5. Isaiah 9:6-7

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government will be on his shoulder; and his name will be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end, on the throne of David, and over his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from that time forward even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this” (Isaiah 9:6-7).These verses have long been held by Christians to refer to the Divine Sonship and deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no other figure in all of Jewish history, outside of Jesus, who has claimed the type of characteristics outlined in this verse, and then fulfilled each detail in such a remarkable manner. Jesus was born of a Jewish woman (Luke 2:1-7), son of man (Luke 9:22), yet also the Son of God (Mark 1:1). He is the Governor over all, with total power and authority in heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18; Philippians 2:11). His government will increase until all enemies are subdued to Him (1 Corinthians 15:24-28). He is wonderful in His birth (Matthew 1:23-25), His miracles (Mark 2:5-12), His preaching (Matthew 7:28-29), His death (John 19:30-37; Matthew 26:28), His resurrection and ascension (Matthew 28:5, 6; Acts 1:1-9). He is the counsellor, expounding and revealing God’s laws and purposes as none other (Hebrews 1:1-3). He is the mighty God, God manifest in the flesh (John 1:1-6, 14). He is the father of eternity, the origin and cause of all existence (Colossians 1:13-19). He is the Author and Giver of peace (John 14:27). In His Second Coming, He will establish the visible realization of the everlasting government (Revelation 21, Isaiah 11). He will judge and rule the world in justice and judgment (John 5:24-29; 2 Thessalonians 1:8-10; Psalm 72). The Lord Jesus Christ is truly the fulfillment of this prophecy.

Jewish Objections

Jewish polemicists, of course, reject the Christian exegesis of Isaiah 9:6. There are basically three arguments.A) This prophecy refers to King Hezekiah. B) The “birth” referred to is in the past tense, referring to someone already born. C) Jesus did not fulfill any of these characteristics.

A. “This prophecy refers to King Hezekiah.”

Isaac Troki states regarding the first argument,“Those passages refer to Hezekiah, King of Judah, during whose government Israel experienced, through a divine intercession, a signal deliverance from Sennacherib, king of Assyria …” 62Gerald Sigal continues to expound on the manner in which Hezekiah fulfilled this prophecy;“Hezekiah is called ‘a wonderful counselor’ because this name is a sign which foretells God’s design for him…rnHezekiah is called ‘the mighty God’ because this name is a sign which foretells God’s defense of Jerusalem through the miraculous sudden mass death of Sennacherib’s army …rnHezekiah is called ‘the everlasting Father’ because this name is a sign which foretells that God will add years to his life …rnHezekiah is called ‘ruler of peace’ because this name is a sign which foretells that God would be merciful to him …rnHezekiah’s Kingdom is declared to be forever, for through his efforts to cleanse the Temple ritual of idolatry, even though apostasy followed under his son Menasseh, the Davidic dynasty was once more confirmed as the only true kingly rule that God would accept over his people ‘from henceforth and forever.’ The greatness of Hezekiah lies in his setting the stage for Israel’s future.” 63The problem with the application of Isaiah 9:6, 7 to Hezekiah is that in none of these descriptive instances could apply to any mere man. These verses clearly call for a Divine Being, based upon the nature of the names attributed to this “son.” Hebrew scholar Delitzsch states regarding the name “mighty God” (“El Gibbor”) in Isaiah 9:6:“There is no reason why we should take ‘El’ in this name of the Messiah, in any other sense than in ‘Immanu-El,’ not to mention the fact that ‘El’ in Isaiah is always a name of God, and that the prophet was ever strongly conscious of the antithesis between ‘El’ and ‘Adam,’ as chapter 31:3 clearly shows. And finally ‘El Gibbor’ was a traditional name of God, which occurs as early as Deuteronomy 10:17, Jeremiah 32:18, Nehemiah 9:32, Psalm 24:8. The name ‘gibbor’ is used here as an adjective like ‘shaddai’ in ‘El Shaddai.’ The Messiah, then, is here designated ‘mighty God’ … “ 64Dr. E.W. Hengstenberg maintains:“But had Isaiah called an earthy King, God, or given him Divine predicates, he would have acted in direct opposition to his duty to defend the rights of God from every encroachment, and have rendered himself unworthy of the dignity of a prophet.” 65Elsewhere he says,“How could he [Isaiah] ascribe Divine attributes to Hezekiah, a feeble mortal, and thus insult the majesty of God, whose servant he was … Even among the idolatrous heathen, the practice of ascribing divine names and predicates to kings did not originate till a later and corrupt age; and in what light this practice was viewed by the Jews, let the example of Josephus show, who regards the death of Agrippa as a punishment for not disapproving the conduct of the people, who cried out to him as god.” 66Throughout the Book of Isaiah, the prophet carefully distinguishes between men and Jehovah and never does he confuse this situation. To suppose then that a man-king Hezekiah, is the person referred to in this passage goes against the entire tenor of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Jewish faith.There is no question that in the Old Testament, human names with a reference to God were designated to men such as Elihu – “My God is He”, Eliab – “God is my Father”, Eliada – “God knows”, Elisha – “God is salvation”, Eliezer – “God is my help”. 67 However, these are not names that ascribe a quality of God’s nature and then refer directly to God as the name “El Gibbor” does (Deuteronomy 10:17; Jeremiah 32:18). Isaiah 9:6 refers to the “son” as “the mighty God”, the everlasting [or eternal] Father”, depicting Divine qualities that can be applied only to God Himself.Another problem with the application of Isaiah 9:6,7 to King Hezekiah is found in the fact that his government by no means lasted forever. After Hezekiah’s death, his son Menasseh took the throne and was a evil, ungodly king. Less than 100 years later, the Babylonian captivity of Judah took place and the kingly throne of Judah ended. The king referred to in Isaiah 9:7 is stated to have a kingdom that will “have no end”. To suppose that in any possible way, Hezekiah met this criteria of Isaiah 9:7 is to exegete Scripture fallaciously.

