Chapter Seven

1–9. Isaiah’s meeting with the Judean king Ahaz and his prophecy concerning the fate of the Syrian and Israelite kingdoms. 10–25. The sign given by the prophet to the house of David and the prediction of the calamitous fate of the Judean state.

Isa 7:1-9. During the reign of Ahaz, king of Judea, Jerusalem began to be threatened by the kings of Syria and Israel, who had formed an alliance with each other. In Jerusalem, active preparations began for the coming siege, as the attack of the united armies appeared very dangerous to the king and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. At this time, the prophet Isaiah came forward to the king with a word of encouragement and pointed to the impotence of the conspirators to cause serious harm to Judea and the swift destruction that awaited them.

Isaiah 7:1. And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz, son of Jotham, son of Uzziah, king of Judea, that Rezin, king of Syria, and Pekah, son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went against Jerusalem to capture it, but they could not capture it. Isaiah 7:2. And it was reported to the house of David and said: The Syrians have taken their stand in the land of Ephraim; and his heart was alarmed, and the heart of his people, like the trees of the forest shaken by the wind. Even in the last years of Jotham, Pekah, king of Israel, and Rezin, king of Syria, began their joint hostile actions against the kingdom of Judea (2 Sam 15:37). At the beginning of Ahaz’s reign (around 735 BC), the danger to the Judean kingdom from these kings became even greater, as the Syrians and Israelites were now advancing directly on Jerusalem. Their purpose, in all probability, was to compel the Judean king to join the coalition which the small states of Syria, supported by Egypt, had formed against the king of Assyria, who was by then already threatening to subjugate all of Syria. The allies probably wanted to depose Ahaz, who did not sympathize with their plans, from the throne of Judea and put in his place some son of Tabeel. In particular, the entire house of David was terrified when news arrived that the Syrians (having already passed through eastern Palestine and made a treaty with the Edomites and other southern peoples, and having seized the harbor of Elath on the Red Sea 2 Sam 16:6) had moved up along the Mediterranean coast to the north, into the region of the kingdom of Israel, and there encamped, threatening Jerusalem.

Isaiah 7:3. And the Lord said to Isaiah: Go out now, you and your son Shear-jashub, to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the fuller’s field, Ahaz, in expectation of the siege of Jerusalem, was inspecting the aqueduct that supplied the entire city with water. This aqueduct began at the Upper Pool (the pool of Siloam, situated in the upper pool), very large, from which water was conducted by an underground passage throughout the city and flowed into another pool, which was later called the Pool of Hezekiah. Isaiah was to go to Ahaz with his son, whose name was Shear-jashub (the remnant shall return), a symbolic name: it signified the judgment of God awaiting the Judean kingdom, from which only a small remnant might be preserved. Meanwhile, Isaiah’s own name (the Lord will save) pointed to the possibility of mercy, and the king was thus given a choice: what he desired—judgment or mercy from God. The judgment threatened Ahaz because he, contrary to God’s will (Ps 145:3), placed his trust not in the Lord—the true King of Israel—but in the Assyrian ruler Tiglath-Pileser, to whom he had already sent an embassy requesting help against the kings of Syria and Israel (2 Sam 16:7-8).

Isaiah 7:4. And say to him: Take heed and be calm; do not fear, and do not let your heart be dismayed by these two smoking firebrands, by the fierce anger of Rezin and the Syrians and the son of Remaliah. Isaiah 7:5. Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah scheme evil against you, saying, Isaiah 7:6. Let us go up against Judea and tear it apart, and let us make a breach in it for ourselves, and set the son of Tabeel as king in the midst of it. Both allied kings are represented to the prophet as charred firebrands that can no longer burn as they should, but only smoulder and smoke.

