How to respond to jewish criticisms

[Anna_Scott]

Wow, look where this thread went. Lemme see if I can answer some questions…

You did good, Mr. Wolf.

Will add: The O.T. speaks of the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Lord, and the Holy Spirit, and God’s presence.

Genesis 1:2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

Genesis 41:38 And Pharaoh said to his servants, “Can we find a man like this, in whom is the Spirit of God?”

Exodus 31:3 and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with ability and intelligence, with knowledge and all craftsmanship,

Exodus 35:31 and he has filled him with the Spirit of God, with skill, with intelligence, with knowledge, and with all craftsmanship,

Numbers 24:2 And Balaam lifted up his eyes and saw Israel camping tribe by tribe. And the Spirit of God came upon him,

1 Samuel 10:10 When they came to Gibeah, behold, a group of prophets met him, and the Spirit of God rushed upon him, and he prophesied among them.

1 Samuel 11:6 And the Spirit of God rushed upon Saul when he heard these words, and his anger was greatly kindled.

1 Samuel 19:20 Then Saul sent messengers to take David, and when they saw the company of the prophets prophesying, and Samuel standing as head over them, the Spirit of God came upon the messengers of Saul, and they also prophesied.

1 Samuel 19:23 And he went there to Naioth in Ramah. And the Spirit of God came upon him also, and as he went he prophesied until he came to Naioth in Ramah.

2 Chronicles 15:1 Asa’s Religious Reforms ] The Spirit of God came upon Azariah the son of Oded,

2 Chronicles 24:20 Joash’s Treachery ] Then the Spirit of God clothed Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, and he stood above the people, and said to them, “Thus says God, ‘Why do you break the commandments of the Lord, so that you cannot prosper? Because you have forsaken the Lord, he has forsaken you.’”

Job 27:3 as long as my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils,

Job 33:4 The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.

Ezekiel 11:24 And the Spirit lifted me up and brought me in the vision by the Spirit of God into Chaldea, to the exiles. Then the vision that I had seen went up from me.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Spirit of the Lord:

Judges 3:10 The Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and he judged Israel. He went out to war, and the Lord gave Cushan-rishathaim king of Mesopotamia into his hand. And his hand prevailed over Cushan-rishathaim.

See also:
Judges 6:34; Judges 11:29; Judges 13:25; Judges 14:6; Judges 14:19;
**
1 Samuel 10:6;1 Samuel 16:13; 1 Samuel 16:14; 2 Samuel 23:2;
**
1 Kings 18:12;1 Kings 22:24; 2 Kings 2:16;
**
2 Chronicles 18:23;2 Chronicles 20:14**
**
Isaiah 11:2; Isaiah 40:13; Isaiah 61:1; Isaiah 63:14
**
Ezekiel 11:5; Ezekiel 37:1; Micah 3:8

 

[Anna_Scott]

Holy Spirit:

Psalm 51:11 Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your Holy Spirit from me.

Isaiah 63:10 But they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit; therefore he turned to be their enemy, and himself fought against them.

Isaiah 63:11 Then he remembered the days of old, of Moses and his people. Where is he who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of his flock? Where is he who put in the midst of them his Holy Spirit.

The presence of God is also found in numerous places.

My point is that God chooses the way in which He manifests Himself.

Anna

 

[Candescent]

Wow, look where this thread went. Lemme see if I can answer some questions…
. Christ was fully man and fully God, and in the garden was experiencing human fear and worry about what was about to unfold. As a man, Christ endured every temptation one could feel, and that includes fear, worry and doubt, but as God, Christ submitted all to the divine plan for man’s salvation.
.

Everyone keeps saying- Christ* was* fully human and fully divine, past tense. Is he considered by Catholics to no longer be fully human after the resurrection?

 

[brumano]

Well if we put aside the implication that the Jews are too feeble minded to understand their own scriptures or that Jews are so character flawed that they unable or unwilling to acknowledge the obvious truth of Christian beliefs, where does that leave us?

The Christian scriptures teaches that God judges the world through faith in Jesus who Christians believe is the Jewish Messiah ben David. However, there is not a single verse in the Jewish scriptures that mentions the concept of faith in the Messiah ben David for personal salvation. There is not a single verse in the Jewish scriptures that says or implies that belief or faith in the Messiah ben David will have any personal redemptive value whatsoever. The Jewish scriptures has no concept that the Messiah ben David is coming to die for our sins, to save us, or to do any of the things that Christians attribute to Jesus.

