For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace (Pele Yoetz, El Gibbor, Avi AD, Sar Shalom). Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this. Isaiah 9:6-7
Is It Messianic?
The prophetic scope of Isaiah 7–9 finds its fullest expression in the New Testament, where Matthew explicitly links these passages to the birth and ministry of Jesus. In Matthew 1:23, the evangelist quotes Isaiah 7:14—“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel”—as a direct testimony to the miraculous conception of Christ. Later, in Matthew 4:12–16, he cites Isaiah 9:1–2, identifying Jesus’ ministry in Galilee as the fulfillment of the promise that “the people walking in darkness have seen a great light.”
Matthew’s deliberate use of both texts demonstrates that he understood the entire section of Isaiah 7–9 as a unified, Messianic prophecy. His Jewish audience would have immediately recognized the connection, recalling that Isaiah 9:6–7 follows closely on the heels of 9:1–2 and declares, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given.” The flow of Isaiah’s thought—beginning with the sign of Immanuel, continuing through the dawning of divine light, and culminating in the birth of a royal son whose reign is everlasting—points unmistakably toward the Messiah.
Isaiah says that a child is born who is also a Son that shall be called the Mighty God. Many Jewish rabbis believed that this passage refers to the Messiah, interpreting it as a Messianic prophecy:
The prophet saith to the house of David, A child has been born to us, a son has been given to us; and he has taken the law upon himself to keep it, and his name has been called of old, Wonderful counselor, Mighty God, He who lives forever, the Anointed one (or Messiah), in whose days peace shall increase upon us. (The Targum of Isaiah, J.F. Stenning, p. 32)
He said to him: ‘I have yet to raise up the Messiah,’ of whom it is written, For a child is born to us (Isa. IX, 5). (Midrash Rabbah Deuteronomy, I.20, p. 22)
The Targum, while explicitly identifying this as a Messianic prophecy, renders the verse in Aramaic with an interesting twist, “… and his name will be called from before the One who is wonderful in counsel, the mighty God who exists forever, Messiah, because there will be abundant peace upon us in his days” (translated literally). The problem with this translation, aside from the fact that it is grammatically strained, is that almost all the names are heaped upon God, and only the last two are given to the son—although it is the naming of this royal child that is central to the verse. The characteristics of the royal child are central—highlighted here by his names—not the characteristics of the Lord. As the brilliant Hebrew and Rabbinic scholar Franz Delitzsch noted, even Samuel David Luzzatto, one of the greatest of the Italian rabbis, rightly observed that “you do not expect to find attributes of God here, but such as would be characteristic of the child.” This agrees with statements in the Talmudic and midrashic writings, along with the comments of Abraham Ibn Ezra (Ezeiks note – “The correct view in my opinion IS THAT ALL THESE ARE NAMES OF THE CHILD. pele’ – because the Lord did wonders in his days. yo’ets – such was Hezekiah [as it is written], ‘And the king took counsel’ [see 2 Chron. 30:2]; ’el gibbor – because he was strong, and the kingdom of the house of David was prolonged because of him; [abi] ‘ad – the word has the same meaning as ‘dwelling in eternity’ [in Isa. 57:15]; sar shalom – because there was peace in his days.” (Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus – Theological Objections, Volume 2, p. 46), all of which state that the names refer to the child.
Fn. 86 – Cf. the following Rabbinic statements: “R. Yose the Galilean said: ‘The name of the Messiah is Peace, for it is said, Everlasting Father, Prince Peace’ ” (Midrash Pereq Shalom, p. 101); “The Messiah is called by eight names: Yinnon [see Ps. 72:17], Tzemach [e.g., Jer. 23:5]; Pele’ [Wonderful, Isa. 9:6(5)], Yo’etz [Counselor, Isa. 9:6(5)], Mashiach [Messiah], El [God, Isa. 9:6(5)], Gibbor [Hero, Isa. 9:6(5)], and Avi’ Ad Shalom [Eternal Father of Peace, Isa. 9:6(5)]; see Deuteronomy Rabbah 1:20.)”
