Chapter 7

1 Ahaz, being troubled with fear of Rezin and Pekah, is comforted by Isaiah. 10 Ahaz, having liberty to choose a sign, and refusing it, hath for a sign, Christ promised. 17 His judgment is prophesied to come by Assyria.

1. In the day of Ahaz. See table, Vol. II, p. 77. This message was apparently delivered about the year 734b.c., near the beginning of Ahaz’ reign (see on v. 16). For the historical background of events here mentioned, see Vol. II, p. 86.

Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah. Assyrian sources indicate that Uzziah had taken a strong stand against Assyria, and probably also his son Jotham, but that Ahaz was friendly. The latter sent gold and silver he took from the Temple and from his own palace to Tiglath-pileser in order to purchase Assyrian aid (see on 2 Kings 16:5–10). We know from 2 Kings 15:29 that Pekah of Israel was anti-Assyrian, because Tiglath-pileser came against him; and from Assyrian sources we likewise know that this was also true of Rezin of Syria. Probably most of the nations of Western Asia were at this time united in an alliance against Assyria, and the attack of Pekah and Rezin on Ahaz was intended to depose him and set up a new king, and perhaps to force Judah into the coalition against Assyria.

Could not prevail. According to 2 Chron. 28:5–15 Judah had suffered a disastrous defeat at the hands of Pekah and Rezin, and Elath, on the Gulf of Aqabah, had fallen into the hands of Syria (2 Kings 16:6). But, although besieged, the city of Jerusalem itself was not taken (2 Kings 16:5).

2. It was told. That is, it was reported to Ahaz, the living representative of the house of David. The attack was directed particularly against the dynasty of David, since it was the purpose to depose Ahaz and set up a new king, of the house of Tabeal, on the throne of Judah (v. 6).

His heart. The Dead Sea scroll 1QIs lacks these words.

Moved. Or, “shook.” Ahaz was terror stricken at the prospect of being driven from the throne (v. 6). An apostate, he did not trust in God, and it appeared to him that his kingdom was soon to fall.

3. Go forth now. Although Ahaz himself was a wicked king, the Lord had no intention of allowing the dynasty of David to become extinct (see Gen. 49:10; 2 Sam. 7:12, 13). Therefore Isaiah was sent to the king to inform him of the Lord’s purpose to preserve Judah and to defeat its invaders.

Shear-jashub. Literally, “[a] remnant [shall] return.” Isaiah and his sons were ordained of God as signs to the people (ch. 8:18). The same was true of Isaiah’s contemporary, Hosea, whose children also bore significant names (Hosea 1:4–9). Isaiah constantly kept this message of the return of the remnant before the people (chs. 4:2, 3; 10:21; etc.).

The upper pool. The water supply of the city was always a matter of importance at a time of siege. The “upper pool” has been identified with the upper pool of Gihon, known as St. Mary’s Well or the Virgin’s Fount (see Jerusalem in Israelite Times). It was situated in the Kidron Valley on the east side of Ophel and south of the Temple area. It was from Gihon that Hezekiah later made his famous aqueduct, the Siloam tunnel (2 Kings 20:20; 2 Chron. 32:30), which brought the water to the Siloam pool within the city. At the time of Ahaz this source of water would be outside the city at a time of siege, and undoubtedly some steps were then contemplated as to how the water might be brought into the city and denied to an enemy without.

4. Be quiet; fear not. With the help of the Lord of heaven there was no need to fear. But the king refused to trust in God, and consequently gave way to despair when confronted by circumstances with which he knew not how to cope.

The two tails. An expression of contempt. The ostensibly vigorous but nevertheless effete kingdoms of Israel and Syria, and their kings, were but the smoldering, smoking remnants of firebrands. They had almost burned themselves out. One more flicker and they would be gone. The God of heaven now foretold their doom in order that Ahaz might be able to pursue an intelligent policy with respect to them. It was the ascendant power of Assyria, not the waning kingdoms of Syria or Israel, that Ahaz needed to take into consideration. During the next 40 or 50 years Judah would be all but swallowed up by Assyria, yet Ahaz was pursuing a policy that would inevitably play into Assyrian hands.

6. Against Judah. The plan was to conquer Judah and take it over for themselves.

Set a king. Ahaz was to be dethroned, the dynasty of David brought to an end, and a new king, “the son of Tabeal,” placed upon the throne. The identity of this new king is not known, but he is thought to have been a Syrian since the name “Tabeal” is Aramaic, and means “good [is] god.” Israel and Syria had agreed between themselves upon a new puppet monarch to sit upon David’s throne.

