|
Both the Trinitarian
and Modalist alike have turned to Isaiah 9:6 as a proof text for the
doctrines that they respectively represent. While the Trinitarian will
focus upon the words “Mighty God," the Modalist will appeal to the words
"Eternal Father" for support of their doctrine. The Trinitarian will
argue that Jesus is called Mighty God because he is a person of the
Mighty God that is Triune, while the Modalist will say that Jesus is the
Eternal Father because he is himself God the Father. Focusing on these
two points, neither conclusion is justified by the use of these titles.
The text of Isaiah 9:6 is wholly Messianic, and so the traditional view
of a Messianic text proves to be appropriate, where it is fulfilled in
the Messiah as a man.
In viewing these titles as Messianic in nature, he is identified as
Mighty God because of the position he holds as God's agent. (cf. Ex.
7:1; Psa. 82:6) Ones that were sent by God to carry out a role
designated by him are at times identified as gods themselves. Jesus, as
the greatest of these divine agents, would naturally have had the title
of "god" enhanced to demonstrate the superiority of his position
relative to these others, and so he would be called "Mighty God."
For the title of
Eternal Father, this is quite naturally taken to refer to Jesus' role as
the last Adam. (1Cor. 15:45) The first Adam is the father of us all. He
has given us all life, but it is a temporary, sinful life. On the other
hand, by his sacrifice, Jesus has given us life as well. This life is
an eternal life, and so he would appropriately be identified as our
eternal Father.
It is worth noting that
many have understood this text quite differently, observing that the Hebrew
is not necessarily explicit. For example, the Interpreter's One-Volume
Commentary states: “Over this reestablished Davidic kingdom there will
rule an ideal king, who is acclaimed as a ‘wonder of a counselor,’ one
whose counsel will be effective for his people’s wellbeing; a ‘divine
[i.e. hero] warrior’; ‘father [of his people] from of old’ (or perhaps
‘father of plunder,’ who by his conquests brings benefits to them); and
a ‘prince who brings prosperity.”
[brackets within the text are original]
Understanding this text
to tell us something about Jesus leads one to conclude neither Modalism
nor Trinitarianism. While this passage certainly does not conflict with
these teachings, it can hardly be considered a proof of either
position. As is clearly evident, there are other interpretations that
are just as, if not more, reasonable. But perhaps none of these
interpretations are best suited for this passage..
A Second Look
Isaiah 9:6 has traditionally been understood as a description of the
Messiah, and this need not be objected to theologically. The language of
Isaiah 9:6 is perfectly acceptable for Jesus outside of the Trinitarian
and Modalistic doctrines. Nevertheless, a closer look at what is
actually defined within the text reveals a potential need to reconsider
the traditional understanding of this verse.
Within the traditional
understanding of Isaiah 9:6 that we have already discussed, the text is
understood to be providing a series of titles that describe the Messiah.
He is described as being the Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father and the Prince of Peace. While such descriptions of
the Messiah need not be considered inappropriate, a closer look at the text
reveals that this is not what is being stated at all.
Immediately before
these titles are provided we note that the text reads, "his name will be
called." Key to the text is the word “name,” which here is singular. The
traditional interpretation of the words typically ignores the fact that
this is a single name, not a series of titles or positions held.
Within chapters 7 and 8
of Isaiah we find that three prophetic names are used on 5 separate
occasions. There is one occurrence of the name
Shear-jashub, meaning
The Remnant Shall Return. (Isa. 7:3) Twice the name Immanuel is used,
meaning With Us is God (Isa. 7:14; 8:8), and the name Maher-shalal-hash-baz
is also used on two occasions, meaning Swift is the Booty, Speedy is the
Prey. (Isa. 8:1, 3) How are these names significant?
When applied, each of these names took on a prophetic purpose, telling
of something significant about what was to come. These names were not
descriptions of the children to whom they were given. For example, on
the name Shear-jashub, Gill explains: “[The] name signifies ‘the remnant
shall return’, and who was taken with the prophet, to suggest either
that the remnant that were left of the former devastations by those two
kings ought to return to the Lord by repentance; or that though the
people of Judah should hereafter be carried captive by the Assyrians,
yet a remnant should return again.”
