Oneness Pentecostals Interpretation of 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." (Matthew 28:19) In this article we will look at Matthew 28:19 and examine the statements of Doctor Ron Rhodes on this same verse. Here is his article.

The Claim Ron Rhodes Modalism first surfaced in the third century in the writings of Sabellius and Paul of Samosata. This heretical view denies there are three distinct persons in God, claiming instead there is only one being who manifests Himself in three different modes. Modern Oneness Pentecostals garner support for their modalistic view by interpreting Matthew28:19 in conjunction with Acts2:38. In Matthew28:19 Jesus instructed the disciples: Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (emphasis added).1 In Acts2:38, however, Peter instructed his listeners: Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (emphasis added). Oneness Pentecostals2 conclude that Jesus Himself must be the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, because they claim that Jesus is the one name that refers to three titles of one God.3 They then assert that the apostles correctly fulfilled Christs command to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt.28:19) by baptizing converts in the name of Jesus only (Acts2:38;8:16;10:48); hence, a Trinitarian baptism is invalid. The phrase in the name of Jesus must be pronounced over the person being baptized. It is difficult to know where to begin in evaluating Oneness Pentecostal hermeneutics. It is certainly not like looking through a telescope at a single hermeneutic problem, but more like looking into a kaleidoscope, for there are many interrelated hermeneutic problems that, when combined, only serve to distort biblical Christianity (2Pet.3:16). In what follows, I demonstrate that Oneness Pentecostals are serial offenders where it concerns violating some of the fundamental rules of hermeneutics. Holding Illegitimate Preunderstandings. A theological preunderstanding is a doctrinal opinion one has previously formed. The danger for Bible interpreters is that their interpretations easily can be biased by their theological preunderstandings. Oneness

Pentecostals unfortunately approach the whole of Scripture with the preunderstanding of the Oneness doctrine, and it distorts their view of many Scripture verses, including Matthew28:19 and Acts2:38. The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy provides this helpful corrective: We affirm that any preunderstandings which the interpreter brings to Scripture should be in harmony with scriptural teaching and subject to correction by it. We deny that Scripture should be required to fit alien preunderstandings, inconsistent with itself.4 The point of this affirmation is to avoid interpreting Scripture through an alien grid or filter that obscures or negates its true message. To avoid misinterpreting Scripture, interpreters must be careful to examine their presuppositions in the light of Scripture. Only those preunderstandings that are compatible with Scripture are legitimate. Inappropriately Cross-Referencing Verses. It is inappropriate to draw theological conclusions from cross-referenced verses without giving due consideration to what other explicit and clear verses reveal on the matter. For example, Isaiah14:12 identifies Lucifer as the morning star. Revelation22:16 identifies Jesus as the morning star. Ignoring other relevant verses, one inappropriately could conclude that Jesus is the Devil. Oneness Pentecostals are guilty of inappropriate cross-referencing in their treatment of Matthew28:19 and Acts2:38. One must recognize that the theological inferences one draws from comparing cross references are legitimate only to the extent that they reflect the teachings of explicit and clear Scripture verses on the matter.5 This is precisely where Oneness Pentecostals go wrong. Not Interpreting Difficult Verses in Light of Clear Verses. It is common sense that one must interpret difficult verses in light of the clear verses of Scripture. Martin Luther expressed this principle with the words, Scriptura sui ipsius interpresLatin for Scripture is its own expositor. The Westminster Confession of Faith perhaps put it best: When there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scriptureit must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.6 Contrary to the Oneness preunderstanding of modalism, many clear Scripture verses indicate that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons. We know the Father is a person because He engages in I-Thou (direct, interpersonal, mutual, reciprocal, and loving)7 relations with the other persons in the Trinity (John3:35), and has the attributes of personality: intellect (Matt.6:8), emotions (Gen.6:6; Ps.86:15), and will (Matt.12:50). The Son likewise engages in I-Thou relations (John11:41-42), and possesses intellect (John2:2425), emotions (Matt.9:36; John11:35), and will (Luke22:42). The Holy Spirit also engages in I-Thou relations (Acts8:29), and possesses intellect (Rom.8:27; 1Cor.2:1011), emotions (Isa.63:10; Eph.4:30), and will (1Cor.12:11). Scripture, moreover, affirms that these persons are distinct from each other. We know Jesus is not the Father because the Father sent the Son (John3:1617). The Father and Son love each other (John3:35) and speak to each other (John11:4142). The Father knows the Son and the Son knows the Father (Matt.11:27). Jesus is our advocate with the Father (1John2:1). They are two distinct witnesses (John5:31,32,37). We also know Jesus is not the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit is another comforter (John14:16). Jesus