7. It shall not stand. The house of David was not to fall. The plan proposed by Israel and Syria was directed against God, and could not succeed. God had other plans for the house of David (see Gen. 49:10; 2 Sam. 7:12). He would not permit men to interfere with His purpose for Judah, or to terminate the dynasty through which the Messiah was to come.

8. Within threescore and five years. The meaning of this prediction is uncertain. According to the chronology of the kings followed tentatively in this commentary (see Vol. II, pp. 77, 143, 749), the prediction was made about 734 b.c., and no chronology places the accession of Ahaz earlier than 742. Yet by 722 Israel, the northern kingdom, had come to its end with the fall of Samaria to the Assyrians. Some modern scholars have concluded that the clause introduced by these words was inserted by a later hand. They point to the fact that this statement seems to interrupt the flow of thought between vs. 8 and 9. But there is no certain evidence that such an insertion was made.

Assuming that the number 65 was in the original text of Isaiah, and there is no conclusive reason for thinking that it was not, two possible fulfillments have been suggested. Sixty-five years after 734, inclusive, would be 670, when Esarhaddon (681–669) reigned over Assyria. It is a fact that Esarhaddon (and after him his successor Ashurbanipal, the Biblical Asnapper) had certain Mesopotamian peoples transported to the former territory of the northern kingdom (Ezra 4:2–10). This was long after Israel had come to its end as a nation (723/722 b.c.). The Assyrian policy of scattering subject peoples was designed to obliterate old national identities and loyalties. So many Israelites of the ten tribes were absorbed into the neighboring populations that they have frequently been referred to as “lost” tribes. It is probable that some of them later joined the captives from Judah and returned with them after the Exile, but as individuals in a Jewish community that was the continuation of the old kingdom of Judah, not of Israel.

Another interpretation has been suggested—that the 65 years may have begun about the time of the earthquake, during the reign of Uzziah or Jeroboam II. This earthquake was the token of the Lord’s judgments upon Israel mentioned by Amos. If so, Isaiah here merely refers to the fall of Samaria in 723/722. This is possible, but not provable, because the exact date of the earthquake is not known. Since no definite starting point of the 65 years is given, it is not possible today—nor is it necessary—to determine the meaning of the prediction. In all probability a specific prophecy such as this was clear and meaningful to the people in whose day it was given. Obviously, it was more important for them to understand it than it is for us.

9. If ye will not believe. It was apparent that Ahaz did not believe the assurance of God that Pekah and Rezin would not succeed in their plans. He was still afraid. Without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6), much less to submit to His wise and gracious leadership.

11. Ask thee a sign. God made this offer to strengthen Ahaz’ faith. Signs such as these are often given to establish the faith of weak or prejudiced minds.

Ask it either in the depth. The Masoretes (see Vol. I, pp. 34, 35) understood the consonantal Hebrew text hФmq shХlh to stand for haФemeq sheХalah, literally, “[in] the depth ask.” Late revisions of the LXX and Greek translators several centuries earlier than the Masoretes, however, took hФmq shХlh to read haФemeq sheХolah, “[to] the depth of Sheol.” There is no way of knowing which is correct, though the grammatical balance of the words in Hebrew favors the reading “[to] the depth of Sheol.” For the meaning of Sheol, see on 2 Sam. 12:23; 22:6; Prov. 15:11. For other instances where a contrast is drawn between the height of heaven and the depth of Sheol, see Deut. 32:22; Job 11:8; Ps. 86:13; 139:8.

12. I will not ask. Ahaz refused to be persuaded. He did not want to believe, and he wanted nothing that might help him believe. He had fixed his policy, he was determined to carry it out, and he feared anything that might influence him to change it. The help he sought was that of Assyria, not of God.

Tempt the Lord. That is, put the Lord to the test by demanding a sign. Ahaz herewith revealed his stubbornness and rebellion against God. God offered to help and guide him, but he chose to rely on Assyria for help instead. Ahaz was determined to have nothing to do with God, and was making that fact altogether clear.

14. The Lord himself shall give. Ahaz was to have a sign from the Lord in spite of himself, but the sign would be of the Lord’s choosing. For the encouragement of those who would remain faithful in the years of crisis that lay ahead, God saw fit to provide assurance that He would be with them. One such sign the nation already had in Shear-jashub, the first son of Isaiah (see on v. 3; cf. ch. 8:18), whose name meant “[a] remnant [shall] return,” and whose presence was a constant reminder that in the coming Assyrian invasions a remnant would be saved.

