Isaiah 9:6

[tigger2]

Isaiah 9:6

Many (but not all) trinitarians will tell you that Is. 9:6 proves that Jesus is God.

Is. 9:6 says –

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.�

All Christians, I believe, accept this son as being the Christ. Some will tell you that since the meaning of this symbolic name includes the words “Mighty God, Eternal Father,� then Jesus is the Mighty God and the Eternal Father.�

How many know other translations and interpretations?

[brianbbs67]

In the Tanakh it's 9:5 to start with as a hint.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 2 by brianbbs67]

Hey, Brian. Very Good. That is one of my sources.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 1 by tigger2]

Is. 9:6 (Part One)

It is surprising to me that trinitarians here haven't responded. The usual translation of Is. 9:6 is the most-used trinity 'proof' from the OT. Surely there are some here who are aware of non-trinitarian responses to it, and who can rebut them.

Is. 9:6 says –
“For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on His shoulders; and His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.� - NASB.

All Christians, I believe, accept this son as being the Christ. Some will tell you that since the meaning of this symbolic name includes the words “Mighty God, Eternal Father,� then Jesus is the Mighty God and the Eternal Father.�

But there are at least two other ways this personal name has been interpreted by reputable Bible scholars. (1) The titles within the name (e.g., “Mighty God�) are intended in their secondary, subordinate senses. (2) the titles within the name are meant to praise God the Father, not the Messiah.

First, there is the possibility that the words (or titles) found in the literal meaning of the name apply directly to the Messiah all right but in a subordinate sense. In other words, Christ is “a mighty god� in the same sense that God’s angels were called “gods� and the judges of Israel were called “gods� by God himself (also by Jesus - John 10:34, 35),

At any rate, even most trinitarians do not confuse the two separate persons of the Father and the Son. They do not say the Son is the Father. They say the Father and the Son are two separate individual persons who are equally “God�!

Jesus was never called by the title “Father,� and he didn’t want anyone to take the title “Father� (in a spiritual sense, of course) other than his Father, Jehovah, in heaven. (Matt. 23:9) The relationship between Jesus and men (some men, at least) isn’t described as Father and sons but brothers. (Ro. 8:29; Heb. 2:10-18)

Therefore, since we obviously cannot take “Eternal Father� in the literal sense to mean that Jesus is the Father, we cannot take the rest of that same name (esp. ‘Mighty God’) in its literal highest sense and say that Jesus is Mighty God, etc., either.

We can see by the actual renderings of some trinitarian Bible translators at Is. 9:6 that they believe such subordinate meanings were intended by the inspired Bible writer.

Instead of “Mighty God,� Dr. James Moffatt translated this part of Is. 9:6 as “a divine hero;� Byington has “Divine Champion;� The New English Bible has “In Battle Godlike;� The Catholic New American Bible (1970 and 1991 revision) renders it “God-Hero;� and the REB says “Mighty Hero.� Even that respected Biblical Hebrew language expert, Gesenius, translated it “mighty hero� - p. 45, Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon.

Also, The NIV Study Bible, in a f.n. for Ps 45:6, tells us:

“In this psalm, which praises the king and especially extols his ‘splendor and majesty’ (v. 3), it is not unthinkable that he was called ‘god’ as a title of honor [cf. Isa 9:6].� (Bracketed information included in original footnote.)

In addition, Rotherham has rendered “Eternal Father� as “father of progress,� and the New English Bible translates it: “father of a wide realm.�

The above-mentioned Bible translations by trinitarian scholars which apply the words in the name at Is. 9:6 in a subordinate sense directly to Jesus clearly show that they do not believe this scripture implies an equality with Jehovah the Father.

But, some may ask, if ‘a mighty god’ were intended in this name, why is “God� given a capital ‘G’ in most translations of this name?

The answer is that in English translations of names we often find the major words within a name (or title) are capitalized. This is similar to the way book titles, names of buildings, ships, etc. are written in English. ‘The Lord of the Rings,’ ‘The World Trade Center,’ ‘The Empire State Building,’ ‘Allure of the Seas’ (cruise ship), etc., are modern examples.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 4 by tigger2]

Isaiah 9:6 ((Part Two)

And second, another way competent Bible scholars have interpreted the meaning of this name is with the understanding that it (as with many, if not most, of the other Israelites’ personal names) does not apply directly to the person who has that name, but is, instead, a statement praising the Father, Jehovah God.