sent the Holy Spirit (John15:26). The Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus (Luke3:22) and seeks to glorify Jesus (John16:1314). What all this means is that however one reconciles Matthew28:19 with Acts2:38, it is not an option to say Jesus is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for clear verses in Scripture render such a view impossible. As the Reformers put it in their principle, analogia scriptura, if an interpretation of a particular verse contradicts a truth taught elsewhere in Scripture, the interpretation of that verse cannot be correct. Ignoring Context. In the broader context of the New Testament, Jesus considers the Father as someone other than Himself hundreds of times. In fact, the New Testament describes the Father and Son as distinct from each other within the very same verse dozens of times (e.g., Rom.15:6; 2Cor.1:4; Gal.1:2,3).8 This broad context alone sets the interpretive parameters beyond which one is not free to go, effectively prohibiting anyone from claiming that Jesus is the Father. In terms of immediate context, Matthews gospel is solidly Trinitarian. There is one God (Matt.4:10;16:16;22:32,37). The Father is God (6:6,9,1415;10:3233;11:25), Jesus is God (1:23;9:6;11:27;12:8;16:27;19:28;25:31;26:64), and the Holy Spirit is God (1:18,20;10:20;12:18,28,32). Within the unity of the one God are three persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (28:19). All three persons of the Trinity, moreover, were present (and distinct from each other) at Jesus baptism (3:1617). In view of this, it makes good sense that Jesus, before ascending into heaven, would instruct the disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for each played a pivotal role in human salvation. The context of Acts2 is different. Here, baptism in the name of Jesus makes good sense because the Jewsmen of Judea (v.14), men of Israel (v.22)to whom Peter was preaching had rejected Christ as the Messiah. It is logical that Peter would call on them to repent of their rejection of Jesus the Messiah (vv.2237) then invite them to identify with Him publicly via baptism (v.38). Using Faulty Exegesis. Proper exegesis of Matthew28:19 reveals two pivotal facts about the nature of God: (1)The singular form of name indicates that God is one, and that His nature is singular (one divine essence); and (2)Within the unity of this one God are three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, something given strong emphasis in the original Greek with the three recurring definite articles before Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.9 Word studies also reveal that the phrase in the name of often meant by the authority of in biblical times. Acts2:38 thus indicates that the Jews to whom Peter was speaking were to be baptized according to the authority of Jesus. The verse does not mean that the words in the name of Jesus must be pronounced liturgically over each person being baptized. If Acts2:38 were intended to be a precise baptismal formula, one must ask why this formula is never repeated in exactly the same way throughout the rest of Acts or the New Testament. In different verses, people are exhorted to be baptized on [Greek: epi] the name of (Acts2:38), into [Greek: eis] the name of (Acts8:16), or in [Greek: en] the name of Jesus Christ (Acts10:48). Such variations militate against an

unbending baptismal formula. It is entirely possible that being baptized in the authority of Jesus essentially amounts to being baptized by the baptism authorized by Jesusone in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt.28:19). A.T. Robertson comments: In Acts the full name of the Trinity does not occur in baptism as in Matthew28:19, but this does not show that it was not used. The name of Jesus Christ is the distinctive one in Christian baptism and really involves the Father and the Spirit.10 In keeping with this, some scholars have suggested that Acts2:38 may contain what is called a synecdoche of the parta figure of speech in which the part stands for the whole. Such figures of speech were common in biblical times. For example, the term face can refer to a whole person (1Kings10:24; Job11:19), field can represent a whole country (1Sam.27:7), and day can refer to an indefinite time period (Ps.18:18).11 It may be, then, that the apostles indeed did use the full formula [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit], but simply referred to the act of baptism by the shorter phrase in the name of Jesus Christ in common with the wider practice of that day of being baptized in the name of ones spiritual teacher, as Johns disciples were ([Acts] 19:3).12 Whether or not this is so, the hermeneutic principles summarized above decisively debunk the Oneness view that Jesus is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Scripture consistently testifies that Jesus is the second person of the blessed Trinity, the eternal Son of the eternal Father, and the blessed One who came to earth to reveal the Father to humankind (John1:1,14,18; cf.14:914). Ron Rhodes NOTES 1. Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible. 2. Oneness Pentecostalism, distinct from mainstream Pentecostalism, is similar to other cults in its denial of the Trinity. It is different from other cults, however, in its strong insistence on the absolute deity of Jesus Christ, holding that Jesus is the one true God who manifests himself in three modes. 3. Brent Graves, The God of Two Testaments (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 2000), 297. 4. Norman Geisler, Explaining Hermeneutics (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 1415. 5. Gregory Boyd, Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 85. Note that while Boyd offers sound arguments against Oneness Pentecostalism in this book, he elsewhere expresses belief in open theism, an unorthodox view. 6. Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:9. 7. Jewish existentialist Martin Buber (18781965), in his book I and Thou (1923), made

the phrase I-Thou famous, distinguishing this type of relationship from an I-It relationship. In this article, I use the term in a simple, nonformal sense to speak of direct, interpersonal, mutual, reciprocal, and loving relationships between persons. 8. Boyd, 68. 9. Daniel Wallace, The Basics of New Testament Syntax (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 94. 10. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Logos Software, emphasis added. 11. See original Hebrew. 12. Jerome Smith, The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, Logos Software, insert added. The Response: According to the Word of God

