Isaiah 9:6

Great Debates
1

I have a question about this verse. In my New English Bible, it is rendered as follows:

In the King James Version the verse is given as

Other major Christian versions, such as the New International Version and the New American Standard Bible use basically similar language.

Now, it seems to me that there’s a pretty big difference between the “mighty God” found in other versions and the “in battle god-like” of the New English Bible. As has been pointed out in recent discussions of Christianity and Judaism, Jews don’t believe in the Christian conception of the Messiah/Christ as the “Son of God” in a Trinitarian sense: that is, the Jewish messiah, although sent by God, is still a man (like Moses, or Isaiah, or even Elijah). Jews don’t believe in a “God-Man” or a God Incarnate, and the Jewish messiah is not “the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.” (See the now-closed thread Why jewish people don’t believe in Jesus Christ’s divinity?) The NEB version of the names or titles of the messiah (assuming that this verse is a reference to the messiah), while arguably mildly blasphemous from a really strict point of view, still doesn’t seem to slip over the line from flattery to outright apotheosis the way the KJV and other modern Christian translations do. The Jewish Publication Society Bible renders the verse as:

In other words the whole “Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” bit simply isn’t translated. Possibly the intent here is to say that the messiah’s name will be something which could be translated as “The mighty God is wonderful, counsellor, the everlasting father, the prince of peace”, not to claim those attributes directly for the messiah. Young’s Literal Translation which, as the name suggests, seeks to be as much a word-for-word translation of the original Hebrew (or Greek) as is possible, renders the passage as:

Without getting into that capitalized “He”, it seems to me the antecedants of those pronouns are sufficiently unclear that it could be the messiah–whether God-Man, or just a Man On a Mission From God–who’s calling God “Wonderful, Counsellor, etc.”

My question is–without (if possible) getting so much into the question of whether or not anyone believes this verse refers or could refer to Jesus of Nazareth–does this verse, in the original Hebrew, refer to the messiah–or to any human being–as being “God”? (In other words, even if you believe that Jesus couldn’t possibly have been the messiah of Judaism for this, that, or the other reason, does the verse still say or imply that some human being will properly be referred to as “the Mighty God”?) And, historically, what has been the Jewish take on this verse? For example, how was it rendered in the Septuagint?

Since I’m especially interested in the answer to that last question(s), I was almost tempted to post this in General Questions, but given the subject matter I’m probably just sparing manhattan the trouble by posting it here. My knowledge of Hebrew is unfortunately nill, so I’m at the mercy of others on this one.

2

With luck someone who knows more Hebrew than I will be along and give a clear redaction of the words you question.

My sole observation would be that for ancient people generally, even the Jews, the terms “god,” “divine,” etc., were not used in a definitional context, but rather as ascriptions of metaphysical supremacy. I.e., YHWH is not of the species “god” but is that of whom the term “god” is properly descriptive – the only thing of which it is fully descriptive. There is a rather famous quote in Cicero that better illustrates my point: “Remember that you are immortal, and are therefore a god” (addressed to a suicidally depressed statesman). Though the Jews were steadfast on the idea that there were two things in contrast, YHWH the ultimate Creator and Ruler of all, and everything else which was his creation and over which he ruled, nonetheless the characteristics of godhood might be ascribed to something else. There are some famous examples in Genesis of this, particularly the visit to Abraham and to Sodom, which half the time seems to be discussing God Himself and half the time his angels. The closest equivalent might be in trying to figure out what human group X considers dolphins and porpoises, not recognizing that their term does not mean “fish” in the taxonomic sense but “pisciform” – fish-shaped, which is clearly true of them despite their mammalian nature. The attribution of “mighty god, everlasting father” to the promised son need not be understood as the identity of the latter with the former (though any good Christian would immediately jump to that conclusion) but as the assignment of “God” attributes to him. (I hope that made sense; effectively what I am saying is that the terminology of even Hebrew did not draw distinctions that we insist on reading into the translated accounts.)

Chaim? Zev? Dex? Please emend the above as needed and provide the Hebrew background and contexting. (BTW, as a Christian who sees a prophecy of Jesus as God Incarnate in that passage, I’d welcome the Jewish “take” on it.)

