² tn That is, Jerusalem, Ahaz’s capital city.

¹ tn Heb “according to all that King Ahaz sent from Damascus.”

³ tn The infinitive absolute precedes the cognate nominal form to emphasize the degree of Ahaz’s unfaithfulness.

¹ tn Heb “son.” Both terms (“servant” and “son”) reflect Ahaz’s subordinate position as Tiglath-Pileser’s subject.

² tn Heb “so Uriah the priest did, until the arrival of King Ahaz from Damascus.”

¹ tn Heb “the shadow on the steps which it [the sun] had gone down, on the steps of Ahaz, with the sun, back ten steps.”

² tn Heb “The vision of Isaiah son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, [and] Hezekiah, kings of Judah.”

² tn Heb “made the shadow return, on the steps which [the sun] had gone down, on the steps of Ahaz, back ten steps.”

¹ tn Heb “Make it as deep as Sheol or make it high upwards.” These words suggest that Ahaz can feel free to go beyond the bounds of ordinary human experience.

¹ tn Ahaz uses the verb נָסַה (nasah, “test”) in its negative sense of “challenge, provoke.” However, this is false piety, a smokescreen designed to cover up his lack of faith in the Lord.

¹ tn The name means “a remnant will return.” Perhaps in this context, where the Lord is trying to encourage Ahaz, the name suggests that only a few of the enemy invaders will return home; the rest will be defeated.

¹ tn Heb “house.” In this context the “house of David” includes King Ahaz, his family, and the royal court. See also Jer 21:12; Zech 12:7-8, 10, 12, for a similar use of the phrase.

¹ tc The name “Ahaz” is included in the Vulgate and Syriac, but omitted in the MT. It probably was accidentally omitted by haplography. Note that the name appears at the beginning of the next verse. Cf. also 8:35.

¹ tn Heb “As for the rest of the events of Ahaz, and that which he did, are they not written on the scroll of the events of the days of the kings of Judah?”

³ tn Or perhaps, “but they were unable to attack it.” This statement sounds like a summary of the whole campaign. The following context explains why they were unable to defeat the southern kingdom. The parallel passage (2 Kgs 16:5; cf. Num 22:11; 1 Sam 17:9 for a similar construction) affirms that Syria and Israel besieged Ahaz. Consequently, the statement that “they were not able to battle against them” must refer to the inability to conquer Ahaz.

² sn The twofold appearance of the statement “a remnant will come back” (שְׁאָר יָשׁוּב, sheʾar yashuv) in vv. 21-22 echoes and probably plays off the name of Isaiah’s son Shear Jashub (see 7:3). In its original context the name was meant to encourage Ahaz (see the note at 7:3), but here it has taken on new dimensions. In light of Ahaz’s failure and the judgment it brings down on the land, the name Shear Jashub now foreshadows the destiny of the nation. According to vv. 21-22, there is good news and bad news. The good news is that a remnant of God’s people will return; the bad news is that only a remnant will be preserved and come back. Like the name Immanuel, this name foreshadows both judgment (see the notes at 7:25 and 8:8) and ultimate restoration (see the note at 8:10).

¹ sn The identity of this “club” (also referred to as a “serpent” in the next line) is uncertain. It may refer to an Assyrian king, or to Ahaz. For discussion see J. N. Oswalt, Isaiah (NICOT), 1:331-32. The viper/adder referred to in the second half of the verse is his successor.

² tn The verb is second plural in form because the prophet addresses the whole family of David. He continues to use the plural in v. 14 (with one exception; see the notes on that verse), but then switches back to the second singular (addressing Ahaz specifically) in vv. 16-17.

⁴ sn The address to the “house of David” is designed to remind Ahaz and his royal court of the protection promised to them through the Davidic covenant. The king’s refusal to claim God’s promise magnifies his lack of faith.

¹ tn Heb “the gods of Damascus, the ones who had defeated him.” The words “he thought” are supplied in the translation for clarification. The perspective is that of Ahaz, not the narrator! Another option is that “the kings” has been accidentally omitted after “gods of.” See v. 23b.