Even after I opened up some portions of the Word, I studied them further. I would like to illustrate to you what I mean by sharing with you what I have seen from a further study of Isaiah 9:6. Many of you know that I have been speaking on this verse for over twenty years in America. I did some further study on this verse and I believe that I have seen a better way to present it. I spoke quite much in the past that Isaiah 9:6 shows us that the Son is the Father. We also put out a number of publications containing this truth. After all these publications, I began to realize that I must present the truth in Isaiah 9:6 in a very basic, biblical way. The very basic, biblical principle is to interpret any verse by taking care of the context of that chapter. Then you need to take care of, in a further way, the context of the entire book. This is still not adequate. It is finally necessary to take care of the context of the entire Bible. This is a basic word concerning the basic principle of interpreting the Bible, that is, that every word of the Bible needs the entire Bible to interpret it.
Isaiah 9:6 has become a great debatable verse mainly due to the Son being called the Father versus the traditional theology of the Trinity always remaining in three distinct and separate persons. The best theology says that the Trinity is three distinct persons, while the poor theology says that the Trinity is three distinct and separate persons. Traditional theology keeps the three persons in a distinction and separation. According to this theology, you should never say the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father and the Son is also the Spirit. If you say this you will be immediately condemned as modalistic. Modalism, of course, is a serious heresy and a serious condemnation is ascribed to it. In order to avoid being condemned as modalistic, no interpreter or teacher of the Bible would say that the Son, having been called the Father, is the Father. No one would dare to say this. Whoever would say this would be condemned.
We young brothers in China, however, were faithful to tell the truth, not caring for being condemned. I came to the United States and dared to tell people that the Son is the Father. Then the opposition was aroused and some condemned me of being modalistic. Even some among us took the side of the opposition. They said that the everlasting Father in Isaiah 9:6 is not an accurate translation because in Hebrew everlasting is a noun. Therefore, the proper translation should be “the Father of eternity.” Based upon this, they said that the Son is called the Father of eternity and that this does not mean that the Son is the Father in the Godhead of the Trinity. The Father of eternity to them is not the Father in the Godhead of the Trinity. This is another Father. They said the Father of eternity is like George Washington being called the father of the United States or like Thomas Edison being called the father of electricity.
Many believe in this way because for them to remain in the traditional theology with the understanding of three distinct and separate persons, they need some refuge. Many traditional theologians stay in this refuge of interpreting Isaiah 9:6 by saying that this verse does not refer to the Father in the Godhead but to the Father of eternity. Jesus as the Creator surely is the Father of eternity. It is quite reasonable to say that Christ as the Son of God was the Creator of everything. However, for the traditional teachers to indicate that besides the Father in the Godhead there is another Father is a top heresy. This is the reason why we put out a booklet titled, What a Heresy—Two Divine Fathers, Two Life-giving Spirits, and Three Gods. This was published in a major California newspaper, but no one answered it. This was a challenge which defeated the traditional, theological interpretation concerning the Triune God. No one answered this article because they could not answer. Many Christians were caught in the heresy of two divine Fathers, two life-giving Spirits and three Gods. This is the unconscious, subconscious belief of today’s traditional theology.
By the Lord’s mercy I have been strong not only to preach but also to insist that we do not have two divine Fathers, two life-giving Spirits and three Gods. We only have one God who is the Father, who is the Son, who is the Spirit, and who is the Triune God. This One is the Creator. This is our God as revealed in His holy Word. He is the Creator, He is the Father of eternity, and the Father of every family in the heavens and on earth (Eph. 3:14-15). Paul in his preaching to the philosophical Greeks in Acts 17 told them that they were the offspring of God (vv. 28-29). Since God is the Creator, the Source, of all men, He is the Father of them all (Mal. 2:10) in a natural sense, not in the spiritual sense as He is the Father of all the believers (Gal. 4:6) who are regenerated by Him in their spirit (1 Pet. 1:3; John 3:5-6). Also, in James 1:17 we see that God is “the Father of the lights.” Many Christians understand the lights in this verse to mean spiritual lights or divine lights. However, lights here refer to the heavenly luminaries. The Father is the Creator, the Source, of these shining bodies. Our God is not only our Father who begat us with His divine life, but also the Father of all the heavenly luminaries such as the sun, the moon, the stars, and the planets. He is the Father of all the heavenly bodies since they all were created by Him. This does not mean that this Father who is the Creator of all things is not the Father in the Godhead but another Father. Isaiah 9:6 has been debated in such a way. Some say that the Father of eternity in this verse is not the Father in the Godhead. I have considered many times what the best way would be to present Isaiah 9:6 as a rebuttal to this interpretation. In order to do this we must be brought back to the basic principle of interpretation, that is, to take care of the context of the chapter, of the entire book, and of the entire Bible.