 

[Tomdstone]

Wow, look where this thread went. Lemme see if I can answer some questions…

No, because the very nature, design and intention of God did not change. When God the Son took human flesh, he maintained his deity and power, but humbled himself into human form, as Philippians 2 wonderfully explains. This is what is known in Christianity as the hypostatic union. When God the Son took on flesh, he did not transform from deity into humanity sans deity.

The Persons within the Trinity all have various roles and places in the act of salvation and their functions, in regards to eschatology (known among Eastern Fathers as the “monarchical” structure of the Trinity). Part of the role of God the Father, as the one who “sends out,” is to know the day and the hour.

Read the whole context, and understand what Christ is stating. He has just given clear Trinitarian language (v. 26 - God the Father will send God the Holy Spirit to remind the apostles of all God the Son has taught them) and is talking about his soon-to-be absence from them, which he knows will give them some grief and alarm. Albert Barnes explains it best:

The object of Jesus here is not to compare his nature with that of the Father, but his condition. Ye would rejoice that I am to leave this state of suffering and humiliation, and resume that glory which I had with the Father before the world was. You ought to rejoice at my exaltation to bliss and glory with the Father (Professor Stuart). The object of this expression is to console the disciples in view of his absence. This he does by saying that if he goes away, the Holy Spirit will descend, and great success will attend the preaching of the gospel, John 16:7-10. In the plan of salvation the Father is represented as giving the Son, the Holy Spirit, and the various blessings of the gospel. As the Appointer, the Giver, the Originator, he may be represented as in office superior to the Son and the Holy Spirit. The discourse has no reference, manifestly, to the nature of Christ, and cannot therefore be adduced to prove that he is not divine. Its whole connection demands that we interpret it as relating solely to the imparting of the blessings connected with redemption, in which the Son is represented all along as having been sent or given, and in this respect as sustaining a relation subordinate to the Father.

God is one in a Trinity. As stated earlier in the thread, Trinitarianism does not deny monotheism. The very word “trinity” is merely a combination of the words “tri” and “unity.”

Ugh - sorry, bad flashbacks to Muslim threads. I would highly suggest reading the entire chapter - Christ equates himself on equal with the Father, and says they have equal powers in many regards. When he says “by myself I can do nothing,” he is not saying he’s useless by himself, but that he and the Father work together in what is clearly Trinitarian language.

They did will the same thing, hence Christ says that the will of the Father should be what becomes the ultimate factor. Christ was fully man and fully God, and in the garden was experiencing human fear and worry about what was about to unfold. As a man, Christ endured every temptation one could feel, and that includes fear, worry and doubt, but as God, Christ submitted all to the divine plan for man’s salvation.

There have been wonderful Christian expositions about Christ’s prayer in the garden, and I would highly encourage reading many of them. The one by Fulton Sheen is one that comes to mind.

This is difficult to understand. If Jesus is God, then He is all-knowing. But He says that He does not know the hour?

 

[CopticChristian]

This is difficult to understand. If Jesus is God, then He is all-knowing. But He says that He does not know the hour?

Tom,

I see this and ask, is this in His humanity or in His divinity?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

This is difficult to understand. If Jesus is God, then He is all-knowing. But He says that He does not know the hour?

Again, are we going from a presupposition of Unitarianism, where Jesus is God sans the Father and Holy Spirit, or are we going from the presupposition of Trinitarianism, with the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and each functioning as different roles that compliment their place within the Being of God? Each Person, while being united in essence, serves a different role in conjunction with the roles of other Persons. One of God the Father’s role is to send out and call, and hence the knowledge of the hour is exclusive to him.

This is also part of God the Son’s humility, when he took on flesh and lowered himself so that his sheep may be magnified (see Philippians 2:5-11).

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’m bumping Post #63 forward in quote below. Chosen People gave a response to this post. I’m still hoping for Christians responses.

"I know that Christians and Jews have serious disagreements regarding Isaiah 7:14, known to Christians as the Virgin prophesy.

Apart from the issue of the word “virgin,” there is also the issue of context within Isaiah, and a time frame for the fulfillment of events.

A Jewish perspective:
Dual Prophecy’ and the Virgin Birth
". . .The Bible relates that the House of David and King Ahaz were gripped with fear. Accordingly, God sent the prophet Isaiah to reassure King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand – the Almighty would protect him, the deliverance of his citizens was assured, and the formidable armies of Syria and the Northern Kingdom of Israel would fail in their attempt to subjugate Jerusalem, . .

