Given the rest of the body of Biblical verses that describe Yeshua’s obvious relationship with His Father, that rendering is compelling, and seems more naturally accurate. Yes, there are in the Masoretic texts cantillation marks that suggest similar word pairs as the traditional Christian rendering. But, Jewish scholars mostly render the passage this way, in spite of those later accents on the texts:
“For a child has been born unto us, a son is given unto us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name “The Prince of Peace”.”
Other Jewish translations, like that of the JPS Society, simply transliterate the phrase: Peleh-yo’etz-el-gibor-avi-ad-sar-shalom. They offer no translation.
The crucial point is that a title describing the qualities or authority of a king is not automatically a personal name declaring that the king is the very Being whose qualities he possesses or represents.
Yeshua made this very point when He said He is the Son of God:
” The Y’hudim [Jews] said to Him, “It is not because of the good works that we stone you, but because you blaspheme; for while you are only a man, you make yourself God [Elohim].” Yeshua said to them, “Is it not so written in your Torah, “I said, you are Elohim [God/s]?” If he called them Elohim [God/s] because the Word of God was with them, and the scripture cannot be broken, why to the one whom The Father consecrated and sent to the world, do you say, ‘You blaspheme,’ just because I said to you, ‘I am The Son of God.’
Here, the Jewish scholars took Yeshua’s words about His UNITY with the Father, “I and my father are ekhad/unified” [John 10:30], and said He was claiming to BE God.
Yeshua corrected them!
And He said the term “Elohim” at times applies to human beings! And then He said that His unity, as a human being standing before them visibly with all the same facets of humanity as they, meant that He is God’s Son. Not God Himself.
So, Biblical royal and prophetic language frequently uses elevated titles to describe a ruler’s God-given authority, mission, and character. Names of prophets make them ‘sound’ divine: Elazar is “Strong God”. Daniel is “God my judge”, Joel is “Yahweh God”. Names do not equate men as The Father, but express what He is doing through them. The same is true of this prophecy about Messiah. Yeshua Himself did not even call Himself “God”.
The immediate context of “Wonderful Counselor of God, a Mighty One of My Eternal Father, the Prince of Peace” supports this reading. Isaiah 9:7 explains that the government will rest upon the throne of David and that the promised ruler will establish and uphold his kingdom through justice and righteousness forever. This is the language of a Davidic King whose reign fulfills יהוה’s promises, a man ruling on earth in Divine Authority. The passage concludes by attributing the accomplishment to the zeal of יהוה Tzeva’ot—the LORD of Hosts.
Furthermore, Isaiah 11:1–5 develops the same Messianic expectation: a shoot emerges from the root of Jesse, the Spirit of יהוה rests upon him, and he rules with righteousness and faithfulness. The Messiah’s wisdom, strength, and righteous authority are understood in relation to יהוה, whose Spirit empowers him and whose purposes he fulfills. The ‘root of Jesse’ language anchors this identity in humanity, in whom is divine nature, and upon whom divine authority rests.
This does not diminish the Messiah. It recognizes the extraordinary nature of His existence, calling, and authority. The promised Son is no ordinary king: he embodies the wisdom, might, enduring care, and peace associated with the divine rule he has been appointed to establish. Thus, we ‘see’ God’s Nature in Him. He has no ‘origin’ except that of His body of flesh. That body separates Him from God the Creator physically, but not spiritually.
The distinction is between what the Messiah is called and what He does and what the text explicitly says about who he is. Isaiah 9:6 presents a series of magnificent descriptions of the promised King, or better, one multifaceted description of that King. Whether the descriptions establish a particular doctrine of the Messiah’s divine identity must be considered alongside the wider scriptural testimony, not assumed merely because the titles are joined together in English. No doctrine should be anchored in one verse.
This prophecy’s emphasis is ultimately on the coming of the Davidic ruler, the character of his reign, and the certainty of its establishment by יהוה. It is a declaration of Messianic majesty and divine purpose—not, by itself, an unambiguous statement that the Son is the same person as the Father.
One should endeavor to understand Messiah through the whole counsel of scripture.