3

I really have to disagree with you on this. Given the seriousness of taking God’s name in vain, I really can’t believe that Isaiah would, while speaking prophetically, call a mere man “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father” if he didn’t mean it. That would seem to be outright blasphemy if it is not describing an actual incarnation of God.

I agree that this verse seems to be prophetic of Jesus (as a Christian, it seems obvious to me, but I’m trying to be as objective as possible for this discussion) as the Messiah, and as God Incarnate.

4

Joe Cool said:

But my point was that he didn’t. Granted, Isaiah used language that translates into English and reads exactly that way. But what context he put on them and what they meant to him may have differed greatly from what we today understand them as. Without being smartalecky about it, which you do not deserve, we’re looking at two English phrases that appear to be applicable by a good Jew only to the one Lord God and nobody else, and by a Christian only to Him or to His Son, God Incarnate. And I’m suggesting that the “flavor” of the terms in 7th Century BC Hebrew are going to be quite different than what they seem clearly to mean in English at the dawn of the 21st Century AD. And hoping one of our resident Jewish scholars of OT Hebrew will speak to that point.

Consider my parallel scenario: God comes down and speaks to Abraham at Mamre and prophesies the birth of Isaac. He does this in the persons of three men, which typologists have seen as foreshadowing of the Trinity, to be revealed later in time. Then two of the three go on to Sodom to save Lot and incidentally provoke the incident that gave rise to the term “sodomy” (neither here nor there) and they are spoken of as “young men” and “angels” rather than as God. Either two legends have been spliced together with poor trimming here, or the use of the terms is quite variable. Is it that one of Abraham’s visitors is the Lord God Himself, and the other two, who go on to Sodom, His angels? Or are we reading things into this that aren’t really there? Might it be that the three visitors were delivering God’s word to Abraham and were therefore spoken of as Him, in the same sense that an ambassador embodies the monarch for whom he speaks? And that when they left him, they changed function and therefore fell into the role of angels (=messengers)?

We don’t know precisely what was meant in Genesis. Nor do we know precisely what Isaiah intended. It surely seems to speak of God Incarnate in His Full Majesty to us – but that’s with hindsight and looking for prophecy. Remember how Matthew bends the original meaning of stories to show how they too predicted Jesus – I’m sure you’ve been through the Emmanuel story more than once.

And don’t hear this as doubting what the typological understanding of the verse in question meant. What the OP asked and I’m trying to figure out is what the original, non-typological meaning was. For a messianic Jew (as opposed to a Jew-for-Jesus) or a Christian, it’s clearly prophetic of a Messiah. But was this Isaiah’s original meaning? Or what? And does it necessarily imply (non-typologically) the Incarnation of God Himself?

5

The word “God” in Isaiah 9:6 is El, not Yahweh. From Strong’s Concordance:

El:

  1. god, god-like one, mighty one
    1a) mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes
    1b) angels
    1c) god, false god, (demons, imaginations)
    1d) God, the one true God, Jehovah
    2) mighty things in nature
    3) strength, power

Okay, sorry the spacing got messed up in the cut-and-paste, but Isaiah may very well have been calling this man a powerful ruler, not God incarnate, an idea unknown to Judaism.

Likewise, “father” needn’t refer to God the father. Strong’s again:

          1) father of an individual
          2) of God as father of his people
          3) head or founder of a household, group, family, or clan
          4) ancestor
          4a) grandfather, forefathers -- of person
          4b) of people
          5) originator or patron of a class, profession, or art
          6) of producer, generator (fig.)
          7) of benevolence and protection (fig.)
          8) term of respect and honour
          9) ruler or chief (spec.)

Ruler, chief, head of a clan, all seem appropriate here.

And of course, we all know that Isaiah was really talking about King Hezekiah, a man of his own era, not somebody centuries later. In fact, virtually every “prophecy” in the Old Testament is actually a political commentary on current affairs, rather than a Sylvia Browne type prediction of the future.