You. In the Hebrew, “you” is plural. It appears from v. 13 that “you” here refers to the “house of David,” that is, to the royal house of Judah, of which Ahaz was the living representative. It appears also from vs. 1, 2, that the expression “house of David” designates Ahaz himself. Accordingly, some have taken the plural “you” of v. 14 to be a form of address comparable to our editorial “we,” and conclude that the “sign” was therefore given to Ahaz personally, as the living representative of the “house of David” and in his capacity as king and leader of Judah. Others have suggested that the plural “you” refers to Ahaz and his successors on the throne of David.

Sign. Heb.Хoth, a “sign,” “token,” “mark,” “reminder.” In the OT an Хoth may or may not be a miracle. Essentially, as with the rainbow of the covenant (Gen. 9:12), the Sabbath (Ex. 31:13; Eze. 20:12, 20), the blood of the paschal lamb upon the doorposts (Ex. 12:13), and the censers of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Num. 16:38), the Хoth was a visible reminder of an important spiritual truth. The “signs” in Egypt (Ex. 4:8; 7:3; Deut. 4:34; etc.) and those given Gideon (Judges 6:17) and Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:8, 9; Isa. 38:7, 8) were miraculous tokens designed to elicit cooperation and to inspire faith. Without exception, a “sign” consisted of an object or occurrence the purpose of which was to confirm, or to be a reminder of, the spiritual truth or prophetic message linked with it by Inspiration. The miraculous element might or might not be present. It is of the very essence of a “sign” that it be literally visible to the person or persons to whom it is given, so that in turn the eye of faith may perceive God’s will and lay firm hold on His promises. Whenever anyone requested a “sign,” as God now invited Ahaz to do (Isa. 7:11), or when God Himself selected the “sign,” it was, without exception, literally visible to those to whom it was addressed.

In this connection it is important to note Isaiah’s declaration, “I and the children whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts” (ch. 8:18), a declaration whose significance is clarified by the fact that it occurs in the same prophetic sequence as the “sign” promised in ch. 7:14. The names Isaiah, Shear-jashub, and Maher-shalal-hash-baz—which mean, respectively, “The Lord will save,” “A remnant shall return,” and “Speed the spoil, hasten the plunder”—all spoke eloquently of coming events related to the imminent and repeated Assyrian invasions of Judah. Isaiah and his sons were “signs” designed of God to secure, if possible, the cooperation of Ahaz and Judah during the years of crisis that accompanied the collapse and captivity of the northern kingdom, Israel.

A virgin. Heb. Фalmah. This word, singular and plural, appears but nine times in the OT (Gen. 24:43; Ex. 2:8; 1 Chron. 15:20; Ps. 46, superscription; 68:25; Prov. 30:19; S. of Sol. 1:3; 6:8; Isa. 7:14), and never in a context where its precise meaning is certain. This uncertainty has occasioned difference of opinion as to whether Фalmah should be translated “virgin” or “young woman.” Elaborate attempts have been made to prove that it means exclusively one or the other, but evidence thus far advanced in either direction has not been sufficient to convince all Hebrew scholars. Hebrew lexicographers are agreed that Фalmah is from the root Фalam, “to be [sexually] mature,” and that the word Фalmah denotes a “young woman,” implying ability to bear children. Both Фalmah and Фelem, the masculine form of the word, clearly denote physical maturity, but there is no absolute evidence as to whether they imply virginity or indicate marital status. It may be noted, however, that in S. of Sol. 6:8, 9 “virgins,” Фalamoth (plural of Фalamah), are classed with “queens” and “concubines” in contrast with an “undefiled” young woman. According to the Hebrew the Фalmah of Isa. 7:14 may already have conceived (see below, “Shall conceive”), and if she were yet a virgin when Isaiah spoke we would then be confronted with another miraculous birth similar to that of Jesus, which would create a profound theological problem. For further information, see Problems in Bible Translation, pp. 152–157.

The Hebrew term specifically descriptive of virginity is bethulah, which means strictly “virgin” and nothing else in the 50 instances where it appears in the OT. In Bible usage a bethulah was, by definition, a marriageable woman, whether young or old, though probably young, who had remained separate from men. Not once is the word Фalmah used with reference to virginity as bethulah and its derivative forms are used. Bethulah has no cognate masculine equivalent, but is often coupled with bachur, “choice young man,” or “excellent young man.” Bachur and bethulah depict the highest Hebrew ideals of young manhood and young womanhood, as Фelem and Фalmah denote physical maturity. Without a single exception, where moral integrity and virginity are clearly referred to, bachur and bethulah are used; Фelem and Фalmah are never so used.

