This is the transcript of Restitutio episode 572: Isaiah 9.6 Explained: A Theophoric Approach by Sean Finnegan

This transcript was auto-generated and only approximates the contents of this episode.

Audio file

572 Isaiah 9.6 Explained.mp3

Transcript

00:00
Hey there, I'm Sean Finnegan. And you are listening to restitutio, a podcast that seeks to recover authentic Christianity and live it out today.

00:12
Comparing the Hebrew of Isaiah 9.6 to most popular English translations results in some serious questions. Why have our translations changed the tense of the verbs from past to future? Why is this child called Mighty God and Eternal Fate?

00:30
Here in this presentation I worked through Isaiah 9.6 line by line to help you understand the Hebrew. Next I look at interpretive options for the child as well as his complicated name. Not only will this presentation strengthen your understanding of Isaiah 9.6, but it will also equip you to explain it to others here now.

00:50
As Isaiah 9.6 explained, a theophoric approach.

01:02
My title is Isaiah 9.6, explained a theophoric approach. And although my task is simple, it's not easy going to be going line by line through Isaiah 9.6 in an effort to explain what it means. So let's just dive in and.

01:21
Take a look at the text.

01:23
It reads keeled, ulad, lanu bin nitan, lanu, vatai, a Misra, al Shikano vayikra schmo Pele.

01:34
Yolette El Gibor aviad sar Shalom.

01:38
In English, from the English Standard version, we read for to us a child is born to us, a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called wonderful, counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. This is an important text. Why is it important?

01:58
It's important because.

02:00
It's commonly used to prove the deity of Christ, especially from an Old Testament perspective. It's worth our time to consider this text in some depth.

02:13
There's actually a lot going on in the text. It's not just ohh consider this one little thing and then it all makes sense that there are multiple issues going on and they're not necessarily theological issues. They're grammatical issues and interpretational.

02:28
Issues and I'm excited to share a new approach that I have to this. It's new to me but it's not a new fangled idea that scholarship has never heard of before. In fact it's been on the books for some time, although strangely enough.

02:45
Is not very popular. Hopefully this presentation will popularize the theophoric approach to this text.

02:52
Our outline for today is to look through these four points. The grammar of Isaiah 9/6 and then identify the child and then consider a few options for El Gabor, which is the phrase commonly translated mighty God, and then lastly look at the Theophoric name idea.

03:14
There's no way I can possibly cover everything that I have researched on this topic or put into the paper, so if you do want to dig deeper.

03:23
Here.

03:24
Go check out the paper. I have it on my website restitutio.org under articles. So to begin, let's look at the grammar of Isaiah 9.6. I realize many of you do not read Hebrew, but I know that some of you do, and so I'm going to have the Hebrew and the English in parallel, and you can follow along in whatever language.

03:44
You prefer Isaiah 9.6? It begins. Keeled you lad lanu, which is translated.

03:51
For a child has been born to us, that is a literal translation that's not like from the English Standard version or some modern text that's, that's actually what the words mean. And that is because this verb you lied is a pool, which means it's a past tense passive.

04:12
On to the next line, it says Ben Nitan Lanu, a son, has been given to us. So that's either has been or was either way past tense. Passive again, this in this case in niphal on to the next line it says vato. He kamisah al Sheikh Mo and was the government upon his shoulder.

04:32
OK, this is literal word for word, but he is and was and then hamisa is the government and then Al Sheikh Mo.

04:42
Upon his shoulder, I know in English we would translate that and the government was upon his shoulder. OK, but I'm just trying to give it to you exactly as it is in the Hebrew. So you can follow along as best you can.

04:55
Now putting it all together, we get for a child has been born to us. A son has been given to us, and the government was upon his shoulder. That is a face value reading of the first part of Isaiah 9.6. However, the SV and most.

05:11
Other modern English translations, especially that are done by evangelicals, will read something like this. For to us, a child is born to us, a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder.

05:26
Do you see the differences?

05:29
We have the passive voice.

05:32
And the first two verbs of the English Standard version, that's good. That's awesome. That's what it says in.

05:37
Hebrew but it has shifted a past tense, a clear past tense to a present tense instead of was born and was given, or has been born, born has been given. It has become, is born and is given. That is not what the Hebrew says.

05:52
And then in this second sentence, the third line, the government, that is a past tense, the government was upon his shoulder. It does not say the government shall be upon his.

06:01
Shoulder.

06:02
So the question is, what is going on?

06:07
Well, let's look at the next line and then we'll talk about it. Viagra schmo Viagra is actually it means, and he has called or he called.

06:19
It's a super common word throughout the Old Testament. We encounter it all over the place like in Genesis and the the narratives. This one called this one and and so forth. It just it shows up all the. It's not a mysterious obscure word. It's it's a very common word and it's a little puzzling why in Isaiah.

06:39
9.6 they take a past tense once again, and they translate it as a future.

06:44
Intense and they take an active and they make it passive. So I want to explain what's going on.

06:51
Here a little bit.

06:53
For example, the ESV his name shall be called, but it in the Hebrew it means he called his name, or he has called.

06:59
His name?

07:01
A lot of this comes down to this idea called the prophetic past tense.

07:06
And this is a translation move you can make. There are other names for it too. It is legitimate. It's on the books, it's in just sinuses, Hebrew grammar and other grammars as well.

07:18
Well.

07:19
So the idea is that when a prophet.

07:24
Talks about something that's going to happen. He's so transports himself into the future that he's Speaking of it as if it's already happened or another idea is that he's so confident that it's going to happen, that he's Speaking of it as if it's already done.