Using Faulty Exegesis: In this section Rhodes appeals to Matthew 28:19 and takes time to examine it. He says that this passages reveals two facts about the "nature of God". He believes that Matthew 28:19 teaches: 1. The singular form of "name" indicates that God is one and that His nature is singular (one divine essence). 2. Within the unity of this one God are three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, something given strong emphasis in the original Greek with the three recurring definite articles before Father, Son and Holy Spirit. How do Oneness Pentecostals Interpret Matthew 28:19? I am Oneness Pentecostal but I am only one so I can only speak for myself and what I have read and discussed with others who are also Oneness Pentecostal. We believe that

Matthew 28:19 is part of the foundation of Scripture and subsequently our beliefs. Oneness Pentecostals baptize believers while literally invoking the name of Jesus. Using the name of Jesus in the baptismal formula expresses faith in His identity, atoning work, and saving power and authority. The Scriptures record five account of baptism in the New Testament that describe a name or formula and in each case the name is Jesus (e.g. Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16). In Romans and 1 Corinthians the Apostle Paul also alludes to a Jesus name formula (e.g. Rom. 6:3-4; 1 Cor. 1:13; 6:11). We do not seek to add to what the faithful followers of Jesus did in their obedience to the command, and not suggestion, of Christ. Oneness Pentecostal scholars do not necessarily affirm that Matthew 28:19 was originally understood as a formula. The Matthean account differs from other accounts that concern baptism but at the same time it also shares the same Christological tenor or thread. This tenor is undeniably present in all the other accounts as well. Oneness Pentecostals seek to harmonize all of Scripture and not place one part of Scripture in opposition to another. Nor should we teach that Peter may have believed something different than Matthew about baptism. The basic formula that uses the name of Jesus is undeniable in the other baptism accounts. The Matthean reference can be interpreted by the Apostles, including Matthew himself, to be the invocation of the name of Jesus. The disciples, as noted above, as well as the early church, carried out Matthews words by baptizing in the singular name of Jesus. It was not until much later that a threefold formula developed. The historical distance between the events of Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38 are only a matter of one or two weeks. We must remember that Matthew was also with Peter on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. If Matthew's view differed from Peter then Matthew must have held his tongue on that day. Such is not the case however because Peter was also present when Jesus no doubt spoke the words of Matthew 28:19. If Matthew heard Peter and Peter heard Jesus then harmonizing the two passages is the result. We should not try to put the two at odds or seek to discredit the Scriptures themselves. It is the complete testimony of Scripture that bears witness to itself. It is my conclusion that the context of Matthew 28:19 demands a Christological formula and not a Trinitarian one. The latter abruptly inserts ideas about the Trinity that were not conceived or codified until much later. Above Rhodes, as many other Trinitarian apologists, suggests that the use of a singular name somehow comes to the aid of the Trinitarian interpretation. He concludes that because the name is singular that means that God is singular in being. Here Rhodes has already narrowly defined how he will interpet the passage. Let's break the chapter down in segments and examine the context closer. This will be the best way to begin understanding what the words of Matthew are to impress upon us. Matthew 28:1-10 No verse of Scripture should simply be understood within a vacuum and so we should seek to understand it more fully and not in isolation. The Gospel of Matthew is generally a Gospel narrative. Jewish scholar Aaron Gale notes this about the Gospel of Matthew, "The Gospel appears rather to be a Greek text written with strong knowledge of and attachment to Jewish Scripture, tradition, and belief."(1) The Jewishness of this Gospel

can hardly be denied and although Matthew is not merely following Jewish theology blindly we should keep this in mind as we understand how he has sought to communicate his Gospel. Matthew 28 includes narratives about the Resurrection of Christ as well as His appearance (28:1-10). The angels tell them not to be afraid for he knew that they sought after Jesus (28:5). Then the angels tells the women to "go quickly" and tell the disciples that Jesus had risen from the dead. Before they could reach the disciples "Jesus met them and said, "Greetings!" (28:9). Jesus then tells them, as did the angel, not to be afraid but to go tell "my brothers" (28:10). Matthew 28:11-15 This portion contains the report of the guards, who had been watching the tomb of Jesus, to the chief priests about what had taken place at the tomb. The elders were assembled, counsel taken and sufficient money given to the soldiers (28:11-12). The Jews then tell the guards to "Tell people" that the "disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep" (28:13). They also told the guards that if the governor were to find out of Christ's missing body they would "satisfy" him and keep them out of "trouble." (28:14). The guards took the money and did as they were told (28:15). Matthew 28:16-20 As we have seen to this point the chapter is highly Christolgoical. In this portion we can see a high Christology that perhaps equals that of the introduction of this Gospel. This is a key point in interpreting the text of Matthew here. The Resurrection of Jesus and accounts of the Post-Resurrection Jesus are front and center. Not a Trinitarian complex unity. In this portion the eleven disciples go to Galilee; to the mountain Jesus had directed them (28:16). Next, when the disciples saw Jesus they worshiped Him while some still doubted (28:17). Notice the singular focus of their worship is the person of Jesus Christ and not a Trinity or even a conceived perception of threeness. Jesus then says that "all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." (28:19) Here Jesus as one person says that all authority had been given to him or as Christ says in third person--"me". If any member of the Trinity was present, and by their supposed omnipresence we can conclude they would, they should surely be offended since Jesus explicitly leave no room for others (28:18). It also does not mean that Jesus is merely Lord over the Church. This is true but Jesus is Lord of the Universe--the I Am (John 1:1, 14, 18; 8:24, 58; 10:30, 33; 12:45; 14:9; 20:28). Oscar Cullman notes, "The realm of Christ's lordship is much larger than that of the Church. Literally no element of creation is excluded from it:"(2) Baptism signifies that one has entered the Christian community and is a sign of our submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Next Jesus tells them to "Go" and "make disciples...baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,". The words "Go" and "baptizing" (also "teaching" 28:20) are participles. These kind of participles are dependent upon the main verb "make disciples". "Go" certainly does not lose its tense completely since this is to be