Isaiah speaks of God rejoicing over His people as “a young man [bachur] marrieth a virgin [bethulah]” (Isa. 62:5). It is most significant that Zion as a type of God’s people, a “chaste virgin,” parthenos (2 Cor. 11:2), is referred to in 2 Kings 19:21; Isa. 37:22; 62:5; Jer. 14:17; 31:4; Lam. 1:15; etc., as a bethulah—but never as an Фalmah. In fact, God’s people are never spoken of figuratively as an Фalmah; He will be satisfied with nothing less than a church properly described as a bethulah. God is not concerned so much with age as with character. Isaiah uses bethulah altogether five times (chs. 23:4, 12; 37:22; 47:1; 62:5), and had he intended the “young woman” of ch. 7:14 to be understood as a “virgin” in the strict sense of the word, he might logically be expected to use bethulah here as well. In quoting Isa. 7:14, however, Matthew uses the word parthenos, which strictly means “virgin.” As to his reasons for so doing, see on Matt. 1:23.

The context of Isa. 7:14, together with the foregoing facts relative to the words translated “sign” and “virgin,” makes it certain that the prediction here made had an immediate application within the framework of the historical circumstances set forth in the chapter. Matthew’s reference to the prediction makes it equally certain that this prediction also points forward to the Messiah. Many OT prophecies have a twofold application such as this, first to the more immediate future and then to the more remote future (see on Deut. 18:15).

In the narrative of Isa. 7 nothing further is said as to the identity of the “young woman” to whom Isaiah here refers. However, in Hebrew she is spoken of as “the young woman,” indicating some particular young woman. Whether she was present upon this occasion or whether Ahaz or even Isaiah knew her identity at the time is, however, not certain (see Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, § 126; cf. Amos 5:19, where “a lion” reads in the Hebrew, “the lion,” that is, the particular lion that chased the fleeing man). On the basis of the silence of ch. 7 concerning the identity of the “young woman” referred to in v. 14, some suggest that the prediction met its fulfillment in a person unknown to us but well known to both Ahaz and Isaiah. On the belief that the “sign” called for must needs be miraculous in nature and that the word Фalmah means strictly “virgin” and not simply “young woman,” some have suggested that the literal fulfillment of the prediction in the days of Isaiah required that the mother of the promised son be, like Mary, a virgin in the strict sense of the term. To be sure, it would be entirely possible for God to bring this about if He so chose. But such a child would, like Christ, represent a union of the divine and human natures, and thus deprive Christ of His unique status as the divine-human Son of God.

In view of the fact that Ahaz was a young man 21 years of age at this time (2 Kings 16:1, 2; cf. Vol. II, p. 77), others have suggested that this particular “young woman” may have been his own wife, or some other young woman in the royal entourage present on the occasion. Still others suggest that Isaiah refers to his own wife, “the prophetess” of ch. 8:3, who may have accompanied him on his mission to meet King Ahaz (see on ch. 8:3). The fact that Isaiah’s prophetic ministry continued for half a century or more after this incident, which occurred early in his ministry (PK 382; cf. chs. 1:1; 6:1), makes it certain that he himself was then a young man, and that his wife might properly be referred to at that time as “the young woman.”

Shall conceive. The Hebrew verb is in the perfect tense, which ordinarily denotes completed action, and would normally be translated “has conceived.” However, the prophets often used the perfect tense to denote future action. They were so confident of the fulfillment of their predictions that they spoke of future events as already accomplished (see Vol. I, p. 27). On this basis, “shall conceive” would be a more accurate English translation. It is not possible to determine which translation reflects the intent of Inspiration more accurately, but many consider that the most natural interpretation of the Hebrew indicates that conception of the sign child had already occurred at the time Isaiah spoke. The sequence of tenses in v. 14 seems to require this. Those who consider “the young woman” to be Ahaz’ own wife or another young woman of the royal family, suggest that this prediction constituted a “sign” to Ahaz in that Isaiah, presumably, would not know that conception had occurred and that neither of them could, at this time, know the sex of the unborn child. But it is important to remember that a “sign” is by no means necessarily miraculous in character (see the foregoing on v. 14 under “Sign”).

