If we were to read the translation of another Christian, for example Dr James Moffatt, we would find that in his translation ‘The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments’ the verse reads:
“For a child is born to us, a child has been given to us; the royal dignity he wears, and this the title bears – ‘A wonder of a counsellor, a divine hero, a father for all time, a peaceful prince’”
[Sourced from Misha’al ibn Abdullah’s What did Jesus Really Say, IANA, 2001, p108]
We can see, from Dr Moffatt's translation, Isaiah 9:6 is not pointing to the divinity of Jesus. In fact the Jewish interpretations teach us this verse does not even refer to Jesus at all!
Jewish view on Isaiah 9:6 (from JewsforJudaism)
There are several Jewish interpretations offered to explain this verse, but they all recognize that the verse is speaking of Hezekiah’s salvation from the threat of Sennacherib. The words “he called his name” can be read in three different ways. 1) That the following phrases are all names of the child (this is how the Christians read the verse). 2) That the phrases following the introduction (“he called his name”) are descriptions of the one doing the calling. 3) The concept of calling a name is not being used in its literal sense, but rather in a metaphoric sense as in Ruth 4:11, where the phrase “and call a name” is used to mean - making a mark, or leaving a memory. According to this interpretation the phrases are not names of the child or of the name-giver. Rather these describe concepts that people will associate with the memory of the child. All of these interpretations conform with the grammatical structure of the verse, and the Jewish commentators may utilize any of the three readings (or a combination of these explanations) of this introductory phrase.
Assuming that the names are titles of the child, one Jewish commentator offers the following interpretation. The child will be called “The Mighty God, Father unto eternity and Prince of peace is planning a wonder.” In other words, the child’s name is a complete sentence describing God’s action. Another interpretation in keeping with this reading of the introductory phrase ascribes all of these titles to Hezekiah, but changes the translation. Hezekiah was a wonderful counselor to his people. The words “e-l gibbor”, generally translate as “mighty God”, but they could just as easily mean “mighty warrior”, with no reference to divinity. In fact the same expression “el gibbor” is found in Ezekiel 32:21 (in the plural form) and the context makes it obvious that the reference is to humans with no connection to divine strength. “Avi ad” is generally translated as “father of eternity”, but that is not the literal meaning of the words. The literal translation is “father unto” or “father until”, with the implication of “father unto eternity.”
Some would argue that Hezekiah’s personal life reflected God’s control over time, for he merited two miracles that violated the natural laws of time (Isaiah 38). Others would say that the translation is incorrect, but rather it should read “father of spoils”, which is an apt description of Hezekiah’s victory over Sennacherib. And Hezekiah was indeed a prince of peace, as Isaiah prophesied (39:8).
The Targums refute the evangelical Christian missionary view
The oldest Jewish commentary (Targum – which probably predates the advent of Christianity) explains that the first three titles in the verse are those of the One giving the name, while the name given to the child is “prince of peace.” So God is the wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, and Father unto (eternity), while Hezekiah is the prince of peace.
The spirit of the verse, is that the child will somehow be a cause for the salvation of the Jewish people from the oppression of Sennacherib. Indeed, Hezekiah’s prayer was the catalyst for God’s intervention on behalf of His people (Isaiah 37:21, 2Kings 19:20). Isaiah is comforting his people. Although Achaz (Hezekiah’s father) was evil, but his child was holy and righteous. In the merit of this holy child, who bore upon his shoulders the government of his people, the nation could hope to survive the onslaught of Sennacherib and his hordes.
When Christians present passages from Isaiah PLEASE double check them as they impose their Trinitarian presuppositions upon the verses. The fact remains, Jesus did not teach the Trinity (as indicated by early Christian source material - the Gospel of Mark), yet over zealous missionaries impose Trinitarian understandings upon the Old Testament. I've even noted some neo-trinitarian Christians imposing their presuppositions to the OT and coming up with the conclusion of an ANGEL being God - I kid you not, there are some missionaries who DO go to such extents!
Search for the Truth and the Truth shall set you free...
Muhammad and Jesus (p)
Christian Missionary Pastor converts to Islam
Bible: Muslims are blessed