We have been examining the claims of Liam, who denies the Trinity in general and who, in particular, denies that Jesus is God. This ultimately is not an intellectual exercise but a spiritual one. It is only by the power of the Holy Spirit that a person can declare with conviction that Jesus is Yahweh – the Lord. 1 Corinthians 12:3b states, “And no one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit.” Furthermore, confessing Jesus as Lord is a requirement for salvation (Romans 10:9-13), for there is no Savior besides the one and only Yahweh (Isaiah 43:11). Therefore, if Jesus is not Yahweh, then neither can He be your Savior.
Liam: Nope… I’m here to plant seeds of eisegetical truth
Lisle: Well, Liam’s view is certainly eisegetical. That is, it is reading into the text what is not there. Namely, Liam assumes that the one God is only one Person. But the Bible teaches that Jesus (the Son), the Spirit, and the Father are each a Person who can testify and are the one God. This is proved in our articles on the Trinity, so I won’t relist the verses here. Since those biblical principles don’t make sense to Liam, he won’t accept them. Unless the Holy Spirit regenerates a person’s heart, that person will only accept a god that he or she can understand on human terms. The bottom line is this: Will you accept all that the Bible teaches about the nature of God? Or will you ignore or reinterpret those sections that don’t make sense to your finite mind?
Liam: Based on:
“Sh’ma, Yisra’el! Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai echad [Hear, Isra’el! Adonai our God, Adonai is one]”
Deuteronomy 6:4
THAT is the foundation.
Lisle: Actually, that is the foundation of the Trinity! Yes, Liam has thoroughly established from Scripture that the first principle of the Trinity is true – namely, there is only one Lord: Yahweh. But how does that even remotely disprove the remaining two principles of the Trinity? Of course it doesn’t. Most people who reject the Trinity misrepresent it as teaching three gods/lords. That’s a strawman fallacy. The Bible teaches that there is one and only one Lord God, and Deuteronomy 6:4 is a great verse for establishing that. Anyone quoting Deuteronomy 6:4 as allegedly being against the Trinity does not have the faintest idea what the Trinity is. This biblical doctrine begins with the premise that there is one and only one Lord God. But the Bible also teaches two more principles about that one God.
In previous articles, I have shown that the Scriptures teach the remaining two points of the Trinity – namely, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each God/Yahweh, and that the Father, Spirit, and Son are eternally distinct Persons, in terms of biblical law, who each count as one witness when providing testimony. But since that doesn’t fit into Liam’s philosophy, he will not accept it. Remember, no one can accept that Jesus is Lord (Yahweh) unless the Holy Spirit regenerates his heart (1 Corinthians 12:3).
Again, Liam substituted the term Adonai for Yahweh, as the Jews would do when reading the Shema out loud. Like elohim, adonai is a plural word, literally translated “my lords.” Yet it refers to the one God, suggesting that the Old Testament Jews understood at least something about God’s one and more-than-one nature. Yahweh is the covenant name for the one God. The term Yahweh is normally translated as “the LORD” in English bibles, with all the letters capitalized. This term is singular and always and only refers to the Lord God. So, Deuteronomy 6:4 proves the first principle of the Trinity.
Does Deuteronomy 6:4 prove the other two principles of the Trinity? No, although it is consistent with them. It is primarily telling us about the nature of the one God, not the Persons of the one God. It says nothing specifically about the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. Nonetheless, there are hints of the Trinity even in this one verse. For example, the term translated “our God” in Deuteronomy 6:4 is actually plural. It is literally translated “our gods.” We’ll take a more in-depth look at the meaning of this word and its root below.
Now why in the world would the Lord use a plural term for gods when describing the one God? We will see below that the New Testament answers this question. Furthermore, the term translated “one” in this verse is the Hebrew word echad which is often, though not always, used to describe something that is one in one sense and more than one in another sense. In fact, the first time echad is used, it has such a meaning. It describes a day which is one in terms of earth rotations but has two parts: a day part and a night part (Genesis 1:5).
In fact, the second time the word echad is used in Scripture, it also has a one and more-than-one meaning. It describes the gathering of the waters into one place – seas (Genesis 1:9). So, the one location where the waters are gathered is also more than one location in that there are multiple seas (plural in Hebrew) according to Genesis 1:10. The same word is used in Genesis 2:24 in which God declares that in marriage a man and his wife become one flesh. Well, they are one in one sense, but they are two in a different sense.
