7:10 And again the LORD spoke to Ahaz saying,

11 "Ask for a sign from the LORD your God; ask it deep or high."

12 But Ahaz said, "I will not ask and will not tempt the LORD."

13 And he said, "Now hear O house of David, it is a small thing for you to weary men, but must you weary my God also?"

14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give to you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive and shall bear a son and shall call his name ‘God with us.’"

15 "He shall eat butter and honey in order to know to refuse the evil and choose the good."

16 "For before the child shall know to refuse evil and choose good the land that you hate shall be forsaken by both of her kings."

17 "The LORD shall bring (Hiphil imperfect 3ms awb) upon you and your people and upon your father’s house days that have not come since Ephraim departed Judah – the king of Assyria."

1. Show by formal means where the larger literary context begins and ends and distinguish the narrative frame from the oracles. Identify the nature of the oracles and the basic motifs of each.

The larger literary context begins in 7:1 and ends in 12:6. Chapters 7-12 were written in the context of the Syro-Ephraimite wars (Nelson Study Bible, 1123). In chapter 7 the narrative begins in 7:1 and proceeds through verse 6 and into verse 7. It stops after "thus says the Lord God." The first oracle begins in verse 7 and goes to verse 9. The next narrative picks up in verse 10 and ends at verse 17 while the next oracle begins in verse 18 and goes to the end of the chapter in verse 25. The nature of the two oracles and their motifs is promise according to the prophetic introductory material – they are future in that they tell of a time that will be (motif).

2. Identify every indication of dates and events in Is. 7 and identify the events, the probable dates for them, and the political and social person(s)/entities involved.

In Isaiah 7:1-7 the year is 734 BC. Both the king of Israel and the king of Aram died two years later in 732 BC. In 7:8 when Isaiah prophesied that within 65 years Ephraim will be broken the year was 734 BC. Sixty-five years later in 669 BC it was the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal who transferred more Israelites to Samaria (after Israel had already been deported in 722 BC), thus, "shattering" Israel and making it impossible for her to unite as a nation ("a people"). Beginning again in verse 10 the context is back to the year 734 BC when Isaiah tells Ahaz to ask for a sign from God. In 7:14 regarding a virgin being with child the year there was approximately two years, and the prophecy was fulfilled in that the alliance would be broken, and it was in 732 BC when Tiglath-Pileser destroyed Damascus, defeated Aram and put Rezin to death. In verses 18-19 the occurrences being predicted came to pass in the year 701 BC during the reign of Hezekiah when Assyria invaded Judah and Judah called on Egypt for help. As for the events beginning in verse 21 this apparently refers to the time of the Great Tribulation which is yet future (Bible Knowledge Commentary, pages 1046-50).

3. What is the most likely meaning of the enigmatic oracle in vv.8-9? Compare the translations.

The Adam Clarke Commentary on the Bible states, "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 wªro'sh ‘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 wªro'sh, that which ought to have followed the third line beginning with wªro'sh. 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…

The best translation of those given appears to be the REB translation because BDB categorizes varO as "chief." The translation it does not give, however, which appears to fit the context is "capital" as signified by the CEV translation. As for there being a possible word play on the "head" – "tail" antithesis in Deut. 28:13-14 in the appearance of var here and in bnz in verse 4, this is quite possible. In Deuteronomy the thrust of the passage is to obey the Word of the LORD and be the head as opposed to the tail. Here in Isaiah the connection is found in verse 9 in the admonition to believe in order to be established. Both passages promote obedience/believing (two synonymous terms in a broad sense) and blessing as a result – being the head not the tail which is the antithesis of blessings.

In the word play in 7:9b the only other passage where these two verb stems are used together is in 2 Chronicles 20:20 where the king of Judah says, "…Put your trust [believe] in the LORD your God, and you will be established." Once again this word play employs the same principle as found in the Mosaic covenant, believe/obey and reap the benefits thereof.

4. Classify the usage of twa in 7:11.

BDB lists eight classifications of the term: n.m. sign — 1. sign, pledge, token. In Genesis 4:15… "So the LORD said to him, ‘Therefore whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold.’ And the LORD appointed a sign for Cain, lest anyone finding him should slay him." 2. signs, omens promised by prophets as pledges of certain predicted events. In 1 Samuel 10:7 ("And it shall be when these signs come to you, do for yourself what the occasion requires; for God is with you"). 3. sign, symbol of prophets in Isa 8:18… "Behold, I and the children whom the LORD has given me are for signs and wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion." 4. signs, miracles, as pledges or attestations of divine presence & interposition in Ex 4:8… "And it shall come about that if they will not believe you or heed the witness of the first sign, they may believe the witness of the last sign." 5. signs, memorials in Josh 4:6… "Let this be a sign among you, so that when your children ask later, saying, ‘What do these stones mean to you?’" 6. sign, pledge of covenant, tyriB]h' ×a (v. tyrb) e.g. rainbow, of Noachian covenant; circumcision, of Abrahamic covenant; the Sabbath in Gen 9:12… "And God said, ‘This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all successive generations…’" 7. ensigns, standards in Num 2:2… "The sons of Israel shall camp, each by his own standard, with the banners of their fathers’ households; they shall camp around the tent of meeting at a distance." 8. signs, tokens of changes of weather & times in Gen 1:14… "Then God said, ‘Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years…’"

