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.

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

“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.

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)

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.

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

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?

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.

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).

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

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).

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

[Praxeas]

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

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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."

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Chan

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

Originally Posted by Chan

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Chan

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.
.

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.”

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

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).

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Chan

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

Originally Posted by Chan

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.
.

‘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.