Isaiah 9:6 Mighty God

I am interested to know what the meaning of this verse was in original context and what it meant to Jews at the time of Jesus.

It is easy for us Christians to look back and see the text as saying the Messiah is GOD (YHWH).

But would the original Jewish hearers have understood it this way? For god could simply mean someone of great power.

Did they even accept it as a Messianic text?

What are the historical messianic texts accepted by Jews?

Can anyone recommend any good resources in Logos that discuss these issues.

Thanks

P A

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

David Ames

The Jewish Encyclopedia (12 vols.)

http://www.logos.com/product/8537/the-jewish-encyclopedia

Jewish Interpretation of the Bible: Ancient and Contemporary

https://www.logos.com/product/26961/jewish-interpretation-of-the-bible-ancient-and-contemporary

But you will have to wait a while - not yet shipping - sorry

Rosie Perera

The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments (Eerdmans)

The Prophets Still Speak: Messiah In Both Testaments (Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, evangelistic in tone, so perhaps not a good source for what these texts meant to the Jews at the time)

Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity (still only available as part of a collection; though focused on early Christianity, does have some mention of pre-Christian Jewish exegesis)

DMB

In answer to 'jews at the time of Jesus', technically 'who knows'. On one 'end' you have Philo and on the other Josephus. And in the middle, Qumran and the NT, both sectarian. But of course in the absence of 'data', scholars step in with assumptions using Pseudo-Philo, Enoch Similitudes, etc.

The writing read literally is indeed 'messianic' at the time of Isaiah, and later, simply because 'messianic' describes kingship, and at the time of Isaiah (and during Roman times), kings and gods were synonymous (albeit Rome often demanded the 'caesars' be dead first). The 'Christian' difference was whether, of course, an underage miracle-healer and craftman's son from Galilee sounded like a 'messiah' or not.

But the best clue is the LXX, which proceeded Jesus by 1-2 centuries and thus would have be 'old' by the time of the use by the disciples. It removes the phrase you mention moving in a completely different direction. Interestingly Tanakh ALSO shifts the meaning considerably (a modern exegesis).

Qumran (per ISV) moves the initial verb into future tense, while the Targum Isaiah holds on to the phrase 'his name is called ... Mighty God'. I was surprised on the Targum, since it usually is the most squeamish (not being satisfied with substituting 'angels' it also usually adds 'the presence').

David Paul

I am interested to know what the meaning of this verse was in original context and what it meant to Jews at the time of Jesus.

It is easy for us Christians to look back and see the text as saying the Messiah is GOD (YHWH).

I'm not sure I will ever understand the fascination with trying to get inside the head of people who lived 2000 or 3500 years ago, particularly where Scripture itself isn't declaring what they were thinking (as it occasionally does). Besides being impossible, the evidence we do have is that the people of the time were notoriously inept at understanding anything about YHWH and His will. They were either incapable or unwilling to follow the most explicit instructions--so why would anyone expect them to have any understanding of any Scriptural concept that required piecing two or more Scriptures together to arrive at a clear picture and proper understanding? And especially when Scripture itself says that understanding YHWH and His ways is predicated on obedience, which they rarely gave?

When you say "what the meaning...was in original context", you can only determine that from the passage itself. There is no contemporary account in existence that can provide elucidation. The main question you should ask is, did YHWH ever expect anyone from the time of Isaiah to understand anything he wrote? This is the main problem with "historio-critical" approaches...they completely overlook (almost certainly because they are either ignorant of or outright deny) the fact that YHWH deliberately flouts all historical expectations. This is especially true of what we would call the prophetic texts, but it is even true of what most people consider to be standard historical narrative texts as well. Abraham's life has a whole lot less to do with Abraham than it does as providing prophetic fodder within the broader scope of the "finite" collection of material which makes up the complete book we call the Bible. Paul says this rather plainly in 1 Cor. 10:11.

Your comment, that it is a whole lot easier "for us as Christians to look back and see the text as saying", both makes my point and misses it altogether. You are exactly right in making that observation. The error is in assuming that there is something wrong with that fact. Of course, you are only agreeing with what "professional" exegetes say we should have in mind when attempting to interpret the Bible. As they say, a prime consideration in proper exegesis is trying to understand the text in the way the original audience understood it. Hah! Guess what, guys? You do, because they didn't understand it any better than you do today. The Bible as a book is by design not supposed to be fully understood until just before Yeishuu`a returns.

