Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Isaiah 7:15
Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
15. Butter and honey shall he eat ] This has to be explained by Isa 7:22, where the eating of butter (lit. “thick milk”) and (wild) honey is a symptom of the primitive simplicity to which human life is reduced by the cessation of agriculture. The meaning is that the youth of Immanuel will be spent amidst the privations of a land laid waste by foreign invaders.
that he may know ] This is the rendering of the Vulgate and other ancient versions, and is maintained still by a few scholars. But the idea that eating butter and honey promotes the formation of ethical character is somewhat bizarre. Translate with R.V. when he knoweth (more precisely “towards the time when, &c.”). It must be admitted, however, that exact parallels to this use of the preposition cannot be produced (though cf. Gen 24:63; Exo 14:27). But what lapse of time is here indicated? The expression “refuse the evil and choose the good” must bear the same sense as in Isa 7:16, and from ch. Isa 8:4 we see that the event predicted in Isa 7:16 was expected to happen in a very short time, within two or three years from the date of the interview with Ahaz. It would seem, therefore, that the phrase denotes the age at which a child begins to exercise intelligent choice between the pleasant and the painful (cf. 2Sa 19:35). Most commentators, it is true, explain it of the development of moral consciousness, and think of a period of 10 or 12 years or even longer. But this introduces a needless discrepancy between this sign and that of Isa 8:4. There is nothing improbable in the supposition that Isaiah expected the Assyrian invasion of Judah (which of course is presupposed by Isa 7:15) to happen simultaneously with the destruction of Samaria and Damascus.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Butter and honey – The word rendered butter ( chem’ah), denotes not butter, but thick and curdled milk. This was the common mode of using milk as an article of food in the East, and is still. In no passage in the Old Testament does butter seem to be meant by the word. Jarchi says, that this circumstance denotes a state of plenty, meaning that the land should yield its usual increase notwithstanding the threatened invasion. Eustatius on this place says, that it denotes delicate food. The more probable interpretation is, that it was the usual food of children, and that it means that the child should be nourished in the customary manner. That this was the common nourishment of children, is abundantly proved by Bochart; Hieroz. P. i. lib. xi. ch. li. p. 630. Barnabas, in his epistle says, The infant is first nourished with honey, and then with milk. This was done usually by the prescription of physicians.
Paulus says, It is fit that the first food given to a child be honey, and then milk. So Aetius, Give to a child, as its first food, honey; see Bochart. Some have, indeed, supposed that this refers to the fact that the Messiah should be man as well as God, and that his eating honey and butter was expressive of the fact that he had a human nature! But against this mode of interpretation, it is hoped, it is scarcely needful now to protest. It is suited to bring the Bible into contempt, and the whole science of exegesis into scorn. The Bible is a book of sense, and it should be interpreted on principles that commend themselves to the sober judgment of mankind. The word rendered honey – debash – is the same word – dibs – which is now used by the Arabs to denote the syrup or jelly which is made by boiling down wine. This is about the consistence of molasses, and is used as an article of food. Whether it was so employed in the time of Isaiah, cannot now be determined, but the word here may be used to denote honey; compare the note at Isa 7:22.
That he may know – As this translation now stands, it is unintelligible. It would seem from this, that his eating butter and honey would contribute to his knowing good and evil. But this cannot be the meaning. It evidently denotes until he shall know, or, at his knowing; Nord. Heb. Gram., Section 1026. 3. He shall be no urished in the usual way, until he shall arrive at such a period of life as to know good from evil. The Septuagint renders it, Prine gnonai auton – before he knows. The Chaldee, Until he shall know.