Michael brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol 3, p.52-53 on pdf
Is it Hezekiah?
The eight names of Hezekiah are as it is written: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele Joez El Gibbor Abi Ad Sar Shalom” (Isaiah 9:5)
Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 94a:
Although the Babylonian Talmud says it’s Hezekiah, contextually, the Talmud basically says that the boots were too big for his feet; Hezekiah had an opportunity to be this child that rules forever but he failed and therefore it will be fulfilled in the Messiah:
Apropos Hezekiah, the Gemara cites that which is stated: “That the government may be increased [lemarbe] and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it and uphold it through justice and through righteousness, from now and forever; the zeal of the Lord of hosts does perform this” (Isaiah 9:6). Rabbi Tanḥum says that bar Kappara taught in Tzippori: Due to what reason is it that every letter mem in the middle of a word is open and this mem, of the word lemarbe, is closed? In the Masoretic text, the letter mem in the word “lemarbe” is written in the form of a mem that appears at the end of a word, closed on all four sides. This is because the Holy One, Blessed be He, sought to designate King Hezekiah as the Messiah and to designate Sennacherib and Assyria, respectively, as Gog and Magog, all from the prophecy of Ezekiel with regard to the end of days (Ezekiel, chapter 38), and the confrontation between them would culminate in the final redemption.
The attribute of justice said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, and if with regard to David, king of Israel, who recited several songs and praises before You, You did not designate him as the Messiah, then with regard to Hezekiah, for whom You performed all these miracles, delivering him from Sennacherib and healing his illness, and he did not recite praise before You, will You designate him as the Messiah? It is for that reason that the mem was closed, because there was an opportunity for redemption that was thwarted.
(Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 94a)
Wayyqra – “He Called”?
In line with this reasoning, some Jews say that “Wayyqra” (“His name shall be called”) in Isaiah 9:6 should be translated as “he called…” in the active tense, with the subject (“he”) referring to God. In this reading, the One performing the action of naming (which is singular, hence one name, not names in the plural) is God Himself, rather than the child being given the name. The text would then read:
” For a child has been born to us, a son given to 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.”
Answer:
- The oldest Jewish translation of Isaiah 9:6[5], found in the Septuagint, understands (1) all the names as referring to the king, and that (2) Wayyqra is in the passive voice, rendering this verse into Greek as follows: “For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.”
- As we’ve seen already, the Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 94a says: “The eight names of Hezekiah are as it is written: ‘For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele Joez El Gibbor Abi Ad Sar Shalom’ (Isaiah 9:5).”
- The Targum of Isaiah, J.F. Stenning, p. 32: “The prophet saith to the house of David, A child has been born to us, a son has been given to us; and he has taken the law upon himself to keep it, and his name has been called of old, Wonderful counselor, Mighty God, He who lives forever, the Anointed one (or Messiah), in whose days peace shall increase upon us.”
- JPS 1917: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-Joez-El-Gibbor-Abi-Ad-Sar-Shalom.”
- Isaiah 9:6 (Sefaria): “For a child has been born to us, A son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named ‘The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler.’”
This shows that Wayyqra does not prove that it must necessarily be translated as “he called…”. These Jewish translations and interpretations understand Wayyqra not in the active sense (where God is the one doing the calling), but in the passive sense—denoting that the child is the one being called by these names.
The Prophetic Perfect: Past Tense Used for Future Reality
Hebrew verbs are a delicate art — they flow more by sense and context than by rigid tense rules. A verb that looks “past” may describe something happening now, or even something that has not yet happened. Likewise, a verb that appears “future” can point backward to something already complete. The key lies in how the author frames the statement within its prophetic or narrative setting.
