Grafted-In Ministries
Prophet Pearls #17 – Yitro (Isaiah 6:1-7:6; 9:5-6)
Nehemia Gordon and Keith Johnson
The following article is the transcript of the Isaiah 9:5-6 portion of this broadcast, specifically the section on the verb; "Called"
Keith: No, you’re going to take away our excitement about these verses?
Nehemia: Oh no, I’m excited about the verses. Peace without end?! Who is not going to be excited about peace without end on the throne of David?! Hallelujah! But what’s the name of the child? That’s what I want to ask. Does he have one name? Does he have four names? What’s his name?
Keith: He will be called “Wonderful counselor” in English, a mighty God, everlasting father, prince of peace.
Nehemia: So that’s four names.
Keith: He’s got four different titles.
Nehemia: I know some people say it’s like seven names or something like that, because they go on in the next verse. But definitely in verse… in this verse, verse 6, verse 5 in the Hebrew, according to your reading, there are four names. I want to read you the JPS translation of these verses. 9:5-6 in the Hebrew, and in JPS, it’s actually 5 and 6. They are numbered according to the Hebrew. “For a child has been born to us. A son has been given us, and authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named, ‘The mighty God is planning grace, the eternal father, a peaceable ruler.’” That’s his name, “The mighty God is planning grace, the eternal father, a peaceable ruler.” So he’s got one name. It’s kind of a run-on sentence.
Then the next verse, “In token of abundant authority and have peace without limit upon David’s throne in kingdom that it may be firmly established, in justice and in equity, now and evermore, the zeal of the LORD of Hosts” in Hebrew, Yehovah, “shall bring this to pass.” It’s a little different. I have news for people. That’s not what it says in the Hebrew.
The JPS is not what it says in the Hebrew, and I’m kind of surprised that they translated that way. I don’t have an explanation of why they decided to translate something which is just different than the Hebrew, when the Hebrew was perfectly clear and good, and just out of curiosity -and I didn’t even look at this beforehand - I’m going to pull up the 1917 JPS, because what I just read you is the 1985 JPS, and I’m curious to see if they have something different there and you can find this online.
All right. So the 1917 JPS says, “For a child is born unto us. A son is given unto us and the government is upon his shoulder and his name is Pele Joaz El Gibor Abi Ad Sar Shalom, that the government may be increased and of peace. There’d be no end upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom to establish it and uphold it through justice and through righteousness from henceforth, even forever, the zeal of Hashem of Hosts doth perform this.” That’s in this online version, what it says.
Okay, so he’s got this really long name, which has one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight words in the 1917 JPS, Pele Joaz El Gibor Abi Ad Sar Shalom. That’s his name. Interesting. So that’s not what it says in Hebrew or either. I just don’t understand why nobody translated to what it actually says in Hebrew. I looked at the Jewish commentaries, and they understood it. It’s very clear what it says in Hebrew. I don’t understand why nobody translated that way. I’m genuinely perplexed, really. Can I tell you what it says in Hebrew?
Keith: Please.
Nehemia: First of all, I’m going to ask you, because you’ve studied Hebrew; in your translation, it says “He will be called,” right? Is that what it says in your NIV?
Keith: Yes. Okay.
Nehemia: Now, what is the word translated as “he will be called”?
Keith: Let’s see here. Well, actually it says, “His name will be called.”
Nehemia: Does it say, “will be called”?
Keith: “His name will be called.”
Nehemia: So in Hebrew, does it say “His name will be called”?
Keith: Vayikra, his name was called.
Nehemia: No, vayikra is “and he called his name.”
Keith: Past. Yes. Past.
Nehemia: No, it’s not passive. It’s active.
Keith: No – past.
Nehemia: Okay, past. “He will be called” is a future passive. In Hebrew, we would say veyikareh. But it says “vayikra shmo” “and he called his name.” So this is how it’s understood in Jewish sources, strangely not translated that way by the JPS, which I can’t explain.
