⁶For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us. And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named ‘The mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler’ ⁷In token of abundant authority and of peace without limit upon David’s throne and kingdom, that it may be firmly established in justice and equity now and evermore. The zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall bring this to pass. (Tanakh; Isaiah 9:6–7 Christian Bibles, 9:5–6 Hebrew Bibles)

In this chapter we are going to address the common Onenessian notion that Isaiah 9:6 proves that Jesus is God incarnate.

This passage teaches us a powerful lesson in cultural differences and will help us see how easy it is to impose our own ideas upon other cultures. And that is, overall and in general, what Trinitarians and Onenessians end up doing to the Hebrew prophecies regarding the Messiah.

I have a Latino friend whose first name is Jesus (pronounced “heh-SOOS”). Naming children “Jesus” is culturally acceptable among Latinos but is pretty much taboo among Anglos. The reason Latinos name their sons “Jesus” is out of a deep respect for, and commemoration of the Lord Jesus Christ. Of course Anglos, for their part, seem to find this somewhat pretentious or arrogant.

Does a cultural bias against naming children “Jesus” mean that Latinos who do so actually fit the Anglo bias and are pretentious in doing so? The answer is simply no. The Anglo bias does not mean Latinos are guilty of Anglo biases. Now let’s get to our real point, does anyone believe my friend was named “Jesus” because his parents believed him to be an incarnation of Jesus Christ of Nazareth? I certainly hope not, because nothing could be further from the truth.

And yet, that is precisely what a lot of Christians, both Trinitarians and Onenessians, do with Isaiah 9:6, without any regard for the Jewish culture behind the passage! Based on their cultural bias and nothing else , such Christians presume that if Jesus was given a form of God’s name, then that could only be undeniable evidence that he is God Himself incarnate. In reality, that idea is simply ridiculous when examined from the perspective of the OT. It would be just as ridiculous as accusing my friend’s parents of believing their son was Jesus reincarnated because they named him “Jesus.”

God’s Name Bestowed in Commemoration

One of the things we learn from the OT Schoolmaster is God’s compound names, such as YHWH-Shammah, YHWH-Jireh, YHWH-Shalom, YHWH-Nissi. But how many Oneness Pentecostals know that we learned these names because these names were given to places and altars? For example:

…And the name of the city from that day shall be, YHWH is there [YHWH-shammah]. (Ezekiel 48:35)

…Abraham called the name of that place YHWH Will Provide [YHWH-Jireh]. (Genesis 22:14)

Then Gideon built an altar there to YHWH, and called it YHWH is Peace. (Judges 6:24)

Moses built an altar, and called the name of it YHWH our Banner [YHWH-Nissi]. (Exodus 17:15)

Are these altars and places that were called by God’s name actually God incarnate? If not, why not, if calling something by the names or titles of God is absolute proof that doing so is to be understood as identifying God Himself? People who have enough sense to realize these cities and altars aren’t God just because God’s name was bestowed on them should have the sense to realize that calling men by God’s name doesn’t make them God either!

The truth is simply that these titles of YHWH were given in commemoration of some specified aspect of YHWH. Take for example “YHWH-Jireh,” which means “my provider.” Since Onenessians insist that proper names of God are to be understood as only applying to God Himself, then are we to believe this place was YHWH? And whenever Israelites wanted to receive a sacrifice provided by God, that was the place they would return to? The idea is ridiculous, is it not? Well then, that is exactly how ridiculous it is to impose our bias on how and what it signifies when something or someone was given God’s name. This is how Onenessians are seen to be unbiblical, in the way they understand how God’s names are used when bestowed upon persons or things other than God Himself.

Actually, YHWH was being commemorated by Abraham at the place where God provided a lamb for a sacrifice instead of Isaac. It is just that simple and uncomplicated.

