Isaiah 9:6

“For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6).

Who is this verse speaking of?

«1

Comments

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,720

    @davidtaylorjr said:

    “For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
    And the government will rest on His shoulders;
    And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
    Eternal Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6).

    Who is this verse speaking of?

    Adding a little context from v.7 will give more information that it is speaking of someone whom YHWH, the true God, will place on the throne of David to rule for ever.

    Jes 9,7 Of the increase of [his] government and peace [there shall be] no 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.

    Now, the real question, and the one I will ask you, is this: When considering the original Hebrew text and the use of Hebrew idioms, what does the latter part of v. 6 "And his name will be called wonderful counselor, mighty god, eternal father, prince of peace" mean and how could it perhaps be translated in a manner more easily understood into our modern day English language ?

    For Goodness sake, do not try and use circular logic to tell us that "God is God" :wink:

  • dct112685dct112685 Posts: 1,111

    @Wolfgang said:

    @davidtaylorjr said:

    “For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
    And the government will rest on His shoulders;
    And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
    Eternal Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6).

    Who is this verse speaking of?

    Adding a little context from v.7 will give more information that it is speaking of someone whom YHWH, the true God, will place on the throne of David to rule for ever.

    Jes 9,7 Of the increase of [his] government and peace [there shall be] no 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.

    Now, the real question, and the one I will ask you, is this: When considering the original Hebrew text and the use of Hebrew idioms, what does the latter part of v. 6 "And his name will be called wonderful counselor, mighty god, eternal father, prince of peace" mean and how could it perhaps be translated in a manner more easily understood into our modern day English language ?

    For Goodness sake, do not try and use circular logic to tell us that "God is God" :wink:

    So you didn't actually answer the question. Who is it referring to? Do you know?

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,422

    @davidtaylorjr said:

    “For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
    And the government will rest on His shoulders;
    And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
    Eternal Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6).

    Who is this verse speaking of?

    I don't think we can know to whom the prophet refers in Isaiah 9.6 (which is a VERY DIFFERENT QUESTION from whom New Testament writers or other followers of Jesus understand the verse refers to), but we can know the time frame of the referent. Here's the take of the New Interpreter's Bible commentary on the issue of the tenses of the verbs in the Isaiah 9 passage (emphasis added):

    "Particularly in the light of the history of the interpretation of this text, it is important to clarify the tenses in the poem. Verses 2–5 clearly speak of past events. The verbs in vv. 2–3 are participles (“the people are walking” or “the people walked”), perfects (“have seen” or “saw”), and infinitives (“when they divide spoil”). This pattern continues in vv. 4–5 (“you have shattered”), with the exception of the final clause, which has been translated “shall be burned.” However, this is a result clause that can be read in the present tense. More decisive, the verbs in v. 6 are perfects and consecutive imperfects, the normal narrative tense in Hebrew. They must be read as reporting past action or, in view of the passives, possibly as present: “A child has been born to us … authority rests upon his shoulders.” Only in v. 7 does the poem turn to the future tense, describing how the reign of the one who has been born will grow, concluding with the affirmation that “the zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.” The implications of this analysis are quite clear: The reasons for celebration—release from an oppressor, destruction of battle gear, and the birth of the “Prince of Peace”—are not in the future but in the past. These events form the basis for confidence in the future."

    Tucker, G. M. (1994–2004). The Book of Isaiah 1–39. In L. E. Keck (Ed.), New Interpreter’s Bible (Vol. 6, p. 122). Nashville: Abingdon Press.

    Accordingly, in my view, while we can't know the name of the person to whom the verse refers, we can know that said person had already been born when the prophet reported his (likely a male) birth.

  • dct112685dct112685 Posts: 1,111

    @Bill_Coley said:

    @davidtaylorjr said:

    “For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
    And the government will rest on His shoulders;
    And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
    Eternal Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6).

    Who is this verse speaking of?

    I don't think we can know to whom the prophet refers in Isaiah 9.6 (which is a VERY DIFFERENT QUESTION from whom New Testament writers or other followers of Jesus understand the verse refers to), but we can know the time frame of the referent. Here's the take of the New Interpreter's Bible commentary on the issue of the tenses of the verbs in the Isaiah 9 passage (emphasis added):

    How is that a different question?

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,720

    @davidtaylorjr said:
    So you didn't actually answer the question. Who is it referring to? Do you know?

    Sure I did, and even quoted v.7 to document my answer with Scripture.