To be clear, I’m not arguing that Deuteronomy 6:4 proves all three points of the Trinity. But the verse certainly makes sense in light of the three Persons who are the one God. The main point of Deuteronomy 6:4 is to establish the first principle of the Trinity, that there is one and only one Lord God. But who is this God? Is He one Person, just as each human is one person? Or is He different from us in that regard?
Liam: No ‘Jew’ would ever go teach and believe against the Shema. It is the ultimate prayer and belief that God is one – a singular one…
Lisle: It’s certainly true that God is one being. But who is this one Lord? If only there were a verse in the New Testament that clarified whether the Lord God (Yahweh Elohim) is merely the Father or is also the Son. But wait, there is! The Apostle Paul explains and expands the Shema in 1 Corinthians 8:6. Who is this one God (Elohim) and one Lord (Yahweh)? Paul clarifies, “Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.” Paul applies the Greek translation of Elohim (God) to the Father and Yahweh (Lord) to Jesus Christ.
It is significant that Paul specifically applies the Greek translation of Yahweh to Jesus, indicating that Jesus is the one Lord. The name Yahweh always and only refers to God, whereas elohim can refer to God but also to false gods or, in rare instances, to people who act on God’s behalf. Thus, if Paul had reversed the terms and applied Elohim to Jesus and Yahweh to the Father (which would also be true), people might be inclined to argue that Jesus is merely acting on God’s behalf. Paul destroys any such attempt before it can be made. Jesus is the very Yahweh described in Deuteronomy 6:4.
Liam: …, for there is none like Him, for he created everything all alone, and all by Himself (Isa 44:24)
Lisle: Yes, God did create everything and all by Himself. Of Jesus, the Bible says, “For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created through Him and for Him” (Colossians 1:16). Jesus had no assistance when He created all things. Since God alone created all things (Isaiah 44:24), and since Jesus created all things (Colossians 1:16), it follows logically that Jesus is God. Notice that Jesus cannot merely be an agent of God acting under God’s authority because that would mean that God used an agent to create the universe. Yet, Isaiah 44:24 teaches that God alone created all things. Therefore, Isaiah 44:24 and Colossians 1:16 prove the second principle of the Trinity: Jesus is God.
Liam: But I DO challenge him [Lisle] on the trinity. His argumentation was infantile,…
Lisle: I’m certainly open to constructive criticism. But it would have been helpful if Liam had given some examples of where he thinks I made a mistake in reasoning. He will mention my use of the Hebrew word elohim, but (1) my usage was correct, and (2) that was never my primary argument. Rather, I demonstrated from the Scriptures that (1) there is one God; (2) the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit are each God; and (3) the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternally distinct Persons in terms of eyewitness testimony. I haven’t seen any legitimate counterargument.
Liam:…especially when it came to the reasoning of ‘Elohim’, I respect Jason, but his knowledge on the Hebrew there is lacking. For while Elohim is indeed plural, the root word for the singular El is ‘power’
Lisle: Actually, the Hebrew word El is most literally translated “God” and not merely “power.” The word in singular form is found 225 times in the Old Testament. Only once is it translated as “power,” and it is in a poetic verse (Micah 2:1) in the NASB95. In nearly all other instances it is translated as “God” because context shows that is its normal meaning. The Hebrew word normally translated “power” is yad (e.g., Genesis 16:6, 31:29; Exodus 3:8, 4:21). Yad literally means “hand,” which is where human power lies. Other common Hebrew terms for power include koach and gevurah. These would be the normal words to use for “power.”
Of course, God is certainly powerful, so there is a connection to power. But in most cases, it is obvious from context that El means “God” and not merely “power.” For example, Melchizedek is a priest of the “God Most High” (from the Hebrew El ‘Elyon). He is not serving mere power; rather, Melchizedek is serving God. Likewise, Hagar praised Yahweh saying, “You are a God who sees” (Genesis 16:13b). She uses the term El to refer to God, not merely power since abstract power cannot see anything.
Unlike Yahweh (the covenant name of God), el is a generic term for god. Its plural form elohim literally means “gods.” Since it is a generic term, it can refer to the Living God or to false gods. For example, the false gods mentioned in Genesis 31:30, 32, 35:2, 4 are all called elohim. In rare instances, the term is used of people who are authorized to act on God’s behalf. The only incontrovertible instance of this is in poetic literature: Psalm 82:6, where non-literal usage is to be expected. But some might argue that Exodus 7:1 is also an example.