To refuse the evil … – Ignorance of good and evil denotes infancy. Thus, in Nineveh, it is said there were more than sixscore thousand perons that cannot discern between their right hand and left hand; commonly supposed to denote infants; Jon 4:11; compare Deu 1:39. The meaning is, that he should be nourished in the usual mode in infancy, and before he should be able to discern right from wrong, the land should be forsaken of its kings. At what particular period of life this occurs, it may not be easy to determine. A capability to determine, in some degree, between good and evil, or between right and wrong, is usually manifest when the child is two or three years of age. It is evinced when there is a capability of understanding law, and feeling that it is wrong to disobey it. This is certainly shown at a very early period of life; and it is not improper, therefore, to suppose that here a time was designated which was not more than two or three years.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 15. That he may know – “When he shall know”] “Though so much has been written on this important passage, there is an obscurity and inconsequence which still attends it, in the general run of all the interpretations given to it by the most learned. And this obscure incoherence is given to it by the false rendering of a Hebrew particle, viz., le, in ledato. This has been generally rendered, either ‘that he may know,’ or ’till he know.’ It is capable of either version, without doubt; but either of these versions makes Isa 7:15 incoherent and inconsistent with Isa 7:16. For Isa 7:16 plainly means to give a reason for the assertion in Isa 7:15, because it is subjoined to it by the particle ki, for. But it is no reason why a child should eat butter and honey till he was at an age to distinguish, that before that time the land of his nativity should be free from its enemies. This latter supposition indeed implies, what is inconsistent with the preceding assertion. For it implies, that in part of that time of the infancy spoken of the land should not be free from enemies, and consequently these species of delicate food could not be attainable, as they are in times of peace. The other version, ‘that he may know,’ has no meaning at all; for what sense is there in asserting, that a child shall eat butter and honey that he may know to refuse evil and choose good? Is there any such effect in this food? Surely not. Besides, the child is thus represented to eat those things, which only a state of peace produces, during its whole infancy, inconsistently with Isa 7:16, which promises a relief from enemies only before the end of this infancy: implying plainly, that part of it would be passed in distressful times of war and siege, which was the state of things when the prophecy was delivered.
“But all these objections are cut off, and a clear, coherent sense is given to this passage, by giving another sense to the particle le. which never occurred to me till I saw it in Harmer’s Observat., vol. i., p. 299. See how coherent the words of the prophet run, with how natural a connection one clause follows another, by properly rendering this one particle: ‘Behold this Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and thou shalt call his name Immanuel; butter and honey, shall he eat, when he shall know to refuse evil, and choose good. For before this child shall know to refuse evil and choose good, the land shall be desolate, by whose two kings thou art distressed.’ Thus Isa 7:16 subjoins a plain reason why the child should eat butter and honey, the food of plentiful times, when he came to a distinguishing age; viz., because before that time the country of the two kings, who now distressed Judea, should be desolated; and so Judea should recover that plenty which attends peace. That this rendering, which gives perspicuity and rational connection to the passage, is according to the use of the Hebrew particle, is certain. Thus liphnoth boker, ‘at the appearing of morning, or when morning appeared,’ Ex 14:27; leeth haochel, ‘at mealtime, or when it was time to eat,’ Ru 2:14. In the same manner, ledato, ‘at his knowing, that is, when he knows.’
“Harmer (ibid.) has clearly shown that these articles of food are delicacies in the East, and, as such, denote a state of plenty. See also Jos 5:6. They therefore naturally express the plenty of the country, as a mark of peace restored to it. Indeed, in Isa 7:22 it expresses a plenty arising from the thinness of the people; but that it signifies, Isa 7:15, a plenty arising from deliverance from war then present, is evident; because otherwise there is no expression of this deliverance. And that a deliverance was intended to be here expressed is plain, from calling the child which should be born Immanuel, God with us. It is plain, also, because it is before given to the prophet in charge to make a declaration of the deliverance, Isa 7:3-7; and it is there made; and this prophecy must undoubtedly be conformable to that in this matter.” – Dr. Jubb.
The circumstance of the child’s eating butter and honey is explained by Jarchi, as denoting a state of plenty: “Butter and honey shall this child eat, because our land shall be full of all good.” Comment in locum. The infant Jupiter, says Callimachus, was tenderly nursed with goat’s milk and honey. Hymn, in Jov. 48. Homer, of the orphan daughters of Pandareus: –
‘
, .
ODYSS. XX., 68.
“Venus in tender delicacy rears
With honey, milk, and wine, their infant years.”
POPE.
; “This is a description of delicate food,” says Eustathius on the place.
