Note: Please see the video above or keep reading.
“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” (Isaiah 9:6, ESV).
Many use Isaiah 9:6 as a Trinitarian proof text. It assigns the titles “mighty God” and “everlasting Father” to Jesus. Few Christians know that most verses used to teach the doctrine of the Trinity are based on questionable translations. On the surface, this verse appears to be a remarkable trinitarian proof text. But a closer examination uncovers a mistranslation.
There are two primary interpretations for the identity of this child. Most Christians believe this child is Jesus Christ. Some Trinitarians, Biblical Unitarians, and non-Christian Jews, etc. believe that this child was King Hezekiah or possibly another king.
A Summary of this Writing
Isaiah 9:6 should be interpreted within the context of verses 1-7. All popular Trinitarian translations use future verbs tenses not found in Hebrew manuscripts to dress up Isaiah 9:6 into a prophecy of Jesus.
The Hebrew word for“name,” וְ (“and his name shall be called”) is singular which indicates that this child has one name, not four distinct names as found in Trinitarian translations. When the word “name” in the singular form is examined in other passages, with rare exceptions, it identifies one name, not multiple names.
The Hebrew word for “called” (“his name shall be called“) is in the active voice. This means that the subject performs this action. The only possible subject in this verse who could have named this child is “God.” But Trinitarian translations changed the verb, “called” into a passive voice.
The New Testament does not teach that Isaiah 9:6 is a fulfillment of any prophecy. None of the titles mentioned in this verse, (“wonderful counselor, mighty God, everlasting father, prince of peace”) are applied to Jesus in the Bible.
Two ancient sources provide an interpretation of Isaiah 9:6 that is consistent with Hebrew grammar rules. The child was already born, had a government on his shoulders, and he was called one, singular non-divine name.
Please continue reading for supporting elements to these conclusions.
The Context Examined
A fundamental rule of biblical interpretation is to consider the context of a passage. The exegetical form of biblical interpretation seeks to understand the meaning intended by the original author, as understood by the original audience. Isaiah 9:6 cannot be interpreted correctly divorced from the context.
The book, Toward an Exegetical Theology: Biblical Exegesis for Preaching and Teaching, states, “Good exegetical procedure dictates that the details be viewed in light of the total context. . . . If the exegete falters here, much of what follows will be wasted time and effort” (Kaiser, W. C., Jr., 1981, 69).
Sadly, few Christians know that Isaiah 9:1-7 contains verses that are all contextually linked. They should be understood as one unit. Even though technically, the context spills over from the previous chapter.
For example, Isaiah 9:6 begins with the word “for” (“For a child is born”). This points to the preceding verses. If we back up one or two verses, they also begin with the word “for,” which connects related verses.
It can be difficult for us to step outside our cultural setting and consider the context. But a contextual examination establishes a relationship between the preceding context and the royal birth announcement of verse 6.
The first sentence of chapter 9 —“But there will be no gloom for her who was in anguish,” should be at the end of chapter 8 as found in Hebrew Bibles.
Beginning in 9:1b, there is a transition from “gloom” to hope. “In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he has made glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations” (1:1b).
In contrast to the “gloom and doom” of the previous verses in chapter 8, there is a transition, signaled by the word “but.”
The passage continues, “The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shone” (9:2).
The ESV correctly used past tense verbs. The dark nation of Israel saw a great light. What was this light? Because the context of the verses to follow is of one or more military victories, this should be incorporated into our understanding.
Before we continue, Matthew 4:13-16 indicates that Jesus fulfilled a prophecy from Isaiah 9:1-2. To save time, we won’t cover this prophecy which is unrelated to Isaiah 9:6. But if you have doubts, please read it
Verse 3, “You have multiplied the nation; you have increased its joy; they rejoice before you as with joy at the harvest, as they are glad when they divide the spoil.”
The phrase, “You have multiplied the nation” is regarding enlarged borders after successful military campaigns. This is also found in Isaiah 26:15. The phrase, “as they are glad when they divide the spoil,” depicts joy and celebration after winning a battle.
Verse 4, “For the yoke of his burden, and the staff for his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, you have broken as on the day of Midian” (9:4).
The theme of victory in battle continues. The oppressive yoke of one or more kings was broken. This victory is compared to a previous battle that took place in Midian described in Judges 7-8.
The account of Israel’s joyful triumph over their enemy continues: “For every boot of the tramping warrior in battle tumult and every garment rolled in blood will be burned as fuel for the fire” (9:5).
Because verses 4, 5, and 6 begin with with the word “for,” these conjunctions connect related sentences. The Davidic king announced in verse 6 is involved in Israel’s victory over their enemies.
Now that we have covered verses 1-5, it is important to remember that the context leading up to Isaiah 9:6 is of jubilant victory celebrations. Israel’s borders were enlarged. Yoke of bandages were broken, etc.
Before we examine verse 6, which Jewish king lived during Isaiah’s ministry (who wrote this passage) and experienced multiple military victories? It was king Hezekiah. The Bible says, “3 And he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, according to all that David his father had done” (2 Kings 18:3). Verse 5 says, “ He trusted in the Lord, the God of Israel, so that there was none like him among all the kings of Judah after him, nor among those who were before him” (v. 5). And verse 7-8 continues, “7 And the Lord was with him; wherever he went out, he prospered. He rebelled against the king of Assyria and would not serve him. 8 He struck down the Philistines as far as Gaza and its territory, from watchtower to fortified city” (2 Kings 18:7-8).
Based on the context, the victories described in verses 2-5 are not descriptive of Jesus Christ. Verse 6 contains past tense verbs to enthusiastically announce the birth of a king in existence related to these military conquests.
An Exegetical Examination
It’s time to place the identity of this child under the exegetical microscope. “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given.” In some translations, this sentence is a serious mistranslation. The verbs “born” and “given” are in the past tense in Hebrew. In fact, they are in a perfect tense which indicates completed actions.
Most translations use present tense verbs, “is born,” and “is given.” While technically, the English historical present describes past actions in the present, in the interest of translating God’s Word as accurate as possible, the underlying manuscripts should be mirrored. Consequently, this verse should read, “was born” and “was given.”
Some translations use future tenses in Isaiah 9:6a which is a serious mistranslation. The NASB (1995) says, “For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us.” Such translations of this verse are a forgery.
Those who have a high regard for God’s inspired word should be outraged to discover that Bible translators purposefully changed God’s Word to conform to their Trinitarian presuppositions.
In Mark 7:7, Jesus accused the religious leaders who had corrupted the theological framework of ordinary Jews of, “thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down” (Mark 7:13b).
Christians today sometimes forget that Bibles are translations created by Trinitarian scholars. Bible translations don’t supersede thousands of underlying manuscripts. Since all credible manuscripts have past tense verbs here, translators should be faithful, except in rare cases where it is grammatically impossible to retain the same meaning.
Verbs Tenses Examined Using Logos Bible Software
The book, The prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary, admits, “9:1–7 is couched in past tenses” (Motyer, J. A., 1996, 98).
The book, Moses and the Prophets: An Essay toward a Fair and Useful Statement of Some of the Positions of Modern Biblical Criticism, writes, “Occasional instances of what some have called the “prophetic perfect,” as in Isa. 5:13; 9:1–7, are no real parallels. Their immediate context clearly prevents misapprehension” (Terry, M. S.,1901, 122).
Some Trinitarians admit that the verbs in Isaiah 9:6 are in the past tense in Hebrew, but claim they are “prophetic perfects.” That is, they describe future events that are so certain to happen, the author used past tenses.
