INTRODUCTION
The Old Testament can be compared to a chamber lavishly furnished but dimly lit. The New Testament is a great light that shines into it. When this takes place nothing is changed, the light brings nothing new into the room; but it gives a clearer view of what was previously barely perceptible, if not completely veiled from the spiritual eye. With that in mind, when studying the Word of God, you should interpret the Old Testament by the greater light of the New Testament, lest you fail to understand all that the Old Testament contains for us.
For example: the Old Testament prophecies of the coming Messiah were fulfilled in Jesus Christ, which was, obviously, revealed in the New Testament. Without the New Testament those prophecies would have remained mysteries! Let’s consider the many types and shadows of Jesus Christ that are manifested within the physical structure and ceremonies of the temple. Without the New Testament we couldn’t possibly know that the veil of the temple typified Jesus’ flesh being our access into the Holy of Holies (Heb 10:20, Joh 14:6)! We would have no way of knowing the High Priest, sacrificial lamb, and blood on the mercy seat were symbolic of Jesus and His sacrificial death. These are just a few of the many areas the Old Testament is brought to life by what the New Testament reveals!
This is also true of the doctrine of the Godhead. Considering that the full revelation of the Trinity was not given until the New Testament (particularly through the ministries of Jesus and the Holy Ghost) it’s a great folly to establish a systematic belief on the Godhead by using the Old Testament to interpret the New.
Let’s look at an example of how Bible interpretation is supposed to be done. Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD” should be interpreted through the lens of verses like 1 John 5:7: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” 1 John 5:7 (or any of the other New Testament verses that support the Trinity) establishes that there is but one God who exists as three distinct persons! Once that’s established, we can go back to Deuteronomy 6:4 and get a clearer understanding of why Moses used the word echad and not yachid for the word one. The oneness of God is an ontological and composite oneness, not a numerical oneness!
Another example would be the Bible’s use of the name “Elohim” to describe God. If you recall, “Elohim” is the plural name for God used over 2,500 times in the Old Testament. If we interpret the meaning of “Elohim” through the lens of 1 John 5:7 we once again see that a composite unity exists between the three persons of the Godhead!
Other examples could be the many times we see dialogue between two persons that are both referred to as “God”, or verses like Genesis 1:26 where God is spoken of as being plural. When we Trinitarians come across passages like these we aren’t confused in the slightest because we know that the New Testament teaches that God is a trinity of persons!
Do you now see the Oneness people’s dilemma? By going to Deuteronomy 6:4 first they’ve had to construct an entire system of Theology to explain how God can be numerically one, yet appear to be three. They have had to construct an entire system of theology to explain why Jesus is called God, yet is shown praying to another that is obviously God (Joh 17)! They’ve had to invent an entire system of theology to explain how Jesus could speak to the Father and the Father speak back to Him, yet they could still be the one and selfsame person (Joh 12:28)! They’ve had to invent an entire system of theology to explain who Christ was commending His spirit to when He died on the cross (Lk 23:46)! They’ve had to find a way to explain why 1 John 5:7 doesn’t mean what it obviously means!
Trinitarians, the burden of proof is on them, not us! When the Bible says God is three, we say He is three! When the Bible says God is one, we say He is one! When the Bible says “these THREE are ONE” we believe exactly that: there are three persons in the one God! And although there are times we have to admit we don’t understand every minuscule detail about the Trinity, we are not going to create an entire system of anti-Scriptural theology to explain the unexplainable!
I want to look at some more very plain and obvious passages that establish a plurality of persons in the Godhead. We’ll start with New Testament passages (with some Old Testament verses to support certain points) and then work our way back to the Old Testament.
Jesus Anoints Himself With Himself
Because the Jesus Only adherents believe Jesus is the only person in the Godhead, they will ask you, “What’s the name of the Father? What’s the name of the Son? What’s the name of the Holy Ghost?” They follow that up by saying, “The name of the Father is Jesus! The name of the Son is Jesus! The name of the Holy Ghost is Jesus!” With that in mind, I want to share another great verse with you:
Ac 10:38 How GOD anointed JESUS OF NAZARETH with the HOLY GHOST and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for GOD was with HIM. (emphasis added)
According to the Jesus Only adherent’s system of interpretation this verse is basically saying, “How Jesus anointed Jesus with Jesus and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for Jesus was with Himself.” Are any of you with yourself? This verse is nonsense if Jesus is the only person in the Godhead.
Christ Praying to Himself
Joh 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
I think you probably know where I’m going with this, but let’s look at it anyway! If we apply their method of interpretation to these verses, they’re teaching that Jesus was asking Himself to glorify Himself; was giving Himself His power; was sending Himself; was glorifying Himself on earth; finished the work that He gave Himself; and asked Himself to glorify Himself in Himself and was with Himself before the world was! And they say the doctrine of the Trinity is illogical? They say that we are confused? Not hardly!
Some say He prayed like this for an example, but was that the case in the Garden of Gethsemane, when He prayed so fervently that His sweat was like great drops of blood? Give me a break! It was exactly what the Bible says it was: Jesus praying to His Father!
Jesus Being Baptized In the Jordan
Mt 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
This passage of Scripture is dealing with Jesus’ baptism by John in the Jordan river. When He was coming up out of the water the Holy Ghost, in the bodily shape of a dove, descended and landed on His shoulder. At the same time, God the Father spoke out of heaven and said, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased...” Perhaps we can ask a Oneness adherent if this was Jesus landing on His own shoulder, and then telling Himself how proud He was of Himself? Saints! God is not a ventriloquist! I believe this passage tells us exactly what it appears to tell us: God is a trinity! If not, it must be considered an intentional attempt by the Holy Ghost and gospel writers to deceive all who saw it and would later read about it!
Christ Was Not Alone
The Oneness people often use Isaiah 44:24 to “prove” their position on the Godhead. Here’s what it says:
Isa 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I AM the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens ALONE; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; (emphasis added)
They like to ask us, “How could God create everything alone, yet be with someone else at the same time? Can a person be alone and with someone simultaneously?” Let’s allow Jesus to answer this one for us.
Joh 16:32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me ALONE: and yet I AM NOT ALONE, because the Father is with me. (emphasis added)
Yes! There is a sense in which a person can be alone and not alone at the same time. Being numerically isolated and unaccompanied is not necessarily a requirement. Jesus was alone in this world in that the world did not understand who He was or the mission He was here to accomplish, yet He was not alone because He had the company of His Father (not to mention the hundreds of thousands of people that were all around Him)! In Numbers 23:9 Israel is said to “dwell alone”, but no one supposes that each Israelite dwelt in absolute isolation. Israel did not mix and mesh with neighboring people, but they were not completely alone.
The context of Isaiah 44:24 reveals that the comparison is between the one true God and the many false gods Israel was flirting around with. Jehovah was alone in creation because there was no other god with Him, but He was not alone in that Jehovah is a trinity of “persons”.
Christ Being Sent
This next verse is one of my favorite triadic passages in the Bible. A triad is a group or set of three connected people or things, therefore, a triadic passage of Scripture is one that exhibits all three persons of the Godhead. Although it is an Old Testament passage it teaches a New Testament truth about the Christ. Here it is:
Isa 48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
It should be obvious that three distinct persons are being spoken of here: “the Lord God”, “His Spirit”, and “Him that was sent”. It should also be obvious that the words “the Lord God” refer to the Father; “His Spirit” refers to the Holy Spirit; and the one “sent” refers to Jesus; but unfortunately, the Oneness people get confused about who’s who in the Bible and claim “the Lord God” is Jesus; the “Spirit” is Jesus; and the one “sent” is also Jesus. Can you imagine that? Jesus and Jesus sent Jesus!? That’s utter nonsense! Common sense should tell us the person being sent is not the same person as the sender! But to avoid an argument over the identity of Him that is called “the Lord God”, I will first establish the identity of Him that is said to be “sent”.
Let’s look at a few verses that prove the one “sent” in Isaiah 48:16 is Jesus:
Isa 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD (Jehovah) hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; HE HATH SENT ME to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; (emphasis added)
This was a Messianic prophecy given to Isaiah in approximately 750 B.C. Now, let’s look at its fulfillment nearly 780 years later:
Lu 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; HE HATH SENT me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
21 And he began to say unto them, THIS DAY is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. (emphasis added)
Here, standing in a synagogue in Nazareth, Jesus began to read out of the book of Isaiah. After reading Isaiah 61:1 He told them they had just witnessed the fulfillment of it. You may ask: What is so important about this passage? Jesus said the Spirit of God was upon Him, had anointed Him, and had SENT Him! These are the exact same words Isaiah used in Isaiah 48:16: “Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me (Jesus).”
There are many Scriptures that refer to Christ being sent, but there are a few particular ones that I feel really drive the point home. Let’s look at some of them:
Joh 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that SENT ME. (emphasis added)
This is a wonderful Scripture that demonstrates the absolute absurdity of the Oneness doctrine. First of all, Jesus said He was sent down from heaven to do the will of Him that sent Him. Who was it that sent Jesus down from heaven? We can find the answer to that in:
Joh 6:39 And this is the FATHER'S WILL WHICH HATH SENT ME, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of HIM THAT SENT ME, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. (emphasis added)
Jesus said it was the Father that sent Him. I would like to ask you once again: Can we logically say that the sender and the one being sent are the same person? The answer is “NO”! Dear listeners, that isn’t good English and it certainly isn’t sound exegesis!
Secondly, if Jesus and the Father are the same person as the Oneness people propose, He did indeed come to do His own will, which would make Him out to be a liar, which is an impossibility because the Bible is very plain, God cannot lie (Tit 1:2)!
Although it should be clear now that Jesus is the one “sent”, we find further proof when we cross reference Isaiah 48:16 with Isaiah 48:12-13:
Isa 48:12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.
13 Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.
Verses 12 and 13 tell us that the person speaking laid the foundation of the earth and spanned the heavens with His right hand! Again, it is obvious that the speaker is not the same person that is referred to as “the Lord GOD”, or Him that is called “the Spirit”. This is important because He is shown to be the creator of all things! Who else besides the Father and the Holy Spirit partook in creation? Well, let’s allow the Bible to answer that question:
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
The speaker in Isaiah 48:16 can be none other than the Lord Jesus Christ because it was Jesus that stood alongside the Father and the Holy Ghost in creation and it was Jesus that was sent down from heaven to do the will of the Father that sent Him!
Although I have more than proven my point, I think the most revealing thing about Isaiah 48:16 is the sender and the one sent are BOTH called “Jehovah”. Can you imagine two Jewish Rabbis trying to figure this verse out? Picture this with me: Rabbi Lehi turns to Rabbi Malachi and asks, “How can Jehovah send Jehovah?” Without any knowledge of the Trinity, what’s Rabbi Malachi going to say other than, “I do not know my brother; let us move on to some other more profitable text”?
Saints, the Rabbis believing that God is one person simply had no way of explaining why Jehovah was said to have sent Jehovah! It was quite a mystery for them and anti-Trinitarians can do no better than the Jews in explaining how the sender and the one sent are both called Jehovah! This isn’t a problem for us Trinitarians, though. We know that Jehovah Father and Jehovah Holy Spirit sent Jehovah Jesus!
Jesus being sent by the Father was pre-ordained before the foundation of the world (Re 13:8). The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost voluntarily and freely chose what role they would take in bringing about the redemption of lost humanity; this is called the Eternal Covenant of Redemption.
There Are Three That Bear Witness (The Johannine Comma)
1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
This is one of the most despised verses in the entire Bible. Most of today’s newer versions have omitted it completely or (at the very least) changed its meaning. Some critics will audaciously, and erroneously, claim that the Catholic church added this verse in the 15th or 16th century because the Bible lacked evidence supporting the doctrine of the Trinity! The truth is, 1 John 5:7, or the Johannine Comma as it’s commonly referred to, is present in a fourth-century Latin treatise entitled “Liber apologeticus”. In fact, Edward Hill, author of the book “The King James Version Defended” said:
“The first undisputed citations of the Johannine comma occur in the writing of two 4th-century Spanish bishops… In the 5th century the Johannine comma was quoted by several orthodox African writers to defend the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals, who…were fanatically attached to the Arian heresy.” “Evidence for the early existence of the Johannine comma is found in the Latin versions and in the writings of the Latin Church Fathers.” Among these is Cyprian (ca. 250) and Cassiodorus (ca. 480–570), as well as an Old Latin manuscript of the 5th or 6th century, and in the Speculum, a treatise which contains an Old Latin text. It is also found in the great mass of the later Vulgate manuscripts and in the Clementine edition of the Vulgate.” (pgs 209-210).
As you can see, there are plenty of manuscripts containing the Johannine Comma and ample reasons why it belongs in God’s holy Word!
Most of the Oneness people I’ve come in contact with hate this verse and wish it were not in the Bible! I know that’s absurd, but honestly ... do you really blame them? I mean, 1 John 5:7 is enough all by itself to establish the doctrine of the Trinity which, consequently, destroys their entire diabolical system of Theology! Think about it! This verse shows a clear distinction between the three persons of the Godhead, and reveals the composite unity that exists between them as persons! This is a Oneness person’s nightmare! David Bernard, in his book The Oneness of God (pgs. 141-142), spent half a page degrading it, yet turned right around and said he believes God has protected and preserved His Word. It is obviously a sore spot even for the Jesus Only movement’s “champion” apologist.
John says that “there are THREE that bear record in heaven ... and these three are ONE”. The phrase “bear record” means to be a witness or to testify. It is a legal term which deals with a particular courtroom procedure. What John is telling us is plain, there are three persons that sit upon the witness stand of heaven and testify! 1 John 5:7 could have been translated: “There are three that testify in heaven...,” and it would have done the text no harm!
Marvin Hicks’ explanation of 1 John 5:7 was that the Father, Word, and Holy Ghost are nothing more than three manifestations of God. This would mean that God is still displaying Himself as three manifestations even in heaven. I am sorry, but I don’t believe the three witnesses spoken of in this passage are merely manifestations! If that were true, we could never know God for who He really is. We would never see anything other than a mask that God was hiding behind. I think the only logical explanation for this passage is that there are three distinct persons who testify and bear witness on our behalf, just like the doctrine of the Trinity teaches.
Even though this passage is as plain as it is, if you asked a Jesus Only adherent how many persons are being referred to, they’ll still say one! Do you understand the implications of this? I want you to imagine this scenario with me. Let’s say that you are being accused of a crime and you are asked to take a seat on the witness stand and testify on your own behalf. After a period of examination the lawyer asks you point blank, “Did you do it?” to which you reply, “No, I did not!”