Agreeably to the observations communicated by the learned person above mentioned, which perfectly well explain the historical sense of this much disputed passage, not excluding a higher secondary sense, the obvious and literal meaning of the prophecy is this: “that within the time that a young woman, now a virgin, should conceive and bring forth a child, and that child should arrive at such an age as to distinguish between good and evil, that is, within a few years, (compare Isa 8:4,) the enemies of Judah should be destroyed.” But the prophecy is introduced in so solemn a manner; the sign is so marked, as a sign selected and given by God himself, after Ahaz had rejected the offer of any sign of his own choosing out of the whole compass of nature; the terms of the prophecy are so peculiar, and the name of the child so expressive, containing in them much more than the circumstances of the birth of a common child required, or even admitted; that we may easily suppose that, in minds prepared by the general expectation of a great Deliverer to spring from the house of David, they raised hopes far beyond what the present occasion suggested; especially when it was found, that in the subsequent prophecy, delivered immediately afterward, this child, called Immanuel, is treated as the Lord and Prince of the land of Judah. Who could this be, other than the heir of the throne of David; under which character a great and even a Divine person had been promised? No one of that age answered to this character except Hezekiah; but he was certainly born nine or ten years before the delivery of this prophecy. That this was so understood at that time is collected, I think, with great probability, from a passage of Micah, a prophet contemporary with Isaiah, but who began to prophesy after him; and who, as I have already observed, imitated him, and sometimes used his expressions. Micah, having delivered that remarkable prophecy which determines the place of the birth of Messiah, “the Ruler of God’s people, whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting;” that it should be Bethlehem Ephratah; adds immediately, that nevertheless, in the mean time, God would deliver his people into the hands of their enemies: “He will give them up, till she, who is to bear a child, shall bring forth,” Mic 5:3. This obviously and plainly refers to some known prophecy concerning a woman to bring forth a child; and seems much more properly applicable to this passage of Isaiah than to any others of the same prophet, to which some interpreters have applied it. St. Matthew, therefore, in applying this prophecy to the birth of Christ, does it, not merely in the way of accommodating the words of the prophet to a suitable case not in the prophet’s view, but takes it in its strictest, clearest, and most important sense; and applies it according to the original design and principal intention of the prophet. – L.
After all this learned criticism, I think something is still wanting to diffuse the proper light over this important prophecy. On Mt 1:23 I have given what I judge to be the true meaning and right application of the whole passage, as there quoted by the evangelist, the substance of which it will be necessary to repeat here: –
At the time referred to, the kingdom of Judah, under the government of Ahaz, was reduced very low. Pekah, king of Israel, had slain in Judea one hundred and twenty thousand persons in one day; and carried away captives two hundred thousand, including women and children, together with much spoil. To add to their distress, Rezin, king of Syria, being confederate with Pekah, had taken Elath, a fortified city of Judah, and carried the inhabitants away captive to Damascus. In this critical conjuncture, need we wonder that Ahaz was afraid that the enemies who were now united against him must prevail, destroy Jerusalem, end the kingdom of Judah, and annihilate the family of David? To meet and remove this fear, apparently well grounded, Isaiah is sent from the Lord to Ahaz, swallowed up now both by sorrow and by unbelief, in order to assure him that the counsels of his enemies should not stand; and that they should be utterly discomfited. To encourage Ahaz, he commands him to ask a sign or miracle, which should be a pledge in hand, that God should, in due time, fulfill the predictions of his servant, as related in the context. On Ahaz humbly refusing to ask any sign, it is immediately added, “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son; and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat,” c. Both the Divine and human nature of our Lord, as well as the miraculous conception, appear to be pointed out in the prophecy quoted here by the evangelist: He shall be called IMMANU-EL literally, The STRONG GOD WITH US: similar to those words in the New Testament: The word which was God – was made flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; Joh 1:1; Joh 1:14. And God was manifested in the flesh, 1Ti 3:16. So that we are to understand God with us to imply, God incarnated – God in human nature. This seems farther evident from the words of the prophet, Isa 7:15: Butter and honey shall he eat – he shall be truly man – grow up and be nourished in a human natural way; which refers to his being WITH US, i.e., incarnated. To which the prophet adds, That he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good; or rather, According to his knowledge, ledato, reprobating the evil, and choosing the good; this refers to him as GOD, and is the same idea given by this prophet, Isa 53:11: By (or in) his knowledge, bedato, (the knowledge of Christ crucified,) shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their offenses. Now this union of the Divine and human nature is termed a sign or miracle, oth, i.e., something which exceeds the power of nature to produce. And this miraculous union was to be brought about in a miraculous way: Behold, a VIRGIN shall conceive: the word is very emphatic, haalmah, THE virgin; the only one that ever was, or ever shall be, a mother in this way. But the Jews, and some called Christians, who have espoused their desperate cause, assert that “the word almah does not signify a VIRGIN only; for it is applied Pr 30:19 to signify a young married woman.” I answer, that this latter text is no proof of the contrary doctrine: the words derech geber bealmah, the way of a man with a maid, cannot be proved to mean that for which it is produced. Besides, one of De Rossi’s MSS. reads bealmaiv, the way of a strong or stout man ( geber) IN HIS YOUTH; and in this reading the Syriac, Septuagint, Vulgate, and Arabic agree; which are followed by the first version in the English language, as it stands in a MS. in my own possession: the weie of a man in his waxing youth: so that this place, the only one that can with any probability of success be produced, were the interpretation contended for correct, which I am by no means disposed to admit, proves nothing. Besides, the consent of so many versions in the opposite meaning deprives it of much of its influence in this question.