I don’t deny that a few passages in the Old Testament may contain past tenses describing future events. Nevertheless, translations should be faithful to manuscripts and accurately translate inspired verb tenses.
With past tenses and historical presents as necessary, the verse reads, “For unto us a child was born, to us a son was given; and the government is/was upon his shoulder, and his name is/was called …”
Using Logos Bible Software, a word search can be performed on the word “born” with the same Hebrew tagging. It is pual (passive voice), perfect tense (past completed action), third person, masculine, and singular. A search of this word in the Old Testament with the same morphology will inform us how the word “born” is translated in other passages. Is it past, present, or future? This can inform us if Isaiah 9:6 describes a birth that already took place or was future.
A search produces 16 hits. All these verbs are translated as past tenses with three historical presents. Remember, historical presents describe past events using a present tense. The past tenses are “was born” (2 times), “were born” (8 times), “has been born” (1 time), “was descended” (1 time), “one was born” (1 time), and “is born” (3 times). Not one use is in the future tense.
The next verb in the sentence is the word, “given” (“for to us a child is born, to us a son is given”). A search of this word with the same morphology produces 14 hits. Once again, past tenses dominate the landscape. Here are the returns. It is “given” (1 time), “there was given” (1 time), “had been given” (1 time), “was committed” (1 time), “issued (1 time), “is set” (2 time), “is given” (1 time), “shall be given” (1 time), “was given” (2 times), “is raised” (1 time), “it is given” (1 time), “was spread” (1 time).
To be transparent, one word is conjugated into a future tense in Isaiah 35:2. It is, “shall be given.” While the word “given’ is in the past tense, it is qualified into the future tense by the words, “shall be” because of other grammatical features in this verse. In contrast, Isaiah 9:1-6 (again) contains all past tense verbs.
Because of past, completed actions, the birth of the child happened hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus Christ.
The verse continues, “and the government shall be upon his shoulder.” Because the verb, “be” is in the past tense in Hebrew, the future tenses in the ESV and other Bibles are a purposeful mistranslation.
A search for this word returns 86 hits. They are all past tenses with a few historical presents that describe past events. So why does Isaiah 9:6 in all major Trinitarian translations include future tenses? Trinitarian translators framed this verse into a prophecy of Jesus. Their Trinitarian partisanship is undeniable.
The fourth and last verb in the sentence is the word, “called.” This word with the same conjugation is found 208 times. The only future tense I could find is Isaiah 9:6!
The Word “Name” Is Singular, Not Plural
Hebrew words contain tagging which aids in sentence assembly. While these word elements are not absolute, they are rarely ignored.
The Hebrew word “name,” וְ (“and his name shall be called”) is singular which indicates that this child has one name. Trinitarian translations assign at least four names to the child.
A search for the word name “name” in the same plural form, results in 723 hits. The results identify singular names, with at least one exception in Genesis 48:16.
The prophet Isaiah under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit could have used the plural form of the word, “name” (names) for multiple names. A search for the plural form of the word “name” returns 79 hits of plural names.
Some may object and offer Isaiah 7:14. In this verse, the child is called the singular name, “Emmanuel.” This word means, “God is with us.”” But the child is called one singular name.
Another objection may come from Isaiah 8:3. This child is assigned a singular name composed of multiple words. Surely this is a victory for Trinitarians. But the meaning of this name is spelled out in the ESV and other translations. The ESV says, “The spoil speeds, the prey hastens.” This child was not assigned five different names: “the,” “spoil,” “speeds,” “the,” “prey,” “hastens.” He was called one singular name with four Hebrew words, communicating one thought.
The Hebrew Word “Called” is in the Active voice
In Hebrew, the verb “called” (קרא) is in the active voice. This means with rare exceptions, the word “called” has a subject of one or more words. A subject informs who named this child. This word literally means “and he called.”
The only person available in the verse that could have named this child is God. Within this sentence, the word, “God” as a subject is identified with multiple words:
God = [“the wonderful counselor, mighty God, everlasting Father”]
Please observe the distinction between the passive voice (Trinitarian translation) and the active voice:
Passive: “will be called” (does not inform who named this child).
Active Voice: the Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, called His name “Prince of Peace” (The subject of the verb is identified).
Is the translation with God as the subject new? Absolutely Not. We will cover two ancient translations (the Septuagint and the Targum), which follow closely the underlying morphological tagging and the context.
A search of the word “called” with the same morphology yields 208 hits. Over and over, with few exceptions, the verb has a subject identified.
Of the 208 results, I found 14 (Genesis 25:26, 38:29, 38:30, Numbers 11:3, 11:34, 21:3, Joshua 5:9, Judges 1:17, 6:32, 15:17, 2 Samuel 2:16, 6:8, 2 Kings 18:4, 1 Chronicles 13:11) from the ESV that were exceptions. That is, they are passive. So based on this, approximately 93% of the time, an identifiable subject performed the action. Of these 14 rare exceptions, some translations didn’t agree with the ESV and translated them as active.
Here is a summary with the Hebrew grammatical considerations that shape this verse. The child was already born and had a government on his shoulders. He is called one singular name, and the One who named this child is God Himself. Here is a Jewish translation that transmits these grammatical features:
“For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, “the prince of peace.” https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15940/jewish/Chapter-9.htm
Here is a summary with the Hebrew grammatical considerations that shape this verse. The child was already born and had a government on his shoulders. He is called one singular name, and the One who named this child is God Himself. Here is a Jewish translation that transmits these grammatical features:
“For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, “the prince of peace.” https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15940/jewish/Chapter-9.htm
Jesus is Not the Wonderful Counselor
The verse continues, “and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor.” Is Jesus called, “wonderful counselor” in the Bible? Absolutely not. One might object that while Jesus is not called this title in the Bible, this does not prove that He never was called this title. But because Jesus was unborn, this title is inapplicable.
Jesus is not “Mighty God”
The verse continues, “and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God.”
From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible makes pointed distinctions between the identity of God the Father (Yahweh) and Jesus Christ.
While there are unity and communion between God and His Son, they remain separate entities. Two persons that differ cannot be equal without violating self-evident, God-given rules of logic. We are made in God’s image as separate persons.
It should be noted that the title “mighty God” in this verse is not “almighty God.” If Jesus is “mighty God” as Trinitarians believe, there should be biblical confirmation. A search for the title “mighty God” in the ESV results in two hits. Both uses are assigned exclusively to the Father.
To save time, I won’t cover these verses. The verses are Isaiah 10:20-21 and Jeremiah 32:18.
It’s contradictory to apply the title “mighty God” to Jesus because He is consistently subordinate to His Father. Jesus was promoted to the position of Lord (Daniel 7:13-14, Acts 2:33, 36; Hebrews 1:9; 2:9; Philippians 2:9-11) because He did not have this position. He submits to the sovereignty of His greater Father. Jesus said, “…I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28b). In the book of Relation, after His ascension, Jesus called His Father, “my God” (3:2, 3:12, etc.). Paul and Peter are both quoted as saying, “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 1:3, 1 Peter 1:3). Because Jesus has a God, He is not “mighty God.”
For additional verses that teach that the Father is greater, please see John 10:29, Romans 6:10, 1 Corinthians 3:23, 11:3, 15:24-28, Ephesians 4:6, etc.
Jesus is not the Everlasting Father
The verse continues, “and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father.”
The Trinitarian book, Christian Beliefs: Twenty Basics Every Christian Should Know, states, “Because God is three distinct persons, the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son’ (Grudem, Wayne, Kindle Locations 460-461, 2005).