6

Well, certainly “Wonderful”, “Counselor”, “Prince of Peace”, and “Everlasting Father” don’t seem to present any insuperable difficulties as being the sorts of titles which people would use for an Ancient Near Eastern monarch. It’s that “Mighty God” which seems problematic. (I’d say “Prince of Peace”, like “King of Kings”, only seems peculiarly Messianic because of the way that meaning has been “read back” into the phrase by Christians. Otherwise it’s a perfectly ordinary flattering-courtier sort of title for a big strong king who brings his people peace by slaughtering all his enemies and stomping on everybody’s neck.) There is the 82nd Psalm, which I think has been discussed before. But I’d still like to hear the Jewish take on this.

Chaim? Dex? Zev? Bueller? Anyone?

7

I’m waiting for a lurker to register the screen name Bueller and start answering questions phrased like MEBuckner’s last was. :slight_smile:

8

Hey, if it’s a Jewish lurker who knows Hebrew, that works for me.

9

OK, MEBuckner, since you asked for it…

The Jewish take on this verse (which, BTW in the Jewish Bible is 9:5), obviously, does not refer to Jesus. Most commentators, following the Talmud’s lead, say that this verse refers to King Chizkiyah (as Opus1 suggested).
One thing should be noted: the word “called” in Hebrew is Viyikra (the same word used at the beginning of Leviticus). The tense of the word is clearly past.

As for the actual translation of the verse, there are two possibilities according to the Jewish commentators.

Rashi is the most famous Jewish Bible commentator. Almost every Jewish Bible printed in Hebrew is printed with his commentary and his views are universally accepted among Orthodox Jews today. His take on this verse is that God called the boy Sar Shalom (Prince of Peace). His commentary states (translation mine) "The Holy One Blessed be He (a common usage for God in post-biblical Hebrew) who is a Wonderful Counselor… called the boy the Prince of Peace. (Very often in Hebrew the predicate will come before the subject). Redak, Metzudas Dovid and the Targum Yonasan all agree with Rashi.

Ibn Ezra cites Rashi’s opinion. He then goes on to say “… and it is correct to me that these are all names of the boy. “Wonderful,” that God did wonders in his day…”

Zev Steinhardt

10

Just to be clear then, the Jewish take is that “the mighty God” is calling the boy the “Prince of Peace”, not that the boy is being referred to at all as “the mighty God”?

11

This is sorta OT, but related- every year when I hear the Messiah, the mezzo sings about the Virgin bearing the Son, and calling his Name “Emmanuel.” Now I can kind of see how you can get Hitler from Hister, but how in hell do the Christians get Jesus from Emmanuel? I can’t remember what verse it is. Is this also the verse where the Christians say “virgin,” but the Jews just say “young woman?”
Sure is beautiful music, though. JDM

12

According to Rashi and most other commentators. As I said earlier, however, the Ibn Ezra disagrees. However, even the Ibn Ezra agrees that this verse refers to Chizkiyah and in the verse, Isaiah is not saying that Chizkiyah is God.

Zev Steinhardt

13

Yep, that’s Isaiah 7:14. The word in question is “almah.”

Zev Steinhardt

14

To JDM:

Is. 7:14 is seen by Christians as a prophecy about Jesus, despite all of the evidence that it is not. But Is. 7:14 says that the child will be called Emmanuel–kind of tough when your savior is named Jesus. This apparently didn’t phase Matthew at all, however. He just quoted the verse like there was no problem. This is the only time in the entire NT when Jesus is called Emmanuel.

This forces modern day Christians into a slightly awkward position. They are forced to believe that Jesus had two names, or that Emmanuel was his middle name or some jive like that. In order to bolster their own beliefs, some fundies go around calling Jesus “Emmanuel,” as though if they do so enough it will make all of the problems magically disappear.

15

Not quite, Opus. Anybody who reads scripture with an eye to common sense and a decent commentary knows that they named him “Jesus” (i.e., the Greek word, the Gospels being in Greek, transliterating Joshua), and that he would have taken the patronymic “bar Joseph” (or “bar Mariam” after his mother). “Christ” is the Greek for “Mashiakh” (messiah) – both words meaning “he who is anointed (as king).”