1 Samuel 20:27. “The son of Tabeel” — a contemptuous name without a proper name (cf. 1 Sam. 20:27, where Saul, speaking of David his rival, calls him simply the son of Jesse). In all likelihood, this was some Syrian prince (prince — in Syrian tab — Heb. tob, meaning good). Isaiah 7:7. But the Lord God says thus: It shall not come to pass, and it shall not be. Isaiah 7:8. For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within sixty-five years Ephraim shall cease to be a people; Isaiah 7:9. And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is the son of Remaliah. If you do not believe, surely you shall not be established. The Lord announces through the prophet to Ahaz that neither the king of Syria nor the king of Israel shall gain possession of Judea, but shall remain—and for no long time—masters only of their former possessions. The kingdom of Israel is threatened with complete destruction within 65 years. This prophecy most likely refers not to the destruction of Samaria, which followed soon thereafter, about 13 years after this prophecy was uttered (723 BC), but to the deportation to Assyria of the remaining population of the kingdom of Israel and the settlement of the devastated territory of the former kingdom of Israel with colonists from Mesopotamia under the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (2 Sam 17 and following Ezra 4:2). Thus, the prophet apparently counts within these 65 years the 14 years of Ahaz’s reign plus 29 years of Hezekiah’s reign and plus 22 years of Manasseh’s reign. “If you do not believe.” The prophet notes Ahaz’s disbelief in his words and hints at the possibility of obtaining confirmation of the truth of what has just been said. Translation: “If you do not believe, then you shall not be established,” which is proposed here by newer interpreters, is rather unclear. Isa 7:10-16. Observing Ahaz’s disbelief in Isaiah’s words, God through the prophet offers Ahaz, for his persuasion, whatever sign he desires. However, Ahaz, having already decided upon a certain course of action, does not wish to enter into any obligation toward the Almighty and refuses the sign under a hypocritical pretext. Then the prophet, provoked by this obstinacy, proclaims from the Lord a sign which is to assure the dynasty of David of safety from the attacking enemies: a Virgin shall conceive a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel, and before this child Immanuel becomes capable of distinguishing between good and evil, Judea shall be completely free from enemies.

Isaiah 7:10. And the Lord continued to speak to Ahaz, saying, Isaiah 7:11. Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord your God: ask it either from the depths or from the heights. “And the Lord continued to speak.” The name Lord—Jehovah—is probably placed here instead of the name of the prophet, which originally may have been written in abbreviated form. “Ask for yourself a sign,” that is, some assurance that the prophet’s words will surely be fulfilled. “The Lord your God.” Ahaz was not yet a complete idolater: as is evident from verse 12, at that time he still outwardly acknowledged the true religion, although this did not prevent him from introducing into the worship of the Jerusalem temple the cults of foreign gods (2 Chr 28:2-4). In the depths or heights, that is, either from the realm of the underworld (the appearance of the dead) or from the heavenly spheres (a storm, hail, etc.).

Isaiah 7:12. And Ahaz said: I will not ask, and I will not tempt the Lord. Isaiah 7:13. Then Isaiah said: Hear now, house of David! Is it not enough for you to weary people, that you also weary my God? Ahaz, fearing that the prophet might fulfill his promise concerning the sign, refuses the sign under what appeared to him to be a plausible pretext. In reality, the passage from Deuteronomy which the king had in mind (Deut 6:16) contains a rebuke to the Hebrews for frequently demanding signs or miracles from God themselves. The prophet understands Ahaz’s disposition; he understands also that in his obstinacy, with which he rejects the prophet’s counsel, he is supported by other members of the house of David, and therefore, as a kind of punishment to Ahaz and to the entire house of David, the prophet himself pronounces a sign from God. Ahaz and his relatives have already sufficiently abused the patience of men, that is, of the prophets, by excluding them from any influence on the course of state affairs—now they dare not to accept direct assistance from the Lord Himself.

