Isaiah next tried to move Ahaz to faith (vv. 10-12), then denounced the king for his failure to trust Yahweh (vv. 13-15), and finally forecast a calamity worse than the division of Israel's united kingdom (vv. 16-17).
7:10 Evidently Isaiah's conversation with the king continued then and there. The prophet gave Ahaz another message from the Lord.
7:11 God commanded the king to ask Yahweh his God for a sign that He would indeed do what He had promised. Signs were immediate, physical confirmations that what a prophet had predicted farther in the future would indeed happen. They either confirmed that God had caused something to happen (cf. Exod. 3:12) or they confirmed that He would cause something to happen, as here (cf. 37:30; Jer. 44:29-30).91Ahaz had the freedom to request any type of sign, and God promised to use it to bolster his faith.
7:12 Ahaz refused to ask for a sign. He did not want God to confirm that He would protect Judah because he had already decided not to trust God but to make other arrangements. He tried to justify his disobedience and his lack of faith with a pious statement that he did not want to test Yahweh (cf. Deut. 6:16). Testing the Lord got Israel into big trouble in the wilderness and at other times, but asking for a sign was not testing God when He commanded it.92Ahaz wanted to appear to have great faith in God, but he had already decided to make an alliance with Assyria.
"This was like a mouse sending for the cat to help him against two rats!"93
Ahaz may even have convinced himself that this alliance was the means God would use to deliver Judah. A sign from God would only prove that Ahaz's plan was contrary to God's will.94
7:13 Isaiah saw right through the king's hypocrisy. He warned him by addressing him as the representative of the house of David. The plural "you"indicates that Isaiah was addressing all the members of the house of David and perhaps the whole nation (cf. v. 9). Yahweh had made covenant promises that David's dynasty would continue forever (2 Sam. 7:14; 1 Kings 8:25). Ahaz should not have feared being replaced by a puppet king (v. 6). Ahaz had said he would not test God (v. 12), but by refusing to ask for a sign that is precisely what he was doing, testing God's patience with Him. He was also testing the patience of the godly in Israel who were looking to their king to trust God. The prophet had called Yahweh Ahaz's God (v. 11), but now that the king had rebelled against Him Isaiah referred to the Lord as his (Isaiah's) God. This change was ominous suggesting that God would abandon the king.95
"To appreciate fully the messianic portrait of Isaiah 1-39, it must be viewed against the backdrop of the generally negative presentation of Judahite kingship in these same chapters."96
7:14 Israel's Sovereign Himself would give Ahaz and the house of David (plural "you") a sign that He was with His people even though the king refused to ask for one. The sign no longer was an inducement to faith but a confirmation of divine displeasure. A particular pregnant young woman would bear a son and name him Immanuel (God [is] with us; cf. Gen. 16:11; 17:19; Judg. 13:3).97This sign should have encouraged Ahaz to trust God's promise of deliverance and not rely on Assyria.
The Hebrew word for "virgin"is alma, which means a young women of marriageable age, but the word never describes a married woman in the Old Testament.98In Hebrew society, an unmarried woman of marriageable age would be a virgin. Thus almahad overtones of virginity about it and, in fact, sometimes described a virgin (cf. Gen. 24:43). This probably explains why the Septuagint translators chose the Greek word parthenos, meaning virgin, to translate almahere. However, Hebrew has a word for virgin, bethula, so why did not Isaiah use this word if he meant the mother of the child was a virgin? Probably Isaiah used almarather than bethulabecause he did not want to stress the virginity of the mother, but this word does not rule virginity out either. God evidently led Isaiah to use almaso the predicted mother could be simply a young unmarried woman or a virgin. This allows the possibility of a double fulfillment, a young woman in Isaiah's day and a virgin hundreds of years later (cf. Matt. 1:23).99
The naming of a child by its mother was not uncommon in Israel (cf. Gen. 4:1, 25; 29:31-30:13, 17-24; 35:18; Judg. 13:24; 1 Sam. 1:20; 4:21). In Jesus' case, it was appropriate that Joseph name Him rather than Mary since He was the Son of God as well as Mary's son.100The child's mother evidently named her baby Immanuel since she believed God would demonstrate His presence with Judah by preserving the nation from the Syro-Ephraimitic threat. Whoever the child was, Ahaz must have learned of his birth since the birth was to be a sign to him.101
Some very fine scholars have believed that there was no initial fulfillment of this prophecy in Isaiah's day, that no child born then served as a sign. Conservatives in this group believe that the only fulfillment was the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ.102The problem with this view is the lack of a sign in Isaiah's day. One response to this problem by an advocate of this view follows.
". . . the assurance that Christ was to be born in Judah, of its royal family, might be a sign to Ahaz, that the kingdom should not perish in his day; and so far was the remoteness of the sign in this case from making it absurd or inappropriate, that the further off it was, the stronger the promise of continuance to Judah, which it guaranteed."103
7:15-16 Eating curds (thick, sour milk) and honey pictures a time of poverty in the land (cf. v. 22) following the Assyrian invasion that would follow relief from the Syro-Ephraimitic threat. The child born in Ahaz's day would eat this type of food when he became personally responsible for his decisions, an age that Isaiah left ambiguous intentionally. However before this child became responsible both of Judah's threatening neighbors, Syria and Ephraim, would cease to exist. Assyria invaded Syria and Israel in 733-32 B.C., only a year or two after this prophecy. Damascus fell in 732, and Samaria fell in 722 B.C. Jesus Christ also grew up in the Promised Land when it was under the rule of an oppressive foreign power and when life was hard.
7:17 Yahweh would bring on Judah a worse threat than Judah had faced since the united kingdom had split in Rehoboam's day, namely, the king of Assyria. Even though Syria and Israel would disappear as threats to Judah, Ahaz had done the wrong thing in failing to trust God because Assyria would pose an even worse threat. He had "taken a tiger by the tail."104
"Whatever a man trusts in place of God will one day turn to devour him."105