The lawyer then asks you, “Do you have any witnesses to confirm this?” You assert, “Yes, sir! I have two and both have agreed to testify for me!”
You then get up from the witness stand and go back to your seat. You sit there for about thirty seconds and then get up and go back to the witness stand again and say, “Alright, my next witness is here!” Saints, no sensible person would take you seriously; you’d be laughed out of the court room! And as ridiculous as this proposition is, it is exactly what the Oneness people want you and I to believe about 1 John 5:7!
I think the thing that really cripples the Oneness position in regards to 1 John 5:7 is it doesn’t stand alone in its subject matter! It’s just one of many verses that speak of either the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost as being distinct witnesses. For example:
Re 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness...
Also:
Joh 8:18 I am one that BEAR WITNESS of myself, and THE FATHER that sent me BEARETH WITNESS of me. (emphasis added)
Here, the Father and Jesus are said to be witnesses. It just so happens that the word witness in this verse is translated from the same exact Greek word that was translated record in 1 John 5:7, therefore, it too means to be a witness or to testify.
Let’s look at two verses showing the Holy Ghost to be a witness in heaven:
Heb 10:15 Whereof THE HOLY GHOST also IS A WITNESS to us: (emphasis added)
1Jo 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is THE SPIRIT that BEARETH WITNESS, because the Spirit is truth. (emphasis added)
The Law Of Testimony
This all makes perfect sense when you take into consideration the law of testimony:
De 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
De 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
Not only was this law valid in the Old Testament, we can also find it prevalent in the gospels:
Mt 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Not only was this law valid in the gospels, we can find it prevalent in the epistles:
2Co 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
In every dispensation, God has said “out of the mouths of two or three witnesses let every word be established”! Did Jesus abide by this law? Let’s look and see:
Joh 8:16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of TWO men is true.
18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. (emphasis added)
Please take notice of the word two in John 8:17. Jesus said that it is written in the law “the testimony of TWO men is true”. How many men? TWO men! Jesus said that He was one and His Father was one which equals ... TWO! This is important because, if you noticed, Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:5 plainly state that the testimony of one man is not valid. Now, I’m not saying that Jesus needed anyone to agree with Him in order to establish what He said to be true, but He voluntarily submitted to and held Himself accountable to the law of testimony.
With that truth established, let me say this: If Jesus and the Father were the same exact person, this would have been a wickedly deceitful thing for Jesus to have done! No one in their right mind would have thought Jesus to be referring to Himself as two separate witnesses! I can’t even fathom Jesus invoking the law of testimony all the while knowing a second witness didn’t exist! If the Father and Son are the same person Jesus is a liar! Dear listeners, the above passages plainly show that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct witnesses!
Let’s look at another passage that demonstrates this truth:
Joh 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
32 There is ANOTHER that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true. (emphasis added)
The statement “there is another” emphatically proves that Jesus is not the Father! Here, the Greek word for another is allos (al'-los) which means “different”! Jesus said, “There is a different person that bears witness of me”. Things that are different are not the same!
The sad thing is the Oneness people will try and throw the old “human nature/divine nature” cure all at you! Saints, the two witnesses Jesus mentioned in John 5:31-32 are no more the two natures of Jesus Christ than the two witnesses in Revelation 11:3 are!
This “two natures” argument presents the Oneness people with the greater problem of having to explain how mere natures can possess intellect and reasoning powers, yet not be persons. Jesus said, “the testimony of two MEN is true”, not “the testimony of two natures is true”! This ought to be enough to overthrow the Oneness church’s entire system of Christology! This is irrefutable evidence that the Father and Jesus are distinct persons! The Oneness people need to either confess that the Father and Jesus are two distinct persons, or confess that natures are in fact persons and their Jesus is indeed a schizophrenic!
All the Oneness people can really say about 1 John 5:7 is it isn’t inspired, or claim the Father, Word, and Holy Ghost are three manifestations, or simply ignore the verse altogether! Where a Trinitarian doesn’t have to even bat an eye when reading 1 John 5:7, a Oneness man or woman will have to spend the rest of their life trying to explain why it doesn’t mean what it actually does mean! You know a doctrine is suspect when you have to rip pages out of the Bible to maintain it! So as you can see, the Bible is very clear about all three persons of the Trinity being witnesses in heaven and about them being witnesses of heavenly things here on the earth.
Christ the Mediator
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
I have never met a Jesus Only adherent (pastor or laity) that could LOGICALLY explain this verse to me. And honestly ... how can they? The word mediator means a go-between, a reconciler, or middle-man. Two or more parties are necessary for a mediator to do the particular job of mediation. Jesus Christ is our mediator, our middle man. He stands BETWEEN the Father and men reconciling us to each other! Dear listeners, Christ is not standing between HIMSELF and men mediating for us reconciling us back to Himself! That is an impossible and totally absurd argument!
Let us look at Christ the mediator:
Joh 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
Who was Jesus referring to in this prayer when He used the second-person singular pronouns “thou” and “thine”? Was He referring to Himself despite having previously used the first-person singular pronouns “I” and “me” to describe Himself? Are Oneness adherents telling us that Christ is praying to Himself for us, and telling Himself that He has given us to Himself because we are His?
This is certainly not Christ giving us an example of how to pray. He did not have to resort to that type of madness; He simply told His disciples how to pray (Mt 6:9-13, Lk 11:1-4)! Rest assured, these verses mean exactly what they appear to say. Christ is positioned between us and the Father mediating and praying for us!
Let’s look at another passage that deals with this same subject:
1Jo 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an ADVOCATE with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: (emphasis added)
The word advocate is translated from the Greek word parakletos (par-ak'-lay-tos) which means “an intercessor”. An intercessor is one that intervenes on the behalf of another! Jesus is our advocate; He is our intercessor. But if the Father and Jesus are the same person, in what sense can this be true? I can tell you right now, there’s no way in this world I’m going to believe this verse is teaching that the human nature of Jesus is mediating between us and the divine nature of Jesus (the Father)! And even if that were true, it would still contradict the Oneness position, because it means there are two distinct persons represented in heaven!
New Testament Dialogue Between Members of the Godhead
I have always been amazed at how Oneness adherents can read over a conversation that took place between the Father and Son, yet still claim they are the very same person. Some are so arrogant they will actually taunt us, challenging us to submit a passage of Scripture that explicitly states that the Father and Son are two distinct persons. I don’t think we should have to. Jesus didn’t explicitly state that Peter, James, and John were three distinct men when entering the Garden of Gethsemane. Why? Could it be that God gave us the ability to come to certain conclusions on our own? Common sense should teach a person that where intelligent dialogue exists at least two persons are present. Common sense should tell a person that when Jesus prayed, He wasn’t praying to Himself.
Let’s look at an Old Testament passage showing dialogue between the Father and Son.
Ps 110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
How many persons do you think are being referred to here? Common sense should tell you that two persons are being spoken of, but the Oneness doctrine teaches there is only one! The only logical explanation for the statement, “The LORD said unto my Lord,” is God the Father was speaking to God the Son.
Here is one more verse displaying dialogue between the Father and Son:
Joh 12:28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
Let us pray that they will allow the Word of God to speak for itself instead of twisting every passage in the Bible to fit the “supposed” revelation that Jesus is in fact the Father.
The Omission of the Holy Ghost In the New Testament Salutations.
Oneness people often ask Trinitarians why the Holy Spirit is not mentioned in the salutations of the epistles. They say this omission of the Holy Ghost is proof He is not the third person of the Godhead. Let’s look at a few examples of New Testament salutations and discuss whether their assumption is true.
Ro 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
1Co 1:3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
2Co 1:2 Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
Here is a list of several other salutations: Ga 1:3, Eph 1:2, Php 1:2, Col 1:2, 1Th 1:1, 2Th 1:2, 1Ti 1:2, 2Ti 1:2, Tit 1:2, Phm 1:3, Jas 1:2, 2Pe 1:2, and 2Joh 3.
There are huge, gaping holes in this argument. First of all, though it’s true the Holy Ghost isn’t mentioned in the above salutations, it proves nothing. This type of argument is called “an argument from silence” which any credible apologist will tell you is an invalid form of argumentation. If I told you my wife and I were coming to your house (without mentioning my children), it would not mean I don’t have children. I may have decided not to mention them, but omission certainly doesn’t constitute a denial.
Secondly, if we are to assume the Holy Ghost doesn’t exist because He is absent from these salutations, we must also conclude that the Son does not exist because (in other places) the Father is sometimes mentioned without any reference to the Son (Ro 8:15).
Next, this argument from silence actually stands in opposition to Oneness Theology. If the absence of the Holy Ghost in the salutations means He is not the third person of the Godhead, we can logically conclude the presence of the Father AND Jesus establishes that they ARE two distinct persons; any evidence of plurality severely weakens the Oneness position!
Just look at the manner in which the word and is used in at least sixteen of the above mentioned salutations. For example: “Grace to you AND peace from God our Father, AND the Lord Jesus Christ.” According to Webster’s Dictionary (Random House, 3rd edition) the word and means “in addition to”. The use of the word and in each of these salutations reveals that two distinct persons are joined together even as two, and sometimes three, distinct blessings (grace, peace, mercy) are joined together.
Oneness people reject this fact saying the article and actually means “even”. For example: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father, EVEN the Lord Jesus Christ.” They say the article and actually proves that the Father and Jesus are the very same person.
So you may ask: How do you determine what the word and means in a particular verse? Nearly all scholars will agree that it is determined by the context of the verse. Let me illustrate:
1Co 1:3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
Oneness adherents will say this passage should read: “from God our Father, EVEN the Lord Jesus Christ.” But let’s look at verse 2 (the preceding verse) and verse 4 (the following verse) and see what we find.
1Co 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
1Co 1:4 I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;
A distinction between the Father and Son is very plain in these two verses. Why would Paul place some cryptic reference to Christ being the Father in the middle of them? Do you think the Corinthian Christians understood Paul to be doing this? Did any of you when you first read the New Testament? Of course not! This type of argument shows the desperation of these Oneness adherents!
This idea is also debunked by several of the salutations themselves. For example:
2Jo 1:3 Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, AND from the Lord Jesus Christ, the SON OF THE FATHER, in truth and love. (emphasis added)
2Co 1:3 Blessed be God, even the FATHER OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort; (emphasis added)
Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and FATHER OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: (emphasis added)
Col 1:3 We give thanks to God and the FATHER OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, praying always for you, (emphasis added)
In these verses, the words “Son of” and “Father of” destroy the Oneness proposition. The word of means “belonging to” or “coming from”. So, Jesus is the Son that “belongs to” the Father, and God is the Father that “belongs” to the Son.
Secondly, I want you to notice that Paul didn’t call Jesus “the Father” of the Son, he called Him “the son” of the Father. This alone establishes plurality in these salutations and reaffirms that the meaning of the word and means “in addition to”.
I would like to ask the Oneness people a few questions: (1) What purpose do these salutations serve if Jesus and the Father are the same person? (2) Why is Paul still calling God the “father of the Lord Jesus Christ”? (3) Why does Paul refer to both “God the Father” and “Lord Jesus Christ” in the same verse? In the New Testament, the description “Lord”, or “Kurios” is equivalent to the Old Testament “Jehovah” and is primarily reserved for deity! In all four of the above verses (2Jo 1:3, 2Co 1:3, Eph 1:3, Col 1:3) the Father and Jesus are both called “God”! Considering the Oneness people say the Father is the divine nature of Jesus and Jesus (the Son) is the human nature of Jesus; why would Paul call the humanity of Jesus “Lord”? Dear listeners, no one in all of Christendom (outside of the Oneness people) have ever understood these passages to mean Jesus Christ is God the Father!
The fourth question I would like to ask is: If the article and is proof the Father and Jesus are the same person, shouldn’t that mean grace, mercy, and peace are also the same thing considering they are also joined together by the word and (1Ti 1:2, 2Ti 1:2, Tit 1:4)?
The last point I want to convey to you about these salutations is the most damaging to the Oneness position. If the absence of the Holy Ghost in the above mentioned salutations means He is not a person, His mention in other salutations should logically mean He is a person. Let’s look at a few places He is mentioned:
1Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the SPIRIT, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. (emphasis added)
And:
Eph 2:18 For through him [Jesus] we both have access by one SPIRIT unto the Father. (emphasis added)
We also find Him mentioned in Paul’s benediction to the Corinthians in:
2Co 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the HOLY GHOST, be with you all. Amen. (emphasis added)
And what about Matthew 28:19?
Mt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the HOLY GHOST: (emphasis added)
These are just a few of the many instances that the Holy Ghost is mentioned. The facts of it are, the Holy Ghost is mentioned in every epistle in which He is omitted from the salutation or benediction! Do you think the Oneness people will still hold to their own devices when they are used against them?
Someone may be wondering why the Holy Ghost isn’t mentioned any more than He is. Here’s the answer:
Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, HE SHALL TESTIFY OF ME: (emphasis added)
Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for HE SHALL NOT SPEAK OF HIMSELF; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 HE SHALL GLORIFY ME: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. (emphasis added)
The Bible was written as the Holy Ghost moved upon holy men of God (2Pe 1:21). The Bible says He has come to testify of and glorify the Lord Jesus Christ! He doesn’t speak of Himself! With that in mind, it only makes sense that He would be spoken of less that the Father and Son. You can think of the Holy Ghost as the friend that is always taking pictures of everyone around Him. Just because He isn’t in the picture doesn’t mean He is not there! The Holy Ghost’s primary duty is to take pictures of the Lord Jesus Christ and then show them to the world!
Jesus and the Holy Ghost - Two Distinct Persons
Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you ANOTHER Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; (emphasis added)
It doesn’t take a doctorate in Theology to see there are three distinct persons represented in this verse. First, we have the speaker: the Lord Jesus. Secondly, we have the Father to whom Jesus is praying. Thirdly, we have the Holy Ghost whom Jesus is asking the Father to send to us! Please, study this verse carefully. If the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are indeed the same person, this verse is useless! What purpose could it possibly serve?
I also want you to notice that Jesus prayed that the Father would send us ANOTHER Comforter! The word another means different or more! So, Jesus was praying that the Father would send us a comforter different than, and in addition to, Himself. Please note that Jesus did not say the Comforter would be another mode or manifestation of Himself! This Comforter would be a different Comforter, another Comforter! Don’t forget: Things that are different are not the same!
