial offer to perform a dramatic, no less, sign (irresolute God is errant theologically; this needs no proof). So the sign (1) is a miraculous conception, not least keeping God's text (Word) crisp, announcing the birth of a son, whose name would be IMANU-EL-Immanuel, (2) all-in-all is meant for the house of David from which was expected Messiah, and yes, (3) it confirms God's Word concerning a dire predicament, even ours (Gen 3:15, Rom 6:23). So it goes without saying that we are given here some eight centuries before the fact a prophecy of the virgin-birth of the God-Man, the historical Jesus Christ (the historical YESHUA MASHIYACH), precious God with us. Praised be His Name. We praise Thee great savior God.
Next we are perhaps given some small insight into the timing of Immanuel's divinity-consciousness: “...Butter and honey he doth eat, When he knoweth to refuse evil, and to fix on good...” (the knowledge of good and evil, which Knowledge, reaching way back into eternity past, in its deepest and fullest sense, is singularly His, cf. Gen 2:9). We believe it is necessary here to carry forward the momentum surrounding Immanuel that the text has provided—that is to say, to carry forward the Immanuel-is-Jesus conclusion. To do otherwise would be errant theologically (we have the benefit of hindsight these days—the witness of the New Testament [Mat 1:18-23], updated 12/02/14, A.s.), and would break the inherent momentum, or flow of the text up to here. Therefore, we do not believe that these words refer to Shear-jashub, and certainly they refer not to some nebulous “Immanuel” that was born in Ahaz' court or more generally in Judah at or around that time. Per the text heretofore, they refer to Jesus Christ. Since He is eating butter and honey, the former rich in fat, it is in fact milk fat, and the latter laden with enzymes to facilitate assimilation of foodstuffs, and generally to enhance one's metabolism (raw honey that is), it is certain that He was past weaning (six months or so; note the general spiritual parallel to His brethren-Hbr 5:13-14, 2:17), but less than twelve years of age—the latter because by age twelve He was dazzling the learned students of Good and Evil—doctors of the great Law concerning the same (Luk 2:46-47, 51-52-notice the increasing wisdom of Luk 2:52: ”...KAI IHSOUS PROEKOPTEN EN TH SOFIA...”). So greater than say, six months and less than twelve years of age. Jesus in His humanity was a child prodigy, which fits the context (miraculous conception, fast and early cognizance of good and evil, which bespeaks of rapid development of inherent knowledge and extraordinary associative skills that partnered with this knowledge). We are given a little more information though that should help to narrow the high end possibilities: “...Butter and honey he doth eat, When he knoweth to refuse evil, and to fix on good. [starting here] For before the youth [Immanuel] doth know To refuse evil, and to fix on good, Forsaken is the land thou art vexed with, because of her two kings...” By focusing now on information from biblical and secular history we can narrow down the high end a little more—Assyria sacked Damascus in 732 BC and executed Rezin (2Ki 16:9); that same year Hoshea slew Pekah (2Ki 15:30) to become the last king of Israel. This means that the prophecy was not uttered after 732 BC—particularly for this reason: “...Forsaken is the land thou art vexed with, because of her two kings...”—those kings were gone after 732 BC—so it would be pointless to say this. Ahaz reigned from 735 to 715 BC. The prophecy was given in his reign. If we start the prophetic clock ticking in 732 BC, then there is a three year uncertainty in the date of utterance which has to be accounted for, because the utterance acts as a sort of fiducial, demarcating the onset of the dual (Rezin+Pekah) threat to Judah; the duration of the threat then is shown to track the good versus evil-consciousness of Immanuel in the text. Noting that ten years later (732-722 BC) Israel fell to the Assyrians, fulfilling the near prophecy, it is possible then, considering the three year uncertainty, that sometime after the age of ten (...”before the youth doth know...”), up to age thirteen, the God-Man, Jesus (Immanuel), had attained divinity-consciousness: “...For before the youth [Immanuel] doth know To refuse evil, and to fix on good, Forsaken is the land thou art vexed with, because of her two kings...” Our Lord's temple teaching improves the uncertainty, to give a possible range of after ten, but before twelve years of age [25] (Fig. 2). If correct, this sheds some light on His capacity to teach in the temple as a youth—please hear Him at age twelve (Luk 2:42, 46-47, 49, cf. Luk 2:49, NKJV, Luk 2:49, YLT—the latter translation, more literal, is truest to the Greek text in this case). Alternative views have Jesus attaining divinity consciousness at His baptism, or at His transfiguration, for example; our conclusion is but a possibility; it is a possibility that emerged from an analysis of the text at hand that is faithful to the view that from first to last the Immanuel prophecy has in view Jesus Christ, and Him only, and that is faithful to the view that from first to last the salient message of the Immanuel prophecy is the proclamation of the incarnation of Jehovah God.
