Jonathan McLatchie and Samuel Green made a lot of good points, but it's a large topic about which many other points could be made. I want to bring up some examples.
The opening verse of Isaiah 9 gives us reason to believe that Jesus will fulfill the portions of the passage that haven't been fulfilled yet (like a down payment giving us reason to expect the remainder of the money to be paid). Jesus had a close relationship with Galilee in northern Israel, even though he was a descendant of David and born in Bethlehem in southern Israel. And he had a close relationship with the regions of Zebulun and Naphtali in particular, in the order in which Isaiah mentions them, by living in Nazareth (in the region of Zebulun), then Capernaum (in the region of Naphtali). The reference to the Gentiles aligns well with Jesus' life also, given how influential he's been within the Gentile world. It should be noted that Jesus' affiliations with Galilee more broadly and Nazareth in particular are corroborated by many and early ancient non-Christian sources (and modern scholarship). Not only does Jesus align in an evidentially significant way with the opening verse of Isaiah 9, but it's also noteworthy that the alignment provides a strong contrast to Hezekiah, who doesn't line up well with verse 1 (or the rest of the passage).
I recommend that people study what Isaiah and other portions of the Old Testament say about Hezekiah. The evidence suggests that his life contradicts Isaiah 9 in a variety of ways, that the Jewish people of his day didn't think anything like Isaiah 9 was on the verge of occurring, and that there wasn't any sense that a failed prophecy needed to be explained after Hezekiah failed to fulfill the passage. If anybody wants to read more on the topic, see:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-king-in-isaiah-9-isnt-hezekiah.html
Regarding the tenses in the passage, keep in mind that even the people arguing that the prophecy refers to Hezekiah need to maintain that much of the passage hadn't occurred yet. It's not as though all of the implements of war had been destroyed at that time, that Hezekiah was ruling over a worldwide kingdom of everlasting peace, etc. Since the kingdom referred to in the passage is eternal, it's not even possible for everything to have already been fulfilled. Shabir Ally appeals to the work of Michael Skobac, a rabbi, on Isaiah 9, but see 28:21 and onward at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIoFKPA5lRg for Skobac claiming that Hezekiah was a boy when Isaiah 9 was written. If that's the case, and Hezekiah fulfilled the passage, then the large majority of the fulfillment of the passage was still in the future. And there are a lot of other problems with Skobac's material. Verse 1 refers to what will happen to Galilee in the future. It isn't just referring to the region's status at the time when Isaiah 9 was written. The Jewish Study Bible (New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2014) acknowledges that "Most later readers (both Jewish and Christian) understood the passage to describe an ideal future Davidic ruler, i.e., the Messiah." (note on verses 1-6 on page 784) That same Jewish study Bible renders verse 7 with a future tense: "The zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall bring this to pass." (784)
John's gospel and Jesus' comments about his kingdom not being of this world came up in the debate. If anybody is interested, I've argued at length that John 8:12 is an allusion to Isaiah 9 and that Jesus was implying his Davidic ancestry and Bethlehem birthplace in view of the context leading up to and following 8:12. For an outline of my argument, see the relevant section at:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2021/12/jesus-birthplace-outside-matthew-and.html
And there are many other articles on Isaiah 9 at that site. Jonathan made a lot of good points about connections between Isaiah 9 and other passages, and there's material at Triablogue discussing some other connections that didn't come up in the debate. The background of the monarchy in 1 Samuel 8 and other lines of evidence add further support for the deity of the figure in Isaiah 9.
Even if we thought Hezekiah fulfilled Isaiah 9 (we shouldn't), the passage could have a secondary application to Jesus that would be evidentially significant in support of Christianity. It's unlikely that Jesus just coincidentally was a descendant of David, was so closely associated with Zebulun and Naphtali, in that order, etc. In other words, this passage is evidence for Christianity either way, because Jesus' life would be highly unlikely to align so well with Isaiah 9 by natural means, regardless of whether Jesus is the primary referent of the passage or fulfilled it in a secondary way.
On further evidence for the deity of the Isaiah 9 figure, see here. For the evidence that Jesus and the early Christians saw him as the fulfillment of the passage, see here and here. Concerning the evidence for Jesus' associations with Galilee and Nazareth in particular, see this article. Go here for a discussion of the significance of his having been in Nazareth from a young age. On Isaiah 9:1 more broadly, see here. The two Muslims in the debate made a lot of references to the work of Tovia Singer on Isaiah 9. See here regarding an interaction I had with Singer on the topic. There are many other relevant posts in our archives.
I've posted some comments on the video as well. I'm surprised that there are so few comments. It was a good debate and only a little over 300 views. I want to add that when exegeting an Old Testament passage it's perfectly legitimate to initially stick with that passage in isolation from the rest of the Old Testament. But if it truly is divine revelation, then we also must seek the sensus plenior [divine "fuller sense"] of the passage in light of all of God's revelation. For the Christian that will include both Testaments. Jews reject the NT and Muslims think both Testaments are corrupted. The fact that there are other passages in the OT that suggest the Messiah will/might be more than merely human, even divine, should also be factored in when interpreting Isa. 9:6. When done so, it ought to make the Christian position seem more plausible. It increases the probability of Christianity being true if both testaments teach the Deity of the Messiah.
