Christmas III: Scripture (Isaiah 9)

"A prophecy that misread could have been." -- Yoda. 

Or Whose Bible is it Anyway

Christmas is not a time for extended exegesis about Bible passages. However, Isaiah 9 struck me as odd the six times I heard it in as many services as straightforward evidence that prophesied the birth of Christ.   


However, Jews typically interpret this verse as referencing the birth of Hezekiah son of King Ahaz. Both cannot be right. Let's look at the passage itself:

For unto us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders, And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this -- Isaiah 9:6-7 (NIV translation).

There are Jewish commentators who dislike various aspects of this translation. 


First the English translation is in the present tense, when in the original Hebrew it is clearly past tense. I can forgive the KJV translation since 'is' was often used as a helping verb in some forms of past tense prior to 1900 or so (though not in every instance). The above NIV translation has no excuse. 


Second, 'Mighty God' could alternately be translated as mighty hero, as is done in other parts of the Hebrew Scriptures. 


Third, prince of peace should be ruler of peace. It was likely translated as 'prince' to make the association to Christ, the Son of God, stronger than the text would have otherwise implied.  


Even looking at just the English there are problems with associating this verse with Christ. 


There are more references to Earthly matters than Heavenly ones. 
Isaiah 9 uses the word 'government' twice and even references David's throne and kingdom. The verse seems to imply that there will be a future political ruler, which aligns better with the Jewish interpretation. 


Also can Jesus really be called 'Everlasting Father;' he is the son of the Trinity, not the Father. 


Of the three translation problems the first is the most damaging to a Christian reading. Though Christian apologists will point to other scriptures in which the past tense was used for things that have not occurred yet. 


The second and third should be noted as questionable translations, but from a Christian perspective neither is a smoking gun. Might God is an acceptable translation and ruler of peace would be an acceptable title for Jesus for most Christians. 


Finally, there are many theological ways to get out of the various problems apparent in the English translation. For instance, one could claim that Jesus' throne beside his father is King David's throne and the Church is the new Israel. 


Since the Trinity is three persons, but one God means that in some sense Jesus is the Father, as well as the son and Holy Spirit. And under certain interpretations could be the 'Everlasting Father' mentioned above.  


These are just examples of solutions; there are many more. However, it is not my goal here to adjudicate between who is right or wrong, but to contemplate how the same text is interpreted by different groups of people. 


Bottom Line:

People should be encouraged to read and think from another's perspective. We should always, when possible, acknowledge alternate translations and interpretations. 


Any translation involves interpretation. Prince of Peace implies a son of a king, whereas Ruler of Peace does not. This translation choice was an interpretative move. Though this example is blatant, other attempts at translation are interpretative in less obvious ways.