Blog

Introduction: In this blog essay, I will defend The Doctrine Of The Trinity using only passages from the gospel of Matthew. The purpose of this excercize is to show that the doctrine of The Trinity is so abundantly attested in scripture that I can do it even with such strict limitations, as I am typically accustomed to defending the doctrine from passages all over the biblical canon. As I have said in previous writings on the subject, the Trinity is a systematic theological conclusion which flows from 5 biblical facts; (1) There is only one God. (2) The Father is God, (3) The Son is God, (4) The Holy Spirit is God, and (5) The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit are distinct in their personhood. We will see support for all 5 of these statements from Matthew’s gospel. I will only go outside of Matthew when showing how Old Testament theology undergirds and provides much-needed context, showing how passages would have been interpreted in Jewish minds, for example. Finally, this essay is part of a series, but unlike previous blog series on this site, each installment can be read as stand-alone articles, in no particular order. In other words, no “Part 1, Part 2, Part 3”, etc.

(1) There Is Only One God.

Matthew’s gospel has no explicit declaration of monotheism, so at first glance it would appear that we’re off to a very bad start. After all, the doctrine of The Trinity is that there is only one God who exists as three persons. “God is 1 what, but 3 whos” as preachers like to say. However, I don’t think Matthew needs to make an explicit declaration of monotheism.It is pretty much unanimous among biblical scholars that Matthew is a very Jewish gospel. Matthew repeatedly quotes Old Testament passages whenever Jesus says or does something, or something happens to Jesus (Matthew 1:22-23; 2:15; 2:17-18; 4:14-16) and prefaces his quotation with “This happened to fulfill the scriptures that says….” Moreover, unlike Mark who goes out of his way to explain Jewish customs, because Mark is believed to be writing to a predominantly Gentile audience, (Mark 7:3-4; 14:12; 15:42), Matthew presupposes knowledge of Jewish customs on the part of his readers (Matthew 15:2; 23:5), which makes perfect sense if Matthew’s main and immediate audience consisted of mostly Jewish people. The repeated quotations of prophecy on Matthew’s part is clearly part of his apologetic to convince his fellow Jews that Jesus is the Messiah. ^[1]Now, I know that it is argued that Matthew misuses Old Testament passages. People argue that when you look up several of the passages Matthew quotes and read them in context, they have nothing to do … Continue reading Given this, it is safe to infer that Matthew would have affirmed Jewish monotheism. But this point is strengthened by the fact that when a lawyer asked Jesus what the greatest commandment is, Jesus responded with “You shall love the Lord your God with all of your heart, with all of your soul, and with all of your mind.” Jesus said this is the first and greatest commandment. (see Matthew 22:34-39). Jesus is quoting Deuteronomy 6:5, which comes immediately after Deuteronomy 6:4 and is part of a Jewish prayer called the Shema. The full quotation would be “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” (ESV)

Matthew and his Jewish audience would have undoubtedly known the full quotation, and so, we do have subtle assertion of the first biblical teaching that “There is only one God.”

Now, at this point, I need to address something. The Shema is used by Arian groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and by modalists like the Oneness Pentecostals to argue against The Trinity. For example, the WatchTower Pamphlet “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” says ““Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one God.’\”Those words are found at Deuteronomy 6:4. The Catholic New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) here reads: ‘Listen, Israel: Yahweh our God is the one, the only Yahweh.’ * In the grammar of that verse, the word ‘one’ has no plural modifiers to suggest that it means anything but one individual.” ^[2]The WatchTower Society, “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” — Should You Believe It? (jw.org) For a full point by point refutation of this book, see my articles “Why You Should … Continue reading The Lord is one is taken by these groups to mean The Lord is one person. The argument is that if the doctrine of The Trinity were true, God would not be one, “The Lord our God is three” would be true.

There are a three problems with this argument. For one thing, if the JWs were right about The Trinity being a post 4th century development ^[3]See The WatchTower Society, “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” — Should You Believe It? (jw.org) (which they are not), then Moses can’t be saying “The Lord is one (person)” in an attempt to refute Trinitarianism because Trinitarianism wasn’t a thing yet. Moreover, there is plentiful evidence of a two-person Godhead in the Old Testament, ^[4]See my YouTube video “The Angel Of The Lord and A Two Person Godhead In The Old Testament” in which I go over a lot of the biblical evidences. For written sources, check out the book … Continue reading The Doctrine of The Trinity is overwhelmingly supported by the New Testament, and so we must let scripture interpret scripture.

