When interpreting the
Bible, context is critical. If someone says "The Indians had a great
victory" it makes a great difference if he is referring to the Cleveland
Indians, the defeat of General Custer, or the removal of British imperialism in
Isaiah 9:5 "For unto
us a child was born, to us a son was given: and the government is on his
shoulder: and his name was called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty G-d, Everlasting
Father, Prince of Peace."
(alternate
translation: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty G-d, Eternal Father called his name "Prince
of Peace")."
Isaish 9:6 "For the increase of
government and endless peace , on the throne of David
and his kingdom, to establish it and sustain it with justice and righteousness,
from now to forever. The zeal of the L-rd of hosts will do this."
Missionaries claim that
since a boy is called "mighty G-d, eternal father" this must refer to
a man-god, namely Jesus. Is this so? If we follow the alternate translation
(which is perfectly consistent with Hebrew syntax), no boy is called "G-d."
Rather, G-d is naming the boy "Prince of Peace." If we accept the
first translation, in which "mighty G-d" is part of the boy's name,
this too gives no support for missionaries. The boy lived In Isaiah'
s time.
Let us look at the verse
preceding verses:
Isaiah 9:1 "The
people who walked in darkness have seen a great light: those who dwelled in the
land of the shadow of death, upon them has light
shone. 9:2 You exalted the nation, increased its joy:
they rejoice before You like the joy at harvest time, as they would rejoice
when dividing the spoil. 9:3 For You smashed the YOKE
of their BURDEN, and the STAFF of their SHOULDER, the ROD that oppressed them,
as in the day of Midian. 9:4For every tumultuous
battle is with great noise and garments rolled in blood; but it became a blaze
consumed by fire.
We see that Isaiah is
speaking of
How much does this have
to do with the birth of Jesus centuries after Isaiah? Nothing! The Jewish
people experienced nothing of the sort at that time. Roman oppression of
Furthermore, Isaiah
speaks in the past tense: "A child was born", "a son was
given." He speaks of a boy who already exists, not any future birth.
"Government shall be
upon his shoulder" cannot refer to Jesus, who had no political office.
Although Jesus claimed that his kingdom was "not of this world", and
the New Testament depicts Pilate as calling him "King of the Jews"at his crucifixion, this does not fulfill the
prophecy of Isaiah.
The Hebrew term MISRAH
refers to actual political office.
"From now and to
eternity" does not apply to Jesus. How can Isaiah say "from now"
about someone to be born centuries after these words are spoken? Clearly the
Prince of Peace's reign begins in Isaiah's time.
So which event is Isaiah
discussing? That is not difficult to answer. The very next chapter tells us.
Isaiah 10:5 "Woe to
Assyria is the rod that
afflicted
Isaiah 10:15 "Shall
the ax glory over the one who chops with it? Shall the saw be greater than the
one who wields it? It is as if a ROD could shake those who lift it up, as if a
STAFF lifts one that is not wood."
The manner of victory
against
Isaiah 10:17 "And
the light of
The defeat of
The prophet again refers
to
Isaiah 10:24
"Therefore so says the Lord G-D of hosts,"My
people that dwell in
The prophet makes a
comparison to the defeat of Midian as he did in chapter
nine. G-d will reciprocally raise a "rod" and "staff"
against
Isaiah 10:26 "And
the L-rd of hosts will arouse a ROD for him, like the defeat of MIDIAN at the
rock of Oreb, and as his STAFF was upon the sea [of
Reeds], and carry him like the manner of
The prophet describes
Assyria as a "yoke" upon
Isaiah 10:27 "It
will be on that day, that He will remove his BURDEN from off your SHOULDER, and
his YOKE from your neck, and the YOKE will be destroyed because of oil."
Who, then is the Prince of Peace?
Since he is associated with the downfall of
As it is clear that the
Prince of Peace lived during Isaiah's time, we will now counter the missionary
claim that Isaiah 9:5 refers to a divine human. Isaiah refers to an "EL
GIBOR, AVI AD." The literal translation is "mighty G-d, eternal
father."
Missionaries make two
mistakes regarding "mighty G-d." First, it is incorrect that naming a
person or thing after G-d indicates that the object being named is G-d.
Jacob calls an altar
"G-d, G-d of
Their names are a tribute
to G-d. People too are named after G-d in Hebrew. Chananya
means "gracious G-d." Tovia means
"good G-d."
Second, it is a
misconception that EL always means G-d. The Bible uses EL and ELOHIM to refer
to agents of power. Judges are called ELOHIM (Exodus 21:6). So is Moses (Exodus
7:1). Powers subordinate to G-d are referred to as EL (Exodus 15:11). There is
no proof that Isaiah is speaking of a divine human.
In fact, nothing could be
more anti-Biblical than the idea of a divine human.
"I will not carry
out My wrath, I will not recant and destroy Ephraim,
for I am G-d and not a man (Hosea 11:9)."
Why is
Hezekiah called "eternal father?" Misreading the preceding
words, and ignoring historical context, missionaries assume this is describing
a god. Hezekiah is an eternal father in the sense that he is the King of the
Jews who upheld the House of David. This righteous man removed idolatry and led
his people to repentance. The Davidic dynasty was perpetuated in his merit and
will culminate in the coming of the Messiah. He remains a father of the Jews to
this day.
It is asked how
"from now and to eternity" can apply to Hezekiah if the Jewish people
were sent into exile after his death. "Eternity" is understood in
context as: until the end of Hezekiah's life. When Hannah said of her son
Samuel "and abide there forever (I Samuel 1:22)" she was not speaking
of an absolute eternity.
Summary: Context shows Isaiah is speaking
of a boy born in his time.
Hezekiah is the Prince of
Peace who reigns during the miraculous defeat of