The word almah, comes from alam, to lie hid, be concealed: and we are told, that “virgins were so called, because they were concealed or closely kept up in their father’s houses till the time of their marriage.” This is not correct: see the case of Rebecca, Ge 24:43, and my note there; See Clarke on Ge 24:43; that of Rachel, Ge 29:6-9, and the note there also; and see the case of Miriam, the sister of Moses, Ex 2:8, and also the Chaldee paraphrase on La 1:4, where the virgins are represented as going out in the dance. And see also the whole history of Ruth. This being concealed or kept at home, on which so much stress is laid, is purely fanciful; for we find that young unmarried women drew water, kept sheep, gleaned publicly in the fields, c., c., and the same works they perform among the Turcomans to the present day. This reason, therefore, does not account for the radical meaning of the word and we must seek it elsewhere. Another well-known and often-used root in the Hebrew tongue will cast light on this subject. This is galah, which signifies to reveal, make manifest, or uncover and is often applied to matrimonial connections in different parts of the Mosaic law: alam, therefore, may be considered as implying the concealment of the virgin, as such, till lawful, marriage had taken place. A virgin was not called almah, because she was concealed by being kept at home in her father’s house, which is not true; but, literally and physically, because as a woman she had not been uncovered – she had not known man. This fully applies to the blessed virgin, see Lu 1:34. “How can this be, seeing I know no man?” And this text throws much light on the subject before us. This also is in perfect agreement with the ancient prophecy, “The seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the serpent,” Ge 3:15; for the person who was to destroy the work of the devil was to be the progeny of the woman, without any concurrence of the man. And hence the text in Genesis speaks as fully of the virgin state of the person from whom Christ, according to the flesh, should come, as that in the prophet, or this in the evangelist. According to the original promise there was to be a seed, a human being, who should destroy sin: but this seed or human being, must come from the woman ALONE; and no woman ALONE could produce such a human being without being a virgin. Hence, A virgin shall bear a son, is the very spirit and meaning of the original text, independently of the illustration given by the prophet; and the fact recorded by the evangelist is the proof of the whole. But how could that be a sign to Ahaz, which was to take place so many hundreds of years after? I answer, the meaning of the prophet is plain: not only Rezin and Pekah should be unsuccessful against Jerusalem at that time, which was the fact; but Jerusalem, Judea, and the house of David should be both preserved, notwithstanding their depressed state, and the multitude of their adversaries, till the time should come when a VIRGIN should bear a son. This is a most remarkable circumstance – the house of David could never fail, till a virgin should conceive and bear a son – nor did it: but when that incredible and miraculous fact did take place, the kingdom and house of David became extinct! This is an irrefragable confutation of every argument a Jew can offer in vindication of his opposition to the Gospel of Christ. Either the prophecy in Isaiah has been fulfilled, or the kingdom and house of David are yet standing. But the kingdom of David, we know, is destroyed: and where is the man, Jew or Gentile, that can show us a single descendant of David on the face of the earth? The prophecy could not fail: the kingdom and house of David have failed; the virgin, therefore, must have brought forth her son, and this son is Jesus, the Christ. Thus Moses, Isaiah, and Matthew concur; and facts the most unequivocal have confirmed the whole! Behold the wisdom and providence of God!
