Quennel Gale at QMAX21@blackplanet.com
Quennel Gale
After elaborating on the misunderstanding of how anti-Trinitarians confuse the two concepts of “person” and “being”, now we will proceed to document evidence of the Trinity in both the Old and New Testament. Since many Unitarians have asked “where are all 3 members of the Trinity shown in the Bible at the same time?” we will focus on these specific verses while supplementing other examples to coincide with a particular point in discussion.
The clearest passage in the Old Testament, which reveals the nature of the Trinity in one passage, can be found in Isaiah 48. In the passage of Isaiah 48, the full nature of God is explicitly revealed in great detail to the reader for the very first time. This passage is little known to the majority of Christendom and the Unitarian population. Many have read this passage but the idea of proving the Trinity seems to be the furthest thing from the mind of the reader. When fully explained this passage thoroughly disproves the Unitarian notion of God and it leaves the them with no sound proof against the Trinity.
Even if the Unitarian believer rejects this verse it serves to show that once again their presuppositions can’t be substantiated from the same bible, which they claim to prove their point. Contrary to Unitarian thought, careful examination of the entire passage reveals the nature of a triune divine being:
As more Christians become knowledgeable about this passage and how it can be used against those who allege that God can’t be a Trinity, it should also be noted that skeptics do arise to try and challenge the interpretation of this passage. While the JW don’t have a problem believing that Jesus is a separate “god” from the Father (even though God is only ONE person according to them), the Oneness Pentecostals believe that any reference to the Trinity refers to God in three modes making the entire divine three “Jesus”. The Muslim Unitarian believer usually appeals to the Jews claiming, “The Jews didn’t believe in a multipersonal God”.
So while all three groups of Unitarians vary on beliefs they all agree that God is one person. One common argument they like to use is that “The Jews didn’t believe that God is more than ONE meaning more than ONE person”. Even though Isaiah 48 clearly refutes such a notion; before we discuss this passage in detail we must historically examine the type of Judaism practiced by Jesus and his followers. There have been many types of Judaism and it should be noted that today's Judaism isn't the same as Jesus Judaism for history shows just the opposite of what Unitarians believe. Jacob Neusner, famed scholar of rabbinic studies, shows the belief of Jesus' Judaism:
For Unitarians to allege that the Jews never thought of the Messiah as being "God" is false and totally contradicted by Jewish history itself. Notice how Neusner’s book shows that this was the thinking of the Messiah right at the before Christianity came into existence. Qumran scholar John Collins furnishes us more information from archeological digs from the pre-Christian scrolls:
History and archeology thoroughly proves that the Jews did think of the Messiah as being of the same thought as Christians did, especially around the time of Jesus. This extended quote from Ellis, who gives more detail on this 'continuity' between ancient Judaism and Christianity:
"Already in the Old Testament and in pre-Christian Judaism the one God was understood to have 'plural' manifestations. In ancient Israel he was (in some sense) identified with and (in some sense) distinct from his Spirit or his Angel. Apparently, Yahweh was believed to have 'an indefinable extension of the personality,' by which he was present 'in person' in his agents. Even the king as the Lord's anointed (= 'messiah') represented 'a potent extension of the divine personality.'
"In later strata of the Old Testament and in intertestamental Judaism certain attributes of God - such as his Word or his Wisdom- were viewed and used in a similar manner. In some instances the usage is only a poetic personification, a description of God's action under the name of the particular divine attribute that he employs. In others, however, it appears to represent a divine hypostasis, the essence of God's own being that is at the same time distinguishable from God.
"From this background, together with a messianic hope that included the expectation that Yahweh himself would come to deliver Israel, the followers of Jesus would have been prepared, wholly within a Jewish monotheistic and 'salvation history' perspective, to see in the Messiah a manifestation of God. In the event, they were brought to this conclusion by their experience of Jesus' works and teachings, particularly as it came to a culmination in his resurrection appearances and commands. Although during his earthly ministry they had, according to the Gospel accounts, occasionally been made aware of a strange otherness about Jesus, only after his resurrection do they identify him as God. Paul, the first literary witness to do this, probably expresses a conviction initially formed at his Damascus Christophany. John the Evangelist, who wrote later but who saw the risen Lord (and was a bearer of early traditions about that event), also describes the confession of Jesus as God as a reaction to the resurrection appearances. Yet, such direct assertions of Jesus' deity are exceptional in the New Testament and could hardly have been sustained among Jewish believers apart from a perspective on the Old Testament that affirmed and/or confirmed a manifestation of Yahweh in and as Messiah.
