Main Menu

Oneness Issues

Matt 28:19
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:
(KJV)

The singular use of "name" does NOT indicate a common name for all three, as Oneness Pentecostals claim. The singular word "name" applies to each individually, as follows: "baptizing them in the name of the Father, also the Son, also the Holy Spirit." Whether the text uses the singular "name" collectively, or individually, is not determined by the singular "name," but by other factors. We can illustrate this with common examples.

"I deposited money into the account of the Father, and the mother, and the child." This sentence could be understood in two ways. It could mean that I made one deposit into a common account. Or, it could mean that I made three deposits into three separate accounts. It is difficult to say for certain which is meant. The reason is that it is equally possible to have a common account, or three separate accounts. The singular "account" does not require a common account. What makes the difference is whether we understand the two clauses, "and the mother," and "and the child," to modify the word "account," or to modify the verb "deposited." For example:

"I deposited money into the account of the father, and (the account of) the mother, and (the account of) the child." In this example, the additional clauses simply modify the noun "the account." However, it is just as grammatically proper to understand these additional clauses to modify the verb, "deposited." For example:

However, lets look at another example, where no such ambiguity exists.

"The doctor operated on the nose of the father, and the mother, and the child." This sentence can be understood only one way; that the singular word "nose" applies to all three individually. This is because we know that distinct people do not typically share a common nose. We understand the word "and" in this sentence to have the sense of "also," applying the action of the verb associated with the first noun to the last two nouns as well. "The doctor operated on the nose of the father, also the mother, also the child."

Sharp's Rule
The Greek text reads:
"eiV to onoma tou PatroV kai tou Uiou kai tou Hagiou PneumatoV"
"unto the name the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost."

The definite article "tou" (the) before Son and Holy Ghost indicates that they are all distinct persons. The grammatical rule which governs whether a single or multiple persons are meant, when "and" appears, is called the "Granville Sharp rule." The basic rule is as follows:

"If two nouns of the same case are connected by a "kai" (and) and the article (the) is used with both nouns, they refer to different persons or things. If only the first noun has the article, the second noun refers to the same person or thing referred to in the first." {Curtis Vaughn, and Virtus Gideon, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament" (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1979), p. 83.}"

The presence of the article "the" before Son and Holy Spirit where all three are connected by "and" indicates three separate persons. The singular use of "name" implies that each has a separate name.

Oneness Pentecostals understand the text as though it was written like this:
"eiV to onoma tou PatroV kai Uiou kai Hagiou PneumatoV"
"in the name the Father and Son and Holy Ghost."

In that case the singular "name" would indicate one name for all three, and also imply that all are the same person. However, the definite article before each indicates distinct persons and a separate name for each. In other words, the Granville Sharp rule indicates that the passage should be read as follows: "baptizing them in the name (of) the Father, and (in the name of) the Son, and (in the name of) the Holy Ghost." We have three (masculine) nouns, the first noun (Father) has the article (the), then we have "and the" Son, "and the" Holy Ghost. Sharp's rule requires that these are three distinct persons.

Furthermore, had Jesus used the plural (names), the grammar would indicate a plurality of names for each individual one! ("the names of the Father, and the names of the Son, and the names of the Holy Ghost.")

There is one exception to Sharp's rule. "Except distinct and different actions are intended to be attributed to one and the same person; ...the context must explain or point out plainly the person to whom the two nouns relate." The exception requires that the context actually names a single individual to whom the other nouns are attributed. Sharp himself gave Thomas' exclamation to Jesus as an example of the exception; "My Lord and My God." (the Lord of me and the God of me). The text clearly stated in the context that Thomas was referring to Jesus. Matt. 28:19 does NOT qualify for the exception because no one else is named in the context to whom the titles "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" point directly to.

Some oneness Pentecostals claim an exception to Sharp's rule by claiming that the word "name" is actually a synonym for "God." However, nowhere in Scripture is "name" used as a synonym for God. That is not a legitimate exception to the rule, which states that the context must point PLAINLY to the person to whom the nouns relate. If "name" was a synonym for God, then this passage would say: "...baptizing them in the God of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit." The word "name" is in the nominative case, and "the Father," and "the Son," and "the Holy Spirit" are all in the genitive case. The nominative case is the subject of the verb. The genitive case nouns act as possessives. They limit the word "name" to that possessed by the genitive case nouns. That is, the belonging to "the Father," and to "the Son," and to "the Holy Spirit." If "name" is a synonym for God, then the Father, the Son, and the "Holy Spirit" would each have a "God" called "Name." Such an interpretation is absurd.

As A.T. Robertson points out in his Word Pictures, the use of "in the name" here means "by the authority." Therefore "name" CANNOT mean "God." The bottom line is this verse does not qualify for the exception, and therefore MUST refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as separate persons. In essence, this verse validates the Trinity.

Robert M. Bowman Jr, PhD, easily shoots down attempts to discount Sharp's rule, and Sharp's exception.

"In the first edition of his Exegetical Fallacies, Carson also argued that two substantives joined by kai which both have a definite article do not necessarily refer to two distinct entities. Here Carson was actually challenging the uniform validity of Sharp’s sixth rule, according to which two or more substantives connected by kai refer to distinct persons if they each have the definite article preceding, unless the text explicitly applies them to a single person. In Carson’s example text, Revelation 2:26, the two substantives are explicitly applied to one person: “And he who overcomes, and he who keeps my deeds, I shall give to him (autô) authority over the nations.” In texts where such application is not made, the substantives refer to distinct persons, as in Matthew 28:19 (“the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”)." ₁

Really Big Trouble for Oneness Pentecostals
Below are a few more passages where Sharp's rule applies to crucial passages with serious implications regarding the Godhead.

I John 2:22
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
(KJV)

II John 1:9
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
(KJV)

All of these passages fall under Sharp's rule. And all of them prove that the Father and the Son are distinct persons. These verses put Oneness Pentecostals in the extremely awkward position of denying the very thing that John wrote is what distinguishes the Spirit of God from the spirit of Antichrist.

Notes:
1. Bowman, Robert M. Jr., Sharp's Rule, p.16

Back to the top