In addition to the many texts that we have discussed previously, there are other standard texts to which Oneness advocates will appeal in support of their position that God is unipersonal and that the Son merely refers to the humanity of Jesus –he was God the Father manifested in the flesh. I will attempt to touch on a number of those passages in the next several posts.
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.
Malachi 2:10 – Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?
It would seem to make sense to consider the texts of Isaiah and Malachi together as they are often utilized together and to make one assertion – that there is one God who is one Father of us all and that the Son of God is simply the Father in flesh. You will find Isaiah 9:6 is a text that is repeatedly cited by Oneness advocates, which they argue demonstrates that the Son is distinguished from the Father in that the term Son refers to his humanity or flesh but that the Son, as to his divine nature, was God, the Everlasting Father.
David Bernard describes this verse as “one of the most powerful proofs that Jesus is God….”[i] Well, no one denies the deity of Jesus Christ – the presupposition on the part of Oneness Pentecostals is that God is unipersonal contrary to the scriptural evidence. It is the Oneness position that “the terms child and son refer to the Incarnation or manifestation of ‘The mighty God’ and ‘The everlasting Father.’”[ii] Bernard notes that Isaiah “calls the Son the everlasting Father. Jesus is the Son prophesied about and there is only one Father…so Jesus must be God the Father.”[iii] Oneness advocates also cite this passage to reaffirm that “the Son of God would be begotten….”[iv] “The Bible plainly states that there is only one Father…. It also clearly teaches that Jesus is the one Father…. The Spirit that dwelt in the Son of God was none other than the Father.”[v]
As happens frequently with Oneness Pentecostals, there is an over emphasis placed on particular verses at times (see the OP perspective on Acts 2:38) and a reading into passages, as a result of that over emphasis meaning that is not there (once again, see the OP perspective on Acts 2:38). Bernard and the Oneness advocates see here ironclad proof that the Son is the Everlasting Father –God the Father and the Son are one and the same person. OP’s themselves place great emphasis on the notion of names but here they seem to ignore the typical usage of describing one’s “name being called” as describing the characteristics or qualities of the person and not necessarily being identified as a literal name. OT names were frequently given in describing certain qualities or occasions around the birth of a child. Isaac means “laughter” because Sarah, in having a son in her old age said, “God has brought me laughter, and everyone who hears about this will laugh with me.” (Genesis 21:6). Jacob’s name meant or came to mean “supplanter” because of what he did to his brother Esau in assuming his birthright.
Clearly, Isaiah 9:6 is a messianic text concerning the child that would be born in Bethlehem but when Isaiah states that his “name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace” he is not describing literal names of the child but characteristics or qualities of the child. To assert that this passage is teaching that God the Father the divine being is in the Son/flesh of Jesus is to read back into Isaiah an understanding that simply is not there.
To make this assumption, as Oneness advocates do, you must begin with the assumption that every time we see “Father” that it carries only one meaning despite the reality that we need to look to the context in which the terms is used to determine its meaning. The term Father is used infrequently with respect to God in the OT and is not a common name used for God. In some cases it is used as a descriptor to refer to his parental position with respect to his children, Israel. Primarily it is used in reference to God’s role as creator.
It is also interesting to note that with Father is coupled with the term eternal. So here we have the Son being identified with the OT eternal creator of the universe and overseer of Israel. The fact of the matter is, this passage does not provide as much support for the Oneness position as they would assert and, frankly, it doesn’t provide much support for Trinitarian theology as well.
[i] David Bernard, The Oneness of God (Word Aflame) page 55.
[ii] Id. at 56.
[iii] Id. at 66.
[iv] Id. at 105.
[v] Id. at 126.
former UPCI 