(1) Otto Kaiser (OTL) professes that the King (or Messiah) mentioned in Isa. 9:6 is EL GIBBOHR insofar as he is "the representative and viceregent of God on earth, who, as the one endowed with this spirit (cf. 11:1), shares in his nature and his will" (Isaiah 1-12, Page 213).
When Kaiser claims that the Messiah-King shares in "the nature" and "will" of God, his statement should not be construed to mean that he believes the King shares the essence of God (i.e., the divine attributes). To the contrary, the King that Kaiser provides commentary about is fully human. This point is clearly brought out when Kaiser explains that the words "Wonderful Counselor" characterize: "the ruler as a man who, like God, can make extraordinary resolves and then carry them out. Illuminated by Yahweh himself, he needs no counsel from others . . . The second name [Mighty God] stresses his abundance of power, calling men to their God" (213).
Kaiser also contends that Isa. 9:6 possibly shows hints of Egyptian influence on the royal ritual of Israel (a point some have insisted applies to Ps. 45 and Heb. 1). For an interesting discussion of this matter vis-a'-vis Revelation 5:1ff and the coronation of the Lamb, see David Aune's thorough notes in his Word commentary (Revelation 1-5). But whether Isa. 9:6 shows Egyptian influence or not, Kaiser demonstrates by means of parallels why Isa. 9:6 is not necessarily proof for the Deity of Jesus (even though it is clearly Messianic). Please see the Catholic NAB and its handling of this OT passage since the NABRE appears to have changed the footnote found in the older NAB.
(2) Isa. 9:7 indicates that the Messiah would rule by the power of YHWH. A similar point is made at Mic. 5:4, where the Messiah is said to rule in the strength of YHWH. There is abundant proof that Mic. 5:1-4 is what we would today call--a subordinationist delineation of the Messiah.
For Kaiser's commentary, see https://books.google.com/books?id=15a7BwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=isaiah+1-12+kaiser&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjf6669vsvNAhUF5iYKHSkLD1MQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=isaiah%201-12%20kaiser&f=false
30 comments:
Good info will have to look at what Aune says as well. Still I wonder if they, the Jews considered this a second God as they use the phrase Mighty God for the Messiah.
Philip, to my knowledge, most Jews would not have thought Isa. 9:6 sets forth a second god. As a matter of fact, a common Jewish understanding of 9:6 is that the verse applies to Almighty God and not to someone else. Or others think the passage applies to a human king, as Kaiser argues, but not to another deity.
Ok the Jew were really understanding the words in Psalms were he says "you are gods" So anyone can be consider a god. I will accept the Idea of Almighty God. i believe they missed it though. I wonder what Jews, modern that is the past century, or after the 1st century or those who lived at the time of Isaiah's writings. If for instance after the 1st century, they probably wouldn't be right anyway, they were wrong by Jesus time anyway. My thoughts
Philip, there is plenty of material on the subject, but here's something from John Goldingay for now. All of the foregoing material is taken from his commentary.
From the New International Biblical Commentary on Isaiah by John Goldingay:
9:6 / It is usually assumed that the name in v. 6b comprises a
series of asyndetic phrases (so NIV) and describes the person named.
The son then is the Wonderful Counselor. Christian claims that Jesus
fulfills the vision of v. 6b can do justice to the designation
Mighty God, but the difficulty comes with Everlasting Father' which
hardly applies to Jesus. Conversely, a reading in the light of
eighth-century B.C. Middle Eastern thinking can perhaps do justice
to Everlasting Father as an extravagant OT description of a king's
relationship with his people, but Mighty God is unparalleled in the
OT in such designations. Wildberger (Isaiah 1-12, p. 405) suggests
it is based on Egyptian ways of speaking of the king, but even these
hardly parallel such an extravagant description. It is difficult to
know what the original hearers would have made of the words if this
is how Isaiah meant them. it is significant that the Jewish
exegetical tradition assumed that at least the first three phrases
referred to God, though it took them as describing God as namer
rather than as part of the name.
The Hb. of the first two phrases reads literally "Wonder planner,
God warrior." NIV "wonderful counselor" apparently takes the first
phrase to mean "wonder of a planner." If that is a natural rendering
of the first phrase, the natural way for the prophet to expect
people to understand the second [maybe] is to take it to suggest "God of a
warrior," "God-like warrior" (rather than "warrior-like God,"
presupposed by NIV). The plural of the phrase rendered Mighty God
indeed appears in Ezek. 32:21 to mean "mighty leaders." In
isolation, the four terms would then be quite intelligible as
descriptions of a hoped-for king.
But the recurrence of the phrase rendered "Mighty God" el gibbor in
10:21 with definite reference to Yahweh make it harder to accept
that here the phrase means "God-like warrior" or that it refers to
the promised king. Indeed, to say that someone is a "wonder of a
planner" is to call him God-like (see on 5:8-24), and Wildberger (Isaiah 1-12,
p. 403) argues strongly that the phrase must mean "Wonder-planner." The basis
for translating the second phrase "God-like warrior" then disappears. Even Father, let alone Everlasting Father, is not otherwise instanced as a title for a king.
