Isaiah 9

[Ethan Bohr]

Hello everyone,

In my last post, I had a question about Immanuel, and it devolved into a lengthy discussion, something which is mostly my fault. I wish to not give a long-winded argument for my thoughts on this passage, but I'm wondering the thoughts of you on this passage in two regards (though any and all thoughts are welcome).

1. Do you guys think that the names in Isaiah 9 follow the common pattern of theophoric names? Or do the names describe the "Son"? For me, the names are preceded by a passive form of the verb qara' which seem to me to point to a divine passive ("he will be called" that is, by YHWH), which points to the names describing the "Son."

2. Do you think that this passage is about the distant future, an imminent birth, or both? If so, how would you show this through the language used in Isaiah 9?

Thanks!

[Kenneth Greifer]

Hello everyone,

In my last post, I had a question about Immanuel, and it devolved into a lengthy discussion, something which is mostly my fault. I wish to not give a long-winded argument for my thoughts on this passage, but I'm wondering the thoughts of you on this passage in two regards (though any and all thoughts are welcome).

1. Do you guys think that the names in Isaiah 9 follow the common pattern of theophoric names? Or do the names describe the "Son"? For me, the names are preceded by a passive form of the verb qara' which seem to me to point to a divine passive ("he will be called" that is, by YHWH), which points to the names describing the "Son."

2. Do you think that this passage is about the distant future, an imminent birth, or both? If so, how would you show this through the language used in Isaiah 9?

Thanks!

Ethan,
Are there other examples of "divine passive"? This is the first time I have ever heard of that phrase I am pretty sure.

[Ethan Bohr]

Kenneth writes,

Are there other examples of "divine passive"?

Notice the passive form (nifal) of the Hebrew verb סְלַ֥ח in Lev 4:20, 26. This is a divine passive. Only God can forgive sins against heaven!

[Jason Hare]

Will the next question be regarding Isaiah 53 and how everyone identifies the suffering servant? Aren’t these questions a little narrow? Is there hope that we will deal with passages that are not relevant to the division that exists between Christians and Jews as regards the identity of the Messiah and which passages are to be taken as messianic?

[Kenneth Greifer]

Ethan,
You are mostly preaching to the choir here because most of the people here agree with you. Only a few people probably disagree, and I don't know if they want to discuss the subject. I don't feel like discussing it.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Ethan,
If you were to present a case like last time about Isaiah 7:14 explaining what you believe and why, then I might be willing to try to respond, if I can, but I am not going to try to just answer your posting unless there is something to respond to.

[Jason Hare]

Will the next question be regarding Isaiah 53 and how everyone identifies the suffering servant? Aren’t these questions a little narrow? Is there hope that we will deal with passages that are not relevant to the division that exists between Christians and Jews as regards the identity of the Messiah and which passages are to be taken as messianic?

The reason I ask is because these are normally topics that are best avoided. We are all well aware of the passages themselves, and everyone has their own opinions. It does no good for any of us if I tell you that I don’t believe that Jesus (Yeshua, Yehoshua, Yahshua, Yahusha, ישוע‎, יהושע, Ἰησοῦς, Iesus, ܝܫܘܥ‎, يسوع‎, عيسى‎, etc.)* was the Messiah and that I read the passages otherwise. It just doesn’t do a bit of good. Why? You’ll counter with your best apologetics argument, then I’ll say why I think you’re wrong, and then it looks like I’m arguing against your faith position, and we all come out either as proselytizers or as deniers of faith. It isn’t pleasant, and it won’t go anywhere. If it is an argument that exists as the basis of our various faith positions—something that is unable to change without making someone abandon their faith—it isn’t appropriate for the forum. If, by whatever chance, I proved to you that Jesus wasn’t the Messiah, you would need to abandon your faith (I assume). If, on the other hand, you proved to me that Jesus was the Messiah, I would have to abandon my current faith position. We should have discussions that are able to be had and that can convince others without undermining their whole worldview, and we can thus respect that fact that people have different faiths (or positions on issues of faith).

* I put all of these forms since some people claim that they don’t believe in Jesus while saying that they believe in Yeshua. I want to be clear that I am including all of the possible names that they might be thinking of, whether an odd pronunciation of the Hebrew people can be pretty creative about that) or some Latin, Syriac, or Arabic pronunciation alternative.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Jason,
I think people can discuss any verse in the Hebrew Bible without getting into the details of religious beliefs. As long as you stick to grammar and word meanings, and maybe some basic details about prophecies and signs without any emotional reactions, I think it can be done. It is obvious that Ethan is not really mentioning any specific grammar or word meaning issues, so he is just trying to discuss something without saying what. If he mentions specific issues, then I think it would be fine. I don't agree with his religious beliefs, but I think it is fascinating to analyze how people understand verses differently. Have you ever actually analyzed how people explain verses and not just the verses themselves? It is interesting to see what they focus on and what they ignore and what they overlook, etc.

[Jason Hare]

Jason,
I think people can discuss any verse in the Hebrew Bible without getting into the details of religious beliefs. As long as you stick to grammar and word meanings, and maybe some basic details about prophecies and signs without any emotional reactions, I think it can be done. It is obvious that Ethan is not really mentioning any specific grammar or word meaning issues, so he is just trying to discuss something without saying what. If he mentions specific issues, then I think it would be fine. I don't agree with his religious beliefs, but I think it is fascinating to analyze how people understand verses differently. Have you ever actually analyzed how people explain verses and not just the verses themselves? It is interesting to see what they focus on and what they ignore and what they overlook, etc.

He’s not asking about the Hebrew language. He’s asking about how we personally identify the children in these verse—which is certainly limited by our religious perspectives and is not likely to be changed, as we saw in the discussion of Isaiah 7:14.

If the opening question is “Who is the child in Isaiah 9:5–6?”, we aren’t very well able to stay away from personal religious beliefs. A Jew is not able to say that they think it is referring to Jesus without converting to Christianity/Messianism, and I don’t know any Christians who are willing to say that they think it isn’t referring to Jesus. We can’t go very far with that discussion without what would seem to be argumentative posting. No matter what argument I might suggest regarding the identification of the child, I will be perceived as looking for arguments against the Christian interpretation. It’s happened to me a million times. It’s better just to avoid discussions of things that cannot lead anywhere other than to disagreement.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Jason,
I am not going to discuss anything with Ethan unless he actually asks a real question or discusses something specific. I think he will do that later on. I agree that these topics are really for religious debating, and I don't want to do that here or anywhere, but I am interested in hearing different interpretations.