7:1–2 Ahaz’s immediate predecessors are likely mentioned in order to emphasize the Davidic dynasty, a key element of this chapter. Thus the message is to be heard by the “house of David.” Ahaz is important primarily as the representative of David’s house, for whom the decisions he makes will be of enormous importance. This will help us to understand the Immanuel prophecy later. The name “Ephraim” is used often in the prophets as a synonym for the northern kingdom of Israel. The news of the impending invasion causes panic in the royal court.

7:3 Unlike his grandson Hezekiah (36:1–2),20 Ahaz does not seek out the prophet in the face of a crisis. Rather, much as Yahweh sends Elijah to confront King Ahab (1 Kings 18:1), so too here he sends the prophet to the king. The “conduit of the upper pool” is where Jerusalem’s above-ground water supply is especially vulnerable. Isaiah does not come alone; he brings a visible sign of the remnant, his son Shear-jashub, whose name means “A remnant shall return” (ESV mg.). This name symbolizes both judgment and mercy: only a remnant will survive, but that remnant will return, and from it will come abundant life.

7:4 Ahaz is told, in effect, to stand still and see the salvation of the Lord rather than playing politics. The enemies he fears are burnt-out embers who cannot stand before the blazing fire of Yahweh’s holiness. Is Ahaz prepared to trust God’s promises, or will he substitute trust in his skill in international diplomacy?

7:5–8 Isaiah cuts the threat down to size by refusing to mention the invaders’ names, simply promising that the plans they devise will not succeed. The fate of both Syria and Ephraim is to be crushed by Assyria; indeed, Ephraim will shortly be deported and cease to be a people at all. Thus will perish the grandiose schemes of the nations, for the Lord has spoken.

7:9 Why are the heads of Syria and Israel mentioned here? Probably to question who truly is the head of Judah. Jerusalem is the city of the great King, the place of David’s throne, and it is to David that the promise of an eternal dynasty was given (2 Sam. 7:16). This links directly to the challenge to Ahaz to stand firm in faith. If Ahaz goes the way of worldly alliances, he will surely sink in a quagmire rather than having a rock under his feet. But it is not only Ahaz who must have faith: the verbs are plural, calling the leadership and thus the entire nation to trust Yahweh.

7:10–11 The Lord speaks again to Ahaz; the omission of Isaiah’s name shows that the messenger is less important than the message. Yahweh seeks to help Ahaz’s faith by promising him a sign to confirm the spoken word. Ahaz can choose anything throughout the universe, from the deepest depths to the highest heights. He will have none of it, however.

7:12 Ahaz uses the language of piety, but he is insincere. It is Yahweh who has promised a sign, not Ahaz who has asked for one, so it can hardly be putting the Lord to the test to accept his offer. If Yahweh gives him a sign, it will be difficult for Ahaz not to accept it. But Ahaz has already made up his mind. He is no more interested in Yahweh’s guidance than Ahab was in hearing a true word about a course of action on which he had already decided (1 Kings 22:5–28).

7:13 Again this word is addressed not to Ahaz personally but to the house of David—whose future at this moment is looking decidedly shaky, with an unbelieving king and an idolatrous nation. Ahaz is a nasty piece of work who has introduced idolatry on a grand scale, including even the inhuman practice of child sacrifice (2 Kings 16:3–4). How can David’s dynasty succeed or even survive?

7:14 The great Immanuel prophecy is introduced by “therefore,” which shows that, while the promise is ultimately good news, in the short term it represents judgment on Ahaz and is far from good news for him.22 Ahaz has refused the way of faith—just as Immanuel is rejected by his own people (John 1:11). This is an early example of what Simeon says when he holds Immanuel in his arms: “This child is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is opposed” (Luke 2:34). Some interpreters hold to a double fulfillment of this prophecy, both in a son of Isaiah and/or Ahaz and also in Jesus the Christ. But this commentary holds that there is no need to look for a fulfillment of this sign in Ahaz’s time, since it is a sign for the continuing Davidic dynasty. This does not mean, however, that there are no glimpses of Immanuel, notably in the great reforming kings Hezekiah and Josiah. These only impel us to the future, however, for both these kings, godly as they are, prove to be weak humans.