The #2 classification is the one BDB chooses as the best nuance in this context. The best parallel for this usage could be the one cited above (1 Sam. 10:7), but I think Isaiah 38:7-8 best parallels the usage in 7:11 because it is a sign that God will act on behalf of another person as a testimony to the truth of what God has spoken through the prophet… "And this shall be the sign to you from the LORD, that the LORD will do this thing that He has spoken: ‘Behold, I will cause the shadow on the stairway, which has gone down with the sun on the stairway of Ahaz, to go back ten steps.’ So the sun’s shadow went back ten steps on the stairway on which it had gone down," but it is not listed in BDB.

As for the question of the sign here suggesting that Ahaz could have asked for a supernatural miracle the answer appears to be "yes." It is the very thing that Hezekiah was able to ask for in Isaiah 38:7-8.

As for which reading to choose with regard to the various translations… Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and the Vulgate render it "Go deep to the grave." This appears to be the best translation because "Ask it either in the depth…" (MT) though idiomatically possible is wrong in that it involves a weak repetition of ask and a mutilation of the parallelism in the last clauses of the verb (Kaiser, p. 122). This affects the question above in that the sign to be had could have been anything Ahaz wanted it to be. "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" (Barnes’ Notes, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft).

5. Is the nature of the sign offered in 7:14ff necessarily the same as that offered in v. 10? What exactly is the sign?

The nature of the sign offered in 7:11 is simply a sign to be offered as proof of God’s Word to Ahaz. He could have asked for anything, but he chose not to. The nature of the sign in 7:14ff is different in that this sign is of God’s choosing not Ahaz’s. As Kaiser says, "…its purpose being different, it will not need to be miraculous like that offered to and rejected by Ahaz" (page 122).

What exactly is the sign? The sign to Ahaz would be the conception of the child AND the birth of the child AND the naming of the child AND the appearance of the conditions within the time limits indicated by the phrase b/FB' r/jb;W [r;B; s/am (second answer after doing #9). ***First answer before doing #9… Given what the text actually says it would be the conception and the birth of the child only. It couldn’t be the naming of the child as "Immanuel" because there appears to be no child named that from the most obvious choices that came to be (i.e., Ahaz’s son Hezekiah or Isaiah’s son born as a sign to Israel). Now the long term fulfillment would not only include the conception and the birth but also the naming of the child as "God with us" and his "rejection of evil and choosing to do good." This fulfillment came in Jesus Christ, and it illustrates that though either Ahaz’s son or Isaiah’s son was the immediate fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy, the fulfillment took place some 700 years later as a sign to Israel and the whole world.

A parallel usage of the term twa in Isaiah would be Isaiah’s offer to Hezekiah (Isa. 38:7-8) to ask for a sign as proof he would not die from his disease. Hezekiah is different in most respects from his father Ahaz, and here he shows some of that by taking God up on His offer and asking for a sign that the sun go back on the steps instead of forward. Ahaz simply refused to ask for a sign from God.

Is the sign offered as promise of deliverance or of judgment? The sign appears to be both. Verse 14 begins with "therefore" signifying coming judgment, and this fits the context in that Ahaz has moved God to judgment in his insistence to not ask God for a sign. God would later kill the two kings that troubled Ahaz, but He would also bring the king of Assyria to torment him with heavy tributes (and Assyria was a constant threat to Judah until their captivity by the Babylonians). The promise of deliverance also fits the "sign" because ultimately it appears that Ahaz’s son Hezekiah (who may very well have been the immediate fulfillment of "Immanuel," the product of the virgin being with child) does deliver the nation from the paganism Ahaz brought to it. Hezekiah does away with all that, and the prophecy points to the future when the Messiah would bring ultimate deliverance.

The only way to relate both aspects of the prophecy, deliverance and judgment, to verses 16 and 17 is to conclude that it was a dual prophecy. God disciplines those who disobey Him and put Him to the test, but in the interest of His unconditional promise to David (2 Sam. 7) He must also bless the line, and the coming of the Messiah does just that in the ultimate fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14ff.