Notwithstanding what has been said above, it may be asked, In what sense could this name, Immanuel, be applied to Jesus Christ, if he be not truly and properly GOD? Could the Spirit of truth ever design that Christians should receive him as an angel or a mere man; and yet, in the very beginning of the Gospel history, apply a character to him which belongs only to the most high God? Surely no. In what sense, then, is Christ GOD WITH US? Jesus is called Immanuel, or God with us, in his incarnation; God united to our nature; God with man, God in man; God with us, by his continual protection; God with us, by the influences of his Holy Spirit, in the holy sacrament, in the preaching of his word, in private prayer. And God with us, through every action of our life, that we begin, continue, and end in his name. He is God with us, to comfort, enlighten, protect, and defend us, in every time of temptation and trial, in the hour of death, in the day of judgment; and God with us and in us, and we with and in him, to all eternity.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Butter and honey; the common food of children in that Country, where they were in great abundance, and of the best sort.
He; the virgins Son last mentioned, who, though he be God blessed for ever, yet shall become man, and, to show the truth of his humanity, shall not only be conceived and brought forth, but also shall be nourished and brought up, by the same means and steps as other children; which is justly mentioned here as a stupendous and miraculous work of God.
That he may know; that by this food he may grow up, and so may know, &c. Or, until he know, as it is rendered by divers learned men, and, among others, by the Chaldee interpreter, who best knew the use of this particle among the Hebrews.
To refuse the evil, and choose the good; to discern between things morally good and evil; which children are capable of doing, in some measure, when they are five or six years old. Compare Deu 1:39, where young children are described by this character, that they had no knowledge between good and evil.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
15. Butterrather, curdledmilk, the acid of which is grateful in the heat of the East (Job20:17).
honeyabundant inPalestine (Jdg 14:8; 1Sa 14:25;Mat 3:4). Physicians directedthat the first food given to a child should be honey, the next milk[BARNABAS, Epistle].HORSLEY takes this asimplying the real humanity of the Immanuel Jesus Christ, about to befed as other infants (Lu 2:52).Isa 7:22 shows that besides thefitness of milk and honey for children, a state of distress ofthe inhabitants is also implied, when, by reason of theinvaders, milk and honey, things produced spontaneously, shallbe the only abundant articles of food [MAURER].
that he may knowrather,until He shall know.
evil . . . choose . . .goodAt about three years of age moral consciousness begins(compare Isa 8:4; Deu 1:39;Jon 4:11).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Butter and honey shall he eat….. As the Messiah Jesus no doubt did; since he was born in a land flowing with milk and honey, and in a time of plenty, being a time of general peace; so that this phrase points at the place where, and the time when, the Messiah should be born, as well as expresses the truth of his human nature, and the manner of his bringing up, which was in common with that of other children. signifies the “cream of milk”, as well as “butter”, as Jarchi, in Ge 18:8, observes; and milk and honey were common food for infants:
that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good; meaning not knowledge of good and bad food, so as to choose the one, and refuse the other; but knowledge of moral good and evil; and this does not design the end of his eating butter and honey, as if that was in order to gain such knowledge, which have no such use and tendency; but the time until which he should live on such food; namely, until he was grown up, or come to years of discretion, when he could distinguish between good and evil; so that as the former phrase shows that he assumed a true body like ours, which was nourished with proper food; this that he assumed a reasonable soul, which, by degrees, grew and increased in wisdom and knowledge; see Lu 2:52. should be rendered, “until he knows”; as in Le 24:12 which the Chaldee paraphrase of Onkelos renders, “until it was declared to them”; and so the Targum here,
“butter and honey shall he eat, while or before the child knows not, or until he knows to refuse the evil, and choose the good.”
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
15. Butter and honey shall he eat. Here the Prophet proves the true human nature of Christ; for it was altogether incredible that he who was God should be born of a virgin. Such a prodigy was revolting to the ordinary judgment of men. To hinder us from thinking that his fancy now presents to us some apparition, he describes the marks of human nature, in order to show, by means of them, that Christ will actually appear in flesh, or in the nature of man; that is, that he will be reared in the same manner that children commonly are. The Jews had a different way of rearing children from what is followed by us; for they used honey, which is not so customary among us; and to this day they still retain the custom of causing a child to taste butter and honey, as soon as it is born, before receiving suck.
That he may know. That is, until he arrive at that age when he can distinguish between good and evil, or, as we commonly say, till the years of discretion; ל ( lamed) denotes the term and period up to which he shall be reared after the manner of a child; and this contributes still more to prove the reality of his nature. He therefore means understanding and judgment, such as is obtained when the period of childhood is past. Thus we see how far the Son of God condescended on our account, so that he not only was willing to be fed on our food, but also, for a time, to be deprived of understanding, and to endure all our weaknesses. (Heb 2:14.) This relates to his human nature, for it cannot apply to his Divinity. Of this state of ignorance, in which Christ was for a time, Luke testifies when he says,
And he grew in wisdom, and in stature, and in favor with God and with man. (Luk 2:52.)
