For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is
given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be
called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The
Prince of Peace. (Isa 9:6)
Commenting
on Isa 9:6 (v. 5 in the Hebrew), a common proof-text used by many Trinitarians,
James White, notwithstanding his using it to support such a doctrine, admitted
that:
As this prophecy was originally, it had a
particular and immediate application in Isaiah’s day. (James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart
of Christian Belief [2d ed; Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany House, 2019], 78)
So,
notwithstanding the use of “Father of eternity” and “Mighty God” in this
passage, while one can read it as a prophecy whose ultimate fulfillment was
with the Messiah (Jesus [notwithstanding the NT never appealing to this text]),
but such terms were used of a human
in Isaiah’s time! Such shows that “divine titles” can be applied to human
agents.
Interestingly,
in an endnote for his discussion of Isa 9:6, White teaches that Isaiah et al
could not have been Trinitarians. Note the following:
This passage is at times misused in the
attempt to make Jesus the Father . . . Suffice to say that the phrase “Eternal
Father” cannot be read in New Testament terms, as the revelation of Father, Son, and Spirit had not yet been made.
What is more, the Hebrew phrase so translated, אביעד, avi-ad, can be
rendered “Father (or Creator) of eternity” as well. I believe this refers to
Christ’s role as Creator. Paul said that all things were not only made through Him but also for Him, to the description would be
quite appropriate. (Ibid., 206 n. 31, emphasis added)
As the Old
Testament authors were not Trinitarians, to read back into the Old Testament
text a later doctrine is an admission of eisegesis.
As for the
titles “Mighty [God]” and “Eternal Father/Father of Eternity,” the NET, an
Evangelical production, argue that the titles were applied to the (human)
Davidic King of Isaiah’s time and his being a divinely-commissioned agent of
God:
18 tn גִּבּוֹר (gibbor)
is probably an attributive adjective ("mighty God"), though one might
translate "God is a warrior" or "God is mighty." Scholars
have interpreted this title is two ways. A number of them have argued that the
title portrays the king as God's representative on the battlefield, whom God
empowers in a supernatural way (see J. H. Hayes and S. A. Irvine, Isaiah,
181–82). They contend that this sense seems more likely in the original context
of the prophecy. They would suggest that having read the NT, we might in
retrospect interpret this title as indicating the coming king's deity, but it
is unlikely that Isaiah or his audience would have understood the title in such
a bold way. Psa 45:6 addresses the Davidic king as
"God" because he ruled and fought as God's representative on earth.
Ancient Near Eastern art and literature picture gods training kings for battle,
bestowing special weapons, and intervening in battle. According to Egyptian
propaganda, the Hittites described Rameses II as follows: "No man is he
who is among us, It is Seth great-of-strength, Baal in person; Not deeds of man
are these his doings, They are of one who is unique" (See Miriam
Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 2:67). According to proponents
of this view, Isa 9:6 probably envisions a similar kind of response
when friends and foes alike look at the Davidic king in full battle regalia.
When the king's enemies oppose him on the battlefield, they are, as it were,
fighting against God himself. The other option is to regard this title as a
reference to God, confronting Isaiah's readers with the divinity of this
promised "child." The use of this same title that clearly refers to
God in a later passage (Isa 10:21) supports this
interpretation. Other passages depict Yahweh as the great God and great warrior
(Deu 10:17; Jer 32:18). Although this
connection of a child who is born with deity is unparalleled in any earlier
biblical texts, Isaiah's use of this title to make this connection represents
Isaiah's attempt (at God's behest) to advance Israel in their understanding of
the ideal Davidic king for whom they long.
19 tn This title must not
be taken in an anachronistic Trinitarian sense. (To do so would be
theologically problematic, for the "Son" is the messianic king and is
distinct in his person from God the "Father.") Rather, in its
original context the title pictures the king as the protector of his people.
For a similar use of "father" see Isa 22:21 and Job 29:16. This figurative, idiomatic use of "father"
is not limited to the Bible. In a Phoenician inscription (ca. 850–800 B.C.) the
ruler Kilamuwa declares: "To some I was a father, to others I was a
mother." In another inscription (ca. 800 B.C.) the ruler Azitawadda boasts
that the god Baal made him "a father and a mother" to his people.
(See ANET 499–500.) The use of "everlasting" might suggest the
deity of the king (as the one who has total control over eternity), but Isaiah
and his audience may have understood the term as royal hyperbole emphasizing
the king's long reign or enduring dynasty (for examples of such hyperbolic
language used of the Davidic king, see 1Ki 1:31; Psa 21:4-6; Psa 61:6-7; Psa 72:5,
Psa 72:17). The New Testament indicates that the hyperbolic
language (as in the case of the title "Mighty God") is literally
realized in the ultimate fulfillment of the prophecy, for Jesus will rule
eternally.