done to all the nations of the world. Nor "baptizing" completely since this action too is to be done within the context of making disciples. This does not make any of the participles less important or any less of a command. Some Greek scholars of the New Testament suggest that "in such a construction it is not uncommon for the participles themselves to assume the force of an imperative. However, the command to make disciples is the primary command, while the commands to baptize and teach are ways of fulfilling the primary command."(3) It was because of His authority (28:18) that He sent the Apostles to make or cause disciples (28:19). Notice that Jesus is telling them something to do and not what to say. The disciple making of Jesus transcends that of merely a rabbi teaching someone or creating a following. These disciples were not to simply make disciples for themselves but for Jesus. The means by which disciples are made is by baptizing and teaching them the commands of Jesus. Both are very important for this sentence structure. They were to teach the commands of Jesus but nowhere has Jesus explained or even inferred a Trinity of three divine persons. Here Jesus does not even take time to include an explanation of the Trinity that would seem vital to many Trinitarians who believe that this doctrine is essential for salvation. If Jesus has no teaching on the Trinity then it is ironic that Trinitarians, claiming to be Christians, laud it today in such a fashion. It was not a teaching of Christ and could be wiped from theological literature and yet the Body of Christ would be no worse off. In the following verse the Christological tenor does not change. Jesus continues by saying to teach them to observe all that "I" have commanded "you". Here Christ uses the pronoun referring back to Himself in first person. He concludes, "I am with you always, to the end of the age." Notice it is Christ who has commanded them and will also be with them "always" (28:20). Jesus is present through the Church as Lord. Present through His disciples or followers but only God is omnipresent in Jewish thinking. Therefore this claim to be "with you always" is perhaps indirectly linked to His name being invoked over them in baptism. It certainly recalls Matthews introduction where Jesus is called Immanuel--God with us (1:23). Christological Not Trinitarian Context: This writer believes that Matthew 28:19 belongs in the canon of Scripture and does not believe it is spurious or even contains a variant. It enjoys perhaps one of the most widely attested readings of the New Testament. Early writings from Justin Martyr (A.D. 150), the Didache (AD 200-300) the Diatessoran (AD 175) and others contain the traditional reading. Trinitarians and Oneness thinkers have wrongly attacked this verse in the past. We should not seek to attack the Scriptures but seek to align our understanding with that of the Scriptures. For interpretive reasons we should realize the textual evidence for Matthew 28:19 is without question and it is to be harmonized with the rest of Scripture. The same name that is invoked over us in baptism is the name of the "I" who will be with us "always". To have His name invoked in baptism or a covenant initiation is also a proclamation of the complete and full Deity of Christ as God Himself. In Exodus 3:12 it is God who tells Moses "I will be with you." In Joshua 1:5 it was the very same God who was with Moses that said "Just as I was with Moses, so I will be with you. I will not leave

you or forsake you." (ESV) Such a context does not make sense if we are to take Matthew 28:19 to mean baptize in the name of three divine persons, namely the Trinity. Such a conclusion obviously does not fit the context. Here Jesus is not merely included in the Deity of God. The context demands a Christological tenor and interpretation. In fact, Oneness Pentecostals affirm that one name to be Jesus. There is no evidence of any speculation about divine essence or a relationship between three divine persons. Oneness Scholar David K. Bernard notes, "the setting, context, word meanings, grammar, and harmony of Scripture all point to the name of Jesus."(4) Can you imagine Jesus telling us to go baptize in the name of three divine persons and I will be with you always? Next we will look even closer at the use of the singular name, the threefold reference, the Great Commission and other aspects of this great Scripture. NOTES: 1) Levine, Amy-Jill; Brettler, Marc Z. (2011-10-15). The Jewish Annotated New Testament (p. 1). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition. 2) Cullman, Oscar (1963) The Christology of the New Testament (227) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Westminster Press 3) Barclay Moon Newman and Philip C. Stine, A Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew, UBS helps for translators; UBS handbook series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1992). 886. 4) Bernard, David K. (2005) Understanding God's Word. Word Aflame. Section Two In the earliest times of Christianity the controversy that arose was Christological in nature and not Trinitarian. The discussion of the Trinity arises from the Christological controversies of those earliest times. To come to a proper Biblical and truly Apostolic interpretation of Scripture we must clearly and decisively subjugate the philosophy and theology of these later discussions to interesting yet nominal chatter. Oscar Cullman rightly notes, "We can therefore say that early Christian theology is in reality almost exclusively Christology...If we are to avoid the danger of seeing the Christological problem of the New Testament in a false perspective from the very beginning, we must attempt first of all to disregard these later discussion...it was necessary for the Church at a certain period to deal with the precise problems resulting from the Hellenizing of the Christian faith..."(1) In this post we will continue exploring Matthew 28:19. I have explored this important verse in prior posts here and here. So far, we have examined the context of 28:19 and content of Matthew 28. It is obvious that a clear overriding Christological tenor pervades

