Some of the critics, however, may reply, “Don’t you say that the Son is the Father and that Christ is the Spirit? This is exactly what the modalists say.” To this I would answer that I do not care for modalism, but only for the pure word of the Bible. Isaiah 9:6 says that a child is born unto us, that a son is given unto us, that the child is called the Mighty God, and that this son is called the everlasting Father. To say that the Son is the Father is not an interpretation; it is a quotation. If you read this verse carefully, you will see from the context that the Mighty God refers to the child and that the everlasting Father refers to the Son. Throughout the centuries, all fundamental students of the Bible have agreed that the child born in the manger was the Mighty God. Only Jews and unbelievers would deny this. However, the vast majority of Christians only believe half of this verse. They either neglect or twist the other half regarding the Son’s being called the everlasting Father. Let us now consider this verse in some detail along with the different ways of twisting it.
Isaiah 9:6 says, “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, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” In this verse there are two lines with two points. The first line is, “Unto us a child is born,” and the second line is, “Unto us a son is given.” In the middle of the verse it says that He is the One who carries out God’s administration, for “the government shall be upon his shoulder.” This indicates that the child born unto us and the Son given unto us carries out God’s administration. In the latter part of this verse we see the name of the child and the name of the Son. “His name” refers to the name of the child and of the Son. His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, the Prince of Peace. Between these names, we have the Mighty God and the everlasting Father. Undoubtedly, “the Mighty God” is the name of the child and “the everlasting Father” is the name of the Son. Therefore, according to the two lines of this verse, the child born to us is called the Mighty God and the Son given to us is called the everlasting Father. All Christians agree that the child born to us is the child named Jesus born in the manger at Bethlehem. Furthermore, we all agree that this child was truly the Mighty God. Every bona fide, fundamental Christian recognizes this. Whoever does not recognize this is not a genuine Christian. However, a number of fundamental Christians have a problem with the second line. They simply do not believe that the Son is the Father.
Because we believe that Isaiah 9:6 means what it says, we are accused of being modalistic. Those who accuse us of this fall into the danger of being tritheistic. The Divine Trinity has the side of the one and the side of the three. Modalism stresses the side of the one, misunderstanding and misappropriating the side of the three, and tritheism stresses the side of the three, denying the side of the one. But the pure revelation in the Bible contains both sides of the truth. All fundamentalists believe that the child born to us is the Mighty God, but some neglect, or even oppose, the second point-that the Son given to us is the everlasting Father. They have a big problem here. Because they have a problem, they twist this verse.
The first twisting is exemplified by a brother who said, “The Son is called the Father, but He is not the Father.” I said, “Brother, isn’t it ridiculous to say this? Can we say that Mr. Smith is called Mr. Smith, but that he is not really Mr. Smith? Can we say that the Bible is called the Bible, but that it is not the Bible? The same is true with the matter of the Son’s being called the everlasting Father. How can we say that He is called the everlasting Father but is not the everlasting Father? What kind of logic is this?”
A second twisting claims that because, according to the Hebrew, “the everlasting Father” should be rendered “the Father of eternity,” the Son cannot be the Father. I agree that the “Father of eternity” is a better translation than “the everlasting Father.” But who is this Father of eternity? Is He not the Father among the Three of the Godhead? Apart from the Father in the Godhead is there another divine Father who is called “the Father of eternity”? Certainly not! Nevertheless, some twist Isaiah 9:6 to say that the Father of eternity is not the Father in the Godhead. They say that He is another Father, the Father of eternity, which, according to them, means the origin, the source, of the ages. This twisting implies that they believe in two divine Fathers-the Father in the Godhead and the Father of eternity. This is really heretical. According to the Bible, the Father of eternity is the Father in the Godhead. I appeal to you to be honest, fair, and sincere. Do you believe that besides the Father in the Godhead there is another Father who is the Father of eternity?
A third twisting claims that, according to the Hebrew, the everlasting Father is the Father of creation. To this, I would ask, “Who is the Father of creation?” If they answer that He is Jesus, I would reply, “Do you believe that besides the Father in the Godhead, Jesus is another Father, the Father of creation?” They would have to admit that they believe this. If they do, then they have two divine Fathers. While they condemn us for being heretical, they themselves are exposed as being heretical.
According to the fourth way of twisting, the “Father” in this verse is the Father of Israel. The ones who twist the verse in this way use Isaiah 63:16 and 64:8 as their basis. They say that the everlasting Father in Isaiah 9:6 is the Father of Israel. But I would ask, “Who is this Father, the Father of Israel?” Surely, it must be the Father in the Godhead. If anyone says that this Father, the Father of Israel, is not the Father in the Godhead, he implies that there are two divine Fathers. This is certainly heretical.
A fifth twisting is based upon a note in an edition of the Septuagint. (The Septuagint is an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.) This note renders “the Father of the age to come” for “the everlasting Father.” Some say that, based on this, the everlasting Father in Isaiah 9:6 is not the Father in the Godhead, but the Father of the coming age. They claim that He is the Father who brings in the new age, just as Edison was the Father who brought in the age of electrical science. But the Hebrew word for “everlasting” in this verse means eternity, eternal, everlasting, evermore, perpetually, old, world without end (see Strong’s Concordance). However they twist this verse, they cannot twist away the title “the Father.”
Actually, what is revealed in Isaiah 9:6 is very personal and subjective to us. It does not say, “A child is born, a son is given.” It says, “Unto us a son is given.” The phrase “unto us,” especially by its repetition, indicates a strong emphasis, showing that whatever is revealed in this verse is “unto us” in a very personal, subjective and experiential way. Not only is the “child,” the “son,” for our personal experience, but also all that His five names unfold is for our personal experience. Christ as the wonderful One, the Counselor, the Mighty God, and the Prince of Peace is all for our personal experience. In this context, “the everlasting Father” must also be for our personal experience. He is our wonderful One, our Counselor, our Mighty God, our Prince of Peace, and also our everlasting Father. Since the wonderful One, the Counselor, the Mighty God, and the Prince of Peace are ours, the everlasting Father must also be ours. To interpret “the everlasting Father,” or “the Father of eternity,” as the “Father of the coming age” does not fit the context, but rather makes it objective and impersonal, thus rendering this aspect of the Lord meaningless as far as the context of the entire verse is concerned.
Furthermore, Isaiah 63:16 says, “Thou, O Lord, art our Father; our Redeemer from eternity is thy name” (Heb.). And Isaiah 64:8 says, “O Lord, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.” The prophet Isaiah used these two verses as a further development of what he prophesied concerning Christ as the Father of eternity in Isaiah 9:6. In 64:8 Isaiah tells us that the Father of eternity in 9:6 is our Creator, and in 63:16 he tells us that the Father of eternity is our Redeemer. In the whole Bible, Christ is revealed as our Creator and especially as our Redeemer (John 1:3; Heb. 1:10; Rom. 3:24; Titus 2:14). The Father of eternity being both our Creator and our Redeemer not only confirms but also strengthens the understanding that the Redeemer, Christ, is the Father of eternity, the holy Father in the Godhead. Hence, to say that the everlasting Father, or the Father of eternity, in Isaiah 9:6 is some kind of Father, other than the Father in the Godhead, is not according to the context of the whole book of Isaiah.
Home | First | Prev | Next