Trinity in the Matthew 28:19

So I was asked if the trinity is the Matthew 28:19, the phrase “the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” In order to answer that question, a word needs defining. What is “the trinity?”

Simply put, the trinity is the doctrine that there is one God made up of three distinct persons, those being the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each person is called “God” and has the full nature and attributes of divinity, yet there is only one God.

No, I’m not gonna use this article to call out the contradiction. I just want to make a simple point about the verse.

When I did my studies into the trinity, I came across a certain habit amongst trinitarians. They would find places in the new testament (and sometimes the Jewish Bible), simply find a place where all three seem to be named or mentioned, and claim that as proof of the trinity, as if proximity of the names in a verse proved the trinity. Unfortunately, they miss key elements of the trinity doctrine.

In order for a verse to prove the trinity, it has to comport with the definition of the doctrine. The doctrine is not simply that there are three persons. So simply naming all three in one verse or in a number of verses doesn’t meet the standard. Simply saying “The son beat and kicked the spirit out of his father” doesn’t make one a trinitarian any more than saying “the father, through his spirit, taught me about the son.” Again, simply naming all three is not enough because that is not the trinity doctrine, nor is it an important part of it.

In order for a verse or passage to prove the trinity, it must claim, at very least, that the three make up the one God. Does Matthew 28:19 overtly do this? No. It makes no statement whatsoever about the relationship between the father, son and holy spirit. It says nothing about them making up the one God. All the verse says is “in the name of the father, son and holy spirit.” Nothing more, and nothing less. That is not the trinity.

I know. It says “the name” in the singular. But here’s a question. In Genesis 48:16, Jacob talks about the “name” – singular – of his fathers, Abraham and Isaac. Does that make Abraham and Isaac duality of some kind, the way “the father, son and spirit” are meant to be a trinity? Merely because the word, “name,” is in the singular? The answer is no!

So, to be as clear as I can, the trinity is not in Matthew 28:19 because key elements of the doctrine are not there. It does not say the three make up one God. I know people try to interpret it like that, but there’s a difference between facts and opinion. The fact is what the text says, and the interpretation is the opinion. Blurring the lines between fact and opinion is the recipe for just making the “bible” into your own mental image. The text, the fact, says nothing about “three-in-one-God.” I don’t really care about the self-contradictory opinion.

About hesedyahu

I'm a gentile living in UK, a person who has chosen to take upon himself the responsibility God has given to all gentiles. God is the greatest aspect of my life and He has blessed me with a family. I used to be a christian, but I learnt the errors of my ways. I love music. I love to play it on the instruments I can play, I love to close my eyes and feel the groove of it. I could call myself a singer and a songwriter ... And that would be accurate. What else is there?
This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Trinity in the Matthew 28:19

  1. Hrvatski Noahid says:

    Matthew 28:19 implies the Trinity, and 1 John 5:7 explicitly states it. This is obvious to me.

    • hesedyahu says:

      There’s no evidence for your claim about Matthew 28:19. And without any authoritative tradition from the original author of Matthew or Jesus, if he said it, then the view that Matthew 28:19 only implies one understanding is utterly subjective. I don’t have to refute subjectively “obvious” conclusions.

      Also 1 John 5:7 has a murky history evidenced by the fact that numerous christian versions omit that verse from the main text. And even if it were part of the text, the context and the text itself makes the trinitarian understanding dubious. And again, there is no authoritative tradition, so it’s again subjective. If you want , I’ll share my reasoning. But as you see it as obvious, then there may be no point.

      The fact that your view is obvious to you and various christian sects disagree with that view, seeing their reasoning, shows me that it is not as cut-and-dry as you make it seem.

      What is worthless about such speculation is that the trinity doctrine is plain. It is not simply that there are three. It is not even that the three are one, since the “oneness” and the attributes of the three must be clearly defined and shown to agree with the doctrine (impossible without authoritative tradition). It is that the three are distinct divine persons, each being “God,” that make up the one God. The trinitarian must be held to that standard, not to their much looser and more slack standards, where just saying two or three of the key players is enough with no stronger link to the actual doctrine.

      • Hrvatski Noahid says:

        There is no authoritative tradition only from the Protestant viewpoint. I was raised Roman Catholic, and the Trinitarian interpretation of such verses is in my bones. That’s not going to change.

      • hesedyahu says:

        I enjoy your raw honesty. And your catholic upbringing is a great source of insight for me as I come from a protestant upbringing (protestant in the sense of not catholic). I can very much understand why you would see it the way you do.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s