The book, Trinity, says, “the Persons are distinct: The Father is not the Son. The Son is not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the Father” (Kindle Locations 48-49, Rose Publishing, 1999).
Jesus is not the Father: “I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father” (John 16:28).
According to John 1:29, Jesus is the “Lamb of God,” which means He is not, “God the Lamb.” The Father did not come to earth, but sent His Son, who represented His Father perfectly. It is important to not blur the inspired distinctions that exist between God and His Son.
While popular Trinitarian translations contain, “everlasting father” this title is misapplied to the unborn Jesus. Jesus said, “ And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven” (Matthew 23:9
Prince of Peace?
The last title is “Prince of peace.” A better translation of the word, “prince” (ESV) is “ruler.” A survey of this word in the Old Testament indicates that this word usually describes a ruler or government official. Trinitarians ignore that the context describes a king who had a government on his shoulder that would increase (9:7).
“7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this” (Isaiah 9:7).
The examination of this verse will be light. This limited scope does not mean the verse is unimportant.
Isaiah 9:7 has translation variants. The ESV communicates that there will be no end to both “[a] the increase of his government and “[b] of peace.” But this “end” is limited to peace in the following translations:
-Holman Christian Standard Bible
-The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible
-New American Standard (1995)
Where it says, “Of the increase of his government,” is a reference to the government held by the child in the previous verse. In contrast, Jesus never had a government and said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (Jn 18:36a).
The phrase, “throne of David,” limits this king to the bloodline of David.
God had previously made a covenant with David: “12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body” (2 Samuel 7:12). The word “offspring” is plural and includes Davidic kings.
The verse continues, “and I will establish his kingdom 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever” (2 Sa 7:12–13). Now it switches to singular pronouns with the words “his,” and “He.” The ultimate culmination of the Davidic monarchy [k] in Jesus Christ.
Translations are consistent that the promises are guaranteed because “The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.” If Jesus was God incarnate, it would be unnecessary for the Father to guarantee these actions.
The Masoretic Text Translation of Isaiah 9:6
Most Bibles in existence today use the Masoretic Text. Isaiah 9:6 is based on this Text. The dispute over Isaiah 9:6 is not over the Masoretic text, but the translation of it.
The Septuagint Translation of Isaiah 9:6
The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Old Testament. This collection of manuscripts were likely composed around 200-300 years before the birth of Christ. Because Alexander the Great conquered the known world and hellenized it with Greek, some Jews by the time of Christ may of no longer been fluent in Hebrew. The Greek Septuagint brought the Hebrew Bible to Greek-speaking Jews. Jesus quoted often from the Septuagint and it was the Old Testament used by the New Testament church until around the 1500’s.
Because the Septuagint was translated from Hebrew to Greek before the time of Christ, there was no pressure from Trinitarians or Biblical Unitarians, etc., to favor a particular theological disposition. Because this translation took place before the time of Christ, they most certainly had a better grasp of the Hebrew language.
Here is Isaiah 9:6 from the Lexham English Septuagint (2012). Please notice how past tense verbs and historical presents identify a child who already existed:
“6 Because a child was born to us; a son was given to us whose leadership came upon his shoulder; and his name is called “Messenger of the Great Council,” for I will bring peace upon the rulers and health to him” (Isaiah 9:6).
The second half of this verse further invalidates Trinitarian translations. The singular name, “Messenger of the Great Council” discredits the Trinitarian plural names, “wonderful counselor, mighty God, and everlasting Father.” While the word, “called” is passive (“is called”), the verse hints that the subject who performed these actions is God: “for I will bring peace upon the rulers and health to him.”
The Dead Sea Scrolls Translation of Isaiah 9:6
The Dead Sea Scrolls is a collection of manuscripts discovered in caves in Israel in the mid-1900’s. According to Wikipedia, the Isaiah scroll (1QISA) (one of the manuscripts found), dates from around 356-103 BCE and 150-100 BCE. The consensus among most scholars is that this scroll dates before the time of Christ.
Because the Isaiah scroll is written in Hebrew, this allows a side by side comparison with the Hebrew Masoretic text.
Some years back, theologian Jeff A. Benner pointed out some differences between them. I have not found the differences significant enough to cover. If you are interested in a side-by-side comparison which he makes, you can follow this link.
The Dead Sea Scroll’s rendering of Isaiah 9:6 is a close match to the Masoretic Text. The Dead Sea Scrolls contains past tense verbs for a child already in existence. The word, “name” continues to be singular for one name. The word, “called” indicates that a subject named this child.
The Targum and Isaiah 9:6
“The prophet said to the House of David that a boy was born to us, a son was given to us; and he accepted upon himself to keep the Torah, and his name is called in the presence of the Wonderful Counselor, Almighty God Who Lives Forever, “The Messiah in Whose Days Peace Will Increase Upon Us” (The Targum Isaiah, Bruce D. Chilton, 21, 1987).
The Targum is a Jewish Bible and collection of ancient Rabbinic paraphrases and commentaries on the Old Testament. They are written in Aramaic and may date from the 1-3 century. They are loose paraphrases, allegories, and commentaries.
The Targum contains Isaiah 9:6 in a book called, Jonathan to the Prophets by Jonathan Ben Uzziel. Because the translation of this verse is so devastating, some Trinitarians have purposefully mistranslated it.
In 1871, Trinitarian C W. H. Pauli published a translation called, Jonathan to the Prophets, Isaiah into English. His erroneous interpretation of Isaiah 9:6, reads, “The prophet said to the house of David, For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and He has taken the law upon Himself to keep it. His name is called from eternity, Wonderful, The Mighty God, who liveth to eternity, The Messiah, whose peace shall be great upon us in His days” (Rev. C. W. H. Pauli, 1871).
Because this mistranslation assigned divine names to Jesus consistent with Trinitarian Bibles, it has been cited as proof for the Trinity for over 100 years. Because most Trinitarians are so confident in their theology, few investigate it’s authenticity.
Some Trinitarians know that this translation is problematic and are more careful. For example, the book, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, states, “Three, if not four, different renderings of the Targum on Is. 9:6 are possible” Edersheim, A. (1896).
Most Trinitarians are more honest. One theologian writes, “Similarly, Isa 9:6 [MT 5] is changed in the Targum so as to remove the divine titles from the Messiah . . . In light of this rendition, it could be fairly said that the Targums reflect a point of view which would be unreceptive to the idea of the incarnation, thus hostile to claims of deity by any man, including Jesus of Nazareth. Ronning, J. L. (2007). The Targum of Isaiah and the Johannine Literature. Westminster Theological Journal, 69 (2), 272.
Another source, The Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: Matthew–Luke (2003), makes some compelling admissions:
“The Aramaic understands the passage as a prophetic oracle that applies to the “house of David.” However, the exalted titles ‘Wonderful Counselor’ and ‘Mighty God’ (‘Father’ drops out, leaving behind ‘everlasting’ or ‘existing forever’) are understood to refer to God, not to the Messiah. That is the significance of the insertion of ‘before.’ In other words, the Messiah will not be called ‘Mighty God,’ he will be called ‘The Messiah in whose days peace will increase upon us’ before or in the presence of God Almighty, the Wonderful Counselor, who exists forever.’” (C. A. Evans & C. A. Bubeck, Eds.) (First Edition, p. 90).
Another credible author admits, “Kimchi and others, on the basis of the Targum’s rendering of this text, consider all of the titles but one as names of God. They think that the subject of the active verb is God and that Prince of Peace is the only Messianic title” Scipione, G. (1973). The Wonderful Counselor, the Other Counselor, and Christian Counseling. Westminster Theological Journal, 36 (2), 176.