Based upon this, I did some further study of Isaiah 9:6 based upon the context of Isaiah. The book of Isaiah refers to God as Father two other times. Isaiah 63:16 says, “For thou art our Father, though Abraham knoweth us not, and Israel doth not acknowledge us: thou, O Jehovah, art our Father; our Redeemer from everlasting is thy name” (ASV). There are four main points in this verse: the Father, Jehovah, Redeemer, and everlasting. In this verse Isaiah told us that God is not only the Son as in 9:6 but also Jehovah. Jehovah indicates that God is the Triune One, the Eternal One, the great I Am, the One who is, who was, and who is coming. We must also have a further realization that Jehovah in the Old Testament equals Jesus in the New Testament. “Jesus” is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word Joshua (Num. 13:16), which means Jehovah the Savior or the salvation of Jehovah. Hence, Jesus was not only a man, but Jehovah; and not only Jehovah, but Jehovah becoming our salvation. This verse also tells us that Jehovah, who is our Father, is also our Redeemer. Generally speaking, God is our Redeemer, but strictly speaking Christ is our Redeemer. Isaiah firstly tells us that God is our Father and that He is also Jehovah and our Redeemer. Therefore, this verse indicates that the Redeemer, Jesus Christ, is the Father of Israel. Actually, the Father of Israel is also the Father of eternity. This verse, however, does not stress the Father of eternity but the Father of the people of Israel. This Father is Jehovah, the Old Testament Jesus, and Jehovah is the Redeemer, and this name (“our Redeemer”) is from everlasting. Isaiah 9:6 and 63:16 correspond to one another. If we are going to interpret Isaiah 9:6, we must come to Isaiah 63:16 in the same book.
In order to get a proper interpretation of Isaiah 9:6 we must also look at Isaiah 64:8: “But now, O Jehovah, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hands” (ASV). In this verse we see that Isaiah called Jehovah “our Father.” In 63:16 He was also called by Isaiah “our Father” and “our Redeemer.” This name was from everlasting. Isaiah speaks of God being our Father three times—in 9:6, in 63:16, and 64:8. We must ask the question—are these three Fathers referring to one Father or to two Fathers? If you do not say that the Father in Isaiah 9:6 is the Father in the Godhead, then what about the Father in 63:16 and 64:8. Is the Father in these verses the Father in the Godhead? In Isaiah 9:6 the Son is called the Father of eternity. To say that the Father of eternity in this verse is not the Father in the Godhead is wrong based upon the context of the book of Isaiah. This interpretation cannot stand when we compare Isaiah 9:6 to the other two references to the Father in the same book of Isaiah.
There are also some other verses in the Old Testament which show that God was the Father of Israel. Deuteronomy 32:6 says, “Do ye thus requite Jehovah, O foolish people and unwise? Is not He thy father that hath bought thee? He hath made thee, and established thee” (ASV). Moses told the children of Israel in this verse that Jehovah was their Father. The thought in the Old Testament is that God was always the Father of the children of Israel. Furthermore, Exodus 4:22-23 tells us that God sent Moses to see Pharaoh and tell him, “Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me.” Again we can see the thought in the Old Testament that God was the Father of Israel.
Isaiah prophesied in Isaiah 9:6 that a child would be born to us and a son given to us and that this son is called the everlasting Father. The everlasting Father is our Father and also the Father of the children of Israel. To say that the Father of eternity is not the Father in the Godhead is off and not according to the context of Isaiah and of the rest of the Bible. This interpretation is like a foreign article wedged into the body of the Scriptures.
I want to show you young brothers not to be contented merely with what you have learned from the notes of the Recovery Version and from the Life-study messages. For example, for a verse like Isaiah 9:6, I did not interpret it according to the basic principle of interpretation, which is to take care of the context of the book. You should go further to interpret this verse according to the context of the book of Isaiah. I am just illustrating to you that if you study the Bible in this way, you will see something further. I was not contented with my presentation of this verse, so I did some further study according to the context of the entire book of Isaiah, which tells us that Christ, the Messiah, was the Father of the children of Israel. Is not this Father also the Father in the Godhead? I hope we have all seen that the Father of Israel, unequivocally, is the Father in the Godhead.