Shall call. The generally accepted Hebrew text reads literally, “she shall call,” though a number of manuscripts have “thou shalt call.” According to the latter reading the yet unborn child would be a member of the royal family, and his mother either the wife of Ahaz or some other young woman whose offspring it was Ahaz’ prerogative to name. However, the reading, “she shall call,” is more probably correct.

Immanuel. Heb. ФImmanu ХEl, literally, “God with us,” and meaning “God [is] with us,” that is, as the context makes clear, to deliver us from our enemies. For the Messianic import of the name, see on Matt. 1:23. Like the name Isaiah, which means “the Lord will save [Judah],” Shear-jashub (v. 3), “[a] remnant [shall] return,” that is, Judah would not fall with the northern kingdom, and Maher-shalal-hash-baz, “Speed the spoil, hasten the plunder,” the name Immanuel was a sign name ordained of God to testify of His purpose for Judah at this time and of the nature of events soon to transpire. See further on ch. 8:1–3, 8, 10. The Immanuel sign would testify to God’s presence with His people to guide, to protect, and to bless. While other nations went down in defeat, Judah would be sustained; while Israel was to perish, Judah would live. When Sennacherib came against the land of Judah to destroy it, Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, no doubt found in Isaiah’s words regarding Immanuel a source of confidence and strength. In his message of encouragement to the people of Jerusalem Hezekiah assures them, “with us is the Lord our God to help us, and to fight our battles” (2 Chron. 32:7, 8).

15. Butter and honey. The “butter” of Bible times was curded milk, considered a delicacy in many parts of the Orient even today (see Ex. 3:17; Judges 5:25). A land of “milk and honey” was a land of plenty. Thus the mention here of eating curded milk and honey implies an abundance of food. The land was to be desolate, but there would be adequate food for the few who remained in the land following the Assyrian invasion (Isa. 7:22).

That he may know. Literally, “at [Heb. le] his knowing,” meaning “when he knows.” The preposition le has the same meaning in Gen. 24:63, “at the eventide”; Gen. 3:8, “in the cool”; Gen. 8:11, “in the evening”; 2 Sam. 11:1, “at the time”; etc. When the child that was to be called Immanuel became old enough “to refuse the evil, and choose the good,” he would have “butter and honey” to eat. Whether this refers to the age of 2 or 3, when a child’s tastes have become pronounced, or the age of about 12, when moral perception is well developed, is not certain. Two or three years hence would be about 732 b.c., and 12 years, about 722 (see on Isa. 7:1). Damascus fell in 732, and Samaria ten years later. The few who were not then carried captive would find plenty to eat (see on vs. 21, 22) in the desolate land (see on vs. 17–20, 23–25). See on ch. 8:4.

16. For. Heb. ki. This connective requires that the “child” of v. 16 be identified with the “son” of vs. 14, 15, and not the “son” Shear-jashub, of v. 3, as some have suggested. The word ki renders v. 16 inseparable from that which immediately precedes it. Furthermore, the definite article “the” preceding the word “child” of v. 16 requires that the last preceding child, in this case Immanuel, be here understood.

Before the child. See on v. 15.

Forsaken of both her kings. Isaiah had admonished Ahaz not to be afraid of Rezin and Pekah, the “two tails of these smoking firebrands” (v. 4). Now he declares that the child soon to be born would be not more than about two years old when these kings lost their thrones. If Ahaz came to the throne in 736/735, it may have been either late in 735 or early in 734 that this interview with Isaiah took place. In the year 735 Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria was engaged in a campaign against Urartu in the regions of Armenia, in 734 he fought against Philistia, and in 733 and 732 against Damascus (see Vol. II, pp. 61, 62). Assyria was putting forth a relentless effort to secure control of all northwestern Asia. In their anti-Assyrian campaign Pekah and Rezin were arrayed against Ahaz, who had allied himself with Tiglath-pileser (2 Kings 16:5–7). Judah need not fear if her leaders would only trust the promise implicit in the name Immanuel, “God [is] with us.” By the time the sign child Immanuel should be two years or so of age, the reigns of Pekah and Rezin would be at an end. That would be in 732, the second of the two years in which Tiglath-pileser waged war against Damascus. Compare Isa. 8:3, 4, where the time of the fulfillment of this prophecy is again foretold. See 2 Kings 15:30; 16:9.

17. The Lord shall bring. Ahaz has already made it plain that he will not turn to the Lord for help. Instead, he plans to rely on Assyria (Kings 16:5–7). But Isaiah warns him that Assyria will not prove a help to Judah, but rather a source of distress (Isa. 7:17–20; 8:7, 8; 10:6). Later, when Assyria invades Judah, the latter would seek help from Egypt, but that would likewise prove in vain (chs. 30:1–3; 31:1–3, 8). All these things the prophet now endeavors to make clear to the king.

