Can Jews be Christian?

[metis]

River:

Yes, I understand what you're now saying, and let me mention briefly what I've been through.

As you know, I converted to Judaism about a dozen years ago and, fortunately, my family took it all in stride-- including my wife, who was and is Catholic.  All of our kids (they're now in their 30's and 40's) were brought up Catholic, but our oldest daughter is bringing her kids up Jewish even though she hasn't formally converted yet.  Our youngest daughter is Catholic and sends her kids to parochial school, and my son is an agnostic who leans towards Buddhism but is bringing up his daughter Lutheran.  Fortunately, we all get along very well on all this, and we often attend each others' services.  The anger that so often separates people if one leaves "the faith" we have not experienced, but I know many who have.

As a side, I'm arranging a shared visitation with my synagogue and a Hindu temple over the winter, and I'm really looking forward to this.  I've been to Hindu services before and I had many students who were Hindu as well, and I have a deep respect for the religion and the people.  I wonder if your daughter-in-law will ever touch base back with her upbringing?  Do you have strong feelings about this one way or another?   

[Howiedds]

River:

She makes a very nice seder, makes her own fish.  Sends the kids to Hebrew school, why should I ask?  (or care?)  She's learning Hebrew herself.  That's enough for me....

Amen!

Riv, you got a style all your own. If it's in your head, it's on your tongue, and no baloney.

And I understood exactly what you meant about them no longer being Jewish if they convert. You didn't mean it any technical halachic sense, but you had it right. They marry non-Jews; they raise children as something else. Jewishness ends with them, and they become quirks on the family tree. I have heard it time and time again in my church classes, "My great grandfather was Jewish." Now that great grandfather could have gone to his grave claiming he was still Jewish despite his conversion to Christianity, but for all practical purposes, it ended with him. He and his family were lost to the Jewish people.

[Acumen]

Howie,

As I stated above, I do think it was at odds with Jesus' Jewish students in the first century. You and I are not reading anything from the hands of the Jewish followers of Jesus in the 1st century. We are reading the evangelists' account of what his earliest followers said and did. Their is such a strong prohibition of thinking of God as a person that I don't believe his Jewish followers did either.

Well, we'll have to debate that out bit by bit.   

Acumen:  This system of thought was found in Paul's writings, which were manufactured during the time when the very Jewish apostles were pillars of the church.

Howie:  I question whether or not Paul ever wrote of Jesus being God.

There is no doubt that Paul considered Jesus to be God.  In fact, if there are any books in the NT that were to specify that Jesus is God, it would be written by Paul before anyone else.  Here are a few of the passages written by Paul that makes this point painfully clear.

Titus 2:13 While we wait for the blessed hope — the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,


Col 2:9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form

2 Cor 5:18-19  All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

Col 1:15-19 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.  16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,


2 Cor 4:4  The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.


I honestly don't see a reasonable way around Paul's epistles in this regard without attributing Paul's writings to some later evangelist.  His language is too clear for it to be avoided, and some of the same language is found in the gospels as well.

Acumen:  One cannot help but wonder why Paul was never called to the carpet for his depiction of Jesus as God incarnate.

Howie:  Probably because he did not say that Jesus was God incarnate.

See above.

Acumen:  If such a view is an anathema to the Jewish mind, surely the apostles would not have stopped short of discrediting Paul in every way imaginable.

Howie:  I do think he was discredited in some ways, although that is a dispute we have had many times. I don't think that Paul ever wrote of Jesus being God.

Well, since this is a dispute of a long standing history between us, we won't hash it out here.  Besides, it's probably not the right place for it anyway.   

Acumen:  First, Isa 9:6-7 says, "For to 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, (emphasis Howie's) Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase 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."

Howie:  That is your example?

For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom

There have been several translations of the name "Pele-joez… " over the years in the Jewish Bibles:

Wonderful in counsel is God, the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace,

or

The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler

or

Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace.

First off, notice the translation from the Hebrew to English in the Jewish Bible, compared to the KJV and the RSV regarding the “is” rather than “shall” in both referencing the government on his shoulder and his name being… It is the present, not the future. The Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) corrected that as did the New RSV.

I wouldn't pay too much attention to the present versus the future tense because I believe it is a matter of prose.  Take a look at the preceding verse.  You will see that is says in the first segment of the passage, "For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood" and the second segment of the passage says, "but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire."  You will notice that the first segment uses the present tense, but shifts to the future tense in the second segment to describe the same military event.  It's really a matter of prose on this one, so I wouldn't get hung up on the tenses so much.