The Targum complements the Septuagint. The child was already in existence and had one name. The Father is the “Wonderful Counselor, Almighty God Who Lives Forever.”
Some Trinitarians point out that the child is called, “the Messiah.” But this translation does not state that the Messiah is God. God is the one who named Him.
A problem with the word, “Messiah” in the Targum is that it is an insertion. This word is not found in the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, or the Dead Sea Scrolls. The word “Messiah” may have been added because of Messianic overtones present in the next verse.
King Hezekiah or Jesus?
Because the evidence is compelling that the child already existed, the question becomes, which Davidic king? Because the child born in Isaiah 9:6 was a historical event and not prophetic, his identity can be narrowed to a contemporary of Isaiah.
God had previously promised David that kings would come in his bloodline: “And God said to him, “I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply. A nation and a company of nations shall come from you, and kings shall come from your own body” (Ge 35:11).
King Hezekiah took power and reigned during Isaiah’s prophetic ministry. Because King Hezekiah was in the bloodline of king David, he is Dividic and is mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:10).
Here is a description of king Hezekiah from the book, 1 & 2 Kings:
“Thus Hezekiah was not merely one in a line of kings, as these verses go on to emphasize. In at least one respect, the way in which he trusted in the Lord (v. 5), there was no one like him among all the kings of Judah” (W. W. Gasque, R. L. Hubbard Jr., & R. K. Johnston, Eds., p. 253)
- Victorious King (9: 2-5).
Isaiah 9:2-5, which we covered, described one or more joyful military victory celebration. Isaiah 9:4-5, connects a Davidic king with these triumphs. The book, 1 & 2 Kings, describes king Hezekiah:
“The consequence of this religious faithfulness was that Hezekiah’s military exploits paralleled David’s in a way that was not true of any of the rest of his descendants. Only of David and Hezekiah among the Davidic kings is it said that the Lord was with him…”
Because king Hezekiah was an accomplished commander and Davidic King, he is a probable match.
2. Past tense, child born
Because verb tenses limit to an existing king during Isaiah’s ministry, this child should be Hezekiah.
3. Past tense, Government rule
Because kings taxed their citizens and Hezekiah ruled Judah, he undeniably had a government.
7. Prince of Peace
Because I believe that God named this child, let’s move to the name “ruler” or
“Prince of Peace.”
Because the Davidic king described in Isaiah 9:6 successfully defeated one or more of Israel’s enemies (vs. 2-5), this ushered in a time of peace. Therefore, the name “Prince of Peace or Ruler of the Peace” is consistent with the preceding context (vs. 2-5) and applies well to King Hezekiah.
“And Hezekiah said to Isaiah, “The word of the Lord that you have spoken is good.” For he thought, “For there shall be peace and truth in my days” (Isaiah 39:8).
8. Increase of Government
In verse six, the child would have a government. This government would grow.
Because Israel’s border increased under king Hezekiah, his government increased.
9. On the Throne of David
Because this king would reign on David’s throne, king Hezekiah is a probable match.
When the manuscript evidence is considered as a whole (Masoretic text, Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Targum, etc.), including the context of verse 1-5, and the grammatical features embedded within the Hebrew language, they unanimously testify that Isaiah 9:6 is a mistranslation. This child was already born, was assigned one singular name, and the One who named this child is the “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father.”
Trinitarian scholars rarely discuss the avalanche of corroborating evidence that Isaiah 9:6 is a serious mistranslation. Because the translation of Isaiah 9:6 is so problematic, it is frequently cited by non-believing Jews and Muslims to reject Christianity and their Trinitarian God.
Some of the following sources were helpful in researching Isaiah 9:6:
A very well written and organized argument.
Isaiah 9:6-7 is the end of one prophecy that begins at 7:1. Ahaz is king. Hezekiah is a little boy. The government had not already come upon his shoulder. So how could Isa 9:6 refer to Hezekiah?
You say that “given” in Isa 35:2 should be translated future. Why is that.
Hi brother Steve,
Thanks for commenting. I will send you a separate email that includes a picture of a timeline from Logos Bible Software that shows the prophet Isaiah was alive during the reign of King Ahaz, the victory of Hezekiah over the Philistines, and about half of the reign of King Hezekiah. While this timeline is not inspired, it is assembled based on biblical data. The account of Isaiah 9:1-6 (likely King Hezekiah), is not written as prophecy, but with past tenses, which corresponds with Isaiah being alive during this period.
For Isaiah 35:2, biblical Hebrew does not have verb tenses like the English language. Nevertheless, information can be harvested from Hebrew verbs to translate them into receptor languages that use tenses. All the translations that I researched, use a future tense “shall be given” (etc.), while the word “given” (נִתַּן־) is in the Hebrew perfect tense (qatal). This is because of other verbs in the sentence and for the verse to make sense.
May God bless your study as you follow His Son!
See Isaiah 10:20-21 the Mighty God is Yahweh. Thus, the Mighty God of Isaiah 9:6 cannot be Hezekiah!
No need for you to reply to the following.
Again, an excellent article on ISA 9:6 – thanks very much for all the work you have put into this. I had just started myself to check its translation and was checking the main context (ISA 7-10; ISA 36-39; 2 KIN 18-20; 2 CHR 29-32). But then I found your article which saved me quite some work 🙂
I don’t know if it’s worthwhile to discus this at all, but IMO Hezekiah perfectly foreshadows the Messiah because a) Isaiah is reaching forth towards the Messianic Kingdom, just like Gabriel said that Jesus would “reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” (LK 1:33, cf. ISA 9:7), b) because during that millennial dispensation will be indeed peace (except for the final Gog/Magog battle), and c) because Jesus reconciled both man with God as well as man with man (i.e. those who accept His offer).
First, Hezekiah renews the covenant and reconciles Israel (Judah) with God (2 CHR 29:10, 24), and then he strives do accomplish reconciliation between Ephraim and Judah (N.B. “apostate Ephraim” is a type for “Gentiles” in the Bible).
In other words, Hezekiah pursued the ministry of reconciliation and foreshadows both the making of the New Covenant with Israel and its extension to the Gentiles.
The trinitarian translation is really bad (in fact, evil), but the Jewish notion of limiting the passage to Hezekiah is not correct either IMO. As so many other passages in the Bible show: there are literal historic fulfillments, but they don’t fully exhaust the prophecy.
Regarding ISA 7:14, the Hebrew Shem Tov Version of Matthew says: “All this was to COMPLETE what was written by the prophet…”. It doesn’t say FULFILL as if the prophecy was fulfilled for the first time when Jesus was born – it was COMPLETED, i.e. the prophecy was exhausted.
In other words, a young woman did conceive in Isaiah’s day, and there was literally a son born with the name Immanuel – that child did exist at that time (unless it’s figurative, see further below). BUT the same verse has a twofold meaning and also foreshadows Messiah’s birth.
Again, the trinitarians claim ISA 7:14 refers exclusively to the Messiah (who is allegedly “God in the flesh with us” = a twisted interpretation), while the Jews assert it only refers to the historic Immanuel.
Considering that Jerusalem is called a VIRGIN (e.g. ISA 37:22), and that “God was with Judah” thanks to Hezekiah, and that Judah is called Immanuel’s land (ISA 8:8), – one could even conclude that “Immanuel” is simply another name for “Hezekiah”.
Be that as it may, important is the twofold meaning of such and similar verses – the type is found in the Tanakh and the respective antitype is found in the B’rit Hadashah.