ReplyDeleteJews believe the Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-14 is the Kingdom of the Saints and not an individual Messiah. But that passes over the fact that in Semitic cultures rulers and those whom they rule over are identified with each other such that they are sometimes interchangeable. In that very chapter verse 17 states, "'These four great beasts are four kings who shall arise out of the earth." Earlier we learn that the beasts are kingdoms, yet here it says they are kings. Which is it? It's both. That's true for the Son of Man. The Danielic Son of Man represents both the Kingdom of God which includes all the saints within it, AS WELL AS the ruler of that Kingdom, the divine-human Messiah. Unlike the previous empires which are called "beasts" because of their beastly nature and behavior, God's Kingdom is humane and godly. If the Kingdom described by the Son of Man isn't the Messianic Age, I don't what could be, given the grandiose prediction. If it is, then it would be strange that the Jewish Messianic Age doesn't have a Messiah. Which again makes sense that the Son of Man refers to both the Kingdom AND the King of that Kingdom [i.e. Messiah the King], as per the example of verse 17. That this person is divine-like is clear from the fact that He rides the clouds. Something which only deities did in Semitic cultures. Six times in the OT is someone said to rides the clouds. Five out of those six times it's clearly Yahweh. The sixth time is Daniel's Son of Man. Why assume he's not divine, when the whole point of referring to Yahweh as a cloud rider was to do theological battle with the premiere "cloud rider" in Semitic cultures, the pagan god Baal. The Jews applied that description to Yahweh to indicate that HE is the true Supreme Deity, not Baal. More could be said, but I'll go to another passage.
CONTINUED BELOW
Micah 5:2 suggests the Messiah will have preexistence. It's not clear that it's an eternal preexistence, or a temporal preexistence, but the Hebrew is consistent with either interpretation. I've collected some quotes from scholars in my blogpost HERE. Even some NT Unitarians appeal to Micah 5:2 to prove the preexistence of the Messiah against Humanitarian Unitarians regarding the Messiah like Jews, and "Biblical Unitarians" who accept the New Testament. Greg Stafford is an example of a Unitarian who argues for preexistence in Micah 5:2. See his blog.
DeleteProverbs 30:4 suggests the divine nature of the Messiah. Just as Yahweh's name [i.e. nature, character, attributes, etc.] cannot be fully comprehended [yet truly apprehendable], so Yahweh's Son's name [i.e. nature] is incomprehensible. The verse is not merely asking for the pronunciation of the tetragrammaton, but is a statement about the transcendent nature of God. Just as Prov. 18:10 isn't teaching the name of God is a literal tower the righteous can physically run into. It saying, the nature of God can be trusted. Similiar to Ps. 9:10 and many other passages.
A case can also be made that the Messiah will be the Angel of Yahweh [Mal. 3:1 and other passages]. That the Angel of Yahweh is fully divine and even worshipped in the OT [Exo. 3:2ff.; Judg. 2:1ff.; Jos. 5:13-15; Zech. 3:1ff.; etc.]. The oft mentioned "Arm of the LORD" is often Messianic, and is in some sense divine is revealed by His prerogatives [Isa. 51:5, 9; 52:10; 53:1]. In one sense the ARM is distinct from Yahweh, yet in another sense ontologically connected with Yahweh (as a man's arm is "part" of him). Anthony Rogers in his videos and debates does a great job showing all of this about the Malak of Yahweh.
Anthony Rogers shows in THESE TWO VIDEOS that the Hebrew of Gen. 4:1 could be translated in such a way whereby Eve (wrongly) believed that she gave birth to Yahweh. Even a Jewish Targum translates it that way. It's not implausible that Eve might have gotten that impression given the proto-evangelium of Gen. 3:15. The proto-evangelium probably summarizes a fuller revelation that Eve received.
McLatchie also mentions other passages like Exo. 23:20-22, 7:14 that suggest the divinity of the Angel of the LORD and of Messiah.
More could be said. Nevertheless, interpreting Isa. 9:6 as both 1. Messianic and 2. of it teaching the divinity of the Messiah fits very well with the overall teaching of the Tanakh regarding the identity and nature of the Messiah [not to mention what the New Testament teaches about Christ's Divinity].
typo correction: //If the Kingdom described by the Son of Man isn't the Messianic Age, I don't [[[know]]] what could be, given the grandiose prediction.//
DeleteYou've made a lot of good points, ANNOYED PINOY. Even within Isaiah alone, there are multiple lines of evidence for the deity of the Messiah, and the theme is found in many sources outside Isaiah. It's an example of the unity of scripture in a context in which we wouldn't expect so much unity by normal means.
DeleteMcLatchie just put up an article on his website fleshing out his case a bit more. https://jonathanmclatchie.com/does-isaiah-96-affirm-the-deity-of-christ/
ReplyDelete