B. “The “birth” referred to is in the past tense, referring to someone already born.”

Isaac Troki gives the second Jewish argument:“…. that this great miracle, namely, the fall of the camp of Sennacherib, referred to in the verses under consideration, was occasioned from the regard entertained by the Almighty for ‘the virtue of the child born unto us’ and which at the time of the prophecy, was already ‘given to us’.” 68Mr. Troki asserts that since verse six states “a son is given” (present tense), any future application to Jesus Christ must be rejected. Dr. Hengstenberg says concerning this,“The Prophet beholds the great Redeemer as already born. If anyone chooses to infer from thence that the subject of the prophecy must, at that time, have been actually born, he must also, on account of the preterities, in the first and following verses assume, what no interpreter has done, that the predicted prosperity had already been conferred upon the Israelites.” 69In other words, if the prophet meant that this “son” was already born, then the results of his kingship mentioned in verse seven would also have transpired. But history clearly reveals that this has not taken place. The tense of the passage is not to be considered as a vital factor in the exegesis of these verses, for the remaining sentences clearly demonstrate that the events are future.Hengstenberg continues and says – “The distance of time does not thereby come into consideration, because it is neither known nor regarded by the Prophets, who hold all events of futurity combined in one picture”. 70

C. “Jesus did not fulfill any of these characteristics”

The last argument discussed here is stated by three of the four Jewish sources referred to in this chapter. The Nizzahon Vetus states:“For unto us a child is born, Isaiah 9:5 [9:6 in English KJV]. The heretics [Christians] say that this is the one descended from that defiling union. Answer them: It says of his son that he will establish the throne of David and his Kingdom. If so, then their words contradict each other, for they say that the verse, ‘the scepter shall not depart from Judah… until Shiloh comes’ Genesis 49:10, means that the power and kingdom shall not pass from Judah until Shiloh, i.e., the messenger, or Jesus, shall come, and then the kingdom and power shall pass from the house of Judah. Furthermore, they interpret the verse, ‘With the coming of the Most High… the Messiah shall be cut off’ – Daniel 9:24, 26 in a similar way. Thus, he does not establish the kingdom of Judah but rather destroys it.” 71The objection raised by The Nizzahon Vetus put in simple terms asks this question. Christians interpret Genesis 49:10 to mean that the tribal authority and judicial system (scepter and lawgiver) of Judah will cease immediately following the coming of the Messiah (Shiloh). If after Jesus came, Judah lost its power and kingdom, how can Jesus establish the throne of David mentioned in Isaiah 9:7? Secondly, how can the Messiah establish David’s kingly throne if he is cut off (dies) as stated in Daniel 9:24-27? It seems like a circular contradiction. The answer to this can only be found in the two appearances of Jesus the Messiah.In His first coming the death spoken of in Daniel 9:24-27 took place (Mark 15:33-39). However, the Messiah rose from the dead and later ascended back to Heaven (Acts 1:1-11). His promise was that He would one day return to establish His visible earthly Kingdom (Matthew 25:31-33). When this great event takes place, the unending Kingdom, spoken of in Isaiah 9:7 will be established. Genesis 49:10 in no way confuses this prophetic situation. Soon after Messiah’s first coming, the tribal identity and authority of Judah did cease and it has remained that way to the present. Genesis 49:10 also states that the Messiah must be able to identify Himself as a descendant of the tribe of Judah. With the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 and subsequent loss of genealogical records, the Messiah had to come prior to AD 70. This again points to the first coming of the Messiah, the Lord Jesus, who was born of the tribe of Judah (Luke 3:23, 33) and lived in Israel between 6-3 BC and AD 30.Genesis 49:10 and Daniel 9:24-27 have therefore between fulfilled in Messiah’s first coming. When