5For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is calledPele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom;6That the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it through justice and through righteousness from henceforth even for ever.
This verse, commonly read in late December, has always been a total puzzle to me. Conventional Christian theory takes a part of this and then applies the whole of it to Jesus, assuming it's a prophecy of his birth. I was going to ask a Jewish friend for the conventional Jewish understanding but did a bit of research myself on Jewish sites. Chabad is quite well recognised ; I found this site on a recommendation from a former poster here.
Authorised ("King James") version:
6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
7Of the increase ofhisgovernment and peacethere shall beno end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
Here's another version of the whole chapter, and if you don't like this, you can easily choose a different version at the top of the page:
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."
In particular, the last 3 sentences of this article sum up my "puzzle" exactly.
Does anyone have any further thoughts, background knowledge, other sources?
Wow. Just last night I was listening to an interview with Dr. Joel Baden, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Yale Divinity School. The discussion was on "the original text," manuscripts, versions, translations.
The Jewish Bible, is based on the Masoretic Text. The KJV OT is from the Septuagint, right? Also, there are the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pedangta, and so on...
It all depends...
There are no original autographs. Every manuscript's has been changed. Every. Single. One.
Not one single verse of our Jewish scripture whatsoever refers to Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha,Huitzilopochtli,Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy or any leader or central figure of any other non-Jewish system. Of course, if you know of some religious leader who bore the name in Isaiah 9:6, “Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” instead of being named Jesus, Mohammed, Huitzilopochtli or whatever, maybe you will have a candidate. Let us know.
CORRECTION:I made a mistake in depending on a Christian translation. That Christian translation changed the tenses from past to future [Twinky's emphasis] I have now looked at the Hebrew. The passage is in the past tense. It is not a prediction. It is a report. It is about a name that a person has already been called.
In the Hebrew, the verse explicitly says, in the past tense: “A child was born to us. A son has been given to us. Government (or authority) is on his shoulder. And his name has been called, ‘God-plans-a wonder-God-is-wonderful-Mighty-Eternal-a-Peaceable Ruler” Isaiah 9:6.(The JPS translation is almost exactly this, also.)
Sorry, I should have looked at the Hebrew earlier. A lesson to us all about Posting in Haste!
My final paragraph still stands, where I said that of course Mary, in the New Testament, does not name her child Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace [or anything like ‘God-plans-a wonder-God-is-wonderful-Mighty-Eternal-a-Peaceable Ruler,” either]. Nobody I can find in the whole New Testament ever addresses Jesus by any such name or any other name that is a long sentence, either.
Consulting the Hebrew takes care of any attempts to apply the verse to Jesus, about eight centuries after Isaiah’s time, even assuming that somebody thinks they can find an example in the New Testament where Jesus’ name is a long sentence about God being eternal and wonderful, peaceably planning miracles - or any other long sentence.
Not one single verse of our Jewish scripture whatsoever refers to Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha,Huitzilopochtli,Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy or any leader or central figure of any other non-Jewish system. Of course, if you know of some religious leader who bore the name in Isaiah 9:6, “Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” instead of being named Jesus, Mohammed, Huitzilopochtli or whatever, maybe you will have a candidate. Let us know.
CORRECTION:I made a mistake in depending on a Christian translation. That Christian translation changed the tenses from past to future [Twinky's emphasis] I have now looked at the Hebrew. The passage is in the past tense. It is not a prediction. It is a report. It is about a name that a person has already been called.
In the Hebrew, the verse explicitly says, in the past tense: “A child was born to us. A son has been given to us. Government (or authority) is on his shoulder. And his name has been called, ‘God-plans-a wonder-God-is-wonderful-Mighty-Eternal-a-Peaceable Ruler” Isaiah 9:6.(The JPS translation is almost exactly this, also.)
Sorry, I should have looked at the Hebrew earlier. A lesson to us all about Posting in Haste!