07:41
This is the idea of the prophetic past tense. It's not a grammar thing really, it's an interpretation thing and a translation thing.

07:50
Now.

07:51
On a face value reading, this child's already born, and the government's already on his shoulders.

07:58
That's what it says.

08:00
It's up to the translator to decide. Ohh well, let's take this as a prophetic past tense and we'll translate it all into the future tense.

08:09
But there's nothing in the text to indicate that the only way a translator can make that determination is based on whether or not he or she thinks that the events described are future. From the perspective of the Prophet or past from the perspective of the Prophet.

08:29
If Isaiah is saying these words about a child that has already been born, then you don't need the future. This this idea of prophetic past tense and you don't need to put it into the future tense.

08:41
And what I find really interesting is 2 things. One is it's not obvious. It's not obvious when you're reading the text. Ohh, this is really he's talking in the past tense, as if it's a future tense. That's not an obvious thing. There's no indication in the text that says that it may be the case, but it's not obvious. So therefore I would argue it's a strange reading. It's not wrong, it's just strange.

09:02
You're just saying what I want to read it this way.

09:05
And second of all.

09:07
The Jewish translations overwhelmingly take it as past tense, and I know that in Christian scholarship.

09:14
There's sometimes been a tendency to say, well, you know, I don't really care what the Jewish rabbis and sages and Hebrew experts have said over the years because they don't like Jesus.

09:27
This.

09:28
Which by and large is true.

09:30
Or else they be Christian, right? So they're just trying to translate in such a way as to exclude Jesus because they don't like the idea of Jesus being the Messiah. I I don't think that's necessarily a good strategy to adopt just to dismiss an entire history of scholarship of people that are experts at reading Hebrew.

09:51
So I think it it is worthwhile to consider what the Jewish translations and Jewish scholars have said, so let's move on to the next point. So let we're gonna just take it as past tense and work from there. And I want to puzzle over this word. He here in this line. And he has called his name.

10:11
The question is who is the he now? Most of our English translations will not have a he there because they will use a passive voice.

10:19
And I'm gonna get to agreeing with them in just a minute. But I want to explain it to you so you understand what's going on. So the Masoretic punctuation there are these markings all around the letters that are put there by the masury scholars who were indicating how to pronounce the words, but also other interesting grammatical.

10:40
Information is given and so based on the Masoretic Punctuation, the next line is the subject of Viagra of the word he called.

10:52
And so here's the next line.

10:55
Pellets El Gabor or I translated. This is just literal taking like definition one from each of the lexicons. Miracle Advisor, warrior God.

11:07
Avias are Shalom, eternal Father, Prince of peace. So I'm going to show you this. First up, we have Targum Jonathan from the 2nd century.

11:18
This is not really a translation, it's a paraphrase. Sort of like the predecessor of the message. But like even more paraphrasing.

11:26
So if you can imagine that I know like some of your heads just blew up. But yeah, here's Targum Jonathan, he says. And his name has been called from before, the one who causes wonderful counselor God, the Warrior, the eternally existing 1, the Messiah who will increase peace upon us in his days.

11:46
So in this paraphrase, he's taking the phrase that follows, and he called.

11:53
The phrase Miracle advisor, warrior God, Eternal father, or in the typical translation you're used to. Wonderful, counselor. Mighty God, eternal father. He's taking that as the subject of the verb he called. So you see how that works. He takes that next phrase and inserts it in as the the subject.

12:11
Here's another Jewish translation from Shlomo Yitzhaki from the 11th century who says the holy one, blessed be he, who gives wondrous counsel, is a mighty God and an everlasting father called Hezekiah's name the Prince of Peace. Since peace and truth will be in his.

12:31
Days. Do you see the move that he made here?

12:34
He made two moves. One is to take that whole section. Miracle advisor. Warrior God, eternal father as the subject and then to say that's referring to.

12:45
Hezekiah, that's the second move.

12:47
And calling Hezekiah the Prince of peace.

12:51
Then we have Jacob, Ben, Isaac Ashkenazi from the 16th century, who writes for a child, is born to us.

12:57
Sun will be born and this is Hezekiah, though Ahas is an evil doer. His son Hezekiah will be a righteous king. He will be strong in his service of the Holy 1. He will study Torah and the Holy one will call him Eternal Father, peaceful ruler. In his days there will be peace and truth. This is more of a commentary than actual.

13:18
Translation, but you get how he's taking the Hebrew.

13:22
He's taking it as referring to God calling him the Eternal Father, Prince of peace or Peaceful Ruler. He doesn't say he doesn't use the word Prince there.

13:31
Then we have the Stone Edition, which is from the 20th century, which translates Isaiah 9.6, the wondrous advisor Mighty God Eternal Father called his name Sarah Shalom. And then in square brackets they put Prince of peace.

13:47
These are legitimate translations of Isaiah 9/6.

13:52
But I'm not convinced that they're right, and I'm not convinced that they're right because Isaiah and this is the point that Colin to Leach make and I have the quote for you in the the paper, if you want to look at it, Colin, delete our old curmudgeonly German scholars from the 19th century. And basically what their point is.

14:10
Is that Isaiah doesn't use strings of titles for God other places, so it would be weird if he just did it here in Isaiah 9.6. So like when Isaiah talks about God, he might say the holy one or the most high, or God Almighty El Gabor or something like that. But he's not going to say.

14:28
OK, the wonderful counselor. Mighty God, eternal father. It's just like nowhere else. Does that occur in Isaiah? So it's it's not likely that in this case it refers to him in this way either. So it's just as possible that this he and he has called. It's just a generic pronoun.