However, most of the time, the plural term Elohim clearly refers to the Living God and is rightly translated “God.” But why is this plural term translated in the singular? Well, in such instances, it is used with singular verbs. Genesis 1:1 is the first example of this. The term for “God” is plural, but the term for “created” requires a singular subject. Thus, it is literally, “In the beginning, Gods (He) created.” Why does the Living God use a plural term for Himself with a singular verb? Of course, New Testament revelation makes it clear that God is one in nature and three in Persons.
So, the plural/singular aspect of God found throughout the Old and New Testaments makes perfect sense. But those who deny the Trinity attempt to find ways around this, as Liam attempts to do. And these rescuing devices never stand up to rational scrutiny, as we will see. Normally, critics will say that the plural use of elohim is simply the plural of majesty. This is a modern idiom sometimes used by royalty, as when the queen says, “We are not amused.” Can this explain the numerous uses of the plural Elohim to describe the one God? No, for at least two reasons.
First, most scholars believe the plural of majesty did not exist until (minimally) the second century A.D. Thus, this modern idiom was not in use when the Bible was written. To claim that the Bible uses the plural of majesty is therefore a semantic anachronism fallacy. You can confirm for yourself that no royalty in Scripture ever used the “royal we” – not David, Solomon, Nebuchadnezzar, or any king or queen. Second, the plural of majesty requires quantitative agreement between subject and verb. Namely, both are plural. Thus, the queen says, “We are not amused.” She does not say, “We am not amused.” Yet, God uses the plural subject with singular verbs. This is not the plural of majesty.
Does the use of the plural Elohim with a singular subject prove all three principles of the Trinity? No, and it wasn’t intended to. Rather, it shows that God is one in one sense, and more than one in another sense. Exactly what those different senses are will require further revelation. Fortunately, the rest of the Bible provides such revelation – for those who are willing to accept it.
Liam: And when His name and title reads Yehovah Elohim, it is God of ALL powers…. let me expand it or you to show biblical evidence:
Lisle: No, Yahweh Elohim is literally translated “the Lord God,” as nearly every English Bible renders the phrase. Elohim is never translated as “powers” in any of the major English translations because that’s just not what it means. It means either “gods” in a generic sense or “God.” The Hebrew scholars who translated the Old Testament into English really did know what they were doing. The Hebrew words most often used for “power” are yad, koach, and gevurah.
Liam: When Moses was confronting Pharaoh on letting the Hebrews go, he was asked by what ‘god’ sent him, Moses said Yehovah – God of ALL powers.
Lisle: No, that’s not what Moses said. God is all-powerful and demonstrated His superiority over the Egyptian gods. But Moses calls Him the Lord God, not the Lord of all powers. The normal way of expressing that God is all-powerful would be to use the term “God Almighty,” which in Hebrew is El Shadday (אֵ֣ל שַׁדַּ֔י), (e.g., Genesis 17:1, 28:3, 35:11). Yahweh Elohim is most literally translated “the Lord God.” Again, the Hebrew scholars who translated the Old Testament into English really did know what they were doing.
Liam: You see to Egyptians and pagans, there is a god for everything, god of frogs, god of water, god of fire, god of flies, god of ice… So when Moses called on the power of God (Ruach HaKodesh – His holy spirit),
Lisle: I have already demonstrated from the Scriptures (in the previous article) that the Holy Spirit is God. The Spirit is not merely God’s power. Rather, He is a Person who gives testimony (Hebrews 10:15; Romans 8:16).
Liam: …he showed he was just the god of flies, but had FULL control of ALL powers – when God caused hail to rain down it was impossible to Pharaoh since it was a mixture of fire AND ice – God is the ALL powerful…
Lisle: God is certainly all-powerful. But the term Elohim refers to God in this context, not merely to “powers,” as any Hebrew scholar will confirm. Indeed, it was God (Elohim), not merely “powers” who created heaven and earth, as attested by the first verse in the Bible. The fact that Elohim is God, and not merely powers, is clear in passages like Exodus 3:12, where God commands Moses to worship Elohim. Yet, God forbids people to worship anything except Himself (Exodus 20:5, 23:24, 34:14; Deuteronomy 5:9; Matthew 4:10). Of course, since Jesus is God, He must be worshipped (Hebrews 1:6; Matthew 28:9, 17; John 9:38).