My final paragraph still stands, where I said that of course Mary, in the New Testament, does not name her child Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace [or anything like ‘God-plans-a wonder-God-is-wonderful-Mighty-Eternal-a-Peaceable Ruler,” either]. Nobody I can find in the whole New Testament ever addresses Jesus by any such name or any other name that is a long sentence, either.
Consulting the Hebrew takes care of any attempts to apply the verse to Jesus, about eight centuries after Isaiah’s time, even assuming that somebody thinks they can find an example in the New Testament where Jesus’ name is a long sentence about God being eternal and wonderful, peaceably planning miracles - or any other long sentence.
Susan Krakowsky makes a compelling case.
I don't know Hebrew, so I won't offer an opinion on how to translate the text. At this time, I can only defer to the experts, which I am not.
I think there's a lot of re-contextualizing of Hebrew scripture by Paul -- even more re-contextualizing by modern theologians and preacher men.
Generally, MAKING something fit means it doesn't naturally fit. IMO.
Still doing some checking on this. At T-Bone's recommendation, I've been rummaging around in the Complete Jewish Study Bible, which can be downloaded as a PDF. It's not very searchable, as there are no hyperlinks. (I have become so intrigued by this JSB that I might well buy a copy.)
Anyhow, I eventually found this commentary. First, their translation of vv 5-6:
For a child has been born to us, A son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named "The Mighty God is planning grace;' The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler" In token of abundant authority And of peace without limit Upon David's throne and kingdom, That it may be firmly established In justice and in equity Now and evermore. The zeal of the LORD of Hosts Shall bring this to pass.
And now the commentary:
9.1-6: The ideal Davidic king. Isaiah describes liberation from some form of adversity (perhaps the Assyrian conquests of Israelite territory described in the previous vv., or Syro-Ephraimite pressures on Judah). The verbs are in the past tense. Some interpreters view them as examples of the "prophetic past," which predicts future events using the past tense because they are as good as done. Thus it is not clear whether the Davidic king whose birth and rule are described (vv. 5-6) has already been born (if the verbs are a regular past tense) or will be born in the future (prophetic past). If the former, the v. probably refers to Ahaz's son Hezekiah, as many modern and rabbinic commentators believe (though other possibilities exist depending on the date of the passage). Most later readers (both Jewish and Christian) understood the passage to describe an ideal future ruler, i.e., the Messiah. 5: "The Mighty God . . . ruler": This long sentence is the throne name of the royal child. Semitic names often consist of sentences that describe God; thus the name Isaiah in Hebrew means "The LoRD saves"; Hezekiah, "The LoRD strengthens"; in Akkadian, the name of the Babylonian king Merodach-baladan (Isa. 39.1) means "the god Marduk has provided an heir." These names do not describe that person who holds them but the god whom the parents worship. Similarly, the name given to the child in this v. does not describe that child or attribute divinity to him, contrary to classical Christian readings of this messianic verse.
I think there's a lot of re-contextualizing of Hebrew scripture by Paul -- even more re-contextualizing by modern theologians and preacher men.
The NT, is, as you say, a lot of re-contextualising of what Christians call the OT.
But then, the NT is kicked off by a lot of re-contextualising by Jesus himself. Luke 4:21 is a great example: “This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears..." , which, as it happens, is from Isaiah 61.
The NT, is, as you say, a lot of re-contextualising of what Christians call the OT.
But then, the NT is kicked off by a lot of re-contextualising by Jesus himself. Luke 4:21 is a great example: “This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears..." , which, as it happens, is from Isaiah 61.
The NT, is, as you say, a lot of re-contextualising of what Christians call the OT.
But then, the NT is kicked off by a lot of re-contextualising by Jesus himself. Luke 4:21 is a great example: “This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears..." , which, as it happens, is from Isaiah 61.
11 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:
Agreed.
There's a saying that's sort of made it's rounds in Christendom that "the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed...it fits I think.