"The New Testament writers usually set forth Messiah's unity with God by identifying him with God's Son or Spirit or image or wisdom or by applying to him biblical passages that in their original context referred to Yahweh. They often do this within an implicit or explicit commentary (midrash) on Scripture and thereby reveal their conviction that the 'supernatural' dimension of Jesus' person is not merely that of an angelic messenger but is the being of God himself.
"The use of Scripture in first and second century Judaism, then, marked a watershed in the biblical doctrine of God. At that time it channeled the imprecise monotheism of the Old Testament and early Judaism in two irreversible directions. On the one hand Jewish-Christian apostles and prophets, via 'corporate personality' conceptions and Christological exposition, set a course that led to the trinitarian monotheism of late Christianity. On the other hand the rabbinic writers, with their exegetical emphasis on God's unity, BROUGHT INTO FINAL DEFINITION THE UNITARIAN MONOTHEISM OF TALMUDIC JUDAISM." (The Old Testament in Early Christianity: Canon and Interpretation in the Light of Modern Research, E. Earle Ellis, Baker: 1991 pp. 112-116)
Hence, Jesus Judaism is different from recent Judaism, which makes God Unitarian in nature. History clearly shows that Jesus and 1st century Jews believed in a “corporate” view of God, which clearly shows how the idea of “God is only ‘ONE’ in person and multipersonal like a Trinity” is false. The type of Unitarian belief present today in Judaism didn’t exist until the 6th century when Mishnic and Talmudic Judaism became prevalent. Therefore if a Unitarian (Muslim, Jehovah Witness, Oneness Pentecostal) alleges that Christianity departed from the original Jewish belief of God they are clearly basing this on a chronological fallacy that confuses “Talmudic and Mishnic Judaism” with 1st century Judaism.
Since we needed to address the potential appeal to the Jews by Unitarian believers now we will proceed with Isaiah 48 in great detail. As mentioned earlier this scripture clearly points to the Trinity and skeptics who have seen it have immediately tried to offer counter explanations against this verse.
In this passage God is the speaker, which is clearly shown from the preceeding verses, vs. 10, 11. Hence, the one speaking can be no one other than YHWH God and not the prophet Isaiah:
No one should have the slightest difficulty in identifying the speaker as God. The context of the passage and the grammar of the text are both very clear. Verse 11 mentions how the speaker will not give his glory to another along with his name being profaned. In verse 12 YHWH God says:
It should be noted that the Hebrew idiom for "I am the first and I am the last" is the same phrased used for God Almighty in Isaiah 44:6. This same phrase is also found in Isaiah 48:12 and it is always applied to the him in the Hebrew Tanakh or the Old Testament:
This Almighty being, whom we refer to as God, is further identified as "the Yahweh of armies" in Isaiah 44:6. It should be noted that in the Old Testament, YHWH which can be pronounced “Yahweh or Yehovah” etc, is the personal divine name of God himself. You can view any orthodox Hebrew theological encyclopedia to verify the above dealing with the personal name of God. In our modern English translations of the Bible, YHWH is mispronounced as Jehovah. God continues proving that he is she speaker by saying in verse 13 that:
The next few verses deal with God saying how he will raise up Cyrus to defeat the Babylonians in a successful military campaign against them. God Almighty continues talking and mentions that people must listen to what he is saying:
Verse 15, sometimes misinterpreted as being the speech of the prophet Isaiah, shows God's omnipotent power and presence along with his foreknowledge of this event before it occurred. Isaiah wasn’t present when Cyrus came into power, he died 200 years before. Hence, if Isaiah is speaking here then we would be forced to conclude that he lived 200 years after his death!!! This verse puts the speaker as “being there” when Cyrus defeated Babylon. The only logical conclusion is that this is the voice of God SINCE HE, NOT ISAIAH WAS THERE WHEN CYRUS CAME ON THE SCENE. God continues talking and he finishes by saying:
Notice in verse 16 how God is already speaking and he claims that YHWH God sent him WITH HIS SPIRIT, even though the speaker, who is God Almighty also, is different from the one sending him, which he describes in the third person! If you want to know what the term third person refers to here it is:
1 a : a set of linguistic forms (as verb forms, pronouns, and
inflectional affixes) referring to ONE THAT IS NEITHER THE SPEAKER OR
WRITER of the utterance in which they occur nor the one to whom that
utterance is addressed b : a linguistic form belonging to such a set
2
: reference of a linguistic form to one that is neither the speaker or
writer of the utterance in which it occurs nor the one to whom that
utterance is addressed (Merrian Webster Online Dictionary)
This means that the speaker, who is God also, is referring to a different person also known as God!! Since the bible clearly shows that there is only ONE True God this means that in this ONE God (being) we have more than one individual. The word “ONE” doesn’t mean just a single numerical thing only. It can be plural as well as singular in nature. One good example proving this case is here:
Notice here how God informs Ezekiel that these two sticks (numerically more than 1 thing) are ONE in his hand. Hence we have ONE being (which is the wood) in two sticks (which are individuals of that ONE "being"). Now lets illustrate Isaiah 48 beginning with verse 11 with added emphasis:
We continue from verse 17-18
Notice how the divine God sent by God (another person but yet one God) calls himself YHWH God and the Holy One of Israel. Basically we have God sending God to teach the Jews the way of righteousness. The Jameison-Faussett-Brown Commentary comments on this passage by saying:
16. not . . . in secret--(Isaiah 45:19 ). Jehovah foretold Cyrus'
advent, not with the studied ambiguity of heathen oracles, but plainly.
from the time, &c.--From the moment that the purpose began to be
accomplished in the raising up of Cyrus I was present.
sent me--The
prophet here speaks, claiming attention to his announcement as to Cyrus, on the
ground of his mission from God and His Spirit. But he speaks not in his own
person so much as in that of Messiah, to whom alone in the fullest sense the
words apply (Isaiah 61:1 , John 10:36 ). Plainly, Isaiah 49:1 , which is the
continuation of the forty-eighth chapter, from Isaiah 48:16 , where the change
of speaker from God (Isaiah 48:1,12-15 ) begins, IS THE LANGUAGE OF MESSIAH.
Luke 4:1,14,18 , shows that the Spirit combined with the Father in sending the
Son: therefore "His Spirit" is nominative to "sent," not
accusative, following it.
17. teacheth . . . to profit--by affliction, such as the Babylonish captivity, and the present long-continued dispersion of Israel (Hebrews 12:10 ).
18. peace--(Psalms 119:165 ). Compare the desire expressed by the same Messiah (Matthew 23:37 , Luke 19:42 ). (The Jameison-Faussett-Brown Commentary; Isaiah 48:15-18)
Based on a careful exegesis of the entire Bible, one would immediately find out that the ONE being sent was THE MESSIAH, Jesus Christ Himself. All of the scriptural references were spoken of and by the Messiah making him one of the three members of the Holy Trinity. Therefore you have God speaking and claiming that God SENT HIM WITH HIS SPIRIT. Hence you have all three members of the Godhead in one passage. Further scriptural cross references shows that the YHWH God being sent FROM YHWH God was none other than the Messiah, Jesus along with the holy spirit. World Renown Bible scholar C.I Scofield mentions this in his notes:
Now we will proceed to document Unitarian arguments against Isaiah 48. We quote Jews for Judaism, a favorite of Muslims who attempt to disprove the Trinity in the Bible.
Some Unitarian apologists such as Jews for Judaism, an anti-Christian Jewish website, have claimed that Christians believed that Trinity is found in this verse, Isaiah 48:16, because the final phrase was mistranslated. These anti-Trinitarians said that the literal translation holds no evidence of the trinity. They also mentioned that this passage was referring to Cyrus, which led to their conclusion of this being a missionary mistranslation.
