“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6).


Firstly, some try to read ‘God the Father’ into the actual text of Isaiah 9:6. But the word for ‘God’ or (El) in the Hebrew, is completely missing here, which is why we do not read; ‘God the Father,’ but “Father of eternity.” So the Oneness position is an argument from silence, and the burden of proof rests entirely with Oneness people themselves to establish their point. Their position also contradicts their own Oneness doctrine, for essentially they are trying to make Isaiah 9:6 say that the Son who is given is himself God the Father, which neither they nor Trinitarians affirm.

Secondly, ‘Father of eternity’ is actually a Hebrew construct. This is a combination of a noun and an adjective, where the noun ‘Father’ means either the originator, or more commonly the possessor of something, that the adjective describes an attribute. As an example of a few Hebrew constructs; ‘abi-asaph’ (2nd Samuel 23:21), literally reads the ‘father of strength,’ and means a strong man. ‘Abi-tub’ (1st Chronicles 8:8-11), literally reads, ‘the father of goodness’ and means one who is good. ‘Abi-el’ (1st Samuel 9:1) means the ‘father of God’, and implies that he was a Godly man.

Thirdly, Oneness Pentecostals such as David Bernard, claim that the Son came into existence at a particular point in time, namely at Bethlehem, whilst the Father was always an eternal Father (see his book “The Oneness of God” page 66). This is problematic for how could the Father exist eternally as the Father, without a “Son” simultaneously existing at the same time? Is it possible to be a Father without a Son?

Fourthly, the term “prince” and its resulting titles in Isaiah 9:6, including the phrase “the Prince of Peace,” cannot be applied to God the Father. I make this claim, since it is only the Son of God, and never God the Father, who is called a “prince” in the Bible, and who secondly was killed; “and killed the prince of life” (Acts 3:15).

Fifthly, Oneness folk don’t regard the word “Father” as a proper name, but as a title. One can respond to this claim by pointing out that in the Lord’s prayer, the Father is still addressed as “Father,” and that the Greek word “name,” (onoma) is directly applied to the Father; “Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.” (Luke 11:2).

Sixthly, Oneness Pentecostals might try to counter these arguments by misquoting Luke 1:35; “that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.” They’ll then misquote this verse by claiming that the Jesus was made (created as) the Son at his birth in the Bethlehem stable. But the Greek text of Luke 1:35 actually uses the word “called,” instead of the Greek word “created.” So the human body inside Mary’s womb was indeed created by the Holy Spirit, but nevertheless, the Son was still sent into the world from outside it by God the Father (John 16:28, 1st John 4:9-10, 14) and was both eternal and also uncreated in his deity as the Son. Whilst at the same time, the Son in his humanity was both created and mutable.

Finally, Oneness folk will constantly claim that the name Father isn’t really a name at all, it’s just a title, and that the name of both the Father and also of the Son is Jesus! However, when they get to Isaiah 9:6, they’ll completely ignore the word ‘Son’ and by reading the name ‘Jesus’ into the text they’ll then claim that the name of the Father is Jesus. So that the Son who is given at Isaiah 9:6, they’ll claim, is the Father, and the name of this Father who is given is Jesus. So we need to point out to them that firstly the text here doesn’t read; ‘and his title shall be everlasting Father,’ it instead uses the word name. Secondly, the name ‘Jesus’ is absent from Isaiah 9:6.