Baptism and the Trinity — Matthew 28:16-20

Before we look at the greater context and meaning of baptism, there’s a grammatical point that’s regularly made by trinitarians who want to associate baptism and the trinity in the great commission. As Guzik/France claimed above, the use of a singular noun for the word “name” establishes that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit all have one name (presumably “God”/”Yahweh”) and this “underlines the unity of the three persons.”

Notably, a patternist would actually have no problem agreeing that all three of the persons mentioned in this verse are rightly called “Yahweh,” for one reason or another. Nor would we disagree that they are all unified in one way or another. The issue is what trinitarians mean by that kind of language. Neither of these two points would necessarily lead someone to the central holding of trinitarian theology, that God exists as three co-equal, co-eternal persons who share one divine essence. There can be other ways of interpreting or framing these truths.

Take for example the unity of the Father and the Son. In his high priestly prayer, Jesus prayed that certain creatures (his disciples) would also join into that unity.

“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. (Jhn 17:20-21)

Is Jesus here speaking of a unity of essence that he holds with the Father? Are we Christians to enter the godhead as additional persons who share this one unified essence enjoyed by the Father and the Son? Certainly not. Rather there is a unity between the Father and the Son that’s unrelated to the ontological nature of God, one which creatures can enter into — such as, perhaps, a unity of purpose, agreement, or commitment to the word of truth etc. So when we read other passages that seem to describe or rely on a unity between (for example) the Father and the Son, but do so in a way that could be interpreted as one divine essence (such as Matthew 28), we need to remember that a unity does exist which has nothing to do with the ontological nature of God. And that should be an interpretive option that is considered, as long as the passage at hand doesn’t plainly forbid it.

So even if trinitarians could rightly claim that the three persons described in this passage all share share one name (Yahweh), and are united in some fashion, that has little relevance to the question of whether or not the trinity is true. Trinitarians don’t need to establish that the Father, Son and Spirit are all unified, or that they are all divine; they need to establish that they are divine according to their theological understanding of three co-equal, co-eternal persons with one divine essence. As we will see in the rest of the article, there are other possible reasons why these three may be mentioned together with one name.

With that said, the idea that a singular name in this passage has any relevance to the nature of God is itself problematic, because the language doesn’t actually require such an interpretation. As one trinitarian, Robert Bowman Jr. admitted,

Does singular “name” prove that the three are one person? No; cf. Gen. 5:2; 11:14; 48:6; and esp. 48:16. Thus, the word “name” can apply distinctly to each of the three (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and does not imply that they have only one name.

— Robert Bowman Jr., The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity

Bowman cited several passages that help to clarify how language works; I’ll quote one to give a flavor of the issue. The following are the words of Jacob as he blessed his children and grandchildren prior to his death:

“The angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the boys; and in them let my name be carried on, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.” (Gen 48:16)

According to Bowman, here we have a singular name given to two distinct people, Abraham and Isaac. No commentary is being given about the ontological nature of the relationship between Abraham and Isaac, aside from perhaps the fact that Isaac is the son of Abraham. You can’t draw from this passage that Abraham and Isaac are two persons who share one nature (unless you want to appeal to the dust out of which they were made, which is shared with all kinds of other people, animals, and plants etc.). Any attempt to apply the trinitarian hermeneutic from Matthew 28 to this passage leads to an unnatural twisting of the text, or at least taking it beyond its obvious/natural meaning.

Rather than do something weird with this passage and others like it, we can instead simply admit that this is a natural way of speaking in a variety of human languages, including English. Very often we will omit details and fragments that were provided earlier in a sentence or thought, because the repetition is unnecessary. Consider Jesus’ words to the Pharisees,

And the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. (Luk 11:39)

I can’t speak knowledgeably to the greek formation of the verse, as Bowman could. But in the English translation at least, we would not expect Jesus to phrase this as the “outsides” of the cup and the dish, even though there are two outsides in view — the outside of the cup, and the outside of the dish. English and other languages allow you to omit the second instance of “outside” because it is implied. A similar way to phrase it would be, “the outside of the cup [and that] of the dish.”

In the same way, the singular nature of the word “name” as applied to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit has no relevance to the question of whether or not the trinity is accurate, because “name” can apply to each of them separately. This is why it can be dangerous to base major theological conclusions on grammatical nuances; it’s very easy to get something wrong. Instead, basing theology on large portions of scripture, taken in context, provides a much more reliable and stable way to understand what God is communicating, because one difficult sentence will be further nuanced and clarified by its surrounding context. So for the rest of this article, we’ll look at broader biblical/theological challenges to the idea that baptism and the trinity are related in this passage.

Both baptism and the trinity are controversial subjects that can be difficult to understand and master. While I have spent significant time working to understand what trinitarians believe, and where I disagree with them, I haven’t spent the same degree of time trying to understand baptism from a thoroughly biblical perspective. Undoubtedly, I still have blind spots and predispositions from the various traditions that have influenced my thinking on the subject. Unfortunately, because commentary on this passage requires discussion of both baptism and the trinity, developing the biblical meaning of baptism is an unavoidable step in working to refute the trinitarian claims regarding Matthew 28. I will do my best to frame it accurately, but may very well get some things wrong, that will need to be revised in the future.

