Isaiah 9:6 –
“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.”
This is a verse both Oneness and Trinitarian adherents alike like to use to prove the divinity of Jesus. However, this verse actually has severe implications that force the doctrine of the Trinity into a very messy dilemma. Isaiah 9:6 is speaking of a Son who would be born and upon whose shoulders the government would rest, and in verse 7 it speaks about this Son being upon the throne of David forever. This is clearly a prophetic passage about the Messiah who would be God manifested in the flesh. We also see that this child would be called Everlasting Father.
For Oneness believers, this poses no confusion. We believe that it was not “God the Son,” the second divine person of the Trinity, who became incarnate in the man Christ Jesus, but rather we believe it was the Father Himself who manifested Himself to the world. Trinitarians, however, do not believe it was God the Father who dwelt in Christ, but rather God the Son. They claim that the Son is a distinct divine person from the Father, rather than the Father dwelling bodily within the man Jesus. This, however, begs the question: in what sense would this child who was prophesied to be born be called Everlasting Father? If the Son is a distinct person from the Father, why then does He carry His title? Therefore, it is much more plausible to believe that the Son holds the title of the Father because He is indistinguishable from the Father in terms of His divinity.
Objection 1:
Jesus is a separate or distinct Father from the person of the Father who carries the title to reveal His unique identity. While the term “Father” that Jesus carries is not a term that reveals His identity, but only how He relates to us.
Reply to Objection 1:
This interpretation contradicts the clear teachings of Scripture. Malachi 2:10 says, “Have we not all one Father? Hath not one God created us?” and Ephesians 4:6 says, “One God and Father of all,” echoing the very words of Malachi 2:10. This clearly shows us that there is only one Father—not two, not three. What, then, could this mean if Jesus, who is a distinct person from the Father, is also called Father in a divine sense? There seems to be no other option than to declare the person of God who became manifested in Christ that selfsame Father.
Objection 2:
The Father is a corporate title that can be shared equally among all three persons, and the term is simply a term of relationship that can be applied to all three members of the Godhead because of how they relate corporately to humanity.
Reply to Objection 2:
This alternative explanation causes a problem (for the Trinity) by making the term generic. No longer would scriptural references to the Father necessarily refer to the first person of the Trinity, but would instead become ambiguous and confusing. Let’s observe how some verses of Scripture would look if we were to use the term “Father” to indicate a compound relational unity rather than a single divine person.
Matthew 24:36: “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but My Father only.” Essentially, the verse would read as follows: “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Trinity only.” This would create an obvious contradiction. If the Son is a member of the Trinity, how could the Trinity know something that the Son does not know?
Objection 3:
The term “Father” does not always apply to the whole Trinity, but is inclusive of the whole Trinity only when referring to the relationship to humanity, and is exclusive to the person of the Father when Scripture is referring to His relationship and/or begetting of the Son.
Reply to Objection 3:
On the contrary, this solution also creates interpretive inconsistency, requiring the same term to shift meanings depending on the context in ways that Scripture itself does not clearly indicate. Furthermore, we once again run into the problem of having more than one Father: one Father that is the whole Trinity, and another Father that is only one member of the Trinity.
Objection 4:
The Hebrew grammar does not require the interpretation you pose. The Hebrew word “adi” (עַד) means “everlasting” or “eternal.” This word modifies “av” (אָב), which generally means “father of,” thus forming “adi-av,” or in English, “Father of eternity.” Therefore, to Christ the term “Father” is applied not to reveal His identity or relationship to us, but rather His attribute or nature—namely, that He is the source of eternity. This echoes Christ’s nature as self-existing outside the confines of time (i.e., eternity). The only thing that exists outside time is God, and within that space exists nothing else. Therefore, it logically follows that not only is it God alone who is eternal, but He is eternity itself, thus making this divine person the source and Father of eternity.
Reply to Objection 4:
The Hebrew grammar does not necessitate the reading “Father of eternity,” but “av” can shift meanings depending on the context of the passage or verse in which it is used. For example, Genesis 11:28: “And Haran died before his father (avi, אָב) Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.” Obviously, the translation “father of” would not fit well within this context. So we see that we are not obligated to translate Isaiah 9:6 in such a fashion.
Even if we were to interpret the Hebrew in this way, it would still pose a greater problem to the Trinitarian perspective of God than it would for the Oneness perspective. If Jesus is the source of eternity, it still proves Him to be the selfsame Father. According to Trinitarian theology, the Son is not self-generated or self-begotten, but it is the Father who eternally causes the begetting of the Son and the generating of the Spirit. Therefore, according to Trinitarian theology, it is not the Son nor the Spirit who is the source of eternity, but the Father. Eastern Orthodox theologians even go as far as to say that the Father is the fountainhead of the Trinity. Therefore, to be the source of eternity would mean being the very source of God, and according to Trinitarians this can only be applied to the Father. Then, if indeed Christ is being called “the Father of eternity,” He must, by necessity, also be the very divine person of the Father.
Conclusion:
The only way to interpret Isaiah 9:6 without running into any of these errors is to abandon the idea of the Trinity altogether and accept the idea of pure numerical monotheism. It was the Father Himself who became incarnate in Christ; therefore, that Son who was born in Bethlehem 2,000 years ago might rightly be called Everlasting Father.
Apostolic Antiquity 
Leave a comment