Problem: The Christian doctrine of the Trinity holds that God is one Essence in three Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, Isaiah 9:6 calls the Messiah “the everlasting Father.” How can Jesus be both the Father and the Son?

Solution: This verse is not a Trinitarian formula that calls Jesus Christ the Father. Actually, it is easier to grasp the idea when the phrase is rendered literally into English, “Father of eternity.” The first part of verse six makes reference to the incarnation of Jesus. The part that lists the names by which He is called expresses His relationship to His people. He is to us the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, the Father of Eternity, the Prince of Peace. Considered in this way, we see that Jesus is the One who gives us eternal life. By His death, burial, and resurrection, He has brought life and immortality to light. Truly, He is the Father of eternity for His people. The name “Father of eternity” indicates that, as a loving father provides for His children, so Jesus loves us and has provided for us by giving us everlasting life.

Critics of biblical Christianity often assert that the Bible never explicitly calls Jesus "God." Even if this were true, that would not refute the deity of Christ. The Bible demonstrates in numerous ways that Jesus is God without always having to use the word "God" to do so. Still, it is worth noting that there are, indeed, several passages that do refer to Jesus as God.

God and Savior

Both Paul and Peter refer to Jesus as our "God and Savior." Peter, for example, writes:

> "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1).

While it seems pretty straight forward that Jesus is called both God and Savior here, some who deny Christ’s divinity try to dispute this. They claim that the translation should be something like:

> "Simon Peter, a slave and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have acquired a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1 NWT).

Thus, they try to divide "God" and "Savior" into two separate people. One doesn’t need to be an expert in Greek, however, to see that this is incorrect. The exact same sentence structure occurs elsewhere in 2 Peter, and the translation there is uncontroversial. Note the following:

> "for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you" (2 Peter 1:11).
>
> "For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first" (2 Peter 2:20).
>
> "but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen" (2 Peter 3:18).

In each of these verses, we see the phrase "Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ." Even the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ "New World Translation" renders these as "Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ." No one tries to break up the "Lord" and the "Savior" into two different people. Yet, the grammar and sentence structure for "Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ" is exactly the same as "God and Savior, Jesus Christ." Since everyone agrees that "Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ" is the correct translation throughout the rest of the book, then it is completely inconsistent to separate "God" and "Savior" in 2 Peter 1:1. Jesus is directly called both God and Savior just as He is called both Lord and Savior.

We see the same phrase occur in Paul’s letter to Titus:

> "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus" (Titus 2:13).

The context here is also quite revealing. For whose glorious appearing are Christians looking? Jesus, of course. It is not both Jesus and the Father whose triumphant return Christians anticipate. It is specifically Jesus. Further, the very next verse goes on to explain:

> "who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds" (Titus 2:14).

The subject is singular, not plural. And who is it that "gave Himself to redeem us?" It is Jesus. Further, it says that Jesus purifies a people "for His own possession." No king or prophet ever claimed God’s people as his own possession, nor could they. Yet, here we are told that the redeemed are a people of Christ’s own possession. This fits perfectly with the fact that Paul just called Jesus "God." If Paul had mentioned God Himself as someone separate from Jesus, it would be unthinkable that the people would be called the possession of Christ and not of God. This context just further reinforces what the language makes clear: Peter and Paul both called Jesus our "God and Savior."

My Lord and my God

The testimony of Thomas after Jesus’ resurrection is also clear and compelling:

> "After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, ‘Peace be with you.’ Then He said to Thomas, ‘Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.’ Thomas answered and said to Him, ‘My Lord and my God!’ Jesus said to him, ‘Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed’" (John 20:26-29).

Thomas calls Jesus both Lord and God. Jesus then affirms this belief and blesses others who believe it. Some have tried to get around this by saying that Thomas was not addressing Jesus as "My Lord and my God," but was crying out to heaven in his joy. The passage, however, plainly says that "Thomas answered and said to Him, ‘My Lord and my God!'" Thomas said this to Him! He didn’t pray this to God in Heaven. He said it straight to Jesus. There is no getting around the fact that Thomas called Jesus his God, and Jesus affirmed and blessed that belief.

Mighty God

This is not only a New Testament phenomenon. Isaiah prophesied that the Messiah would be God. He proclaimed:

> "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace," (Isaiah 9:6).