The Holy Ghost Is Not the Father of Jesus
Let us look at one of the Oneness people’s shiftiest arguments. It is drawn from two verses found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
Mt 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: FOR THAT WHICH IS CONCEIVED IN HER IS OF THE HOLY GHOST. (emphasis added)
Lu 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, THE HOLY GHOST SHALL COME UPON THEE, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (emphasis added)
Please, take note that Matthew and Luke said Jesus was conceived of the Holy Ghost after He had overshadowed Mary.
Oneness adherents try to confuse Trinitarians by asking them who the father of Jesus was. Bishop S. C. Johnson asked:
If God and the Holy Ghost are two separate persons, which one is the Father of Jesus? For the Scripture say, God is His Father and the Scripture say the Holy Ghost is His Father. Did He have two Fathers? (Jehovah God of the Old Testament Is Jesus Christ of the New Testament).
David Bernard asked:
Did Jesus have two fathers? The Father is the father of the Son (1 John 1:3), yet the child born of Mary was conceived by the Holy Ghost (Matthew 1:18-20, Luke 1:35). Which one is the true father? or is the Holy Spirit Jesus’ father (Luke 1:35)? (Oneness of God, pgs. 290-293).
Although this question is utter nonsense, it can be very tricky for a person who has never heard it. S. C. Johnson and David Bernard are using sleight of hand. First of all, the Bible NEVER attributes the fatherhood of Jesus to the Holy Ghost; yet God the Father is referred to as the father of Jesus over two-hundred times! Secondly, the conception of Jesus Christ is not to be compared to that of a human being. In a very real sense, the word conceived in Matthew 1:20 is used anthropomorphically. I say this because there were no sexual relations between God and Mary. Jesus was not conceived in the same manner as you and I were–He was born of the seed of woman–His birth was supernatural. It was a miraculous occurrence where the Son of God moved into the human realm, via the womb of the virgin Mary. The incarnation was not the eternal Son of God’s genesis–He existed throughout eternity (Pr 30:4, Isa 9:6, Da 3:25)–He was begotten, not made or created. The Holy Ghost was not the Father of Jesus. He was simply the agent God the Father used to bring about the incarnation. This was a matter is the economical Trinity operating in their respective offices.
Triadic Verses
Let’s read a few more triadic verses:
Ro 5:5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of GOD is shed abroad in our hearts by the HOLY GHOST which is given unto us.
6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time CHRIST died for the ungodly. (emphasis added)
Ro 15:30 Now I beseech you, brethren, for the LORD JESUS CHRIST'S sake, and for the LOVE OF THE SPIRIT, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to GOD for me; (emphasis added)
1Co 12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same SPIRIT.
5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same LORD.
6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same GOD which worketh all in all. (emphasis added)
2Co 13:14 The GRACE OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, and the LOVE OF GOD, and the COMMUNION OF THE HOLY GHOST, be with you all. Amen. (emphasis added)
Eph 4:4 There is ... one SPIRIT ...
5 One LORD, ...
6 One GOD and Father of all, ... (emphasis added)
For further study of triadic passages, refer to: Ro 14:17-18, 15:16,1Co 2:2-5, 6:11, 2Co 1:21-22, Eph 2:18, 3:14-19, 5:18-20, Php 3:3, Col 1:6-8, 1Th 1:3, 5:18-19 2Th 2:13-14, Tit 3:4-6, Heb 2:3-4, 9:14, 1Pe 1:2, 3:18, 1Jo 3:21-24, 1Jo 5:7, Jude 20-21, Re 1:4-6, and many more.
These are just a few of the many instances that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are mentioned together! If God isn’t a trinity of persons, none of these verses make sense! But thank God He is and they do!
Copyright 2009 by David Lamb
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Lesson 6 - Plain & Obvious Proof Texts Through the Old Testament
I don’t know how many times I have had a Jesus Only adherent tell me they can’t find the Trinity anywhere in the Bible. This always sounds strange to me, considering, as you have already seen, the Bible is chock full of verses revealing the existence of the Trinity! A Oneness person’s inability to find the Trinity in the Bible is like a thief struggling to find a policeman–they don’t want to find the Trinity! It would require them to read the Bible with an honest heart and an open mind. It would require them to forsake their pride and stubbornness. They would have to admit that they, as well as their church and family, are believing a false doctrine. It would most likely mean they would be excommunicated by their denomination and in many cases their very own family. We need to pray for these people! We need to ask God to give them the courage to do the right thing no matter what it costs them.
Throughout this lesson, while looking through the crystal clear lens of the New Testament, I want to examine some beautiful Old Testament Trinitarian nuggets of truth!
Deuteronomy 6:4 (The Shema) and Echad
Let us quickly look at Deuteronomy 6:4 again.
De 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
Remember, the Jews would pray this prayer (the Shema) twice a day. They would say, “The Lord our God is one, one, one, one, one...”, sometimes repeating the word one up to two minutes straight. Here, the word for one is the Hebrew word echad (ekh-awd') which means “united; a compound unity of two or more”. It is found 739 times in the Bible. Moses, in Deuteronomy 6:4 is saying God is united, not one solitary person! So the Jews were literally praying, “The Lord our God is united, united, united, united, united . . . .”
The Hebrew word used for the number one is yachid (yaw-kheed). Yachid is used differently in the Scriptures than echad. It is only used twelve times in the entire Old Testament and never denotes the unity of God! If Deuteronomy 6:4 were teaching that God was one in number, Moses would have used the word yachid, but he didn’t. The word echad is always used in reference to God because God is not one solitary person, He is one in essence (homoousion), but three distinct persons or hypostasis!
Elohim
I want to show you something very interesting that will confirm the meaning of the word echad in Deuteronomy 6:4.
Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Here, the word God is translated from the Hebrew name Elohim. When “m” or “im” is attached to the end of a word in the Hebrew language it is plural like an “s” in the English language. Therefore, Elohim means “gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the PLURAL) of the supreme God”. Moses did not call God “El”, which is God in the singular; He did not call Him “Eloah”, which is God is the dual form; He called Him “Elohim”, God of three or more! Genesis 1:1 can be literally translated, “In the beginning God, of three or more, created the heaven and the earth.” This definition is indisputable!
Since the Bible tells us plainly in Deuteronomy 6:4 that there is but one God, and we know from verses like 1 John 5:7 that there are three persons in that one God, “Elohim” can mean nothing other than one God existing in three persons–a holy Trinity! So, the use of the name “Elohim” to describe God offers us hundreds and hundreds of Old Testament proof texts demonstrating a plurality of persons in the Godhead.
A Plurality of Persons In Genesis
Ge 1:26 And God said, Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness: (emphasis added)
Who is this “us” and “our” that God the Father was referring to concerning the creation of man? Was He referring to Himself as “us”? Was He referring to angels (created beings) when He said “us”? Was He speaking of a plurality of majesty? No! and a million times no! First of all, God doesn’t talk to Himself! Secondly, man was made in the image of God, not angels (Ge 1:27)! Finally, as we have already discussed, no record of a plurality of majesty being used in this fashion can be found until the Anglo Saxon kings of the thirteenth century! So, who was the Father speaking of in Genesis 1:26 when He said, “Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness”? I suggest that He was speaking of Jesus and the Holy Ghost, and this next passage of Scripture should make that very clear.
(John 1:1-3) The Word Was With God
St. Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning WITH God.
3 ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (emphasis added)
In these three verses, John tells us some very profound things. Firstly, he says the Word has been with God throughout all of eternity. Secondly, he says the Word is God. And lastly, he tells us that the Word is creator of all things.
Basically everyone throughout the entire history of Christendom has understood John’s reference to “the Word” as being a reference to the pre-incarnate Lord Jesus Christ. They have agreed that this passage means Jesus (as the Word) was God, and eternally dwelt, as a distinctly different person than the Father, alongside the Father. They have understood this passage to mean there is a plurality in the Godhead. Unfortunately, this is not the case with the vast majority of Oneness people! In order to hold to their system of Theology, they have wrested these Scriptures to their own destruction (2Pe 3:16)!
The Oneness adherent will say the Word is not the second person of the Godhead, rather the expression, or mind of God. In other words, when the Bible says the Word was with God, they believe it means God was thinking about His own incarnation in the body of Jesus Christ. To them, John 1:1 is saying: “In the beginning was an idea, and the idea was with God, and the idea was God.” They believe the Word is a thing and not a Who!
There are several ways in which we can expose this erroneous doctrine. First, the Word is said to be God; and if the Word is God, the Word is everything God is! Since God is a self-aware person, we must, therefore, conclude that the Word is a self-aware person too! If we use the Oneness method of interpretation we find great trouble. If the Word was merely an idea or concept, God Himself would be reduced to an idea or concept because the Scripture says the Word was God. Whatever the Word is, God is.
Secondly, the “Word” is said to be with God! Webster’s dictionary says the word with means to be on the side of. Bauer’s Lexicon says the word with means to be by, at, near, or in company with someone. A. T. Robertson (the greatest Greek scholar America has ever produced) said the word with means to be face-to-face with (2Co 5:8). I think any sensible person would tell you that you can’t be face to face with, or on the side of yourself, that requires at least two persons! In every respect, the word with denotes relationship or accompaniment. John 1:1 is stating nothing less than: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was in the company of, or in a relationship with, God.” I am sorry, but I find it highly unlikely that John would make reference to God being in the company of, or face to face with, His own ideas or thoughts. Logic, coupled with the Greek and English languages, should tell us that much!
Next, the Word is spoken of in a personal way that a mere concept or idea could not be. He is said to be God (1:1). He is said to have created the world (1:3). He is said to be the life and light of all men (1:4-5). He is said to have come unto His own, but rejected by them (1:11). He is referred to by the personal pronouns “him”, “he”, and “his” (1:10-12). Then there is verse 14 which does not leave any doubt as to His personhood:
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Are we supposed to believe that a thought put on a fleshly body and walked around for 33 ½ years? I am sorry, but I simply refuse to believe the glorious “only begotten of the Father” was nothing more than a concept in the mind of the God!
Let’s read Revelation 19:13:
Re 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
This verse is prophetic, it takes place right before the millennium. It shows Jesus Christ riding upon a white horse, judging and making war! It demonstrates that “the Word” is much more than an idea, it is another name for the Lord Jesus Christ.
With all things considered, we must conclude that this glorified, life giving, stallion riding Jesus is the very same Word that eternally dwelt face to face with, and alongside of the Father (Joh 1:1-3). Likewise, we must conclude that when the Father used the plural pronouns “us” and “our” in Genesis 1:26, He, too, was referring to the living Lord Jesus Christ (the Word of God)–as well as the Holy Ghost!
The Counsel Of His Own Will (S.C. Johnson’s Explanation of Genesis 1:26)
I would say the most ridiculous explanation of Genesis 1:26 I have ever heard came from the late S.C. Johnson (a semi-famous Oneness preacher in the mid-1900's). He contended that God was referring to His own will when He said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”! He used Ephesians 1:11 to support this theory:
Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the COUNSEL OF HIS OWN WILL: (emphasis added)
From this verse, Johnson taught that the will of God was abstract, or separate from the person of God!
There are several major problems with this crazy interpretation. First of all, an abstract will doesn’t even exist! You can’t separate a person’s will from the person. It would require one’s will to counsel with one’s will! Regardless of how you look at it, in the end, you have God talking to Himself! Paul’s reference to “the counsel of his own will” was used strictly in a figurative sense. The only place an abstract will exists is in the mind of S.C. Johnson and those that theorize as he did!
Secondly, if Johnson’s interpretation is correct, God would actually consist of two abstract wills! He would have been counseling with one will, and then, by saying “Let us make man”, be speaking another will into existence! There would have been two wills in God, not one!
Thirdly, each member of the Trinity is said to have a will of their own (Joh 5:30, 6:38; Lu 22:42; Ro 8:27; 1 Co 12:11). S.C. Johnson forgot to tell us who’s will is being addressed in Ephesians 1:11! Was it the will of the Father? Was it the will of the Son? Or was it the will of the Holy Ghost?
Fourthly, if Genesis 1:26 is an address to the divine will, Isaiah 6:8 would be, too! The problem is, Isaiah 6:8 cannot be considered an address to the divine will because it is a question: “Whom shall I send, and who will go for US?” God was directing this question to the prophet Isaiah, who responded, “Here am I; send me.” God was not speaking to His own will, He was speaking to Isaiah’s will!
It is a great deal more Scriptural and easier to accept the fact that Genesis 1:26, and every other passage that uses plural pronouns, are references to the three persons of the Godhead. Each of them has a mental faculty of their own and, as we have seen, play an active role in creation.
I want you to know that my interpretation of Genesis 1:26 is in no wise a new concept. I believe I’d be safe in saying that 99.99% of all Christendom has understood this passage to mean there is a plurality of persons in the Godhead! There are many accounts of the early Church Fathers referring to this verse in the same exact manner as I have. For example, The Shepherd of Hermas. Justin explained the personal pronouns in Genesis 1:26 by saying that God “conversed with someone that was numerically distinct from Himself, and also a rational Being”. You can also find similar wording in the Epistle to Diognetus (7:1-4, 9:1), as well as in the writings of Irenaeus. The Epistle of Barnabas (written sometime between 70-132 A.D.) states:
“...if the Lord submitted to suffer for our souls, even though he is Lord of the whole world, TO WHOM GOD SAID at the foundation of the world, ‘Let us make man according to our image and likeness,’ how is it, then, that he submitted to suffer at the hand of men?” (E. of B. 5:5). (emphasis added).
Carl Brumback said even the Jews felt there was a great mystery in these plural pronouns. According to Jewish tradition, when Moses was about to write the words “Let us ...” he cried out, “O Lord of the world, why wilt thou give man occasion to err about Thy most simple unity?” To which the Lord is supposed to have replied, “Write as I bid thee, and if any man love to err, let him err.” The facts of it are, the only place this “so-called” plurality of majesty exists is in the minds of the Oneness people.
For further study of verses using plural pronouns to describe God, you can examine:
Ge 3:22 ...Behold, the man is become as one of US, to know good and evil: (emphasis added)
Ge 11:7 Go to, let US go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. (emphasis added)
Although it is questionable, I believe the chapter of Genesis offers us a beautiful picture of the three persons of the Trinity!