Liam: And it IS powers based on context – for did you know that the Judges of Israel were called Elohim? Why? Because they displayed power in authority.
Lisle: Since elohim is a generic word for “god,” it is rarely used of those who act on His behalf and His authority, as we covered before. But those instances are very rare and are indicated by context. Otherwise, the word clearly means the “God” or “gods” generically. For example, the term elohim is found approximately 2604 times in the Old Testament. Of those, in 2340 instances it is translated as “God” in the NASB95. It is used of generic gods in 251 instances. The NASB95 translates the word as “judges” in only three instances, as “mighty” twice, and as “rulers” only once. It is never translated as “powers.”
Perhaps Liam hopes to explain away all the New Testament passages where Jesus is either directly or indirectly referred to as God. Maybe he will argue that Jesus is called God merely because He acts on God’s behalf and not because He is God. But I have already refuted that in the articles on the Trinity. Jesus is not merely “a god” or an agent of God; rather, He is Yahweh. Yahweh is the covenant name of God and (unlike Elohim) is never applied to anyone else. We saw that the New Testament claims many Old Testament passages describing Yahweh are specifically about Jesus (e.g., Philippians 2:10-11 cf. Isaiah 45:23; Hebrews 1:8-12 cf. Psalm 102:16-27; Romans 10:9-13 cf. Joel 2:32). Yahweh alone created all things (Isaiah 44:24). Thus, He did not use any agent. Yet Jesus created all things (Colossians 1:16). Therefore, Jesus is Yahweh.
In fact, the Son is sometimes sent by the Father in the Old Testament as a messenger (angel) of the Lord. When that happens, the Angel of the Lord is the Lord Himself. We see this in Exodus 3:2, where the Angel of the Lord appears in the burning bush to Moses but identifies Himself as God (Elohim) and Lord (Yahweh) in verses 6 and 7. Another example is found in Genesis 31:11 when the Angel of the Lord appears to Jacob and reveals that He is God in verse 13. These are pre-incarnate appearances of God. And we know from New Testament revelation that they are God the Son, not the Father whom no one has seen (John 6:46, 5:37).
Liam: It is a LOT deeper and meaningful than the trinitarians twist Elohim around to mean a plurality of Gods.
Lisle: Here Liam proves beyond all doubt that he does not understand what he is trying to refute. The Trinity is not a “plurality of Gods.” In fact, the very first principle of the Trinity is that there is only one God. So Liam commits a rather obvious strawman fallacy. He is trying to refute a position that no Christian holds.
Liam: Jason further uses ‘proves of scripture that was added and are fraudulent. For example Matthew 28:19 of baptise [sic] in the name of the father, son and holy spirit was ADDED as the original stated Baptise [sic] in Jesus’ name…
Lisle: Many cults claim verses that don’t fit into their theology are fraudulent / added / not original. But is there any manuscript evidence of such corruption? God has promised that not the smallest letter or stroke of His law will fail until all is accomplished (Matthew 5:18). That would not be possible if sections of God’s Word have been added or removed. Of course, this does not mean that each and every copy of the Bible will contain no errors. We know better. People are not perfect copying machines, and they do make occasional copying mistakes. However, whenever an error is made in one copy, there is at least one other copy elsewhere that does not have such an error. Different people make different mistakes! We can discern when errors have crept in and discover the original text by comparing different manuscripts from different locations and times. The original text of Scripture in a given verse still exists in at least some manuscripts. This is the principle of the tenacity of the text.
Copying errors in New Testament manuscripts are called variants, and there are thousands of them. But in nearly all cases, we know approximately when the variant appeared, and thus we know which copy has the original reading. In the few remaining cases, we can narrow the original text down to one, two, or maybe three possibilities. Thus, we know what the original Bible contained even though we no longer possess the autographs. So, is baptizing “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” a textual variant in Matthew 28:19? Do we find some copies that simply read “in the name of Jesus,” and, if so, are they the oldest copies and therefore most likely the original reading?
