The Holey Trinity - In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19)

This was kind of surprising to me when I found out that Trinitarians interpret this verse to prove that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all one (God). I've read this verse many times and never once thought it even hinted at that idea! But that's what happens when a person reads the Bible without the preconceived notion that God is a Trinity. Apparently the thought is, since the singular usage of "name" is referring to all 3 that all 3 must have the same "name" and must all be the same being. Based on logic alone, this interpretation is completely faulty. If a check is written "in the name of" the husband and the wife, does that mean they are the same being? Even if 3 people have the same name does that make them the same being? There are probably a thousand Mike Smith's in the world, does that mean that make up one Mike Smith? My father and I share the same name, but we are not the same being. It is poor logic.

 

Beyond that, the Father has his own name; Jehovah. The Son has his own name; Jesus. The Holy Spirit, one can assume, doesn't have a name because it does not appear in the Bible. Based on the fact that the 'other persons of God' have names, angels have names, and the devil has a name, reasonably then one can conclude that the Holy Spirit (being a person and more important than the angels and the devil, and as equally God as the Father and the Son) would also have a name. Despite what the Bible says regarding the names of the Father and Son, and that the Holy Spirit is not given a name in the Bible, Trinitarians ignore those facts and take the liberty of giving them all the same name. Am I the only one who sees something very wrong about that? So, taking into account the context of the Bible, the Trinitarian interpretation doesn't make sense.

I have asked Trinitarians several times, "What was the name Jesus spoke that he repeatedly 'glorified' and 'made known'?" The most common reply was something along the lines of I need to understand that "name" does necessarily mean name in the sense of identification but it means reputation or power. Yet, in this instance at Matthew 28:19, Trinitarians don't seem to allow for that same ambiguity. In this particular scripture "name" is used to identify these 3 persons as one. Funny how that works, isn't it? The reality is that the argument Trinitarians made to me about the name that Jesus glorified is indeed valid. It COULD mean Jesus was making Jehovah's power or reputation known. Given they were living in a world of pagan Gods, however, it seems likely that Jesus would have had to identify his God, Jehovah, by name. This is the reason why Moses asked God for his name:

 

"And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? What shall I say unto them?"" - Exodus 3:13 (ASV)

 

"And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations." - Exodus 3:15 (ASV)

 

So, however unlikely, it would not be an accurate statement for me to say that it is not possible that Jesus did not mean power or authority.

[It is true "name" can mean "power" or "authority" but it is] "in general of the name by which a person or thing is called" - W. E. Vine; An Expository Dictionary of NewTestament Words

Additionally, the same can be said here. In fact, it is acknowledged that what is actually meant by this usage of "name" at Matthew 29:18 IS in regards to power authority, not identification.

 

"The use of name here [at Matthew 28:19] is a common one in the Sept. for power or authority." - A.T. Robertson; Word Pictures in the New Testament

 

[Bible phrases that begin with 'in the name of...'] "indicate that the secondary meaning of "authority" or "power" was intended by the Bible writer." - W. E. Vine; An Expository Dictionary of NewTestament Words

W.E. Vine specifically points to Matthew 28:19 in his reference work on this topic:

 

"in recognition of the authority of (sometimes combined with the thought of relying on or resting on), Matt. 18:20; cp. 28:19; Acts 8:16...." - W. E. Vine; An Expository Dictionary of NewTestament Words

 
"This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity." - McClintock and Strong; Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature
 
Along those lines this verse does not say "and these 3 are 1" or "In the name of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit" or "and these 3 are God" or anything remotely close to representing that thought. There is literally no logical reason for this verse to be interpreted to prove they are all equally God. It just simply does not say that. This is just another desperate attempt for Trinitarians to force the Trinity doctrine into a place that it does not exist, the Bible. The ONLY way this verse means they are all God is through the fallacy of eisegesis, which is to force a belief into scripture.