14:48
It's just a generic whoever now in English we don't have this. In German we have the word Mon, which just means like someone or anyone something.

14:56
Like that and the French have a word similar to this. It does the same job, but in English we don't have that. So what we do in English when we want to hide the subjects.

15:07
Is we use the passive voice.

15:09
And so we'll translate it. His name has been called, and so we'll, we'll we'll switch a an active voice to a passive voice he called to he has been called in order to hide the subject. So the the grammar is actually wrong. The Hebrew doesn't use a passive voice, but the meaning I think, is actually correct.

15:29
To just have a generic.

15:32
Sense of whoever is the one calling him. Everybody calls him this. Someone calls him this. Whoever. It's not specified in the text. God calls him this. You know it. It could be any. Any of the above either is fine. Either the warrior God Eternal Father is calling his name, Prince of Peace or the subject is generic and someone.

15:51
Is calling him. Someone calls him this whoever. It's not specified in the text, God calls him this. You know it. It could be any. Any of the above either is fine.

16:01
Either the warrior God Eternal Father is calling his name, Prince of Peace, or the subject is generic and someone is calling him miracle advisor, warrior, God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace, even though I'm not swayed by the Jewish translation strategy that they use here, I want to recognize that it is legitimate.

16:23
It's a legitimate grammatical possibility. If we do go with that translation possibility, we don't have any reason to continue on in this presentation because it just solved all the problems, but we are going to continue on and just go with this sort of more typical Christian approach of saying his name has been called.

16:42
On to point #2 identifying the child who is the child, who is the son.

16:48
Feel like a Sunday school teacher who, when asking a question, the answer is always.

16:56
Jesus.

17:01
Well.

17:02
Was Jesus born in Isaiah's time?

17:06
No. So the primary reference could not possibly be Jesus, who was born 7 centuries later. The child was already born and the government was already upon his shoulder. And so we're looking for some and the next verse we'll see in a minute is a son of David. So we're looking for a king.

17:26
Of Judah, who is living in the time of Isaiah now, Isaiah spanned several kings, but by far the best of all the different kings that his ministry overlapped with was Hezekiah.

17:38
Hezekiah, therefore, is the most likely candidate, and I want to situate us historically. Now, when we interpret Scripture, this is an important strategy, and I hope it's not new to you. But if it is, I just want to explain it when we interpret Scripture, we always ask the question first, what did this mean to them?

17:55
And then we asked the question, what does this mean to me or us today? So our first question has to be if this is if these are past tense verbs in Isaiah 9.6, what could Isaiah have meant in Isaiah's time?

18:11
Right.

18:12
This referred to and so in Isaiah's time there was a massive empire, the Assyrian Empire, and it was gobbling up the whole world. It was just conquering territory after City, state after nationality, all these ethnicities were coming into the Assyrian Empire and.

18:32
It was just relentless. The Assyrian Empire came and took away all of Israel. The northern country called Israel, just took them away. Now I'm sure some people stayed behind hidden caves and stuff like that, but the the lion share of the people were taken away into exile and.

18:49
Then the Syrian empire started making us March towards Jerusalem. And we know from Sennacherib's Prism and archaeological artifacts that survives outside of Scripture that Sennacherib had taken 46 of the villages of Judah prior to coming to Jerusalem.

19:07
This is the end of the world.

19:09
From the perspective of Isaiah, from the perspective of the king at the time, which is Hezekiah.

19:13
Yeah, you're going to lose everything. You're going to lose the city where God has chosen to put his name. The temple is going to get destroyed. Everything is going to be ruined that the Davidic dynasty is going to come to it. I mean, this is this is as big of the end of the world scenario as you could possibly imagine at the time, they didn't have nukes yet.

19:33
OK, so this is as big as it got.

19:37
The Assyrian Empire threatened to take Jerusalem.

19:42
And it was going to be the end. So Hezekiah did the best possible thing. He tore his clothes.

19:51
He covered himself with sackcloth. He went into the House of Yahweh.

19:55
And he sent messengers to the Prophet. Isaiah requested that Isaiah pray for deliverance, and then he himself, as the king. You can read about it in Second Kings Chapter 19, also in.

20:05
Isaiah 3637, also in second chronicles 3 times over. We have this incident repeated for us in Scripture. You think it might be important? Yes, it's very important what happened.

20:18
And he prayed, and he said, oh, God, please deliver us beautiful prayer that he prays there and God acted powerfully, killing 185,000 of the Assyrian army.

20:32
This is the biggest military miracle since the Red Sea.

20:39
We don't really preach on it or talk about it much, but Hezekiah is the man like he, he he did the right thing at the right time. He he didn't try to bribe the Egyptians to go attack the Assyrians. He didn't do some other shady business over here. No, he went to God. He did. He did all the things that you're supposed to.

20:57
Do when when the.

20:59
Writer of Kings describes Hezekiah says there's never been anyone like him before him or after him. You know, the off repeated refrain in the history of Israel. Ohh yeah. This king, he was pretty good. But he didn't remove the high places.

21:14
With Hezekiah, he removed the high places.

21:18
This is the guy.

21:20
His name means ya is strong.

21:24
Hezekiah.

21:26
Really cool guy. And Assyria never conquered Jerusalem. Jerusalem remained free after this for another century, give or take, depending on how you count things.

21:39
When we look at the context of Isaiah 9.6, we find a massive deliverance from a military threat. That's the context. I'm gonna show it to you now. This is from the new revised standard version updated edition.

21:52
Isaiah 9 two, we read the following the people who walked in darkness have seen a great light. Notice the NRSV is very honest about the past tense.