In the case of Isaiah 9:6, the verbs describing the birth and exaltation of the child appear in what would normally be the perfect (completed action) form — but in Hebrew prophetic style, this often signals a future event spoken of as though it were already accomplished. This is what scholars and rabbis alike have long called the prophetic perfect — a literary device expressing the certainty of divine fulfillment.
One of Judaism’s greatest medieval grammarians, Rabbi David Kimchi (Radak, 1160–1235 A.D.), explains this beautifully in his Sefer Mikhlol (Folio 45b):
“And you should know that it is a typical behaviour of the past tense verbs in the holy language to use a past tense verb in place of a future tense verb, and this is mostly in prophecies because ‘the matter is clear as if it passed, because it has already been decreed.’”
This same principle is noted by modern Hebrew scholars such as Bruce Waltke and M. O’Connor, who write:
“It is a typical behavior of the perfect to represent a future situation as viewed from the past… the event is so certain it is viewed as already accomplished.” (An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p. 464, fn. 45)
Likewise, Isaac ben Yedaiah (11th century) observed:
“[The rabbis] of blessed memory followed, in these words of theirs, in the paths of the prophets who speak of something which will happen in the future in the language of the past. Since they saw in prophetic vision that which was to occur in the future, they spoke about it in the past tense and testified firmly that it had happened, to teach the certainty of his [God’s] words — may he be blessed — and his positive promise that can never change and his beneficent message that will not be altered.” (Robert Chazan, Daggers of Faith, p. 87)
This linguistic pattern is not isolated. It’s visible in passages like Numbers 24:17, where Balaam declares:
“A Star shall (perfect [past verb]) come out of Jacob; A Scepter shall (perfect [past verb]) rise out of Israel…”
which is often translated as:
“A star rises from Jacob, A scepter comes forth from Israel…” (Chabad.org)
Even the Targum Jonathan renders this as a clearly messianic prophecy:
“I shall see Him, but not now; I shall behold Him, but it is not near. When the mighty King of Jakob’s house shall reign, and the Meshiha, the Power-sceptre of Israel, be anointed, He will slay the princes of the Moabaee, and bring to nothing all the children of Sheth, the armies of Gog who will do battle against Israel and all their carcases shall fall before Him.” (Targum Jonathan on Num. 24:17)
Finally, even if one insists that the tenses of Isaiah 9:6 must be taken literally as they appear, the following verse (9:7) forces a future reference:
“The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.”
The verb “will perform” (ʿasah, imperfect) clearly points to something not yet fulfilled at the time of writing. Thus, even within the text itself, the “child born” and “son given” are best understood as prophetic certainties spoken as past realities — a hallmark of Hebrew prophetic speech.
Objection: Ezekiel 31:11 and 32:21
Not content with allowing the Scriptures to say what they clearly affirm regarding God’s Triunity and the Messiah’s perfect Deity, anti-Trinitarian groups often attempt to find any means possible to undermine these doctrines. They frequently appeal to passages such as Ezekiel 31:11 and 32:21 in an effort to show that calling the Messiah “Mighty God” does not necessarily mean that He is Yahweh in the flesh.
They point to Ezekiel 32:21, which reads:
“The mighty chiefs (eley gibborim) shall speak of them, with their helpers, out of the midst of Sheol: ‘They have come down, they lie still, the uncircumcised, slain by the sword.’”
They note that the words “mighty chiefs” (eley gibborim) literally mean “gods of the mighty” or “mighty gods.” Based on this, some anti-Trinitarians argue that these “mighty ones” are equally Yahweh as the “Mighty God” (El Gibbor) of Isaiah 9:6, that is to say, they’re not Yahweh at all. They also appeal to Ezekiel 31:11, where a similar title appears:
“I will give it into the hand of a mighty one (el) of the nations. He shall surely deal with it as its wickedness deserves. I have cast it out.”