To begin, we’ll look at two old testament instances of baptism, that we know from apostolic testimony are pictures of the baptism performed in Christ. First, Peter tells us that the flood of Noah correlates to baptism.

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (1Pe 3:18-21)

We know that the flood was a judgement that God brought upon the wickedness of humanity after the fall. God said that he would blot humanity from the face of the earth, but Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord (Gen 6:5-8).

The flood performed on a global scale what John’s baptism performs (symbolically) on an individual level, when Christians enter the water and are raised back up again. It cleansed the dust of dead humanity from the “body” of the earth (cf. Gen 3:19), just as bathing in water cleans dust and dead skin from the body of an individual (Jhn 13:5-10). The dust is washed away, but the remnant of mankind is preserved, being raised above the water, into the air where he can breathe the breath of life.

As Peter taught above, both the global baptism of the flood, and the individual baptism through water, are pictures of salvation from judgement, through repentance unto trust in God (Act 19:1-6) — an appeal to God for a good conscience, through Christ and his resurrection. Noah was saved from judgement by faith (Heb 11:7), and as a result, God gave him and his family the means and ability to breathe when everyone around them was drowning. Similarly, by faith, those who descend into water for personal baptism are lifted up again into the air, and are given the ability to breathe by the one baptizing them. This is a picture of the Holy Spirit (or “Breath”) of God who is given to preserve redeemed mankind through judgement (cf. Eph 1:11-14, Rev 9:4). Baptism by water kills the unrighteousness of mankind. Those who by faith are given breath will survive the experience, though their sin and dead works will not (cf. Col 2:10-14; baptism by fire, the next global/personal judgement to come on the earth, 1Co 3:10-15, Isa 43:1-2; also born of the water and the spirit, Jhn 3:1-15).

The second judgement in the old testament associated with baptism is the salvation of Israel from Pharaoh, which is more pointedly relevant to the question of baptism and the trinity.

For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. (1Co 10:1-2)

By faith the people crossed the Red Sea as on dry land, but the Egyptians, when they attempted to do the same, were drowned. (Heb 11:29)

Similar to the flood of Noah, in the parting of the Red Sea, Israel was saved through (and from) water, while the enemies of God were destroyed through and from it. Pharaoh’s army was attacking the people of Israel, whom God had recently delivered from Egypt, but he still pursued them. They were now trapped between Pharaoh and a major body of water, with no humanly achievable solution or way out. Just as in the case of Noah, Israel was preserved because God gave them breath in the form of a strong east wind that pushed back the waters, and allowed them to escape and survive their baptism by water, while the Egyptians did not (Exo 14:21-30).

What’s interesting in this case is that Paul describes Israel as being baptized into a person, namely Moses. This is similar to how scripture describes new covenant believers as being baptized into Christ. One could even argue that Israel was baptized into the name of Moses, since being baptized into a person, and being baptized into that person’s name seem to be used interchangeably in scripture (cf. Gal 3:27, Act 2:38). Also, a simple survey the book of Hebrews (and much of the rest of the epistles) shows us that many, many parallels exist between Moses and Jesus. Just as Moses was a mediator of the lesser covenant between God and Israel at Sinai (together with the mixed multitude of Gentiles who were grafted in), so Jesus is the mediator of a better covenant between God and Israel, and all Gentiles who have been grafted in.

So we can expect to see many parallels between the baptism of Moses and the baptism of Christ. One such parallel can be seen when we ask the question, “Who or what delivered God’s people through this baptism?” Consider for example Stephen’s recounting of the Red Sea’s parting to the Sanhedrin (religious leaders of Israel in the time of Christ).

“This Moses, whom they rejected, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge?’–this man God sent as both ruler and redeemer by the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush.

This man led them out, performing wonders and signs in Egypt and at the Red Sea and in the wilderness for forty years. This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, ‘God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers.'” (Act 7:35-37)

Stephen here is arguing that the Sanhedrin treated Jesus the same way their forefathers treated Moses — by rejecting the very redeemer that God had sent. Then he shows that Moses himself told them that God would send another redeemer, similar to him in many ways, but (as argued elsewhere) superior in his act of redemption.

In this account, Moses is given credit for the acts of God, including his parting of the Red Sea. This transfer of credit is a very common phenomenon for Moses; God himself said that Moses would be his representative to Israel, even being treated as if he were God (Exo 4:16). Isaiah describes the Red Sea account as God redeeming Israel through the hand of Moses (Isa 63:12). So both Moses and God are credited with this redemption.

The Holy Spirit is also given credit for delivering Israel, being typified through the “breath” of God that preserved them through the waters, then came to dwell in their midst in the tabernacle (cf. Exo 15:8, Isa 63:11-14). So if the concept of being baptized into a person is understood as being baptized into the person(s) performing the redemption, as it seems to be, then one could say that the baptism of Moses at the Red Sea was ultimately a baptism into God, Moses and the Holy Spirit. Then, just as the new covenant baptism into the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is summarized as a baptism into Christ (e.g. Gal 3:27), so the baptism into God, Moses and the Holy Spirit is described as a baptism into Moses (1Co 10:1-2). The baptism into God, Noah and the Holy Spirit/wind (Gen 8:1) would then likely also follow a similar pattern.