YLT TEXT: Jehovah bringeth on thee, and on thy people, And on the house of thy father, Days that have not come, Even from the day of the turning aside of Ephraim from Judah, By the king of Asshur. And it hath come to pass, in that day, Jehovah doth hiss for a fly that is in the extremity of the brooks of Egypt, And for a bee that is in the land of Asshur. And they have come, and rested all of them in the desolate valleys, And in holes of the rocks, and on all the thorns, And on all the commendable things. In that day doth the Lord shave, By a razor that is hired [26] beyond the river, By the king of Asshur, The head, and the hair of the feet, Yea, also the beard it consumeth. And it hath come to pass, in that day, A man keepeth alive a heifer of the herd, And two of the flock, And it hath come to pass, From the abundance of the yielding of milk he eateth butter, For butter and honey doth every one eat Who is left in the heart of the land. And it hath come to pass, in that day, Every place where there are a thousand vines, At a thousand silverlings [27], Is for briers and for thorns. With arrows and with bow he cometh thither, Because all the land is brier and thorn. And all the hills that with a mattock are kept in order, Thither cometh not the fear of brier and thorn, And it hath been for the sending forth of ox, And for the treading of sheep!' (Isa 7:17-25, cf. Isa 7:17-25, NLT; consider Isa 6:8-13).
COMMENTARY-At issue throughout had been lack of faith in God's promise to David (Psa 89:20-21), and here God shows Ahaz the other part of that promise to David (Psa 89:30-32) which probably registered the same kind of indifference and/or lack of faith: “...Jehovah bringeth on thee, and on thy people, And on the house of thy father, Days that have not come, Even from the day of the turning aside of Ephraim from Judah, By the king of Asshur...” Ahaz, not predisposed to an intimate walk with Jehovah God, no doubt had little trouble trusting and worshiping the Assyrian gods (2Ki 16:10-18), probably for more than just diplomatic reasons (he was apparently not compelled to do so-Bright 276). And Judah under him was just as bad: “...Since Ahaz was, as all the evidence indicates, without real faith in or zeal for the national religion, he did not exert himself to keep the defenses against paganism otherwise intact. As 2Ki 16:3-4 alleges and as contemporary prophetic passages (e.g., Isa 2:6-8, 20, 8:19-20, Mic 5:12-14) indicate, native pagan practices flourished, together with all sorts of foreign fashions, cults, and superstitions...” […] “The reign of Ahaz was remembered by later generations as one of the worst periods of apostasy that Judah had ever known [the reign of his grandson Manasseh (697-643 BC) would be as bad]...” ( Bright 277). And so God here is but faithful to His promises. Though allying with Assyria saved the day (Isa 7:16, 8:4), the good quality of the long haul was compromised. Judah became a tributary vassal of Assyria when Ahaz appealed to them for help, and the cost was high (2Ki 16:7-8, 2Ch 28:20; independence was lost besides). The time would come when Egypt would align itself with Assyria in effort to stop the Babylonian advances (Babylon gained its independence from Assyria in 626 BC—thereupon Egypt started giving its support to Assyria); consider Pharaoh Neco II (610-594 BC) at the time Nabopolassar (c. 626-605 BC) ruled in Babylon, an alliance one of Judah's good kings tried to stop at the cost of his life (2Ki 23:29)—Josiah tried to stop this precisely for strategic reasons feared: “....And it hath come to pass, in that day, Jehovah doth hiss for a fly that is in the extremity of the brooks of Egypt, And for a bee that is in the land of Asshur. And they have come, and rested all of them in the desolate valleys, And in holes of the rocks, and on all the thorns, And on all the commendable things...” Thus in turn did Tiglath-pileser (745-727 BC; Assyrian; e.g., 2Ch 28:20), Sennacherib (705-681 BC; Assyrian; e.g., 2Ki 18:13ff; failed), Esar-haddon (681-669 BC; Assyrian; e.g., Ezr 4:2), and Nebuchadnezzar II (605-562 BC; Babylonian; 2Ki 24:1ff; the heavy blow) beset Judah, itself pinched between Assyrian interests generally to its north and Assyria's Egyptian ally in the south (2Ki 23:29): “... By a razor that is hired beyond the river, By the king of Asshur, The head, and the hair of the feet, Yea, also the beard it consumeth...” From head to toe so to speak, wholesale loss, including the beard (cf. 2Sa 10:4-5, Isa 50:6), the loss of which signified shame in the East. The picture is one of great loss and attendant shame. Specifically we are shown here that the land, upon which agrarian