Just thinking about names generally in the OT and NT, we know very, very many names include -el or El- (God/Elohim) or Je- (God/Jehovah). Just about any page you open a Bible, you'll find a name in this format. Examples: Danielis a masculine given name and a surname of Hebrew origin. It means "God is my judge" (cf. Gabriel—"God is my strength") From the Hebrew name דָּנִיֵּאל (Daniyyel) meaning "God is my judge", from the roots דִּין (din) meaning "to judge" and אֵל ('el) meaning "God") Elisabeth from Heb 'elishebha` (Elisheba), "God is (my) oath," i.e. a worshipper of God), Elijah (a double-God name!), Elishah... and many more.
Doesn't mean that any of these people were God.
Then we get "Jesus." Taken to mean "God our Saviour" and therefore that the bearer of the name was himself God.
The name Jesus is a contraction, common at the time Jesus our Saviour was born. It's a contraction of Jehoshua - God our Saviour - which itself became shortened to "Joshua."
The name Jesus is much the same as the older name Joshua and the even older name Jehoshua. Nobody thought that Joshua, Moses's most faithful and loyal aide, and later the leader into the promised land, was God.
Just calling someone by any of these names doesn't indicate that the child so named was God, any more than naming your own child Daniel or Elisabeth makes that child God.
The gospel of Luke is fairly bland on the naming of Jesus. All it says (Luke 2) is:
Quote
17When they [the shepherds] had seenHim,they madeknownthe statementwhich had been toldthem aboutthisChild.18And allwho heardit wereamazedaboutthe things which were toldthem by the shepherds.19But Marytreasuredallthesethings, ponderingthem in her heart.20And the shepherdswentback, glorifyingand praisingGodfor allthat they had heardand seen, justashad been toldthem.
21And wheneightdayswere completed[m]so that it was time for His circumcision, He was alsonamedJesus, thenamegivenby the angelbeforeHe was conceivedin the womb.
Gospel of Matthew has a little more detail:
Quote
Matthew 1:20But when he [Joseph] had thoughtthisover, behold, an angelof the Lordappearedto him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, sonof David, do not beafraidto takeMaryas your wife; for the child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a Son, and you shall name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
Now all this took place so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled. "Behold, the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they shall name him Immanuel," which translated means, "God with us." And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.
10Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,11Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.12But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.13And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David;Is ita small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?14Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.15Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.16For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
This is how Strong's describes the name Immanuel:
Quote
Immanuel. אֵֽל׃(’êl) Noun - proper - masculine singular Strong's Hebrew 6005:Immanuel = 'God with us' or 'with us is God'1) symbolic and prophetic name of the Messiah, the Christ, prophesying that He would be born of a virgin and would be 'God with us'
So how come this child was named "Jesus" (God our Saviour) and not "Immanuel" (God with us)? [ note that -el suffix, as discussed in my above post. Again, it wouldn't mean that the bearer of the name was God]. Did the angel get confused, or get the names mixed up? Seems unlikely! Were Joseph and Mary disobedient? Also seems unlikely.
Did the baby have more than one name? Again, seems unlikely. There are records of males and a few females being given new names in both OT and NT, but they are at specific times when some great thing is about to happen in that person's life.
Perhaps Jesus was named Jesus at his birth and circumcision, and the name Immanuel was only from his baptism at the start of his ministry? But then, all the gospels continue to call him Jesus. And all the records of what people called him - also Jesus. Never Immanuel.
It's clear the name was never anything like the immensely long name, or any part of the name, recorded in Isaiah 9.
And perhaps Isaiah 7:14 is not as prophetic as Christians would like to believe?
15Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good
I'm not sure how eating butter and honey helps one know to refuse evil and choose good, but hey-ho. Maybe there was significance in the OT. Sounds like words spoken by the false comforter Zophar, from Job 20:17.
The description actually seems more like the way of life for John the Baptist, whose diet was locusts and wild honey (ugh).
Recommended Posts
Twinky
Here's a different translation:
https://mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et1009.htm
5 For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom; 6 That the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it through justice and through righteousness from henceforth even for ever.