22:03
Those who lived in a land of deep darkness on them light has shined. So you can imagine it as serious gobbling up the whole world like a dark shadow, and then suddenly light shines in Jerusalem. You have multiplied verse 3, exultation. You have increased its joy.

22:24
They rejoice before you, as with joy at harvest, as people exult when dividing, plunder, dividing plunder. When does that happen? After a military victory, that's when you divide, plunder.

22:37
Verse 4 for the yoke of their burden and the bar across their shoulders, the rod of their oppressor. You have broken, as on the day of Midian.

22:46
The day of Midian was when a courageous Israelite named Gideon.

22:53
Trusted the wisdom of God over typical traditional military strategy and defeated 120,000 Midian nights in one day.

23:07
This is bigger than that.

23:09
185,000 in one day. So it's a very apt statement in comparison for Isaiah to make you have broken the rod of their oppressor. You have broken, as on the day of Midian, verse 5 for all the boots of the tramping warriors and all the garments rolled in blood shall be burned as fuel for the fire.

23:30
Why would you do that? Well, if there's a lot of dead people from a battle, that's why you would burn all this stuff. Verse 64, a child has been born for us. A son given to US authority rests upon his shoulders, and he is named wonderful counselor. Mighty God, everlasting Father, Prince of peace. Great will be his authority.

23:50
And there shall be endless peace from the throne of David and his Kingdom. He will establish and uphold it with justice and with righteousness. From this time onward. And forevermore the zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this. This is the the interesting part about Isaiah. This whole section is that everything's past tense. And so we we we get to verse 7 and verse 7. All the verbs are.

24:11
Are basically ambiguous until we get to the end of verse 7 and it says the zeal of Yahweh of hosts will do this and you're like, OK, there's a future tense.

24:19
So this stuff of verse 7 is translated all future because the very end of it that indicates that what had preceded it in the immediate sentence is also future tense. So that's the prophecy. Now when people read verse 7, they're like Sean. That can't possibly be Hezekiah because Hezekiah's peace only lasted for as long as it lasted. And then he died. And then his son ruled and.

24:44
He died, and then his son ruled, and then he died. And so forth.

24:48
And it says here that there shall be endless peace.

24:52
OK, so this that's a good point. I'm going to admit that that is a good point. However, this is what scholars would call prophetic hyperbole where you're saying something as big as possible in order to strengthen your point. So for example.

25:11
Ben Witherington the third will recognize, like most scholars, that this refers to Hezekiah in its original context. But then there's also a true and better Hezekiah in Jesus, the Messiah, who will come later. So it's a both and approach, and I find it pretty compelling. This is what?

25:29
Ben Witherington says the use of the deliberately hyperbolic language that the Prophet knew would not be fulfilled in Hezekiah left open the door quite deliberately to look for an eschatological fulfillment later.

25:43
So the idea is simple, isaiahs prophesying to his people in his time 7 centuries before Christ.

25:51
The world seems to be coming to an end.

25:55
And he is either reflecting back after the deliverance or he's prophesying a future deliverance. Once the child grows to be a man and does what he does. Either way, that's the original context. However, even though Isaiah 9.6 is never quoted in the New Testament and applied to Jesus. Shocking.

26:15
That that's the case because we're all used to reading it as a Jesus text. I think it is appropriately referring to Jesus in a prophetic sense because Jesus is the true and better Hezekiah, who is going to do all the hezekiah like things. But like, bigger and.

26:33
So I think the hyperbolic language, although hyperbolic in its original context in the eschaton, in the end times, is literally fulfilled able in the Christ himself.

26:43
So that's the story with the child. Let's take a look at the name of the child. And I I don't have time to get into all the details, but I I just want to consider the words. El Gabor. The name is Pelios El Gabor avias. Sar Shalom, which I translate as miracle.

27:03
Advisor. Warrior God, eternal Father, Prince of peace. That second line you are familiar with the first line. I want to justify that a little bit to you. So the word Pele.

27:11
Means miracle we we translate it typically wonderful.

27:16
And I might say that's a wonderful cup of water. It just means nice or good in that context, right. But the word Pele actually means miracle. It doesn't just mean like something's really nice it it it it it's a. It's a more of a wonder in the Old English sense of the word. And so I just translated his miracle.

27:36
Instead of wonder because.

27:39
I wonder about a lot of things. You know, like we use the word wonder in.

27:42
All kinds of different ways.

27:44
And so I think that's more helpful. And then you know, EDS is actually a participle, so it could be planner, advisor, something like that, since it is a military context. We're talking about military planning, victory, a planning, a miracle.

28:03
That sort of thing. And then the last two words which I want to linger on El Gabor in Hebrew, we do the noun and then the adjective. Many languages are like this. In English, we do the adjective, then the.

28:14
Down we say a brown shirt. We don't say a shirt brown.

28:19
Right. So, but in Hebrew is the opposite. So when we see Al Gabor, we're thinking the word Gabor just means warrior.

28:27
It, which we usually see translation saying mighty.

28:31
Which is fine but.

28:34
I think as Americans, we might think of a therapeutic context when we encounter the traditional translation, wonderful, counselor.

28:42
It's not that God is gonna, like, psychologically help you. I mean, that's. I'm sure that's true as well, but that's just not what this is talking about. This is this is a military victory. The boots of the and and the the clothing of the Warriors is rolled in. Blood has just been burned. We split up the plunders the day of MIDI. And that's the context. And now we're using the word Gabor.

29:03
It's gonna be warrior.

29:05
And it's used in more of an adjectival sense. Here, the warrior God.