Answer:
These so-called mighty gods are in fact Gentile rulers and kings of the nations, as the surrounding context makes abundantly clear (Ezekiel 32:17–32). The passage describes Pharaoh’s descent into Sheol, where he joins the ranks of other fallen pagan rulers. The phrase “mighty ones” indeed does refer to divinity since they considered themselves powerful and undefeatable—kings, conquerors, and emperors—now reduced to death and humiliation.
But, unlike Isaiah 9:6, these passages are actually condemning these nations and rulers for making themselves “mighty gods” and denying their divinity. The Scriptures consistently condemn the arrogance of these rulers for thinking of themselves as gods. For instance, in Ezekiel 28:1–10, the prophet is instructed to deliver a rebuke against the ruler of Tyre:
“Because your heart is proud, and you have said, ‘I am a god, I sit in the seat of the gods, in the heart of the seas,’ yet you are but a man, and no god, though you make your heart like the heart of a god.”
Similarly, Isaiah 14:3–18 describes the downfall of the king of Babylon, who arrogantly exalted himself to divine status, only to be cast down to the pit along with the other kings of the nations. In Isaiah 47:8–10, Babylon herself is rebuked for adopting the self-deifying claim,
“You said in your heart, ‘I am, and there is no one besides me.’”
Assyria, too, made the same blasphemous boast:
“This is the exultant city that lived securely, that said in her heart, ‘I am, and there is no one else.’” (Zephaniah 2:13–15)
(See also Ezekiel 36:13–20; 37:8–20, 33–38 for similar condemnations.)
Thus, as far as the biblical writers are concerned, no other gods exist alongside Yahweh. The prophets repeatedly expose the supposed “gods” of the nations as mortal pretenders—arrogant rulers whose power collapses into death.
In light of this, Ezekiel 32:21 and 31:11 cannot be used to argue that the term “Mighty God” in Isaiah 9:6 refers to a mere human being or to a “lesser god.” The language in Ezekiel is ironic—mocking these pagan rulers who were called gods but proved mortal. The context makes the intent unmistakable: these “gods” are dead men, not deities.
Therefore, the contrast between them and the Child called El Gibbor in Isaiah 9:6 could not be sharper. The “mighty ones” of the nations lie silent in Sheol; the “Mighty God” of Isaiah reigns eternally upon the throne of David.
The Monotheism of Isaiah and Jesus
Isaiah’s theology stands as one of the most explicit affirmations of monotheism in the entire Hebrew Bible. He spares no words in declaring that Yahweh alone is God, that no other divine being exists, and that salvation, creation, and providence belong exclusively to Him. Consider the prophet’s uncompromising proclamations:
“‘You are my witnesses,’ declares the LORD, ‘and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I AM. Before me no god (el) was formed, nor shall there be any after me. I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior… Also henceforth I AM; there is none who can deliver from my hand; I work, and who can turn it back?’”
Isaiah 43:10–11, 13
“Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god (elohim). Who is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and set it before me, since I appointed an ancient people. Let them declare what is to come, and what will happen. Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God (eloah) besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.’”
Isaiah 44:6–8
“I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me, that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other.”
Isaiah 45:5–6
“Remember the former things of old; for I am God (el), and there is no other; I am God (elohim), and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’ calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.”
Isaiah 46:9–11
Isaiah leaves no room for ambiguity: there is no other el and no other elohim besides Yahweh. The gods of the nations are pretenders, and even the great empires—Babylon and Assyria—dared to claim divinity using this same divine language. Both declared themselves to be incomparable, self-existent, and sovereign—attributes reserved for Yahweh alone. Yet Isaiah’s God brings them low, exposing their claims as blasphemous delusions.
In this context, Isaiah’s decision to use the same divine terminology for the coming child in Isaiah 9:6 is nothing short of staggering. To call the Messiah El Gibbor (“Mighty God”) in a book that relentlessly insists that there is no other God besides Yahweh can only mean that Isaiah truly believed the Messiah would share in Yahweh’s divine identity. The prophet did not dilute monotheism; he expanded its revelation—showing that Yahweh’s redeeming presence would take on human form.
