I recently engaged in an online debate with two individuals on the correct interpretation of Isaiah 9:6. The debate began as I was being challenged to defend the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity on a YouTube comment thread*. Since “tis the season,” I thought it might be a nice little Christmas blog for me to share with you the content of that debate here. Keep in mind that we were commenting back and forth in a format that only allowed a maximum of 500-characters per post. I tried to keep the debate focused as a result, but it was difficult. The screen names of individuals I’m debating are Samc023 and Manuaim. Both claim to be Christians but deny the doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Christ—meaning, of course, that they aren’t Christians in any Biblical sense of the word. I’m presenting the debate here without editing for grammatical errors, spelling, etc. My own comments are in purple so that it is easier to follow what’s going on. But first, the scripture in question:
“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” —Isaiah 9:6
cclorance: I'm still waiting for your Isa. 9:6 response where Jesus is called "mighty God" (El Gibbor - used only here and in Isa. 10:21 and Jer. 32:18)
Samc023: If you're going to be honest, should not the proper way to translate that is "mighty one " or "mighty power"?
cclorance: No, that isn't the proper translation. It is "El Gibbor" which is well translated as mighty God. "Gibbor" means mighty, powerful, or strong and modifies "El" which is a word Isaiah uses for God often. It is clearly a word for divinity in Isaiah as he uses it to contrast God and humans in 31:3. There is no serious question that "El Gibbor" is a divine title. The exact phrase is used by Isaiah only one other time and that's in 10:21. Again, no question there that the people return to God.
Samc023: I'm not questioning your use of Gibbor, I question the use of El. While it is used most often in regards to the true God of Israel its not strictly limited to only Him. Is not the same word used to describe strength in men and pure might? And regardless it would still only be a title.
cclorance: What is more, it is pretty clear from the context of chapter 10, that El Gibbor is YHWH (or as some incorrectly pronounce it Jehovah).
There is a reason that every major Bible translation (including Jewish versions) translates this phrase as "mighty God." Even the very poor NWT concedes this point. So, Sam (and Manuaim, who still hasn't responded to this verse), what say you?
Manuaim: Pt.1-Let me at him Samc023 lol I got him! Mighty=1368-gibbor=Champion/va liant...And God=410=el-mighty; especially Almighty (BUT used also of any deity): God(god), goodly, great, idol, might(-y, one) power, strong.
I gave u "el" almost word 4 word 4 a reason Man is called el-410 in Job.41:25; Ps.82:1;Eze.31:11 & angels r called "el-410" in Ps.89:6...
That was 2 break down the "Mighty God" part... cclorance, many believers miss this very important KEY parts to this verse: 2 bctnud 2 Pt.2 : )
cclorance: Manuaim, this is almost completely nonsensical to me. How does this address Isaiah's use of "El"? Isaiah didn't write Psalms, Job, or Ezekiel so I don't see the relevance of citing these other passages. Do you deny that "God" is the first and major meaning of "El" in the Bible? Are you suggesting that "El Gibbor" should be translated "mighty mighty?" Would you do the same in Isa. 10:21? Why or why not? My friend, cutting and pasting from a public domain lexicon is not the same as understanding Hebrew.
[Directed towards Samc023:]
The issue is not whether the word "El" can occasionally be used in other contexts with other meanings, the question is how is Isaiah using the word here. Isaiah uses the word "El" 23 times in his book. 16 of those times the word refers to the one true God. 7 times it refers to idols. It never means "strength" or "power". Not once. So, your only real option is to accept that Jesus is the one true God or to suggest that Isa. 9:6 calls Jesus "wonderful, counselor, mighty idol, prince of peace."
Samc023: Which doesn't negate its broader meaning. You say otherwise because its convenient for your doctrine.
EL
1. god, god-like one, mighty one
a. mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes
b. angels
c. god, false god, (demons, imaginations)
d. God, the one true God, Jehovah
2. mighty things in nature
3. strength, power
So why would it say mighty idol? that would mean every El is God or an idol.
cclorance: I'm not sure if you understand how translation works. God is the proper translation of El in Isa. 9:6 whether or not it is convenient for my doctrine. I begin with what the Scripture says and build my doctrine upon that. It says "mighty God." You are suggesting that every major Bible translation in the world is wrong and that you are right. Isn't that a bit difficult to believe? It might help if you updated your 100-year-old BDB lexicon.
Samc023: That's because the word itself means God. When the El in question or context if referring to the Supreme being then naturally we would translate it as God. A literal translation of El if it refers to God would be mighty one, but the word clearly has a broader use.
Oh come on, don't start sinking in to being childish or patronizing. At the end of the day its not like I'm expecting
you to change your beliefs. I do expect you to act like the senior pastor you claim you are and be civil and respectful. Which includes refraining from your arrogant and condescending rebuttals as if you're bible knowledge is superior to everyone else. I'm just explaining why I don't share your views, thats all.
Manuaim: Pt.2-cclorance: I'll capitalize 4 emphasis! Isa.9:6-For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: AND THE GOVERNMENT SHALL BE UPON HIS SHOULDER:
Who's government is being put upon Christ shoulder? & N order 4 the government of THE FATHER 2B put upon the SON the son has 2b equipped with the FATHER's-8034-NAME which means character & or authority. Focus on the fact that A GOVERNMENT WAS PUT UPON HIS SHOULDER so he had 2 be EQUIPPED 4 that government..Which means what?