If Luke had merely said that Christ grew, he might have been supposed to mean with men; but he expressly adds, with God. Christ must therefore have been, for a time, like little children, so that, so far as relates to his human nature, he was deficient in understanding.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
THE GREAT OBJECT OF CHILD-TRAINING
(A Sunday-School Anniversary Sermon.)
Isa. 7:15. The child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
These words, taken above, form a complete sentence; yet they occur in the clause of a sentence which is intended to denote a space of time. Before the child which Isaiah held in his arms [820] should know the difference between right and wrong certain events would take place: in other words, before a space of four or five years at the most would elapse, certain things would occur. But it is not our intention to discuss the prophecy itself; we shall find it more in harmony with the present occasion, and perhaps more profitable, to consider what may be suggested to us by these words thus taken apart from their context.
[820] See the paper entitled THE VIRGINS SON.
The child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. There is nothing else so important for any child to know as this (H. E. I. 1751). Seldom made the object of education; consequently the majority of lives are failures. No child knows this without training: the childs natural tendencies are precisely the reverse of this. But, if this training is urgently needed, how immense and difficult is the task of those who undertake to give it! How difficult it often is to discern between what is good and what is evilin all the realms of thought and activity; especially in the moral realm. The difficulty of the task is not to cause us to decline it. We have wonderful helps in it.
1. GODS WORD. What a wonderful help that is! What a proof that in the Bible we have Gods word is this, that for helpfulness in this task no other book can be compared with it (H. E. I., 506, 508, 509). Our text reminds us of what should be our object in the Scriptural teaching we give our children. What value is there in any so-called Scriptural instruction that does not tend to cultivate spiritual discernmenthate of what is evil, and love of what is good?
2. THE EXAMPLE OF CHRIST, the law drawn out in living characters. Let us not overlook or neglect to use this marvellous instrumentality and help.
3. THE HOLY SPIRIT. Always ready to co-operate with us. Christian parents, let the remembrance of these helps encourage you to resume this supremely important task with fresh vigour. Keep it ever in view, aim at the whole of it. The training which consists merely in fighting against evil is foredoomed to fail. The child must be taught, not merely to refuse the evil, but to choose the good. Do not be content in the field of your childs heart merely to plough up the weeds; sow there the corn which, when it is full grown, shall overshadow and kill the weeds which, in spite of all your efforts, will struggle for a place there. In those who undertake to give this training, there is imperative need of seriousness, humility, hopefulness, and a wise comprehensiveness. Consider what will be the results of success in child-training such as this.
1. Our children will be spared from indescribable misery.
2. They will grow continually in all that is noble and love-worthy.
3. Learning to choose what is good, they will necessarily choose God as He has been thus revealed to us in Jesus Christ.
4. Beholding them thus allied in heart and will to the supreme source of all goodness, and daily becoming more like Him, we shall feel that all our labours and sacrifices for them are overpaid.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
(15) Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know . . .Better, till he know, or, when he shall know. . . .By a strange inversion of the familiar associations of the phrase (Exo. 3:17; Deu. 31:20), probably, as the prophet spoke them, not without a certain touch of the irony of paradox, the words describe a time, not of plenty, but of scarcity. (Comp. Isa. 7:22.) Fields and vineyards should be left uncultivated (Isa. 5:9), and instead of bread and meat, and wine and oil, the people, flying from their cities and taking refuge in caves and mountains, should be left to the food of a nomadic tribe, such, e.g., as the Kenites (Jdg. 5:25; 1Sa. 14:26; Mat. 3:4). The butter of the Bible here, as in Jdg. 5:25, is the clotted milk which has always been a delicacy with Arabs.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
15. Butter and honey shall he eat The “butter” of the Old Testament was simply curdled milk. As Palestine was an easy region for cattle breeding, and wild bees were abundant and productive, so it was called “a land flowing with milk and honey.” These were the most easily procured foods for the common people, and the usual food for children. Hence it is but the ordinary children’s diet that is here specified for the child. Were it not that the amiable commentator, Albert Barnes, is so unwontedly severe upon the interpretation, we should not hesitate to say that the true meaning is, that the divine child would, though the divine Incarnate, eat the ordinary human food; so the resurrect Jesus ate before his disciples of their food to identify himself. How knew Isaiah’s contemporaries that the born Immanuel would eat, not of celestial food, but the plain diet of other children? And it is interesting to be told by Luke that “he increased in wisdom” just like any other child. Luk 2:52.