“Emmanuel,” on the other hand, means “God [is] with us.” It’s another ascribed title, and how he ended up with it comes from that Isaiah passage. This one is fun, because it shows how typology works. In Isaiah’s time, Judah was a little mountain kingdom with the larger (northern kingdom of) Israel to the north, Syria an even larger realm beyond that, and Egypt and Assyria threats on the horizon. At the time in question, King Hezekiah of Judah (same guy as Zev’s Chizkiyah; it depends on how you transliterate the Hebrew) was scared spitless of a threatened invasion by the alliance between Israel and Syria. Isaiah said, in essence, “Don’t sweat it. God is with us, and will protect us. Here’s proof you can see. This maiden over here (pointing to a girl serving at court) will conceive and have a baby boy, and she’ll name him Emmanuel, i.e., God with us. Before that baby’s old enough to know good from evil, the two kings you’re afraid of will be pushing up daisies.” (In point of fact, he was right; both kings died within three years of the time he prophesied it.)

However, the phrasing used was quite cute. “Almah” at the time meant “young, unmarried woman” (i.e., maiden) and by Jesus’s time had come to mean “virgin” and the idea that Jesus was God (#2 person in the Trinity) walking the Earth in human form added a fillip to “The son will be called Emmanuel – God with us.”

So while Isaiah was speaking to Hezekiah and uttering a near-term prophecy of God’s providence protecting Judah from her enemies, traditional Christianity, following Matthew, sees this as the Holy Spirit investing Isaiah’s words with additional meaning not understood at the time but which pointed to the Messiah – Jesus. This is “typological interpretation.”

While I doubt Zev or Gaudere is about to agree with Matthew on the second meaning in this clause, that is in fact how Christianity has traditionally understood it. (Question, Zev: do Jews see a Messianic second meaning to that passage, albeit not to J.C.?)

16

No. Jews do not see any messianic meaning in Isaiah 7:14 at all. It is strictly a prophecy directed to Achaz concerning eventst that occured during his lifetime.

Zev Steinhardt

17

To Polycarp:

Perhaps I was a little rough around the edges, but I really don’t see much of a difference between your explanation and mine. We agree that the only reason that anyone ever calls Jesus “Emmanuel” is because of that Isaiah passage. And we agree that the passage was supposed to be about King Hezekiah, but was taken by Christians as a prophecy of Jesus. You seem to think that Matthew saw something into Isaiah’s words that Isaiah himself didn’t see, but which was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Tell that to Amos, who wrote that God does nothing without telling his prophets, which would presumably include making them write things other than what they had intended. (Either Amos 3:7 or 7:3–don’t have my Bible with me.)

While there certainly is a lot of typology in the New Testament, this would probably be better termed “pesher”–taking a single statement from the Bible out of its original context and insisting that it applies to (then) current times.

18

Polycarp:
Here is my problem with Christian typology, dual-prophesy, or whatever phrase you would like to call it (personally, I call it spin-control). Given enough time and knowledge, one could make you or I into someone that was prophesied about in the OT. If you take verses out of context and attribute them to circumstances in anyone’s life, you can make a hell of a case for just about anything that someone is bound to believe.

There are specific verses believed to refer to the Messiah. Isaiah 9:6is not one of them, and neither is Isaiah 7:4 . And those verses that are attrbuted to a coming Messiah, Jesus fulfilled NONE of them. Not on the first try, not on the second try, and now we’ve got the thrid coming in which he will suposedly finally fulfill these verses.

It’s like taking the pieces from two seperate puzzles and trying to make one picture. What you see as a clear picture, I see as pieces forced together to create a big mess. The early church is a conglomeration of many different puzzle pieces (paganism, dualism, etc.), but the Jews as a whole (who knew the big picture) recognized some of it’s pieces in there but in the end saw it as just a big mess and disregarded it.

19

Another question about Isaiah 9:6 (or 9:5, as the case may be)–how was that passage rendered in the Septuagint? I mean, if you took the Septuagint’s Greek translation of the original Hebrew, and translated the Greek into English, how would it come out?

20

I recall reading somewhere that the Septuagint was orginally only the 5 books of Moses. The rest of the OT translation was more of an early church translation (which would include Isaiah). Maybe that can be elaborated on as well.