Judah depended so, would lie desolate, becoming a vast pasturage supporting cows and sheep and goats; and with the land depopulated (this is the inference), said cattle would produce an abundance of milk and butter (in His mercy our God leaves cracked a window when He locks tight all the doors): “...And it hath come to pass, in that day, A man keepeth alive a heifer of the herd, And two of the flock, And it hath come to pass, From the abundance of the yielding of milk he eateth butter, For butter and honey doth every one eat Who is left in the heart of the land...” And the vineyards, so valuable, turned to thorns and thistles: “...And it hath come to pass, in that day, Every place where there are a thousand vines, At a thousand silverlings, Is for briers and for thorns...” Thus desolate, where once were expensive, fine vines, becoming thorns and thistles, it is turned into a hunting ground, for wild beasts make it their home: “...With arrows and with bow he cometh thither, Because all the land is brier and thorn....” So dense this overlay of briers and thistles, so well rooted, none can work it let alone tread about there save oxen and sheep: “...And all the hills that with a mattock are kept in order, Thither cometh not the fear of brier and thorn, And it hath been for the sending forth of ox, And for the treading of sheep!'...” What a picture. Had Ahaz only trusted the Word of God... O let us trust Him, even when He has us pinched between this enemy and that one and altogether even another, for He is faithful to His promises to His own (Bible Promises Book, “A Letter of Invitation”).
Praised be Thy Name great Jehovah God, Thou our Elohim, our Immanuel; yea Thou, whom we love and adore and trust to the uttermost.
“A Letter of Invitation.”
Jesus, Amen.
< http://jesusamen.org/aletterofinvitation.html >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahaz >
“Aram” (biblical region).
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aram_%28biblical_region%29 >
“Ashurbanipal.”
Wikepedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashurbanipal >
The Compact Survey of the Bible.
Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1987.
Bible Promises Book, The: One Thousand Promises From God's Word.
International Bible Society.
Uhrichsville: Barbour Publishers, Inc. 1-55748-235-7.
Bible Study Tools.
Commentary on Isaiah Chapter Seven.
< http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/jamieson-fausset-brown/isaiah/isaiah-7.html
“Butter.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butter >
Blue Letter Bible.
Blue Letter Bible Linguistics Tools.
A History of Israel.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000.
“Edom.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edom >
“Esarhaddon.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esarhaddon >
Attribution and license: By Kingdoms_of_the_Levant_Map_830.xcf: *Kingdoms_around_Israel_830_map.svg: *Kingdoms_of_Israel_and_Judah_map_830.svg: *Oldtidens_Israel_&_Judea.svg: FinnWikiNoderivative work: Richardprins (talk)derivative work: Richardprins (talk)Kingdoms_of_Israel_and_Judah_map_830.svg: *Oldtidens_Israel_&_Judea.svg: FinnWikiNoderivative work: Richardprins (talk)derivative work: Dlv999 (talk)derivative work: Dlv999 [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (< http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0 >)], via Wikimedia Commons.
Our thanks to the author and the Wikimedia Commons.
“Firebrand.”
Wiktionary.
< http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/firebrand >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gihon_Spring >
Guzik, David.
Study Guide for Isaiah Chapter Seven.
Commentary on Isaiah Chapter Seven.
“Honey.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey >
“Hoshea.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoshea >
“Infants.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant >
“Jeroboam II.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeroboam_II >
“Josiah.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jotham_of_Judah >
wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidron_Valley >
Commentary on Isaiah Chapter Seven.
“Levant.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levant >
“Nabopolassar.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabopolassar >
“Necho II.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necho_II >
New Illustrated Bible Dictionary.
Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995.
Scripture quotations marked (NLT) are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004, 2007. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.
“O, That Name!”
Jesus, Amen.