The purpose of this survey of old testament baptism is to help us understand whether or not baptism and the trinity are necessarily linked together in the new testament baptism described in Matthew 28. Other articles focus on demonstrating problems with the trinity; this article is simply intended to demonstrate that the doctrine of the trinity is not necessary to explain why these three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are the names into which Christians are baptized.

When new testament baptism is compared to those of the old testament, two of the persons described remain consistent throughout — the Father and the Spirit (note that the terms “Father” and “God” are used interchangeably by new testament authors). But one person is different in each instance, namely the human representative of God — Noah, Moses, and Jesus. When we recognize that Noah and Moses were types/foreshadows of Jesus however, we can establish a typological link for the second person, just as the Spirit is typologically linked to wind. Because Noah and Moses were ordinary humans, this shifts the discussion from viewing baptism in trinitarian terms (three divine persons) to a question of roles. What role did the three persons play in each baptism and story of redemption?

• God (the Father): Initiates and presides over a plan of judgement and redemption
• Noah / Moses / Jesus: A man sent by God as his representative, prophet, instrument of salvation, and mediator of a new covenant.
• Spirit / Wind / Breath: The means by which God saved his people from/through the baptism, giving them life in the midst of death.

When we see the new covenant in the light of the old, it helps to demonstrate that importing trinitarian theology into Matthew 28 isn’t the only (or even the best) way to explain why three persons are involved in Christ’s redemption. God here is not at all concerned with revealing to mankind the ontological nature of his inner workings. This is about man’s redemption, and the figures involved in bringing it about. Noah was not divine. Neither was Moses. In fact, as far as we know, the wind that saved Noah and his household was not divine in any way either, being merely an earthly wind sent by God, a mere shadow of the Holy Spirit.

The point is, while it is true that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all divine in some sense, that divinity is an incidental detail, not directly relevant to understanding the baptism of Matthew 28. They are joined together here and in other passages by their roles in redemption, not because they are all co-equal, co-eternal members of the godhead.

As discussed elsewhere, patternists agree with trinitarians that the Holy Spirit is a person within the godhead. But the “Father” and the “Son” are spoken of as divine for other reasons. The article Jesus is the Father Incarnate gives a better understanding of how patternists think through this subject; I’ll quote three paragraphs to give the sense of it.

This is why pattern christology is able to remove both the Father and the Son from being distinct persons within the godhead. The term “Father” is used interchangeably with the term “God” throughout much of the new testament, leaving us with the very natural interpretation of viewing the term “Father” as a description of the entire godhead, not an individual person within the godhead. The Father is personal, because the godhead is a composite person.

The Son on the other hand is personal because Jesus is a man, a human son of the divine Father, just like everyday Christians. To be sure, Jesus is the Father (God) incarnate, allowing both divine and human activities to be attributed to his composite person. But the personal distinction that we see between Father and Son is nothing more than a personal distinction between God and man, between Jesus’ divine and human natures.

Thus the Father is not properly a member of the godhead, since he is the godhead. Neither is the Son a member of the godhead, as his distinct personhood comes from his human nature. As we looked at above, he exhibits a human will that is distinct from that of his Father; he faces human temptations; he experiences the limitations of a human mind. By removing both the Father and the Son from the godhead, this leaves us with the Word and the Spirit, two persons united as one in the composite person of the Father.

— Trinity Berean, Jesus is the Father Incarnate

Whether or not someone agrees with the patternist rendering of the godhead, we can be certain that trinitarian theology is not a necessary conclusion or precondition of Matthew 28, or any other passage that speaks of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in relationship to our redemption. First, there is no grammatical rule that requires us to understand the three persons as sharing one name — and even if there were, that would not refute the patternist rendering in any way. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all rightly spoken of as Yahweh God, for a variety of reasons (such as the hypostatic union, or composite personhood).

Second, scripture presents us with a continual pattern of three persons involved in various redemptions — namely God, a human mediator, and the Spirit of life. Because the second person in each case is a human, and only in Jesus’ case is also divine, this repudiates the idea that baptism and the trinity are linked in any way through the divinity of all parties that are mentioned. Jesus is included in this list with the Father and the Spirit specifically because he is a man — like Noah, and like Moses — not because his is divine (1Ti 2:5). We have no reason from Jesus’ words to assume that the great commission is teaching us anything about the ontological nature of God. Rather, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the three persons involved in man’s redemption — the one to whom we are reconciled (God), the mediator of the covenant (Jesus the man), and the giver of life (the Spirit and breath of God who dwells among us).

The trinity is not a foregone conclusion of the great commission, nor is it explicitly taught anywhere else in scripture. Instead, there is room within the body of Christ for competing theological systems to debate and discuss issues like baptism and the trinity with grace and charity for one another.