A Trinitarian perspective on Isaiah 9-6
 

“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.

Well, of course the Hebrew word for God is not found in the phrase "everlasting Father"! It is, however, found in the phrase "mighty God" (el gibbor in the Hebrew). The Hebrew word translated "Father" means:

1. father of an individual
2. of God as father of his people
3. head or founder of a household, group, family, or clan
4. ancestor
   1. grandfather, forefathers -- of person
   2. of people
5. originator or patron of a class, profession, or art
6. of producer, generator (fig.)
7. of benevolence and protection (fig.)
8. term of respect and honour
9. ruler or chief (spec.)

The Hebrew word translated "everlasting" (or, in the NASB, "eternal") means:

1. perpetuity, for ever, continuing future

1. ancient (of past time)
2. for ever (of future time)
   1. of continuous existence
3. for ever (of God's existence)

Which suggests to me that the Father is eternal or everlasting.

Well, the Bible does say that the Son was begotten on "this day," according to the prophetic psalm and the word "begotten" does necessitate having a beginning. The problem here is that you're assuming that "everlasting Father" means that God has always been the Father throughout all of eternity past. We, as Christians, have everlasting life but we didn't have life throughout all of eternity past.

Of course, Isaiah 9:6 does say that the child would be called the Prince of Peace.

Father is not a proper name, it is a title. If you call your father "dad," does that mean "dad" is his name? Obviously not! So also "Father" is not a name of God but, instead, a title. As for the Greek word for name (onoma), very often in the New Testament it refers to authority and not to an appellation.

While some oneness folks do erroneously say the Son was created (the Arian heresy), not all of them do. Further, "made" does not mean the same thing as "created." Of course, the Nicene fathers specifically opposed Arius' claim that the Son was created yet the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed says Jesus "was made man."

See your fifth point above and my response to it. By the way, the Hebrew word translated "name" in Isaiah 9:6 has the following meanings:

1. name

1. name
2. reputation, fame, glory
3. the Name (as designation of God)
4. memorial, monument

Keep in mind that Isaiah 9:6 says that the child's name, i.e. the name of the baby born in Bethlehem would be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

The Father is not ALWAYS called "God the Father" anyways..in fact that is rare compared to just being called Father or My father or The Father

And the Bible never calls Him "God the Son" or "God the Holy Spirit."

And actually often I have found the article is missing...so he is being called Father God

Let me summaries my position briefly; Isaiah 9:6 does NOT state that the child who will be born is God the Father! If Isaiah had wished to make this claim then he would not have used the phrase; Father of eternity.

Chan please prove this claim of yours from the Bible; where does Scripture tell us that Father isn't a proper name? Consider Luke 11:2;

‘Our Father which art in heaven hallowed be thy name.’ Luke 11:2.

In the Lord’s prayer we are told to address God by his own name, because Christianity unlike all other world religions, has a personal God who we come to know personally when we are saved. This familiarity is expressed by our usage of God's own name in prayer, which is why Jesus here teaches us to specifically use God's name. In which case if the name of the Father were indeed “Jesus,” why then wouldn’t the Son tell us to pray; “Jesus who art in heaven hallowed be thy name.”

The reason for this is two fold. Firstly, Jesus is not the name of the Father, but it is rather the name of the Son (2nd John 3). Secondly, Jesus tells us that the designation “Father” is a name and not a title. If he had wanted to say that “Father” was a title, then Luke would have used the Greek “titlos” and not “onoma,” which is the Greek for ‘name.’ So Chan Father must be a name and not a title, otherwise the Lord's prayer would read; “hallowed be thy title (titlos) Father.”

This is utter stupidity!

There is no connection whatsoever between the first two words of the prayer "Our Father" and the phrase "hallowed be thy name" (a name, by the way, that Jews believed was too sacred for them to utter).

LOL. I tried telling him that years ago. It goes in one ear and out the other

‘Our Father which art in heaven hallowed be thy name.’ Luke 11:2.