Messiah returns, the throne of David mentioned in Isaiah 9:7 will once again be established and He (Messiah) will rule and reign as King, fulfilling the great Messianic promises of the Hebrew Scriptures. There is nothing contradictory in any of these prophecies. Any other attempt to fulfill these prophecies would result in a contradiction. In contrast, the manner by which Jesus fulfills these prophecies does no such thing. This demonstrates the remarkable manner in which the Messiahship of Jesus finds perfect agreement with the truthfulness of the Hebrew Scriptures, for in no other way could all of these prophecies be fulfilled.Isaac Troki presents another form of this argument;“To give Jesus the above appellations is altogether incompatible with his own history. How can he claim the names ‘Wonderful’ and ‘Counsellor,’ when it is remembered that one of his disciples frustrated his designs, and betrayed him to his enemies? How can he merit the title, ‘Powerful’ or ‘Omnipotent God,’ who suffered an unnatural death? How can he be the ‘Father of Eternity,’ who did not attain even half of the natural period of human life? How can he be distinguished as the ‘Prince of Peace’? whereas, no peace existed in his days: and as he himself asserted, by saying ‘I am not come to bring peace into the earth, but the sword.” 72Isaac Troki’s argument reveals a misunderstanding regarding the life and ministry of Jesus. Judas did not frustrate the “designs” of Jesus. According to the New Testament, Jesus predicted his death on numerous occasions prior to the actual event (Luke 12:50; John 10:17; 19:11; Matthew 26:24; 20:17-19), and he steadfastly asserted that His death on the cross was the stated purpose of His coming (Matthew 20:28). Though Judas did plot against Jesus, Jesus was well aware ahead of time of the purposes and motives of Judas’ heart, and by no means were any of Messiah’s designs frustrated by him (Matthew 26:21-25; John 13:2-30). Jesus stated that “no man takes it [my life] from me, but I lay it down of myself” – John 10:18. The New Testament therefore, presents the foreknowledge and determinate plan of God for the crucifixion of the Messiah, and in no way did any failure of this express purpose take place (Hebrews 9:26-28; Peter 1:18-20; Revelation 13:8). This argument, therefore, has no basis. Troki continues by asking, how can God die? To answer this it must be stated that since Troki has rejected the incarnation and the authority and teaching of Jesus the Messiah, probably no answer will suffice him. Nevertheless, the evidence of the New Testament demands the acknowledgment that Jesus was indeed God and that the only method of saving men was for God to pay the penalty for the sin of mankind Himself, which occurred with Christ’s death on the cross (Romans 6:23; 1Peter 1:18-20; Colossians 2:9-15). The New Testament teaches that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself” (2 Corinthians 5:18).A further problem with Troki’s objection is found in a faulty understanding of what death is. Death is not cessation of being, but rather only separation of the spirit from the body – (Ecclesiastes 8:8; 12:7; Amos 2:27; John 19:30; Luke 23:46). Jesus, Who was God, never ceased from being God in His death, but rather experienced a separation between His body and spirit. Jesus who was truly God and truly man, experienced the common enemy of all men – death, demonstrating in His death that He was man and in addition He defeated death by rising from the dead demonstrating that He was God. You either accept this evidence or reject it, however you reject it at your own peril.Troki asks, “how can Jesus be the Prince of Peace when He brought no peace”? Again, the New Testament gives the answer. Jesus did indeed bring peace, but His peace is first the peace with God (Romans 5:1) and secondly, the peace of God (John 14:27; II Timothy 1:7; Philippians 4:6,7.Through Christ’s work on the cross, the sin which kept man separated from God (Isaiah 59:1; Romans 3:23) was removed and forgiven (Acts 3:19; Isaiah 1:18). When men receive Jesus as Lord and Savior, the result is peace with God (Romans 5:1). Secondly, freedom from fear and anxiety are the by-products of the Christian, Christ-led life. As the believer grows in his walk of discipleship