Then notice the Hebrew doesn’t say his name is “the Mighty God” but a subtle difference: “ Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty,” or “the Mighty God is…” He is not being called God.

Now regarding to whom Isaiah is referring, Jews believe it is Hezekiah. He would bear that name to remind the people of the message which he embodied.

First, I'm not sure if I'm understanding you.  It seems like you're rearranging the passage to make it into a poetic adoration of God.  And a few of your Jewish-Bible renderings seem to suggest the same thing.  If that is the case, then wouldn't a pleasant and honorable adoration of God be out of place when the passage is discussing a child and a son?

And second, if the passage is referring to Hezekiah, then are you conceding that Hezekiah is the messiah?  I say this because the passage is messianic in nature.  It refers to an everlasting throne with a king that reigns on it forever.  And this is precisely the attribute given to the messiah by the prophet Nathan when talking to king David.

Isaiah continued  in 09:006
That the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it through justice and through righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of HaShem of hosts doth perform this

Again, we believe that Isaiah is referring Ahaz’s son, Hezekiah, under whose leadership, as the power of Assyria faded, combined the northern and southern kingdoms for the 1st time since Solomon’s death. The government did increase. Justice did reign for ever during his lifetime. In Isaiah’s time, the word mashiach, messiah,  was a leader, military, religious, royal, prophetic, who was “anointed” by God to do a job. There is no indication in the 9:6 that the Messiah would be God.

Jews believe that Isaiah was talking about contemporary events that would have immediate future consequences. His advice doesn’t seem to us to make much sense for distant future events occurring hundreds of years later. How would that be helpful encouraging advice to Judah right then.  But this also reflects the difference between the Greek based word “prophet”, which means a “fore teller” and the Hebrew word “navi” which means “tells for” God.

Come on, Howie.  The passage said the reign would be forever, not forever until he died. 

Acumen:  Beside the point that a child born will be called the "mighty God" and the "everlasting Father," it specifies he will exact justice and righteousness "forever" through the empowerment of the almighty.  If the appellation of "everlasting father" isn't telling, I think a never ending government is something else we would expect of the NT Jesus.

Howie:  A strictly Christian interpretation with a tweaking of the Hebrew name. As Christianity has always done, scouring our testament for isolated phrases and verses that could be applied to Jesus. Why leave out what you do with the "virgin" birth in Isaiah"

Because it wasn't in the passage, Howie.  The problem with the traditional Jewish interpretation is that it cannot explain the very "un-temporal like" descriptions of the child/son and the reign of his righteous kingdom.  If the passage refers to Hezekiah, then either Hezekiah is still alive or he will be resurrected to govern God's kingdom forever.  Otherwise, the passage seems out of place.

Another problem is that the "child born" and the "son given" are terms associated with God in this passage.  For one to speak about this chosen son of Israel only to cut it off in mid-sentence to interject divine accolades to the mighty and eternal God not only makes a mess of the prose, but it just doesn't fit.

The Christian explanation seems to fit the best because it doesn't fall into these problems.  Christian commentators don't need to rearrange the words or force an eternal reign on a temporal king to make the interpretation fit.  Jesus, as described by the NT writers, fits this passage almost perfectly.

Acumen:  And third, Mic 5:2  "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

Howie: Our 5:1,

out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days.

Throughout Jewish history, whenever there has been great trouble and destruction, loss of independence and well being, the Jewish people have always longed for a king like David. He is the paradigm of a time of Jewish well being, safety. and success. Micah is longing for such a time. "Going forth" is the Hebrew idiom for lineage. "From ancient days" suggests in the Hebrew idiom the idea that the messiah, from the house of David, existed in the "mind" of God from time immemorial, as part of the Creator's plan at the inception of the universe. For us, and I suspect for the Jewish disciples of Jesus, the expected Jewish messiah was not God.

LOL, okay, you got me there.  I wasn't expecting that sort of interpretation, but I actually like it, and I think it's a good one.  No arguments there.   

[bunsinspace]

BS"D

Just an interesting bit of tid, not that it matters:

What if, as the MJ's contend, the NT is being misread outside of its alleged Jewish context?

If so, that would imply that it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to interpret the references of Paul to "Lord" as referring to G-d in the absolute sense.  Not that I would try to defend that premise, but it does put the entire god-man construct out on its ear.  Musing again.   

[Acumen]

Hey Buns, good to see you again!!!