< http://jesusamen.org/othatname.html >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pekah >
“Philistia.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistia >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pool_of_Siloam#Lower_pool >
Pratico, Gary D., and Miles V. Van Pelt.
Basics of Biblical Hebrew.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.
“Raw Honey Enzymes.”
Enzyme-facts.com.
< http://www.enzyme-facts.com/raw-honey-enzymes.html >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rezin >
“Sargon II.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargon_II >
“Sennacherib.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sennacherib >
“Shalmaneser V.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalmaneser_V >
“Shfela.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shfela >
“State Leaders in 730s BC.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_leaders_in_730s_BC >
“Syro-Ephraimite War.
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syro-Ephraimite_War >
“The Alpha and the Omega.”
Jesus, Amen.
< http://jesusamen.org/thealphaandtheomega.html >
“The Exodus Revealed.”
Discovery Media Productions.
Questar DVD. ISBN 1568557361.
“The Location of the Upper Pool.”
Biblical Archaeology Truth.
< http://www.biblicalarchaeologytruth.com/the-upper-pool.html >
“Tiglath Pileser III.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiglath-Pileser_III >
“Toddler.”
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toddler >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzziah >
Wikipedia.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weaning >
Wolfram Research.
Mathematica Drawing Tools.
The YLT is in the public domain.
1. Relevant regnal dates: Uzziah (coregent with Amaziah 792/91-768/67 BC, sole reign 768/67-751/50 BC, E. Thiele, “Uzziah”), Jotham (coregent with Uzziah 751/50-740/39 BC, sole reign 740/39-736/35, E. Thiele, “Jotham of Judah”), Ahaz (coregent with Jotham 736/35-732/31 BC; sole reign 732/31-716/15 BC, E. Thiele, “Ahaz”).
2. Rezin-Strong's H7526. king of Damascus (792-732 BC). With an eye to Isa 9:8-12, John Bright thinks that possibly Rezin along with certain of the Philistines sought to organize resistance to the Assyrian advances south and west into the Levant (he includes the Edomites in this coalition [Bright 272-74]; cf. 2Ch 28:16-19). Moreover Bright thinks that Rezin and this coalition viewed Pekah of Israel as one amenable to their plan (Bright 272). We suspect that Rezin was the ringleader of this coalition.
3 Aram-Strong's H758. Syria.
4. Pekah.-Strong's H6492. Second-to-last king of of the northern kingdom of Israel (737-732 BC; Bright, 273; cf. E. Thiele, “Pekah”). Prior, Menahem ben Gadi (745-737 BC) assuaged the Assyrians and moreover wooed their assistance so as to establish his “shaky throne” (2Ki 15:19), all by raising a sizable tribute for the Assyrian ruler Tiglath-pileser III; Menahem did this by way of a resented head tax on every landowner in Israel (Bright 271). When Menahem died, his son Pekahiah ascended the throne but briefly (737-736 BC), for straightaway Pekah, one of his military officers, slew him (probably with the support of certain overly taxed landowners in Israel as well as patriotic Israelites who coveted their independence [which by default was given away by his father Menahem by way of the tribute]); in this way Pekah usurped the throne in Israel (2Ki 15:25). It is reasonable to assume that the assassination of Pekahiah sent another message as well, one suggesting that Pekah would be resistant to Assyrian advances into Palestine.
5. Ephraim-Strong's H669. In context the northern kingdom of Israel (but note Hos 5:5, from which it is argued that “Israel” and “Ephraim” are distinct references).
6. Shear-jashub [thy son]-Strong's H7610. Literally “a remnant shall return.” The names of Isaiah's children were divinely appointed to serve as signs (Isa 8:18). In the near term, “Shear-jashub” probably pointed to the return of the two-hundred-thousand Judean captives taken to Samaria (2Ch 28:8-16-verse sixteen seems to indicate that the return had taken place and that Ahaz had already appealed to the Assyrians, or the appeal was well underway maybe; either way, the return would have been credited to God by Isaiah by way his son's divinely appointed name). We reckon that Ahaz disdained the presence of the boy though given his (Ahaz') stony heart toward God (no doubt he was intimately tethered elsewhere); that stony heart toward God is why he could not trust in God's promises to the house of David, a main theme of this chapter (2Ch 28:19).