    I also had mentioned the following perhaps more important points:

    Now, the real question, and the one I will ask you, is this: When considering the original Hebrew text and the use of Hebrew idioms, what does the latter part of v. 6 "And his name will be called wonderful counselor, mighty god, eternal father, prince of peace" mean and how could it perhaps be translated in a manner more easily understood into our modern day English language ?

    May I know your answer to this question I asked you already in my previous post?

  • dct112685dct112685 Posts: 1,111

    @Wolfgang said:

    @davidtaylorjr said:
    So you didn't actually answer the question. Who is it referring to? Do you know?

    Sure I did, and even quoted v.7 to document my answer with Scripture.

    I also had mentioned the following perhaps more important points:

    Now, the real question, and the one I will ask you, is this: When considering the original Hebrew text and the use of Hebrew idioms, what does the latter part of v. 6 "And his name will be called wonderful counselor, mighty god, eternal father, prince of peace" mean and how could it perhaps be translated in a manner more easily understood into our modern day English language ?

    May I know your answer to this question I asked you already in my previous post?

    Ok Maybe I am missing it, who is it then? I don't see it in your post.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,720

    @davidtaylorjr said:
    Ok Maybe I am missing it, who is it then? I don't see it in your post.

    As already mentioned, please read Isa 9:7 and you will see all that is said about this ... anyone else want to speculate, that's fine with me, I am not in favor of speculating like that.

    Now, for the second time, how about an answer to the question I asked you in my earlier post???

  • dct112685dct112685 Posts: 1,111

    @Wolfgang said:

    @davidtaylorjr said:
    Ok Maybe I am missing it, who is it then? I don't see it in your post.

    As already mentioned, please read Isa 9:7 and you will see all that is said about this ... anyone else want to speculate, that's fine with me, I am not in favor of speculating like that.

    Now, for the second time, how about an answer to the question I asked you in my earlier post???

    Well the answer is quite simple. The person referred to is Christ. Who is also God.

  • GaoLuGaoLu Posts: 1,367

    @Bill_Coley said:

    I don't think we can know to whom the prophet refers in Isaiah 9.6
    Accordingly, in my view, while we can't know the name of the person to whom the verse refers, we can know that said person had already been born when the prophet reported his (likely a male) birth.

    "And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
    Eternal Father, Prince of Peace"

    And you don't know? Was any other King of Israel referred to in such a way? You know God or you don't

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,422

    @davidtaylorjr said:

    @Bill_Coley said:
    I don't think we can know to whom the prophet refers in Isaiah 9.6 (which is a VERY DIFFERENT QUESTION from whom New Testament writers or other followers of Jesus understand the verse refers to), but we can know the time frame of the referent. Here's the take of the New Interpreter's Bible commentary on the issue of the tenses of the verbs in the Isaiah 9 passage (emphasis added):

    How is that a different question?

    The question is different because what the prophet meant has no necessary connection to what people interpreted him to mean when they read his words 700 or 2,700 years later.

    In light of the textual analysis found in the section I previously quoted from the NIB's exegesis of the Isaiah 9 text - specifically, that the verbs employed in the text report past events, NOT future ones - in my view, it's clear that Isaiah 9.6 FOR THE PROPHET refers to a child born during his (the prophet's) time. That's obviously a very different meaning to the verse from the one NT writers and other followers of Jesus might ascribe to the verse.

  • dct112685dct112685 Posts: 1,111

    @Bill_Coley said:

    @davidtaylorjr said:

    @Bill_Coley said:
    I don't think we can know to whom the prophet refers in Isaiah 9.6 (which is a VERY DIFFERENT QUESTION from whom New Testament writers or other followers of Jesus understand the verse refers to), but we can know the time frame of the referent. Here's the take of the New Interpreter's Bible commentary on the issue of the tenses of the verbs in the Isaiah 9 passage (emphasis added):

    How is that a different question?

    The question is different because what the prophet meant has no necessary connection to what people interpreted him to mean when they read his words 700 or 2,700 years later.

    In light of the textual analysis found in the section I previously quoted from the NIB's exegesis of the Isaiah 9 text - specifically, that the verbs employed in the text report past events, NOT future ones - in my view, it's clear that Isaiah 9.6 FOR THE PROPHET refers to a child born during his (the prophet's) time. That's obviously a very different meaning to the verse from the one NT writers and other followers of Jesus might ascribe to the verse.

    And so who was it? Who then in history was referred to by those names?