Three Men - One Lord
Let’s read the first three verses:
Ge 18:1 And the LORD (Jehovah) appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, THREE MEN stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
3 And said, MY LORD... (emphasis and parentheses added)
Genesis 18:1 is a narrative telling us that Jehovah appeared unto Abraham while he was sitting at the door of his tent. What I find really strange about all of this is verse 2 states that when Abraham looked up he saw THREE men (not one) standing by him. At the sight of these three men, he ran toward them and fell down at their feet as if to worship; but when he acknowledged their presence he addressed them as his “Lord”, not “Lords”!
I will concede that this passage alone doesn’t prove that God is a trinity of persons, but its wording is just too peculiar for us to overlook or to consider coincidental! Furthermore, I think it gets a little more convincing as we watch this story unfold in chapter 19 of Genesis!
The Lord Rained Fire Down From the Lord
The purpose for Jehovah visiting Abraham in the first place was to warn him of the imminent danger that loomed over Sodom and Gomorrah. This was important news for Abraham because his nephew Lot was a citizen of Sodom. After the Lord told Abraham that He was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for their wickedness, the Bible tells us:
Ge 19:24 Then the LORD (Jehovah) rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire FROM THE LORD (Jehovah) out of heaven; (emphasis and parentheses added)
I want you to notice that Jehovah is said to have rained down fire and brimstone FROM Jehovah out of heaven! That’s right! Amazingly, one member of the Godhead was here on earth raining down fire and brimstone from another member of the Godhead that was in heaven!
Here’s another verse that supports this same truth:
Am 4:10 I have sent among you the pestilence after the manner of Egypt: your young men have I slain with the sword, and have taken away your horses; and I have made the stink of your camps to come up unto your nostrils: yet have ye not returned unto me, SAITH THE LORD.
11 I have overthrown some of you, AS GOD overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and ye were as a firebrand plucked out of the burning: yet have ye not returned unto me, SAITH THE LORD. (emphasis added)
I want you to notice (in verse 11) how the divine speaker, who is obviously God, refers to another (besides Himself) as God! We can be very sure this was Jehovah Jesus, the eternal Word, speaking of Jehovah the Father!
Dialogue Between Members of the Godhead
Here are a few Old Testament passages recording dialogue amongst the members of the Godhead.
Ps 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Ps 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Ps 45:6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
Verses That Spark the Curiosity
Ps 104:29 Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.
30 THOU (Father) sendest forth thy SPIRIT (Holy Ghost), they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth. (emphasis and parentheses added)
Isa 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put MY (Father) SPIRIT (Holy Ghost) UPON HIM (Jesus): he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. (emphasis and parentheses added)
Isa 61:1 The SPIRIT (Holy Ghost) of THE LORD GOD (Father) is upon ME (Jesus); because the LORD (Father) hath anointed ME (Jesus) to preach good tidings unto the meek; HE (Father) hath sent ME (Jesus) to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound: (emphasis and parentheses added)
Isa 63:8 For he said, Surely they are MY (Father) people, children that will not lie: so he was their Saviour.
9 In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the ANGEL OF HIS PRESENCE (Jesus) saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old.
10 But they rebelled, and vexed his HOLY SPIRIT (Holy Ghost): therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them. (emphasis and parentheses added)
Da 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the SON OF MAN (Jesus) came with the clouds of heaven, and came to THE ANCIENT OF DAYS (Father), and they brought him near before him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. (emphasis and parentheses added)
I want you to notice that the Son of man is said to have come to the Ancient of days! There is no way the Son of man and the Ancient of days are the same person in this passage.
Ho 1:6 And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And GOD (the Father) said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away.
7 But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD THEIR GOD (Jesus), and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen. (emphasis and parentheses added)
In these two verses we find, once again, a divine being referring to another person as God.
Zec 3:1 And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the ANGEL OF THE LORD (Jesus), and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.
2 And the LORD (Jesus) said unto Satan, The LORD (Father) rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD (Father) that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? (emphasis and parentheses added)
I want you to notice (in verse 2) that Jehovah is said to have rebuked Satan while invoking another who is called “Jehovah”!
Zec 13:6 And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in THINE (Jesus) hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.
7 Awake, O sword, against my SHEPHERD (Jesus), and against the man that is my FELLOW (Jesus), saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones. (emphasis and parentheses added)
Taken in context, this verse has the Father referring to the shepherd (He that was wounded in the house of His friends) as His “fellow”! A fellow Jehovah? Interesting.
Mal 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the LORD, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.
This passage shows Jehovah referring to another that is called “Jehovah”!
There are many more passages we could discuss, but I am trusting these will suffice in demonstrating the point that the Old
Testament contains many precious insights and clues as to the existence of the three distinct “persons” of the Godhead. Again, they, by themselves, may not prove beyond a shadow of doubt that God is a trinity of persons, but they sure help embellish the verses that do!
Copyright 2009 by David Lamb
Throughout this lesson, while looking through the crystal clear lens of the New Testament, I want to examine some beautiful Old Testament Trinitarian nuggets of truth!
Deuteronomy 6:4 (The Shema) and Echad
Let us quickly look at Deuteronomy 6:4 again.
De 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
Remember, the Jews would pray this prayer (the Shema) twice a day. They would say, “The Lord our God is one, one, one, one, one...”, sometimes repeating the word one up to two minutes straight. Here, the word for one is the Hebrew word echad (ekh-awd') which means “united; a compound unity of two or more”. It is found 739 times in the Bible. Moses, in Deuteronomy 6:4 is saying God is united, not one solitary person! So the Jews were literally praying, “The Lord our God is united, united, united, united, united . . . .”
The Hebrew word used for the number one is yachid (yaw-kheed). Yachid is used differently in the Scriptures than echad. It is only used twelve times in the entire Old Testament and never denotes the unity of God! If Deuteronomy 6:4 were teaching that God was one in number, Moses would have used the word yachid, but he didn’t. The word echad is always used in reference to God because God is not one solitary person, He is one in essence (homoousion), but three distinct persons or hypostasis!
Elohim
I want to show you something very interesting that will confirm the meaning of the word echad in Deuteronomy 6:4.
Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Here, the word God is translated from the Hebrew name Elohim. When “m” or “im” is attached to the end of a word in the Hebrew language it is plural like an “s” in the English language. Therefore, Elohim means “gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the PLURAL) of the supreme God”. Moses did not call God “El”, which is God in the singular; He did not call Him “Eloah”, which is God is the dual form; He called Him “Elohim”, God of three or more! Genesis 1:1 can be literally translated, “In the beginning God, of three or more, created the heaven and the earth.” This definition is indisputable!
Since the Bible tells us plainly in Deuteronomy 6:4 that there is but one God, and we know from verses like 1 John 5:7 that there are three persons in that one God, “Elohim” can mean nothing other than one God existing in three persons–a holy Trinity! So, the use of the name “Elohim” to describe God offers us hundreds and hundreds of Old Testament proof texts demonstrating a plurality of persons in the Godhead.
A Plurality of Persons In Genesis
Ge 1:26 And God said, Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness: (emphasis added)
Who is this “us” and “our” that God the Father was referring to concerning the creation of man? Was He referring to Himself as “us”? Was He referring to angels (created beings) when He said “us”? Was He speaking of a plurality of majesty? No! and a million times no! First of all, God doesn’t talk to Himself! Secondly, man was made in the image of God, not angels (Ge 1:27)! Finally, as we have already discussed, no record of a plurality of majesty being used in this fashion can be found until the Anglo Saxon kings of the thirteenth century! So, who was the Father speaking of in Genesis 1:26 when He said, “Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness”? I suggest that He was speaking of Jesus and the Holy Ghost, and this next passage of Scripture should make that very clear.
(John 1:1-3) The Word Was With God
St. Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning WITH God.
3 ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (emphasis added)
In these three verses, John tells us some very profound things. Firstly, he says the Word has been with God throughout all of eternity. Secondly, he says the Word is God. And lastly, he tells us that the Word is creator of all things.
Basically everyone throughout the entire history of Christendom has understood John’s reference to “the Word” as being a reference to the pre-incarnate Lord Jesus Christ. They have agreed that this passage means Jesus (as the Word) was God, and eternally dwelt, as a distinctly different person than the Father, alongside the Father. They have understood this passage to mean there is a plurality in the Godhead. Unfortunately, this is not the case with the vast majority of Oneness people! In order to hold to their system of Theology, they have wrested these Scriptures to their own destruction (2Pe 3:16)!
The Oneness adherent will say the Word is not the second person of the Godhead, rather the expression, or mind of God. In other words, when the Bible says the Word was with God, they believe it means God was thinking about His own incarnation in the body of Jesus Christ. To them, John 1:1 is saying: “In the beginning was an idea, and the idea was with God, and the idea was God.” They believe the Word is a thing and not a Who!
There are several ways in which we can expose this erroneous doctrine. First, the Word is said to be God; and if the Word is God, the Word is everything God is! Since God is a self-aware person, we must, therefore, conclude that the Word is a self-aware person too! If we use the Oneness method of interpretation we find great trouble. If the Word was merely an idea or concept, God Himself would be reduced to an idea or concept because the Scripture says the Word was God. Whatever the Word is, God is.
Secondly, the “Word” is said to be with God! Webster’s dictionary says the word with means to be on the side of. Bauer’s Lexicon says the word with means to be by, at, near, or in company with someone. A. T. Robertson (the greatest Greek scholar America has ever produced) said the word with means to be face-to-face with (2Co 5:8). I think any sensible person would tell you that you can’t be face to face with, or on the side of yourself, that requires at least two persons! In every respect, the word with denotes relationship or accompaniment. John 1:1 is stating nothing less than: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was in the company of, or in a relationship with, God.” I am sorry, but I find it highly unlikely that John would make reference to God being in the company of, or face to face with, His own ideas or thoughts. Logic, coupled with the Greek and English languages, should tell us that much!
Next, the Word is spoken of in a personal way that a mere concept or idea could not be. He is said to be God (1:1). He is said to have created the world (1:3). He is said to be the life and light of all men (1:4-5). He is said to have come unto His own, but rejected by them (1:11). He is referred to by the personal pronouns “him”, “he”, and “his” (1:10-12). Then there is verse 14 which does not leave any doubt as to His personhood:
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Are we supposed to believe that a thought put on a fleshly body and walked around for 33 ½ years? I am sorry, but I simply refuse to believe the glorious “only begotten of the Father” was nothing more than a concept in the mind of the God!
Let’s read Revelation 19:13:
Re 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
This verse is prophetic, it takes place right before the millennium. It shows Jesus Christ riding upon a white horse, judging and making war! It demonstrates that “the Word” is much more than an idea, it is another name for the Lord Jesus Christ.
With all things considered, we must conclude that this glorified, life giving, stallion riding Jesus is the very same Word that eternally dwelt face to face with, and alongside of the Father (Joh 1:1-3). Likewise, we must conclude that when the Father used the plural pronouns “us” and “our” in Genesis 1:26, He, too, was referring to the living Lord Jesus Christ (the Word of God)–as well as the Holy Ghost!
The Counsel Of His Own Will (S.C. Johnson’s Explanation of Genesis 1:26)
I would say the most ridiculous explanation of Genesis 1:26 I have ever heard came from the late S.C. Johnson (a semi-famous Oneness preacher in the mid-1900's). He contended that God was referring to His own will when He said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”! He used Ephesians 1:11 to support this theory:
Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the COUNSEL OF HIS OWN WILL: (emphasis added)
From this verse, Johnson taught that the will of God was abstract, or separate from the person of God!
There are several major problems with this crazy interpretation. First of all, an abstract will doesn’t even exist! You can’t separate a person’s will from the person. It would require one’s will to counsel with one’s will! Regardless of how you look at it, in the end, you have God talking to Himself! Paul’s reference to “the counsel of his own will” was used strictly in a figurative sense. The only place an abstract will exists is in the mind of S.C. Johnson and those that theorize as he did!
Secondly, if Johnson’s interpretation is correct, God would actually consist of two abstract wills! He would have been counseling with one will, and then, by saying “Let us make man”, be speaking another will into existence! There would have been two wills in God, not one!
Thirdly, each member of the Trinity is said to have a will of their own (Joh 5:30, 6:38; Lu 22:42; Ro 8:27; 1 Co 12:11). S.C. Johnson forgot to tell us who’s will is being addressed in Ephesians 1:11! Was it the will of the Father? Was it the will of the Son? Or was it the will of the Holy Ghost?
Fourthly, if Genesis 1:26 is an address to the divine will, Isaiah 6:8 would be, too! The problem is, Isaiah 6:8 cannot be considered an address to the divine will because it is a question: “Whom shall I send, and who will go for US?” God was directing this question to the prophet Isaiah, who responded, “Here am I; send me.” God was not speaking to His own will, He was speaking to Isaiah’s will!
It is a great deal more Scriptural and easier to accept the fact that Genesis 1:26, and every other passage that uses plural pronouns, are references to the three persons of the Godhead. Each of them has a mental faculty of their own and, as we have seen, play an active role in creation.
I want you to know that my interpretation of Genesis 1:26 is in no wise a new concept. I believe I’d be safe in saying that 99.99% of all Christendom has understood this passage to mean there is a plurality of persons in the Godhead! There are many accounts of the early Church Fathers referring to this verse in the same exact manner as I have. For example, The Shepherd of Hermas. Justin explained the personal pronouns in Genesis 1:26 by saying that God “conversed with someone that was numerically distinct from Himself, and also a rational Being”. You can also find similar wording in the Epistle to Diognetus (7:1-4, 9:1), as well as in the writings of Irenaeus. The Epistle of Barnabas (written sometime between 70-132 A.D.) states:
“...if the Lord submitted to suffer for our souls, even though he is Lord of the whole world, TO WHOM GOD SAID at the foundation of the world, ‘Let us make man according to our image and likeness,’ how is it, then, that he submitted to suffer at the hand of men?” (E. of B. 5:5). (emphasis added).
Carl Brumback said even the Jews felt there was a great mystery in these plural pronouns. According to Jewish tradition, when Moses was about to write the words “Let us ...” he cried out, “O Lord of the world, why wilt thou give man occasion to err about Thy most simple unity?” To which the Lord is supposed to have replied, “Write as I bid thee, and if any man love to err, let him err.” The facts of it are, the only place this “so-called” plurality of majesty exists is in the minds of the Oneness people.
For further study of verses using plural pronouns to describe God, you can examine:
Ge 3:22 ...Behold, the man is become as one of US, to know good and evil: (emphasis added)
Ge 11:7 Go to, let US go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. (emphasis added)
Although it is questionable, I believe the chapter of Genesis offers us a beautiful picture of the three persons of the Trinity!