Pt.4:cclorance: AND HIS NAME-8034 shall be CALLED...Now when we DEFINE what NAME means...NOW u hv a clear BIBLICAL EXPLANATION behind Christ being called Gibbor-1368, El-410!
When u ingrain the CONTEXT of a government being given unto him "PUT UPON HIM" now u understand why he is being called a NAME that was given unto him! C Jn.5:43-I come in my FATHER's NAME-3686-NT same as Isa.9:6 NAME-8034! So those names Christ r being called speak of that which was GIVEN unto him!
cclorance: Did I miss part 3? I'm sorry Manuaim, I'm really trying but I simply can't follow your flow of thought here. Pretend I'm really stupid and just give me a couple complete sentences. I honestly don't know how to respond to you because I don't understand you.
Manuaim: Sorry about that I try 2 keep everyone following from the sidelines in quietness nformed bcuz they R listening!
Simply put...Christ came in his FATHER's NAME-3686:Jn.5:43 this is why Isa.9:6 PROPHESIED what his "NAME-8034" shall b called!
I always tell ppl Christ was GIVEN Power that he NEVER HAD...Power belongs 2 GOD Ps.62:11 but Christ was given POWER i.e. Government put upon his shoulders-Isa.9:6, also Mt.28:18 if he IS Co-EQUAL why was he GIVEN anything if he was already GOD ALMIGHTY?
Pt.5cclorance: U R a trinitarian why is Christ called the EVERLASTING FATHER? Bcuz he came in the FATHER's name, & the FATHER was with us in Christ..etc. I could go deeper but I'll gv u a chance 2 respond!
& I did not go 2 some public domain & cut & pace anything I typed it right from my OVERSIZED CONCORDANCE lol!
I know el is used DOMINANTLY 2 the FATHER & him alone but I told u Christ came n the NAME of the FATHER!Not the spelling of YHVH but the CHARACTER & AUTHORITY of YHVH C.Rev.19:13-16
cclorance: "Everlasting Father" means "Father of eternity" -- that is, Jesus is the originator of and sovereign over time. Isa. 9:6 does not teach that Jesus is the Father.
I completely and rejoicingly believe that Jesus came in the name of the Father. It is a wonderful Trinitarian truth.
I'd love to settle Isa. 9:6 b4 going elsewhere. Manuaim, are you conceding that this passage calls Jesus "mighty God"?
[To Samc023:]
Do you deny that you just pulled a cut & paste from the Brown-Driver-Briggs without citation? Do you deny that the BDB is a 100-year-old lexicon? Do you deny the possibility that some rather significant advances in Hebraic studies may have been made in the past century?
I don't see what's childish or arrogant about challenging your source material. I also don't mean to hurt your feelings, but it could be very important for you to know where your Biblical understanding is weak.
Samc023: What? What exactly did I cut and paste? are you referring to my El definitions? what?
Oh trust me, you didn't hurt my feelings, you give yourself far to much credit. And my understanding is far from weak as you certainly appear to be on the defense. So rather than (assume) I'm cutting and pasting as well as give off the false pretense that you yourself are a scholar why don't you answer some of the questions we posed.
cclorance: Is there a question that I have avoided? Please remind me of it and I'll gladly deal with it.
At this point in the debate, Manuaim ran away from Isaiah 9:6 into a million other directions. He never answered my question about whether or not he was willing to concede that “El Gibbor” in Isaiah is properly translated as “mighty God.” Samc023, on the other hand, send me a personal message in which he called my charge that he “lifted” material from the BDB lexicon “a baseless accusation.” He went on to chide me for thinking that I know more than everyone else about the Bible.
First things first, I encourage you to compare Samc023’s definition of “El” above to the entry in the century-old Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon entry. You will notice that the definition is a word-for-word copy. Don’t get me wrong, I’m perfectly fine with a person using the BDB provided you not pretend you didn’t and that you are aware of the tool’s limitations. Now, for the record, I don’t think that my Biblical knowledge is superior everyone else’s. I’ve got good friends, like Sam Shamoun and Rob Gallagher that can run circles around me. However, I do recognize that I understand the Bible better than Samc023. I mean, I know I heretic when I see one.
At the end of the day, rest assured that “El Gibbor” is properly translated at “Mighty God.” The phrase appears in only two other places in the Bible (Isaiah 10:21 and Jer. 32:18). In both cases, mighty God is the very clear meaning. There is no serious question that the child to be born in Isaiah 9:6 is the one true God. Thus, every major English Bible translation translates the phrase as either “Mighty God” or “God the Mighty.” Even those publishers who deny the divinity of Jesus (e.g. The Watchtower Society and the Jewish Publication Society) aren’t willing to butcher “El Gibbor” by translating it otherwise.
And, well, was there every any doubt? Jesus Christ is “Emmanuel” – “God with us.” Christmas time is the time for us to celebrate with great vigor the time when God the Son entered into his own creation by taking on human flesh and dwelling with us. Rejoice that the one who was born in Bethlehem’s manger was indeed the Creator of the universe, the Lord of Lords, the King of Kings.
Merry Christmas!
[* I provide here a link to the thread on which this debate took place. I don’t at all recommend watching the stupid video that all the comments are in response to. But if you want to look at some of the debate, please do. And if you have any questions about this issue, please post them in the comment section of this blog and I’ll gladly respond.]