PS: “Mighty God” (el gibbor) is also found in ISA 10:21 where it does mean God the Father. Thus, it cannot refer to Hezekiah – it is indeed a title of the name-giver, viz. of God the everlasting Father.
I agree with everything you said the only grief I personally have is the rejection and the limitations put on God having the ability to come in the flesh and live and die for the salvation for all mankind.
HELLO…CAME ACROSS YOUR WEBSITE & READ SOME OF WHAT YOU HAVE
THIS IS MY CONTRIBUTION AS A LONG-TIME STUDENT OF GOD’S WORD…OVER 45 YEARS…;)
GOD WAS ‘MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH’, SEEN OF ANGELS, JUSTIFIED IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, PREACHED UNTO THE GENTILES, BELIEVED ON IN THE WORLD, RECEIVED UP INTO GLORY…;)
GOD WAS ‘MANIFESTED’ IN THE ‘FLESH’
‘RECEIVED UP INTO GLORY’ – WHO RECEIVED JESUS UP INTO GLORY? GOD THE FATHER
WHO WAS RECEIVED UP INTO GLORY – GOD, THE SON
WHO WAS BELIEVED ON, IN THE WORLD – GOD, THE SON
WHO WAS PREACHED UNTO THE GENTILES – GOD, THE SON
WHO WAS SEEN OF ANGELS – GOD, THE SON
WHO WAS JUSTIFIED IN THE HOLY SPIRIT – GOD, THE SON
WHERE DID FAMILIES COME FROM? – HEAVEN
YOUR LAST NAME MAY BE JOHNSON – YOUR WIFE IS A JOHNSON, YOUR CHILDREN ARE JOHNSONS.
SAME IN HEAVEN – FATHER IS GOD, JESUS IS GOD, HOLY SPIRIT IS GOD – JUST AS YOUR FAMILY ARE SEPARATE ENTITIES – YOU ARE UNITED BY YOUR SURNAME.
YOU ARE ONE, BUT, YOU ARE SEVERAL.
JESUS SAID, ‘I AND MY FATHER ARE “ONE”.
BUT, JESUS, WAS HERE ON EARTH IN HIS INCARNATE STATE.
BEFORE, HE WAS IN HEAVEN, IN HIS PRE-INCARNATE STATE.
HE LED MOSES & THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL THROUGH THE WILDERNESS, IN HIS PRE-INCARNATE STATE – PILLAR OF CLOUD BY DAY, PILLAR OF FIRE BY NIGHT.
GOD IS A ‘CONSUMING FIRE’.
JESUS SAID IN REVELATION THROUGH JOHN THE DIVINE – I AM ALPHA & OMEGA, THE BEGINNING & THE END.
AND, FINALLY, ISAIAH 63:16 – THOU ART OUR FATHER, ETC. – OUR ‘REDEEMER’ – WHO IS OUR REDEEMER? IT IS JESUS CHRIST – HE REDEEMED US WITH HIS DEATH ON THE CROSS.
IT ALSO SAYS IN ISAIAH – THAT GOD IS OUR ‘SAVIOUR’ & ‘REDEEMER’ – IN THE NEW TESTAMENT IT SAYS JESUS IS OUR ‘SAVIOUR’ & REDEEMER’ – ONE IN THE SAME, GUYS.
ALL THE BEST,
Please show me anywhere in the bible where it says “God the son”. I do believe it says “son of God”. Two totally different meanings. Something they could not change because it is obviously wrong.
In the words of Yeshua
““And this is everlasting life, that they should know You, the only true Elohim, and יהושע Messiah whom You have sent.”
Yoḥanan (John) 17:3 TS2009
“He said to them, “And you, who do you say I am?” And Shim‛on Kĕpha answering, said, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living Elohim.” And יהושע answering, said to him, “Blessed are you, Shim‛on Bar-Yonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father in the heavens.”
Mattithyahu (Matthew) 16:15-17 TS2009
So my son and Daughter have my family name, no where does it make my son/daughter me and vice-versa. It took me such along time to come to this reality even though it was right in my face. I was raised catholic, went into charismatic, Pentecostal. It was not until Elohim’s Spirit and I began to really check what so called Pastor’s were teaching did I come to this realization. We are grafted into the vine and not the other way around. From the beginning it always gas been “hear O Isreal, the Lord our Elohim is one!
You did not respond to the overwhelming evidence that Isaiah 9:6 is a mistranslation.
You quoted 1 Timothy 3:16 from the KJV (“God was manifest in the flesh”). Most Trinitarian scholars believe this verse is a mistranslation based on manuscript evidence. The majority of modern translations reflect the superior reading, “He [Jesus] was manifest in the flesh.” A respected Trinitarian scholar wrote: “It is more likely that the change was motivated by a desire to make the text say that it was ‘God’ who was manifest in the flesh. But in the original text, the subject of the verse is simply ‘who’—which most translators render as ‘he’ and which most commentators identify as Christ . . . All English versions since the asv (and erv, its British predecessor) have reflected the superior text, and most show the variant(s) in marginal notes.” Comfort, P. W. (2008). New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the Variant Readings of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the Major English Translations (p. 663). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.
It’s doubtful that you understand the doctrine of the Trinity based your explanation with the last name “Johnson.”
Just because Jesus and the Father may share the title “redeemer” does not make them the same God. Moses is called “god” in Exodus 7:1 and “redeemer” in Acts 7:35. But the same title in different contexts does not make Moses the absolute God. Jesus is called “son of God” and so are we.
1 TIMOTHY 3:16 READS HE “JESUS” MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH!
NOT GOD MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH!
DO NOT READ THE VERSE WITH A TRINITARIAN MIND
Made things so clear.
Praise Jesus Christ to the glory of the Father!
Well… here’s some food for thought… in the actual scroll, it would be verse 5.
This matter is very easily settled: The Jewish translation is found here: https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15940/jewish/Chapter-9.htm
It clearly says:
5For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, “the prince of peace.”
Thus is it clear that the Everlasting Father called the name of the son “The prince of peace”. Why? Because the Father God (who is a spirit) and who is the KING of peace had a son. That son was therefore the Prince of Peace. It is also very clear that it is the FATHER who is the ‘wondrous advisor, the mighty God and Everlasting Father, and NOT the Son of God.
I hope this helps.
Thank you very much!
IMHO Isaiah 9:6 is a prophecy concerning the Messiah. “latter times” in verse 1 is a strong clue.
Many prophecies are written in the past tense as though they already took place.
In God’s plans and foreknowledge prophecies are a done deal.
Both Jesus and his followers received glory before the earth was made. John 17:5 to 24. This does not mean Jesus or his followers pre-existed.
Jesus is said to have been be crucified before the foundations of the world in Revelation 13:8. We know Jesus was crucified long after the foundations of the world.
Isaiah 9:6 is a prophecy concerning the latter times. God sees it as already taken place….but we don’t see it that way. We see it as an event that took place much later.
As for your comments about “names” I don’t see the issue because in the Hebrew culture a name means a lot more than just letters and sounds. One’s name includes their character and position in society and constitutes everything about that person.
Jesus was to come in the name of YHWH. That doesn’t mean Jesus is YHWH. It means Jesus would be YHWH’s shaliach (agent; representative).
All those names and titles in Isaiah 9:6-7 apply to Jesus.
*ISAIAH 9:6-7* The corrected translation from the REV Bible
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us, and the government will be on his shoulders. His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty Hero, Father of the Coming Age, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end. He will reign on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to sustain it with justice and with righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of Yahweh of Armies will perform this. REV Bible.
