“For to us a child is born. To us a son is given; and the government will be on his shoulders. His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6)

That’s the proof text, now let’s apply the previous testing here. Where does this verse explain, “God is a Trinity of three coequal persons in one substance”? It doesn’t, right? So, Trinitarians, use this as a proof-text to create their false dilemma…

TRINITARIAN’S FALSE DILEMMA: “This can ‘only’ indicate that Jesus is a coequal person with God the Father”

On the same token, therefore, without applying double standards: Where does this verse explain, “Jesus is a dual-natured incarnation of the Father, his ‘deity’ is called ‘Father’ and his human flesh is called ‘son’, but he only has one identity, one personality, that operates in different ‘modes’”? It doesn’t, right? So Onenessians, use this as a proof-text to create their false dilemma…

ONENESSIAN’S FALSE DILEMMA: “this can ‘only’ indicate that Jesus is a dual-natured incarnation of the person of the Father”

This is how a Onenessian would use Isaiah 9:6 as a “proof-text” to create their false dilemma since this verse doesn’t say or explain Jesus as being an incarnation of the person of the Father or a mode of the Father or any other unique and distinctive details of the Oneness doctrine. Right?

Proof Texted Scripture	False Dilemma “Concluded” from Proof Text	Scripture Negating the False Dilemma / Conclusion
Isaiah 9:6 “His name will be…Mighty God, Everlasting Father.”	The son has God’s name therefore he must be God incarnate	John 5:43 “I have come in my Father’s name… another comes in his own name.” See also Psalm 22:22; John 17:6; 17:26; Philippians 2:8–11; Ezekiel 48:35; Genesis 22:14; Judges 6:24; Exodus 17:15.

So, what does the prophecy really mean? What can we learn if we apply Jesus’ method of searching the scriptures that speak more clearly about the jumped to conclusion that Onenessians claim for the verse? Did Isaiah prophesy in 9:6 that Yahweh God himself would be born as a child? First off, no one in the Bible ever interpreted that passage to mean that. No one. Nor are there any passages that articulate such a claim. What, then, does the Bible teach instead?

Biblically speaking, saying “His name will be called…” simply does not equate to saying, “He will be an incarnation of…”

One of the things we learn from the OT Schoolmaster is God’s compound names, such as Jehovah-Shammah, Jehovah-Jireh, Jehovah-Shalom, Jehovah-Nissi. Do Oneness adherents acknowledge 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, Jehovah is there [Jehovah-shammah].” (Ezekiel 48:35)

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

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

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

Are these altars and places that were called by God’s name literally 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? Do you see the double standards? 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 Jehovah were given in commemoration of some specified aspect of Jehovah. Take for example “Jehovah-Jireh,” which means “my provider.” Since Onenessians insist that proper names of God, as they apply it to Jesus, are to be understood as identifying God Himself, then are we to believe this place was Jehovah Himself incarnated into a dual nature of “deity” and “place”? The idea is ridiculous, is it not? Well then, that is exactly how ridiculous it is to impose an incarnation 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, and duplicitous, in the way they understand how God’s names are used when bestowed upon persons or things other than God Himself.

Jehovah was simply 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) = Jehovah-saved.

Elijah (El + Yah) = My God is Yah.

Elisha = God is salvation.

Jeremiah = Jehovah lifts up

Joel = Jehovah 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 people with the name of Jehovah 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.

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 the son of Nun was given the exact same name as “Jesus”?Was then Joshua 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? That is what a “false dilemma” looks like. 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. And again, jumping to conclusions like that is the way that the devil interprets God’s words. So, we have Onenessians basically claiming that using the devil’s method of interpretation is the way to interpret Isaiah 9:6 in order to arrive at the biblical truth of the matter. Isn’t that’s preposterous?

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 previously.

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 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), Interlinear Transliterated Bible, 2006 by Biblesoft). 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.

When we examine the internal evidence based on what Isaiah 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 inherently his, 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)

Jesus and the Father are clearly personally distinct in Jesus’s statements here. Thus, 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.

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 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 simply pure conjecture (imagination) based on jumping to conclusions!

Biblically speaking, this son, Jesus Christ (the Anointed One), was 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 then, 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 does not represent certain aspects of God’s ontological nature, rather, he embodies all of God’s moral characteristics. The characteristics of God that Jesus denied possessing were those such as aseity, “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. Furthermore, Jesus was seen, and handled, but God is an invisible Spirit.

The Book of Isaiah refutes the Oneness understanding of 9:6

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 to then keep speaking about him as if he were a different person than YHWH. 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.

The problem then is that Onenessians simply refuse, or don’t care, 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 in commemoration, and not as identity as God.

 Print This Post