As we’ve mentioned, God’s name was not only bestowed upon places. Let’s look at some of the names of the prophets and see what they tell us:

• • Joshua (YHWH + yasha) = YHWH-saved.
  • Elijah (El + Yah) = My God is Yah.
  • Elisha = God is salvation.
  • Jeremiah= YHWH lifts up
  • Joel = YHWH is his God
  • Micah (Micaiah) = Who is like Yah(weh)
  • Zecharia = Yah(weh) is renowned
  • Hezekiah = Yah(weh) strengthens

As we can see, it was fairly common practice in Judaism to name humans with the name of YHWH in combined (concatenated) Theophoric names. And those names often bore some significance to the role or message of these prophets. But certainly no one is claiming that these prophets were God incarnate because they bore and came in God’s name! Yet because the Messiah was called by God’s name, Onenessians believe he should be identified as God Himself. That would only be true if it were taught by the OT Schoolmaster. As it is, this is only one of the traditions of men that attempts to make the word of God of no effect.

Here’s a question: If Jesus is proved to be God by his given name, what then do we do with the fact that in the Hebrew language Joshua was given the exact same name as “Jesus” (“Yehoshua”)? Was then Joshua the son of Nun also, by that same reasoning, God Himself incarnate? Of course not. So then why are Onenessians so adamant that Isaiah could only possibly mean that Jesus is the everlasting Father? This is just faulty reasoning caused by imposing our culture on the Bible and then claiming that Scripture supports our bias, when it says no such thing. It is actually that attitude that is pretentious and arrogant.

The Mighty Men are Not the Mighty God

Another relevant fact is that the phrase “mighty god” in Isaiah 9:6 has been applied to humans. For example:

The strong [’eeleey] among the mighty [gibowriym] shall speak to him out of the midst of Sheol with those who help him: they are gone down, they lie still, even the uncircumcised, slain by the sword. (Ezekiel 32:21)

Although this passage is in the plural, it is otherwise the same exact phrase found in Isaiah 9:6, where the KJV translates it as “the mighty God” (though the Hebrew lacks the definite article “the”). If we use the same rule for interpreting as those who believe this can only mean the Messiah is God Almighty, then these ancient ones also were each “the mighty God,” which we know is not true. It is the translation method that is false, not the words of Ezekiel 32:21. This passage, then, is reminiscent of the following passage:

³⁴Jesus answered them, “Isn’t it written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods?’ ³⁵If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture can’t be broken), ³⁶do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God?’ ³⁷If I don’t do the works of my Father, don’t believe me. ³⁸ But if I do them, though you don’t believe me, believe the works; that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” (John 10:34–38)

The Hebrew word that is translated above as God comes from the word el , or elohim in the plural. The simple fact is, God called men in Scripture by the name el or elohim not because they are the Almighty God, but because the word simply means that they are powerful or mighty (whether their might came directly from God Himself or not). This truth is spelled out in the following lexicon of Biblical Hebrew and in the passages to which it refers:

OT:410 ‘el (ale) 1. applied to men of might and rank… mighty one of the nations Ezekiel 31:11 (of Nebuchadnezzar)… mighty men Job 41:17… mighty heroes Ezekiel 32:21… Ezekiel 17:13; 2 Kings 24:15… Exodus 15:15. Brown-Driver-Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon, Unabridged, Electronic Database; Biblesoft: 2006.

¹⁰Therefore thus said the Lord YHWH: Because you are exalted in stature, and he has set his top among the thick boughs, and his heart is lifted up in his height; ¹¹I will even deliver him into the hand of the mighty one [el]of the nations; he shall surely deal with him; I have driven him out for his wickedness. (Ezekiel 31:10–11)

When he raises himself up, the mighty [elim] are afraid. They retreat before his thrashing. (Job 41:25)

As we can see by both the dictionary definition of “el” and by its usage in the Scriptures, the word “el” means “mighty” and can apply to God or to men. It is not used exclusively of YHWH God.

The Everlasting Father

One of Onenessians’ favorite OT proof texts is the occurrence of the phrase “everlasting father” in Isaiah 9:6. For Onenessians this is a prophetic announcement that the Son himself will literally be the “everlasting father.” Thus they use it as a proof text for their doctrine that Jesus is an incarnation of the person of Father.

Although there are many difficulties with their conclusion, there is at least one huge problem with that assumption: Jesus is never clearly and unambiguously called the Father, and the Father is never, ever called Jesus anywhere in the Bible, but particularly in the NT where we would expect it to be found.