This is a prophecy of the coming Messiah. Tovia Singer is DEAD WRONG on this scripture. He claims it doesn’t refer to the Messiah.
“Churchianity” is also wrong on this verse.
*Everlasting Father* is a mistranslation.
Jesus is never called the “Everlasting Father” anywhere else in Scripture. We do not build our understanding of who the Messiah is based on one scripture reference.
The word translated “everlasting” is more accurately translated as “age,” or “ages.” Isaiah 9:6 is conveying the message that Jesus will be called *”the
father of the coming ages.”* What ages? THE CHURCH AGE, the AGE OF SALVATION, Age of Grace, and the Age of the Millennial Kingdom of Messiah on earth.
“Father” in Isaiah is not a reference to YHWH.
In OT times, anyone who was the first to do or begin anything new was called its “father.” For example:
*a) Jabal was the first one to live in a tent and raise livestock, the Bible says, “he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock” (Genesis 4:20).*
*b) Jubal was the first inventor of musical instruments, he is called, “the father of all who play the harp and flute” (Gen. 4:21).*
In Isaiah 9:6, “father” is being used in this sense of the word because the Messiah will be the one to establish the ages to come, end the death penalty for sin for those who believe, raise the dead saints, and rule over all creation, therefore he is called the *“father of the coming ages.”*
*”Mighty God”* is another mistranslation in Isaiah 9:6.
i). Readers familiar with the Semitic languages know that a man who is acting with God’s authority can be called “god” using the lowercase “g” in reference to lords, kings, judges, prophets, and even the children of Israel. For example:
“I (GOD) said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’
Psalms 82:6 Jesus quoted this verse in John 10:34-36 to defend himself against the FALSE allegation by the Jews that he was declaring himself to be equal to God (YHWH). Jesus of course disagreed with their false accusation and declared himself to be the Son of God and NOT God the Son.
ii). The original Greek has no upper and lowercase letters so “theos” can be translated as God, meaning YHWH (the one true God), or as god, meaning lord, master, judge, king, ruler, or one with authority. The casual reader of the Bible would not know these things about the word God and god, or that it is up to the translator’s to determine whether the context indicates the use of uppercase (God) should be used or lowercase god.
iii). A clear example of the Trinitarian bias of most translators can be clearly seen by comparing Isaiah 9:6 (el = “God”) with Ezekiel 31:11 (el = “ruler”). *If calling the Messiah “el” made him God, then the Babylonian king would be God also.*
iv). Isaiah 9:6 is calling the coming Messiah a *mighty ruler or mighty hero,* not Mighty God.
v). Translators can use “mighty god” (lowercase “god”) to identify the coming Messiah as an appointed authority, king, or ruler. However, it is an error to use the uppercase “God” because that is reserved for YHWH alone.
vi). The phrase “Mighty God” is a mistranslation: English makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god.” So a better translation for the English reader would be “mighty hero,” or “divine hero.” Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase “Mighty God” as “divine hero” in their Bibles.
vii). Another clear example of the translator’s error is where “God” is used for powerful earthly rulers in Ezekiel 31:11 when referring to the Babylonian king. How can a earthly king be God? It should be rendered god, not God.
viii). The phrase translated “Mighty God” in Isaiah 9:6 in the NIV is the Hebrew “el gibbor.” That very phrase, in the plural form, is used in Ezekiel 32:21 where dead “heroes” and “mighty men” are spoken of. In Ezekiel the same phrase is translated “mighty leaders” in the NIV, and “the strong among the mighty” in the KJV and NASB. When used in the singular, it can refer to a “mighty leader.”
ix). Jesus sits on the throne of David in verse 7. YHWH does not sit on David’s Throne. YHWH is the one that created David’s throne and gave it to him.
Conclusion: For all the above reasons Mighty God is a mistranslation.
The context of Isaiah 9:6 concerns the Messiah as God’s appointed ruler. The opening verse of the chapter foretells a time when “there will be no more gloom for those in distress.” All war and death will cease, and “every warrior’s boot…will be destined for burning” (v. 5).
How will this come to pass?
The chapter goes on: “for to us a child is born and to us a son is given” (v. 6). There is no hint that this child will be “God.” There is no hint of any “incarnation” here either. The Messiah was to be a man anointed by God.
Deuteronomy 18:15-18. He would start as a child, which of course Yahweh, their eternal God, could never be.
The Messiah would grow to be a great ruler: “the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty Hero, Father of the Coming Age, Prince of Peace.” The Messiah “will reign on David’s throne (v. 7), which is something that is never be said of God. God could never sit on David’s throne. But God’s Messiah, “the Son of David,” could (Matt. 9:27, et al).
Thus, a study of the verse in its context reveals that it does not refer to Jesus as God. It refers to the human Messiah, the son of David and the Son of God.
If Isaiah meant Jesus is God, then the Bible would be full of contradictions. There can be no contradictions, otherwise the Bible is not the word of God. The Goal of studying the Bible is to harmonize the texts in order to know and understand God, His Son, and the message.
To say this verse applies to King Hezekiah because of the use of past tense ignores that fact that this verse is a prophecy and many prophecies are written in the past tense even though we know they were to take place at a future time.
John 1. Jesus IS God, the creator.
No ‘Jesus’ most definitely isn’t God.
יהושע is the Son of God, not God.
“I and my Father are one.“ John 10:30. This refers to יהושע being of one accord, one mind and one purpose with YHWH the Father. It doesn’t mean he is God.
Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. Matt 12:18
YHWH wouldn’t put his spirit into someone who was him already… that’s illogical.
Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Acts 2:22
Emphasis on ‘a man approved of God’ here.
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord (YHWH) our God is one Lord : Mark 12:29
YHWH never changes.
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. Luke 18:19
I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. John 5:30
For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. John 12:49
These all collude that he was not YHWH in human form but the Son sent to spread the word of the coming Kingdom, he only spoke what the Father told him, did as the Father commanded and was of one accord with the Father.
He was a man (the most amazing man that ever lived) who carried out the Torah and was an example to us all of how to live.
The Father sacrificed his living breathing human Son for us all.
That is love! This also mirrors how Abraham was going to offer Isaac up to YHWH.
With the first part you mentioned:
“I and my Father are one.“ John 10:30. This refers to יהושע being of one accord, one mind and one purpose with YHWH the Father. It doesn’t mean he is God.”
You can see the Jews of that time knew exactly what Jesus meant when they respond in John 10:33 ESV “The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
So the Jews knew Jesus was claiming to be God “you being a man make yourself God.”
Here’s some other scriptures for showing Jesus is God:
– John 1:1, 1:14
– John 20:28
– Hebrews 1:8
– John 8:58 (in Exodus 3:14 God revealed Himself as the “I AM”)
– Revelation 1:8, 22:13
– Revelation 19:10
– Philippians 2:10-11 (written about God in Isaiah 45:23)
From Gotquestions ministry:
In Revelation, an angel instructed the apostle John to only worship God (Revelation 19:10). Several times in Scripture Jesus receives worship (Matthew 2:11; 14:33; 28:9, 17; Luke 24:52; John 9:38). He never rebukes people for worshiping Him. If Jesus were not God, He would have told people to not worship Him, just as the angel in Revelation did.
I came upon this site out of curiosity. I had been a Jewish believer in Yeshua accepting the trinity teaching for most of my walk of faith; thirty-one years in total life of faith. One thing I certainly learned is that people of faith are notorious for singling out verses to prove a concept or idea. We are all guilty of doing this.
