Not saying that you're right or wrong, but consider this, Isaiah 9:6 "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."
that Son that was given holds the title "Father" is this correct?
PICJAG.
Isaiah 9:6
The NASB says at Is. 9:6 –
“For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on His shoulders; and His
name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty
God, Eternal
Father, Prince of Peace.”
All Christians, I believe, accept this son as being the Christ. Some will tell you that since the
meaning of this symbolic name includes the words “Mighty God, Eternal Father,” then Jesus
is the Mighty God and the Eternal Father.”
But there are at least two other ways this personal name has been interpreted by reputable Bible scholars.
(1) The titles within the name (e.g., “Mighty God”) are intended in their secondary, subordinate senses.
(2) the titles within the name are meant to praise God the Father,
not the Messiah.
First, there is the possibility that the words (or titles) found in the literal meaning of the name apply directly to the Messiah but in a subordinate sense. In other words, Christ
is “a mighty god” in the same sense that God’s angels were called “gods” and the judges of Israel were called “gods” by God himself (also by Jesus - John 10:34, 35), and Moses was called “a god” by Jehovah himself.
Yes, men and angels were called gods
(elohim - Hebrew;
theos - Greek) in a proper, but
subordinate, sense by Jehovah and his inspired Bible writers. Although they were given this elevated title in a proper sense (not
false gods), it was obviously with the clear understanding that it in
no way implied a comparison with the Most High, Only True God. (A bank employee calling his boss, the head of the bank, “the president” would certainly not imply an equality of position, power, etc. with “
The President” [of the USA].)
The word “god” as understood by those who used that term simply meant “one who is mighty in some sense” - see
Young’s Concordance. This could include mighty in strength or authority. And the word “Mighty” as found at Is. 9:6 is also applied to the
angels at Ps. 103:20.
In addition to the distinct possibility of the use of the secondary subordinate meanings of the titles such as “God/god” as explained by Bible language scholars, we can see by the actual renderings of some
trinitarian Bible translators at Is. 9:6 that they believe such subordinate meanings were intended by the inspired Bible writer.
Instead of “Mighty God,” Dr. James Moffatt translated this part of Is. 9:6 as “
a divine hero;” Byington has “
Divine Champion;” The
New English Bible has “
In Battle Godlike;” The Catholic
New American Bible (1970 and 1991 revision) renders it “
God-Hero;” and the
REB says “
Mighty Hero.” Even the respected Biblical Hebrew language expert, Gesenius, translated it “
mighty hero” - p. 45, Gesenius’
Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon.
Also,
The NIV Study Bible, in a f.n. for Ps 45:6, tells us:
“In this psalm, which praises the king and especially extols his ‘splendor and majesty’ (v. 3), it is not unthinkable that he was called ‘
god’ as a title of honor [cf.
Isa 9:6].” (Bracketed information included in original footnote.)
In addition, Rotherham has rendered “Eternal Father” as “
father of progress,” and the
New English Bible translates it: “
father of a wide realm.”
The above-mentioned Bible translations by trinitarian scholars which apply the words in the name at Is. 9:6 in a subordinate sense directly to Jesus clearly show that they do not believe this scripture implies an equality with Jehovah the Father.
............................
And
second, another way competent Bible scholars have interpreted the meaning of this name is with the understanding that it does not apply directly to the Messiah himself.
This is the same way that many, if not most, of the other Israelites’ personal
names (e.g. Abijah, Elijah, Isaiah, Joab, etc.) were meant to apply to something or someone other than themselves.
Often these personal names are praising or recognizing the Almighty God.
Personal names in the ancient Hebrew and Greek are often somewhat cryptic to us today. The English Bible translator must fill in the missing minor words (especially in names composed of two or more Hebrew words) such as “my,” “is,” “of,” etc. in whatever way he thinks best in order to make sense for us today in English.
For example, the footnote for Gen. 17:5 in
The NIV Study Bible: The name ‘Abram’ “means ‘Exalted Father,’ probably
in reference to God (i.e., ‘[
God is the] Exalted Father’).” - bracketed information is in the original.
Therefore, the personal name has been honestly translated in the footnote for Is. 9:6 as:
“And his name is called: Wonderful in counsel
IS God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace” -
The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version (Margolis, ed.)
to show that it is intended to praise the God
of the Messiah who performs great things
through the Messiah.
The Leeser Bible also translates it:
“Wonderful, counsellor
of the mighty God,
of the everlasting Father, the prince of peace”
Also,
An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith & Goodspeed) says:
“Wonderful Counselor
IS God Almighty, Father forever, Prince of Peace.”
Of course it could also honestly be translated:
“The Wonderful Counselor
and Mighty God
Is the Eternal Father
of the Prince of Peace.”
And the
Tanakh by the JPS, 1985, translates it:
[1] “The Mighty God
is planning grace;
[2] The Eternal Father [
is] a peaceable ruler.”
This latter translation seems particularly appropriate since it is in the form of a parallelism. Not only was the previous symbolic personal name introduced by Isaiah at Is. 8:1 a parallelism (“Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz” means [a]“
quick to the plunder;
swift to the spoil” - NIV footnote) but the very introduction to this Messianic name at Is. 9:6 is itself a parallelism: [a]“For unto us a child is born; unto us a son is given.” It would, therefore, be appropriate to find that this name, too, was in the form of a parallelism as translated by the Tanakh above.
So it is clear, even to a trinitarian scholar, that Is. 9:6 probably was not intended to imply that Jesus is Jehovah God.
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2010/01/name.html