To the contrary, as we’ve been demonstrating, Jesus always held himself personally distinct from the Father. For instance when he said, “I am ascending to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God” (John 20:17). Or when he said, “…I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent me” (John 8:16). Or when he taught us to pray, saying, “Pray like this: ‘Our Father in heaven…’” (Matthew 6:9).

Not only Jesus, but the apostles also, always kept the Father personally distinct from Jesus, the Son. For example:

²⁷For, “He put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when he says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that he is excepted who subjected all things to him . ²⁸When all things have been subjected to him, then the Son will also himself be subjected to him who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15:27–28)

Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love. (1 John 1:3)

We can very clearly see that God’s name, in concatenated forms, is and has been bestowed upon people, places, and things in commemoration of God. Meanwhile, absolutely no evidence shows that doing so identifies those persons, places, and things as God. It thus becomes clear that the biblical precedent is simply to give such names in commemoration of particular aspects of God.

For Onenessians to adamantly claim otherwise, as they do, simply puts the onus, the responsibility of providing the evidence, back on them. Any honest seeker of truth will soon find that calling Jesus by the name “Father” is just as lacking in the Scripture as those calling God a Trinity.

The very fact that Onenessians can only interpret like the devil and Trinitarians do in order to come to their conclusions is proof they aren’t handling the word of God in an honest manner.

Furthermore, the Onenessian practice of calling Jesus “the Father” is as unbiblical and unapostolic as the Trinitarian practice of calling Jesus “God the Son.” Although they come to different results, both groups use the same false, devilish methods to reach their conclusions.

Isaiah 9:6 from Hebrew and Apostolic Views

Let’s look again at Isaiah 9:6 with the Jewish background we’ve provided in mind. Here is how the passage looks in its original setting, with the name transliterated and all the other words translated:

For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Avi-ad-sar-shalom. (Isaiah 9:6(5) 1917) JPS Electronic Edition, Larry Nelson, accessed 2/22/2015, http://www.breslov.com/bible/Isaiah9.htm#6 . Note that the Hebrew numbering is slightly different than the Christian; thus, it is v.5 in JPS.

As we can see, in Hebrew it appears as just one long name. If the OT prophets were given YHWH’s name combined with one other characteristic of God’s, this son seems to outdo them all by having many characteristics of God contained in his name. But that still doesn’t mean that any legitimate Jew ever interpreted this passage to mean that this son was to be an incarnation of YHWH. That idea is still far, far from their understanding. Such an idea not only was never spelled out in the OT, but it was also contraindicated, as we have seen in the previous chapters of this section.

Furthermore, it isn’t even true that the Jews understood this to be one long name for this son.

Here is another way that Jewish translators have expressed the passage:

For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, “the prince of peace.” (Isaiah 9:6[5]) The Complete Tanach with Rashi’s Commentary, trans. The Book of Isaiah Volume 1, ed. Rabbi A. J. Rosenberg (Judaica Press, 1982), accessed 2/22/2015 from http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15940 .

So here is another issue to deal with. It isn’t clear from the Hebrew text that the full name-string is applied to the child. To the contrary, as interpreted here, it could name the one who provided the name for the child (which would make the child’s name “the prince of peace,” not the “everlasting Father”).

And yet another significant fact is that no NT writer ever quoted any part of Isaiah 9:6 as referring to Jesus Christ. However, the verse following Isaiah 9:6 is referred to in Luke 1:33. In this instance the angel is telling Mary what the identity of her miraculously born son was to be:

He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father, David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever. There will be no end to his Kingdom . (Luke 1:32–33; see also Isaiah 9:7)

Here we have an angel’s description of Jesus that fits very well with Isaiah 9:7. But anyone taking the time to read Isaiah 9:7 will notice no personal pronoun in the pronouncement besides the one used for David. It actually goes like this: “Of the increase of the government and peace there shall be no end upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever… The zeal of YHWH of hosts will perform this.” (Isaiah 9:7(6), ITB). ¹ Thus, this prophecy is simply about restoring the throne of King David to the rightful son and heir of David, and lends no support to the assumption this son would be an incarnation of God.