In researching this topic I found myself holding a neutral stance. I think its valid to say both sides hold credible evidence and scripture to back up each point. But I add a thought that linking Yeshua with the idea that HE is of the GOD-head is not necessarily one in the same with the trinity teaching.
Jews today are less inclined to look for a Messiah, although certain sects still believe, there’s a growing sediment that there is no Messiah; I do believe in a second coming. Gentile Christians read the scripture on the Messiah from English translations, but original text reveals something allot of Christians don’t consider.
We have probably all heard our Pastors mention prototypes and archetypes of Yeshua. Well in the original text these folks are actually referred to as minor Messiah’s; or those who come in the spirit of Messiah. It’s real, its true, and even Paul mentions it in the New Testament.
Religious Jews fail to recognize that Gentiles don’t understand that teaching and Gentiles fail to recognize that Jews don’t see this dynamic. Early church Jews were not looking for a GOD-like Messiah, they were looking for a King to deliver them from bondage. That’s likely where the Hezekiah idea comes about. My people didn’t see the Messiah coming to set them free from sin bondage, because they anticipated a David type to come.
Gentiles on the other hand fail to connect the dots with the prototypes, ex. Joseph, David, Gideon and the archetypes, ex. Paul and so on … , since these are minor Messiah’s or those raised up in the spirit of Messiah; a deliverer from trouble, persecution, or some other challenges. The Messiah, or son of GOD, is the main Messiah. HE didn’t come to deliver HIS people from the Roman Empire, but from sin. These others are deliverers, but not from sin. They couldn’t deliver their people from sin.
My studies from original text lead me to remain neutral. I don’t accept it nor deny it. I think the text leaves this open for debate, but I do lean in the direction of the trinity teaching being in error, but this isn’t conclusive for me.
HaShem, the Father, is Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is Spirit. I lean in the direction that this isn’t separate. I lean in the direction that GOD is One manifested in more than three ways. It’s not to suggest GOD is many. It’s an idea that GOD reveals HIMSELF in multiple manners. I don’t believe that Yeshua was just another manifested version of HIM though.
HE is the son of GOD. Nobody can forgive sins and yet Yeshua claimed to have that authority. I studied that Isaiah scripture from original text and I conclude that it’s fulfillment comes in more than one way. Undoubtedly there was a child named Immanuel born to Isaiah. Yet I believe it applies to Yeshua as well. If we can accept the idea of “GOD with us” to Isaiah’s son than it must be considered for Yeshua as well.
I believe the truth falls somewhere in the gray area. People make the argument that Yeshua and GOD were one in the same than GOD would be praying to HIMSELF. Not that I’m making the case for it one way or another, yet scripture does tell us that Yeshua had to learn HIS connection to the Father. Obviously HE did before the age of twelve. At this point HE knew that GOD was HIS father. Clearly GOD didn’t get pregnant and give birth. But the idea of supernatural birth isn’t a crazy idea; after all something akin to this idea is expressed about Samson. I wouldn’t classify his birth as without the natural conception process, but he received the Holy Spirit before birth as is logically connected to John the Baptist too.
Now whether or not we can equate Yeshua with GOD HIMSELF. Here there valid scripture to prove both arguments, so both sides just can’t ignore the other scriptures that highlight both sides. Does it mean its a contradiction. Absolutely not! Maybe both sides are somewhat wrong and the truth lies in the middle.
There are things that Yeshua did, in terms of the supernatural, that others have garnered from GOD. These past prophets even raised people from the dead. Many orthodox Jews might feel comfortable enough to accept him as a prophet akin to Elijah, but not beyond this. Yeshua said HE fulfilled the law, but nobody could see this materially.
There had to be something that set HIM apart from all other prophets. We cannot dispose of scripture that highlights Rabbi Nicodemus conversation with Yeshua. He knew HIM to be a prophet, yet he also knew, Yeshua’s claims went beyond this. This is where Nicodemus had trouble accepting. It’s widely held that he did come to accept Yeshua’s claims, but it was difficult for him to understand such claims.
Jews across time from of old to present day accept the reality that man cannot see the true nature of GOD and live. So here is Yeshua claiming to be one and the same with GOD and people lived. Someone’s comment above notes this means to be in one accord, which is true, but this idea went further. No prophet or angel or anyone from Hebrew or Gentile text ever reflected the concept of forgiving people’s sin, yet Yeshua did. Clearly HE is not the average prophet.
Yeshua wasn’t an ordinary prophet. To such an extent scripture goes out of its way to highlight Yeshua’s status according to the order of Melchezedec. Yeshua isn’t the first manifestation or theophanic appearance of GOD with humanity. Clearly GOD made an appearance in didn’t forms, so to eliminate the idea that Yeshua is part of the GOD-head would be difficult to do with certain scriptures that reflect such an idea. Sure there are certain scripture that make people debate the concept, but there’s an argument for both sides.
Again maybe we haven’t fully understood all of them. I’m not a fan of the trinity teaching, but I cannot eliminate the idea Yeshua comes from the GOD-head. There are scriptures that highlight angels coming in the New Testament that remain vague and don’t specify who it is. GOD clearly came before Yeshua, so it shouldn’t be disregarded.
All those verses don’t show Jesus is god, just misinterpretations of trinitarians who desperately want to insert their wrong idea bout God into his Word. Also Jesus can be worshipped because he has been given all authority in heaven and on earth by his father, the only God. The Pharisees were murdering him because he said he was the son of God, he never said he was God himself. Please read a correct translation of the bible.
I feel that one of the greatest shortcomings of our “founding fathers” is that they didn’t agree with some of their cohorts that the official language of the United Colonies should be Hebrew. Imagine how much farther along we would be in understanding the Bible if we could read and understand the original languages as the writers did.
And it’s really a tragedy that too much of biblical interpretation is through eisegesis, which can never find a mention of “God the son.”
Your format got ahead of my entry for my website.
It’s corrected on this heading.
Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Master and my ALOHIM.
Yahusha did not correct Thomas. Therefore Yahusha is ALSO called ALOHIM just like His Father.
You did not deal with the evidence presented in the video.
This whole post reeks of desperation. You unitarians will do just about anything to deny Jesus as your Lord and God. The fact that you read through that prophecy and determined that Peleo Yoetz, El gibbor, and Avi Ad are not part of the name of the child is alarming. The final straw to top it off is when you concluded that it was about hezekiah and not Jesus. I will deal with both issues in the following paragraphs.
Let us begin with your claim that it is hezekiah who is being prophesied about. The prophecy says that this king will be the Ruler of Peace “Sar Shalom” and that his kingdom will have no end. Last I checked there was no peace during the reign of hezekiah. The assyrians conquered the land of Judah slaughtering thousands and carrying off thousands into Assyria as slaves. You should read the records on the prism of Sennacherib where he boasts of the carnage he inflicted on Judah. I have included a small quote from it for you below.
“As for the king of Judah, Hezekiah, who had not submitted to my authority, I besieged and captured forty-six of his fortified cities, along with many smaller towns, taken in battle with my battering rams. … I took as plunder 200,150 people, both small and great, male and female, along with a great number of animals including horses, mules, donkeys, camels, oxen, and sheep. As for Hezekiah, I shut him up like a caged bird in his royal city of Jerusalem.”
The above was written by Sennacherib the conqueror of Judah. So as you can see there was no peace in the days of Hezekiah, there was war and slaughter in Judah. In addition, Hezekiah’s government did not last for ever as the prophecy says. Instead, it was destroyed about 2 generations later and the Judeans were carried of as slaves to Babylon. Isaiah himself even prophesied this to Hezekiah in 2 Kings 20:16-18, below is a quotation.