[river]

Buns wrote:  What if, as the MJ's contend, the NT is being misread outside of its alleged Jewish context?

What does that mean?  I wasn't under the impression that MJ thought the NT was being misread out of it's Jewish context.  Maybe some think that way, but on the old LAMJ and MJ threads they didn't seem to have that opinion.  But maybe I'm not understanding you correctly.

Acumen,  better, much better.  (the photo)

[river]

River:

Yes, I understand what you're now saying, and let me mention briefly what I've been through.

As you know, I converted to Judaism about a dozen years ago and, fortunately, my family took it all in stride-- including my wife, who was and is Catholic.  All of our kids (they're now in their 30's and 40's) were brought up Catholic, but our oldest daughter is bringing her kids up Jewish even though she hasn't formally converted yet.  Our youngest daughter is Catholic and sends her kids to parochial school, and my son is an agnostic who leans towards Buddhism but is bringing up his daughter Lutheran.  Fortunately, we all get along very well on all this, and we often attend each others' services.  The anger that so often separates people if one leaves "the faith" we have not experienced, but I know many who have.

As a side, I'm arranging a shared visitation with my synagogue and a Hindu temple over the winter, and I'm really looking forward to this.  I've been to Hindu services before and I had many students who were Hindu as well, and I have a deep respect for the religion and the people.  I wonder if your daughter-in-law will ever touch base back with her upbringing?  Do you have strong feelings about this one way or another?   

I couldn't say.  She's very close to her parents.  Her mother is Catholic, and her father recently converted to the Catholic faith from some other faith.  I don't know which one.  Protestant,I guess.

I think she respects the opinions and expectations of my son, and will do what he thinks is best for the children.  And along those lines, I think she decided that rather than to bring them nothing, for my son would never have agreed to bring them up Christian, she decided to bring them up Jewish. And in doing so, she is trying very hard to do it right.  I don't know where she is in her beliefs. I never question her.   She used to work in my store, and at that time she was a pagan or a pantheist.  If I had thought she was a believing Christian, I would never have introduced her to my son.   At that time, he only dated Jewish girls.  I think she was the first pagan he ever met.  He though it was all rather silly, and talked her out of going to festivals and circles, especially when they interferred with their dates. They argued about a lot.  She would tell me.  On the other hand, I thought it was groovy!  (I guess that's a dated word.)    But he wasn't impressed, so she stopped. And, I will say this.  He was never as religious a Jew as he is today.  She turned him on to Buffy, the Vampire, (though I've never seen it) and has read Harry Potter a gzillion times.  It's one of things my son and I have in common, (other than baseball.)  Go figure.     

[Acumen]

Buns wrote:  What if, as the MJ's contend, the NT is being misread outside of its alleged Jewish context?

What does that mean?  I wasn't under the impression that MJ thought the NT was being misread out of it's Jewish context.  Maybe some think that way, but on the old LAMJ and MJ threads they didn't seem to have that opinion.  But maybe I'm not understanding you correctly.

Acumen,  better, much better.  (the photo)

Thanks.  I don't have many photos of myself.  I was using my wife's computer for a while, and I found that picture on her computer.  Believe it or not, that picture was a zoom shot, but when it's transferred to the website, it makes everything really small.

[river]

It's still better.  Much.

[Acumen]

It's still better.  Much.

Apparently you didn't like Magneto from X-men.  I thought the picture was sort of cool.

[Clyde5001]

Magneto is cool when you're Ian McLellan.

It's always coolest to see picture of who you're talking to.

And take it from someone who knows - it's much easier to stay polite and not get ruffled if you're looking at someone (presumed) real face. They become real, and the ease at which manners can go right down the toilet on the net isn't so easy anymore.

[Acumen]

Clyde,

That's a good point.  Ever since Howie put his mug on the site, I've been going easy on him.   

[river]

Who is Magneto?  Who are the X-men?  Is it a movie?  This is such a typical male forum.   Is that better or worse than Buffy, a vampire slayer?   My kids keep telling me what a great show it is, and I've tried to watch it, but it didn't grab my attention.  It was like watching Friends or something. All about a bunch of silly teen agers.   Of course I never saw more than 10 minutes of it, so I don't know anything about the story line.  Vampires never interested me anyway.  My daughter in law read every one of Anne Rice's Vampire books.    I read 2, and that's as far as I could get.  Actually, I did like the first one.  I started the 3rd one after being talked into it.  It began (this was years ago) but as I remember it began with some vampires joining a rock band or something?  Uh, no.  ....... yuk.