It is worth briefly noting, however, that Jesus is called the "Mighty God." The very next chapter identifies the LORD (Jehovah, Yahweh), the one true God of Israel, as the Mighty God:

> "Now in that day the remnant of Israel, and those of the house of Jacob who have escaped, will never again rely on the one who struck them, but will truly rely on the Lord, the Holy One of Israel. A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God," (Isaiah 10:20-21).

Isaiah is not telling Israel to rejoice at the coming of some lesser god. The Messiah who is to come will be their own Mighty God, the one true and living God. Thus, even the prophets referred to Jesus as God.

God over all

There is a little bit more debate about this one, but the clearest reading of Paul in Romans 9 is that He once again refers to Jesus as God here. The verse reads:

> "They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen," (Romans 9:4-5 ESV).

Most other reputable modern translations agree with this reading, such as the NIV, NKJV, HCSB, and NET. Popular paraphrases like the NLT also render it this way, and the Messianic Jewish "Tree of Life" version likewise agrees. The highly trustworthy NASB, however, is a bit more ambiguous:

> "whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen,"

This could be read as saying that Jesus is "God blessed over all," but one could also read it as praising God distinctly from the description of Jesus. The NRSV and the KJV share in this ambiguity. The KJV, however, is somewhat of an anomaly here among historical translations. English translations before the KJV, like that of John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, Bishop’s Bible, Great Bible, and Coverdale Bible all very clearly read that Jesus is God over all. The NKJV returns to this clarity.

Even if one prefers the more ambiguous translation of the KJV or NASB in this passage, it seems to make the most sense to read it as referring to Jesus as "God blessed forever." The interpretation that Paul is simply pausing to praise God rather than continuing his thought would be abrupt and somewhat awkward in the context.

The Word was God

That the Word who "became flesh and dwelt among us," (John 1:14) was Jesus is obvious in the context and uncontroversial. Of this Word, John starts by saying:

> "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).

The Word is Jesus, and the Word is called God. Therefore Jesus is called God. The primary objection to this passage (raised most often by Jehovah’s Witnesses, though also by many others) is that it is allegedly calling Jesus "a god" rather than "God." In brief, the Greek Grammar does not, in fact, allow for that interpretation. One does not, however, need to go to the Greek to see the problem. John immediately goes on to explain:

> "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being" (John 1:3).

If everything came into being through the Word, then the Word is Himself uncreated. Ironically, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ own translation of this verse is even clearer on this:

> "All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence" (John 1:3, NWT).

Not even one thing came into existence apart from Him. Jesus is, therefore, an uncreated creator. The Bible knows of only one uncreated creator, and that is Jehovah God. Further, the passage goes on to say:

> "He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him" (John 1:10).

The maker of the world came to His own people. Who is the maker of the world whose people are the Jews? Obviously, Jehovah God alone. No archangel or demigod could claim the Jews as his own people. The Word, the uncreated maker of all things, came to His own people and they did not receive Him. This is obviously talking about God Almighty. It could be no one else! Jesus, therefore, is plainly called God in this context.

Revealed in the flesh

This final example is much more disputable than the others but is still worth noting. If one reads in the NKJV, the KJV, or many older translations, they will find Paul writing to Timothy:

> "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested [or "shown" or "revealed"] in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory," (1 Timothy 3:16).

Rendered this way, this would be another clear example of Paul calling Jesus God. However, with the discovery of many earlier manuscripts unknown during the making of most of these early translations, there are questions as to whether this is the original reading. Modern translations, based on older Greek manuscripts, say "He was revealed in the Flesh," rather than "God was revealed in the flesh." Early New Testament scribes created abbreviated forms called "nomina sacra" for divine names like "God." The abbreviation for "God" and the Greek pronoun for "he" are actually very similar, and both words make sense in the context, so it is not surprising that some scribes would make this mistake (one way or the other) and that it would then be passed on to future copies of the text. If we take "he" to be the original reading, we still have to ask to whom the pronoun "he" is referring? The immediate context reads:

> "I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He was revealed in the flesh…" (1 Timothy 3:14-16).