Isaiah 7:14. Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: behold, the Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel. “Therefore”—in Hebrew locben literally means: “because of this.” “Sign”—the Hebrew word “ot” standing here means in Sacred Scripture: 1) a miracle (Isa 38:7; Exod 4:8-9); 2) a symbolic sign or action to confirm some truth (Isa 20:3; Gen 9:13); 3) a natural event which, however, no one among men could have foreseen, and whose fulfillment gives assurance that another event, which it prefigures, will also be fulfilled (1 Sam 2:34; 1 Sam 10:1); and 4) events that serve, as it were, as the seal of the truth of events that occurred before them (Exod 3:12; Isa 37:30). In the present passage, “ot” has precisely the last meaning. The future event—the birth of the Messiah (Immanuel) from the royal house of David—must serve as proof and confirmation that on this occasion too the house of David shall not perish. But since this birth is a matter of the distant future and demands from Ahaz and his household all the strength of faith in the promises given to their ancestor David, the sign proclaimed by the prophet becomes, despite its comforting character, a hard trial for Ahaz, who was not distinguished by steadfastness in faith. Thus Ahaz is punished for refusing to obey God’s command. “Behold” or “lo”—in Hebrew hinneh. The prophet in his vision sees this distant future event as already happening (cf. Isa 42:1). “The Virgin”—in Hebrew haalmah. The article preceding almah shows that the prophet means one specific Virgin—unique of her kind. Is it not clear from this that the Virgin should be understood as the Most Holy Virgin Mother of God? This understanding is confirmed for us by the very meaning of the prophet’s discourse and by the most ancient translations of the Bible, as well as by the interpretations of the Fathers and teachers of the Church. The Hebrew word almah in itself does not here have decisive significance, as the very origin of this word is not established: some translate this term by the expression “hidden” (that is, a virgin concealed from the sight of men), deriving it from the verb alam, which, however, has a direct meaning entirely unsuitable here; others see in the word almah the designation of a growing young woman, deriving this name from another root—a lam, meaning: “to grow, to develop physically,” and in proof of the correctness of their translation they cite the use of the word almah in other places of the Bible (Gen 24:43; Exod 2:8; Ps 77 and others). In view of the obscurity of the origin and philological meaning of the word almah, the testimony of the most ancient translations of the Bible—the Septuagint and the Peshitta—acquires special weight. In the former, the word almah is rendered as παρθενος, which in the Septuagint means a virgin in the strictest sense of the word. In the latter, the same word is placed, which always designates a virgin. Then in the New Testament, the evangelist Matthew, recounting the immaculate, virginal conception of the Messiah, says that this was fulfilled in fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy (Matt 1:18-25). Clearly, the evangelist in this case is conveying the general opinion of his contemporaries, the Jews, regarding this disputed passage. The scholar Badham cites numerous passages from rabbinical writings and several allusions from Philo that testify that the miraculous birth of the Messiah was expected by the Jews as well (The Academy, 8 June, 1895, p. 485–487). Christian interpreters (even Protestants for a long time) also unanimously acknowledged that Isaiah here speaks of the Virgin, the Mother of the Messiah. Only in the eighteenth century did Protestant exegetes begin to argue forcefully that in our passage there are no indications of the virginal conception of the Messiah and the ever-virginity of His Mother, but their arguments lack sufficient foundation (see the work of Archpriest Nikolsky. The Prophecy of Isaiah concerning the Virgin and Immanuel—in the readings of the Society for the Promotion of Spiritual Enlightenment, 1885). The very context of the prophet’s discourse testifies that almah should mean an immaculate virgin who preserved her virginity even after conceiving her son. How else could such a purely miraculous, convincing, and comforting sign appear but as the event of the conception of a Son by a virgin. Since the king was called upon by the prophet to request as a sign whatever miracle he wished, the sign given by God Himself could be nothing less than the greatest miracle. From this it follows that the prophet, in speaking of the birth of the Messiah-God-man by a Virgin, could only mean an actual virginal, transcending the laws of nature, conception, and point to the virginity and ever-virginity of His Mother. And the prophet’s words should more accurately be rendered from the Hebrew thus: “behold, the virgin is with child.” The prophet in his prophetic vision sees the Virgin pregnant and yet still calls her a virgin! “Immanuel.” In the Hebrew language, the word Immanuel means: “God with us.” This name is not the proper name of the Messiah. Some understand it as pointing to the divine help which the Hebrews will receive in the danger which threatens them from the two allied kings (Jerome, Eusebius, and others). According to others, this name points to the qualities of the person to whom it is given, and means the God incarnate (Saint Irenaeus, Tertullian, Basil the Great, and others). It is better to combine both meanings of the word in the interpretation of this name, as Saint John Chrysostom does. As far as the first meaning of this word is concerned, all interpreters unanimously recognize the correctness of such interpretation. But regarding the second interpretation, accepted from ancient times by the Christian church, rationalistic exegetes for the most part express their distrust of it. Without entering into a discussion of these negative opinions, we shall present here the considerations by which the messianic meaning of this passage may be confirmed (messianic in the full sense of the word, when the Messiah is recognized as the incarnate Son of God). These considerations are as follows: 1) In chapter 8, verse 8, the land of Judea is called the land of Immanuel. Is it not clear from this that the prophet intended to designate by the word Immanuel the future Messiah? Moreover, from this one can derive the thought that this Messiah will have divine dignity, will be God incarnate. Indeed, in many other places, the true King and Lord of the land of Judea, according to Isaiah, is God Himself. Consequently, God and Immanuel are concepts of equal meaning for Isaiah; 2) In chapter 9 (verses 1–7), the Child who is to be born—surely from the house of David—appears already as the subject that raises no doubt and calls for no special explanation. From this it follows that the prophet’s hearers knew of His dignity sufficiently, as well as of His birth. But where could they have learned this from if the prophet were not speaking of Him when he predicted to the house of David the birth of Immanuel? It may be added to this that all the wonderful names of this Child mentioned in chapter 9 are conveniently summarized in the one name Immanuel. 3) The prophet Micah (Mic 5:1-5), prophesying about the birth of the Messiah, has in view, in all probability, the prophecies of Isaiah in Isa 7:14 and Isa 9:5-6 verses, and in him the Messiah is represented as existing from eternity (verse 1) and, consequently, as God incarnate. 4) The evangelist Matthew refers this prophecy of Immanuel to the conception of Christ from the Most Pure Virgin Mary (Matt 1:22-23). The evangelist does not merely apply the words of Isaiah to this event, does not merely compare Isaiah’s prophecy with the history of the birth of the Messiah, but clearly testifies that in the conception of Jesus Christ from the Most Pure Virgin the prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled—and that, consequently, Isaiah understood by Immanuel the true God, who was to appear on earth in the flesh of man. But how could this birth of the Messiah-God-man have been a sign for the time of the prophet Isaiah? Firstly, the prophet, in predicting the supreme blessing of God—the incarnation of the Son of God for the salvation of mankind—thereby wanted to say that the Jews and the house of David all the more may hope for a much lesser blessing—deliverance from the two allied kings. Secondly, the birth of the Messiah from the line of David necessarily presupposed that the designs of these two kings to overthrow and annihilate the dynasty of David would not be realized. The Patriarch Jacob clearly prophesied that until the birth of the Messiah, the scepter would not be taken from the house of Judah—and consequently, from the line of David (Gen 49:10).