[Acumen]

River,


You need to get out more.  X-Men is a movie, and Magneto is the main villain (if I'm not mistaken, he's Jewish based upon his concentration camp tattoo).  Anyway, Magneto was my avatar.    

[river]

LOL!  I get out enough, but I just recently had knee surgery so not as much as I would like.  I'm home a lot these days.  Can't drive far.  But even if I got out, I wouldn't be going to one of those movies.

I wish when we post we could see the posts a head of us.  Sometimes, I can't remember how to spell something (such as that strange movie you mentioned) or want to quickly quote a phrase, copy and paste and put in a block, and the quote is up a ways or just a head.  It's too much trouble always going through the quote thing where I generally get lost, and where you have to quote a whole post instead of a just a paragraph or a few sentences. 

I''m not a computer geek and still can't figure out how to get on Facebook or My Space. I tried to get on My Space but they wouldn't take my password, so I changed it.  Then they kept telling me my e-mail was already being used! (probably by me, because I had tried before) Ufie is trying to help me.  I finally got on Facebook, but now that I'm on, I have no idea what to do.   

[river]

In answer to the question here, since I went way off topic.  "Can Jews be Christians?"   The answer is no they can't.   

But, I have a question.  Can converts to Judaism be Jews?  Everyone says, yes!  Religiously, I suppose so. as many do and are sincere about it.   But I don't know if I believe (from reading these forums since they started) that all that convert to Judaism do it purely for any major change in their beliefs.   And that's all I'm going to say on the subject.

[Acumen]

Is the belief that ethnic or covert Jews cannot be Christian made on the basis of tradition or on the basis of Halaka?

[river]

I'm not sure I understand your question.  All I'm saying is that I believe some people who do convert to Judaism do so for reasons other than religious and that there are other reason they leave Christianity, not necessarily because of their religious beliefs.   For some, it's marriage.  That's probably the most frequent reason, and many of those are sincere about their conversions, but some are not sincere. Along comes a divorce, and back they go to church.  But there are other reasons too.  I've picked it up from posters in the past 8 years who say they are converts to Judaism, and I'm sure they are, but from what they write, I get the impression that some of them know very little about basic Judaism, it's history or who we are.   Others know a lot, but when they write, I hear mixed in with their Jewish beliefs some Christianity creeeping in.   Why did they really leave Christianity?  Was it because of the religion itself or something about their religious rules or teachings etc. that they couldn't live with.   

[Howiedds]

Acumen:
There is no doubt that Paul considered Jesus to be God.

Paul writes very little about Jesus, but where he does, he writes of Jesus living a life of perfection to be taken up to be with God on his death. I think Paul distinguishes between God and “Christ.”

Here are a few of the passages written by Paul that makes this point painfully clear

Titus 2:13 While we wait for the blessed hope — the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, .

There are even conservative Christian Testament scholars who have come to the conclusion that this “pastoral letter,” Titus, is not authentically Paul, but is derivative testimony to Pauline traditions by a Pauline school of writers long after his death. That does not mean, however, that they cannot be read as informing of the early Christian understanding of the Christian experience at the end of the 1st and early second century.

Col 2:9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form

This, as in your other quotes, Paul’s language is difficult in relating exactly what he meant. What does “fullness of the Deity” mean, Jesus is God?

2 Cor 5:18-19  All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

Sounds like he is speaking of two entities, God and through Christ.

Col 1:15-19 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

As in my children being the “image” of me? “The first born” as in created/born of something? Do we have a description of a creator and a creature.


 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,

So is God the same as “him?”


2 Cor 4:4  The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Sorry Acumen, these quotes are just not making the case that Jesus is God. In fact, they are speaking of Jesus/the Christ as something different from God. Taken up by God, perhaps, given great authority by God, certainly no ordinary human being through his relationship with God, but not God.

I honestly don't see a reasonable way around Paul's epistles in this regard without attributing Paul's writings to some later evangelist.  His language is too clear for it to be avoided, and some of the same language is found in the gospels as well.

His language is very difficult and is unclear. That’s the reason he is such a study. No matter what folks conclude, the ones who really study him would agree that “clear” is not a word they would use for Paul.



It seems like you're rearranging the passage to make it into a poetic adoration of God.  And a few of your Jewish-Bible renderings seem to suggest the same thing.