6. Does the phrase hr;h; hm;l]['h; ("the virgin shall conceive") refer to the fact that a/the virgin will conceive/become pregnant or that a/the young woman is pregnant?

Given the various English translations and the usage of the term hm;l]['h in the Hebrew text either translation can be used with the understanding that a "virgin" can refer to a "young woman who is a sexually mature female of marriageable age, which may or may not be sexually active (cf. Ge 24:43; Ex 2:8; Pr 30:19; SS 1:3; 6:8) The context will demand or suggest if the young woman is sexually active" (The Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains [Logos]). Now with respect to the ultimate fulfillment of this prophecy as found in the Messiah who was born of the virgin Mary, the phrase must refer to "THE virgin" because Mary was the only virgin who never knew a man but yet had a child; there can only be one virgin birth strictly speaking. In the immediate context of Isaiah 7, due to the presence of the definite article (which is being used as Chisolm describes it "as a definite or unique person") that precedes "virgin" ("the virgin"), it must refer to a specific and unique person. Though unsure of who that is specifically, I conclude that the context is referring to one woman, due to the presence of the definite article, who would conceive and give birth as a sign to Ahaz (Genesis 24:43 and Exodus 2:8 both use the term for "virgin" with a definite article to refer to one specific woman). This one woman might very well have been a young woman who was near, one that Isaiah pointed to directly, that Ahaz was having an extra-marital adulterous affair. In this case then Ahaz’s mouth would have fallen wide open at Isaiah’s knowledge of such and considered it a sign.

7. What significance does the mother naming the child "Immanuel" have her?

His 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 Spirit has supplied this want (Olshausen, from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft). As Fausset writes, "All His name ‘Immanuel’ means not mere appellation, for this was not the designation by which men ordinarily named Him, but His revealed character shall be what Immanuel means. Sin destroyed the faculty of intuitively perceiving, as Adam once did, the characteristics; hence the name is now generally arbitrary, and not expressive of the nature (Fausset's Bible Dictionary, Electronic Database Copyright (c)1998 by Biblesoft).

The name appears to be a predictive name in that "Immanuel" means "God with us." The fact that Isaiah prophesied that his name "will be called" is conclusive as to the predictive nature of the name itself. Other occurrences of this same phrase in Isa. 8:8,10 signify that Judah itself was "Immanuel" because God was with Judah, and this bears significance in the very name which means "God with us." Judah endured attacks from Assyria yet was never completely taken by Assyria, and if the immediate context of "Immanuel" refers to Hezekiah as the son of Ahaz, then Judah’s deliverance from Sennacherib in 701 BC attests to this. They did not fear the words of Sennacherib because it would not and did not stand for "God is with us."

Other occurrences where parents gave such names to their children… The naming of a baby was very important in the Bible. In choosing a name, the parents could reflect the circumstances of the child's birth, their own feelings, their gratitude to God, their hopes and prayers for the child, and their commitment of the child to God. The name Isaac reflected the "laughter" of his mother at his birth (Gen 21:6). Esau was named "hairy" because of his appearance. Jacob was named "supplanter" because he grasped his brother Esau's heel (Gen 25:25-26). Moses received his name because he was "drawn out" of the water (Ex 2:10)

(Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright (c)1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers).

8. What does the phrase b/FB' r/jb;W [r;B; s/am; ("reject the evil and choose the good") refer to and at what age would a child normally have reached this status?

This phrase refers to the ability to make competent decisions – the age of legal accountability. This age in that day, according to Wycliffe Bible Commentary, was 12 years of age. Given that the year this prophecy was given was 734 BC (see above), "This would come out to 722/21, after the destructive campaigns of Shalmaneser V and Sargon. Certainly by 721 Damascus was forsaken (having been captured by Assyria in 732) and likewise Samaria (which fell in 722) (The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1962 by Moody Press). In other words, Ahaz could expect about 12 more years until these prophecies were completely fulfilled in his context, and history proves this is so.

The Lamed prefixed to the verb does not mean ‘until,’ 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’ (Amos 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). The kinds of food being spoken of ("butter and honey") 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 (Deut 1:39, etc.), and also of old age when it relapses into childish ways (2 Sam 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 – in this case 12 years of age (Keil & Delitzsch).

9. Does the phrase lkeayœ vb'd]W ha;m]j, ("butter and honey he shall eat") refer to a time of prosperity or a time of scarcity? On what basis did you determine this?

Though some Bible texts such as Psalm 81:17 promise this type of food to those who obey God; and others like Judges 5:25 suggest that this food is hospitality for a princely guest; it appears clear from the context of the passage that this food is the type of food for a time of scarcity. As Keil and Delitzsch propose, "In v. 15 the threatening element of v. 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. But the reason afterwards assigned in vv. 16, 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. Chemª'aah 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 more accurate name) if gebiinâh. The object to yaada is expressed in vv. 15, 16 by infinitive absolutes (compare the more usual mode of expression in Isa 8:4).