That he may know This word “that,” in the sense of in order that, greatly distresses some commentators. What, did he eat butter and honey in order to know, etc.? And so they substitute until for “that.” Now, we take it that the plain meaning is, that he ate the ordinary child’s food in order that he might as a muscle grows on food; and even the Incarnate submitted to the process.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Isa 7:15. Butter and honey shall he eat, &c. Cream and honey shall he eat, till, &c. The meaning of this verse is, that this child, called Immanuel, should be educated in the common method; the cultivated fields, unoccupied by the enemy, abundantly supplying all necessary food; and that thus he should grow up to maturity. The prophet is thought in these words to refer to the human nature of Jesus Christ. Butter and honey, or milk and honey, were a very common food of infants among the ancient Jews. See Pro 24:13; Pro 25:16.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Isa 7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
Ver. 15. Butter and honey shall he eat, ] i.e., He shall be fed with children’s meat, after the manner of other infants; for, as he shall take upon him our nature, so shall he also partake with us in our natural infirmities, feeding, as other children there did, on “butter and honey,” a not able to discern good from evil, through want of judgment, till he came to be of discretion, Luk 2:52 Deu 1:39 that he might be in all things like unto us, and that we might once come “unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ”; Eph 4:13 that we might become “strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might”; able to “do all things through Christ, that strengtheneth us” Php 4:7 Stumble not at his weakness, but gather assurance of his love who so sweetly joined his majesty to our meanness – his might to our weakness, abasing himself to the shape and state of a feeble, weak, and helpless child.
a Noematica periphrasis.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Butter = Curds. See Gen 18:8, Deu 32:14, &c.
that he may know = up to the time of his knowing: i.e. the prophecy shall come to pass while still a babe. See Isa 7:16.
choose. See note on Isa 1:29.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Butter and honey
Indicating the plainness and simplicity of the life in which the young Immanuel should be brought up.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Butter: Connecting this verse with the preceding and following, we may render with Dr. Jubb and Lowth, “Behold the virgin (haalmah as the word uniformly signifies, Gen 24:43, Exo 2:8, Psa 68:26, Pro 30:19, Son 1:3, Son 6:8) shall conceive and bear a son, and thou shalt call his name Immanuel; butter and honey shall he eat when he shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For,” etc. Isa 7:22, Mat 3:4
know: Psa 51:5, Amo 5:15, Luk 1:35, Luk 2:40, Luk 2:52, Rom 12:9, Phi 1:9, Phi 1:10
Reciprocal: Deu 1:39 – which in Deu 32:14 – Butter Job 20:17 – of honey Psa 22:9 – thou didst Pro 24:13 – eat Pro 25:16 – Hast Son 4:11 – honey Isa 8:4 – before Heb 5:14 – to discern
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Isa 7:15. Butter and honey shall he eat The common food of children in that country, where these articles were in great abundance, and of the best sort. The principal meaning of the verse seems to be, that this child, called Immanuel, should be brought up in the usual manner, the same republic still continuing, and the cultivated fields, unoccupied by the enemy, abundantly supplying all necessary food; and that thus he should grow up to maturity. The words, however, also signify, that though he should be miraculously conceived, and should be possessed of a nature truly divine, yet he should be also human, subject to all the infirmities of our nature, standing in need of food for his support as other children do, and by the help thereof growing up from childhood to manhood. That he may know Or rather, till he know, as may be properly rendered; to refuse the evil and choose the good That is, till his faculties be fully unfolded, or, as Bishop Lowth renders it, when he knows, &c.; when they are unfolded, and he is arrived at mature age. Both in childhood and in manhood, he shall be sustained by the usual diet of the country, which, being neither invaded nor distressed by any foreign enemy, shall yield food sufficient for all its inhabitants.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
7:15 {n} Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
(n) Meaning that Christ is not only God, but man also, because he will be nourished as other men until the age of discretion.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Eating curds (thick, sour milk) and honey, the diet of the poor, pictures a time of poverty in the land (cf. Isa 7:22) 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.