with Christ, the peace of God is included in his life. And thirdly, the New Testament teaches that at the second coming of the Messiah a political realm of peace will be established through His earthly rulership. This of course, is the type of peace that Troki is referring to in his objection, but Isaiah’s reference to the “Prince of Peace” goes beyond this singular aspect of the peace and refers to the Author and Giver of peace which includes all three of the areas discussed here. Jesus is truly the Author and Giver of peace that Isaiah 9:6 points to.Lastly, Samuel Levine states-“Jesus was never called these names; i.e. Wonderful, Prince of Peace, etc., even in the New Testament, and yet the verse says explicitly that the person referred to will be called those names…”“Futhermore 9:6 says that there will be no end of the government of this person and no end of the peace. How can this refer to Jesus? His government never began, let alone had any peace. Thus, this verse refers to someone, but surely not Jesus, who was not called the Father, nor any of those names, nor had a government, nor peace”. 73Mr. Levine’s argument attempts to make this verse mean that this “king” had to be explicitly called the names referred to in Isaiah 9:6. But this is not the intent of the author. The five names given are not to be literal names of this “king”. As noted in the section dealing with the Isaiah 7:14 passage, the names “Shiloh”, “Desire of Nations”, “Jehovah Tsidkenu”, “Immanual”, were never intended as Messiah’s real names, but rather as titles describing His character.Dr. Delitzsch states concerning this-“The name Jesus is the combination of all the Old Testament titles used to designate the Coming One according to His nature and His works. The names contained in ch. 7:14 and 9:6 are not thereby suppressed; but they have continued from the time of Mary downwards, in the mouths of all believers. There is not one of these names under which worship and homage have been paid to Him.” 74Nowhere in all of the Hebrew Scriptures is the personal name of the Messiah given. Instead, God has given descriptive titles throughout the Old Testament that describe and reveal the character and nature of the Messiah. If Messiah’s name were given, it would be easy for imposters to assume his name. For example Bar Kochba , in A.D. 132 assumed the name “son of a star” (Numbers 24;17) and claimed to be the Messiah. The result was a terrible destruction and elimination of much of the Jewish community. This most certainly was not God’s desire; therefore the personal name of the Messiah was withheld from the Scriptures for this purpose.The argument concerning the establishment of the government referred to in Isaiah 9:7 is easily answered. Jesus asserted early in His ministry that His first coming was to take Him to the cross and that a return to the earth later would be the culmination of His Messianic mission (Luke 19:27; 1:32, Matthew 25:31; 26:64). In the second coming of Jesus, the realization and full establishment of His government will be openly revealed. The literal establishment of the Messianic-ruled government is the clear teaching of both the Old and New Testaments and none other than Jesus the Messiah will be the ruler. This is the New Testament answer to Mr. Levine’s argument.

5. Summary

It is interesting to note the differences in the Jewish polemicists discussed here. Issac Troki and Gerald Sigal state that the names listed in Isaiah 9:6 are only figurative in nature, yet Samuel Levine demands a literal application. Troki and Sigal make no personal link between Hezekiah and the unending government of verse seven, yet Levine establishes that it must be a part of this person’s credentials. Dr. Hengstenberg states concerning these Jewish polemicists and their lack of harmony,“These are unanimous only in their opposition to the Messianic interpretation: in all other respects the greatest difference prevails among them”. 75The fulfillment of this prophecy in the person of Jesus of Nazareth is the clearest and most natural exegesis of this passage. With an understanding of the New Testament teaching concerning the first and second appearances of Jesus the Messiah, no one other than Jesus fits the characteristics described in Isaiah 9:6,7.