There is a further point. Other names such as Isaiah, Shear-jashub,
and Immanuel comprise statements rather than merely strings of
epithets. They mean "Yahweh [is] salvation," 'A remnant will
return," "God [is] with us." It is natural also to assume that the
designation of Yahweh in v. 6b is one or two statements. How to
construe the statements is then open to discussion, as is the case
with Maher-shalal-hash-baz (see Additional Note on 8:1). As the
middle two phrases are the ones that apply most distinctively to
God, we might take the four as a characteristic prophetic chiasm: 'A
Wonderful Counselor is the Mighty God; the Everlasting Father is a
Prince of Peace."
Philip, see http://thejewishhome.org/counter/Isa9_56.pdf
It's an exegetical discussion of Isa. 9:6.
Yeah this is good information. When I get time will look into it more fully. I think some of the experts miss it on Eternal Father. If Adam had not sin he would always be our father eternally, since Jesus became the last Adam as Paul stated in 1 Cor. 15, than he is our Eternal Father in that way. Always. As the last Adam.
http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/verses/Is9_6EL.html
Of particular note is the translation of EL GIBBOR.
The NEB does give an interesting alternative translation to AVI AD.
Philip: As with all links I provide, I by no means endorse everything the writer says. However, I found some of the comments to be helpful for understanding how some Jews have understood Isa. 9:6.
Dunca: The understanding given at "Trinity Delusion" seems to be similar/the same as the exegesis provided by Goldingay, in line with the traditional Jewish exegetical tradition. I'll also check out NEB. Thanks, Edgar
Edgar,
I note that Deus is used in the Vulgate. But what is the diachronic understanding of its usages in the second and third centuries?
It is speculated that dies (day) comes from the same root (PIE) referring to a shinning one (sun).
From NET footnote for AVI AD:-
According to Egyptian propaganda, the Hittites described Rameses II as follows: “No man is he who is among us, It is Seth great-of-strength, Baal in person; Not deeds of man are these his doings, They are of one who is unique” (See Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 2:67).
But unfortunately this assumes still that EL = GOD and that BAAL = EL.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/neb.html
Note that the alternative rendering is in keeping as a contrast with chapter 9 verses 1 & 2.
Duncan,
Deus was a common word used by the Romans even prior to Christianity's inception. You likely remember the Vedic deity Dyaus-pitar, which can mean "Shining Father," and is cognate with Zeus and Jupiter (Greek and Roman names for the same deity).
Michael Molloy, and many other sources bring out the connection. But one good online source for Latin etymology and lexical matters is Lewis and Short. See http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Ddeus
The major work for consulting Latin words is OLD (Oxford Latin Dictionary). But it's a very expensive work, so I'm glad we have one in our university library.
On the subject of Baal and El, I believe this work needs to be read: https://books.google.com/books?id=ns4UAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA32&dq=el+and+ugarit&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjD35SH7_HNAhWGQCYKHdY4D_cQ6AEIJTAB#v=snippet&q=baal&f=false
The "El in the Ugaritic texts" looks very interesting. It does indicate that Baal and El could be two distinct families on pg 48.
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/#
This could just be different roles like Enki (land) & Enlil (wind).
I do not know if urgatic carries the same poetic structure as Hebrew but I suppose it could be talking about just one group but functionally in the period there seems to be a significant difference in roles between a baal (land & agriculture) & an El (civis).
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ns4UAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA32&dq=el+and+ugarit&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=with%20horns&f=false
http://www.historyinsidepictures.com/siteimages/G45.jpg
Note the Egyptian style throne.
I can see parallels here in relation to Moses having horns as an El (leader of people).
द्यौष्पितृ / Dyauṣpitṛ
Possibly related to
http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/amgg/listofdeities/an/
As far as Deus being common in usage. I agree, but there was a definite shift in understanding of what apotheosis meant in Rome over time. Shifting from the political to the religious, from the living to the deceased. This is why I wonder about how Deus was used at the point of inception of the vulgate?
Duncan, the Deus question is a complex one to me since context is always important for determining the meaning of a word. But I think Lewis-Short is a good resource for studying such Latin words. Please see the link above. And if you can get hold of an OLD, that would be helpful too. There's also a substantial difference between classical and ecclesiastical Latin, and the latter morphs in the Middle Ages. I'm almost certain that Jerome (translator of the Vulgate) understood Deus to mean "God/god" or he thought it referred to the Supremem Being in a number of contexts. Lastly, I've had some exposure to Deus in Lactantius, who lived during the 4th century. Of course, the Vulgate was published ca. 405 CE, but I don't see much of a difference in understading the meaning of Deus when one compares Lactantius with a figure like Jerome. Again, we're talking about mchurch Latin at this point and not classical Latin.
Edgar, the cheapest I can find an OLD is a used one @ £160, so will have to weigh up my need for it. It will probably have to stay on my wish list for the moment.
http://www.vetuslatina.org/
Esaias 7:14 – 10:19. Roger Gryson. 1989
Is there anywhere on line that has this to view?
Someone else might be aware of an online source for Gryson. I tried to find online access to the work, but could not.