**. . . it becomes clear that this prophecy was fulfilled contemporaneously, when both kings, Pekah and Retsin, were assassinated. **It is clear from the context of Isaiah’s seventh chapter that the child born in Isaiah 7:14 is not Jesus or any future virgin birth. Rather, it is referring to the divine protection that King Ahaz and his people would enjoy during the Syro-Ephraimite War."
© Copyright Tovia Singer 2011

---

Isaiah 7:
10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, saying, 11 Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven. 12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test. 13 Then Isaiahd] said: “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary mortals, that you weary my God also? ** 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young womane**] is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.f] 15 He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.

1**6 ****For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. ****

17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”**

18 On that day the Lord will whistle for the fly that is at the sources of the streams of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. 19 And they will all come and settle in the steep ravines, and in the clefts of the rocks, and on all the thornbushes, and on all the pastures. . . .

---

If the Isaiah prophesy was fulfilled in the birth of Jesus, when did the events described to King Ahaz happen?"

---

Thanks,
Anna

 

[mercytruth]

I’m bumping Post #63 forward in quote below. Chosen People gave a response to this post. I’m still hoping for Christians responses.

"I know that Christians and Jews have serious disagreements regarding Isaiah 7:14, known to Christians as the Virgin prophesy.

Apart from the issue of the word “virgin,” there is also the issue of context within Isaiah, and a time frame for the fulfillment of events.

A Jewish perspective:
Dual Prophecy’ and the Virgin Birth
". . .The Bible relates that the House of David and King Ahaz were gripped with fear. Accordingly, God sent the prophet Isaiah to reassure King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand – the Almighty would protect him, the deliverance of his citizens was assured, and the formidable armies of Syria and the Northern Kingdom of Israel would fail in their attempt to subjugate Jerusalem, . .

**. . . it becomes clear that this prophecy was fulfilled contemporaneously, when both kings, Pekah and Retsin, were assassinated. **It is clear from the context of Isaiah’s seventh chapter that the child born in Isaiah 7:14 is not Jesus or any future virgin birth. Rather, it is referring to the divine protection that King Ahaz and his people would enjoy during the Syro-Ephraimite War."
© Copyright Tovia Singer 2011

---

Isaiah 7:
10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, saying, 11 Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven. 12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test. 13 Then Isaiahd] said: “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary mortals, that you weary my God also? ** 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young womane**] is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.f] 15 He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.

1**6 ****For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. ****

17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”**

18 On that day the Lord will whistle for the fly that is at the sources of the streams of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. 19 And they will all come and settle in the steep ravines, and in the clefts of the rocks, and on all the thornbushes, and on all the pastures. . . .

---

If the Isaiah prophesy was fulfilled in the birth of Jesus, when did the events described to King Ahaz happen?"

---

Thanks,
Anna

King Hezekiah, son of King Ahaz yet to be born, was considered to be a type of the
‘Messiah’. During the reign of King Hezekiah, the Assyrian Empire under Sennacharib invaded Israel and then surrounded Jerusalem threatening to destroy her. King Hezekiah aprayed to God and during the night the ‘angel of the Lord’ destroyed 185, 000 foot soldiers of the Assyrian army.

And Hezekiah prayed before the Lord and said: “O Lord, the God of Israel, enthroned above the cherubim, you are the God, you alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; you have made heaven and earth. Incline your ear, O Lord, and hear; open your eyes, O Lord, and see; and hear the words of Sennacherib, which he has sent to mock the living God. Truly, O Lord, the kings of Assyria have laid waste the nations and their lands and have cast their gods into the fire, for they were not gods, but the work of men’s hands, wood and stone. Therefore they were destroyed. So now, O Lord our God, save us, please, from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you, O Lord, are God alone.” (2 kings 19:15-20)

Inserted between these two texts from 2 Kings 19, there is a prophecy and a sign given to King Hezekiah.

And that night the angel of the Lord went out and struck down 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians. And when people arose early in the morning, behold, these were all dead bodies. Then Sennacherib king of Assyria departed and went home and lived at Nineveh. And as he was worshiping in the house of Nisroch his god, Adrammelech and Sharezer, his sons, struck him down with the sword and escaped into the land of Ararat. And Esarhaddon his son reigned in his place. (2 Kings 19:35-36)

The Jewish scholars have legitimate responses to many of our assertions,
it takes faith and the Holy Spirit to sort through them.

God’s peace

micah

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Many Christian scholars and theologians recognize that Isaiah 7:14 has some relevance to the contemporary hearers, but likewise refers to Messianic prophecies as well. One explanation of this from the Christian perspective is by James White, and was (I believe) one of his sermon podcasts, available for free online.