Answer: Christian commentators who are looking for trinitarian allusions in the Jewish Scriptures translate part of Isaiah 48:16 as, “The Lord God and His Spirit have sent me.” However, a proper rendering of the verse reads: And now the Lord God has sent me, and His spirit.” The last two Hebrew words in this verse are shelachani ve-rucho (“He has sent me, and His spirit”), with “me, and His spirit” being the direct objects of “sent.” Even though a definite direct object is usually preceded by the participle ’et, this grammatical rule is frequently not observed in the Bible, e.g., Exodus 15:9; Judges 5:12; Psalms 9:5, 20:3-4, 45:4. In fact, ’et rarely occurs in the poetic parts of the Bible. Thus, the meaning of the verse is that God has sent Isaiah accompanied by His prophetic spirit. There is no mention of the third member of the Trinity doctrine. Instead, Isaiah affirms that God, who has placed within him the power of prophecy, sent him.
Jews for Judaism’s entire argument rest upon the mistranslation of Isaiah 48:16. They believe that due to this mistranslation, the Trinity can be found in the Bible. The incorrect way of rendering Isaiah can be seen in the NKJV and the KJV bibles respectively:
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. Isaiah 48:16--KJV
Whichever translation you prefer, it won't affect the idea of the Trinity since the correct rendering actually increases the proof of the Trinity as seen in the translations below:
" Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, From the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit.'' NASB
Draw near to me, hear this: from the beginning I have not spoken in secret, from the time it came to be I have been there." And now the Lord GOD has sent me and his Spirit RSV.
The problem of the text deals with translation of the Hebrew phrase “shelachani veruacho”, according to Jews for Judaism. Jews for Judaism offers a very good surface argument however it’s very intriguing why they didn't bother to elaborate further on this issue since the rendering of the verse in English has no bearing on the Hebrew original. Therefore this argument is really what we call a “red herring’ fallacy.
The last two Hebrew words in this verse are shelachani ve-rucho “He has sent me, and His spirit”, with “me, and His spirit” being the direct objects of “sent.” Hence the closer you render the phrase to the Hebrew original, the closer it proves the Trinity. Jews for Judaism continues in a weak effort to try answer the obvious proof of the Trinity, however there are many problems with both them and other Unitarian conclusions to this verse. The attempt to interject Isaiah into verse 16 falls before the following questions:
Basically this idea of Isaiah being the speaker simply is false since there is no break of the passage, switching from God to him. One doesn’t need to be a scholar of Hebrew to know that this passage is the speech of God. You can just look at the content and see that Jewish ideas about Isaiah speaking here is fallible unless they are making him God also. This means that Isaiah would be sovereign (v. 15), and omnipresence (v. 16) along with being the one who laid the foundations of the earth and the heavens. Basically we would have to conclude that Isaiah, the prophet is God due to the fact there is no Hebraic evidence to indicate a break in speech. Clearly the anti-Trinitarian response fails to take sound biblical exegesis into account along with presenting further problems. Isaiah 48:11-18 is the clearest proof of the Trinity within the Old Testament. If we adhere to the intepretation of "Jews for Judaism" we would have to conclude that Isaiah is God Almighty. They have assumed the speech to be Isaiah and no Hebrew evidence verifies their claim.
Such a condition makes it obviously impossible to consider the spirit as being an associate of God, let alone coequal with Him.
The phrase "Holy Spirit" only occurs three times in the OT. One occurrence was in Psalm 51:11. The other two are found in Isaiah 63:10-11. Here it is said that the children of Israel, during the wilderness wandering, "vexed his (YHWH's) HOLY SPIRIT" through their rebellion against Him. It is then said that the people questioned, "Where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?" In this verse also, the Trinity can also be seen, but most importantly we see that the Holy Spirit has a personality.
He is "vexed, grieved" by disobedience. This verb "`atsab", in Hebrew for "vexed, grieved" is always used in conjunction with persons (or God and gods) and never of inanimate things. This holy Spirit is none other than YHWH who brought the children of Israel out of bondage, and unlike typical Jewish thought isn't an abstract force, which Unitarians (Jews for Judaism org, Jehovah Witness, Oneness Pentecostals) believed .