Yeishuu`a's own words present what amounts to a photographic account of this concept. Mt. 13:10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 should be instructive on this point--except virtually everyone makes the completely wrong assumption. Folks always assume that "your eyes see", spoken to the disciples, is speaking to them too. Because no one ever assumes that his eyes and ears don't work as they should, none take the necessary steps to clear them. What is really rich is the fact that by nearly any objective measure, the disciples had only a bare modicum of understanding themselves. It wasn't until He appeared to them after the resurrection and upbraided their unbelief that most of the stuff He said really started to sink in.

But would the original Jewish hearers have understood it this way? For god could simply mean someone of great power.

Did they even accept it as a Messianic text?

I think, when trying to evaluate whether Isa. 9:6 is a Messianic text, it wouldn't hurt to look at Isa. 9:7. Again, it is utterly irrelevant what "Jews" may think or have thought the text says, since they have shown themselves to be highly unreliable in matters of textual insight, both currently, historically, and in the sight of Yeishuu`a...and we can't overlook that their antipathy toward Him has since driven them to "adjust" their interpretations of most Messianic scriptures. But virtually every word in verse 7 screams "Messiah", and thus verse 6 is Messianic, because in reality there is no verse 6 and verse 7.

Just so that you have something to look at, I have posted from the JPS commentary below. Just remember, these are comments that are not contemporaneous with either the OT or NT.

Isaiah 9:5. Surely Hebrew ki. Rabbinic tradition, as reflected in this haftarah, juxtaposed the plotters’ royal pretender (7:5–6) to a future messianic king designated by God (9:5–6). Rendering ki as “surely” clarifies the liturgical contextualization that connects the two passages. (In its original setting in the Book of Isaiah, ki marked a justification clause and is often rendered as “for.”)

The Mighty God is planning grace This is one of a series of royal epithets, similar to those known from the ancient Near East. It is linked at the conclusion to a vision of the messianic king who rules with justice (v. 6). This is a standard portrayal and found in biblical liturgies (cf. Ps. 72:1–2). The ideals of might and power, combined with justice and peace, are repeated in Isa. 11:2–4.

The NJPS translation follows the Masoretic accents, against the syntax. This difficult phrasing tries to avoid a title like “Mighty God” for the human king (but cf. Isa. 10:21). Thus Rashi and Kimḥi refer the opening epithets to God. In their view, it is He who gives the child the name “Prince of Peace.” Ibn Ezra also emphasizes the series of short titles, but explains ʾel gibbor (“mighty god”) as a royal epithet indicating the powerful nature of the expected king (Hezekiah). His reading is anticipated by Aquila and his Jewish colleagues in their Greek translations. A quite novel solution occurs in the Qumran Thanksgiving Scroll (1QH 3:10), where the ideal ruler is called a “wonderful counselor with His Might [ʿim gevurato].”²³ The italicized phrase thus transforms the difficult ʾel gibbor into God’s gevurah (Power; Might), which will be with the “counselor.” This gevurah is a well-known hypostatic aspect of God Himself in classical rabbinic sources.²⁴

NJPS New Jewish Publication Society translation (1985)

²³Noted by David Flusser, “At the Right Hand of Power,” in his Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988), 301–5.

²⁴See Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987), chap. 5.

Michael A. Fishbane, Haftarot, The JPS Bible commentary (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2002). 113.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/479227#Comment_479227

Besides being impossible, the evidence we do have is that the people of the time were notoriously inept at understanding anything about YHWH and His will. They were either incapable or unwilling to follow the most explicit instructions--so why would anyone expect them to have any understanding of any Scriptural concept that required piecing two or more Scriptures together to arrive at a clear picture and proper understanding?

Your point would be better served if you did not gratuitously insult others. I am getting close to ignoring all your posts.

George Somsel

I am interested to know what the meaning of this verse was in original context and what it meant to Jews at the time of Jesus.

It is easy for us Christians to look back and see the text as saying the Messiah is GOD (YHWH).

But would the original Jewish hearers have understood it this way? For god could simply mean someone of great power.

Did they even accept it as a Messianic text?

What are the historical messianic texts accepted by Jews?

Can anyone recommend any good resources in Logos that discuss these issues.

Thanks

P A

That Isaiah would call the king אֵ֣ל גִּבּ֔וֹר is not particularly surprising. Recall the enthronement psalm 2

7 אֲסַפְּרָ֗ה אֶֽ֫ל חֹ֥ק יְֽהוָ֗ה אָמַ֘ר אֵלַ֥י בְּנִ֥י אַ֑תָּה אֲ֝נִ֗י הַיּ֥וֹם יְלִדְתִּֽיךָ׃

7 Let me tell of the decree: the Lord said to me, "You are My son, I have fathered you this day.

The king was considered to be the adoptive son of Yahweh upon his enthronement.