God is the only one mentioned in the immediately preceding verses (and He is mentioned repeatedly) which makes "God" the most likely referent for the pronoun "he" in this context. So, while the original reading is probably "he" (as most modern Biblical scholars now believe), that doesn’t necessarily mean that this is not an instance of a biblical author referring to Jesus as God. It is no stretch to read "he" as referring to God in this context. However, since Jesus Christ is mentioned earlier in the chapter, and since the details would undoubtedly bring any Christian reader’s mind to Christ, the argument can be made that "he" was simply meant to refer to "Jesus" rather than to "God." In fact, some scholars argue that Paul is quoting from an earlier Christian tradition here, and so the meaning of "He" is not to be drawn from Paul’s letter but rather from the original source Paul is quoting. At any rate, this passage represents a very plausible instance of the Bible referring to Jesus as God, but not one on which we need to be dogmatic, especially with so many other examples readily available.

Objection:
Jehovah’s Witnesses, who believe that Jesus is not God but rather is Michael the Archangel, have long struggled to provide an adequate answer as to why the coming Messiah is called “Mighty God” in Isaiah 9:6. Their most common answer is to try and minimize the weight of the term by claiming that it is a lesser title than that given to Jehovah, who is called “Almighty God.” They assert that the reading found in the Greek Septuagint, the ancient pre-New-Testament Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, actually identifies the Messiah as an angel rather than God.

The Verse:
In the vast majority of all Bible translations, the verse in question reads:
> “For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us, And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6, NASB).

Both sides agree that this is what the verse actually says, so far as the words go.

The Argument:
However, though the Jehovah’s Witness cannot escape the fact that the text plainly says that Jesus is God, they insist that it doesn’t really mean that Jesus is God, at least not in the ultimate sense of the word. They argue that this verse identifies Jesus as a lesser divine being (i.e., Michael the Archangel). To support this, they argue that the ancient Septuagint translation shows that early Jewish readers understood the passage to identify the Messiah as an angel rather than the true and living God. The Septuagint here reads:

> Because a child was born to us, a son also given to us, whose sovereignty was upon his shoulder, and he is named messenger [or angel] of great counsel, for I will bring peace upon the rulers, peace and health to him,” (Isaiah 9:6, LXX).

The Greek word for “messenger” here is the word “ἄγγελος” (angelos) from which we get our English word “angel,” and is indeed the word often used to describe heavenly angels. Thus, they say, the Septuagint translators understood “mighty God” to really mean “angel.”

Defense:
Jewish Interpretations
First of all, it is not altogether clear that “Messenger of great counsel” is intended as an interpretation of “mighty God.” In this ancient Greek version, the titles “wonderful counselor,” “mighty God,” “everlasting father,” and “prince of peace” are all missing, replaced with the single title of “messenger of great counsel.” There is nothing in the clause “of great counsel” to suggest an interpretation of the word “mighty,” thus we have no grounds to assume that the word “messenger” was meant as an interpretation of the word “God.” For all we know, this version of the Septuagint tradition may well have been translated from a manuscript where, perhaps due to a scribal error, some of the Hebrew text of the verse was simply missing. It is also possible that this is a highly interpretive paraphrase of the passage as a whole rather than an interpretation of any of the particular words. At any rate, there is hardly enough here to substantiate the claim that “mighty God” meant “the archangel Michael” or anything of the sort. Despite other uses of the word “angelos,” the phrase here seems only to mean that the Messiah would be a messenger who delivers the counsel of God which would, in turn, bring peace.

Secondly, however we understand the Septuagint’s meaning, this is just one in a long history of widely varying Jewish interpretations of this text. All of these clever but conflicting efforts stem from the fact that a plain reading of the text, which calls the promised child “mighty God” and “everlasting Father,” was and is as troublesome to Jewish scholarship as it is to the Watchtower society.

Early Christian Readers
It is also worth noting how early Christian readers understood this text when reading it through the lens of what was revealed about Christ in the New Testament. The vast majority of early Christians did not speak Hebrew and relied on the Septuagint. Yet, this passage, even in the paraphrastic Greek version, seemed to them only to support their belief in the Trinity and the deity of Christ. Note, for example, how it plays into one third-century Christian’s exposition:

> “Was that the Father that was seen by Hagar or not? For He is declared to be God. But far be it from us to call God the Father an angel, lest He should be subordinate to another whose angel [messenger] He would be. But they will say that it was an angel. How then shall He be God if He was an angel? Since this name is nowhere conceded to angels, except that on either side the truth compels us into this opinion, that we ought to understand it to have been God the Son, who, because He is of God, is rightly called God... He is declared to be the Angel of Great Counsel... yet it is suited to the person of Christ that He should be both God because He is the Son of God, and should be an angel [messenger] because He is the Announcer of the Father’s mind.” (Novation, A Treatise Concerning the Trinity, Chapter 18)

No angel could be called God. Yet God the Father could not be called an angel (i.e., messenger) because no one had the authority to send Him. God the Son, however, was Himself God yet submitted to the Father’s authority in the incarnation. One God, yet more than one person, existing in distinct relationships. Thus, Christ could rightly be called “messenger of great counsel” in that He was sent by the Father, and yet was not an “angel” by nature, but was Himself the eternal God! The Septuagint’s paraphrase carried with it no troubling implications for the thoroughly Trinitarian convictions of the earliest Christians.