(
I don 't think they mean "Pele the footballer)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
I asked (emailed) my Jewish friend. If she says anything helpful, I'll let you know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Wow. Just last night I was listening to an interview with Dr. Joel Baden, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Yale Divinity School. The discussion was on "the original text," manuscripts, versions, translations.
The Jewish Bible, is based on the Masoretic Text. The KJV OT is from the Septuagint, right? Also, there are the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pedangta, and so on...
It all depends...
There are no original autographs. Every manuscript's has been changed. Every. Single. One.
Which translation brings you peace?
I like the Chabad.org verlsion. It makes sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
I picked this up from Quora. It's a little way down the page:
https://www.quora.com/How-do-Jewish-people-interpret-Isaiah-9-6
https://qr.ae/prr3If
Not one single verse of our Jewish scripture whatsoever refers to Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Huitzilopochtli, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy or any leader or central figure of any other non-Jewish system. Of course, if you know of some religious leader who bore the name in Isaiah 9:6, “Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” instead of being named Jesus, Mohammed, Huitzilopochtli or whatever, maybe you will have a candidate. Let us know.
CORRECTION: I made a mistake in depending on a Christian translation. That Christian translation changed the tenses from past to future [Twinky's emphasis] I have now looked at the Hebrew. The passage is in the past tense. It is not a prediction. It is a report. It is about a name that a person has already been called.
In the Hebrew, the verse explicitly says, in the past tense: “A child was born to us. A son has been given to us. Government (or authority) is on his shoulder. And his name has been called, ‘God-plans-a wonder-God-is-wonderful-Mighty-Eternal-a-Peaceable Ruler” Isaiah 9:6.(The JPS translation is almost exactly this, also.)
Sorry, I should have looked at the Hebrew earlier. A lesson to us all about Posting in Haste!
My final paragraph still stands, where I said that of course Mary, in the New Testament, does not name her child Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace [or anything like ‘God-plans-a wonder-God-is-wonderful-Mighty-Eternal-a-Peaceable Ruler,” either]. Nobody I can find in the whole New Testament ever addresses Jesus by any such name or any other name that is a long sentence, either.
Consulting the Hebrew takes care of any attempts to apply the verse to Jesus, about eight centuries after Isaiah’s time, even assuming that somebody thinks they can find an example in the New Testament where Jesus’ name is a long sentence about God being eternal and wonderful, peaceably planning miracles - or any other long sentence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Susan Krakowsky makes a compelling case.
I don't know Hebrew, so I won't offer an opinion on how to translate the text. At this time, I can only defer to the experts, which I am not.
I think there's a lot of re-contextualizing of Hebrew scripture by Paul -- even more re-contextualizing by modern theologians and preacher men.
Generally, MAKING something fit means it doesn't naturally fit. IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Still doing some checking on this. At T-Bone's recommendation, I've been rummaging around in the Complete Jewish Study Bible, which can be downloaded as a PDF. It's not very searchable, as there are no hyperlinks. (I have become so intrigued by this JSB that I might well buy a copy.)
Anyhow, I eventually found this commentary. First, their translation of vv 5-6:
For a child has been born to us, A son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named "The Mighty God is planning grace;' The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler" In token of abundant authority And of peace without limit Upon David's throne and kingdom, That it may be firmly established In justice and in equity Now and evermore. The zeal of the LORD of Hosts Shall bring this to pass.
