Isn't This An Example of Synonymous...?

A child was definitely born and the eternally existent Son of God was indeed given, all at the same time. I do not believe Isaiah's intent was to confuse us with semantics.

 

I discern no difference. Jesus was the son of Mary. I don't think the reference to "a son" is limited to Jesus as the son of God.

 

Oh, goodness, the "s" in 'son" isn't capitalized!!! Blasphemous version....

I was just working on a visual presentation for this concept yesterday.

Parallelism comes in a number of flavors.

A. the same, or nearly the same (Ps 103:10)
B. a progression, building upon the first line (Ps 145:18,19)
C. antithetical, opposite (Ps 37:21)

I think this was written with the first in mind, synonomous parallelism.

Look at the Hebrew, the lettering is very similar for
Child and born
Son and given

Rob

 

So did Jacob's son Dan eternally exist?:laugh:

Genesis 30:6
And Rachel said, God hath judged me, and hath also heard my voice, and hath given me a son: therefore called she his name Dan.

 

And his brother, Simeon, too (Genesis 29:33)? :laugh:

It seems sons are given to fathers as well as mothers (1Chronicles 28:5, KJV) --

And of all my sons, (for the LORD hath given me many sons,) he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel. ​

Another father example (Genesis 48:9) --

And Joseph said unto his father, They [are] my sons, whom God hath given me in this [place]. And he said, Bring them, I pray thee, unto me, and I will bless them.​

And not just sons, but daughters are also "given" (Deuteronomy 28:53) --

And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:​

BTW - the word "given" in these verses is the same Hebrew word (nathan, Strong's #5414) as found in Isaiah 9:6.

No, at least not strictly from the words used. In this literary form it seems that the two phrases ("a child will be born", and "a son will be given") are meant to be equivalents.

 

Just a quick glance at the first verses of chapter 9 and you can see a number of different examples of parallelism in its prose.

Rob

 

I've been meditating over this section today.
Here are my conclusions:

Isa 9:2 Show antithetical parallel
vss. 9:3+4 Synonymous Parallelism
vs 9:5 No parallelism
vs 9:6 The key point is emphasized by the two similar words for "child" and "born" - יֶלֶד // יֻלַּד (yod-lamed-dalet // only the vowel points are different).

Here starts a subtle progression…
“a son is given” - Additional information is given
1). the child is a "son”
2). he was “given”
…leading us to inwardly ask, “Who gave him?” (any three-year-old could answer that).

From there the momentum of the section intensifies.

Check out the Hebrew word used for "God" in verse 6, it is not the usual word used [ גִּבּוֹר - 'îš gibbôr ].
"mighty warrior, valiant soldier, i.e., mighty hero who is very capable of defense or attack (1Sa 2:4; Ps 33:16)"
Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains (1475.5.1).

Absolutely no implication in this verse for the idea that "The Son wasn't born; the child was born. The Son eternally existed."

Rob

 

Rob, your thorough analysis is always appreciated. Keep up the good posts!