¹ Interlinear Transliterated Bible, 2006 by Biblesoft. See also Young’s Literal Translation, Holman Christian Standard Bible, and the Complete Jewish Bible, which are included within the referenced software. The following translations have “his” in italics, indicating that it did not exist in the texts they were translating: KJV, NKJV, NASV, NASB, and others.

When we examine the internal evidence based on what Isaiah actually wrote, we realize it is YHWH who is going to give this son of David to us, who will give this son his name, and who will establish this son’s government and the peace it will bring. So, we have God giving another individual, the Messiah, his name, which is not the same as saying that the Messiah is God. The Bible concurs that Jesus’ name did not mean he was God simply because the name was not his inherently, but was gifted to him:

I will declare your name to my brothers. In the midst of the assembly, I will praise you. (Psalm 22:22)

I have come in my Father’s name, and you don’t receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. (John 5:43)

I revealed your name to the people whom you have given me out of the world. They were yours, and you have given them to me. They have kept your word. (John 17:6)

I made known to them your name, and will make it known; that the love with which you loved me may be in them, and I in them. (John 17:26)

So, Jesus himself testified that his name wasn’t his own name but rather the Father’s name and was bestowed upon him by his Father. Jesus’ words refute the Onenessian contention that Jesus’ given name is proof he is God. The problem then is that Onenessians simply refuse to interpret Isaiah 9:6 through the OT as our schoolmaster. In order to come to their unbiblical conclusion, they must ignore the fact that names of God were applied to places and people other than God.

Note in particular the angel’s explicit words in Luke 1:32–33. The angel referred to Christ when saying he would be “called the Son of the Most High” and then explicitly said that the Most High would give him the throne “of his father, David.” The person of God would not need to be given a throne He already owned by inherent right. When Moses asked God to reveal His name, God didn’t say, “I have given Myself the Name YHWH, that is my name…” So Jesus was given a throne in the same way he was given his name. Such explicit wording rules out that this son is an incarnation of God by what it clearly states.

Even if it could be proven that the name referred to in Isaiah 9:6 was Jesus’ concatenated name, Scripture is very clear that he was “given” his name:

Therefore God also highly exalted him, and gave to him the name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, those on earth, and those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:9–11)

Thus, according to the Scriptures and Jesus himself, his name was not undeniable evidence, let alone even a slight clue leading in that direction, that he is the God who gave him the name. So the Oneness conclusion is nothing but pure conjecture based on jumping to conclusions!

Biblically speaking, this son, Jesus Christ (the Anointed One), was simply to be the fulfillment of God’s sworn oath to David. Thus Jesus Christ was declared to be neither more nor less than a fulfillment of both Isaiah 9:7 and 2 Samuel 7:12–16:

When your days are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall proceed out of your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son : if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men; but my loving kindness shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before you. Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before you: your throne shall be established forever. (2 Samuel 7:12–16)

This is who Jesus is and was and always was supposed to be: God’s Son, not God Himself. No prophesy anywhere in the OT Scriptures said that the Messiah would be an incarnation of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The method that people use to come to that conclusion is no different than the method Trinitarians use to try to “prove” the OT declared the Trinity. In either case, the method used is reading into the text by interpretation what it never actually states. The idea that Jesus Christ is an incarnation of God Himself (as in Onenessianism) or an eternal, coequal “God the Son” (as in Trinitarianism), is a case of reading a cultural bias and/or preconceived, man-made idea back into the texts, but it simply is not there, was never understood that way by the ancients, and is clearly refuted when other Scriptures are brought to bear on the subject.

So what does Isaiah 9:6–7 actually mean? Based on the way God’s name was given to places and people, the bestowing of God’s name and characteristics was a way of honoring God for those specific characteristics. That this son honors many characteristics of God shows the basis of Jesus’ statement that “all that the Father has are mine.” Jesus doesn’t represent certain aspects of God, but does represent many of them, and certainly all of God’s moral characteristics. The characteristics of God that Jesus denied possessing were those such as, “I can of my own self do nothing,” whereas “with God all things are possible.” Furthermore, the Son, by definition of the word “son” itself, was born in the process of time, whereas the Father actually always existed. Above all, Jesus was seen, and handled, but God is a Spirit.