in Matthew 28 and it takes center stage in verses 18-20. Let's continue in our unfolding of this Scripture. "in the name" The participles "make disciples" and "baptizing" are followed by a prepositional phrase which begins with "in the name..." This is similar to what we see in Acts 2:38 and other places (e.g. Acts 8:16) although in Matthew 28:19 a different Greek preposition is used to translate "in". Oneness scholar Talmadge L. French notes, "The use of varying prepositions, and the lack of of the precise wording accompanying the name "Jesus," can hardly be said to mitigate against the formula which the text appears to be intentionally establishing."(2) The use of different prepositions then, in no way, blunts the formula which includes the name of Jesus. For example, in Acts 19:5 we have "in the name of the Lord Jesus" and there the same preposition is used as is used in Matthew 28:19. Some Trinitarians will suggest "in the name" is an idiom for something like "in the authority of". Although in certain contexts this meaning could be inferred this however should not be appealed to to overturn what has been established by the Old Testament and used by the earliest followers of Jesus while invoking His name. French also points out that "in the name" is not to be understood in these accounts as primarily "idiomatic phraseology referring to authority or ownership, for idiomatic nuance is considered insufficient explanation for the repeated use of the form "in the name."(3) Some Jewish scholars have even suggested that "in the name" is "a Semitic expression, perhaps coming from Aramaic-speaking Jesus-followers."(4) The Gospels record several accounts of baptism but not once do we see a baptism done "in the authority of". Using this suggestion we would expect baptism's by those like John the Baptist to mean the same as "in the authority of" also. If so, baptism was the same and there should have been no need for re-baptism (See Acts 19:1 ff.). If "in the name" means "in the authority" or "in the authority of the Son" then the Apostles of Jesus did disobey Him because we have actual invocation of the name of Jesus not Yahweh (Acts 22:16). It seems incumbent then upon the Trinitarian, here, to indicate where anyone in the New Testament was baptized while invoking the name of Yahweh or Father, Son, Holy Spirit--not Jesus. If this cannot be provided any baptism done not invoking the name of Jesus is Biblically invalid and must rely upon later historical or liturgical formulations. This perhaps peculiar use of "in the name" by the post-Pentecost community is clear. Any person baptized essentially enters into the relation or reality of belonging to Christ and His Lordship. Not the Trinity. In John 3:18 whoever believes in Jesus is not condemned but those who do not believe are condemned and have not "believed in the name of the only Son of God." (ESV) In John 20:31 we are also told that by believing we have "life in his name." (ESV) Three times in Acts 4 we see a reference to the "name" of Jesus, 1) salvation in no one else...no other name...by which we must be saved, (4:12, ESV) 2) charged them not to speak or teach at all "in the name of Jesus" (4:18, ESV) 3) healing, signs and wonders were done "through the name of your holy servant Jesus" (4:30, ESV) The high regard for the name of Jesus has no equal and if "Father" or "Holy Ghost" were

names of two other divine persons this is not even considered by the Bible writers. "name": Richard Bauckham: "The formula, as in the phrase `calling on the name of the Lord' which New Testament usage takes up from the Old with reference to baptism and profession of Christian faith, requires precisely a divine name. `The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit' names the newly disclosed identity of God, revealed in the story of Jesus the Gospel has told...The Old Testament phrase means to invoke God by his name YHWH," but the early Christian use of it applies it to Jesus. It means invoking Jesus as the divine Lord who exercises the divine sovereignty and bears the divine name."(5) Spiros Zodhiates: "These believers are to be baptized "in the [one] name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," that is, the Triune God. The single name embraces Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in one distinct Deity; otherwise, Matthew would have said "names."(6) Oneness Pentecostals would agree with Bauckham and Zodhiates here that a "divine name" instead of "divine names" should be understood and that the phrase means to invoke God "by his name". It is clear to some Greek New Testament scholars that the use of the word "name" in its singular form is significant. No constructions to unwrap this should include name distinction, or imply different names. If the singular use of "name" here means very little then it could also support name distinction which would seem to violate the very thing Matthew seems to intentionally be establishing--a Christological formulation. As noted earlier the followers of Jesus actively called and referred to the name of Jesus. In Acts 2:21 "everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (ESV) Here Luke has in mind an actual invocation of a name. As Bauckham recognizes above, the Old Testament paradigm was adopted by New Testament believers. That which they adopted involved an invocation of a name. Psalm 80:18, Then we shall not turn back from you; give us life, and we will call upon your name! ESV Isaiah 12:4, And you will say in that day: Give thanks to the LORD, call upon his name, make known his deeds among the peoples, proclaim that his name is exalted. ESV Joel 2:32, And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls. ESV Zephaniah 3:9, For at that time I will change the speech of the peoples to a pure speech, that all of them may call upon the name of the LORD and serve him with one accord. ESV