7. Conduit-Strongs H8585. The Siloam channel/aqueduct.
8. [upper] Pool-Strong's H1295. Same as “old pool” (Isa 22:11), “king's pool” (Neh 2:14); it was no longer used after Hezekiah redirected the water to the western side of Jerusalem. Apparently the upper pool was an ancient rock-cut pool adjacent to the Gihon spring in the Kidron valley, which was an intermittent spring (Gihon derived from the verb GIAH, “to burst forth”; Gihon spring mentioned e.g. 2Ch 32:30, 33:14). The lower pool, the Pool of Siloam (mentioned e.g. Neh 3:15, Jhn 9:7, 11, “Pool of Siloam”), sourced by the spring and located inside Jerusalem at the southern end adjacent to the king's garden, was birthed as a means to stockpile water and make it available for the city when the spring did not flow (“The Location of the Upper Pool”, “Gihon Spring”; more generally Nelson's 1014f). It is a noteworthy theological aside that God placed the Gihon spring just outside what would become Jerusalem—His chosen Redemption-site—seeing that the spring would be the main reason (crucial life-sustaining fresh water made accessible in those parched environs) that Jerusalem and its predecessor city/s became established there. In short, it is not a random happenstance of geology that the Gihon spring is where it is. We are somewhat reminded of the land-bridge that God built from the eastern coast of the Sinai Peninsula at Pi-hahiroth (=Mouth of the Gorges-Exd 14:2, 9, cf. Num 33:7) across the Gulf of Aqaba (the right arm of the Red Sea=Yam Suph) to biblical Midian (northwestern Saudi Arabia, cf. Gal 4:25) in order to facilitate the Exodus upon His miraculous parting of the waters.
9. [highway of the] Fuller's [field]-Strong's H3526. A suitable location for laundering. Near the upper pool (note eight) but probably lower down (south) along the Kidron valley would be a convenient location for laundering activities (the Kidron valley trends largely north-south through the Gihon spring to the Dead Sea; it runs between the Mount of Olives and Jerusalem). The context suggests that this laundering location was a well-known one. As other commentators have pointed out, Ahaz was probably to be found there (“...the end of the conduit of the upper pool, unto the highway of the fuller's field...”) because he was working out a means to secure his city's water from the enemy.
10. [tails of smoking] Brands-Strong's H181. Like a match head exhausted, smoldering, smoking on a stub of a matchstick; an explosive flash but for an instant, yet substantively of no account; a mere flame-out. What seems like a consuming, explosive inevitability is but briefly a flash, soon on a smoking stub of naught, when God steps into the gap on one's behalf. This smoking brand analogy was meant to strengthen Ahaz' faith in God's promises to the house of David.
11. [son of] Tabeal-Strong's H2870. Probably someone from a house sympathetic to the anti-Assyrian coalition.
12. [Lord] Jehovah-Strong's H136. The great I Am, eternal. In context, Jehovah who knows the ambitions and devices and thoughts of peoples; Jehovah who frustrates, or not, the ambitions and devices and thoughts of peoples, in a manner consistent with His divine justice, and for His far-reaching, vast, and holy Name's sake, which Name is illumined by His sovereign will. In this context that sovereign will determined that Messiah would come through the line of David, and thus the house of David must stand until such time.
12a. Within [sixty-five years]-BIO''R—(bet::ayin::holem waw::resh—(character map). The Septuagint has ETI here “yet/still” (cf. Gen 40:13 with the same Greek and Hebrew constructions and somewhat the same meaning: '...restored within three days...'; reference Isa 7:8). Using the reign of Ahaz as a time marker (735-715 BC), this would put the loss of identity (“people broken”) somewhere between 735-65=670 BC and 715-65 =650 BC. But why would omniscient God employ a “window” in His prophecy: “...within sixty-five years...”—sounds sort of mundane-science-like? Perhaps as follows: Already in 722 BC the northern kingdom was sacked by Assyria and its people assimilated into the Assyrian empire (2Ki 17:6). it is likely that, as a people, Israel was not broken until sometime within the revealed sixty-five year period, for likely God is saying that this identity would diffuse away in said revealed time. After the deportation, Israel melded into the fabric of humanity, ultimately never to be distinctly heard from again (collectively the ten tribes that is), though politically as a nation Israel was broken earlier (this is the natural, to be expected sequence of identity loss—politically first, then ultimately as a people—as you can see, secular history can date the former, but only omniscient God can date the latter). There can be little doubt that by 650 BC Israel proper had lost its identity and was broken as a people (this verse of revelatory Scripture therefore allows us to approximately date the end of that otherwise nebulous diffusion). Israel's identity diffused away while they were dispersed in the medium of nations, and this appears to be why God necessarily utilizes a window in this revelation—diffusion necessarily takes time. Note again that the diffusion actually began in 722 BC after the nation was broken politically, which gives somewhere between fifty-two and seventy-two years worth of diffusion (722-670=52, 722-650=72)—which, worst case, translates reasonably to about two generations worth of diffusive identity loss. The Jewish people afterward owe their identity to pristine, if you will, Judah, from which came the blessed One, even our Messiah, Yeshua.