Isaiah 7:15. He shall feed on milk and honey until He knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good; Isaiah 7:16. For before the Child will know how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land of which you are afraid will be abandoned by both its kings. Immanuel shall feed on milk and honey, which was very abundant in Palestine. The passage speaks, according to the opinion of ancient interpreters, of the fact that the Son of the Virgin will be a true human being, because He will eat the usual food of childhood (Saint Irenaeus, Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Basil the Great, and others). But the thought of human nature was not, of course, the chief thought of the prophet when he spoke of Immanuel as a sign from God. To understand the true meaning of verse 15, it is necessary to pay attention to verse 22, which is undoubtedly in close connection with verse 15. And in verse 22, the consumption of rich milk and honey appears as a sign of the desolation of the wheat fields by the enemy, in whose invasion it was impossible to till these fields. Consequently, in verse 15 also the prophet wants to speak of the desolation of the land of Judea, when the Hebrews would have to feed only on milk and honey. This desolation will last until the time when the One who is to be born from the Virgin, but even now, as it were, existing—Immanuel—like any ordinary infant, will not begin to show the ability to distinguish between good and evil, that is, until moral consciousness begins to manifest itself in Him. The period during which infants ordinarily do not manifest this consciousness lasts from two to three years. Consequently, the desolation of the land of Judea will last no more than three years from the time Isaiah uttered the prophecy of the birth of Immanuel. In verse 16, the time of Judea’s deliverance from the invasion of the allied kings is determined even more precisely. The prophet says that this deliverance will be accomplished before the deadline mentioned in verse 15, that is, within 2–3 years. The land or territory of the kingdoms of Syria and Israel will be abandoned by its kings. This prophecy could have been fulfilled by the circumstance described in the Fourth Book of Kings (2 Sam 15:29; 2 Sam 16:9): Tiglath-Pileser, king of Assyria, in 733–732 BC killed Rezin, king of Syria, and at approximately the same time gained control of the northern half of the kingdom of Israel. Isa 7:17-25. After temporary relief for Judea, however, even heavier times will come. The Lord will send upon the Jews armies of Egypt and Assyria, which will destroy all the fruit of the earth in the region of the Judean state. The land will be overgrown with thistles, and its inhabitants in the vast majority will be carried into captivity.