Personal names in the ancient Hebrew and Greek are often somewhat cryptic to us today. The English Bible translator must fill in the missing minor words (especially in names composed of two or more Hebrew words) such as “my,� “is,� “of,� etc. in whatever way he thinks best in order to make sense for us today in English.

Personal names in the ancient Hebrew and Greek are often somewhat cryptic to us today. The English Bible translator must fill in the missing minor words (especially in names composed of two or more Hebrew words) such as “my,� “is,� “of,� etc. in whatever way he thinks best in order to make sense for us today in English.

For instance, two of the best-known Bible concordances (Young’s and Strong’s) and a popular trinitarian Bible dictionary (Today’s Dictionary of the Bible) differ on the exact meaning of many Biblical personal names because of those “minor� words which must be added to bring out the intended meaning.

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, for example, says the name “Elimelech� (which is literally just “God King�) means “God of (the) King.� Young’s Analytical Concordance says it means “God is King.� Today’s Dictionary of the Bible says it means “ God his King� - p. 206, Bethany House Publ., 1982. And an online meaning is given as “My God is the King.� - http://www.kveller.com/jewish_names/di ... ech&k=840 .

I haven’t found any scholar/translator who says the name of Elimelech should be translated with its literal meaning of “God King.� And no scholar ever translates it to mean that Elimelech himself was "God King."

But perhaps most instructive of all is the name given to the prophet’s child in Isaiah 8:3 shortly before his giving the name found in Is. 9:6.

Is. 8:3 [/b ]

Maher-shalal-hash-baz: Literally, “spoil speeds prey hastes� or “swift booty speedy prey.� Translated by various Bible scholars as: “In making speed to the spoil he hasteneth the prey� - - “swift [is] booty, speedy [is] prey� - - “the spoil speeded, the prey hasteth� - - “Speeding for spoil, hastening for plunder� - - “There will soon be looting and stealing�- - “Speeding is the spoil, Hastening is the prey� - - “The Looting Will Come Quickly; the Prey Will Be Easy� - - “Take sway the spoils with speed, quickly take the prey� - - “Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey� - - “Swift the Spoils of War and Speedy Comes the Attacker� - - “Make haste to plunder! Hurry to the spoil!� - - “Make haste to the spoil; fall upon the prey.� - - “Your enemies will soon be destroyed.’� - TLB. - - “They hurry to get what they can. They run to pick up what is left.� - NLV.


And John Gill wrote:

“‘hasten to seize the prey, and to take away the spoil.’ Some translate it, ‘in hastening the prey, the spoiler hastens’; perhaps it may be better rendered, ‘hasten to the spoil, hasten to the prey.’�

Therefore, the personal name at Is. 9:6 has been also translated in the footnote as:
“And his name is called: Wonderful in counsel IS God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace� - The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version (Margolis, ed.) to show that it is intended to praise the God of the Messiah who performs great things through the Messiah.

The Leeser Bible also translates it:
“Wonderful, counsellor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father, the prince of peace�.

Also, An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith & Goodspeed) says:
“Wonderful Counselor IS God Almighty, Father forever, Prince of Peace.�

From the Is. 9:6 footnote in the trinity-supporting NET Bible:

".... some have suggested that one to three of the titles that follow [the word 'called'] refer to God, not the king. For example, the traditional punctuation of the Hebrew text suggests the translation, 'and the Extraordinary Strategist, the Mighty God calls his name, "Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."'"

Of course it could also be honestly translated:

“The Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God Is the Eternal Father of the Prince of Peace.�

And the Tanakh by the JPS, 1985, translates it (Is. 9:5):

[1] “The Mighty God is planning grace;
[2] The Eternal Father [is] a peaceable ruler.�

This latter translation seems appropriate since it is in the form of a parallelism. Not only was the previous symbolic personal name introduced by Isaiah at Is. 8:1 a parallelism (“Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz� means [1]“quick to the plunder; [2] swift to the spoil� - NIV footnote) but the very introduction to this Messianic name at Is. 9:6 is itself a parallelism: [1]“For unto us a child is born; [2] unto us a son is given.� It could, therefore, be appropriate to find that this name, too, was in the form of a parallelism as translated by the Tanakh above.