Just came across:-
http://www.vetus-latina.de/edition_vetus_latina/vetus_latina_band.html?band=121
Probably still out of my reach.
Some of these works are prohibitively expensive for me too. Another option is to use a university library, the British Library or use interlibrary loan. Even then, some works are still out of reach.
Edgar;
I appreciate what you say about the link, still they are decent info on what is out there. Keep it coming and I will keep learning.
Thanks
YB
Philip
http://solo.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/display.do?tabs=detailsTab&ct=display&fn=search&doc=oxfaleph010235738&indx=1&recIds=oxfaleph010235738&recIdxs=0&elementId=0&renderMode=poppedOut&displayMode=full&frbrVersion=&dscnt=0&scp.scps=scope%3A%28OX%29&frbg=&tab=local&dstmp=1468621349205&srt=rank&mode=Basic&&dum=true&vl(490959669UI1)=all_items&vl(254947567UI0)=any&tb=t&vl(1UIStartWith0)=contains&vl(freeText0)=Roger%20gryson%20Esaias&vid=OXVU1
I may be able to get access here but it does state that notes are in French. I am only at high school level French but it may not pose a problem.
I will contact them next week. Easier for me than the British library. Getting into central London on time for an appointment is extremely problematic unless I go for the whole day.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Zeus&allowed_in_frame=0
Came across this:-
http://www.jstor.org/stable/270330?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Is this what you mean about early & Christian Latin?
Duncan,
I made a distinction between classical and ecclesiastical Latin. So yes, way before Christianity used Latin or translated the Vetus Latina or Vulgate, classical Latin existed. We see its manifestation in Virgil, Cicero, and Quintilian (inter alii).
Glad the info is helpful, Philip. I'll pass along more as I acquire it, brother.
Kaiser argues that the King shares in God's nature and will, emphasizing the unique status of the Messiah. However, the term El Gibbor ("Mighty God") does not merely describe a representative but is an unmistakable divine title, used also in Isaiah 10:21 to refer to Yahweh Himself. Kaiser’s explanation of "divine counsel" strengthens the divine attributes attributed to the Messiah, who is more than just a human king with God's blessing.
Kaiser’s suggestion of possible Egyptian royal ritual influence is speculative. This point does not undermine the prophetic intention of the passage in presenting the Messiah with divine titles. The parallels cited are far from proving that Isaiah 9:6 is not evidence of Christ's divinity.
Subordinationism is often misunderstood. In Micah 5:4, the Messiah's "rule in the strength of YHWH" highlights the functional relationship within the Godhead, not an ontological difference. Jesus ruling in God’s strength aligns with Trinitarian theology, where the Son’s divine mission is executed with the Father's authority, not diminishing His divinity. Subordinationism, in this sense, does not imply inferiority of essence but mission within the Trinity.
The Hebrew Bible frequently uses divine titles in relation to figures foreshadowing the Messiah. This aligns with the Trinitarian view that the Messiah holds divine authority, not as a separate god but within the Godhead. The term "Mighty God" (El Gibbor) clearly supports this.
The argument appeals to a Jewish understanding postdating Isaiah. However, it’s important to recognize that modern Jewish interpretations, particularly post-1st century, developed in reaction to Christian claims about Jesus. Before this period, interpretations were more open to a messianic figure holding divine titles (as evidenced by texts like Psalm 45:6, where a king is referred to with divine terms). Therefore, relying on later Jewish re-interpretation cannot fully discredit a Christological reading.
While Kaiser and Goldingay emphasize that the terms "Everlasting Father" and "Mighty God" can have figurative meanings, they don't preclude the possibility of these titles describing the Messiah as possessing divine attributes. Goldingay's hesitation to apply "Mighty God" directly to the Messiah ignores the context in Isaiah 10:21, where the same term clearly refers to God Himself. Thus, interpreting Isaiah 9:6 as foreshadowing the divine nature of the Messiah is not unwarranted.
The comparison of Isaiah’s other names (Immanuel, Shear-jashub) with the name in Isaiah 9:6 overlooks the unique messianic nature of this prophecy. Unlike ordinary names, Isaiah 9:6 lists divine attributes, and titles like "Wonderful Counselor," "Mighty God," and "Prince of Peace" go beyond the scope of typical royal or human names.
While some argue that "Eternal Father" could refer to a king’s protective role, this overlooks the unique eternal implications of the title. In Trinitarian theology, Christ’s role as the "Eternal Father" reflects His divine, timeless care for His people, as well as His relationship within the Godhead.
You act like Rashi's understanding of Isaiah 9:6 is so aberrant, but the fact is that no 1st century Jew would have placed the Messiah in God's position: that would not have happened. Even if 1st century or second temple Jews thought the Messiah was preexistent, they did not believe he was God.
From Jewish history before Isaiah, Moses was already referred to as God at Exodus 7:1, the Jews have an understanding that Jehovah calls you a God then that is what you are. The designation mighty God is not from a human standpoint. It is Jehovah who has decided that Moses was a God and it the same for EL Gibbor. It would appear from their perspective that they were to expect another like Moses, a second God. See Deut. 18:15-18. He would be a mighty God just not the almighty. A second God.
Post a Comment