29:10
It's a pretty awesome way to think about God. El Gabor people have different ways of thinking about this warrior God or mighty God phrase.

29:20
Well, let's look at the options. There are three options I want to consider. The first one is to translate it. Mighty Warrior and the the way this works is Robert Alter and his translation takes this approach and basically what he says is ascribe must have made a mistake. It should be Gabor El instead of.

29:40
El Gabor. And if you reverse it and you do Gabor as the noun, then you get the word warrior as as the substantive as the noun and the word God becomes like an adjective. We don't really have the word godish in English.

29:54
We have, God is, but not godish. We have the word divine or mighty, so that that's why you get this idea of a mighty warrior and a number of translations have done that either Divine Warrior or mighty warrior God, like hero or Mighty chief. These are translations that do this, but I see no reason to reverse the order of the words.

30:14
Here, and I'm not saying it couldn't be understood that way. I'm just saying it's strained. It's you're you're straining again. You're not just taking it for what it says you're you're.

30:26
Massaging it, you're adjusting it and and so I think that's kind of a weakness, but there's a greater problem that John Oswald points out wherever El Gabor, he says, occurs elsewhere in the Bible, there is no doubt that the term refers to God.

30:41
So if all the other places that El Gabor is used, it refers to God and.

30:44
Then here refers.

30:45
To an awesome hero.

30:49
OK, well, that's not impossible, but it's it's really taking away your evidence.

30:55
In Isaiah 1021, we read of Remnant will return the remnant of Jacob to the Mighty God.

31:01
There's no this is exact same phrase chapter later. Nobody disputes that that's talking about Yahweh.

31:09
Especially cause in Isaiah 1020, it actually says the the name Yahweh. So let's look at Option 2, which is to consider El Gabor to be saying that this child is a mighty God man, which is kind of like the standard approach. Most Bible believing Christians take now, even though this is a.

31:29
By far the most popular view among Christians.

31:33
There are some scholars that are not buying it.

31:36
Who also believe in the Trinity, but they don't think this is actually good evidence of it. Among whom are Kyle and Delich, who, after batting away Jewish interpretation, say the Messiah is the corporeal presence of this mighty God? This sounds awfully biblical. Unitarian, to me the Messiah. So that again.

31:56
Is that corporeal? That means he's in a body. The Messiah is the corporeal presence of this mighty God, for he is with him. He is in him, and in him he is with Israel. Amen, brother.

32:10
Sometimes the old Germans get it right. The expression did not preclude the fact that the Messiah would be God and man and one person, but it did not penetrate to this depth. So far as the Old Testament consciousness was concerned. Thank you very much.

32:27
Then, if you're thinking well, Sean, that's from the 19th century. How about something from the 20th and 21st centuries actually published in the 21st century? The NTB.

32:36
Bill, which says it is unlikely that Isaiah or his audience would have understood the title in such a bold way in such a bold way of thinking that the child was actually God and man in some sort of dual nature sense.

32:50
Now there is also another problem, namely that if we take the verbs as past tense and we say, OK, well, who was this child in Isaiah's time? And then we identify that child with Hezekiah, and Isaiah is saying that this child is a God, man of dual natures. Then we have two God men.

33:11
We have Jesus and we have Hezekiah, and now we need a new word. Quadrinity quaternity some some other such thing we got. We got other problems. So it's a sword that cuts both ways. If you're going to say that the intent of the author is to call the Child Mighty God in the sense that the child himself is deity.

33:31
Then we have one extra deity than anybody really wants.

33:36
Once again, we have a strained reading.

33:39
And besides, Isaiah is super monotheistic. If you read the Book of Isaiah like he's not ambiguous about it, let's move to the next possibility, which is the idea of the mighty God's agent that he's calling Isaiah. Calling this child Mighty God because he represents the mighty God, he's functioning as the mighty God in a particular context.

34:01
This idea takes its cue from the fact that the word Elohim is used of Moses and judges, and of the Davidic king.

34:11
And so.

34:13
L is similar to the word Elohim. It's not really the same word, and so maybe you're thinking, OK, well, it can maybe do some of the same work, and L is actually the word in Psalm 82 and so therefore would be the background of John 10.

34:27
And I'm not going to get into all that. You can chase it down if you want to look up all those references later, but the idea is simple that sometimes humans can be called God because they represent God. They are God's agents, and this is a position that is widely recognized. From 1864, Kyle and de Leech.

34:47
Edward L Curtis, 1890, Raymond Brown, 19.67 the Net Bible in 2005 and Hugh Williamson in the International critical commentary in 2018. I'm not saying all of these people think this is the best idea. They're all just saying I see that as a authentic possibility for reading Isaiah 9/6.

35:08
So although the net Bible does, like fully endorse it, so I will, I will say that for sure, I myself used to hold this position.

35:18
And it's certainly possible, but once again, it's not obvious from the context.

35:25
It's much more natural to take the words El Gabor to refer to God, because if I say to you the mighty God, you're not thinking well.

35:35
Are you thinking Jesus right now and like a representational sense? No. Like, you're just gonna think the father, especially if the the next line is the Eternal Father, right?

35:45
So and I don't have time to get into the Eternal Father stuff, but like you, you could kind of soften it. You could say, well, he it means the father of the age. Or like Jerome did in the Vulgate, the father of the future. But these are all strange readings again. It's much more natural to take aviad as the Eternal Father, just like it's traditionally rendered. And if I say to you eternal father.

36:05
You're thinking Yahweh.

36:07
So the least strained reading is to just take it at face value, which brings us to the concept finally of theophoric names.

36:17
Yay.