YHWH predicted a time, through the prophet Joel, when He would pour out His Spirit on all flesh (Joel 2:28-29). This Spirit is identified as the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:4, when this Scripture was first fulfilled. The Spirit of the OT is the Holy Spirit of the NT, which is consistently identified as the Spirit of God in the OT. If the Holy Ghost was an abstract force the Hebrew ‘atsab’ would have never been used for him. An in-depth study of the bible sufficiently destroys the Unitarian theology on the Trinity as well as the nature of the Holy Ghost. Because the spirit is poured out on people doesn't make him an inanimate object.
After a thorough analysis of Isaiah 48:11-18 we find that the Trinity is clearly present with God Almighty Talking and claiming that God sent him along with his Spirit. In Deuteronomy 6:4, the famous Shema, we find this about God:
Because God is ONE doesn’t validate the fact that he is only ONE person. Clearly we have ONE God (Deut 6:4) eternally present in THREE persons (Is. 48:11-18). To prove that God is one person you can't assume that ONE means just one person. This is the fallacy of "begging the question" which constitutes a person assuming a conclusion by the premesis. This basically means one already has reached a conclusion and read this conclusion back into the argument without proving this argument to be sound or even correct. If God wanted to say that he was one person only here is how he would've put it:
Or
If God wanted to prove that he was just one person he would've used Yachid to express this important information or just plainly said, I am "ONE PERSON".
What’s more remarkable than the Old Testament passage of Isaiah 48 is the words of Jesus Christ himself. Many have believed that Jesus preached the true doctrine of monotheism and according to them, such belief held to the view that God was only ONE in an absolute sense. This “absolute sense” view is the same doctrine, although varying in beliefs, which Unitarians hold as being true. Did Jesus teach this doctrine? Or did Jesus believe that God was more than ONE person numerically while only “ONE Being” in existence? As we seen above, history shows that Jews around Jesus time believed in a corporate view of God not a strictly Unitarian view that came later.
The view among the various Unitarian groups differs as to the identity of Jesus. Muslims believe that Jesus was only a prophet and not divine in any sense. Oneness Pentecostals believe that Jesus is God but in 3 modes (one person with three offices) and not a Trinity. Jehovah Witness believe that Jesus was “a god” (which is actually polytheistic within itself) and NOT JEHOVAH (a 12 century mistranslation of God’s name YHWH) and not a Trinity. Basically while all vary at some point on the nature of God, all basically believe that the Trinity is a later invention imposed upon the original teachings of Christianity.
Many perspective writers, from each Unitarian background, have made efforts to answer alleged Trinitarian verses either by outright rejecting them as misinterpretation or finding a way to explain them in light of their doctrine, which in their eyes, nullifies any other explanation. What is surprising for many of the laymen followers of a particular Unitarian organization (JW, Muslim, and Oneness) is that the Trinity was taught by Jesus in the most explicated form possible.
If you want to find the clearest reference to the Trinity in the entire Bible all you have to do is turn to Matthew 28:19:
If you look at this passage you have all members of the Holy Trinity mentioned in the order found in orthodox Christian doctrine, “Father, Son and Holy Ghost”. This is the basis for all Christian belief in the divine triune nature of God Almighty. Ironically this belief comes from founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ himself. John Gill's Exposition of the Bible Commentary says this on Matthew 28:19 dealing with the Trinity:
which in the Hebrew language make up so many letters; but this wants better authority.
FOOTNOTES:
F6 L. 2. c. 1.
F7 Ib. c. 11, 12. Vid. Buxtorf. Lex. Heb. in voce
(hwh ) (John Gill's Exposition of the Bible Commentary; Matthew 28:19)
Hence, the idea that Jesus didn’t teach the doctrine of the Trinity or even know about its concept is foreign and a total contradiction of the scripture itself. Matthew 28:19 is as clear as you can get however some Unitarian apologist still seek to ignore the obvious and even if a clear statement is mentioned they try to find some way to make it say something other than what is being mentioned in the contents itself. Before commenting on these various methods of Unitarian responses I want to relate a story about how I and my Jehovah Witness female friend was discussing the topic of the Trinity.