Similarly, the name
Maher-shalal-hash-baz
is not a description of Isaiah's son. We would not say that "swift is
the booty, speed is the prey" is a description of anyone. Rather, the
child was given this name as a divine symbol. Barnes states: “The
idea is, that the Assyrian would hasten to his plunder - that it would
be accomplished with speed. This name was to be given to a child of
Isaiah; and this child was to be a sign of the event which was signified
by the name…”
Immanuel proves more interesting, for Isaiah 7:14 has a prophetic
fulfillment outside of Isaiah’s Son, with the Messiah. (Matt. 1:23)
Many have argued that because the name means “With us is God,” Jesus was
the God that was with them. This interpretation would be inconsistent
with the application of the name to Isaiah’s son and the use of other
Hebrew names.
We
know from the words of the angel in Luke that God was already with Mary
before she had conceived Jesus. (Luk. 1:28) So to say that God was
with her or the Jewish people did not require a physical presence. In
explaining the meaning of the name as applied to Isaiah’s son, Barnes
appropriately interprets the meaning of the name as applied to the
Messiah, though inconsistently he provides another interpretation for
the name when applied to the Messiah, showing a biased method of
interpretation. He relates: “The name is designed to denote that God
would be with the nation as its protector, and the birth of this child
would be a sign or pledge of it. The mere circumstance that this name is
given, however, does not imply anything in regard to the nature or rank
of the child, for nothing was more common among the Jews than to
incorporate the name, or a part of the name, of the Deity with the names
which they gave to their children.”
It
is hardly plausible that the name, as given to the Messiah, meant that
the Messiah was this God. This would prove inconsistent with how Jewish
names were given. In fact, Barnes goes on to note this very point:
“Thus, ‘Isaiah’ denotes the salvation of Yahweh; ‘Jeremiah,’ the
exaltation or grandeur of Yahweh, each compounded of two words, in which
the name Yahweh constitutes a part. Thus, also in ‘Elijah,’ the two
names of God are combined, and it means literally, ‘God the Yahweh.’
Thus, also ‘Eliab,’ God my father; ‘Eliada,’ knowledge of God; ‘Eliakim,’
the resurrection of God; ‘Elihu,’ he is my God; ‘Elisha,’ salvation of
God. In none of these instances is the fact, that the name of God is
incorporated with the proper name of the individual, any argument in
respect to his rank or character.”
In
the case of Immanuel, the name served to show that God was with his
people. He was not physically in their presence, but he was watching
over them and directing events, as it became necessary. The name
revealed something, as with the other names that have been discussed.
Just as Barnes noted with numerous other names, this name also does not
describe the child.
Reflecting upon these
points, two serious questions become apparent. First, on what ground can
we argue that Isaiah 9:6 is a description of the child when the text
explicitly states that it is his name? Second, as his name, can we
justify taking the use within this one text as a description when five
other texts present prophetic names that are not considered
descriptions? Little can be said to justify the traditional
interpretation. In fact, it seems appropriate to apply Barnes words to
the name provided within Isaiah 9:6 as well, for we can reasonably say
that it “does not
imply anything in regard to the nature or rank of the child.”
Within the context of
Isaiah, it is certainly more natural for us to understand the text to be
providing what it says that it provides, which is a name, not a
description. The Jewish Publication Society's 1917 edition translates
it accordingly.
Isaiah 9:6 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;
The Jewish Study Bible
makes a comment in line with the observations we have herein noted. It
states: "'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 (Is 39:1) means 'the god
Marduk has provided a 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."
If we accept that the
name was to have prophetic significance, what did the name mean? We
will note that the name was never one assigned to the child at his
birth, but it was understood to apply by his follower prophetically.
The purpose of the name was to show that he was sent with divine
authority. Specifically, it would show the truth of what is stated in
Micah 5:4: “He will stand… in the majesty of the name of Jehovah his
God.” The description of Isaiah 9:6 speaks of “the majesty of the name
of Jehovah.” This name, as with many other Hebrew names, shows
Jehovah’s exalted position, with him being the one to fill the roles
described by the Messiah’s name.
The name was to glorify God, the one that sent the Messiah to save his
people. (Joh. 17:26)
|