And now the commentary:
9.1-6: The ideal Davidic king. Isaiah describes liberation from some form of adversity (perhaps the Assyrian conquests of Israelite territory described in the previous vv., or Syro-Ephraimite pressures on Judah). The verbs are in the past tense. Some interpreters view them as examples of the "prophetic past," which predicts future events using the past tense because they are as good as done. Thus it is not clear whether the Davidic king whose birth and rule are described (vv. 5-6) has already been born (if the verbs are a regular past tense) or will be born in the future (prophetic past). If the former, the v. probably refers to Ahaz's son Hezekiah, as many modern and rabbinic commentators believe (though other possibilities exist depending on the date of the passage). Most later readers (both Jewish and Christian) understood the passage to describe an ideal future ruler, i.e., the Messiah. 5: "The Mighty God . . . ruler": This long sentence is the throne name of the royal child. Semitic names often consist of sentences that describe God; thus the name Isaiah in Hebrew means "The LoRD saves"; Hezekiah, "The LoRD strengthens"; in Akkadian, the name of the Babylonian king Merodach-baladan (Isa. 39.1) means "the god Marduk has provided an heir." These names do not describe that person who holds them but the god whom the parents worship. Similarly, the name given to the child in this v. does not describe that child or attribute divinity to him, contrary to classical Christian readings of this messianic verse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
The NT, is, as you say, a lot of re-contextualising of what Christians call the OT.
But then, the NT is kicked off by a lot of re-contextualising by Jesus himself. Luke 4:21 is a great example: “This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears..." , which, as it happens, is from Isaiah 61.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Agreed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
There's a saying that's sort of made it's rounds in Christendom that "the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed...it fits I think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Just thinking about names generally in the OT and NT, we know very, very many names include -el or El- (God/Elohim) or Je- (God/Jehovah). Just about any page you open a Bible, you'll find a name in this format. Examples: Daniel is a masculine given name and a surname of Hebrew origin. It means "God is my judge" (cf. Gabriel—"God is my strength") From the Hebrew name דָּנִיֵּאל (Daniyyel) meaning "God is my judge", from the roots דִּין (din) meaning "to judge" and אֵל ('el) meaning "God") Elisabeth from Heb 'elishebha` (Elisheba), "God is (my) oath," i.e. a worshipper of God), Elijah (a double-God name!), Elishah... and many more.
Doesn't mean that any of these people were God.
Then we get "Jesus." Taken to mean "God our Saviour" and therefore that the bearer of the name was himself God.
The name Jesus is a contraction, common at the time Jesus our Saviour was born. It's a contraction of Jehoshua - God our Saviour - which itself became shortened to "Joshua."
The name Jesus is much the same as the older name Joshua and the even older name Jehoshua. Nobody thought that Joshua, Moses's most faithful and loyal aide, and later the leader into the promised land, was God.
Just calling someone by any of these names doesn't indicate that the child so named was God, any more than naming your own child Daniel or Elisabeth makes that child God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_(name)
What's clear is that Jesus wasn't given (as far as we know) any name or contraction of any name that appears in Isaiah 9:6.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
And furthermore:
The gospel of Luke is fairly bland on the naming of Jesus. All it says (Luke 2) is:
Gospel of Matthew has a little more detail:
That's a verse from Isaiah 7:14 - https://biblehub.com/kjv/isaiah/7.htm
This is how Strong's describes the name Immanuel:
So how come this child was named "Jesus" (God our Saviour) and not "Immanuel" (God with us)? [ note that -el suffix, as discussed in my above post. Again, it wouldn't mean that the bearer of the name was God]. Did the angel get confused, or get the names mixed up? Seems unlikely! Were Joseph and Mary disobedient? Also seems unlikely.
Did the baby have more than one name? Again, seems unlikely. There are records of males and a few females being given new names in both OT and NT, but they are at specific times when some great thing is about to happen in that person's life.
Perhaps Jesus was named Jesus at his birth and circumcision, and the name Immanuel was only from his baptism at the start of his ministry? But then, all the gospels continue to call him Jesus. And all the records of what people called him - also Jesus. Never Immanuel.
It's clear the name was never anything like the immensely long name, or any part of the name, recorded in Isaiah 9.
And perhaps Isaiah 7:14 is not as prophetic as Christians would like to believe?
Edited by TwinkyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
I'm not sure how eating butter and honey helps one know to refuse evil and choose good, but hey-ho. Maybe there was significance in the OT. Sounds like words spoken by the false comforter Zophar, from Job 20:17.
The description actually seems more like the way of life for John the Baptist, whose diet was locusts and wild honey (ugh).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.