Certainly some of the more contemporary explanations have problems. For example, if the passage refers to Hezekiah, then we have issues because of the date of Hezekiah’s birth:

1. 2 Ki 16:2 states that Ahaz was 20-years old when he became king, and reigned sixteen years, which meant he would be 36-years old when he died.
2. 2 Ki 18:2 states that Hezekiah was 25-years old when he took the throne from his father. This would mean that Ahaz was about 11-years old when Hezekiah was born. This might sound amazing to us in a day and age where most people don’t have kids until their mid to late 20’s, but it isn’t impossible, given royalty often married young and girls hit their menstrual cycle around 12-13 years, and can possibly hit it younger. There are recorded instances in history of people at age 10 or 11 giving birth to children.

If these two facts are true, then the youngest Hezekiah could have been when this prophecy was given was 8-9 years old! In short, he was already born. Isaiah is saying “a virgin shall conceive,” not “a virgin did conceive.” Even if someone wants to argue the chroniclers were off by a few years, the fact remains that Hezekiah had to have already been around when Isaiah gave this prophecy.

It must also be remembered that the word here (almah) often translated as “virgin” or even “young woman” conveys a young woman who is of marriage age but has not yet had sexual relations, as the word is often used throughout the Old Testament (examining the contexts). This is why in both the Septuagint and the Chaldee Targum, the translators rendered it for the word for virgin. It was somewhere between a pure virgin (bethulah) and a young woman who is married (callah). Grammatically speaking, Isaiah is conveying a future pregnancy of a young woman, and therefore could not be referring to a pregnant woman at that moment, let alone someone who was either his wife (as some commentators say) or Ahaz’s wife (as others believe).

We have to also go forward to chapter nine, where we are told “for a child will be born to us” (v. 5), and are then told several traits of this child:

1. The government shall be on his shoulders
2. He shall be called:
   a) Wonderful Counselor
   b) Mighty God
   c) Eternal Father (also Father of Eternity)
   d) Prince of Peace
3. There will be no end to the increase of his government or peace (v. 6-7)

If Isaiah’s prophecy solely refers to contemporary fulfillment, then who, during the time of ancient Israel, could be possibly called “Mighty God” and “Father of Eternity”?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Yes, subject of course to the different definition and concept not only of God but also to the different concept and definition of monotheism.

While Judaism challenged and debated within itself in forming the concept of monotheism (e.g.Satan in the story of Job) the final accepted concept of monotheism in Judaism is quite clear. This definition precludes and in some ways is antithetical to concepts in Christianity.

In the realm of the Jewish God there are no independent self willed entities, certainly no powerful entity in battle with God. An angel sent by God (including Satan) is merely a messenger carrying out the will of God.

In the realm of earth, no human being can ever be perfect or venerated above other human beings, no matter how close they are to God. In the Jewish scriptures every figure is presented complete with all their imperfections. It is not by chance that the burial place of Moses is unknown.

Chosen People,

In posts 78, 79, 80, I posted passages regarding the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Lord, the Holy Spirit, and God’s presence. I was just wondering how you see these references to God and the way in which He manifests Himself.

Also, what is the Jewish understanding of the appearances of HaShem to the following people? In what way did He manifest Himself?

**Abraham And Sarah At Mamre **Gereshit - Genesis 18:1-33

Hagar Bereshit - Genesis 16:9-13

**Jacob At Peniel ****Bereshit Genesis 32:24-43 **Did Jacob truly wrestle with God?

**Moses In The Burning Bush Shemot- Exodus 3:2-4;17

****Gideon Shoftim - Judges 6:11-24

---

Samson’s Parents Shoftim - Judges 13:2-23

In The Fiery Furnace Daniel 3:23-29
**
The Holy Scriptures - The Tanakh

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/copyrightGraphic.gif

---

Looking forward to hearing your perspective.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

 

[mercytruth]

Many Christian scholars and theologians recognize that Isaiah 7:14 has some relevance to the contemporary hearers, but likewise refers to Messianic prophecies as well. One that comes to mind is by James White, and was (I believe) one of his sermon podcasts, available for free online.