By the time that Immanuel reached the legal age of accountability, 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 meager and miserable food. And this is the ground assigned in vv. 16, 17. Two successive and closely connected events would occasion this universal desolation (Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament: New Updated Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1996 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.).

10. As for the suggestions made for the identification of the hml[ and her son…

1. The virgin Mary and her son Jesus: this is most certainly a fulfillment of the prophecy in the strictest sense of the term "virgin," for it was Mary who conceived without having been with a man. Furthermore, the Gospel of Matthew attests to its fulfillment.
2. The crown prince Hezekiah and his mother Abi: Hezekiah would be a sign to Ahaz that God was in control: The Lord was with Ahaz; He would save Judah form the enemies that surrounded Ahaz, enabling his son to inherit the thorne (7:1-3). Yet the reference to the child eating "curds and honey" was a prediction of Assyria’s eventual domination of Judah (Nelson Study Bible, page 1124).
3. The prophet’s wife and his son, Maher-shalal-hash-baz: According to this view the child’s two names, the one given above meaning "Speed the Spoil, Hasten the Booty" and "Immanuel" meaning "God with us," symbolize judgment and salvation. In fact, Isaiah himself described his children as "signs" to the nation (Is. 8:18), and he delivered a similar prophecy to his son in 7:16; 8:4 (Nelson Study Bible, page 1124). The problem with this view is that Isaiah was too ambiguous, and he could have just said "my wife." Furthermore there is no other allusion to any son of the prophet by name.
4. A virgin who was present at the scene and her son: This could be, but there is absolutely no evidence, and the way the prophecy is worded would have to have been one from the Davidic line due to the nature of the prophecy itself. Any old virgin would not do unless it was one of King Ahaz’s harem.
5. A virgin or young woman in Ahaz’s harem and her son fathered by Ahaz: the expression itself warrants the assumption that by hâ'almâh ("the virgin") the prophet meant one of the 'alâmoth ("virgins") of the king's harem (Luzzatto – from Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament: New Updated Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1996 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.).

I am personally inclined to the second option of Abijah being the mother of Hezekiah and the progressive nature of the prophecy being fully realized in Jesus Christ with the virgin Mary being his mother – a combination of options 1 and 2.

11. What is the message of Isaiah 7 and what theological and practical principle(s) can we derive from it?

Verses 1-2: Aram and Israel strike fear in the heart of Ahaz, king of Judah, as they go down to wage war against it. Verses 3-9: God sends Isaiah and his son to Ahaz to prophesy that the two kings will not be successful in their quest to set up their own king in Judah and that Ephraim itself will be no more within 65 years. Verses 10-16: Ahaz rejects God’s offer of a sign for confirmation of Isaiah’s prophecy, but God gives the sign of the virgin becoming pregnant and giving birth to a child who will eat the food reminiscent of a famine just prior to the death of the two kings who seek to take Judah. Verses 17-25: The prophet predicts all the calamities that will come upon the people of Judah and their land at the hands of the Assyrians.

The bottom line of Isaiah 7 is God’s judgment on a disobedient people. Though God appears to be sympathetic to Judah in delivering her from her enemies to the north, Ahaz’s hardened heart causes God to shed light on their future, and their future looks bleak with the prospect of the Assyrians and their devastation of the land. The mysterious hope for that people is given in the prophecy of the virgin being with child which was ultimately fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ.

Theological principles to be taken from this passage would include believing God in the midst of circumstances that would not otherwise allow for it. In other words, when God makes promises that seem impossible as He does throughout the Bible they are to be taken far more seriously that King Ahaz did when he was presented with the truth of God’s Word through Isaiah the prophet. Furthermore, adhering to God’s promises goes back to the now defunct Mosaic covenant where obedience brings blessing and disobedience brings curses. Simple obedience to God’s revealed Word brings ultimate blessing and security.

Theological Message: The future deliverance of the Israelite people following their near-devastation is a God-ordained promise given to us by Isaiah the prophet. The providence of God and His perfect will will bring about His perfect plan even in the midst of terrible devastation. He provides salvation to those He chooses, and they obey His Word.

To Professor Glenn:

The relative accuracy on the time estimations is a bit tight. To fully understand the questions it simply takes more time than you allow for. This is a great study, and if I took only the time you allotted I would have missed a great deal. I would say you need to increase the time limits by at least a full 2-3 hours. It takes at least that much time to browse through the commentaries. An excellent study with very challenging questions. Don’t change them, just the time it takes to accomplish them.