Eternal Father

The prophet Isaiah wrote that the name of Messiah would be, among others, “Eternal Father.”  Did he say Messiah would be “Father”?  Yes, he did.

Messiah had no children on earth.  Jesus never married.  He gave His life completely to God and God’s ministry to the poor and weak.  Messiah healed the sick, opened the eyes of the blind, made the deaf to hear, and the lame to walk.  He fed the hungry and comforted the downcast.  There was no time for Him to be a father on earth.

Not only was there a shortage of time – given the work He had to do, that work would lead to His rejection, condemnation, beating, and death.  Even if He had found time to get married and have a family, He would have left a widow and orphans in short order.

For these reasons it was never intended that Messiah should be a father on earth.  However, once He was raised to heaven, the honor of fatherhood drew closer.  When Jesus Christ came again (that is, when the Second Coming occurred) He became the Father to us all.  From that time on, Isaiah’s prophecy of the “Eternal Father” has been fulfilled.

Jesus will be our Father forever.  This is why He is called Eternal Father.

For more on this one God, see:

There Is No Trinity; There Is Christ

Posts to Date on the Trinity Versus Christ

Bible notes on this post.

See also the post Call on His Name, which includes a listing of other names of the Lord.

The purpose of this blog is to proclaim Jesus Christ to those who want to hear about Him without having to join a church – or anything else – but Him.

This entry was posted in Jesus Christ. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Eternal Father

  1. Brandon E says:

    Hi Mike,
    I believe, according to Isaiah 9:6, that the child born to us, the son given to us would be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. But the Scripture also clearly presents the Father and the Son as co-existing and distinct (Matt. 3:17; 17:5; the Son’s prayers addressed to the Father, etc.). Hence, the Son is not the Father in the sense of there being no co-existing distinctions between them. Rather the Son is the Father in the sense that He came in the name of the Father, spoke the words of the Father, did the works of the Father, was one with the Father, expressed the Father, such that to see Him was to see the Father, which He did even in His earthly life and ministry.

    Where do you get the idea that the Son “became” the Father in His second coming? Where is this in Scripture?

    • Mike Gantt says:

      Among other places, note the promise in 2 Corinthians 6:18. How could He become a father if he already was?

      Note also the promise to Messiah in Isaiah 53:10. How could Messiah have offspring without becoming a father?

      • Brandon E says:

        2 Cor. 6:18 says that God, the Lord Almighty, would be a Father to the separated believers (v. 14-17). The context is that the believers should not be dissimilarly yolked with unbelievers. That God would be a Father to the separated believers doesn’t mean that God wasn’t already the Father and their Father, since New Testament repeatedly says that this was so (e.g.John 20:17; Rom. 1:7, 8:15, 15:6; 1 Cor. 8:6; 2 Cor. 1:2-13, 11:31; Gal. 1:1-3; Phil. 4:20, Col. 1:2; 1 Thes. 1:1-3; 2 Thes. 2:16; Heb. 12:5-10; James 1:27; 1 John 1:2-3 etc.). Hence it would only show that they needed to be separated so that He would be a Father to them, that is, so that they could enjoy His Fatherhood, not only being sons but living like it. Most significantly, the passage doesn’t specifically identify the Son or His second coming. Further, the New Testament consistently speaks of the Father and the Son existing at the same time, not of Father or Son ceasing to be one and becoming the other.

        In Isa. 53:10 the event given is the Lord Jesus’ death and resurrection (“When He makes Himself an offering for sin, He will see a seed…”), not His second coming. The revelation is that through His death and resurrection He would impart His life into the believers, making them His continuation in life (cf. 1 Pet. 1:3, 23; John 12:24; 1 Cor. 15:20; Eph. 2:6). Again, this does not show that the Son “became” the Father in His second coming.

        • Mike Gantt says:

          So you would have it that the seed of Abraham Himself is not heir to the most memorable aspect of God’s promise to Abraham: “A father of many nations will I make you” (Genesis 17:5)?

          The Lord is not childless. He married His beautiful bride, the spotless body of Christ prepared for Him by the faithful work of His apostles and disciples. She died in childbirth as had Rachel; she gave her life for Him and for their offspring. May she always be remembered as the stars who led us to righteousness (Daniel 12:3) and as people of whom the world was not worthy (Hebrews 11:38). He was our Abraham and she was our Sarah (Isaiah 51:1-2). From their glorious union we come, and we shall live in the eternal age which they ushered in forever.

          • Brandon E says:

            Genesis 17:5 was spoken to Abraham, and Christ as the seed of Abraham fulfilled that promise.

            God does in fact has spiritually children through the many believers being regenerated or born of God (John 1:12-13; 3:3-8; 1 John 5:1).

            But nothing of what you said shows that the Son “became” the Father in His second coming.

            • Mike Gantt says:

              You’re missing the point that as heir to Abraham, Jesus was heir to the promise to be a father to many nations. You are saying Jesus cannot be a father to anyone.

              • Brandon E says:

                Christ is a Father, in that He begot man believers through regeneration. I’m simply pointing out that the Scripture calls Christ the seed of Abraham was the fulfillment of the promise given to Abraham, not Abraham’s heir in all senses. We inherit the blessing promised to Abraham (Gal. 3:14), but that doesn’t mean that we became the Father, or a father to many nations in the same way that Abraham did.

                And you’re not addressing my main point: nothing you’ve said shows that Son “became” the Father in His second coming. The Son gained offspring in His resurrection, not His second coming. Further, the Bible portrays the Father and the Son existing simultaneously after the Son’s resurrection. In short, your claims are patently false, and dodging the main point is not helping.

  2. Pingback: His Names – All Four Months | A Nonchurchgoer's Guide to Jesus and His Kingdom

  3. Pingback: Posts to Date on the Trinity Versus Christ | A Nonchurchgoer's Guide to Jesus and His Kingdom

Comments are closed.