36:19
So how theophoric names work? So let me explain the word theophoric Theos and Phoros Theos. This is a Greek from the Greek, not the Hebrew. Theos means God. You know that, right?

36:30
I got one nod. Sweet Theos means God, and Thoros means carry or carrying. So the idea is that the name is carrying God.

36:42
It's got the word God in the name in some way, so that could be an L like El or it could be a yeah, or which in English comes in as JAHA lot of.

36:52
Or IAH at the end like Hezekiah, that's a theophoric name.

36:59
Let me show you some examples. Isaiah means ya is salvation.

37:05
Hezekiah ya is my strength, Emmanuel. God is with us.

37:12
Elijah Ya is my God.

37:15
So these are all names that.

37:18
Are talking about God.

37:21
Not the child.

37:24
Did you catch that? That's really the key point of the whole presentation. Theophoric names are names where you name the child.

37:32
Something about God. It has nothing to do with the child. Isaiah's parents did not think that child was their God of salvation or something like that, that they did not think that of this child.

37:44
They thought that of their God, and so they called their child after their God. It's not something we do as Americans, so it is. It is rather foreign to us now.

37:56
The JPS study Bible puts it this way. Semitic names often consist of sentences that describe God.

38:04
These names do not describe that person who holds them, but the God whom the parents worship.

38:11
Similarly, the name given to the child in this verse does not describe that child or attribute divinity to him, but describes God's actions. This is the JPS study Bible talking about Isaiah 9/6.

38:28
So Elijah's parents, they literally called their kid my God. Yeah. Ellie. My God. Jah, yah, Yahweh. OK. Can you imagine that? My God, Yahweh. It's time for dinner.

38:44
And yet nobody is confused. They don't actually think that child is divine or an incarnation or anything. They know the child is just a child, cause it's their baby.

38:56
But they call the child that because they're saying my God is Yahweh. That's what their child is meaning, and the word is in Hebrew isn't there? And that's normal. They're they they don't have a present tense. So you have a future and a past tense. But for the verb to be, you typically would not see it there anyhow. So the translator has to decide, do I put the word is in?

39:16
Or not.

39:18
OK, so let's look at some translations that take the name as Thea 4 cause like I told you, this position is new to me, but it's not new to scholarship in general and I certainly didn't invent it. So here are some translations that render the text in this kind of way.

39:36
The JPS Jewish Publication Society translation of 1917 translates the name of the child Wonderful in counsel is God The Mighty.

39:47
The everlasting father, the ruler of peace.

39:51
William Holiday in 1978, his translation reads planner of wonders. God, the war hero is father forever, Prince of well-being.

40:03
The new Jewish Publication Society translation of 1985 the Mighty God is planning grace, so they translated the word wonderful or what I would argue is miracle. They translate that grace.

40:16
Which is a little weird, but you get what's going on.

40:19
The mighty God is playing grace, the Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler. John Golden Gate, 1999. One who plans a wonder. Is the warrior God the Father forever is a commander who brings peace. You get it. There's two sentences. Those sentences are about God. And what this child signifies. God is going to do.

40:40
Just like the child in Isaiah 7 was a historical person named Emmanuel.

40:46
In the original context, it said by the time this child grows a little bit, the kings that are harassing Judah will no longer be a problem.

40:55
It's not originally referring to Jesus. Now Matthew picks it up and applies it to Jesus. I have no complaints about that. I get it. Jesus is doing the same kind of thing, but in a bigger way.

41:06
Jesus, just like the original Emmanuel, is signaling to the people. God has not abandoned you, God.

41:13
Is with us.

41:14
It's not that the child is God with us, it's that the chi.

41:18
Else.

41:19
Life or name, whatever it signifies, in some way that God is with us. So it is with this child's name in Isaiah 9.6 then John Golden Gate again from 2015.

41:31
Offers the translation. An extraordinary counselor is the warrior God. The everlasting father is an official for well-being. Hugh Williamson and the International Critical Commentary 2018 says a wonderful planner is the mighty God. It almost makes him sound like a a birthday planner or something. You know, like he's planning a military victory, people.

41:51
So I think he it's just.

41:53
A little weak sauce on that. That's my opinion.

41:57
And then he goes on. An Eternal father is the Prince of peace.

42:02
And then my translation, the Warrior God, is a miraculous strategist.

42:07
The Eternal Father is the ruler who brings peace. Now. I don't really have time to get into the SAR Shalom issue. You can ask about in the questions if you want. Usually translated Prince of peace. I translated it here as ruler. You can see that in the 2015 John Golden Gate translation he used the word official.

42:26
Bill and in the 1999 version, he used the word commander, so the word SAR does definition one is definitely Prince, but it also can mean a commander or a ruler. It doesn't have to be the son of a king. Obviously Yahweh is not the son of a king.

42:42
So if we're referring to Yahweh, then I think SAR, we would have to take it in the same way that it's used in other places, like in Daniel to refer to a commander. And I have the details on that in the paper. Don't have really time to get into it right here. I'd like to.

42:58
Kind of wrap things up with this John Golden Gate quote, John Golden Gates work has been instrumental in in the research I did for this. This is what he says and I think it really helps explain everything nicely.

43:09
This is from his Isaiah for everyone commentary.

43:13
He writes, so he has that complicated name. An extraordinary counselor is the warrior God. The everlasting father is an officer for well-being. Like earlier names in Isaiah, God is with us, which is Emmanuel's remains will return, which I think is shared.

43:31
Russia plunder hurries. Loot rushes? That's your old buddy Maher Shallow Hash Baz from Isaiah Chapter 8, you know, like, come on, everybody knows that guy like these other names and Isaiah 9 Paleo, Etz El Gabor aviad sar Shalom. This name is a sentence.