12b. Broken-Strong's H2865. A people are broken when their identity is completely lost—this is consummate brokenness, for a people might recover from material and physical and even spiritual losses, but when their identity is lost, there can be no recovery. Verbal usage is Niphal (simple action, reflexive/passive voice), imperfect (the action is incomplete, thus ongoing); note the imperfect. Ever since the Israeli state was established in1948 these people (Israel, Judah) have migrated back to their homeland, thus Jeremiah's prophecy concerning them may now be realized (Jer 31:31-33-that new covenant we believe is the New Covenant Gospel centered on Jesus Christ [YESHUA MASHIYACH]).
13. [give] Credence-Strong's H539. Believe and obey in faith. Verbal usage is Hiphil (causative action, active voice), imperfect. Catch the requisite depth of faith attending the imperfect.
14.[not] Stedfast-Strong's H539. [not] Be established in context. Verbal usage is Niphal, imperfect. Here we have a change in action and voice from the same verb in note thirteen—reflexive is good in context—sort of an “if-then” folding back on Ahaz in one way or the other: '...if you do not believe and obey, then you (not your house, for the house of David was to stand by God's oath to David) will not be established...', which reads to us like a warning in the negative option that his reign would be a troubled one in the near term (while he drew still breath) and a shameful, unforgettably regrettable one in the long term (on into eternity future after his decease).
15. W. F. Albright dates his reign 786 –746 BC, whereas E.Thiele has him coregent with Jehoash 793-782 BC and sole ruler 782-753 BC. The northern kingdom of Israel flourished under Jeroboam II.
16.Given the combined strength of Judah and Israel per the not too distant efforts of Uzziah and Jeroboam II respectively, and given Syria and Philistia and Edom's support, and perhaps even Egypt (though Egypt was declining), one can appreciate that these nations together might well have posed a considerable deterrent to Assyrian advances into the Levant. Judah being geographically sort of in the middle of the mix here certainly would have upset the plans of such a coalition by declining to join, for what if Judah were to turn on them while powerful Assyria in great wrath swarmed them from the other direction (Fig. 1)?
17.Sign. Strong's-H226. Ahaz is very afraid because his truncated reality informs his rationale, which does not, therefore, understand supernatural intervention to be a viable alternative that could favorably alter his predicament, so God is prepared to sober his rationale with a miracle—the very article that gives expression to his unbelief here (!). From all indications Ahaz seems to have rejected the sign out of a pietistic pretense, which would indicate how really frivolous and of no account the God behind that sign was in his thinking. Stepping back a bit—one sees that the general outcome was fixed though (Judah would stand), with or without a miraculous sign, and irrespective of what Ahaz did—God's sovereign will is bigger than the individual particulars (which are oftentimes complexly intertwined) by which it is achieved.
17a. Try.-Strong's H5254. To put to the test. Verbal usage is Piel (intensive action, active voice), imperfect.
18. [thy] God-Strong's H430. Elohim is used; above we had Jehovah (The great I AM; the Existent One; note twelve). Elohim is God's creation Name (Gen 1), His mighty acts Name. This usage is fitting in a context that has Isaiah trying to impress upon Ahaz God's transcendence over circumstances—even Ahaz' predicament, His sovereignty in the universe, His power to act, and so forth. Notice too that Isaiah calls God his God—suggesting to Ahaz that what he Isaiah is saying to Ahaz comes from one with firsthand knowledge of the things of God of which he is relating, for he knows his God personally, intimately. Isaiah is doing everything humanly possible to bring Salvation to Ahaz, for were Ahaz to turn to God in faith, Isaiah's (God's) entire program with Ahaz per se in this chapter would be accomplished.