“Behold” draws attention to the importance of what follows. Many dispute the translation of ʿalmah as “virgin,” arguing that the word simply means “young woman” and that betulah would have been the normal word for “virgin.” However, betulah, unless otherwise qualified, would simply mean “girl of marriageable age.”23 In Isaiah’s time an unmarried girl would be assumed to be a virgin, unless there was evidence to the contrary.24 As already mentioned, there are to be glimpses along the way that point to Immanuel: the virgin is glimpsed in Daughter Zion, of whom Mary is part of the faithful remnant whose hopes center on Immanuel. Thus while the passage points ultimately to the virgin birth, like the other prophecies it remains a mystery until the events unfold.

The title Immanuel does not occur in the Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7) but is consistent with the flow of thought there, as may be seen from Psalm 2, where the Davidic king is called “son of God.” When Immanuel comes, “God with us” is more than a fine-sounding theological term; in Jesus, God becomes one of us and is one of us still.

7:15–17 The boy Immanuel will grow up in poverty. Curds and honey are the food of the poor. When Mary and Joseph take the baby Jesus to the temple, they offer “a pair of turtle doves” (Luke 2:24), evidence of a family that cannot afford a lamb. His life will be marked by refusing evil and choosing good, which contrasts sharply with Ahaz’s choosing the way of evil and unbelief.

Some may argue that Isaiah 7:16 suggests the Immanuel prophecy will be fulfilled within the next few years through the fall of Damascus and then Assyria. The question turns on the sense given to the infinitive of the verb “to know” used here. Most translations, including the ESV, give it a temporal reference, but it is possible to see a causal reference (i.e., the child eats curds and honey “so that he may know” how to refuse evil). This fits with the picture of the servant’s growing up “like a root out of dry ground” (53:2). The land Syria and Israel seek to invade will become desolate, and Assyria (7:17) will be the agent of that destruction. It will be after that destruction that Immanuel will appear and bring the exile to an end. The message is of judgment to Ahaz and beyond, eventually including the whole house of David. The land will be desolate and the tree cut down, but in its root is life that will one day flourish abundantly.

One obvious difficulty of this interpretation is that if there is no dual fulfillment, it is difficult to see how this could be a sign to Ahaz. The solution is perhaps related to his pious-sounding words (v. 12) in which he says he will not ask or put the Lord to the test. This is not faith but unbelief; Ahaz has no intention of listening to Yahweh. If he had, he could easily inquire further, but in failing to do so he shows he is not interested in discovering the meaning of the sign. A comparison might be found in Matthew 13, where Jesus speaks in parables to the crowds so that they will not understand (Matt. 13:13), seeing this as a fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14–15. The crowds there, like Ahaz here, have already rejected the message. On the other hand, Isaiah, like the disciples, while not fully understanding, realizes that the Immanuel prophecy promises that God will intervene decisively, although the time of that intervention is unknown.

7:18–19 To Yahweh, the superpowers of Egypt and Assyria are simply swarming insects, no more than flies and bees, completely at his beck and call. That is why it is stupid for Judah to look to Egypt for help (31:1) or for Ahaz to trust Assyria. Yahweh is Lord of history and of the world and everything in it. The invader will occupy every part of the land, whether steep and inhospitable territory or pastureland.

7:20 Not only the land but the people will be devastated; the metaphor of a razor shows how thorough this will be. Head and feet imply totality: the people as well as the land will be totally devastated. It is possible that “feet” is a euphemistic allusion to genitals and may imply emasculation and humiliation.

7:21–22 There will be poverty and “curds and honey.” Arable farming will probably be impossible because of the invaders’ ruining the land, which will have limited supplies of dairy as an impoverished people ekes out a miserable existence scavenging for wild honey. How different this is to the original promise of a land “flowing with milk and honey” (Ex. 3:8) and with the gospel promise of abundant wine and milk (Isa. 55:1)!

7:23–25 The vineyard recalls 5:5–6, while “briers and thorns” point further back to the curse of the fall (Gen. 3:18). The land will be hostile, and “with bow and arrows a man will come there,” suggesting the need of protection from predators, human and animal alike. Repetitive labor with a hoe will be fruitless because of the tangled overgrowth, and cattle and sheep will be let loose to salvage whatever they can.