The listmaker continues parsing, word by word, a single sentence in Y'shayahu / Isaiah 9:5 - 6 (6-7 in Christian versions).
The passage lists a string of Divine Titles: וַיִּקְרָ֨א שְׁמ֜וֹ פֶּ֠לֶא יוֹעֵץ֙ אֵ֣ל גִּבּ֔וֹר אֲבִי־עַ֖ד שַׂר־שָׁלֽוֹם׃ / "Pëlë Yo'étz Él-Gibbor Avi-Ad [descriptions of G-d] has named him: 'Sar-shalom'." This fourth line of verse 5, in English, is in past tense and states: “Wondrous One, Adviser, Mighty G-d, Father of Eternity (until or prey)” and is the subject of the verb וַיִּקְרָא (vayikra) “[and] he has called [the child’s name] שַׂר־שָׁלֽוֹם / sar shalom / peace ruler (prince)”,
The list maker has been claiming every word in that string as a separate "prophecy" fulfilled by Jesus -- ignoring the fact that the passage is already past in the lifetime of Isaiah (who lived 700+ years before Jesus). In the passage Isaiah is stating that a child was named a peace prince.
Jesus was never a prince or ruler.
The word עַ֖ד / ad (the "everlasting" part of "everlasting father") is a masculine noun (nouns in Hebrew are either masculine or feminine, there is no "gender neutral"). Everlasting is not the typical translation of עַ֖ד / ad.
עַ֖ד / ad can mean "before" or "until" or "up" and oddly enough it can also mean "prey." The translation of עַ֖ד / ad as "prey" is found in 3 places according to the Even-Shoshan Hebrew Concordance.
Translators choose the best word they can think of -- and often there is not a one for one "match" between different languages. The choice of "everlasting father" in this passage was a CHOICE of the translator. It could have been translated as a
Would it surprise you to know that some people have אביעד as a first name even today? Yes, human beings are named what most translations would give as "everlasting father." Here is a YouTube video of אביעד סייביץ (Avi-ad Sajevitch) singing "My Yiddishe Mama."
Returning momentarily to Zephaniah / Tzefaniah 3:8, note that different English translations may have to the prey, Socino or ["to meet (with you)", Judaica Press] for עַד / ad -- the same word found in Y'shayahu / Isaiah 9:5 - 6 (6-7 in Christian versions).
It is the decision of the translator -- both are correct and a decision must be made based on the context of the sentence.
Major Jewish sources including Metzudat David (that's Rabbi David Altschuler), Ibn Ezra (who refers to a "Rabbi Mosheh", who I believe is the RaMBaM), and especially Kimchi / Redak (the premiere Hebrew grammarian), have it as the Soncino does (to the prey). Rashi, the first and great Torah commentator prefers "to meet (with you)" and states: "When I will rise to meet with you" in his commentary. Since the word has multiple meanings this is why one translation may have "to the prey" (Socino translation) while another translation has "to meet (with you)" Judaica Press. . . Thanks to UriYosef of MessiahTruth for his assistance.
The last blog post tackled a similar phrase that can be translated more than one way. This is claim #174. Isaiah 9:6...The Mighty God, El Gibor...Matthew 11:20. In that post I explained that "mighty G-d" is an acceptable translation, but
אֵל / el means power.
גִּבֹּ֔ור / gibbor means brave or heroic.
Thus it could rightly be translated as a powerful (mighty) heroic entity, and this is just as good a translation as "mighty G-d" or even "mighty judge." For comparisons take a look at a similar phrase to "El gibbor (אֵל גִּבּוֹר)" -- translated as "mighty god" in Y'shayahu / Isaiah 9:5 - 6 (6-7 in Christian versions), is the phrase in Y'chezkel / Ezekiel 32:21 "אֵלֵ֧י גִבֹּורִ֛ים / eli gibborim / strongest of mighty men."
Notice how similar they are? Isaiah has "El gibbor (אֵל גִּבּוֹר)" and Ezekiel has eli gibborim / (אֵלֵ֧י גִבֹּורִ֛ים). The latter is translated as "strongest of mighty men" -- so why is Isaiah not translated as "the strong, mighty man"?