But in all the Jewish sources I was able to find they unanimously understand this “Vayikra shmo Pele Yoetz El Gibor Avi Ad Sar Shalom”, which translates, “The wonderful Counselor, the great God, the eternal Father called his name Prince of Peace.”
That’s what it says in Hebrew, and that’s what every Jewish source I could find translated that way, except for the JPS. But other than that, the traditional Jewish sources all translate it that the subject of the verse is - or this part of the verse is - a wonderful Counselor, mighty God, eternal Father. And the object is Prince of Peace, meaning the wonderful Counselor, mighty God, eternal Father called his name, Prince of Peace.
Keith: I’m going to ask you to do something. I mean, I think this would be really good. Do you see, as you’re looking at this - and this is just a question - do you see anything in terms of even the accents that would lead toward that? In other words, what would be the key thing that would make you say that the verse itself is not divided the way that it’s being divided? In other words, is there something that just says to you, “Oh, clearly it ends there,” and then Sar Shalom is what he will be called?
Nehemia: Otherwise, who calls his name? There’s no subject of the sentence. He calls his name “Pele Yoetz El Gibor Aviad Sar Shalom.” Who’s he? That’s why they had to translate it in the passive. Right? His name is called... well if it’s passive, then we won’t have a problem. Right. So all of a sudden, he called? And I guess it’s possible, but... This just makes more sense to me.
Keith: And so one last time, I mean, that was worth it. That really is a pearl. So let me just say this one last time, if you were to translate this in the most clear way, based on what you’re seeing here, how would you translate it?
Nehemia: I would translate it, “And the wonderful Counselor, mighty God, eternal Father called his name Prince of Peace.” “The name of the child who would be born is called by the wonderful Counselor, mighty God, eternal Father, Prince of Peace.”
Keith: We’re going to look at that. We’re going to slow down and take a closer look.
Nehemia: And like I said, the JPS 1917, 1985 - they don’t translate it that way. So I want to make this clear. It’s not that I have some theological problems, so I’m forcing some different translation, because the JPS, two different versions of it, had no problem with the name being “Pele Yoetz El Gibbor Aviad Sar Shalom.”
The reason they didn’t have a problem with that… obviously… look, let’s call it out - Christians will bring this verse to prove that Jesus is the eternal father, that he’s also the Prince of Peace. That’s obviously what Christians have said.
What’s interesting is - and correct me if I’m wrong here - but as far as I can tell, this is not quoted anywhere in the New Testament. Nowhere in the New Testament does it claim that this verse refers to Jesus or Yeshua. Would you agree with that?
Keith: I don’t have that off the top of my head. I could get back to you on that.
Nehemia: Okay. Well, I’d like you to get back to the people on that, because from what I can find, this is not quoted anywhere in the New Testament. It is quoted by early Christian sources. I want to read to you from the Word Biblical Commentary, which is a Christian commentary out of Texas, outside of Dallas. It says, “Traditional Christian interpreters have correctly noted,” of course, they’re Christian, “have correctly noted that 9:5-6 is part and parcel of royal liturgy and therefore used it as a messianic text like the Royal Psalms. This is achieved by lifting the verses out of context and changing the genre of the larger work to match.”
Kieth: Oh boy.
Nehemia: That’s amazing that they say that. And then they go on, and I’ll skip ahead. They say, “This is legitimate. Division apparently quotes from the other contexts, but it’s important to keep in mind that the verses do not function as messianic predictions in this context.” Very interesting. Anyway, I think maybe it is prophetic, or that it is messianic, and certainly the rabbis who came along and put this as the end of the Haftarah portion, of the Prophets portion, they definitely understood this to be referring to the Messiah of the Line of David, and understandably, because verse 7, or 6 in the Hebrew says, “The government will be upon his shoulders.” Let’s see, hold on a second. “Lemarbeh hamisrah.” It’s kind of difficult to translate, “And for peace without end upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom to prepare it and to sustain it with a judgment and righteousness from now and forever. The zealousness of Yehovah of Hosts will do it.” I don’t know how you can read that and say it’s not about the messianic kingdom.