The wording of the prophecy shows that it is actually still in the future: “Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, on the throne of David, and on his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from that time on, even forever” (Isaiah 9:7). It is for the time when Jesus returns and establishes the Davidic kingdom on earth and extends it to eternity. That it says, “The zeal of YHWH of Armies will perform this” (Isaiah 9:7) speaks to the truth that, as in all things, even with Jesus, it is God who is actually the one doing the “works.” This verse said the same thing Jesus did in clearly giving the Father Himself credit for everything that Jesus did.

I know that His commandment is eternal life. The things therefore which I speak, even as the Father has said to me, so I speak. (John 12:50)

The words that I tell you, I speak not from myself; but the Father who lives in me does His works. (John 14:10)

If Jesus didn’t think himself to be God, why should we? Jesus said all power and authority was given to him, and that is what the title Christ means, and what we are to believe about Jesus.

Isaiah’s Prophecies of Messiah

A few final points need to be addressed relating to Isaiah’s understanding of the prophecy he gave, and how Jesus understood and applied Isaiah’s prophecies.

When we read through the Book of Isaiah, we find a number of prophecies regarding the Messiah that were fulfilled in Jesus’ first coming (i.e., Isaiah 7:14–16; 9:1–2, 7; 11:1–5, 10; 40:3–5; 50:6; 52:13–14; 53:1–12 and 61:1–2). In none of these prophecies does Isaiah ever explain or predict that the Son he spoke of would be an incarnation of YHWH. Instead, Isaiah described him in ways that could only distinguish him from God in terms of personality.

For example:

• • 7:14–16 The Messiah would be born of a virgin and have to learn how to refuse evil and choose the good (with Luke 1:26–31 and Hebrews 5:8–9).
  • 8:18 The Messiah would be given children from YHWH (with Hebrews 2:3 and John 10:28–29).
  • 11:1–5 The Messiah would spring from David’s father, Jesse, and have the Spirit of God rest on him, including the spirits of “knowledge and fear of YHWH.”
  • 50:6–7 Speaking in the Messiah’s place, Isaiah says, “I gave my back to the strikers…for YHWH will help me,” showing that the Messiah would trust in YHWH.
  • 52:13–14 The Messiah is called the servant of YHWH and will be exalted, but he will also be marred.
  • 53:2 The Messiah grew up before YHWH (“he grew up before him”).
  • 53:6 YHWH laid on him the iniquity of us all.
  • 53:10 It pleased YHWH to bruise him.
  • 53:11 He is called YHWH’s righteous servant.
  • 53:12 YHWH will “divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong.”

It would be misleading and downright strange if Isaiah had heard God tell him that the Messiah would be an incarnation of YHWH but then keep speaking about him as if he were a different person than YHWH. Actually, what is strange and misleading is imposing upon Isaiah’s words meanings that had to come from pagan views of incarnated deities rather than from the biblical record.

When God presented himself to Moses (through the angel, vs. 3) at the burning bush in Exodus 3, He told Moses exactly who He was, what His name was, why He was calling out to Moses, and what He had planned. When Jesus presented himself to Israel to begin his public ministry, what did he proclaim of himself? Did he claim that he was YHWH incarnate in fulfillment of Isaiah 9:6? No he did not. Although he did quote Isaiah, not once did he or any apostle claim Jesus was a fulfillment of Isaiah 9:6. In declaring who he was and what he was about to do, Jesus quoted the following from Isaiah 61:

¹⁸“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim release to the captives, recovering of sight to the blind, to deliver those who are crushed, ¹⁹And to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.” ²⁰He closed the book [of Isaiah], gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of all in the synagogue were fastened on him. ²¹He began to tell them, “Today, this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” (Luke 4:18–21)

Here, Jesus was given the whole scroll of Isaiah and had to unroll it to near the back. He had to have passed right by 9:6. He chose instead to declare his ministry by presenting himself as both personally distinct from God who sent him and having been anointed by God. We recall that to be anointed was something no one took upon himself.