  • GaoLuGaoLu Posts: 1,367
    edited February 2018

    @Bill_Coley said:

    @davidtaylorjr said:

    @Bill_Coley said:
    I don't think we can know to whom the prophet refers in Isaiah 9.6 (which is a VERY DIFFERENT QUESTION from whom New Testament writers or other followers of Jesus understand the verse refers to), but we can know the time frame of the referent. Here's the take of the New Interpreter's Bible commentary on the issue of the tenses of the verbs in the Isaiah 9 passage (emphasis added):

    How is that a different question?

    The question is different because what the prophet meant has no necessary connection to what people interpreted him to mean when they read his words 700 or 2,700 years later.

    In light of the textual analysis found in the section I previously quoted from the NIB's exegesis of the Isaiah 9 text - specifically, that the verbs employed in the text report past events, NOT future ones - in my view, it's clear that Isaiah 9.6 FOR THE PROPHET refers to a child born during his (the prophet's) time. That's obviously a very different meaning to the verse from the one NT writers and other followers of Jesus might ascribe to the verse.

    Oh yeah, sure. Isaiah writes in the rhetorical sense from the position of the future. The only way to take it as past is to ignore context and sentence structure and look at isolated words. I am not a prophet, but if I were, I might say prophetically, "At 100 years old I had 15 grandchildren and 52 great grandchildren." No one would misunderstand that. Well, a few might. There is an interesting term for the grammatical structure referred to as Prophetic future tense.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophetic_perfect_tense

    I believe that interpretation originated with the Jews (dig through their commentaries). They had to do something to lessen the worry that the Jews obviously had no king ever called "MIghty God," (Hezekiah is a really bad fit) and that Jesus obviously fit the prophecy exactly.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,422

    @GaoLu said:
    Oh yeah, sure. Isaiah writes in the rhetorical sense from the position of the future. The only way to take it as past is to ignore context and sentence structure and look at isolated words. I am not a prophet, but if I were, I might say prophetically, "At 100 years old I had 15 grandchildren and 52 great grandchildren." No one would misunderstand that. Well, a few might. There is an interesting term for the grammatical structure referred to as Prophetic future tense.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophetic_perfect_tense

    I believe that interpretation originated with the Jews (dig through their commentaries). They had to do something to lessen the worry that the Jews obviously had no king ever called "MIghty God," (Hezekiah is a really bad fit) and that Jesus obviously fit the prophecy exactly.

    Thanks for sharing your views, Gao Lu.

    In my view, the idea that FOR THE PROPHET, his reference in Isaiah 9.6 (and Isaiah 7.14, for that matter) was to a child to be born, potentially, 700 years in the future, does not make sense. As Isaiah 7 makes clear, for example, the prophet's mission was to encourage his current audience, not readers centuries into the future.

    Isaiah 7.14 says a young woman (not a "virgin"!) shall give birth to a son whose name will be Immanuel. What time frame does the prophet have in mind for that son's birth? He tells us! In Isaiah 7.16 he predicts that before the child to be born is old enough to choose between good and evil, the lands of the two kings Ahaz fears will be deserted. Such maturation won't take 700 years.

    In Isaiah 7.17 the prophet adds to the soon-arriving agenda: The Lord will then bring the king of Assyria upon Ahaz himself, as well as Ahaz's people and Ahaz's father house. That's an era-specific reference that rules out the time of Jesus, in my view. (For an additional reference, consider the prophet's assurance to Ahaz in Isaiah 7.8 that within 65 years one of the two nations he fears - Ephraim/Israel - will be "shattered from being a people).

    That's my case and I'm quite comfortable with it. But clearly, people of good faith disagree as to the meaning of these verses. I respect views different from mine.

    As for the "prophetic future tense," the examples cited in the Wikipedia article don't make the case, in my view, but I don't have time to engage them. Bottom line for me is that I think the NIB article makes a much stronger case for its analysis of the verb tenses than does the Wikipedia article. I respect your different conclusion.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,720

    @davidtaylorjr said:
    And so who was it? Who then in history was referred to by those names?

    Good question ... who had those names?

    We know from Mt 1:21,25 that the child born to Mary was called JESUS (obviously, the Aramaic name which then in Greek MSS was rendered Jesus) by Joseph in accordance with what the angel had told him to do.
    We know from Lk 1:31 that Mary was told by the angel that she was to give the child she was going to have the name JESUS.
    In the four gospels and the rest of the NT Scriptures the Messiah is always named JESUS, when his name is mentioned.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,720

    @GaoLu said:
    "And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
    Eternal Father, Prince of Peace"

    >

    And you don't know? Was any other King of Israel referred to in such a way?