Three Men - One Lord
Let’s read the first three verses:
Ge 18:1 And the LORD (Jehovah) appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, THREE MEN stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
3 And said, MY LORD... (emphasis and parentheses added)
Genesis 18:1 is a narrative telling us that Jehovah appeared unto Abraham while he was sitting at the door of his tent. What I find really strange about all of this is verse 2 states that when Abraham looked up he saw THREE men (not one) standing by him. At the sight of these three men, he ran toward them and fell down at their feet as if to worship; but when he acknowledged their presence he addressed them as his “Lord”, not “Lords”!
I will concede that this passage alone doesn’t prove that God is a trinity of persons, but its wording is just too peculiar for us to overlook or to consider coincidental! Furthermore, I think it gets a little more convincing as we watch this story unfold in chapter 19 of Genesis!
The Lord Rained Fire Down From the Lord
The purpose for Jehovah visiting Abraham in the first place was to warn him of the imminent danger that loomed over Sodom and Gomorrah. This was important news for Abraham because his nephew Lot was a citizen of Sodom. After the Lord told Abraham that He was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for their wickedness, the Bible tells us:
Ge 19:24 Then the LORD (Jehovah) rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire FROM THE LORD (Jehovah) out of heaven; (emphasis and parentheses added)
I want you to notice that Jehovah is said to have rained down fire and brimstone FROM Jehovah out of heaven! That’s right! Amazingly, one member of the Godhead was here on earth raining down fire and brimstone from another member of the Godhead that was in heaven!
Here’s another verse that supports this same truth:
Am 4:10 I have sent among you the pestilence after the manner of Egypt: your young men have I slain with the sword, and have taken away your horses; and I have made the stink of your camps to come up unto your nostrils: yet have ye not returned unto me, SAITH THE LORD.
11 I have overthrown some of you, AS GOD overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and ye were as a firebrand plucked out of the burning: yet have ye not returned unto me, SAITH THE LORD. (emphasis added)
I want you to notice (in verse 11) how the divine speaker, who is obviously God, refers to another (besides Himself) as God! We can be very sure this was Jehovah Jesus, the eternal Word, speaking of Jehovah the Father!
Dialogue Between Members of the Godhead
Here are a few Old Testament passages recording dialogue amongst the members of the Godhead.
Ps 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Ps 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Ps 45:6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
Verses That Spark the Curiosity
Ps 104:29 Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.
30 THOU (Father) sendest forth thy SPIRIT (Holy Ghost), they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth. (emphasis and parentheses added)
Isa 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put MY (Father) SPIRIT (Holy Ghost) UPON HIM (Jesus): he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. (emphasis and parentheses added)
Isa 61:1 The SPIRIT (Holy Ghost) of THE LORD GOD (Father) is upon ME (Jesus); because the LORD (Father) hath anointed ME (Jesus) to preach good tidings unto the meek; HE (Father) hath sent ME (Jesus) to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound: (emphasis and parentheses added)
Isa 63:8 For he said, Surely they are MY (Father) people, children that will not lie: so he was their Saviour.
9 In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the ANGEL OF HIS PRESENCE (Jesus) saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old.
10 But they rebelled, and vexed his HOLY SPIRIT (Holy Ghost): therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them. (emphasis and parentheses added)
Da 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the SON OF MAN (Jesus) came with the clouds of heaven, and came to THE ANCIENT OF DAYS (Father), and they brought him near before him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. (emphasis and parentheses added)
I want you to notice that the Son of man is said to have come to the Ancient of days! There is no way the Son of man and the Ancient of days are the same person in this passage.
Ho 1:6 And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And GOD (the Father) said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away.
7 But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD THEIR GOD (Jesus), and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen. (emphasis and parentheses added)
In these two verses we find, once again, a divine being referring to another person as God.
Zec 3:1 And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the ANGEL OF THE LORD (Jesus), and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.
2 And the LORD (Jesus) said unto Satan, The LORD (Father) rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD (Father) that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? (emphasis and parentheses added)
I want you to notice (in verse 2) that Jehovah is said to have rebuked Satan while invoking another who is called “Jehovah”!
Zec 13:6 And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in THINE (Jesus) hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.
7 Awake, O sword, against my SHEPHERD (Jesus), and against the man that is my FELLOW (Jesus), saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones. (emphasis and parentheses added)
Taken in context, this verse has the Father referring to the shepherd (He that was wounded in the house of His friends) as His “fellow”! A fellow Jehovah? Interesting.
Mal 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the LORD, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.
This passage shows Jehovah referring to another that is called “Jehovah”!
There are many more passages we could discuss, but I am trusting these will suffice in demonstrating the point that the Old
Testament contains many precious insights and clues as to the existence of the three distinct “persons” of the Godhead. Again, they, by themselves, may not prove beyond a shadow of doubt that God is a trinity of persons, but they sure help embellish the verses that do!
Copyright 2009 by David Lamb
Lesson 7 - Baptism In Jesus' Name Only
Let’s read the Oneness people’s favorite verse.
Ac 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (emphasis added)
Please take special notice to the phrase, “be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ”. Oneness proponents dogmatically teach that this is the correct baptismal formula; that the words “In Jesus’ name” must literally be spoken over a person who is being immersed. They teach that anything other than baptism in “Jesus’ name” ONLY is not true Christian baptism; that nothing else will satisfy God! Many of them believe that if you were baptized “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” you are on your way to hell! As far as they’re concerned, you might as well be baptized in the name of Wild Willy, Pecos Bill, and Paul Bunyan!
They antagonistically ask Trinitarians to show them Biblical proof of someone being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ... I submit the same challenge to them! I would like for a Oneness adherent to show me a Biblical or historical example (before the 1900's) of a preacher standing in a body of water with a new convert saying, "I baptize thee in the name of Jesus Christ" (or any other variation of the name of our Lord, for that matter). I am willing to give them the next twenty years to find just one! In the end, I am afraid their search will have proved to be a disappointment. This severely weakens the Jesus Only position!
Oneness preacher James Anderson, in an article entitled, Water Baptism In the Name of Jesus, stated:
“I would not say that there was a codified baptismal formula in the primitive church. Myself and most Oneness teachers should indicate it was developed, in some sense. However, I do believe that scripture and history indicate to us that the name of Jesus was invoked or implied, in literary devices, by or over the baptized.”
Here’s what he said later on in his article:
“We may contest that there was no EXACT formula for baptism in the New Testament...”
Basically what he is saying is that the Oneness people invented their baptismal formula; that they can produce nothing more than a few misinterpreted passages of Scripture, a couple references in second century writings that they have twisted, and some encyclopedias (predominantly Catholic), to support their baptismal formula! They have nothing substantial, nothing concrete, just delusional speculation!
Four Verses – Three Different “Formulas”
There are basically four different verses of Scripture the Oneness people use to “prove” the Apostles baptized in Jesus’ name only.
Ac 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the NAME OF JESUS CHRIST for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (emphasis added)
Ac 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the NAME OF THE LORD JESUS.) (emphasis added)
Ac 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the NAME OF THE LORD. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. (emphasis added)
Ac 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the NAME OF THE LORD JESUS. (emphasis added)
When we isolate each of these “so-called” formulas and compare them to one another we find a very revealing truth emerge. Three out of these four verses have different wording!
Acts 2:38 – NAME OF JESUS CHRIST (Peter)
Acts 8:16 – NAME OF THE LORD JESUS (Philip)
Acts 10:48 – NAME OF THE LORD (Peter)
Acts 19:5 – NAME OF THE LORD JESUS (Paul)
Tell me, how are we supposed to know which “formula” is correct? Is it Peter’s, Paul’s, or Phillip’s? If Acts 2:38 is to be taken as an exact formula, Phillip and Paul didn’t hold to that formula! In fact, when you compare Acts 2:38 to Acts 10:48, you find that even Peter didn’t stick to the original formula. This means, according to Oneness theology, they all deviated from the “so-called” formula of Acts 2:38 and were, therefore, hell bound sinners!
“In the Name Of”
With all things considered, I think we should delve a little deeper into the meaning of the phrase “in the name of”. The phrase “in the name of”, or “into the name”, has very little to do with an actual name. The word name in the Greek is the word onoma, which means authority or character (Robertson’s NT Word Pictures, Acts 2:38). According to Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament, it means “upon the name”. According to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, name means to bind anyone to recognize and publicly acknowledge the dignity, or authority of one; to do a thing in one's command or authority, acting on one's behalf.
Let me show you a couple of Old Testament examples where the word name is used:
Pr 22:1 A GOOD NAME is rather to be chosen than great riches... (emphasis added)
Ec 7:1 A GOOD NAME is better than precious ointment... (emphasis added)
The Hebrew word for name in both of these verses is shem which means character. So, the wise man Solomon is telling us that it is a good character that is better than great riches or precious ointments, not vowels and consonants!
The phrase “in the name of” speaks of coming in the character, authority, and power of someone else, even as a servant would come in the “name of his king” or as a disciple would come “in the name of a prophet”. This was common verbiage in Bible times. For example:
1Sa 25:9 And when David's young men came, they spake to Nabal according to all those words IN THE NAME OF DAVID, and ceased. (emphasis added)
These men were not using a formula, they were merely speaking on David’s behalf. And coming in David’s name certainly didn’t mean they were David! They were simply speaking as representatives of David. They were backed by his power and authority.
Here is a New Testament example:
Mt 10:40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
41 He that receiveth a prophet IN THE NAME OF A PROPHET shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man IN THE NAME OF A RIGHTEOUS MAN shall receive a righteous man's reward.
42 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only IN THE NAME OF A DISCIPLE, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward. (emphasis added)
Clearly the meaning of this was to receive a prophet, a righteous man, and a disciple, because of the person that sent them, and because of who they were.
In Acts 9:27-29, Barnabas tells the brethren how Paul preached and spoke “in the name of Jesus”. In 1 Corinthians 5:3-4, Paul is dealing with a terrible sexual sin that had slipped into the church at Corinth. He told them to assemble themselves “in the name” of the Lord Jesus Christ and deal with the issue. Obviously, these verses are not proposing a preaching or church attendance formula. They were to gather as representatives and preach in the POWER and AUTHORITY of Jesus Christ. The sad thing is, the Oneness people will agree with that, but for some reason they can’t find the heart to admit that this same principle applies to the Bible’s references to water baptism!
To live in Jesus’ name is to be an ambassador of Christ; it is to represent Him every where we go, and in every thing we do! When the Bible tells us to preach, assemble ourselves, witness, etc., in the name of Jesus, it only means to do so in His authority, power, and stead; water baptism in Jesus’ name is no exception!
Power in the Person
I want to take this just a little bit deeper. Let’s read:
Mr 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; IN MY NAME shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. (emphasis added)
Jesus said that in His name we could lay hands on the sick and see them recover! Does this mean you have to actually say the name “Jesus” aloud, like some magic mojo, before the power will come? Is this even referring to the five letters J-E-S-U-S being used audibly? No! Anytime a reference is made to the “name of Jesus” (in respect to spiritual matters) it is a reference to His person, character, and authority!
Please read the following verses with me:
Ac 9:39 Then Peter arose and went with them. When he was come, they brought him into the upper chamber: and all the widows stood by him weeping, and shewing the coats and garments which Dorcas made, while she was with them.
40 But Peter put them all forth, and kneeled down, and prayed; and turning him to the body said, Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes: and when she saw Peter, she sat up.
41 And he gave her his hand, and lifted her up, and when he had called the saints and widows, presented her alive.
Did you notice anything strange about this passage? Peter raised Tabitha from the dead, yet there was no mention of the name “Jesus”! He didn’t have to say, “Tabitha, in the name of Jesus, arise”! The wonderful truth being taught here is, although he may not have spoken the name “Jesus” audibly, it was in Jesus’ power and authority that the miracle was accomplished.
Seven Sons With Empty Guns
Let me show you what happens when you get confused on the meaning of “in Jesus’ name”. Let’s read about the seven sons of Sceva.
Ac 19:13 Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.
14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so.
15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?
16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.
In some ways this is a very funny passage of Scripture! There stood seven sons with empty guns. Men that would remind you of some of today’s so-called faith healers. They used the name “Jesus”, but they didn’t do it in the NAME (authority and power) of Jesus! When all you have is five letters, you end up stripped and running out of the house naked! Brothers and Sisters, it’s not necessarily having the five letters J-E-S-U-S come from your lips, it is having the King of Kings come from your heart!
Colossians 3:17
I want to read Acts 8:16 and Acts 19:5 again and then compare them to Colossians 3:17. I want you to pay special attention to the manner in which the Oneness people interpret these verses inconsistently, rendering them according to what is most convenient for them at that particular time.
Ac 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS.) (emphasis added)
Ac 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS. (emphasis added)
In these two verses, according to Jesus Only Theology, the phrase “in the name of the Lord Jesus” was the baptismal formula used by the preacher. They say these are the literal words the preachers said while submerging those believers into the water.
With that in mind, I want to look at Colossians 3:17.
Col 3:17 And WHATSOEVER ye do in word or deed, do all IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS... (emphasis added)
Although this verse offers the exact same wording as Acts 8:16 and Acts 19:5, for some strange reason, the Oneness people treat it differently. They DO NOT interpret this to be a formula as they do Acts 8:16 and Acts 19:5, and I want to know why! After all, it is the EXACT same wording!
Paul told the Colossians they needed to do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus! Why don’t the Oneness people pronounce the “formula” over every single bite of food they eat? Why don’t they stop between every word they speak and say, “In Jesus’ name”? According to their own methods of interpreting Acts 8:16 and Acts 19:5, they should, but they do not, which only further reveals their gross hypocrisy!
Some Oneness adherents claim Acts 22:16 proves that the early church baptized in “Jesus name” only.
Ac 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
This verse has nothing to do with a baptismal formula! These are the words of Ananias to Saul (a new convert), not to an administrator of baptism! As we discussed in chapter 27, the words “name of the Lord” actually pertain to the command “wash away thy sins”, not “be baptized”. Ananias was simply telling Saul that he could call, nay, should call on Jesus any and every time!
Clearly, all five of these baptismal verses (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 22:16) fall under the auspices of Colossians 3:17: “And WHATSOEVER ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus...” and should be interpreted in the same manner!
For further study, you can look up Acts 9:29 and 1 Corinthians 6:11. Although these verses use the same wording as Acts 8:16 and 19:5, the Oneness people interpret them entirely different, too.