Instead of taking Jesus at his word, the Onenessian position is to claim that he was 100% God and 100% man. Onenessians often describe this condition by saying that “God robed Himself in flesh” to make Himself known. Jesus made a similar analogy when he said:

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. (Matthew 7:15)

Jesus’ point is that those who robe themselves in clothing that hides and disguises their true identity are really just masquerading in order to deceive. The problem with the theory of the “100% God/100% man” idea is twofold. First, God cannot lie; and second, God cannot be tempted. Jesus claimed to be anointed by God and spoke of God in the third person, which would be a lie if he himself were indeed God. For the second point, as we see in the comparison to wolves in sheep’s clothing, wearing outer clothes doesn’t change the inner personality. If Jesus were “God robed in flesh,” as people assume, then He certainly couldn’t have been tempted by sin like the Bible says of him (a topic we will return to when we cover the Synoptic Gospels).

Jumping to Conclusions versus “It is Written”: To attempt to use Isaiah 9:6 as a “proof text” of Christ’s deity seems to be a clear case of jumping to conclusions, since it means imposing an interpretation that is not clear in the text itself or in the culture of Judaism. It was never quoted this way by the apostles, and even according to Jesus himself, his name was given to him and thus was not proof of an inherent divine nature or deity.

The Bible does interpret for us what it means for Jesus to “come in the name of the Lord,” which is to come in the same way that David’s kingdom came in the name of the Lord, for it is written:

Those who went in front, and those who followed, cried out, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the kingdom of our father David that is coming in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!” (Mark 11:9–10)

So then, to understand how David “came in the name of the Lord” is to understand how Jesus came in the name of the Lord. That is, it means to be sent and anointed by God into the office and position that was ordained by God.

Since Jesus is the true witness, we must listen to him rather than the theories of men, especially when those theories are never stated in the Scriptures and when something to the contrary is consistently presented as the truth. No Scriptures teach that Jesus is an incarnation of YHWH, but hundreds of Scriptures explain and show that he is quite personally distinct from his God and our God, who is also his Father and our Father.

The OT Schoolmaster: The OT does not teach that being given a name containing Yah or YHWH makes that person God incarnate. To the contrary, it does contain many examples of people who had concatenated (linked together) names containing Yah or YHWH, just like Jesus’ name, but no one ever assumed they were incarnations of God. What the OT Schoolmaster teaches us through many examples is that bestowing God’s name upon some person, place, or thing is done to commemorate something about God and should not be taken to mean that the person, place, or thing is the person of God.

Teach No Other Doctrine: The idea that the “name” given in Isaiah 9:6 referred specifically to Jesus Christ is not explicitly taught in the Bible and was never applied or said to mean such by anyone in the Bible. It is therefore entirely an interpretation that was added after the time of the apostles.

~~~

In Closing, Section Two

In this section we have sought to restore certain basic, fundamental “first principles of the oracles of God” by looking at the Hebrew prophesies of Christ from several prominent biblical angles. In each one of these areas the Hebrew Messiah is understood to be a man, foreknown of God since before all of creation, descended from the lineage of David, whom God would claim as His Son. The Hebrews had no understanding of a Trinity of persons in the godhead, let alone that one of those persons would incarnate into humanity and become their Messiah. Onenessians quite often use this same truth against Trinitarians; however, the same holds equally true against the methodology they use to arrive at the Oneness doctrine. No OT prophecies taught or proclaimed that YHWH, God of the Israelites would incarnate Himself into a man. That doesn’t stop Onenessians from imposing and interjecting their man-made ideas into the texts by jumping to conclusions in the same way as the Trinitarians they counter.

What we see in the Bible is that the idea of incarnated gods is quite prominent in pagan religions, as is attested in Acts 14:11. Since the apostles preached that they believed all things that were written in the law and the prophets, and they proclaimed Jesus to be the fulfillment of the Hebrew prophecies concerning the Messiah, then in order to believe in the true Christ, we need to follow the apostles in their convictions and their preaching. Onenessians claim themselves to be “apostolic,” primarily because they correctly baptize in Jesus’ name, they believe in one God, and they reject the Trinity (which the apostles never taught). But to be truly apostolic, we also need to teach and preach the same Jesus that the apostles actually believed in for salvation and preached and described , not only in Acts 2, but throughout the Book of Acts!

In our next section we will address the main contrasting worldviews that seem to be prominent in swaying people’s understandings away from biblical ideas and toward pagan positions with the intention of turning things around for truth.

 Print This Post