‘Then Isaiah said to Hezekiah, “Hear the word of the Lord: The time will surely come when everything in your palace, and all that your predecessors have stored up until this day, will be carried off to Babylon. Nothing will be left, says the Lord. And some of your descendants, your own flesh and blood who will be born to you, will be taken away, and they will become eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.”
So there is no way that Isaiah was talking about Hezekiah in chapter 9:6, because he prophesied that Hezekiah’s kingdom will come to an end, whereas the child’s kingdom in chapter 9 verse 6 will have no end.
Now unto your point that Peleo Yoetz, El gibbor, and Avi Ad are not part of the name of the child. The anti-christian translation you obtained from chabad is nothing more than wishful thinking and a butchering of the text. A word for word translation of the text does not read “and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, “the prince of peace.” that is a lie.
A literal translation simply says “and called his name Peleo Yoetz, El gibbor, Avi Ad, Sar Shalom”. The texts doesn’t tell you who called his name, the person who called his name could very well be Isaiah himself, we don’t know. All we know is the name that is being called, and the name is Peleo Yoetz-El gibbor-Avi Ad-Sar Shalom.
If you had any understanding of how kingship functioned in Egypt and the ancient Near East, you would immediately spot what’s going on with that name in Isaiah 9:6. Kings from that part of the world would usually have two types of names. They would have a birth name and then they would have something called a “Throne name”. Sometimes, the throne name would be a combination of multiple names and would be quite long. But it was all one name.
An example for you would be the “Throne name” of Ramses II, the Pharaoh of the exodus. Ramses was his birth name, but his throne name was “Usermaatra-setepenra Ramessu-meryamen”. It is translated as “Powerful one of Ma’at, the Justice of Ra is Powerful, chosen of Ra, Ra bore him, beloved of Amun”. Those 5 names are put together to form one name.
If you also look at the treaty concluded between Ramses II and the Hittite king Hattusili III you would see that the Hititite king refers to him not by his birth name Ramses but by his Throne name. The hittite version of the treaty calls Ramses by the ‘name’ not names “Washmuaria-Shatepnaria-Riamashesha-Maiamana” this is the Hittite translation of “Usermaatra-setepenra Ramessu-meryamen”.
If you look at the names of kings from ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia whose inscriptions have survived, you would find out that they often have a “Throne name” or “Royal name” which is different from their birth name.
What Isaiah gives you in chapter 9:6 is the child’s Throne name. The entire thing is the child’s name, not some of it, but the whole thing. This thing of trying to cut the name into bits is just stupid. The child is called Peleo Yoetz-El gibbor-Avi Ad-Sar Shalom. That is his name.
The orthodox Jewish site chabad which you got that translation from are a bunch of christ hating rabbi’s who would lie through their teeth to say that Jesus is not the messiah. Moses Maimonides the “Rambam” himself says that the whole thing in Isaiah 9:6 is the name of the messiah, but those lying orthodox jews at chabad will certainly not tell you that. In his 11 century Epistle to the Jews of Yemen Maimonides chastises some of the Jews of Yemen for believing in some guy who claimed to be the messiah. In that letter he acknowledges that the titles in Isaiah 9:6 belong to the messiah. I have included a quote below for you.
“Do these characteristics make him a Messiah? You were beguiled by him because you have not considered the pre-eminence of the Messiah, the manner and place of his appearance, and the marks whereby he is to be identified. The Messiah, indeed, ranks after Moses in eminence and distinction, and God has bestowed some gifts upon him which he did not bestow upon Moses, as may be gathered from the following verses: “His delight shall be in the fear of the Lord.” (Isaiah 11:3). “The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him.” (11:2). “And Righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins.” (11:5). Six appellations were divinely conferred upon him as the following passage indicates: “For a child is born unto us, and a son is given unto us, and the government is upon his shoulder, and he is called Pele, Yoetz, el, Gibbor, Abiad, Sar-Shalom.” (Isaiah 9:5). And another verse alluding to the
Messiah culminates in the following manner “Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.” (Psalms 2:7). All these statements demonstrate the pre-eminence of the Messiah.”
(Source: Moses Maimonides, `Epistle to Yemen’, chapters XVI, and XVII. Translated by Boaz Cohen.)
As you can see above, the translation I provided you was done by a Jew named Boaz Cohen, lest you accuse me of using trinitarian Christian translations.Those Jews at chabad know that those verses are about the messiah, but if you ask them they will lie and say that Isaiah 9:6 is about Hezekiah and Psalm 2:7 is about the historical David. They will say virtually anything to avoid Jesus.
These rabbi’s are so dishonest that it beggers belief that you actually thought they would provide an accurate translation. I’ll give you another example, go to the chabad translation for Isaiah 9:1 which would be Isaiah 8:23 in their own translation. You would notice that Galilee of the nations is missing from their translation. This is their translation below
“For there is no weariness to the one who oppresses her; like the first time, he dealt mildly, [exiling only] the land of Zebulun and the land of Naftali, and the last one he dealt harshly, the way of the sea, and the other side of the Jordan, the attraction of the nations.” (Chabad Isaiah 8:23)
Now compare this with what is in the great Isaiah scroll from the dead Sea scrolls which predate Jesus by about 125 years.
“But there shall be no more, They will cease from gloom for her who was in anguish. In the former time, he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali; but in the latter time he has made it glorious, by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations.” (Great Isaiah scroll).
The reason they removed it is because of Jesus. He was from the Galilee and began his ministry in the Galilee calling himself the light of the world, as the next verse says those who walk in darkness have seen a great light. They know it’s about Jesus, hence they will try to obfuscate.
Go and ask them about Isaiah 53 and they will also begin to lie again and tell you it is about the nation of Israel and not the messiah. Once again compare the jewish translations JPS 1985 and Chabad with the great Isaiah scroll and you will immediately see their duplicity. I have also included quotations.
“He was despised, shunned by men, a man of suffering, familiar with “DISEASE.” (JPS Tanakh, Jewish publication society, 1985, Isaiah 53:3)
“But the Lord chose to crush him by “DISEASE”
(JPS Tanakh, Jewish publication society, 1985, Isaiah 53:10)
“And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him “ILL” (Chabad Isaiah 53:10).
Now compare this with the Qumran scroll which reads
“He was despised and rejected by others, and a man of sorrows, and familiar with “SUFFERING” (Isaiah 53:3)
“Yet the Lord was willing to crush him, and he made him “SUFFER”
Their is no mention of disease in the text, but the rabbi’s added that in order to create obfuscation. When you tell them that Isaiah 53 is about Jesus, they will then say that the servant is someone who is very sick and Jesus wasn’t familiar with illness, hence it can’t be Jesus etc. Their lies never end.
Their translations are full of shenanigans, yet they have the audacity to accuse Christians of misleading translations. And there are many more places like this, but this post is already long enough. The fact that you went to those clowns for a good translation indicates that you don’t know your left from your right and your are totally clueless.
Give up your heresy and join an apostolic church. Jesus is Peleo Yoetz-El gibbor-Avi Ad-Sar Shalom.
Quick question for you, I thought you unitarians claim that you have the truth and that trinitarians are the one’s who lie and butcher the text of the bible in order to teach a false doctrine?
If this is the case, then why did you delete my comment where I went through your post and destroyed it point by point?
It is obvious that you don’t want your readers here to see it, lest they see that your points are flawed and that the names in Isaiah 9:6 all belong to the child who is not hezekiah.