King of Assyria. Days of darkness and peril were ahead for Judah, days of distress such as had not been experienced since the revolt of Jeroboam two centuries earlier. The king of Assyria would invade not only Israel but Judah as well. Had Judah turned to the Lord He would have extended His blessings, and not permitted the Assyrians to come against the land. Isaiah earnestly sought to lead the king and his people back to God, but they refused. For this reason Assyria would be allowed to invade the land.

18. Hiss for the fly. Literally, “whistle to the fly” to come from the distant parts of Egypt, that is, summon the armies of Egypt. The period of the Twenty-fourth Dynasty in Egypt was about 750–715. But contemporary with this dynasty was another founded by Piankhi, a powerful chieftain of Nubia, who ultimately extended his sway to southern Egypt (see Vol. II, pp. 52, 53). This Ethiopian Dynasty, the Twenty-fifth, ruled Egypt form about 715 to 663. When Sennacherib came against Judah, evidently on his second invasion of Judah (see Vol. II, p. 64), Taharka (see Vol. II, pp. 53, 64, 65, 160; and see on 2 Kings 18:13; 19:9), the fourth king of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty (see Vol. II, pp. 53, 77), threatened the Assyrian advance (see 2 Kings 19:9; Isa. 37:9). Many of the people of Judah probably relied upon Egypt for deliverance from Assyria (2 Kings 18:21). The “Ethiopian” king of Egypt is here called a “fly,” because the fly is a pest and the Egyptians would prove to be a nuisance rather than a help to Judah. Isaiah points out the folly of God’s people in turning to Egypt for help (Isa. 30:1–7; 31:1–3). It was the Lord, not Egypt, who would save Judah from Assyria (chs. 31:4–9; 37:33–36).

The bee. Assyria is compared to a bee. Bees here symbolize a persistent and formidable enemy (Deut. 1:44; Ps. 118:12). The sting of a bee, however painful, is seldom fatal. Assyria would come against Judah as the rod of God’s anger (Isa. 10:5–7), but the nation would not perish.

19. They shall come. The figure of invading insects is continued. The Egyptians and Assyrians would come into the land like flies and bees, and would penetrate all parts of the country.

20. In the same day. That is, at the same time. The prophet gives further details concerning the course of events in Judah.

A razor that is hired. The figure changes. Isaiah had previously likened Judah to a sick man with no sound spot left on his body (ch. 1:5, 6). Now the nation is compared to a man subjected to the supreme indignity of being shaved from head to foot, including even his beard, the loss of which was regarded by Orientals as a great disgrace.

Beyond the river. The Euphrates (see on Joshua 24:2). Assyria would be employed as an instrument in the hands of the Lord to devastate and humble unrepentant Judah. Compare the similar figure employed in Isa. 10:5–7.

21. A young cow. By the Assyrian invasion the land would be largely despoiled. Sennacherib claims to have taken “big and small cattle beyond counting.” By “big cattle” the Assyrians meant cows and oxen, and by “little cattle,” sheep and goats. Although most of the cattle were gone, here and there an individual among the remnant who remained would have managed to save a small cow and perhaps a couple of sheep.

22. The abundance of milk. The remnant left in the land would not, however, be forsaken by the Lord. Heaven’s blessing would rest upon them, and they would have “butter and honey” to eat. Although man might bring a curse, God would bless the faithful remnant. See on v. 15.

23. A thousand silverlings. That is, “pieces of silver,” or shekels (see on Gen. 20:16; cf. S. of Sol. 8:11). A piece of silver for a vine was probably a high price, and these vines must therefore have been of the choicest stock. The meaning here is that the best vineyards would revert to wilderness for lack of care. When the “vineyard” of Israel was cursed it brought forth briers and thorns (Isa. 5:6).

24. With arrows and with bows. These would be carried for protection against wild animals lurking in the once cultivated but now desolate regions of the country. Or, perhaps, men would hunt for game in these regions.

25. That shall be digged. Literally, “that used to be dug up.”

There shall not come. The Hebrew reads “you shall not come.”

Briers and thorns. Once peaceful and productive farmlands would revert to wilderness, because their former owners and caretakers had gone into captivity, never to return to their homeland.

Ellen G. White comments

2, 4–7, 9        PK 329

14   DA 578

14, 15  PK 695

15   Ed 231; 2T 397; 8T 250