43:50
Golden Gate continues. None of these names are the person's everyday name, as when the New Testament says that Jesus will be called Emmanuel, God is with us, without meaning, this expression is Jesus's name.

44:02
Rather, the person somehow stands for whatever the name says. God gives him a sign of the truth of the expression attached to him. The names don't mean that the person is God with us, or is the remains, or is the plunder, and likewise this new name in Isaiah.

44:22
Mine doesn't mean the child is what the name says. Rather, he is a sign and guarantee of it. It's as if he goes around bearing a billboard with that message and with the reminder that God commissioned the Billboard.

44:36
Yeah.

44:37
The child, who was born is signifying what God is going to do.

44:44
Simple.

44:46
So.

44:48
May offer the translation for a child on the bottom here for a child has been born to us. A son has been given to us and the government was upon his shoulder, and his name has been called the Warrior God is a miraculous strategist. The Eternal Father is the ruler who brings peace.

45:04
Simple.

45:07
Just translated every word as literally as I possibly could, probably too literally, and a professional translator would smooth it out a little more. Probably but.

45:16
No special pleadings, no, no straining. No like look at it just this way. Just. OK, move a little. OK. There it is. Now I see it. It's not like.

45:25
The.

45:26
Puzzle on the back of a cereal box. You know, it's just you look at it and that's what it says.

45:31
I could never see those stupid things anyhow.

45:34
Conclusion. An advantage to this reading of Isaiah 9.6 is that it is compatible with the full range of Christological positions. Christians Holt.

45:43
Isn't that something? If you take a theophoric approach, everybody's happy. How often do we get that?

45:52
Secondly, this approach nicely fits with the original meaning in Isaiah's day, and it works for the prophecies ultimate reference in Christ Jesus.

46:01
Additionally, it is the interpretation with the least amount of special pleading. Finally, it puts everything in the correct order, allowing exegesis to drive theology.

46:12
Rather than the other way around.

46:14
Now, although there's much more to say about this subject, I'm just about out of time. So once again, if you want to delve into it deeper, please see the paper at restitutio.org. Thank you for your time and attention.

46:35
Well, that brings his presentation to a close. What did you think? Come on over to restitutio.org and find episode 572. Isaiah 9.6 explained and leave your comments there. Also, I have the paper on the Restitutio website under articles. You can find it that way as well or just find episode 5 seven.

46:54
To either way, you'll be able to access it. If you want to dig deeper now we did get some feedback in from our show last week, Mike wrote in saying listening to Bob talk about teaching people to talk in tongues and letting the spirit use you. Do you believe speaking in tongues is a prayer language available to Christians?

47:15
And do you believe it is the sign or only sign of being baptized in the spirit?

47:22
Well, thanks, Mike for that question. I'm not a fan of teaching people to speak in tongues. I think if it's a miracle, then you should not be able to teach people how to do it. I might differ with Bob Cardin on that a little bit, but we both do believe that it is available today that it is very much.

47:43
Something that continues from the time of the apostles into the second generation, third generations and so forth of Christianity, which means that I am a continuationist as opposed to a cessationist cessationist.

47:58
Believe that speaking in tongues and other miraculous manifestations like prophecy or gifts of healing have all ceased with the apostles, whereas Continuationists believe that these miraculous powers continue.

48:15
Now I have to also clarify that I don't think everyone is supposed to do all of the manifestations listed in First Corinthians 12, and I differ with people from away international background.

48:28
On that, who typically believe a doctrine called all nine all the time, which is the idea that every Christian can and should speak in tongues, can and should prophesy, can and should interpret. Tongues can and should do all the other of the 9 mentioned there in First Corinthians 12 I do not hold that position. I think that position.

48:48
Is actually strongly against what the text says. I think 1st Corinthians 12 clearly says that not everyone has all the gifts of the spirit or manifests all the spiritual activity.

49:00
It says to one is given this to another is given that I think it's very clear that this is the ordering of God through his spirit in his church as he sees fit. So yeah, Mike, I do believe this stuff is available today. I don't believe that every Christian is going to do it. I think God directs it and.

49:20
I think we need to cut each other a little slack. There is a doctrine I think you're tapping into. Mike called initial evidence. It's a Pentecostal doctrine that says everyone should speak in tongues when they first receive the baptism of the spirit.

49:38
And I do not believe in the doctrine of initial evidence. I think it is great if somebody speaks in tongues when they're baptized in water, which for some would be the same time as when they're baptized in spirit. Others perhaps believe a little earlier and receive the spirit before they're baptized in water. I think there's a lot of flexibility on that.

49:58
Typically people do believe, but when we do baptisms we do lay hands on people and pray that they would receive the spirit.

50:05
But most people in my experience, do not speak in tongues at the moment of their conversion or at the moment of receiving the spirit, so that they do have this opportunity to manifest the spirit. I can tell you that in my own life I did not manifest it through speaking in tongues, that in my experience it was through.

50:26
Really receiving a renewal of the heart where I started to feel the conviction of the spirit when I sinned and I did not experience that before coming to a saving faith at the age of 19, repenting of my sins and turning to God in all honesty and truth as opposed to just going along with what my parents wanted me to do.

50:47
Which I think most kids typically do anyhow, and for me it was really experiencing this.

50:53
Fiction. Even when I was sent in very seemingly insignificant ways, I I felt really an an oppressive conviction on my heart, which was a real gift from God, because I really needed help in many areas of my life, which is all part of my own personal story, and I wouldn't.