How would the Jews of the time have understood this? They would have understood it very well, thank you. Knowledge of the scripture is not limited to those who count the letters and attempt to divine some esoteric meaning which is not clear to the average reader. The stated objective that the ploughboy could read was true of the original audience—the object was understanding and not some esoteric calculation of a hidden meaning.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/479241#Comment_479241

Besides being impossible, the evidence we do have is that the people of the time were notoriously inept at understanding anything about YHWH and His will. They were either incapable or unwilling to follow the most explicit instructions--so why would anyone expect them to have any understanding of any Scriptural concept that required piecing two or more Scriptures together to arrive at a clear picture and proper understanding?

Your point would be better served if you did not gratuitously insult others. I am getting close to ignoring all your posts.

Do you have the same problem with YHWH? I am after all simply referencing Scripture...Isa. 1:3 Zech. 7:11 Jer. 4:22 Jer. 10:21 These are just a representative sample, of course. It would probably take a few of days to round up all of the verses that speak to this abject situation among those who call themselves by His Name.

I personally don't consider describing a situation as it is anything like being "insulting"...it's more like reporting, and as such there is nothing gratuitous about it. Prov. 27:5, 6 Ignoring it is foolishness...as it inevitably leads to repetition of the same.

You, of course, may do as you please. But it is the worst kind of Pollyanna-ish, ostrich-like head-hiding to pretend that the issues prompting YHWH's constant need (by His own proclamation) to condemn those who call themselves by His Name aren't relevant or worthy of acknowledgment. It's obvious that an honest appraisal of YHWH's indignation is never going to be confused for "happy talk". Call such language "insulting" if you must. I personally wouldn't dare. For that matter, nor is it sensible to assume the dire and desperate evaluation of how YHWH judges His people somehow suddenly disappeared with the advent of the so-called Church age. It is silly to think it has. It's almost like you are advocating the bowdlerizing and papering over of Scripture. Spray the ugly parts over with a thick coat of happy paint and let's all sing Kumbaya! The are no serious issues--there are no problems--there are no lives at stake once they call out His Name! Except for the inescapable fact that YHWH spoke in the strongest possible terms against His own inheritance. Jer. 7:12 (among hundreds of others) That Yeishuu`a did the same is equally evident. Mt. 7:21, 22, 23, The "many" in verse 22 is the same "many" in Mt. 7:13 whose end is destruction. The upshot is pretty straightforward. Comparing the "many" of verse 13 with the "few" of Mt. 7:14 means the majority (and it is a large majority) of those who call Yeishuu`a "Lord" end up receiving destruction. If you want to say that my pointing that out is a "gratuitous insult", be my guest. I call it a needful and, frankly, extremely low-key warning.

Is constantly saying "Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy!" ever going to resolve or answer "why" those "many who call on His name" are referred to by Him as being ones He does not know? Will trying to get inside the head of "the Jews at the time of Christ" ever resolve that question? No. But OBVIOUSLY something is horribly amiss if most of those who call Jesus "Lord" end up as crispy as all those Jews who experienced the "Joy!" of church history. I assume that those who use this product we call Logos have a purpose. When someone puts forward a question that seems it will take them in a fruitless direction, I try to offer a bit of insight to forestall that, if I can. Do you honestly think using Logos renders the explicit pronouncement of Yeishuu`a void, though? Is every single person on this forum going to buck the trend of the "many"? Highly doubtful. All I did and ever try to do is offer a perspective that tries to give James 4:9 at least as much shrift as Phil. 4:4, especially since that joy is primarily to be directed toward a hope that is only going to be realized by the "few" who escape the common fate of the Christian and the Jewish "many".

If you wish to ignore me, go ahead. Your pet hound has spent more time sniffing its own tail then actually hunting down any imagined fallacies.

Milford Charles Murray

I am interested to know what the meaning of this verse was in original context and what it meant to Jews at the time of Jesus.

It is easy for us Christians to look back and see the text as saying the Messiah is GOD (YHWH).

But would the original Jewish hearers have understood it this way? For god could simply mean someone of great power.

Did they even accept it as a Messianic text?

What are the historical messianic texts accepted by Jews?

Can anyone recommend any good resources in Logos that discuss these issues.

Thanks

P A

Peace to you! *smile* Thanks for starting this thread! It gave me an opportunity to meditate and reflect on quite a number of interesting concepts.

The link here is NOT a Logos resource; however, I enjoyed reading part of The Jewish Encyclopedia and look forward to the time when it is in Logos.... http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7668-Hezekiah

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/479267#Comment_479267

Deleted by author in memory of Eccl 3:1-9

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/479390#Comment_479390

Peace! A Good One Indeed to remember! Thank you, Martha! *smile*

What Time is it???