There are two variants in Matthew 28:19. Codex Bezae has a variant in the second word – it replaces “therefore” with “now.” There is only a one-letter difference between the Greek words, so it is easy to see how that could happen. Also, codex Bezae uses a slightly different word for “baptizing.” But how many ancient manuscripts lack the phrase “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit?” None. There is not a single manuscript in any language that has a different reading. We have around 5,800 manuscripts of the New Testament in the original Greek and another 19,000 or so in other languages. Not one of them says “in the name of Jesus” in Matthew 28:19. All of them contain the trinitarian phrase seen in your modern English translation. There can be no doubt that this phrase is what the author wrote and has been preserved by the Lord. Liam’s claim is without any textual basis whatsoever.
Some people have claimed that the trinitarian phrase in Matthew 28:19 was added around the early fourth century. But that cannot be substantiated because at least a few copies of the alleged original reading would have survived since there were many copies of the Scriptures at that time. Some have said that fourth-century writings of Eusebius support an original reading of Matthew 28:19 where Jesus simply says, “In my name.” But Eusebius often abbreviated or otherwise paraphrased Scripture; and, in fact, he also used the full trinitarian formula in another writing (Contra Marcellum). Furthermore, the Didache, one of the earliest extant writings of the church (A.D. ~90), confirms the trinitarian formula. Didache 7:1 states, “Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first explaining all things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing water.” So there is no doubt that God has preserved His Word. The trinitarian formula found in Matthew 28:19 is original. It confirms that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit have one name – Yahweh.
Liam: …- which is backed up in every instance of baptism in the book of Acts.
Lisle: There is (potentially) a difference between what Jesus commands and what his disciples do. Here Liam has confused a prescriptive text with a descriptive text, he has committed the naturalistic fallacy, and he has misunderstood the meaning of Matthew 28:19. In the book of Acts, there are instances of people being baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38, 10:48) or “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16, 19:5). These are descriptive texts, accurately reporting what happened. Conversely, Matthew 28:19 is a prescriptive text since Christ is telling people what they should do. These are two different issues and should not be conflated.
After all, king David committed adultery with Uriah’s wife. That’s what he did, but it is not what he should have done. Should we conclude that the prohibition of adultery in Exodus 20:14 has not been properly copied? Suppose someone said, “The original text of Exodus 20:14 says you shall commit adultery, as confirmed when David committed adultery.” That would be a naturalistic fallacy – assuming that something is morally right on the basis that it happens. Likewise, whether the New Testament believers followed the correct formula in performing baptism is utterly irrelevant to what Christ instructed them to do.
But most importantly, Christ’s words in Matthew 28:19 were not intended to be a specific liturgy that had to be recited verbatim at a baptism. Rather, the meaning is that a person is baptized so as to be in communion with Yahweh – the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These three Persons share one name – Yahweh. Thus, a person who is baptized in the name of Jesus is necessarily baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, since these three Persons have one name and one nature. It’s not about the exact wording but rather the meaning of the words.
Liam: Those that appeal to the Bandwagon fallacy and say they are right because they are the majority, are NEVER right biblically… for it is a strait gate and narrow path and few are on it… it is called a remnant for a reason. You push the majority – I remain biblical.
Lisle: Here Liam has committed the fallacy of the appeal to the minority. This is the assertion that a claim is likely to be true on the basis that most people do not believe it. It would be like saying, “The majority of Christians believe in God. Therefore, God probably does not exist since the majority are never right biblically.” Conspiracy theorists tend to employ such fallacious reasoning. Christians should not (e.g., Isaiah 8:12). There are many, many true things that the majority of people believe. That doesn’t make those true things false. The appeal to the minority is just as much an error in reasoning as the appeal to the majority. An argument should be evaluated on its own merit, regardless of who else believes its conclusion.
And what about the few that enter the narrow gate? Those are the Christians who profess Jesus as Yahweh and believe that God raised Him from the dead (Romans 10:9-13). Matthew 7:13-14 is not teaching that people who have a minority view on a particular doctrine are correct! That would be absurd.
Our three original articles on the Trinity first defined the three principles that constitute this important doctrine and then proved from the Scriptures that each principle is true. I have yet to see a cogent counterargument. But we have seen above that Liam doesn’t understand the doctrine that he is attempting to refute. This is very, very common and results in strawman fallacies. For what it’s worth, I don’t believe such misrepresentations of the Trinity are intentional. Recall what the Scriptures state, “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (1 Corinthians 2:14). Although the deity of Christ is found throughout the Bible, remember that no one can declare that Jesus is Yahweh except by the power of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3).