I am not rearranging the words; I am translating the Hebrew. He is not being called the mighty God, but within his name God is being praised as “Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty”

If that is the case, then wouldn't a pleasant and honorable adoration of God be out of place when the passage is discussing a child and a son?

Not at all. Part of his name is praising God: Melchizedek= “my God is righteous,”  Elimelech= “my God is King,” Joshua= “God is salvation”

And second, if the passage is referring to Hezekiah, then are you conceding that Hezekiah is the messiah?

Of course Hezekiah is a messiah, as is Isaiah, Moses, Joshua, David, etc. Here is where your Christian misunderstanding of the word mashiach in Jewish testament has allowed Christians to plumb the Jewish Testament for sources of their messiah/God. Mashiach is just a word; picked by God to do a job. That’s what we hear when we hear that word in a context that does not include the end of history. Do you ever hear the word and not think of God Himself?

The early church spoke of and thought of Jesus as a messiah, sent by God to get the people and the land out of the mess with Rome just as He had sent other messiahs. Perhaps by the 1st century, the messiah had come to mean somewhat more to Jews than an ordinary or even extroadinary person. If the book of Daniel, a very late written canonical book,  and other non-canonical books can be seen as reflecting Jewish thinking of the day, then a messiah had evolved into someone truly extroadinary, but still not God.

As Christology evolved, Jesus the messiah morphed into Jesus/God and the word messiah stuck. I have no doubt that every Christian I meet understands his English word “messiah” to not only mean Jesus but God; they’re synonyms. Then you go back into Jewish testament and see the word mashiach/anointed/messiah and go, “Aha, they are talking about Jesus.” Then Christians wonder why we can’t see it. It says it right there.

Of course I concede that Hezekiah was considered a messiah in his time and by his adviser, Isaiah.

I say this because the passage is messianic in nature.

Yes it is, but we don’t mean the same thing by the word mashiach.  Hezekiah
in comparison to his father Ahaz, was a messiah.  His father resisted Aram and Northern Israel’s insistence that he join with them against Assyria. He took Isaiah’s advice ( the young girl giving birth to Emmanuel is part of that proof of his advice) and didn’t join them. But when they attacked he asked Assyria for help. Assyria’s help came at a price. Ahaz went to Damascus to pay homage to the victor; from there he sent instructions to the high priest Uriah to introduce Assyrian cults into the Temple in Jerusalem and, in particular, to build an altar modeled on an Assyrian type altar he had seen in Damascus. Later, he himself sacrificed on this altar (II Kings 16:7ff.). Ahaz made other far-reaching changes in the Temple and, besides despoiling the Temple treasury and his own, melted down some of the Temple vessels for his tribute to the Assyrian king. Ahaz, for practicing ancient Canaanite cults, such as the Moloch fire rite, is one of the kings who did “evil in the eyes of the Lord “(II Kings 16:3–4).

His son Hezekiah is commended for giving Ahaz a pauper's funeral as an atonement for Ahaz' sins and in order to disassociate himself from his father's religious policies. In II Kings 18:3–4 stress is laid on the purification of the cult by Hezekiah from idolatrous elements, such as the removal of the high places, the breaking up of the pillars, the cutting down of the cult pole, and the smashing of the copper serpent which Moses had made in the desert (Num. 21:5–9). In II Chronicles 29–32, the emphasis is placed on the renewal and the return to the service of God as in the days of David and Solomon (II Chron. 28:24; 29:3).

In the Books of Kings and Chronicles, a personal and religious reason for this reform is given. The changes stemmed from the will of the king, who was pious and did that which was upright in the eyes of God, more than any other king who reigned before him (II Kings 18:3, 5–6; II Chron. 31:20–21).

It seems that there were also some political aspects to this religious reform. Hezekiah abolished the cult of the high places, which had always been practiced in Jerusalem and the provincial towns, and concentrated the religious activity in the Temple of Jerusalem (II Kings 18:22). It was his intention to raise the Jerusalem Temple to the status of the only legitimate cult place. He would thus strengthen the ties between the people of Judah and the dynasty of David, which reigned in Jerusalem. Moreover, if there is any basis to the account in II Chronicles 30:1–10, Hezekiah sent letters to Ephraim and Manasseh inviting them to the Temple in Jerusalem in order to sacrifice the Paschal Lamb. The object of this invitation to the "remnants" living outside Judah to come to Jerusalem for Passover was to intensify the consciousness of the national unity of the Israelite tribes as a first step in the territorial and political restoration of the kingdom of David and Solomon. We relate this attempt at reunification to the phrase “that the government may be increased.”