According to her beliefs as a member of the watchtower society, the Trinity represents polytheism and isn’t taught in the Bible. After showing her this verse, Matthew 28:19, from her own NWT bible she obviously couldn’t answer it but just kept repeating that she didn’t care how Christians viewed her religion. In other words, she was basically saying, “I can’t respond to this”. Later, after reading some of my material answering questions posed by watchtower on the Trinity she admitted that I was very knowledgeable on the Bible and that I make an effort to research things.
The purpose for relaying this story to you is to show you how many Unitarians (Muslim, JW, Oneness Pentecostals) have been duped to believing whatever their religious leaders say without doing an independent exegesis of the Bible on their own. With that in mind let’s precede more on this issue.
As mentioned above, Matthew 28:19 is the clearest reference of the Trinity in the Bible. This verse has led many anti-Trinitarians to try and discredit what it says and means. Basically Unitarians are saying, “If I can’t answer it, I just say that it isn’t true to discredit it”. This is the same tactic employed by some Muslim apologists. Here we present one Muslim apologist appealing to the Unitarian Jewish propaganda site, Jews for Judaism:
Question: Doesn't the command by Matthew's Jesus to, "Go therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19) show the existence of a triune deity.
Answer: Matthew 28:19 states: "Go therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing
in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit." Although the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are grouped together, this verse does not
prove the existence of a triune deity. The verse merely indicates the author's
belief that they are to be mentioned together during baptism. Each is thought to
have a function in the initiation of the believer during the baptism ritual. Yet
no doctrine of coequality among them is promulgated in this verse.
In the
early period baptism was simply in "Christ" (Galatians 3:27) or in the name of
Jesus (1 Corinthians 1:13, Acts 8:16, 19:5). The text in Matthew represents a
later stage of development, but is still not trinitarian in meaning. The
doctrine of the trinity is a still later development. --
http://www.answering-christianity.com/baptizing.htm
As you can see, there are many problems with the response by Jews for Judaism on the issue of baptism. First they just state that the author mentioned “Father, son and Holy Ghost” just because it indicates the author’s belief of them being mentioned together. Of course this comes after this site claims that this verse doesn’t prove the Trinity. As with many of their responses, Jews for Judaism doesn’t elaborate or give any linguistic evidence to prove what they claim other than just saying how something must not be true. If this verse doesn’t prove the Trinity, as they and other Unitarian groups believe, why did the author mention them? No answer from Jews for Judaism. Is it to hard for them? Seems like it.
Also notice how Jews for Judaism jumped from Matthew to Galatians while saying how baptism was in the name of Jesus. This implies that the early church believed that the mention of the triune phrase “FSH” referred to Jesus. This runs right in line with what the Oneness Pentecostals believe on baptism. It doesn’t take a genius to see that Jews for Judaism has been visiting “Oneness Pentecostal” websites in order to find their response. Now the dilemma for any Muslim who accepts this argument of theirs (Jews for Judaism) now you must agree with Paul, whom many Muslims alleged invented Trinitarian Christianity. Now I know I can hear some of the orthodox Christian believers laughing because they know that this is such an embarrassing contradiction in appealing to a Trinitarian to try and rebuttal the Trinity.
Hence, the logical flaw of this response is beyond belief. However both Unitarian believers and Jews for Judaism are clearly wrong in claiming that this verse doesn’t show the Trinity. It should be noted that Unitarian believers (like Jews for Judaism) make little or no effort to look into the original language of the New Testament unless it suites their purpose. Obviously this would be the perfect scripture to use based upon the Greek language to disprove the Trinity. Basically Unitarian followers and denominations rely solely on the English translation of the Bible of their theology and dogma since they know that any sound investigation into the original language of a scripture or verse would refute what they teach.