    Well, we know from OT Scripture, to which Jesus himself made reference, that judges, human beings, were called "God/god". Did that designation make those human beings to be the true God or "persons of a "Multi-Person Godhead"??

    Where in Scripture is Jesus called by any of these names? In a different post, I showed that Mt 1:21,25 and Lk 1:31 very emphatically show that the Messiah was not named by any of these names but rather given the name "Jesus" (that is, the name in its Aramaic form, not as translated into Greek)

    You know God or you don't

    I agree .... very unfortunately, it seems that many are caught in later church dogma and claim to know a God Who is quite different from the God of the Bible.

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,328

    @davidtaylorjr said:

    “For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
    And the government will rest on His shoulders;
    And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
    Eternal Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6).

    Who is this verse speaking of?

    This verse speaks of Jesus. Because the following verse says: “His dominion will be vast and he will bring immeasurable prosperity. He will rule on David’s throne and over David’s kingdom, establishing it and strengthening it by promoting justice and fairness, from this time forward and forevermore. The LORD’s intense devotion to his people will accomplish this.” (Isaiah 9:7)

    Jesus now rules over David's Kingdom according to Peter.

    ““Brothers, I can speak confidently to you about our forefather David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. So then, because he [David] was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne, David by foreseeing this spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did his body experience decay.” (Acts 2:29–31)

    And Paul says Jesus must rule until he destroys the last enemy - death. This happens at the resurrection on the last day.

    For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be eliminated is death. For he has put everything in subjection under his feet. But when it says “everything” has been put in subjection, it is clear that this does not include the one who put everything in subjection to him.” (1 Corinthians 15:25–27)

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,720

    I suggest to those interested in a detailed textual study of the text in Isa 9:6, including details regarding the words used and the overall context and scope:

    Isaiah 9:6 Explained
    The Mighty God & Eternal Father

    I trust that a careful reading of the study will provide you with reasonable and logical detailed information on what the passage in Isa 9:6-7 is about.

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,328

    @Wolfgang said:
    I suggest to those interested in a detailed textual study of the text in Isa 9:6, including details regarding the words used and the overall context and scope:

    Isaiah 9:6 Explained
    The Mighty God & Eternal Father

    I trust that a careful reading of the study will provide you with reasonable and logical detailed information on what the passage in Isa 9:6-7 is about.

    If you consider the following verse too, it speaks of Christ and his kingdom that became a reality in the New Covenant era.

  • dct112685dct112685 Posts: 1,111

    @Wolfgang said:

    @davidtaylorjr said:
    And so who was it? Who then in history was referred to by those names?

    Good question ... who had those names?

    We know from Mt 1:21,25 that the child born to Mary was called JESUS (obviously, the Aramaic name which then in Greek MSS was rendered Jesus) by Joseph in accordance with what the angel had told him to do.
    We know from Lk 1:31 that Mary was told by the angel that she was to give the child she was going to have the name JESUS.
    In the four gospels and the rest of the NT Scriptures the Messiah is always named JESUS, when his name is mentioned.

    Oh so you do believe Jesus is the mighty God and the everlasting Father! Great!

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,720

    @davidtaylorjr said:
    Oh so you do believe Jesus is the mighty God and the everlasting Father! Great!

    NO .... I rather NOT misinterpret Isa 9:6-7 and thereby become a lunatic making Jesus his own Father and as a byproduct produce a 2nd Almighty God

    I suggest that you carefully read the article to which I linked in an earlier post
    Isaiah 9:6 Explained
    The Mighty God & Eternal Father

  • dct112685dct112685 Posts: 1,111

    @Wolfgang said:

    @davidtaylorjr said:
    Oh so you do believe Jesus is the mighty God and the everlasting Father! Great!

    NO .... I rather NOT misinterpret Isa 9:6-7 and thereby become a lunatic making Jesus his own Father and as a byproduct produce a 2nd Almighty God

    I suggest that you carefully read the article to which I linked in an earlier post
    Isaiah 9:6 Explained
    The Mighty God & Eternal Father

    Yet that is what you said in your post that I quoted. Apparently you don't know what you believe.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,720

    @davidtaylorjr said:

    @Wolfgang said:
    I suggest that you carefully read the article to which I linked in an earlier post
    Isaiah 9:6 Explained
    The Mighty God & Eternal Father

    Yet that is what you said in your post that I quoted. Apparently you don't know what you believe.

    No, that is NOT what I said in the post you quoted ... that is what you interpreted INTO what I said in that post.

