Anti-Missionary Arguments

Tampering with the Text: Isaiah 9:5-6

The Anti-missionary’s charge:

The original Hebrew reads: "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 "(Isaiah 9:5-6). Referring to King Hezekiah, son of Ahaz. The KJV had to change the tense from the present to the future, making it, "A child is born, a son is given and the government shall be upon his shoulder and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God”. In Hebrew Hezekiah means “the mighty God”.

HaDavar response

Jacob, let me paraphrase back to you what I believe your argument is.

1. The tense has been changed to the future so that the verse looks ahead to Jesus which is improper. Instead the sentence looks backward to King Hezekiah’s birth and refers to nothing more than that.

2. This is verified because of the meaning of Hezekiah’s name.

3. Hezekiah is/was the Messiah or a Messianic person.

Let me start by responding to comment three, then two, then one.

That Hezekiah was the Messianic person or is a Messianic person appears to be the implication of your objection. In other words, the statement cannot refer to Jesus because it has already been fulfilled. I suspect that you would like to direct my attention to the belief that in every age there is someone who is a potential Messiah and that Hezekiah was the Messianic person referred to in Isaiah 9:6. If I am misunderstanding your comments, please let me know. However, I will proceed as though I am reading you correctly. I do not think that is a very strong position for a number of reasons.

1. I do not see the teaching in Scripture that there are multiple Messiah’s or potential Messiah’s in each generation. Please direct me to the source of that belief if that is your position. I would like to see a position that is grounded firmly in the Hebrew Bible.

2. I think Hezekiah is a poor candidate for Messiah. I am not the only person who feels that is a weak position. Neither did R. Joseph in Sanhedrin 99a (in a discussion of Zechariah).

Sanhedrin (99a): R. Hillel said: ‘There shall be no Messiah for Israel, because they have already enjoyed him in the days of Hezekiah’. R. Joseph said: ‘May God forgive him (for saying so).

3. Hezekiah’s name is not “The Mighty God.” To claim that is a bit of a stretch. The name in Isaiah 9:6 is “El Gibbor.” (masculine singular noun with masculine singular adjective). The name Hezekiah literally means “God is my strength” or “God has strengthened” (combination of the verb chazak and God’s proper name). My point is that “The Mighty God” is a distinct proper name unquestionably identifying and describing a particular person—God Himself. In contrast “Hezekiah” is a phrase name describing what God has done for the individual who bears the name. In other words, what God does, His actions are being extolled through the Kings name. The name Hezekiah is drawing our attention to what God has done or will do or is expected to do—empower the individual.

Finally we come to the objection that the statement is all in the past and therefore speaks of Hezekiah. Jacob, here we come to an important exegetical and interpretive decision. The verbs in Isaiah 9:6 are a mixture of perfects and imperfects. The perfects are in the first half of the verse and the imperfects in the last half of the verse. The Perfect Aspect denotes completed action in the past, present, or future. The Imperfect Aspect denotes incomplete or repeated action in past, present, or future. The mixture of verb aspects means that this is no simplistic decision. We need to “scratch our heads” over this one. We have some options to choose from.

You have chosen the past or present option. The implication of that choice is that Hezekiah is or was the Messiah. And by the way, you are making the exact same type of exegetical/interpretive decisions that the KJV makes. The only difference lies in the fact that you are choosing the past/present option. Why do I say that? I say that because of the mixture of verb aspects in the verse. The KJV is no further “off” than you are. The KJV has not “tampered with the text” any more than you have. The only difference is the fact that the KJV is choosing a different exegetical option. OK let’s get back to the main road again. You have chosen the past/present option. I feel that is the weaker option for three reasons 1) consideration the context of Isaiah 9:6, 2) the mission of the Messianic person as developed in other sections of Scripture, 3) and the data I shared above about Hezekiah (points 1, 2, and 3 above).

However, we still have one more option—the future option. In the case of the Perfect Aspect it would be the usage called the “Prophetic Perfect.” The Prophetic Perfect occurs when the prophet sees the future action so vividly that the action is deemed “as good as done.” The use of the Prophetic Perfect in the first half of the verse (child has been born, son has been given) fits with the imperfects in the last half of the verse (government shall be upon his shoulder, shall be called).

Considering the context and force of Isaiah 9:1-7, the data about the Messianic person developed in other parts of Scripture, the New Testament data about Jesus in contrast to what we know about Hezekiah, I prefer the future option. I would say that Jesus is a good fit. He is a much better option than Hezekiah, Bar Kochba, or Rebbe Schneerson. If Jesus is not the Messiah, then who is?

Jesus is the

“Wonderful Counselor”— Colossians 2:3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

“Mighty God”— Hebrews 1:8 But of the Son He says, “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom (quoting Psalm 45).

“Eternal Father”— John 1:1-2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

“Prince of Peace”— John 14:27 Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives, do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful.

And by the way, the Jewish Publication Society also translates the verse “child is born” and “son is given.” So the JPS and the KJV happen to agree on the rendering of the first part of the verse. Then, being consistent with their decision to render the verse in the present tense they continue with the wording “government is” and “name is.” This rendering would put you at odds with the JPS and open them up to the charge of “tampering.” However, that’s not necessary. They did a reasonable and consistent job of translation. They don’t agree with my evaluation of the text. However, their rendition is a fair, but from my point-of-view, a regrettable interpretive decision.