The same can be said about Jews for Judaism, whose staff is knowledgeable in Hebrew, but is lacking when it comes to Greek. Their conclusion on Matthew 28:19 is inexcusable because one doesn’t have to know a biblical language to know what a scripture means in that language. Matthew 28:19 clearly prove the Trinity in the New Testament and if Unitarian believers can somehow downplay this scripture then they can convince others that the Trinity is a foreign doctrine to the Bible. Now lets begin to expound on Matthew 28:19 in greater detail:
Poreuthetes oun mathēteusate panta ta ethnē, baptizontes autous eis to onoma tou
patros
Going therefore make
disciples
all
the
nations
baptizing
them
in THE NAME
OF THE
FATHER
kai tou
huiou kai
tou hagiou pneumatos, didaskontes autous tērein
panta
hosa
AND OF
THE
SON
AND OF
THE
HOLY
SPIRIT
teaching
them to
observe all things
whatever
eneteilamēn
humin…Matt. 28: 19-20
I gave command
to you…
In order to prove that the Trinity isn’t present in this verse, Unitarian believers must provide information showing if the Greek text allows for this passage to refer to single or multiple persons. In the language of Greek there are grammatical rules which prove if a passage refers to just one person only. Such exegesis is missing in many Unitarian apologetic arguments, especially Jews for Judaism, who earlier mentioned that, the Trinity JUST CAN’T be present in this verse. The grammatical rule in Greek that governs whether a single or multiple persons are meant to be represented in a verse along with showing when and where they appear is known as the “Granville Sharp” Greek rules of Grammar.
If a Unitarian (Muslim, Jew or JW, Oneness Pentecostal) wants to prove that Jesus never taught on the Trinity in Matthew 28:19, they must prove this case based on the Greek language rules of Grammar. As we mentioned above, the Greek Rule of Grammar dealing with distinguishing different persons in the Bible is known as "Sharp's rule of Greek Grammar". This rule is stated as thus:
This is the basic definition of Granville Sharp’s rule from Sharp himself above. Now here are several definitions offered by Dana and Mantey which also echoed many statements of AT Robertson, the world's most foremost expert on the NT Greek:
Mr. Robertson not only mentions that Sharp's Greek Grammar rules are still true, which is known by any Greek speaker and reader of the N.T., he also illustrates how different nouns or particples can refer to the same person, which is what Unitarians allege with Matthew 28:19. He says that "if Kai or 'and' precedes the first noun and not any other noun or participle" it refers to the same person. If there are definite articles preceding the nouns or particples, it refers to distinct person. This is also echoed in the definition given by other New Testament Greek Experts such as Curtis Vaughn and Virtus Gideon:
Kenneth Wuest, in his Word Studies in the Greek New Testament defines it this way:
When you sum up all of the statement from Greek linguistic scholars you find out that Sharp’s rule distinguishes between one or more persons in the Greek language. Basically, Granville Sharp's rule states that when you have two nouns, which are not proper names (such as Cephas, or Paul, or Timothy), which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word "and," and the first noun has the article ("the") while the second does not, both nouns are referring to the same person. If there is an article (‘the’) after the word “kai” (and) with the second noun then in Greek this refers to two or more persons.
Granville Sharp’s Greek rules are 6 in number, with minor exceptions. Therefore if Unitarian claims about Matthew 28:19 are true then this passage must adhere to these rules and prove to be ONE person and not three distinct persons. You can’t just look at the English translation and assume presumptuously that verses like this one can’t be a hint of the Trinity as Jews for Judaism did above. You must look into the language it was composed in to see if this passage is Unitarian or Trinitarian in nature. What rule does Matthew 28:19 fall under?
In Granville Sharp’s rules of Greek Grammar, Matthew 28:19 is classified under rule six. Sharp's sixth rule says that when nouns of the same case are joined by kai [and] and each noun is preceded by the article [the], the second noun expresses a different person, thing, or quality than the first noun. Matthew 28:19 clearly falls under this classification. Notice that the definite article "tou" (the) is stated before Son and Holy Ghost indicates that they are all distinct persons from the Father.
RULE: when nouns of the same case are joined by kai "and" and each noun is preceded by the article "the", the second noun expresses A DIFFERENT PERSON, thing, or quality than the first noun.
to
onoma
tou
patros
in THE NAME
OF THE
FATHER (1st Stated Noun=1st Person)
kai tou
huiou kai
tou hagiou pneumatos,
AND OF
THE
SON (2nd Person)
AND OF
THE
HOLY
SPIRIT (3rd Person)
Son, seperate by kai tou while Holy Spirit, seperate by
Kai tou
CONCLUSION: Here we have 3 distinct persons under ONE single name. Clearly the being for each is the same making this a Trinity.