Zechariah 13:9 They will call upon my name, and I will answer them. I will say, They are my people; and they will say, The Lord is my God. ESV Old Testament texts such as Isaiah 52:6 record that "my people shall know my name". In this text the people of Israel had allowed the name of God to be despised (Isa. 52:5) and those taken in Babylonian captivity "are taken away for nothing." Yet, we find also in Zechariah 14:9 "the LORD will be one and his name one." ESV Both of these texts use the singular form of "name" as well. Many mistakenly think a name is not that significant today but for the ancient culture from which the earliest followers of Jesus emerged a name represented who that individual was and their character and function. Throughout the Scriptures "in the name of the Lord" can indicate an idiom. However, as we have seen there are other times when this phrase indicates that either the name of Yahweh or Jesus was invoked or called over individuals in covenant initiation or covenant renewal. For example, in Numbers 6 the Aaronic priesthood was to literally "pronounce" the name of Yahweh (Numbers 6:27, TEV) It was during the intertestamental period that pronouncing the name of Yahweh fell out of use. As Joel 2, above indicates, there was a future time when men and women shall call on the name of the Lord. For the believer today it is the name of Jesus. Joel's invitation to call on the name of the Lord is applied by the Apostle Peter and fulfilled in Acts 2:38 when those present called on the name of Jesus over those entering into covenant with Christ. In Numbers 6 when the priests would "pronounce" the name of Yahweh His Spirit was also present. If it is Yahweh which is to be pronounced then this hardly distinguishes Christianity from Judaism (Old Testament) at this pivotal point. Besides, it is certainly not consistent with Apostolic praxis found in the New Testament. Oneness Pentecostals stress that "The name "Jesus" means "Yahweh-Savior"(7) and "the Old Testament name Jehovah has been incorporated into and superseded by the New Testament name Jesus."(8) Besides being a baptismal name the name of Jesus is the only saving name upon which New Testament believers call on for salvation (See Acts 2:21, 38; 4:12; 22:16; Romans 10:13); it is the highest name (Phil. 2:9); God's powerful name (Acts 5:10). If Father, Son and Holy Spirit are different in person then we should see "names". The word "name" is a singular noun but in the Jewish way of thinking a "name" is synonymous with "person". It includes the reality of that person, thing, or quality. Often the word "name" or "names" is placed for the person or persons bearing that name (Luke 6:22; Acts 1:15; Rev. 3:4; 11:13). Notice these seemingly conflicting comments by Trinitarian scholar Millard Erickson referring to Matthew 28:19, "Note that "name" is singular, although there are three persons included...Yet another direct linking of the three names is the Pauline benediction in 2 Corinthians 13:14..."(9) Erickson recognizes that the Scriptures teach one name in Matthew 28:19 but a few sentences later he continues referring to Father, Son and Holy Spirit as "three names" on the same page. Jesus is called Lord, given the name Jesus, and title Christ. None of these

three references however muddy the notion that Jesus is the One Immanuel. Notice the conclusions of Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica in reply to objections about baptism: Now Christ commanded the sacrament of Baptism to be given with the invocation of the Trinity. And consequently whatever is lacking to the full invocation of the Trinity, destroys the integrity of Baptism...Nor does it matter that in the name of one Person another is implied, as the name of the Son is implied in that of the Father, or that he who mentions the name of only one Person may believe aright in the Three; because just as a sacrament requires sensible matter, so does it require a sensible form.(10) Although there are three personal names of the three Persons, there is but one essential name. Now the Divine power which works in Baptism, pertains to the Essence; and therefore we say, "in the name," and not, "in the names."(11) Here Aquinas believes that Christ commanded us to invoke the Trinity, i.e. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. If not the integrity of baptism is destroyed. Yet a few sentences later he concludes that the name of one Person or another does not matter. He concludes the name of the Son is implied in that of the Father. One can mention the name of one and still believe correctly about the Trinity. Aquinas also believed baptism was only a sacrament but that it should be sensible matter requiring a sensible form. A Sensible Form Includes Jesus: As we have seen to this point the sensible form of baptism in Apostolic praxis and given in Matthew 28 is a Christological form. An invocation of the name of Jesus is a sensible form given the data and not titles or the name of Yahweh. Above Aquinas maintains that we must obey that given to us by Christ but no one name really matters. This inconsistency exposes the weakness of the Trinitarian argument because the earliest believers held the name of Jesus as the only saving name (Acts 4:12). The name of Jesus was and would be the first and most important name uttered by their tongues. In English the words Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not proper names but titles. This is not to suggest these titles are insignificant to what Matthew is telling us by any means and we want to be careful as we distinguish name from title. This could lead to improper interpretation. For example, the title and name "President Lincoln". Here the title gives added emphasis and richness to who Abraham Lincoln truly was. Even the name Lincoln has its own significance. At times titles can even be used in place of proper names (e.g. "Goodbye, Professor") but they are, after all, not proper names. In fact, we must be careful in distinguishing titles because by using these titles coupled with the one name Matthew gives a richer identity, character, description and function to the one named--Jesus. Since Matthew indicates the name is singular however we still must ask which name is the proper name? The disciples of Jesus would have understood him to mean that they were to baptize into the name of the one person, who is God, and is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The context clearly demands a Christological interpretation that points to the name of Jesus--not Yahweh. After all, the person whose power and