  • dct112685dct112685 Posts: 1,111

    @Wolfgang said:

    @davidtaylorjr said:

    @Wolfgang said:
    I suggest that you carefully read the article to which I linked in an earlier post
    Isaiah 9:6 Explained
    The Mighty God & Eternal Father

    Yet that is what you said in your post that I quoted. Apparently you don't know what you believe.

    No, that is NOT what I said in the post you quoted ... that is what you interpreted INTO what I said in that post.

    I just went back and read it and that is precisely what you said. I asked you who in history was referred to by those names and your answer was Jesus.

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,328

    This entire debate is unnecessary if we answer one question. Who rules on David's Throne according to the New Testament?

    “For a child is born to us, a son is given to us. The government will rest on his shoulders. And he will be called: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. His government and its peace will never end. He will rule with fairness and justice from the throne of his ancestor David for all eternity. The passionate commitment of the LORD of Heaven’s Armies will make this happen!” (Isaiah 9:6–7)

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,720

    @davidtaylorjr said:

    @Wolfgang said:
    No, that is NOT what I said in the post you quoted ... that is what you interpreted INTO what I said in that post.

    I just went back and read it and that is precisely what you said. I asked you who in history was referred to by those names and your answer was Jesus.

    Still doesn't mean that Jesus is the Almighty God, nor is he his Eternal Father, does it?
    Did you read the article to which I referred you? It seems that you did not read it as of yet ... else you would know a few things about the words and expressions used ...

    "Some like it hot" was a title of a somewhat funny movie many moons ago ... "Some like God to be Three rather than One" is however not quite that funny ... it's rather sad.

  • dct112685dct112685 Posts: 1,111

    @Wolfgang said:

    @davidtaylorjr said:

    @Wolfgang said:
    No, that is NOT what I said in the post you quoted ... that is what you interpreted INTO what I said in that post.

    I just went back and read it and that is precisely what you said. I asked you who in history was referred to by those names and your answer was Jesus.

    Still doesn't mean that Jesus is the Almighty God, nor is he his Eternal Father, does it?
    Did you read the article to which I referred you? It seems that you did not read it as of yet ... else you would know a few things about the words and expressions used ...

    "Some like it hot" was a title of a somewhat funny movie many moons ago ... "Some like God to be Three rather than One" is however not quite that funny ... it's rather sad.

    I am sick and tired of you mischaracterizing what those of us who believe the truth claim Wolfgang. We do not claim three gods no matter how badly you wish to say we do.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,720

    @davidtaylorjr said:

    @Wolfgang said:
    "Some like it hot" was a title of a somewhat funny movie many moons ago ... "Some like God to be Three rather than One" is however not quite that funny ... it's rather sad.

    I am sick and tired of you mischaracterizing what those of us who believe the truth claim Wolfgang. We do not claim three gods no matter how badly you wish to say we do.

    So you do not say that there are Three Who are God? Until now, I was sure you believed in the Trinity doctrine/dogma .... I am sorry if I wrongly assumed that to be the case.

  • GaoLuGaoLu Posts: 1,367

    @Wolfgang said:
    I suggest to those interested in a detailed textual study of the text in Isa 9:6, including details regarding the words used and the overall context and scope:

    Isaiah 9:6 Explained
    The Mighty God & Eternal Father

    I trust that a careful reading of the study will provide you with reasonable and logical detailed information on what the passage in Isa 9:6-7 is about.

    MMmm. I see. So "Mighty God" in the passage actually means "Warrior doorpost." Was that your explanation? Dave does that, but you?

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,720

    @GaoLu said:
    MMmm. I see. So "Mighty God" in the passage actually means "Warrior doorpost." Was that your explanation? Dave does that, but you?

    I see, you at least tried to read the article ... but perhaps gave up shortly after starting and even misinterpreted what the author of that article pointed out from lexical definitions of the Hebrew words.

  • dct112685dct112685 Posts: 1,111

    @Wolfgang said:

    @davidtaylorjr said:

    @Wolfgang said:
    "Some like it hot" was a title of a somewhat funny movie many moons ago ... "Some like God to be Three rather than One" is however not quite that funny ... it's rather sad.

    I am sick and tired of you mischaracterizing what those of us who believe the truth claim Wolfgang. We do not claim three gods no matter how badly you wish to say we do.

    So you do not say that there are Three Who are God? Until now, I was sure you believed in the Trinity doctrine/dogma .... I am sorry if I wrongly assumed that to be the case.

    The problem is that not what is taught by the Trinity. Never have we claimed three Gods, only one. So you lie about our position to slander us.

Sign In or Register to comment.