Chan the name “Father” in the Lord’s prayer must be a name, because Jesus tells us to pray to the Father, when he tells us to pray “Our Father .... hallowed be thy NAME.” So Father is a NAME according to Jesus’ very own words at Luke 11:2. Furthermore the preposition “our” again confirms that Father is a name, because this is a personal designation which implies a personal deity. Now if Jesus had instead told us to use the word “Jesus” in the Lords prayer, because as you have claimed, ‘Jesus’ is the personal name of the Father. Then the Lord’s prayer would instead read; “Our Jesus which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.” You’ll dislike me for saying this, but in the Lord’s prayer Jesus tells us to pray to someone other than himself, namely to somebody else called God the Father. And never mind that the word ‘Father’ is only a title in our 21st Century Western culture. In first century culture, there wasn’t any noticeable distinction between a name and a title.

if there is no connection, then why did jesus Christ himself hermeneutically link them together in the same sentence? If I were to say to you; 'Queen Elizabeth the second is the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland,' can't you see that the name 'Queen Elizabeth' is directly linked to the land of GB & Ireland? So likewise are 'father' and 'name' directly linked together at Luke 11:2.

No, "Father" and "name" are not directly linked. In your analogy, you brought together a title (Queen) and a name (Elizabeth) and this is your error. Jews did not utter God's name. When they spoke about God, they used various titles to refer to Him (such as adonai, el, elohiym). Likewise, "Father" is a title and not a name. Your earthly father has a name that he was given at birth. When he fathered you, his name didn't change to "Dad" or "Father." So also, GOD is the Father but "Father" is not His name.

If I say to my late earthly father, "Dad, I honor your name" that doesn't mean that I'm honoring the title "Dad," it means that I'm honoring his name that I did not mention.

I am an expert in the English language and from my vast experience I can tell you that "Father" is not being used as a name in the English translation of the Lord's prayer. I'm sure those that are well versed in Greek will likewise tell you that "Father" is not being used as a name in the Greek text that was translated into English.

Prove that Father isn't a name! Just making this claim isn't proof:

'Our FATHER who art in heaven hallowed be thy NAME.' (Luke 11:2) so Father and name are directly linked. You might not regard 'Father' as a name and in 21st century culture is isn't a name, but the Bible wasn't written in America using American culture and idioms, it was written using the Greek and jewish idiomatic phrases, customs and culture. You have to understand the Bible in the context in which it was given and bearing that in mind, God tells us that Father is a name.

Your trying to read the Bible as if it was the new York Times, written in American 21st century English and using American cultural idioms, that's your mistake, you should instead read the Bible in it's first century Jewish context.

Which still does not use "Father" as a name.

Unless you understand the cultural setting in which they book was given, which is a first century jewish context, then you can't even give an opinion. As I've alreay said, the Bible isn't to be read as if it is an American book written in the first century. Luke 11:2 states that the name of the Father is FATHER, in our culture father is a title, in their culture and in the context of the Father it's name. You have no right to tell God what he can or can't choose to be called.

Even in the first century Jewish context "Father" was a title and not a name!

Yes, but not in the context of God, who has chosen to use Father as a name and not as a title, who are you to tell God what he can and cannot do?

'Our Father .... hallowed be thy NAME.' (Luke 11:2)

No, "Father" is not being used as a name!

Luke 11:2: 'Our FATHER which art in heaven hallowed be thy .... Title or Name'

Then why doesn't Luke 11:2 read; 'Father ... hallowed be thy title?' The mistake your making is one of failing to understand that the Bible wasn't written in the USA in 2007, using 21st century idioms, but in the first century and the only thing that matters is what did the origional writers think, not what do you think. God is soverign and if he chooses to take a title and use that as a name, then he's free so to do. Ancient Kings did this, Ceaser which means King was a title, but was used by the Roman Emperors as a personal name.

You have serious issues with grammar. This verse is neither saying the word Father is His name nor His title.

If it read "Great High Priest, hallowed be your name" would you assume "Great High Priest" was his name or would you assume this is saying whatever the name is of the Great High Priest, you should hallow it.