authority we are told to reference is named Jesus. Some Trinitarians may affirm here that the one name is Yahweh and recite the titles Father, Son and Holy Spirit in baptism. To them this is to invoke Yahweh. One name is actually three names in such a paradigm. Yet, they will never be able to produce one baptism done invoking the name of Yahweh or even in the titles Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Today even the pronouncement of the name of Yahweh can be debated. While maintaining a Christological interpretation Oneness Pentecostals conclude the name to be pronounced in baptism is Jesus. This is an important and fundamental distinction. The earliest community of believers were exclusively devoted to Christ and invoked His name in water baptism. To be baptized, while calling on that worthy name, was to identify the believer with Christ and His resurrection. With a cry of reformation Oneness Pentecostals urge this same practice today. In the following post we will look closer at the threefold reference (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) found in Matthew 28:19. NOTES: 1) Cullman, Oscar (1963) The Christology of the New Testament (227) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Westminster Press 2) French, Talmadge L. (1999) Our God Is One. Voice & Vision Publications (218) 3) ibid. pg. 216-217 4) Levine, Amy-Jill; Brettler, Marc Z. (2011-10-15). The Jewish Annotated New Testament . Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition. 1 Cor. 1:13 5) Bauckham, Richard J. God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Kindle Location 830). Kindle Edition. 6) Zodhiates, Spiros. (2006) Exegetical Commentary on Matthew (28:19) by AMG Publishers. All rights reserved. Used by permission. 7) Segraves, Daniel. L. (2008) Reading Between the Lines: Discovering Christ in the Old Testament St. Louis, MO: WAP Academic (Kindle Edition, Location 1889) 8) Bernard, David K. (1992) In the Name of Jesus. St. Louis, MO: Word Aflame Press (61) 9) Erickson, Millard (1985) Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Company (329) 10) The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas Second and Revised Edition, 1920 Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province Online Edition 2008 by Kevin Knight (Article 6) 11) The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas Second and Revised Edition, 1920

Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province Online Edition 2008 by Kevin Knight (Article 5, reply to Obj. Section Three Threefold Reference: James D.G. Dunn: "...in Matthew 28:19, the title Son is used with the Father and the Holy Spirit in a triadic formulation which foreshadows, in at least some degree, the later trinitiarian understanding of God; though here too it should be noted that the idea of preexistence is absent (we are still far from talk of the eternal being of God in its threefold inner relationships), and the authority Jesus claims and expresses in his commission is that of the risen one."(1) Matthew 28:19, Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (ESV) Above Trinitarian scholar James D.G. Dunn believes this text "foreshadows" a Trinity but here even he does not see Matthew 28:19 as referring to the divine nature of God existing as three persons. Using later creedal language one might see a Trinity in these verses. However, those present in the times of Jesus knew of no such thing nor did they impress upon us that God had even revealed such a thing to them. It is obvious from the setting that Jesus spoke to His disciples who were Jews strictly upholding monotheism and had no prior knowledge of a Trinity. To embrace such concepts would require clear and explicit teaching. Instead, in the first chapter of Matthew we learn that Jesus is Immanuel--God with us. In the 28th and last chapter we learn that Jesus will be with us for all time. In the third chapter Matthew quotes from the prophet Isaiah saying "prepare the way of the Lord" (3:3). In the Hebrew Old Testament Isaiah had said, "prepare the way of the LORD" or the way of Yahweh. (Isa. 40:3 ESV) Jesus has also taught them, around the same time, that to see Him was to see the Father and that the Holy Spirit would come in another form (See John 14). There are no distinctions between the Father and Jesus except those produced by His humanity. The context reveals the authority of Christ in the glory of His resurrection. It tells us of His commandments and His continual presence. Not the glory or presence or commands of three divine persons who each comprise a Triune being. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament notes, "We thus find triadic formulas embracing God, Christ, and Spirit in 1 Cor. 12:4ff.; 2 Cor. 13:13; Mt. 28:19. These formulas express the indissoluble threefold relationship but do not actually speak of triunity. The clear-cut statement of 1 Jn. 5 is brought into the text only in the sixth century."(2) Here we see that triadic formulas do not necessarily speak of a unity between three divine persons. The author of the TDNT also suggests 1 John 5:7 is a clear cut statement of the Trinity but further admits that text is an interpolation inserted in the "sixth century".(2) As Dunn noted earlier the Trinitarian understanding is "later" and of course any doctrine can be made to order "later". In Matthew 28:19 we have three titles that are used for representations of God's