In summary, Scripturally and historically, the Oneness people don’t have a leg to stand on! Don’t forget what David Bernard said about Oneness believers in written history, “It appears that most Oneness believers did not leave a written record.” Well, it also appears that most Oneness believers “forgot” to chronicle their baptisms and baptismal formula, too! Don’t let the Oneness people intimidate you with bogus dates and quotes from Catholic encyclopedias. They are grasping for straws. The Bible and church history emphatically states that baptism has always been performed according to Matthew 28:19: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”.
Mt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Baptism in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost
Obviously, I reject the Oneness ideology that the correct baptismal formula is “in Jesus’ name” only. My rejection is not based on a detestation of Jesus’ name, or a belief that His name doesn’t possess sufficient enough power to save. In fact, I would be hesitant in saying a person was going to hell exclusively for being baptized in “Jesus’ name” only. It seems to me that if a man can be saved having never been baptized, he can be saved having been baptized in Jesus’ name only too. We must not allow ourselves to become as legalistic about water baptism as the Oneness people have.
My rejection of baptism in “Jesus’ name” only is based on the grounds that Jesus, in Matthew 28:19, provided us with the correct baptismal formula (in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost) making baptism in Jesus’ name only un-Scriptural. I believe that once this is understood, any person that was previously baptized in Jesus’ name only should be re-baptized.
I will concede that the word name in Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38 are both translated from the same Greek word onoma which means “authority”. But I have found that Matthew 28:19 is unique in a couple different ways. First, where we see no exact word pattern concerning baptism in “Jesus’ name” only, Matthew 28:19 IS an exact syntactical formulation.
Another unique, and often overlooked, characteristic of Matthew 28:19 is to whom it was addressed. Whereas all five baptismal verses in Acts were directed toward new converts (those that were going to be baptized), Matthew 28:19 was directed to the administrators, or BAPTIZERS! Matthew 28:19 is what JESUS told PREACHERS to do; Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, and 22:16 is what preachers told NEW CONVERTS to do! These preachers were simply telling them to be baptized in the authority and power of Christ, but Christ gave the preachers the formula to do the baptism with (Mt 28:19)!
Biblical Evidence For Baptism According to Matthew 28:19
As I previously stated, many Oneness proponents mockingly assert that there is no Scriptural precedent for someone being baptized according to Matthew 28:19, but I disagree.
While traveling through the upper coasts of Ephesus, the Apostle Paul came upon a band of Ephesian disciples (Acts 19:1-5). He asked them two very revealing questions. The first of which was, “Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?” They replied, “We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.” He then asked them, “Unto what then were ye baptized?”
Tell me, why did Paul ask about water baptism after hearing they were unfamiliar with the Holy Ghost? What relation did water baptism and the Holy Ghost have to each other? The only logical explanation is Paul’s baptismal formula was based upon Matthew 28:19, not Acts 2:38! Simply put, had those Ephesian disciples been baptized with the correct formula, they would have heard of the Holy Ghost!
Historical Evidence For Baptism According to Matthew 28:19
Oneness adherents deceitfully tell people that the Catholic church changed the baptismal formula in the second century. They love to submit quotes from encyclopedias (especially Catholic encyclopedias) to prove this. Let’s look at a few of them.
“Baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the 2nd Century” (Britannica Encyclopedia, 11th Edition, Volume 3, pg. 365).
“The early church baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the second century” (Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, pg. 53).
“Christian baptism was administered using the words, ‘in the name of Jesus."
“Baptism was always in the name of Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr” (Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 2, pgs. 377, 389).
The main thing I’ve noticed is, these encyclopedias never offer any historical documentation to prove their assertions. Their claims are always a matter of supposition, there is never any solid proof. Just because the Catholic church takes credit for initially promoting baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost doesn’t make it true. I was baptizing people according to Matthew 28:19 long before I knew anything about the Catholic church’s claims. I received my baptismal instructions from Jesus Christ Himself (Mt 28:19), who–in case you have forgotten–pre-dates the Catholic and Oneness churches!
I find it terribly disingenuous for a Oneness adherent to say the Catholic Church is the “great whore” of the seventeenth and nineteenth chapters of Revelation, yet turn around and use their resources to argue against Trinitarian theology. If the Catholic Church is comprised of lying murderers, why do the Oneness people trust their resources so much? And why don’t they esteem these Catholic resources to be authoritative when it comes to the doctrines of Apostolic Succession, transubstantiation, and purgatory? The reason is very simple: outside of their own Oneness literature, the Catholic church is about the only place they can find material to support their agenda!
It is actually quite simple to expose the Oneness people’s claims as fraudulent distortions of the truth. You see, unlike the Oneness movement, Trinitarians can produce a massive amount of historical evidence to support their baptismal formula (Mt 28:19). The two earliest documents are the Didache (di-dah-kay), and Justin Martyr’s First Apology.
The Didache (di-dah-kay) is a book that chronicles the doctrines and teachings of the Apostles. According to many Bible scholars, it was written in approximately 70 A.D. It submits the following:
"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water…. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).
Though I don’t necessarily think sprinkling is the Biblical manner in which a person should be baptized, that’s not the point. The point is, we have historical documentation stating what baptismal formula was being used during the days of the Apostles! Do you realize that this was only forty years after the death of Christ and that the Apostle John was still alive? If the Didache does nothing else, it shatters the Oneness people’s lie that baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost was a second century invention!
The second oldest piece of historical documentation showing Matthew 28:19 to be the baptismal formula of the early church is Justin Martyr’s First Apology (chapter 61). It was written somewhere around 153 A.D. and perhaps as early as 120 A.D. The manner in which Justin wrote indicates the Trinitarian formula was the recognized formula of the Church at that time. This means Justin did not originate the use of Matthew 28:19, but had it handed down from those that taught him. It just so happens that Justin Martyr was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John. I think it would be safe to say that Justin Martyr did not change the baptismal formula that Polycarp and the Apostle John had taught him.
For further historical evidence supporting water baptism according to Matthew 28:19, you can study the works of Tatian the Syrian (The Diatesseron 55) 170 A.D.; Hippolytus (The Apostolic Tradition 21) 215 A.D.; Tertullian (Against Praxeas 26) 216 A.D.; Origen (Commentary on Romans 5:8) 248 A.D.; and many others!
“Name” - Singular or Plural?
Many Oneness people make a big deal out of Jesus saying, “baptizing them in the name (and not names) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” They say that because the word name is in the singular, it speaks of only one name. They declare that that one name is “Jesus”, the new name of God! They assert that Matthew 28:19 shows Jesus secretly revealing the oneness of God to us, that He is in actuality the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost all by Himself.
Since the word name is in the singular, they will ask, “What’s the name of the Father? What’s the name of the Son? What’s the name of the Holy Ghost?” They then follow that up by saying, “The name of the Father is ‘Jesus’! The name of the Son is ‘Jesus’! The name of the Holy Ghost is ‘Jesus’!” By this same means of eisegesis, they teach that Acts 2:38 is the fulfillment of Matthew 28:19.
Tell me, if Jesus’ name is the revelation of all three modes of God, why is it not used for all three modes of God afterwards in the book of Acts, or in the Epistles, or in the book of Revelation? Why does the Holy Ghost continue inspiring the writers to use the “titles” Father, Son, and Holy Ghost if Jesus is indeed all three Himself? If Jesus is the only person in the Godhead, this would be very deceptive on the part of the Spirit.
The measures Oneness people take to propagate this idea are incredible. Take into consideration the logic David Bernard uses to show that Jesus is actually the Father incarnate. He starts with John 5:43.
Joh 5:43a I am come in my Father's name...
Bernard teaches that Jesus’ statement “I am come in my Father's name” actually means He had come BEARING the Father’s name. In other words, since Jesus’ name is “Jesus”, and He come bearing the Father’s name, “Jesus” must be the name of the Father (The Oneness of God, pg. 126).
By using this same absurd means of interpretation, Bernard (and most Oneness adherents) also teach that the name of the Holy Ghost is “Jesus” (The Oneness of God, pg. 129)! They use the following verse as “proof”:
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Did you catch the phrase, “Holy Ghost ... whom the Father will send in my name”? From this verse they teach that since Jesus’ name is “Jesus”; and the Father sent the Holy Ghost in Jesus’ name; the Holy Ghost and Jesus are the same person, therefore the Holy Ghost’s name must be “Jesus” too! Incredible, isn’t it?
Thankfully, Bernard is consistently inconsistent! Just like every other area of doctrine, he contradicts himself here, too. In his book, The Trinitarian Controversy (pg. 160), he compares Jesus taking on the name of the Father to us taking on Jesus’ name. This presents him with a serious problem. If he believes Jesus is the Father because He took on the Father’s name, shouldn’t us taking on Jesus’ name make us Jesus? Furthermore, Jesus was literally called “Jesus”, so why are we not literally called “Jesus”?
Let’s take this a little further. In light of Mr. Bernard’s belief that coming in the name of someone makes you that person, I wonder if he’s willing to stick to his guns when presented with 1 Samuel 17:45?
1Sa 17:45 Then said David to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I COME TO THEE IN THE NAME OF THE LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied. (emphasis added)
Do you think Mr. Bernard and his Oneness fans interpret this verse to mean David was Jehovah incarnate? After all, he did say, “I come to thee in the name of the LORD”, didn’t he? Although I am sure that Bernard believes this verse only means that David came in the authority of Jehovah and not that David was Jehovah himself; it certainly proves Bernard is just like the rest of his followers ... he doesn’t mind making things up as he goes!
Let’s read Isaiah 9:6:
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his NAME shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (emphasis added)
Did you notice that the word name is singular, yet five different names are listed?
Let’s look at Galatians 5:22-23.
Ga 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Did you notice how the word fruit is in the singular, yet nine different fruits of the Spirit are listed? In other places Paul used the word fruits to emphasize plurality (2Co 9:10, Php 1:11, 2Ti 2:6), so why not here? This clearly indicates that (in some cases) the singular form of a word can be used to indicate more than one person or thing.
There is simply no reason to think that Jesus was cryptically referring to Himself in an elusive manner in Matthew 28:19. There’s not one reference in the New Testament of Jesus being the Father, yet He is called the SON over two-hundred times! Furthermore, throughout the New Testament, the Father is referred to as distinct from Jesus over two-hundred times and over fifty times Jesus and the Father are combined within the same verse. I would like to ask our Oneness friends why there is such an overwhelming emphasis on Jesus being the Son of God, and being distinct from the Father, if in fact the Bible also wants to enigmatically teach us that Jesus is Himself the Father? The fact that practically no one throughout church history has understood Jesus to be doing this proves that either the Oneness interpretation is wrong, or Jesus was a lousy communicator (and on a point which is supposedly a heaven or hell issue).
Before I move on, let’s entertain the idea that Jesus’ use of the word name in Matthew 28:19 does mean that only one name is intended. Could it be that one of the names of the triune God is “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”? After all, Webster’s Dictionary defines name as a word or PHRASE by which a person or thing is designated. Have you ever considered Exodus 3:15 where God said His name was the phrase “The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac”? Without wresting Webster’s definition in the slightest, “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” can easily be considered a name (singular) of the triune God.
As I shared with you in an earlier lesson, several Oneness preachers have challenged me, asserting that three persons cannot share one name. I have been directing them to Mark 5:9 where Legion said, “My name (in the singular) is Legion: for we are many.” The vast majority (if not all) of those devils had individual names. That means there could have been as many as six-thousand individually named devils in that one man, yet when unified within one body, they went by only ONE name!
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost Are Names, Not Exclusively Titles
Out of all my conversations with Oneness people, as well as all the Oneness literature I have read, only a couple of them have ever given a definition for name! Would you like to know why? It’s terribly incriminating to what they are propagating!
We have already talked about what the word name means in the Hebrew and Greek, so let us look at its definition in a few English Dictionaries. According to the Oxford University Press Dictionary, the word name means a word or words by which someone or something is known, addressed, or referred to. As I previously stated, Webster’s Dictionary defines name as a word or phrase by which a person or thing is designated. The American Heritage Dictionary defines name as a word or words by which any entity is designated. Did you notice that none of these popular dictionaries defined name as Billy, Tom, Willy, or Jack? They all three affirmed that a name is a word, words, or phrase someone is addressed as, referred to as, designated, or known by.
With that in mind, let’s look at Matthew 28:19-20 again:
Mt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
I weary of hearing Jesus Only believers say that “Father”, “Son”, and “Holy Ghost” are merely titles, not names. Please take note that Jesus did not say, “Baptize them in the name of [a] Father, [a] Son, and [a] Holy Ghost.” He said to baptize them “in the name of [THE] Father, and of [THE] Son, and of [THE] Holy Ghost.” Not just any father, THE Father! Not just any son, THE Son! Not just any ghost, THE Holy Ghost! In every sense, and by every definition of the word, “Father” is a proper name of God the Father; and “Son” is a proper name of God the Son; and “Holy Ghost” is a proper name of God the Holy Ghost.
Unbelievably, the vast majority of Oneness people have no trouble conceding that “The everlasting Father” in Isaiah 9:6 is another name for Jesus. Doesn’t their subsequent refusal to admit the same for “Father” in Matthew 28:19 smack of hypocrisy?
The facts of it are, nearly every one in Christendom readily recognizes who is being spoken of when we call the three persons of the Trinity “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”. I think the only place in the world these three designations are not names is in the minds of Jesus Only adherents!
When I ask my little toddlers what my name is, do you know what they say? They say, “Daddy”! You see, I’m not just any ol’ dad, I’m their dad! Do you remember how Webster’s dictionary defined name? It defined it as a phrase by which a person or thing is designated. Daddy is a word my children have designated to me and to me alone! They know there are other dads in our church, but none of them are “DADDY”!
In reference to this, a Oneness pastor wrote me saying something to the effect, “I would like to see you go down to the bank and sign your name as ‘Daddy’.” Well, I would like to see him go down to the bank and open up an account in his own personal name, but only after he told them he was the omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal, creator of all things! They would take him away in a straight jacket! You see, there are many fathers, but we’re talking about God THE Father, whom there is only one! Trust me, if God had a checking account, and signed His name as Father, no one except these Oneness adherents would object! When will these people ever learn that it’s folly to use earthly analogies to describe God?