It is not saying "Our Father who is in heaven, Father is your name".

Could you say to your own Dad "Dad, great is your name" and mean the "Dad is your name"?

When you pray to somebody, you address them by their name and not by some mysterious title, so Jesus' telling us to pray 'Our Father' is an admission that Father is his name and so we're to address him by his name in prayer.

First of all, you adding the words Mysterious just makes us take you even less serious since nobody here has said it is a mysterious title.

Second, you are wrong. You can and do address someone by their title when praying. We say "Lord" when we pray and "God"....we call him Creator. I often refer to Jesus as my Great High Priest and Savior. Where do you get this idea from

When I pray, I don't address God by name, I address Him by various titles.

Well Christ commanded us to address God by his name, becasue in prayer we're to hallow his name ... not a mere title!

I think that if you read Isaiah 9:6, then you'll find that the word name is used here its (shem) in Hebrew. Now if you claim that Father is a title and not a name, OK, why then do you reverse this claim at this verse? Oneness folk claim that father is a title at 31,172 verses in the Bible, but that it's a name at one verse ... Isaiah 9:6, isn't that inconsistent?

Where did Jesus ever tell us to address God by name? You forget that Jesus was on Earth as a Jew and that Jews did what they could to avoid speaking God's name because they believed it was too sacred to be uttered.

I don't reverse the claim. "Father" is a title. The passage doesn't say "the child will be named..." it says that His name (which was not mentioned) will be called these different titles (as identifying characteristics).

If name doesn't mean name at Isaiah 9:6 but title, why doresn't the text state this openly and clearly, why has everyone body in Church history until the start of Oneness Pentecostalism in 1913 undertood 'name' (Shem in the hebrew) to mean name at Isaiah 9:6. If a title is being referred to, then why doesn't the text read: 'and his title shall be called' and why is the word 'Son also used at Isaiah 9:6 if this isn't even his name? Why has absolutely everybody throughout Church History; Luther, Augustine, Spurgeon, Wesley etc got this absolutely wrong, or could it be that a group of people who don't even read Hebrew or Greek and know vey little concerning hermeneutics are simply misreading the text?

Perhaps it is stated openly in the Hebrew. We're reading English translations and there are always problems when translating from one language to another language.

IB,

Can you find a prayer, a psalm, anything in the OT in which the Jews prayed by saying "Our Father" or "Father God" or anything similar to that?

I address God by titles as well as by his name, Jesus.

Jesus did tell his disciples to address God by name, specifically by the name of Jesus.

IB, what does Luther, Augustine, Spurgeon, and Wesley have to say about Isa 9:6? Did they all call him the Father of eternity? And what does that phrase mean? Did he create eternity? How then could he be an eternal Son?

This is simple if a child was born whose name shall be Wonderful ,Counselor, The Mighty God ,The Everlasting Father , The Prince of Peace.
Who is the Bible was borned that fits the bill ?
His name singular shall be Wonderful ,Counselor, The Mighty God ,The everlasting Father ,The Prince of Peace ,now if a child is a male what is he ?
A Son of course ,yet His name will mean wonderful ,counselor ,the Mighty God ,The Everlasting Father,The Prince of Peace.IB who is our Peace in EPH. 2:14
Does Isaiah 9:6 teach that one can be both ,a Son and a Father at the same time ,and is not the Holy Spirit a counselor?Does ISAIAH 9:6 Sound like three seperate beings of God ?

This seems to be a perfect example of eisegesis to me.

OK, then go though my post point by point proving eisegesis and if you can priove this, I'll accept correction from the Bible. As it stands, simply dismissing something as you've done my work doesn't constitute proof does it. If you handed somebody a copy of David Bernard's book: The Oneness of God and this person looked at it for half and hour and then threw it on the floor stating; 'it's all eisegesis' would you accept that as a valid criticism. So please Kwaiq, treat me fairly and refute my work rather than just dismiss it.

Where did Jesus tell His disciples to address God by the name Jesus???? Jesus taught His disciples to pray "Our Father who art in Heaven..."