51:14
Expect that that would be the same for somebody else who maybe would need something else. We all have different roles in the body of Christ, so it makes sense that different manifestations are available to different people, and maybe also at different times I can.

51:29
I'm totally open to speaking in tongues if I'm in a situation where that is needed or prophesying or whatever. So I think really it's more of a an openness to being led by the spirit in any kind of situation that you're in, but especially if you're in an open church service like Bob explained from last week, where the spirit is moving.

51:49
And there is an openness to receive, and if God inspires somebody to do this, or to do that, then I think it is.

51:56
Really a wonderful opportunity to step out in courage and step out in faith. Jim also commented in saying very sensible, very well grounded discussion of aligned ministries, church service. So grateful to hear of him holding course, pursuing Christ throughout his life. And then Jim talks about how he actually grew up.

52:18
Right next to Bob and in Rye, NY, although they did not meet, although he met his wife, I guess so. Anyhow. Small world, huh? And then another Michael wrote in saying what a wonderful conversation brothers. I'm praying for a church like you both have to start here in Seattle.

52:34
I am anxious for a UCA conference in Seattle. In the meantime, I attend online with LH IM, Mark Jones and J Dan Gill. Biblical Unitarian podcasts is one of my favorites. God bless all of you. Well, thanks Michael for writing in, and I'm glad to hear you're able to watch our Sunday services at living hope.

52:54
International ministries, I preach there usually 2.

52:58
This month and that is my home church. So take a look at that if you are interested. Jonathan writes in in regard to forgiveness. Are we really supposed to forgive even if a person won't take accountability or if they are not sorry, we are not just automatically forgiven by God without accountability, by confessing our sins and asking forgiveness.

53:21
I can't just go about my life as a Christian and do as I please and expect that all this well, when I don't recognize my mistakes and ask God for forgiveness. Are there times I can't even remember all the things that I've done, of course. But I ask for forgiveness for anything I may have done that wasn't pleasing in his eyes. I just have a hard time with the idea of blanket forgiveness.

53:42
To those who have hurt me and do not.

53:44
Care.

53:45
Of course, I realize resentment is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die. However, I do not feel as if not forgiving someone when they won't take accountability and genuinely aren't remorseful and resentment to be remotely the same. I'd like to hear anyone else's thoughts on this.

54:06
Well, Jonathan, this teaching stems from the Lord's Prayer in the Sermon on the Mount. Of course you remember that? He says for us to pray and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.

54:22
And that's Matthew 612, which is an interesting phrase. It's attaching our forgiveness to God's forgiveness in a way that I think I would be a little uncomfortable in the sense that.

54:36
We pre forgive and on the basis of that, ask God to forgive us. Let me read it again. This is Matthew 612 and forgive us our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors.

54:48
Really, really interesting way that Jesus put that and then in verse 14 for if you forgive others their trespasses, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you. So once again, it's a prerequisites for God's forgiveness that we forgive others. And then Jesus says it the opposite way in verse 15. But if you do not forgive others.

55:09
Neither will your father forgive your trespasses to me. That is just cut and dry.

55:14
Why, man? I think I just need to forgive now. That doesn't mean that we're stupid and we're going to put ourselves back in that same situation where that same toxic person can hurt us again. Who doesn't even feel bad about it? I think we need to have wisdom with that. If you're a wife who's getting beaten up by your husband, physically beaten up by your husband.

55:34
Yeah, you can forgive, but you have to get out of that house. You you have to blow the whistle. This guy really needs to repent.

55:42
And perhaps a marriage can be saved. Perhaps a marriage can't be saved. Perhaps this guy could change, you know, whatever. But like, you don't just stay in the situation, getting beaten up over and over again. Obviously, that's an extreme example, but sometimes extreme examples can help us think through issues more carefully. So yes, forgiveness.

56:02
Is you not holding the debt anymore against that person, but that doesn't mean reconciliation.

56:09
And that doesn't mean that you would put yourself in a vulnerable situation with that person who harmed you if that person hasn't demonstrated true and lasting repentance. There is a both and here when it comes to forgiveness. Obviously, most of us are not in that situation of getting beaten up over and over. Our slights are fairly minor.

56:30
In comparison, you know, maybe somebody betrayed you or turned you in or gossiped about you, or tried to sabotage you at work or or whatever. You know, these are more of the typical kinds of situations we're in. And yeah, you got to forgive. You got to let it go, because otherwise it does turn into.

56:52
Resentment and bitterness. Maybe somebody has another take on this can exaggerate more carefully. The words of our Lord in Matthew Chapter 6. If so, I'd love to hear about it. Come on to episode 571. Give God a shot.

57:07
And leave your comment there about forgiveness. OK, well, that's it for feedback on this subject today. And I also have noticed there are quite a few comments on the YouTube for Isaiah 9.6 explained this very episode, but I'm going to save those for next week as well as those that are on the rest of studio site.

57:27
And respond to them then, because I'm guessing there will be more comments on Isaiah 9.6 then as well.

57:34
Thanks everybody for engaging commenting in for reviewing the podcast in Apple Podcasts and other places. But really the best thing you can do if you're willing to is to share this podcast with friends. If you can let other people know about the podcast, it really helps us to reach more people.

57:54
Way better than reviews and engagement which is which is all great.

58:00
The way but yeah, word of mouth or just sharing on social media, that would be a fantastic way to show your support. So appreciate that for those of you who have done that, thanks also to those who have contributed financially. If you'd like to make a donation, you can do that at restitutio.org. I'll catch you next week and remember the truth.

58:19
Has nothing to fear.