Greek Grammar rules clearly prove that Matthew 28:19 is talking about the divine Trinity in this passage. That conclusion is inescapable and for one to assume that it isn’t only proves how their presuppositions can’t be supported from the Greek language itself. The only acceptation to this rule is if the distinct and different actions are intended to be attributed to one and the same person. Two good examples are John 20:28 and Revelation 1:8:
"I am THE ALPHA and THE OMEGA,'' SAYS THE LORD GOD, " who is and who was and who is to come, THE ALMIGHTY.' Rev. 1:8 NASB
The Greek language rules demand that the context must explain or plainly point towards the person in whom the two nouns relate." The exception requires that the context actually names a single individual to whom the other nouns are attributed. In John 20:28 it is clear that “MY LORD and MY GOD” refers to Jesus since the passage says that Thomas said it to Jesus. Revelation 1:8 clearly refers to Jesus, since he clearly is identified as the speaker. It should be noted that Matthew 28:19 doesn’t fall under this exception since “Father”, “son”, and “holy ghost” are titles. Therefore Jesus was clearly telling his disciples and followers to baptize under a single name of a Triune deity. This verse totally contradicts the Unitarian idea of “no Trinity in the Bible”.
Dr. Scofield sums up the doctrine of the Trinity in a very thorough and simple manner. Here is his commentary on Matthew 28:19:
1. Each of these divine Persons possesses His own personal characteristics and is clearly distinguished from the other Persons (cp. Jn. 14:16-17:26; 15:26; 16:7-15). Yet the three Persons are equal in being, power, and glory: EACH BEING CALLED "GOD" (Jn. 6:27; Heb. 1:8; Acts 5:3-4); each possessing all the divine attributes (Jas. 1:17; Heb. 13:8; 9:14); each performing divine works (Jn. 5:21; Rom. 8:11); and each receiving divine honors (Jn. 5:23; 2 Cor. 13:14).
2. With reference to the order of their activities, the Father is first, the Son is second, and the Holy Spirit is third; the general formula being as follows: from the Father (1 Cor. 8:6), through the Son (Jn. 3:17) by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 3:5) and to the Father (Eph. 2:18). Even so, however, no one of the Persons acts independently of the other Persons; there is always mutual concurrence, as our Lord said, "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working" (Jn. 5:17); and, "The Son can do nothing of Himself" (Jn. 5:19); and again, "I and My Father are one" (Jn. 10:30).
3. In the NT revelation of God as a tri-personal Being, there is no retreat from the stern monotheism of the OT (cp. Dt. 6:4-5, with Mk. 12:29-30 and Rom. 3:30). The three divine Persons are one God, not three gods. It was necessary in the OT to emphasize first the divine unity in order to guard against polytheistic tendencies. But even in the OT, read in the light of the NT, a plurality of Persons appears within the one true God (cp. Gen 1:26; Isa. 6:8; 48:12 with 48:16).
4. The Trinity of God is confessedly a great mystery, something wholly beyond the possibility of complete explanation. But we can guard against error by holding fast to the facts of divine revelation: that (1) with respect to his Being or essence, God is one; (2) with respect to his Personality, God is three; and (3) we must neither divide the essence, nor confuse the Persons. Yet, in spite of its mystery, the doctrine of the divine Trinity has always proved to be rich in spiritual and practicsl values.
5. The importance attached to the divine Trinity, in NT revelation, appears in the fact that the doctrine is firmly embedded in two formulas which are constantly repeated in the hearing of the church: (1) the formula of baptism (Mt. 28:19); and (2) the formula of benediction (2 Cor. 13:14). (Scofield, C.I., The New Scofield Study Bible, NKJV: pg. 1181--Matthew 28:19, Nelson 1989)
Not only does Matthew 28:19 clearly prove that Jesus was speaking about the Trinity but it also gives us clear instructions on how to baptize. Anyone who claims that Matthew 28:19 doesn't prove the Trinity is totally ignorant of Greek grammar. Jesus version of Judaism is totally different from modern Judaism and the idea that he didn’t teach the Trinity is totally false. If Unitarian apologists want to disprove the Trinity then they need to do this from the original biblical languages. As we clearly see, such a task is truly impossible.
Quennel Gale at QMAX21@blackplanet.com