Yәshayahu ha-Nâ•vi′ 6:1-13; 9:5-6 (6:1—7:6; 9:5-6). WhileYәsha•yâh′u 9:5-6 has Messianic implications, for its immediate historic context read Yәsha•yâh′u 7:10-17. This pâ•râsh•âh′, which I taught to Yaeil‘s Orthodox elementary school class last year, beginsוישמע יתרו (wa-yishәma Yitro; and Yitro hearkened).
In his analysis of Yәsha•yâh′u 9:5-6, R. Singer includes (Outreach Judaism) a discussion on the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Although the Nәtzâr•im′ don’t subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity, Ta•na”kh′ doesn’t fully support R. Singer’s position either and the Nәtzâr•im′ arguments against the Trinity concept are logical, cogent and far more compelling.
Only R. Singer tries to render Yәsha•yâh′u 9:5-6, inconsistently, in mixed tenses: [a child] “has been born” in the past tense with the rest of the verse in the present (authority is; name iscalled), as if it could only happen at the time Yәsha•yâh′u was writing.
The Koren Ta•na”kh′ renders consistently in the present: “a child is born.” JPS renders the entire pâ•suq′ consistently in the past perfect (child has been born, authority has settled; has been named). The Sages, including Tal•mud′, have consistently recognized from Biblical times up until at least the Middle Ages that the Hebrew (and the Koren Ta•na”kh′ and JPS version) ofYәsha•yâh′u 9:5-6, in addition to its primary context in 7:10-17 (especially 7:13-14), is filled with secondary Messianic implications.
The child of Yәsha•yâh′u‘s time didn’t fulfill the next pâ•suq′(9:6), and the Mâ•shi′akh, therefore, has to be the intended fulfillment of 9:5-6 as well as 7:13-14: “To increase the Ministry, and never-ending peace, upon the Seat of Dâ•wid′, and over his Realm, to prepare it, and to support in mi•shәpât′ and in tzәdâq•âh′, from now and until forever; Zeal, of י--ה of armies, shall do this.”
The comma after “Zeal” is indicated by the תביר (tәvir; disj. cantillation symbol) under the א in קנאת (kinat; zeal of ‘). This lends the noun “Zeal” the connotation of Mâ•shi′akh (who is י--ה‘s Zeal, just as he is elsewhere described as י--ה‘s Plant, Branch,Neitzër, etc.).
Counter-missionaries often argue that they reject Rib′iYәho•shu′a on the grounds that he didn’t establish this everlasting peace on earth. This argument is a two-edged sword, cutting in both directions: neither did the child that R. Singer claims has fulfilled the pâ•suq′!
Quote and continued reading on: www.netzarim.co.il