This becomes unmistakably clear when we observe how Isaiah later uses the same title, El Gibbor, for Yahweh Himself:
“In that day the remnant of Israel and the survivors of the house of Jacob will no more lean on him who struck them, but will lean on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God (El Gibbor).”
Isaiah 10:20–21
The very next chapter applies El Gibbor—the same exact phrase used for the child—to Yahweh. This linguistic continuity leaves no doubt that the prophet viewed the child of Isaiah 9:6 as divine.
Interestingly, when it comes to the translators of the Septuagint (LXX)—Jewish scholars working a few centuries before Christ—one of 2 motivations may have taken place: firstly, they appear to have struggled with the force of Isaiah’s language. The Hebrew phrase El Gibbor was so explicitly divine that they rendered it in a way that softened its implications. Instead of translating it literally as “Mighty God,” they wrote:
“The Angel of Great Counsel.”
This translation shifts the meaning from divinity to that of a mighty heavenly messenger (angelos megales boules), making the child appear subordinate rather than equal to God. Yet this is not how the same translators handled Isaiah 10:21. There, they translated El Gibbor literally as:
“Mighty God” (θεὸν ἰσχύοντα).
The inconsistency is revealing. In 10:21, where the title clearly refers to Yahweh, the translators preserved the full force of the Hebrew. But in 9:6, where the title is applied to the child, they altered it—apparently to avoid the theological implications that the Messiah would be fully divine.
The structure of the Hebrew name itself undermines the LXX’s attempt. There is no precedent in biblical Hebrew for a divine or compound name beginning with El (God) that refers to an angelic being. Every such construction—Daniel (“God is my judge”), Emmanuel (“God with us”), Michael (“Who is like God?”)—ends with El, not begins. Thus, El Gibbor cannot mean “Mighty Angel” or “Messenger of God.” It means exactly what it says: “Mighty God.”
Or these translators may have actually saw something that many missed, that is to say that this Son to bd born who is the Mighty God is none other than the Angel of the LORD who appeared to Moses (Exo 3:1-6), ate with Abraham (Gen 18:1-5), fought with Joshua (Josh 5:13-16), and amazed Zechariah (Zech 3:1-5).
Anyway, in light of Isaiah’s uncompromising monotheism, his application of El Gibbor to the coming Messiah stands as a deliberate and prophetic declaration: the child to be born would not merely represent God—He would be God Himself, dwelling among His people.
Mighty God (’el gibbor)The deity of the coming king is accentuated by the designation el, the common Hebrew term for God. Delitzsch insists, “There is no reason why we should take El in this name of the Messiah in any other sense than Immanu-El; not to mention the fact that El in Isaiah is always a name of God.” Motyer adds, “when we find a construction identical with Isa 9:6 (el with a following adjective or noun), el is never adjectival but is always the ruling noun…There is no evidence supporting an adjectival use of el in Isa 9:6.” The term gibbor (“mighty”) is often used of God (Dt 10:17; Ps 24:8; Jer 20:11; Zph 3:17). Although it can also refer to “warriors” or “heroes” (Ezk 32:21), linking gibbor with el clearly indicates that Isaiah intended to describe this wondrous child as deity. Isaiah uses the same exact title of the Lord Himself in 10:20-21 (cf. also Dt 10:17; Jer 32:18). Goldingay observes that “the recurrence of the phrase rendered ‘Mighty God’ (’el gibbor) in 10:21 with definite reference to Yahweh makes it harder to accept that here the phrase means ‘God-like warrior.’” Thus, attempts to limit this title to a mere human “hero” seem to betray the expositor’s proclivity to reject the deity of the Messiah in general or that it was specifically revealed in the OT. Taken in the normal grammatical sense, ’el gibbor means “God, the mighty One.” It is similar to ’el shaddai (“God almighty”) or ’el olam (“God the eternal”).
The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecies: Studies and Expositions of the Messiah in the Old Testament, p.837