Certainly some of the more contemporary explanations have problems. For example, if the passage refers to Hezekiah, then we have issues because of the date of Hezekiah’s birth:

1. 2 Ki 16:2 states that Ahaz was 20-years old when he became king, and reigned sixteen years, which meant he would be 36-years old when he died.
2. 2 Ki 18:2 states that Hezekiah was 25-years old when he took the throne from his father. This would mean that Ahaz was about 11-years old when Hezekiah was born. This might sound amazing to us in a day and age where most people don’t have kids until their mid to late 20’s, but it isn’t impossible, given royalty often married young and girls hit their menstrual cycle around 12-13 years, and can possibly hit it younger. There are recorded instances in history of people at age 10 or 11 giving birth to children.

If these two facts are true, then the youngest Hezekiah could have been when this prophecy was given was 8-9 years old! In short, he was already born. Isaiah is saying “a virgin shall conceive,” not “a virgin did conceive.” Even if someone wants to argue the chroniclers were off by a few years, the fact remains that Hezekiah had to have already been around when Isaiah gave this prophecy.

It must also be remembered that the word here (almah) often translated as “virgin” or even “young woman” conveys a young woman who is of marriage age but has not yet had sexual relations, as the word is often used throughout the Old Testament (examining the contexts). This is why in both the Septuagint and the Chaldee Targum, the translators rendered it for the word for virgin. It was somewhere between a pure virgin (bethulah) and a young woman who is married (callah). Grammatically speaking, Isaiah is conveying a future pregnancy of a young woman, and therefore could not be referring to a pregnant woman at that moment, let alone someone who was either his wife (as some commentators say) or Ahaz’s wife (as others believe).

We have to also go forward to chapter nine, where we are told “for a child will be born to us” (v. 5), and are then told several traits of this child:

1. The government shall be on his shoulders
2. He shall be called:
   a) Wonderful Counselor
   b) Mighty God
   c) Eternal Father (also Father of Eternity)
   d) Prince of Peace
3. There will be no end to the increase of his government or peace (v. 6-7)

If Isaiah’s prophecy solely refers to contemporary fulfillment, then who, during the time of ancient Israel, could be possibly called “Mighty God” and “Father of Eternity”?

There is the irony of the woman whom Hezekiah married and bore a son. Her name was
Hephzibah.. (2 Kings 21:2). If King Hezekiah is a ‘type’ of Messiah, then being married to Hephzibah. has some sort of significance since this name is mentioned only one other time in the Tanakh. It is in Isaiah 62:1-5:

For Zion’s sake I will not keep silent,
for Jerusalem’s sake I will not remain quiet,
till her vindication shines out like the dawn,
her salvation like a blazing torch.
2 The nations will see your vindication,
and all kings your glory;
you will be called by a new name
that the mouth of the Lord will bestow.
3 You will be a crown of splendor in the Lord’s hand,
a royal diadem in the hand of your God.
4 No longer will they call you Deserted,
or name your land Desolate.
But you will be called Hephzibah,
and your land Beulah;
for the Lord will take delight in you,
and your land will be married.
5 As a young man marries a young woman,
so will your Builder marry you;
as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride,
so will your God rejoice over you.

Thus, the ‘Builder’ could be considered the Messiah, and Jerusalem could be considered the bride, ‘Hephzibah’. This would have significance to Christianity if Jerusalem is considered the bride of Christ, who is the Builder. It could also have significance to the Jewish people if the Builder is their Messiah who will be married to the restored land of Israel.

God’s peace

micah

 

[Tomdstone]

Again, are we going from a presupposition of Unitarianism, where Jesus is God sans the Father and Holy Spirit, or are we going from the presupposition of Trinitarianism, with the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and each functioning as different roles that compliment their place within the Being of God? Each Person, while being united in essence, serves a different role in conjunction with the roles of other Persons. One of God the Father’s role is to send out and call, and hence the knowledge of the hour is exclusive to him.

This is also part of God the Son’s humility, when he took on flesh and lowered himself so that his sheep may be magnified (see Philippians 2:5-11).

Is God the Son all-knowing?

 

[1AugustSon7]

I would agree that, if you start with the New Testament, then you can find echoes of all sorts in the Tanakh (Old Testament to you), that’s inevitable, it was constructed that way and that’s where Christian/Jewish dialogue tends to break down - irresistible force, immovable object.

Weird. I see it the other way around: the New Testament only makes sense, and really opens up, when the Tanakh and Jewish culture - especially as expressed in its liturgical life - is understood as the sort of backdrop and context of everything said or recorded in the NT. At that point you start to see more clearly, e.g., the Evangelists’ perspective of Jesus as (at least beginnings of) the New Creation.

Either you believe that the New Testament is ‘reportage’ and a ‘Sacred Text’ or you don’t. You do, I don’t. For a couple of thousand years, the argument has gone on and it goes nowhere.