Keith: Is it fair to say, from a common ground standpoint, we could read these two verses, whether they’d be 5 and 6 or 6 and 7, and get excited about the fact that that government will come and that there will be one who reigns, and we’ve just had long discussions about the name of that one who comes. But what’s amazing about it is that this just seems to be something that I could see why they’d want to end on that note. And why even for us. I mean, we’re at the end of our time. I think it’s pretty amazing. Go ahead.
Nehemia: We’ve got to go back to verse 6.
Keith: Okay, go ahead.
Nehemia: Okay, so this is one of the things I’ve heard brought up in Jewish-Christian debates. The Christians will say, “Well, this proves that the Messiah will be the eternal father. He’s both the eternal father and the prince of peace.”
This is obviously the Christian argument. So, as I said, the New Testament does not make that claim. Traditional Christian commentators and interpreters have made that claim, like if you look at the church fathers. But the New Testament itself, interestingly, is completely silent; it doesn’t make that claim as far as I know.
Secondly, the fact that the JPS was able to translate the name of this messianic figure as, all four of these titles - Pele Yoetz, mighty Counselor - and that’s not really an issue - mighty Counselor, or sorry, wonderful Counselor, mighty God and eternal Father. So how could the Messiah be called Mighty God, wonderful Father, according to the Jewish understanding? And I’m not saying this to try to convince Christians, because obviously people who believe in that doctrine are going to believe it. But I think it’s worthwhile to understand the Jewish perspective, and the Jewish perspective is that we have many figures whose names glorify God. One of my favorites is in the book of Job, where Job has three friends who come and they’re all wrong. At the end, this one man comes along, and his name is Elihu, which means “He is my God.” Now, did Job think that Elihu was his god? Of course not. He was standing and looking at this guy and thought he was very wise, but Elihu, it was just the guy’s name. Eliyahu is the Hebrew name that means Elijah, which is “Yehovah is my God.” So, nobody thought Elijah was God. Now if you want to believe the Messiah is God, don’t pin that on this verse. Because a Jew reading this would never come to that conclusion. We just say, “Okay, his name glorifies God as the Father.” Okay, great. I don’t think that’s what it means. I think the name, or the title, if you will, of the Messiah will be Prince of Peace. But, if you want to say all four titles apply to the Messiah, that doesn’t make him God from the Jewish perspective. Does that make any sense?
Keith: For you, it definitely does. You’ve been waiting all program to do this. This was your big thing. You’ve taken 15 minutes to do it, and now you’re asking me if it makes sense.
Nehemia: No, and really, I think it’s just a matter of understanding the Jewish perspective. Because I certainly understand the Christian perspective. Their perspective is, if the Messiah is called Mighty God and if the Messiah is called eternal Father, that means he is God and he is the Father of creation. But from the Jewish perspective, it’s just a name like many names that glorify God. Like, one of the sons of Aaron who was burned up in the fire, his name was Avihu, which means “He is the father”. So nobody thought he was actually God the Father.
Keith: I’ve got to tell you, what I’m really excited about and I tell folks, so there’s some folks in some corners, but what I love about Prophet Pearls, and every once in a while you’ll bring something up and say, “Well, you know, the Christian view is this…” and that’s always great. I think that’s awesome. Ultimately, the thing that I’m glad that we’re not doing is that we’re not trying to figure out how to have one of those sorts of debates where they do take a verse - and I’ve seen these, whether it’s the anti-missionary or whatever, they go back and forth, back and forth, back and… - and in the end someone says, “seven for him and six for him…” What more than anything fired me up about these couple verses is, I was just reminded, Nehemia, of how far you can go in terms of trying to figure out what the grammar says. I mean, knowing what it says has got to be the starting place, not what you want it to mean. It’s got to be based on what it says. And how do you find out what it says? You’ve got to be able to interact with it in its language, history, and context. And I think that that’s… For me, I’m excited because I was going to go look at it too…
Nehemia: If we were having the Jewish-Christian debate, I would’ve done something completely different, and you could go look in the literature. If you look in the literature, the counter-missionaries are going to say, “Oh, this isn’t even talking about the Messiah. This is King Hezekiah, and therefore it’s completely irrelevant for any discussion of the Messiah, because this is something that was completed and fulfilled in 700 and whatever, B.C. and it’s King Hezekiah.” And I read this and I’m like, “Really guys?” King Hezekiah?