To the bank I am an impersonal entity, so “dad” would be a title to them, but I am not an impersonal entity to my children. Could this be why “Father”, “Son”, and “Holy Ghost” are impersonal titles to these Jesus Only adherents? Is it because they don’t know the God of Heaven personally enough to address Him as we Trinitarians do? Perhaps!
I remember listening to a debate where the Oneness people laughed at a Trinitarian after he said God’s name was “God”. They actually thought it was funny! I wonder how funny they think Exodus 6:3 is?
Ex 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of GOD ALMIGHTY... (emphasis added)
Tell me, who’s laughing now?
All of this title business gets very interesting when you take into consideration the same argument about titles and names which the Oneness people aim at the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost can be used against the name (Lord Jesus Christ) which they use to baptize! All three of these designations can fall under the heading of title or office. The Greek word for “Lord” is kurios, which can be translated as “Sir” (Joh 4:11) or “master” (Col 4:1). The Greek word for “Christ” is Christos, to which a prefix is added in Mark 14:61, and is translated “the Christ”. Even David Bernard concedes “Christ” is a title (Oneness of God, pg. 86), and Oneness author Frank Ewart, in his booklet The Phenomenon of Pentecost (pg. 55), also admits that “Christ” and “Lord” are titles!
Even the wonderful name of “Jesus” could be considered a title! It is derived from the Hebrew word Jehoshua, which means “Jehovah the Savior”. Consider this next passage of Scripture:
Joh 19:19 And Pilate wrote a TITLE, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
20 This TITLE then read many of the Jews.... (emphasis added)
So, as you can see, this entire argument backfires in the Oneness people’s faces. If we Trinitarians wanted to play by the same rules as they do, we could assert that it is they that are baptizing in three titles, not us!
As I conclude this lesson, I think it has become very clear that all of this harping over Trinitarian baptism is nothing more than a Oneness smoke screen. It is in fact the Jesus Only adherents that lack Biblical and historical support for their baptismal formula. On the other hand, Biblical and historical evidence emphatically points toward Matthew 28:19 as the baptismal formula of the Church. Dear listeners, Peter DID NOT forget what Jesus had told him only fifty days prior to Acts 2:38!
So, as you can see, when the day is over, it is the Trinitarian that stands on the right side of the fence. The Oneness doctrine is the invention of devils and propagated by men. I would like to encourage any of you listeners that have come out of Trinitarian churches and are now dabbling in this Oneness mess, don’t walk out of those churches, you run out and never look back! You are going to be sucked into cesspool of filthy doctrine that you may never recover from.
Well, thanks again for listening. I hope this lesson was informative and a help to you. May the triune God of heaven bless you mightily!
Copyright 2009 by David Lamb
Ac 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (emphasis added)
Please take special notice to the phrase, “be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ”. Oneness proponents dogmatically teach that this is the correct baptismal formula; that the words “In Jesus’ name” must literally be spoken over a person who is being immersed. They teach that anything other than baptism in “Jesus’ name” ONLY is not true Christian baptism; that nothing else will satisfy God! Many of them believe that if you were baptized “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” you are on your way to hell! As far as they’re concerned, you might as well be baptized in the name of Wild Willy, Pecos Bill, and Paul Bunyan!
They antagonistically ask Trinitarians to show them Biblical proof of someone being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ... I submit the same challenge to them! I would like for a Oneness adherent to show me a Biblical or historical example (before the 1900's) of a preacher standing in a body of water with a new convert saying, "I baptize thee in the name of Jesus Christ" (or any other variation of the name of our Lord, for that matter). I am willing to give them the next twenty years to find just one! In the end, I am afraid their search will have proved to be a disappointment. This severely weakens the Jesus Only position!
Oneness preacher James Anderson, in an article entitled, Water Baptism In the Name of Jesus, stated:
“I would not say that there was a codified baptismal formula in the primitive church. Myself and most Oneness teachers should indicate it was developed, in some sense. However, I do believe that scripture and history indicate to us that the name of Jesus was invoked or implied, in literary devices, by or over the baptized.”
Here’s what he said later on in his article:
“We may contest that there was no EXACT formula for baptism in the New Testament...”
Basically what he is saying is that the Oneness people invented their baptismal formula; that they can produce nothing more than a few misinterpreted passages of Scripture, a couple references in second century writings that they have twisted, and some encyclopedias (predominantly Catholic), to support their baptismal formula! They have nothing substantial, nothing concrete, just delusional speculation!
Four Verses – Three Different “Formulas”
There are basically four different verses of Scripture the Oneness people use to “prove” the Apostles baptized in Jesus’ name only.
Ac 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the NAME OF JESUS CHRIST for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (emphasis added)
Ac 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the NAME OF THE LORD JESUS.) (emphasis added)
Ac 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the NAME OF THE LORD. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. (emphasis added)
Ac 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the NAME OF THE LORD JESUS. (emphasis added)
When we isolate each of these “so-called” formulas and compare them to one another we find a very revealing truth emerge. Three out of these four verses have different wording!
Acts 2:38 – NAME OF JESUS CHRIST (Peter)
Acts 8:16 – NAME OF THE LORD JESUS (Philip)
Acts 10:48 – NAME OF THE LORD (Peter)
Acts 19:5 – NAME OF THE LORD JESUS (Paul)
Tell me, how are we supposed to know which “formula” is correct? Is it Peter’s, Paul’s, or Phillip’s? If Acts 2:38 is to be taken as an exact formula, Phillip and Paul didn’t hold to that formula! In fact, when you compare Acts 2:38 to Acts 10:48, you find that even Peter didn’t stick to the original formula. This means, according to Oneness theology, they all deviated from the “so-called” formula of Acts 2:38 and were, therefore, hell bound sinners!
“In the Name Of”
With all things considered, I think we should delve a little deeper into the meaning of the phrase “in the name of”. The phrase “in the name of”, or “into the name”, has very little to do with an actual name. The word name in the Greek is the word onoma, which means authority or character (Robertson’s NT Word Pictures, Acts 2:38). According to Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament, it means “upon the name”. According to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, name means to bind anyone to recognize and publicly acknowledge the dignity, or authority of one; to do a thing in one's command or authority, acting on one's behalf.
Let me show you a couple of Old Testament examples where the word name is used:
Pr 22:1 A GOOD NAME is rather to be chosen than great riches... (emphasis added)
Ec 7:1 A GOOD NAME is better than precious ointment... (emphasis added)
The Hebrew word for name in both of these verses is shem which means character. So, the wise man Solomon is telling us that it is a good character that is better than great riches or precious ointments, not vowels and consonants!
The phrase “in the name of” speaks of coming in the character, authority, and power of someone else, even as a servant would come in the “name of his king” or as a disciple would come “in the name of a prophet”. This was common verbiage in Bible times. For example:
1Sa 25:9 And when David's young men came, they spake to Nabal according to all those words IN THE NAME OF DAVID, and ceased. (emphasis added)
These men were not using a formula, they were merely speaking on David’s behalf. And coming in David’s name certainly didn’t mean they were David! They were simply speaking as representatives of David. They were backed by his power and authority.
Here is a New Testament example:
Mt 10:40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
41 He that receiveth a prophet IN THE NAME OF A PROPHET shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man IN THE NAME OF A RIGHTEOUS MAN shall receive a righteous man's reward.
42 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only IN THE NAME OF A DISCIPLE, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward. (emphasis added)
Clearly the meaning of this was to receive a prophet, a righteous man, and a disciple, because of the person that sent them, and because of who they were.
In Acts 9:27-29, Barnabas tells the brethren how Paul preached and spoke “in the name of Jesus”. In 1 Corinthians 5:3-4, Paul is dealing with a terrible sexual sin that had slipped into the church at Corinth. He told them to assemble themselves “in the name” of the Lord Jesus Christ and deal with the issue. Obviously, these verses are not proposing a preaching or church attendance formula. They were to gather as representatives and preach in the POWER and AUTHORITY of Jesus Christ. The sad thing is, the Oneness people will agree with that, but for some reason they can’t find the heart to admit that this same principle applies to the Bible’s references to water baptism!
To live in Jesus’ name is to be an ambassador of Christ; it is to represent Him every where we go, and in every thing we do! When the Bible tells us to preach, assemble ourselves, witness, etc., in the name of Jesus, it only means to do so in His authority, power, and stead; water baptism in Jesus’ name is no exception!
Power in the Person
I want to take this just a little bit deeper. Let’s read:
Mr 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; IN MY NAME shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. (emphasis added)
Jesus said that in His name we could lay hands on the sick and see them recover! Does this mean you have to actually say the name “Jesus” aloud, like some magic mojo, before the power will come? Is this even referring to the five letters J-E-S-U-S being used audibly? No! Anytime a reference is made to the “name of Jesus” (in respect to spiritual matters) it is a reference to His person, character, and authority!
Please read the following verses with me:
Ac 9:39 Then Peter arose and went with them. When he was come, they brought him into the upper chamber: and all the widows stood by him weeping, and shewing the coats and garments which Dorcas made, while she was with them.
40 But Peter put them all forth, and kneeled down, and prayed; and turning him to the body said, Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes: and when she saw Peter, she sat up.
41 And he gave her his hand, and lifted her up, and when he had called the saints and widows, presented her alive.
Did you notice anything strange about this passage? Peter raised Tabitha from the dead, yet there was no mention of the name “Jesus”! He didn’t have to say, “Tabitha, in the name of Jesus, arise”! The wonderful truth being taught here is, although he may not have spoken the name “Jesus” audibly, it was in Jesus’ power and authority that the miracle was accomplished.
Seven Sons With Empty Guns
Let me show you what happens when you get confused on the meaning of “in Jesus’ name”. Let’s read about the seven sons of Sceva.
Ac 19:13 Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.
14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so.
15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?
16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.
In some ways this is a very funny passage of Scripture! There stood seven sons with empty guns. Men that would remind you of some of today’s so-called faith healers. They used the name “Jesus”, but they didn’t do it in the NAME (authority and power) of Jesus! When all you have is five letters, you end up stripped and running out of the house naked! Brothers and Sisters, it’s not necessarily having the five letters J-E-S-U-S come from your lips, it is having the King of Kings come from your heart!
Colossians 3:17
I want to read Acts 8:16 and Acts 19:5 again and then compare them to Colossians 3:17. I want you to pay special attention to the manner in which the Oneness people interpret these verses inconsistently, rendering them according to what is most convenient for them at that particular time.
Ac 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS.) (emphasis added)
Ac 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS. (emphasis added)
In these two verses, according to Jesus Only Theology, the phrase “in the name of the Lord Jesus” was the baptismal formula used by the preacher. They say these are the literal words the preachers said while submerging those believers into the water.
With that in mind, I want to look at Colossians 3:17.
Col 3:17 And WHATSOEVER ye do in word or deed, do all IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS... (emphasis added)
Although this verse offers the exact same wording as Acts 8:16 and Acts 19:5, for some strange reason, the Oneness people treat it differently. They DO NOT interpret this to be a formula as they do Acts 8:16 and Acts 19:5, and I want to know why! After all, it is the EXACT same wording!
Paul told the Colossians they needed to do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus! Why don’t the Oneness people pronounce the “formula” over every single bite of food they eat? Why don’t they stop between every word they speak and say, “In Jesus’ name”? According to their own methods of interpreting Acts 8:16 and Acts 19:5, they should, but they do not, which only further reveals their gross hypocrisy!
Some Oneness adherents claim Acts 22:16 proves that the early church baptized in “Jesus name” only.
Ac 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
This verse has nothing to do with a baptismal formula! These are the words of Ananias to Saul (a new convert), not to an administrator of baptism! As we discussed in chapter 27, the words “name of the Lord” actually pertain to the command “wash away thy sins”, not “be baptized”. Ananias was simply telling Saul that he could call, nay, should call on Jesus any and every time!
Clearly, all five of these baptismal verses (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 22:16) fall under the auspices of Colossians 3:17: “And WHATSOEVER ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus...” and should be interpreted in the same manner!
For further study, you can look up Acts 9:29 and 1 Corinthians 6:11. Although these verses use the same wording as Acts 8:16 and 19:5, the Oneness people interpret them entirely different, too.
In summary, Scripturally and historically, the Oneness people don’t have a leg to stand on! Don’t forget what David Bernard said about Oneness believers in written history, “It appears that most Oneness believers did not leave a written record.” Well, it also appears that most Oneness believers “forgot” to chronicle their baptisms and baptismal formula, too! Don’t let the Oneness people intimidate you with bogus dates and quotes from Catholic encyclopedias. They are grasping for straws. The Bible and church history emphatically states that baptism has always been performed according to Matthew 28:19: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”.
Mt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Baptism in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost
Obviously, I reject the Oneness ideology that the correct baptismal formula is “in Jesus’ name” only. My rejection is not based on a detestation of Jesus’ name, or a belief that His name doesn’t possess sufficient enough power to save. In fact, I would be hesitant in saying a person was going to hell exclusively for being baptized in “Jesus’ name” only. It seems to me that if a man can be saved having never been baptized, he can be saved having been baptized in Jesus’ name only too. We must not allow ourselves to become as legalistic about water baptism as the Oneness people have.
My rejection of baptism in “Jesus’ name” only is based on the grounds that Jesus, in Matthew 28:19, provided us with the correct baptismal formula (in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost) making baptism in Jesus’ name only un-Scriptural. I believe that once this is understood, any person that was previously baptized in Jesus’ name only should be re-baptized.
I will concede that the word name in Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38 are both translated from the same Greek word onoma which means “authority”. But I have found that Matthew 28:19 is unique in a couple different ways. First, where we see no exact word pattern concerning baptism in “Jesus’ name” only, Matthew 28:19 IS an exact syntactical formulation.
Another unique, and often overlooked, characteristic of Matthew 28:19 is to whom it was addressed. Whereas all five baptismal verses in Acts were directed toward new converts (those that were going to be baptized), Matthew 28:19 was directed to the administrators, or BAPTIZERS! Matthew 28:19 is what JESUS told PREACHERS to do; Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, and 22:16 is what preachers told NEW CONVERTS to do! These preachers were simply telling them to be baptized in the authority and power of Christ, but Christ gave the preachers the formula to do the baptism with (Mt 28:19)!
Biblical Evidence For Baptism According to Matthew 28:19
As I previously stated, many Oneness proponents mockingly assert that there is no Scriptural precedent for someone being baptized according to Matthew 28:19, but I disagree.
While traveling through the upper coasts of Ephesus, the Apostle Paul came upon a band of Ephesian disciples (Acts 19:1-5). He asked them two very revealing questions. The first of which was, “Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?” They replied, “We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.” He then asked them, “Unto what then were ye baptized?”