I don’t know if it’s right to say that it goes “nowhere”; certainly things can be learned, unless the argument is in a strictly adversarial context where no one is really listening. I do agree with your statement, though, that either you believe you’re hearing the word of God in the NT or you don’t: i.e., that it boils down to belief. For Christians, the best we can do - and we are all expected to do it - is be ready to produce or provide a reason for (that) believing, which is oberved by others by the change in character or attitude/outlook that corresponds to the idea of a ‘lively hope’. That reason is sufficient for us; not necessarily compelling or even necessarily very logical or reasonable to another (insufficient grounds, so to speak).

 

[Anna_Scott]

Mr. Wolf,

Lots of information in your post. Will start here.

. . .We have to also go forward to chapter nine, where we are told “for a child will be born to us” (v. 5), and are then told several traits of this child:

1. The government shall be on his shoulders
2. He shall be called:a) Wonderful Counselor
   b) Mighty God
   c) Eternal Father (also Father of Eternity)
   d) Prince of Peace3) There will be no end to the increase of his government or peace (v. 6-7)

If Isaiah’s prophecy solely refers to contemporary fulfillment, then who, during the time of ancient Israel, could be possibly called “Mighty God” and “Father of Eternity”?

Probably none according to this translation.

To be fair, I have found numerous Jewish commentaries which claim Christians have mistranslated the passage or misunderstood the passage–that it is about a past event, not a future event.

One example: 1 – IS IT MESSIANIC OR HISTORICAL?2

1. Isaiah 9:5 – Version A
   Table IV.B-1 – Hebrew text and Version A of English translation

Jewish Translation from the Hebrew
For a child has been born to us, a son has been
given to us, and the authority was placed upon
his shoulder, and [He, the] Wondrous Adviser,
Mighty God, Eternal Father/Patron, called his
name: Ruler of Peace;

Hebrew Text
כִּי־יֶלֶד יֻלַּד־לָנוּ בֵּן נִתַּן־לָנוּ וַתְּהִי
הַמִּשְׂרָה עַל־שִׁכְמוֹ וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פֶּלֶא
יוֹעֵץ אֵל גִּבּוֹר אֲבִי־עַד שַׂר־שָׁלוֹם׃

Copyright © Uri Yosef, PhD, 2001-2011 for the Messiah Truth Project, Inc.
All rights reserved

---

I was surprised to find The Holy Scriptures - The Tanakh contains a translation in close agreement with the *Christian *translations:

Isaiah 9:
1 The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; they that dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.

2 Thou hast multiplied the nation, Thou hast increased their joy; they joy before Thee according to the joy in harvest, as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.

3 For the yoke of his burden, and the staff of his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, Thou hast broken as in the day of Midian.

4 For every boot stamped with fierceness, and every cloak rolled in blood, shall even be for burning, for fuel of fire.

5 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;

6 That the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it through justice and through righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of HaShem of hosts doth perform this.

See Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom (**“Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace”) **Jewish Virtual Library, Eschatology

Of course, I agree with your comments.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Many Christian scholars and theologians recognize that Isaiah 7:14 has some relevance to the contemporary hearers, but likewise refers to Messianic prophecies as well.

One Jewish perspective:

**
Dual Prophecy’ and the Virgin Birth**
". . .The Bible relates that the House of David and King Ahaz were gripped with fear. Accordingly, God sent the prophet Isaiah to reassure King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand – the Almighty would protect him, the deliverance of his citizens was assured, and the formidable armies of Syria and the Northern Kingdom of Israel would fail in their attempt to subjugate Jerusalem, . .

**. . . it becomes clear that this prophecy was fulfilled contemporaneously, when both kings, Pekah and Retsin, were assassinated. **It is clear from the context of Isaiah’s seventh chapter that the child born in Isaiah 7:14 is not Jesus or any future virgin birth. Rather, it is referring to the divine protection that King Ahaz and his people would enjoy during the Syro-Ephraimite War."
© Copyright Tovia Singer 2011

What concerns me about this prophesy is that the birth and age of the child provides a time frame for events yet to come–specifically "the land before whose two kings** Ahaz was in dread would be deserted. . . .(Isaiah 7 goes on with extensive description.)**

Isaiah 7:
10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, saying, 11 Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven. 12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test. 13 Then Isaiahd] said: “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary mortals, that you weary my God also? ** 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young womane**] is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.f] 15 He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.