These activities were doubtless closely associated with the activities of Hezekiah in other fields, such as the war against the Philistines. Hezekiah penetrated into Philistia and reached the frontier of the state of Gaza These conquests were closely connected with Hezekiah's rebellion against Sennacherib in 701 B.C.E. (II Kings 18:7, 13–37; II Chron. 32; Isa. 36–37). This rebellion was a result of Hezekiah's policy for the expansion of his territory and his ambition to achieve absolute political independence. Hezekiah made preparations for the decisive struggle with Assyria by strengthening his forces and defenses internally and by making alliances against Assyria. He assured the supply of water to Jerusalem by closing off the outlet of the Gihon spring, which was outside the walls of Jerusalem, and diverting the spring waters by means of a tunnel to the pool of Siloam which was situated within the city walls (II Kings 20:20; Isa. 22:9–11; II Chron. 32:30).  Hezekiah also took care to fortify the provincial towns. He built towns for the storage of grain, wine, and oil (II Chron. 32:28–29), reorganized the army, and made many weapons (II Chron. 32:5–6). Hezekiah engaged in extensive diplomatic activity in order to ensure support and assistance from the outside. He contracted an alliance with Egypt (II Kings 18:21; Isa. 36:6), Merodach (Berodach)-Baladan, the Chaldean (II Kings 20; Isa. 39), Luli, king of Sidon, and Sidqa, king of Ashkelon.

Again, in light of his father’s losses to Aram and Ephraim, in which Judeans were actually taken captive and territory lost, and his father’s capitulation to Assyria and the religious subservience that went along with it, one might even say that in his generation, his contemporaries would think of him as a mashiach a leader anointed by God to save the nation, which he did. That success may be what we are reading in Isaiah.

09:006
That the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it through justice and through righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of HaShem of hosts doth perform this

Again, we believe that Isaiah is referring Ahaz’s son, Hezekiah, under whose leadership, as the power of Assyria faded, combined the northern and southern kingdoms for the 1st time since Solomon’s death. The government did increase. Justice did reign “forever” during his lifetime. In Isaiah’s time. There is no indication in the 9:6 that the Messiah would be God.

The passage said the reign would be forever, not forever until he died.

The word you are translating as “forever” also means “ a long time” in Hebrew. He reigned for 29 years.

Howie:  A strictly Christian interpretation with a tweaking of the Hebrew name. As Christianity has always done, scouring our testament for isolated phrases and verses that could be applied to Jesus. Why leave out what you do with the "virgin" birth in Isaiah"

Because it wasn't in the passage, Howie.

A figure of speech. It’s the same kind of tweaking to fit your Christology: words that aren’t there, words that are mistranslated, words that have more than one meaning.

Otherwise, the passage seems out of place

The only out of place assumption is that it refers to events 700 years hence.

Another problem is that the "child born" and the "son given" are terms associated with God in this passage.

As is God is associated with the birth of all our children without meaning that he impregnates a virgin.

For one to speak about this chosen son of Israel only to cut it off in mid-sentence to interject divine accolades to the mighty and eternal God not only makes a mess of the prose, but it just doesn't fit.

Huh? A chosen savior of Israel (not your savior, just a messiah who saves Israel) is given a name that describes the hopes of what he will accomplish or represent and you think it’s out of place?

What is out of place is Isaiah’s message to the people of their salvation from Assyria by way of a new righteous king who will rescue the nation, unlike his father Ahaz who sold out to the Assyrians, but, oh wait, you have to wait 700 years for that salvation.

The Christian explanation seems to fit the best because it doesn't fall into these problems.

The problems don’t exist but the Christian explanation provides new ones. A hopeful encouraging message by the prophet of a messiah, of an anointed leader, who will save the people from the Assyrians who just destroyed the northern kingdom, but won’t come for 700 years. Yeah, no problem with that!


Christian commentators don't need to rearrange the words

They rearrange continually and when that doesn’t work, they mistranslate altogether.

 Jesus, as described by the NT writers, fits this passage almost perfectly.

And they had the Jewish testament in front of them when they wrote the biography of Jesus: prophecy historicized: casting lots for his robe, Bethlehem birth, what he says on the cross, two donkeys into Jerusalem, and on and on, all written to match the dried ink in Jewish Testament sitting in front of the evangelists in Greek translation.

[Acumen]

Howie,


Thanks for keeping your patience with my Christian interpretations/opinions, I'll try to get out a response later on today.