Isaiah 7:17. But the Lord will bring upon you and upon your people and upon the house of your father days such as have not come since the day Ephraim departed from Judah, the king of Assyria. “Upon you.” In the reign of Ahaz, the king of Assyria had not yet occupied the territory of the Judean state, but Ahaz entered into vassal relations with this king. This circumstance deprived the Judean kingdom of independence and had consequences no less calamitous than the departure of the ten tribes of Israel in the time of Rehoboam.

Isaiah 7:18. And it shall come to pass in that day that the Lord will hiss for the fly that is at the extremity of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria,— “The fly.” The Egyptians are called flies from the river of Egypt because in Egypt, after the inundations produced by the Nile, flies multiply exceedingly. The prophet wanted to point to the multitude of Egyptian forces and the persistence of the Egyptians with which they would seek to gain control of Palestine (saying: as persistent as a fly). “The bee.” The Assyrians are called bees because there were many bees in their country and because the Assyrians inflicted severe wounds upon their enemies, were especially cruel and uncontrollable in anger, like irritated bees.

Isaiah 7:19. And they shall fly and settle in all the desolate valleys and in the clefts of the rocks, and on all the thornbushes, and on all the trees. Nevertheless, regarding the flies and bees the prophet speaks for now only of the fact that they will settle in the land of Judea, that is, will occupy it, perhaps even to defend it from their own rivals.

Isaiah 7:20. In that day the Lord will shave with a hired razor, beyond the river, with the king of Assyria, the head and the hair of the feet, and it will take away the beard also. The prophet indicates here that much greater evil than the Egyptians will cause Judea the Assyrians—regarding the Egyptians the prophet almost entirely forgets here. “Hair” is a symbol of strength and courage. “The beard”—among Eastern peoples was considered almost as sacred an adornment of every man, and to be deprived of it was shameful.

Isaiah 7:21. And it shall come to pass in that day that a man shall keep alive a cow and two sheep; Isaiah 7:22. And from the abundance of milk which they give, he shall eat butter; for butter and honey shall everyone eat that is left in the land. Isaiah 7:23. And it shall come to pass in that day that every place where there were a thousand vines worth a thousand pieces of silver, shall become briars and thorns. Isaiah 7:24. With arrows and with bows shall men come there; because all the land shall become briars and thorns. Isaiah 7:25. And as for all the hills which were hoed with the hoe, you shall not come there for fear of briars and thorns: but it shall be for the sending forth of oxen, and for the treading of sheep. Here is described the desolation of Judea, reaching the extreme degree. Throughout it grow thorns and thistles—bushes in which wild beasts dwell. Clearly, the prophet here foresees the desolation of the Judean land as it came to be after the Jews were carried into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar, who could be called the king of Assyria, as he was the possessor of the former territory of the Assyrian state. The newer critics suppose that in chapter 7 there are some parts that do not belong to the prophet Isaiah. Thus the heading of the chapter (verse 1) is almost identical with 2 Sam 16:5. Isaiah himself had no need to give the genealogy of Ahaz and remind of him as king of Judea. One can therefore agree, says Condamin, that these words were added to chapter 7 by the editor of Isaiah’s discourses. The words of verse 8: and in sixty-five years... the greater part of critics also considers a later insertion, chiefly on the ground that the comfort contained in them could have had no significance for Ahaz at the very time when Isaiah was conversing with him. But these remarks concern secondary passages in chapter 7 and, moreover, do not carry probative force. 1) Isaiah could hardly have taken verse 1 from the Fourth Book of Kings himself, because this book appeared most likely after his death (in it it is already told of the destruction of the Judean kingdom), 2) nevertheless, even in the distant fall of the enemy kings there was something comforting for Ahaz. * * * Notes It is clear that all the mentioned passages speak of unmarried young maidens. Editor’s note. Some of the newer interpreters (for example, Condamin) correct the reading of the text of verse 16, following the translation of the Septuagint and taking into account the context of the discourse. Instead of: its kings, as the Russian Synodal translation renders, they read kings (that is, melachim instead of melcheja) and read the entire phrase thus: “the land (Judea), of which you are afraid (of the attack) of two kings, shall be laid waste.” Verse 17 appears, under such interpretation, as a further unfolding of verse 16, beginning thus the depiction of the punishment to which Ahaz will be subjected for his disbelief in the words of God. Taking into account the circumstance that the Russian translation, agreeing with the Masoretic Hebrew text, incorrectly combines both kingdoms—the Syrian and the Israelite—into one land, one can say that Condamin’s interpretation appears much more natural.