 At first glance, the belief that the Messiah is God contradicts the repeated biblical statements that he would be descended from David. The Gospels don't even tell us that Jesus' mother was a descendant of David. Instead, in two genealogies that are not quite consistent with one another, the first Matthew chapter 1 verse 1 to 16 and the other Luke chapter 3 verses 23 to 38. They say this about his father. Jesus himself, despite the biblical evidence, apparently denied that the Messiah would be descended from David at all. You'll find that in Matthew chapter 22 and also in Mark chapter 12. However, these problems are to be resolved, we are told that the Hebrew Bible says that the Messiah will be God. Let's see if this is true. Behold, the days come, says the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous branch, and a king shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days, Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely, and this is the name whereby he shall be called, the Lord our righteousness. Jeremiah chapter 23 verses 5 and 6. Now if the king is called the Lord our righteousness, it would seem that he must be divine. The trouble is that this is a mistranslation. We've already noted that the fact that the Hebrew leaves out the present tense of the verb to be. What this name really means is the Lord is our righteousness, or the Lord is our salvation. It doesn't describe the king as the Lord, rather like many other symbolic names in the Bible, it makes a statement about God. Even many ordinary Hebrew names like Daniel and Isaiah are statements about God. There are in fact almost precise analogies to the structure of this name. Moses built an altar that he called the Lord as my banner in Exodus chapter 17 verse 15, and Gideon built one that he called the Lord his peace. Judges chapter 6 verses 24. Now in both cases the word is missing from the Hebrew, and it's not necessary to say that one has never claimed that these altars were God. Now we come to Isaiah chapter 9 verse 5. In some translations it's verse 6. The Christological translation of the verse goes like this. For a child has been born unto us. A son has been given to us, and the government has been placed upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called wonderful counselor, mighty God, everlasting father, prince of peace. A child who is called mighty God and everlasting father would appear to be divine. Now this is probably the best of all the Christian proof texts in the Hebrew Bible. The translation just given is linguistically acceptable, and if this verse were found on an isolated scrap of paper produced by an unknown culture, we could legitimately entertain the possibility that this culture believed that God would become a man. It is at this point though that we have to remember what we said earlier at the beginning of this presentation. If there is a verse that can reasonably be interpreted in several ways, that doesn't make sense to choose the one that will yield a startling, radical, unique, and in this case philosophically difficult doctrine, if the others produce a meaning which fits smoothly into the entire framework of biblical religion. And this is the only verse in the Hebrew Bible that can reasonably be regarded as a reference to a God-man. In light of this, let's take a look at the three alternate interpretations. Number one, leave the translation as is, but understand that the praises of a king were routinely, highly exaggerated in the ancient Orian. Mighty God means nothing more than God-like in power. In fact, the fundamental linguistic meaning of the word translated God is probably powerful one. An everlasting father is the equivalent of the routine greeting may the king live forever. Number two, the translation is wrong. After upon his shoulder, translate and the wonderful counselor, the mighty God, the eternal father, i.e. God, has called his name Prince of Peace. In this translation, mighty God and everlasting father are not part of the child's name at all. Number three, the smallest likelihood is that both translations given so far are wrong. We've already seen that symbolic names in the Bible tend to be complete sentences that often make a statement about God. As in, the Lord is our righteousness. The Lord is my banner. The Lord is peace. The same section of Isaiah contains three symbolic names that are complete sentences. A remnant will return, which is Isaiah chapter 7 verse 3. God is with us. Isaiah chapter 7 verse 14. That actually is the meaning of Emanuel. And speed, spoil, hasten, plunder. Isaiah chapter 8 verse 3. It's likely, therefore, that this name is also a complete sentence and that it makes a statement about God, not directly about the child. Translate the name as follows. The grammatical structure is perfectly acceptable. The mighty God, the eternal father, the Prince of Peace, is planning a wondrous deed. If you know Hebrew, the point is that El Gibor Avi Atsar Shalom is the subject of Yo'Aids. The child is probably Hezekiah, and the wondrous deed is the destruction of Sennacherib's army. In any case, the verse does not speak of a divine or everlasting son. Finally, there is one more verse on the divinity of the Messiah that serves double duty by demonstrating His birth in Bethlehem as well. And thou, Bethlehem Ephrata, though thou be a little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall come forth unto me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origins are of old from the days of Yor. This quote is taken from Micah chapter 5 verse 1. In some translations, it's verse 2. The Christological translation of the last phrase Micahdem mimeola is of old from everlasting, which demonstrates that this ruler is eternal and hence divine. But aside from the almost immediate reference to the Lord is God, we are once again dealing with a mistranslation. The crucial words appear in another verse, where they cannot possibly refer to eternity. Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord as in days of old and as in former years, in Hebrew, kamei olam ukshanem kadmoniod. Malachi chapter 3 verse 4. The point of the phrase is that this future ruler who may indeed be the Messiah will have come forth from Bethlehem because his royal origins are old from days of Yor, i.e. from the old and venerable house of David, and David was born in Bethlehem. In other words, according to the most probable reading of this verse, it not only fails to say that the Messiah is everlasting, it doesn't even say that he will be born in Bethlehem. The point is that Bethlehem will be his indirect point of origin because it was the birthplace of the father of his dynasty. Jews don't have to insist on this last point. The Messiah may very well be born in Bethlehem. It's just that the verse probably doesn't say this. Finally, we can't avoid at least some reference to the historical question of Jesus' actual birthplace. Now, since this is a delicate question and it is not our purpose to engage in historical criticism of the Gospels, it might be best to note briefly the view expressed by Father Raymond Brown, who has written the most comprehensive study of the infancy stories in Matthew and Luke. He begins by quoting another scholar's remark that, quote, the overwhelming evidence to the contrary has made the thesis that Bethlehem was not the historical birthplace of Jesus, the accepted opinion of New Testament scholarship. Father Brown considers this statement too strong, but he goes on to speak of the grave objections against the claim that the birth at Bethlehem is a historical fact and concludes that, quote, the evidence for birth at Bethlehem is much weaker than the evidence, unquote, for other elements of the infancy narratives. While this is not the place to discuss the difficulties which lead to this conclusion, it's certainly the view of most New Testament scholars that the tradition that Jesus was born in Bethlehem is at least uncertain and that it may have arisen as a result of one interpretation, probably erroneous, of Micah chapter 5 verse 1. Matthew chapter 2 verse 5 and 6 specifically makes the connection. If so, and we are not insisting that this view is firmly proven, not only does Micah chapter 5 verse 1 not predict Jesus' birth, the story of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, may have arisen as a result of Micah chapter 5 verse 1. So to sum up, 1. The verse does not speak of an everlasting ruler. 2. It probably does not speak of the ruler's birth in Bethlehem. 3. Jesus was probably not born in Bethlehem. 4. Even if points 2 and 3 are wrong, this would not demonstrate that Jesus was the Messiah. When the Messiah comes, he may indeed turn out to have been born in Bethlehem.