Tell me, why did Paul ask about water baptism after hearing they were unfamiliar with the Holy Ghost? What relation did water baptism and the Holy Ghost have to each other? The only logical explanation is Paul’s baptismal formula was based upon Matthew 28:19, not Acts 2:38! Simply put, had those Ephesian disciples been baptized with the correct formula, they would have heard of the Holy Ghost!
Historical Evidence For Baptism According to Matthew 28:19
Oneness adherents deceitfully tell people that the Catholic church changed the baptismal formula in the second century. They love to submit quotes from encyclopedias (especially Catholic encyclopedias) to prove this. Let’s look at a few of them.
“Baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the 2nd Century” (Britannica Encyclopedia, 11th Edition, Volume 3, pg. 365).
“The early church baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the second century” (Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, pg. 53).
“Christian baptism was administered using the words, ‘in the name of Jesus."
“Baptism was always in the name of Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr” (Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 2, pgs. 377, 389).
The main thing I’ve noticed is, these encyclopedias never offer any historical documentation to prove their assertions. Their claims are always a matter of supposition, there is never any solid proof. Just because the Catholic church takes credit for initially promoting baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost doesn’t make it true. I was baptizing people according to Matthew 28:19 long before I knew anything about the Catholic church’s claims. I received my baptismal instructions from Jesus Christ Himself (Mt 28:19), who–in case you have forgotten–pre-dates the Catholic and Oneness churches!
I find it terribly disingenuous for a Oneness adherent to say the Catholic Church is the “great whore” of the seventeenth and nineteenth chapters of Revelation, yet turn around and use their resources to argue against Trinitarian theology. If the Catholic Church is comprised of lying murderers, why do the Oneness people trust their resources so much? And why don’t they esteem these Catholic resources to be authoritative when it comes to the doctrines of Apostolic Succession, transubstantiation, and purgatory? The reason is very simple: outside of their own Oneness literature, the Catholic church is about the only place they can find material to support their agenda!
It is actually quite simple to expose the Oneness people’s claims as fraudulent distortions of the truth. You see, unlike the Oneness movement, Trinitarians can produce a massive amount of historical evidence to support their baptismal formula (Mt 28:19). The two earliest documents are the Didache (di-dah-kay), and Justin Martyr’s First Apology.
The Didache (di-dah-kay) is a book that chronicles the doctrines and teachings of the Apostles. According to many Bible scholars, it was written in approximately 70 A.D. It submits the following:
"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water…. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).
Though I don’t necessarily think sprinkling is the Biblical manner in which a person should be baptized, that’s not the point. The point is, we have historical documentation stating what baptismal formula was being used during the days of the Apostles! Do you realize that this was only forty years after the death of Christ and that the Apostle John was still alive? If the Didache does nothing else, it shatters the Oneness people’s lie that baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost was a second century invention!
The second oldest piece of historical documentation showing Matthew 28:19 to be the baptismal formula of the early church is Justin Martyr’s First Apology (chapter 61). It was written somewhere around 153 A.D. and perhaps as early as 120 A.D. The manner in which Justin wrote indicates the Trinitarian formula was the recognized formula of the Church at that time. This means Justin did not originate the use of Matthew 28:19, but had it handed down from those that taught him. It just so happens that Justin Martyr was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John. I think it would be safe to say that Justin Martyr did not change the baptismal formula that Polycarp and the Apostle John had taught him.
For further historical evidence supporting water baptism according to Matthew 28:19, you can study the works of Tatian the Syrian (The Diatesseron 55) 170 A.D.; Hippolytus (The Apostolic Tradition 21) 215 A.D.; Tertullian (Against Praxeas 26) 216 A.D.; Origen (Commentary on Romans 5:8) 248 A.D.; and many others!
“Name” - Singular or Plural?
Many Oneness people make a big deal out of Jesus saying, “baptizing them in the name (and not names) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” They say that because the word name is in the singular, it speaks of only one name. They declare that that one name is “Jesus”, the new name of God! They assert that Matthew 28:19 shows Jesus secretly revealing the oneness of God to us, that He is in actuality the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost all by Himself.
Since the word name is in the singular, they will ask, “What’s the name of the Father? What’s the name of the Son? What’s the name of the Holy Ghost?” They then follow that up by saying, “The name of the Father is ‘Jesus’! The name of the Son is ‘Jesus’! The name of the Holy Ghost is ‘Jesus’!” By this same means of eisegesis, they teach that Acts 2:38 is the fulfillment of Matthew 28:19.
Tell me, if Jesus’ name is the revelation of all three modes of God, why is it not used for all three modes of God afterwards in the book of Acts, or in the Epistles, or in the book of Revelation? Why does the Holy Ghost continue inspiring the writers to use the “titles” Father, Son, and Holy Ghost if Jesus is indeed all three Himself? If Jesus is the only person in the Godhead, this would be very deceptive on the part of the Spirit.
The measures Oneness people take to propagate this idea are incredible. Take into consideration the logic David Bernard uses to show that Jesus is actually the Father incarnate. He starts with John 5:43.
Joh 5:43a I am come in my Father's name...
Bernard teaches that Jesus’ statement “I am come in my Father's name” actually means He had come BEARING the Father’s name. In other words, since Jesus’ name is “Jesus”, and He come bearing the Father’s name, “Jesus” must be the name of the Father (The Oneness of God, pg. 126).
By using this same absurd means of interpretation, Bernard (and most Oneness adherents) also teach that the name of the Holy Ghost is “Jesus” (The Oneness of God, pg. 129)! They use the following verse as “proof”:
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Did you catch the phrase, “Holy Ghost ... whom the Father will send in my name”? From this verse they teach that since Jesus’ name is “Jesus”; and the Father sent the Holy Ghost in Jesus’ name; the Holy Ghost and Jesus are the same person, therefore the Holy Ghost’s name must be “Jesus” too! Incredible, isn’t it?
Thankfully, Bernard is consistently inconsistent! Just like every other area of doctrine, he contradicts himself here, too. In his book, The Trinitarian Controversy (pg. 160), he compares Jesus taking on the name of the Father to us taking on Jesus’ name. This presents him with a serious problem. If he believes Jesus is the Father because He took on the Father’s name, shouldn’t us taking on Jesus’ name make us Jesus? Furthermore, Jesus was literally called “Jesus”, so why are we not literally called “Jesus”?
Let’s take this a little further. In light of Mr. Bernard’s belief that coming in the name of someone makes you that person, I wonder if he’s willing to stick to his guns when presented with 1 Samuel 17:45?
1Sa 17:45 Then said David to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I COME TO THEE IN THE NAME OF THE LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied. (emphasis added)
Do you think Mr. Bernard and his Oneness fans interpret this verse to mean David was Jehovah incarnate? After all, he did say, “I come to thee in the name of the LORD”, didn’t he? Although I am sure that Bernard believes this verse only means that David came in the authority of Jehovah and not that David was Jehovah himself; it certainly proves Bernard is just like the rest of his followers ... he doesn’t mind making things up as he goes!
Let’s read Isaiah 9:6:
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his NAME shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (emphasis added)
Did you notice that the word name is singular, yet five different names are listed?
Let’s look at Galatians 5:22-23.
Ga 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Did you notice how the word fruit is in the singular, yet nine different fruits of the Spirit are listed? In other places Paul used the word fruits to emphasize plurality (2Co 9:10, Php 1:11, 2Ti 2:6), so why not here? This clearly indicates that (in some cases) the singular form of a word can be used to indicate more than one person or thing.
There is simply no reason to think that Jesus was cryptically referring to Himself in an elusive manner in Matthew 28:19. There’s not one reference in the New Testament of Jesus being the Father, yet He is called the SON over two-hundred times! Furthermore, throughout the New Testament, the Father is referred to as distinct from Jesus over two-hundred times and over fifty times Jesus and the Father are combined within the same verse. I would like to ask our Oneness friends why there is such an overwhelming emphasis on Jesus being the Son of God, and being distinct from the Father, if in fact the Bible also wants to enigmatically teach us that Jesus is Himself the Father? The fact that practically no one throughout church history has understood Jesus to be doing this proves that either the Oneness interpretation is wrong, or Jesus was a lousy communicator (and on a point which is supposedly a heaven or hell issue).
Before I move on, let’s entertain the idea that Jesus’ use of the word name in Matthew 28:19 does mean that only one name is intended. Could it be that one of the names of the triune God is “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”? After all, Webster’s Dictionary defines name as a word or PHRASE by which a person or thing is designated. Have you ever considered Exodus 3:15 where God said His name was the phrase “The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac”? Without wresting Webster’s definition in the slightest, “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” can easily be considered a name (singular) of the triune God.
As I shared with you in an earlier lesson, several Oneness preachers have challenged me, asserting that three persons cannot share one name. I have been directing them to Mark 5:9 where Legion said, “My name (in the singular) is Legion: for we are many.” The vast majority (if not all) of those devils had individual names. That means there could have been as many as six-thousand individually named devils in that one man, yet when unified within one body, they went by only ONE name!
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost Are Names, Not Exclusively Titles
Out of all my conversations with Oneness people, as well as all the Oneness literature I have read, only a couple of them have ever given a definition for name! Would you like to know why? It’s terribly incriminating to what they are propagating!
We have already talked about what the word name means in the Hebrew and Greek, so let us look at its definition in a few English Dictionaries. According to the Oxford University Press Dictionary, the word name means a word or words by which someone or something is known, addressed, or referred to. As I previously stated, Webster’s Dictionary defines name as a word or phrase by which a person or thing is designated. The American Heritage Dictionary defines name as a word or words by which any entity is designated. Did you notice that none of these popular dictionaries defined name as Billy, Tom, Willy, or Jack? They all three affirmed that a name is a word, words, or phrase someone is addressed as, referred to as, designated, or known by.
With that in mind, let’s look at Matthew 28:19-20 again:
Mt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
I weary of hearing Jesus Only believers say that “Father”, “Son”, and “Holy Ghost” are merely titles, not names. Please take note that Jesus did not say, “Baptize them in the name of [a] Father, [a] Son, and [a] Holy Ghost.” He said to baptize them “in the name of [THE] Father, and of [THE] Son, and of [THE] Holy Ghost.” Not just any father, THE Father! Not just any son, THE Son! Not just any ghost, THE Holy Ghost! In every sense, and by every definition of the word, “Father” is a proper name of God the Father; and “Son” is a proper name of God the Son; and “Holy Ghost” is a proper name of God the Holy Ghost.
Unbelievably, the vast majority of Oneness people have no trouble conceding that “The everlasting Father” in Isaiah 9:6 is another name for Jesus. Doesn’t their subsequent refusal to admit the same for “Father” in Matthew 28:19 smack of hypocrisy?
The facts of it are, nearly every one in Christendom readily recognizes who is being spoken of when we call the three persons of the Trinity “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”. I think the only place in the world these three designations are not names is in the minds of Jesus Only adherents!
When I ask my little toddlers what my name is, do you know what they say? They say, “Daddy”! You see, I’m not just any ol’ dad, I’m their dad! Do you remember how Webster’s dictionary defined name? It defined it as a phrase by which a person or thing is designated. Daddy is a word my children have designated to me and to me alone! They know there are other dads in our church, but none of them are “DADDY”!
In reference to this, a Oneness pastor wrote me saying something to the effect, “I would like to see you go down to the bank and sign your name as ‘Daddy’.” Well, I would like to see him go down to the bank and open up an account in his own personal name, but only after he told them he was the omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal, creator of all things! They would take him away in a straight jacket! You see, there are many fathers, but we’re talking about God THE Father, whom there is only one! Trust me, if God had a checking account, and signed His name as Father, no one except these Oneness adherents would object! When will these people ever learn that it’s folly to use earthly analogies to describe God?
To the bank I am an impersonal entity, so “dad” would be a title to them, but I am not an impersonal entity to my children. Could this be why “Father”, “Son”, and “Holy Ghost” are impersonal titles to these Jesus Only adherents? Is it because they don’t know the God of Heaven personally enough to address Him as we Trinitarians do? Perhaps!
I remember listening to a debate where the Oneness people laughed at a Trinitarian after he said God’s name was “God”. They actually thought it was funny! I wonder how funny they think Exodus 6:3 is?
Ex 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of GOD ALMIGHTY... (emphasis added)
Tell me, who’s laughing now?
All of this title business gets very interesting when you take into consideration the same argument about titles and names which the Oneness people aim at the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost can be used against the name (Lord Jesus Christ) which they use to baptize! All three of these designations can fall under the heading of title or office. The Greek word for “Lord” is kurios, which can be translated as “Sir” (Joh 4:11) or “master” (Col 4:1). The Greek word for “Christ” is Christos, to which a prefix is added in Mark 14:61, and is translated “the Christ”. Even David Bernard concedes “Christ” is a title (Oneness of God, pg. 86), and Oneness author Frank Ewart, in his booklet The Phenomenon of Pentecost (pg. 55), also admits that “Christ” and “Lord” are titles!
Even the wonderful name of “Jesus” could be considered a title! It is derived from the Hebrew word Jehoshua, which means “Jehovah the Savior”. Consider this next passage of Scripture:
Joh 19:19 And Pilate wrote a TITLE, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
20 This TITLE then read many of the Jews.... (emphasis added)
So, as you can see, this entire argument backfires in the Oneness people’s faces. If we Trinitarians wanted to play by the same rules as they do, we could assert that it is they that are baptizing in three titles, not us!
As I conclude this lesson, I think it has become very clear that all of this harping over Trinitarian baptism is nothing more than a Oneness smoke screen. It is in fact the Jesus Only adherents that lack Biblical and historical support for their baptismal formula. On the other hand, Biblical and historical evidence emphatically points toward Matthew 28:19 as the baptismal formula of the Church. Dear listeners, Peter DID NOT forget what Jesus had told him only fifty days prior to Acts 2:38!
So, as you can see, when the day is over, it is the Trinitarian that stands on the right side of the fence. The Oneness doctrine is the invention of devils and propagated by men. I would like to encourage any of you listeners that have come out of Trinitarian churches and are now dabbling in this Oneness mess, don’t walk out of those churches, you run out and never look back! You are going to be sucked into cesspool of filthy doctrine that you may never recover from.
Well, thanks again for listening. I hope this lesson was informative and a help to you. May the triune God of heaven bless you mightily!
Copyright 2009 by David Lamb
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