1**6 ****For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. ****

17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”**

18 On that day the Lord will whistle for the fly that is at the sources of the streams of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. 19 And they will all come and settle in the steep ravines, and in the clefts of the rocks, and on all the thornbushes, and on all the pastures. . . .

Of course, the frequently asked question: How would future events be a sign to King Ahaz? By the birth and childhood of Jesus, King Ahaz was long dead and would not have received the sign promised to him.

**As I asked before, if the Isaiah prophesy was fulfilled in the birth of Jesus, when did the events described to King Ahaz happen?
**
Anna

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Is God the Son all-knowing?

God the Son has extensive knowledge, as was seen during Christ’s life, such as when he knew what was lying in the hearts of the Pharisees (Mt 9:4, etc.) or when he already knew who truly believed in him and who did not (cf. Jn 6:64). However, as I’ve said twice before now, God the Son has his specific role within the Trinity, and part of that is submission and humility, and part of that humility is not knowing the day and hour of God the Father’s date for the second coming. As part of God the Father’s role is the “sending out”, so to speak, this includes knowledge of the date for the resurrection and final judgment.

Your presupposition seems to be that all Persons within the Trinity have to have equal knowledge and ability in order to all be equal. This just isn’t the case. God the Father did not take on flesh and submit himself before the Law , but that does not deny his divinity. God the Father did not come after Christ’s ascension and grant strength and knowledge to the apostles at Pentecost, but that does not deny his divinity. If we’re going to pick and choose what makes belief in a Trinitarian Person’s divinity, let’s at least be consistent.

Probably none according to this translation.

To be fair, I have found numerous Jewish commentaries which claim Christians have mistranslated the passage or misunderstood the passage–that it is about a past event, not a future event.

Let us say, for the sake of discussion, that this is actually a past tense. We then come into two issues:

1. Who does it refer to? Contextually, it appears to be referring back to Isaiah 7:14, which is about a future event. Yet if it’s about a past event, who then was the child born to “us” who was Mighty God and Father of Eternity?
2. If it’s speaking past tense, or even present tense, how is this not a common prophetic language where a future event is described as happening in the past or here and now, not because of the historical timing but because of the surety of the event occurring? This is a common practice in prophetic language.

**As I asked before, if the Isaiah prophesy was fulfilled in the birth of Jesus, when did the events described to King Ahaz happen?
**

I did not ignore the original question - what I did say was that many Christians are aware of the possibility of a historical or contemporary fulfillment (many even make mention of the two kings). Albert Barnes, who I quoted to earlier, admits in his commentaries that he originally held the belief that Isa 7:14 had nothing to do with the Messiah, but after a careful study came to the conclusion it did. Part of his explanation was that Isaiah was, as he often did, looking at present conditions while also prophesying of future events. A section from his commentary (the whole section is worth reading):

The reference to the Messiah in the prophecy accords with the “general strain and manner” of Isaiah. It is in accordance with his custom, at the mention of some occurrence or deliverance which is soon to take place, to suffer the mind to fix ultimately on the more remote event of the “same general character,” or lying, so to speak, “in the same range of vision” and of thought; see the Introduction, Section 7. It is also the custom of Isaiah to hold up to prominent view the idea that the nation would not be ultimately destroyed until the great Deliverer should come; that it was safe amidst all revolutions; that vitality would remain like that of a tree in the depth of winter, when all the leaves are stripped off Isaiah 6:13; and that all their enemies would be destroyed, and the true people of God be ultimately secure and safe under their great Deliverer; see the notes at Isaiah 34; Isaiah 35:1-10.

It is true, that this argument will not be “very” striking except to one who has attentively studied this prophecy; but it is believed, that no one can profoundly and carefully examine the manner of Isaiah, without being struck with it as a very important feature of his mode of communicating truth. In accordance with this, the prophecy before us means, that the nation was safe from this invasion. Ahaz feared the extinction of his kingdom, and the “permanent” annexation of Jerusalem to Syria and Samaria. Isaiah told him that that could not occur; and proffered a demonstration, that in “a very few years” the land would be forsaken of both its kings. “On another ground also it could not be.” The people of God were safe. His kingdom could not be permanently destroyed. It must continue until the Messiah should come, and the eye of the prophet, in accordance with his usual custom, glanced to that future event, and he became “totally” absorbed in its contemplation, and the prophecy is finished Isaiah 9:1-7 by a description of the characteristics of the light that he saw in future times rising in dark Galilee Isaiah 9:1-2, and of the child that should be born of a virgin then.