So it is clear, even to a number of trinitarian scholars, that Is. 9:6 does not necessarily imply that Jesus is Jehovah God. In fact, in agreement with multiple word names given in the OT, it is most likely that the traditional translation does not apply the meaning of the literal name to the Messiah himself.

Sorry about the runaway bolding. I haven't been able to fix it.

[brianbbs67]

Below are links to the Stone Tanakh's take on these verses and there footnote explanation as to who they refer.


https://photos.app.goo.gl/CPkGcNiv3wVrkAdw9

https://photos.app.goo.gl/7QAEsGm8YMUZa29R9

[ttruscott]

I have not studied this at all, having come to the Trinity from a different pov, but a quick look at https://biblehub.com/commentaries/isaiah/9-6.htm provides a few interesting interpretations:

Sentences like "If the term "Father," applied to our Lord, grates on our ears, we must remember that the distinction of Persons in the Godhead had not yet been revealed." denies that Father refers to the person of the Father but is used for GOD in general.

AND
"Having called him a Child, and a Son in respect of his human nature, lest this should be misinterpreted to his disparagement, he adds that he is a Father also, even the God and Father of all things; the work of creation being common and commonly ascribed to each of the persons of the blessed Trinity, the Maker and Upholder of all creatures..." which relates the Father image to creation, not to being the same as the Person of the Trinity called the Father.

OR
"The phrase may either mean the same as the Eternal Father, and the sense will be, that the Messiah will not, as must be the case with an earthly king, however excellent, leave his people destitute after a short reign, but will rule over them and bless them forever (Hengstenberg); or it may be used in accordance with a custom usual in Hebrew and in Arabic, where he who possesses a thing is called the father of it."...which denies also that it is being used for the person of the Father.

THEN
"The term Father is not applied to the Messiah here with any reference to the distinction in the divine nature, for that word is uniformly, in the Scriptures, applied to the first, not to the second person of the Trinity. But it is used in reference to durations, as a Hebraism involving high poetic beauty."

AND FINALLY
"everlasting Father—This marks Him as "Wonderful," that He is "a child," yet the "everlasting Father" (Joh 10:30; 14:9). Earthly kings leave their people after a short reign; He will reign over and bless them for ever [Hengstenberg]." No reference to the person of the Father here...

These suggestions seem to run mostly to: the King as a father will not die like an earthly king OR as Father he is the originator of creation but not to be construed as the Person of the Trinity named The Father.

Thus the point of the OP, "Some will tell you that since the meaning of this symbolic name includes the words “Mighty God, Eternal Father,� then Jesus is the Mighty God and the Eternal Father.� " is certainly NOT supported as true by the commentaries on this verse making it a rather dubious claim, needing quotes etc. to prove it is not just a strawman argument.

[onewithhim]

Isaiah 9:6

Many (but not all) trinitarians will tell you that Is. 9:6 proves that Jesus is God.

Is. 9:6 says –

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.�

All Christians, I believe, accept this son as being the Christ. Some will tell you that since the meaning of this symbolic name includes the words “Mighty God, Eternal Father,� then Jesus is the Mighty God and the Eternal Father.�

How many know other translations and interpretations?

Your explanations, Tigger, are right on the money. I understand these nuances, and I pray that others will get it too.

As you alluded to, it is good to remember that Hebrew has no capital letters or punctuation, like Greek, and like Greek has definite articles to show which noun is THE ONLY one of the things that are being discussed, and that to translate into English certain words have to be inserted. According to the Hebrew/English Tanakh, "the Mighty God" does not refer to the Messiah but is saying something about Jehovah, as at Isaiah 25:1, which includes the Tetragrammaton. It says: "He [the son who has authority] has been named 'the Mighty God is planning grace; the Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler.'" Apparently the son is the plan that the Mighty God, Jehovah, has had for bringing a peaceable ruler to govern the earth. This is a very interesting way to look at this scripture, and brings further attention to the fact that the Messiah is never referred to as THE Almighty God, but is the Almighty God's solution to bringing about world peace.

[Revelations won]

Shalom.

After reviewing the positions given in the KJV and also from the Tanakh I would have to agree with "tigger2". He is very close to "the mark".