revelation, which all point to the one name of Jesus. The three subjects are called by the singular name of Jesus Christ. Well before the times of Christ's earthly, humble state kings and Pharaohs were given throne names. The prophet Isaiah foretold (Isaiah 9;6) early on that the child born and Son given was given throne names (wonderful, counselor (or wonderful counselor), mighty God, everlasting Father). The fulfillment of the command in Matthew 28:19 is to baptize into the one name by which we associate the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. All three subjects Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separated by "and" and are preceded by a definite article "the". This is no great wonder however since Matthew has in mind the Son of God and not just any Son of God. Granville Sharp's sixth rule/exception Matthew 28:19 does have a threefold reference to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Although Sharp never cites or includes Matthew 28:19 in his study some Trinitarians have appealed to Granville Sharps sixth rule here, which says, in part, that when two or more nouns are listed and separated by and and each noun has the definite article the in front of it, then each noun refers to a different person, place, thing, or quality than the first noun. There are exceptions however and such is the case when distinct or different actions are intended to be given to the same person. It is the context that must point this out though and not simply three nouns preceded by definite articles. When applied to Matt. 28:19 this rule simply identities the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct in some way. If the distinction is pressed to hard, as Trinitarians want to suggest, then they must show how these are not three separate beings when orthodox Trinitarians typically affirm one being consisting of three persons. Oneness believers have never ceased to acknowledge the distinctions made here. Oneness Pentecostals see that they are distinct manifestations or roles in our salvation, but all are fulfilled in, and revealed through Jesus. His is the one name mentioned. To say a grammatical rule forces three different nouns to be regarded as separate divine persons that are co-equal, co-eternal, and co-substantial is merely theological interpretation. No rule of grammar does such a thing. In a Jewish way of thinking it is easy to use such a form stylistically. For example, the following verses uses such a threefold formula: 1 Tim. 5:21 speaks of God, Christ and elect angels (See also Luke 9:26). In 1 Thess. 3:13 Paul has God and Father, our Lord Jesus and all his saints. In Rev. 3:12 Johns uses this Hebraism for emphasis when he has the name of my God, the name of the city of my God and the new Jerusalem. Father, Son (John 1:1, 8:58; 20:28; Phil. 2:5-11) and Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-9) are God/Yahweh of Israel and are identified as such. The God of Israel is not vague or hidden but has a personal name as one unified personal spirit being. Yet, these distinctions do not necessitate that the inexhaustible and unlimited personality of the God of Israel be divided or separated. Such threefold repetitions are for emphasis and glorify the majesty of our God. They are not to distinguish multiple divine persons. In 1 Thess. 5:23 Paul records, "Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (ESV) In the Greek text the nouns "spirit", "soul" and "body" have the article before them are separated by "and" and refer to one person. The

English translations leave out the articles. Yet, in spite of this verse some theologians still do not believe the soul and the spirit are distinct but the same. Does anything in the context of Matthew 28:19 indicate an exception to Sharp's rule? Is there anything that indicates one person is in view rather than three persons? As we have already seen above we can safely answer, "Yes!" It's clear that the word "name" is a singular noun. Even Trinitarian scholar R. Kendall Soulen has argued that Matthew 28:19 does refer to one name but further adds "The name of the Holy Trinity is one name in three inflexions."(3) This name refers to the One Who has been Resurrected and appeared before many. It is the name of the One whose empty tomb was covered up with money by the Jews as a night raid by the disciples. It is the name of the missing body in the empty tomb that the governor was never to know about. It is the name of the One who was worshiped while others doubted. It is the name of the One who has all power and for whom we are to make disciples. It is the name of the One who will be with us always. It is the name of the One who Matthew calls Immanuel "God with us" (Matt. 1:23). The Great Commission: Consider these other parallel Great Commission texts. In Mark 16 below we see something very similar to Matthew 28. Mark begins with the same participle. Mark 16:15-16, 15 And he said to them, Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (ESV) Luke 24:44-49, 44 Then he said to them, These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled. 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and said to them, Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high. (ESV) In Acts 3:6, 16 Peter orally invokes the name of Jesus and commands the cripple to "rise up and walk". He further clarifies in verse 16 that it was Jesus' name, through faith in His name, that brought healing to the cripple. In Acts 4:10, 12 the name of Jesus is connected to healing and salvation. Greek New Testament scholar D.A. Wallace notes, ""In many ways, the books of Acts is a detailed account of how these apostles accomplished the command of Matt. 28:19-20". (4) Trinitarians mistakenly baptize converts by actually quoting the titles Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. As noted earlier, the disciples are not being told something to say but rather

something to do (Go, make disciples, teach). If quoting the words of Jesus was the intention of this Gospel writer or Christ Himself then we should expect to find it referenced in another parallel account or in passages relating to baptism. No such thing exists for good reason. In fact, as Wallace suggests the book of Acts records how the disciples carried out the commands of Mattew 28:19 and that was done by invoking the name of Jesus.

NOTES: 1) Dunn, James D.G. (1989) Christology in the Making SCM Press (49) 2) Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1995). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (329). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans. 3) Soulen, Kendall R. "Who Shall I Say Sent Me? The Name of God in Trinitarian Perspective" Wesley Theological Seminary, Washington, D. C. 4) Wallace, D.A. (1996) Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan (645)