It must also be noted that there is a longer version of Isaiah 9:6 within the Septuagint manuscript tradition which was the version quoted by many early Christians (though certainly not all). It reads:
> “…He shall be called the angel of great counsel, God the mighty, the Father of the world to come, the prince of peace” (Isaiah 9:6, some LXX manuscripts).

Conclusion
There is nothing in the Septuagint tradition of this verse that would imply that Jesus is an archangel, nor is there anything that inherently conflicts with Trinitarian conviction. What’s more, the Septuagint version of this particular verse is clearly a paraphrase at best, if not a faulty reading due to a scribal error. Either way, it certainly has no authority over a careful reading of the full Hebrew text or a more careful translation thereof. Christians simply take the text at face value, especially since it accords so well with other passages that plainly identify Jesus as Jehovah.

The words of Isaiah 9:6 are one of the most powerful prophecies testifying plainly and clearly that the promised Messiah to come would, in fact, be God Himself born in human flesh. The child that is born, the son that is given, is to be called “Mighty God.” Jehovah’s Witnesses, however, contend that the Messiah is not really called God here, at least not in the sense that Christians mean because He is called mightyGod rather than almighty God. They will concede that Jesus is a “god” in the sense of being a very powerful, spiritual being, but He is not Jehovah, the one and only almighty God. This is a very important distinction for Jehovah’s Witnesses. It does not, however, hold up very well under scrutiny.

“For a child has been born to us, A son has been given to us; And the rulership will rest on his shoulder. His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace,” (Isaiah 9:6, New World Translation)

Israel has only one God and is forbidden to call on any other God. Isaiah is abundantly clear:

“‘You are My witnesses,’ declares the Lord [YHWH, or Jehovah], ‘And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me,'” (Isaiah 43:10)

The word for “God” here is the simple Hebrew “el.” The most basic word for “god” and the same word used of the Messiah in Isaiah 9:6. If Jesus is the Messiah, He is the “Mighty God” or the “el gibbor,” and He is to be called upon as such. But there is no other true, living God besides Jehovah. There is no “el” but He, and His people are surely not to call on a false god for their deliverance. Thus, even standing on its own, Isaiah 9:6 is rather clear that the Mighty God on whom they are to call is Jehovah and not some lesser god that would by definition be a false god since there is only one true God and never will be another. Still, Isaiah didn’t stop writing at 9:6. In the very next chapter he says:

“Now in that day the remnant of Israel, and those of the house of Jacob who have escaped, will never again rely on the one who struck them, but will truly rely on the Lord [YHWH, or Jehovah], the Holy One of Israel. A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God,” (Isaiah 10:20-21).

Who are they returning to? To the Lord, Jehovah, the one true God of Israel. Here He is plainly called the “mighty God” [el gibbor] in the very same prophetic context as Isaiah 9:6. Indeed, only a chapter apart from it! Jehovah is the Mighty God. The Messiah is the Mighty God. There is only one God. The conclusion here is obvious. And the other prophets concur that Jehovah is the “mighty God.” Jeremiah, for example, pronounces:

“who shows loving kindness to thousands, but repays the iniquity of fathers into the bosom of their children after them, O great and mighty God [el gibbor]. The Lord [YHWH, or Jehovah] of hosts is His name,” (Jeremiah 32:18).

And Zephaniah lauds in similar terms:

“The Lord your God is in your midst, a mighty [gibbor] one who will save; he will rejoice over you with gladness; he will quiet you by his love; he will exult over you with loud singing,” (Zephaniah 3:17).

Jehovah is certainly “almighty,” but He is also rightly called “mighty” by the prophets. He is the living God. He is the true God. He is the only God upon whom we are to call. He is the only savior. Jesus is the “mighty God” upon whom we are to call. He is our eternal Savior. Jesus is Jehovah God.