19. Weary [men]-Strong's H3811. Exhaust one with unmitigated bullheadedness in the face of one's well-intended and repeated address and guidance concerning the course of a matter. Verbal usage is Hiphil, infinitive (here as a verbal noun [infinitive construct]).
19a. Weary [also God]-Strong's H3811. Now one can bullheadedly exhaust another in the face of their good address and guidance as said above (note 19), but when this sort of response is directed toward God, the end is offense (implied Sin) besides. Verbal usage is Hiphil, imperfect (!) this time.
20. Virgin. Strongs-H5959. A young woman who is a virgin. The Septuagint has here PARQENOS (literally, “virgin”): “...IDOU hH PARQENOS EN GASTRI hEXEI...”
21. Son. Strong's-H1121. The Son of the virgin Mary (Luk 1:30-35), the Son of David, the Son of Man, the Son of God, the Beloved Son. Beautiful and elegant in this context is Isaiah 9:6. We say Son of David, yet we have no genealogy of Mary, only of Joseph (Mat 1:6-11, 12-16, Luk 3:23-38). How can we be sure Mary was a Judahite (and thus Jesus, in the flesh, through Mary, through Father God [Luk 1:35])? Because her husband Joseph was a Judahite, in fact of the house of David, she was too, by Old Testament norms requiring marrying within one's tribe, indeed, within the family of one's tribe, specifically for inheritance purposes (Num 36:6-8). Moreover, since Mary and Elizabeth were cousins (Luk 1:36, KJV; quite literally, they were kin [SUGGENHS]), Elizabeth being a Levite (Luk 1:5), it fits our context that Mary was descended from Judah, levi's brother. Mary was a Judahite (Luk 1:36-39, note verse thirty-nine), (updated 12/02/14, A.s.).
22. Immanuel. Strong's-H6005. Literally “with us”-IMANU [is] “God”-EL—“with us [is] God”. With us is Jesus Christ (Jhn 16:28, 14:16-18).
23. Butter. Strong's-H2529. Butter, curdled milk (cheese, yogurt)—the latter has milk proteins getting tangled up into solid masses—it is the consequence of fermentation driven by the addition of an acid, like that of lemon juice or vinegar.
24. Youth. Strong's-H5288. Can be used of a new-born (Exd 2:6) or of one up to age about twenty (Gen 34:19).
25. In this analysis, the focus is on how the predicted outcome of the war sheds light on Immanuel, and not on how Immanuel sheds light on the predicted outcome of the war. Immanuel is given exegetical import and priority (cf. same author Isaiah-Isa 8:3-4-wherein the conception and naming and birth and prophecy are very different compared to the Immanuel prophecy).
26. Hired. Strong's-H7917. As did Ahaz hire the Assyrians in lieu of trusting God's promises to David and in spite of all the wonderful and longsuffering reinforcements thereof by His prophet, so does God here hire them too (!), as a razor (Gal 6:7), by which to visit Judah's transgressions and their iniquity.
27. Silverlings. Strong's-H3701. Shekels.
|
A-->ALEF |
B-->BET |
G-->GIMEL |
D-->DALET |
H-->HE |
W-->WAW |
Z->ZAYIN |
|
CH-->HET |
T-->TET |
Y-->YOD |
K-->KAF |
L-->LAMED |
M-->MEM |
N-->NUN |
|
S-->SAMEK |
I-->AYIN (Capital i) |
P-->PE |
TS-->TSADE |
Q-->QOF |
R-->RESH |
SS-->SIN |
|
SH-->SHIN |
TH-->TAW |
|||||
|
a-->PATHACH |
e-->SEGHOL |
i-->HIREQ |
o-->QAMETS HATUF |
u-->QIBBUTS |
||
|
a'-->QAMETS |
e'-->TSERE |
o'-->HOLEM |
||||
|
a''-->QAMETS HE |
e''-->TSERE YOD |
;-->SEGHOL YOD |
i''-->HIREQ YOD |
o''-->HOLEM WAW |
U''--> SHUREQ |
|
|
a'''-->HATEPH PATHACH |
e'''-->HATEPH SEGHOL |
o'''-->HATEPH QAMETS |
Legend: black= primitive consonants; red and magenta= weak primitive consonants—red =weak guttural primitive consonants, magenta=weak guttural primitive consonants sometimes; blue =vowels: short, changeable long, unchangeable long, reduced, on a per row basis top to bottom.