In accordance with the same view, we may remark, as Lowth has done, that to a people accustomed to look for a great Deliverer; that had fixed their hopes on one who was to sit on the throne of David, the “language” which Isaiah used here would naturally suggest the idea of a Messiah. It was so animated, so ill adapted to describe his own son, and so suited to convey the idea of a most remarkable and unusual occurrence, that it could scarcely have been otherwise than that they should have thought of the Messiah. This is true in a special manner of the language in Isaiah 9:1-7. source]

 

[mercytruth]

Hezekiah: the Messiah Who Was Not is an interesting Jewish article on King Hezekiah.

jewishhistory.org/the-messiah-who-was-not/

As far as the chronology of King Ahaz and King Hezekiah with regard to the invasions of Assyria there is no certainty as to reconcile the conflicting biblical accounts with the historical records. Some have tried to reconcile the differences by assuming that Hezekiah was a co-regent with his father, King Ahaz before he became sole ruler.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezekiah

 

[Anna_Scott]

… . .I did not ignore the original question - what I did say was that many Christians are aware of the possibility of a historical or contemporary fulfillment (many even make mention of the two kings). Albert Barnes, who I quoted to earlier, admits in his commentaries that he originally held the belief that Isa 7:14 had nothing to do with the Messiah, but after a careful study came to the conclusion it did. Part of his explanation was that Isaiah was, as he often did, looking at present conditions while also prophesying of future events. A section from his commentary (the whole section is worth reading):The reference to the Messiah in the prophecy accords with the “general strain and manner” of Isaiah. It is in accordance with his custom, at the mention of some occurrence or deliverance which is soon to take place, to suffer the mind to fix ultimately on the more remote event of the “same general character,” or lying, so to speak, “in the same range of vision” and of thought; see the Introduction, Section 7. It is also the custom of Isaiah to hold up to prominent view the idea that the nation would not be ultimately destroyed until the great Deliverer should come; that it was safe amidst all revolutions; that vitality would remain like that of a tree in the depth of winter, when all the leaves are stripped off Isaiah 6:13; and that all their enemies would be destroyed, and the true people of God be ultimately secure and safe under their great Deliverer; see the notes at Isaiah 34; Isaiah 35:1-10.

It is true, that this argument will not be “very” striking except to one who has attentively studied this prophecy; but it is believed, that no one can profoundly and carefully examine the manner of Isaiah, without being struck with it as a very important feature of his mode of communicating truth. In accordance with this, the prophecy before us means, that the nation was safe from this invasion. Ahaz feared the extinction of his kingdom, and the “permanent” annexation of Jerusalem to Syria and Samaria. Isaiah told him that that could not occur; and proffered a demonstration, that in “a very few years” the land would be forsaken of both its kings. “On another ground also it could not be.” The people of God were safe. His kingdom could not be permanently destroyed. It must continue until the Messiah should come, and the eye of the prophet, in accordance with his usual custom, glanced to that future event, and he became “totally” absorbed in its contemplation, and the prophecy is finished Isaiah 9:1-7 by a description of the characteristics of the light that he saw in future times rising in dark Galilee Isaiah 9:1-2, and of the child that should be born of a virgin then.

In accordance with the same view, we may remark, as Lowth has done, that to a people accustomed to look for a great Deliverer; that had fixed their hopes on one who was to sit on the throne of David, the “language” which Isaiah used here would naturally suggest the idea of a Messiah. It was so animated, so ill adapted to describe his own son, and so suited to convey the idea of a most remarkable and unusual occurrence, that it could scarcely have been otherwise than that they should have thought of the Messiah. This is true in a special manner of the language in Isaiah 9:1-7. source]

Mr. Wolf,

Great post!

I understand and agree.

I know that many prophesies have both contemporary and future implications.

I think Albert Barnes gives a remarkable insight into the prophesy and I’ll put him on my list of resources for this topic (thank you!).

In accordance with this, the prophecy before us means, that the nation was safe from this invasion. Ahaz feared the extinction of his kingdom, and the “permanent” annexation of Jerusalem to Syria and Samaria. Isaiah told him that that could not occur; and proffered a demonstration, that in “a very few years” the land would be forsaken of both its kings. “On another ground also it could not be.” The people of God were safe. His kingdom could not be permanently destroyed.

From the standpoint of responding to Jewish criticisms, I have to ask the following:

What child provided the time frame for the events that were fulfilled in the time of King Ahaz? Who was the woman who bore that child?

And the often asked question: Are we not left with the problem of two “virgins”?

Great discussion!

Anna