Keith: You disagree with the anti-missionaries…
Nehemia: Absolutely. Not only that, certainly the rabbis who chose this as a section to end, were thinking, “Even if this was King Hezekiah, we’re hoping that it also is a type of the Messiah, and we’re looking for the king who will sit on the throne of David who will literally have peace without end,” because Hezekiah didn’t have peace without end.
Keith: And I’ve got to tell you, here’s what excites me about that - is the thread, the thread. And we’ve been doing Prophet Pearls, now we’re on 17, where we’ve been able to talk about David and we’ve talked about him in his death bed, and we talked about Solomon, we talked about the kingdom and Nachon, and all these things being established. And to me, again, I can look at this and be really, really excited, but I’m going to tell you the challenge. What I did appreciate about it is the challenge to go further, and again, to take apart grammatically to see what it says and to go from there. So I see that as a real positive. I really do. And I really appreciate that. So this was your moneyball. You’ve got to bring us home here.
Nehemia: I just want to read one more passage and then I’m going to end with prayer. There’s a kind of a parallel passage which this makes me think of, which is… And why am I bringing the parallel passage? Because you could come along and say, “Oh no, Nehemia, you’ve left the reservation. You said this is about the Messiah and we want to say…” I’m talking to my Jewish brothers and sisters. They’re going to be upset with me. “Why are you letting… why are you saying this is about the Messiah? Why are you conceding that point? We want to argue it’s about Hezekiah. It’s not about the Messiah.” And I just don’t think that’s correct.
But even if it’s correct, we have another passage which is indisputably about the Messiah, and I want to end with that passage. It’s Ezekiel 37:24, “My servant David shall be king over them and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall follow My ordinances and be careful to observe My statutes. They shall live in the land that I gave to My servant Jacob, in which your ancestors lived. They and their children and their children’s children should live there forever. And My servant David shall be their prince forever. I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them, and I will bless them and multiply them and will set My sanctuary among them forevermore. My dwelling place shall be with them and I will be their God, and they shall be My people, then the nations shall know that I, Yehovah, sanctify Israel when My sanctuary is among them forevermore.” Maybe it’s that I’m reading Isaiah chapter 9:6-7 or 5-6 in the Hebrew, through the lens of Ezekiel 37, it’s possible. But when I read it, I’m seeing the same messenger, there’s going to be this period of eternal peace with a King Messiah, anointed with oil who sits on the throne of David, and may this happen soon. May we all come together soon under the reign of this King Messiah. And that’s my prayer.
Yehovah, Avinu shebashamayim, Yehovah our Father in heaven, Yehovah Pele Yoetz, Yehovah wonderful Counselor, Yehovah El Gibor, Yehovah almighty God, Yehovah Aviad, Yehovah eternal Father, Yehovah I ask you and I pray to you, Father, let us soon be in Your kingdom with shalom ein ketz peace without end with the Sar Shalom, with the Prince of Peace, sitting al kiseh David ve’al mamlachto, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom. Me’ata ve’ad olam, for now, and forever more. Kinat Yehovah Tzavaot ta’aseh zot, the zealousness of Yehovah of Hosts will do this, and Yehovah may Your zealousness, please Father, Aviad, eternal Father. Please, do this soon, and bring us this peace and our King. Amen.