Jesus did not even live in times of peace. 2000 years ago the Romans were brutal to the Jews in Judah, and crucified tens of thousands of them. In 68 CE (about 30 years after Jesus' death) the Romans destroyed most of Jerusalem and the Temple. Less than forty years after that the Romans put down a war with the Jews (again, no peaceful time!) and exiled most who remained in the land to other countries.
So Jesus did not live in a time of peace, and was not a prince -- ergo the title of "peace prince" simply is not applicable.
In this passage the list maker is applying the title of "everlasting father" to Jesus -- a man who was never a father!
He also was not everlasting (he was killed. Even if Jesus resurrected there were those 2 days when he was dead -- and thus not everlasting. . .
Even trinitarians (and the trinity is NOT biblical) separate the Father from Jesus.
Some missionaries will claim that Jesus (present tense) is like a father because he protects and cares for his followers.
Isaiah does not say this entity is "like" a father.
He IS a father.
Jesus is called the son of man and even the son of G-d the Father (John 1:18, 3:16) -- if G-d was his father he can not also be his OWN son. (A son may be a father -- but his son is not HIS father. Jesus could not have been his own father, an impossibility).
The words "everlasting father" (father of eternity) are translated from אֲבִי־עַ֖ד and could be translated as eternal patron. Most Jewish sources say that the string of titles are all about G-d, who is indeed the father of eternity. A few sages opined that the titles applied to King חִזְקִיָּ֫הוּ / Hizkiyyahu / Hezekiah. One such source was אִבְּן עֶזְרָא / Ibn Ezra (12th century CE) had a different view. "אֲבִי־עַ֖ד / avi-ad / Father of perpetuity" because the reign of the house of David was prolonged through his merits."
This does not mean that חִזְקִיָּ֫הוּ / Hizkiyyahu / Hezekiah himself lived eternally -- but G-d did extend his physical life by fifteen years in his merit, and חִזְקִיָּ֫הוּ / Hizkiyyahu / Hezekiah was of the Davidic kingly line which was given the eternal promise of the right of Jewish kingship (through David and Solomon). As mentioned above, the word translated as "eternity" is really a word meaning "until."
Context is everything. Y'shayahu / Isaiah 9:5 - 6 (6-7 in Christian versions) does not exist in a vacuum. Read verse three which says "For, the yoke of his burden and the staff of his shoulder, the rod of the one who oppressed him have You broken, as on the day of Midian."
Was Jesus ever threatened by the Midian?
Of course not.
The context of the passage is that there was a very real military threat at the time Isaiah spoke to King Ahaz about his son Hizkiyyahu / Hezekiah who was a mere boy (about age 13) at the time Isaiah told King Ahaz that one day, when Hizkiyyahu / Hezekiah ruled over Judah, the military threat to the country would be miraculously eliminated and Hizkiyyahu / Hezekiah would being a lengthy time of peace for Judah (the peace lasted about 100 years!). This peace was a direct result of Hizkyyahu / Hezekiah's prayers to G-d for peace. See Y'shayau / Isaiah 37:21 "And Isaiah the son of Amoz sent to Hezekiah, saying, "So has the L-rd G-d of Israel said, 'What you prayed to Me concerning Sennacherib, king of Assyria"
This title, along with the rest of the verse, does not apply to Jesus at all. The proof text given by the list maker is John 8:58 which says "Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" This passage does not say that Jesus was a father, let alone an eternal father -- or have anything to do with prey or spoils. . .
On top of that the "I am" claim is based on the Christian bible creating a “prophecy” based on a mistranslation. Sh’mot / Exodus 3:13-14 does not say “I am.” Sh’mot / Exodus 3:13-14 says
“וַיֹּֽאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֶל מֹשֶׁה אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה (“G-d said to Moses, ‘Ĕhyĕh ashĕr ĕhyĕh’...”).
G-d said to Moses אֶהְיֶה / Ĕhyĕh / “I will be” – not “I am.” "Ĕhyĕh" is the first person singular imperfect form -- it is not present tense (I am) - it is future (I will be).
G-d said to Moses אֶהְיֶה / Ĕhyĕh / “I will be” – not “I am.”
This is immediately followed by אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה / ashĕr ĕhyĕh’ (“as I will be”).