But what is Moses saying here? I take this to be a vow of loyalty to Yahweh alone. “The LORD our God”. “Yahweh our elohim, Yahweh is one.” Remember that the gods of the nation are real (see Psalm 82, Exodus 12:12, Deuteronomy 32:8-9, 1 Corinthians 10:20, et. al.) And we know that idolatry was a very real problem in ancient Israel from the books of Kings and the prophetic books. Moses is very likely saying “Yahweh is our elohim”. We don’t have any elohim other than Yahweh. “Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our elohim, Yahweh is one.” This could be construed as “Yahweh is the one”. Moses is saying “Yahweh is the one God that we will worship. We won’t worship any other elohim; not Baal, Dagon, Ashera, Ra, or whoever.” That this is a loyalty oath rather than an (anacronistic) statement of unitarianism is strengthened by the very next verse which says “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” (ESV) The phrase “is one” can also be construed as a statement of supremacy. Despite the existence of other elohim being repeatedly acknowledged in scripture, we have statements like “I am the first and the last, besides me there is no god.” (Isaiah 44:6). This isn’t a contradiction, because this is likely to be construed as a statement of supremacy. I say this for two reasons; first in Isaiah 44:7 God says “Who is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and set it before me, since I appointed an ancient people.” (ESV) Secondly, this same language is used in the mouths of Ninevah and Babylon. As the late biblical scholar Dr. Michael S. Heiser says “Isaiah 47:8 and Zephaniah 2:15 have, respectively, Babylon and Nineveh saying “there is none besides me.” Are we to believe that the point of the phrase is to declare that no other cities exist except Babylon or Nineveh? That would be absurd. The point of the statement is that Babylon and Nineveh considered themselves incomparable, as though no other city could measure up to them. This is precisely the point when these same phrases are used of other gods—they cannot measure up to Yahweh.” ^[5]Heiser, Michael S.. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (p. 35). Lexham Press. Kindle Edition.

Ultimately, Deuteronomy 6:4 is definitely a statement of exclusive worship of Yahweh, and that Yahweh is the only God Israel should worship, and possibly the God above all Gods. He is the ultimate God! Or as philosophers like William Lane Craig would say, “God is a Maximally Great Being.” ^[6]William Lane Craig, “Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics”, ed. John S. Feinberg and Leonard Goss (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008), 184–185. So it is true that there is “Only one God” if by “One God” we mean, one Maximally Great Elohim. ^[7]For an excellent biblical discussion on God’s “Omni” attributes which make Him a Maximally Great Being, I recommend “The Attributes of God Volume 1: A Journey Into the … Continue reading “All other elohim are created beings who either serve Yahweh or are in rebellion against Him. On the doctrine of The Trinity, Jesus and The Holy Spirit are not separate gods on equal footing with Yahweh, they ARE Yahweh! They are the same God as The Father, they just aren’t the same person. The doctrine of The Trinity asserts that God is one spiritual essence containing three co-eternal persons. God is one what and three whos. So, Jesus would not be a “God besides YHWH”. He is Yahweh.

(2) The Father Is God

That The Father is God is probably the most uncontroversial plank in the biblical case for The Trinity. Literally no one denies that The Father is God. I hardly even see a need to provide examples to defend this point on that basis, but to keep this subsection from being completely blank, I’ll provide just three. Matthew 6:9-13. This is “The Lord’s Prayer” and it’s found in the context of Jesus’ Sermon On The Mount. This is the section in which Jesus is instructing His audience on how to pray, and he addresses God as “Our Father”. In Matthew 7:21, Jesus emphasizes the importance of doing the will of the Father, stating, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven.” (NASB) This underscores the expectation of obedience and alignment with God’s will. Thirdly, God the Father identifies Jesus as His Son during significant moments, such as at Jesus’ baptism in Matthew 3:17, where a voice from heaven declares, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” We’ll return to this passage again later in this essay.

(3) Jesus Christ Is God

Exhibit A: Jesus Christ is “God With Us”

In Matthew 1:18-23, we read, “Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.’ All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel'” (ESV)

Of particular focus is verse 23 which is a quotation of Isaiah 7:14 in which the title of Jesus is “God With Us”. Stewart Weber comments on this passage, saying “Matthew is quick to support the doctrine of the virgin birth, and his quote in 1:23 is from Isaiah 7:14, originally written by the prophet Isaiah over seven hundred years before Jesus’ birth. This verse in its original Old Testament context seems to be referring to a child who was to be born in that setting of Isaiah’s day, rather than centuries later. However, Matthew’s inspired revelation fills the original statement out to its full intention. God is never so clearly present with his people as he is through his virgin-born Son, the Messiah of Israel. Jesus is Immanuel! The linguistic components of the name Immanuel and their individual translations—Im = “with,” anu = “us,” and el = “God”—make it clear that Isaiah’s original prophecy could refer in its fullest sense only to the promised Messiah. This name of Jesus is a strong argument for his deity.” ^[8]Stuart K. Weber, Matthew, vol. 1, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 19.

Let me now respond to a couple of objections to this verse. The first objection is that Jesus was never named “Immanuel”. Jesus was named…well, Jesus. Yeshuah in Hebrew and Iesus in Greek. In no transliteration of his name does Jesus = Immanuel. First, just consider for the moment that Matthew is well aware of this! He consistently refers to Jesus by his given name. That should clue us in that maybe Matthew knew something you don’t, unless you assume without any basis at all that Matthew was just a complete dunderhead. Well, what might that be?

The point was not that Jesus would literally bear the name “Immanuel,” but rather that this name described Jesus’ role—to bring God’s presence to people. ^[9]Bruce B. Barton, Matthew, Life Application Bible Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996), 18.

The meaning of “Immanuel” has a deeper significance in Jesus’ case. He does more than testify to God’s presence; he himself is God—now come personally to be with his people forever. As J. Knox Chamblin says “Furthermore, ‘Immanuel’ now bears a deeper meaning than was possible in Isaiah’s day. For Jesus does more than testify to God’s presence; he himself is God—now come personally to be with his people forever (cf. Matt. 28:20). Greek Iēsous (v. 21) corresponds to the Hebrew yĕhôšuaʽ, which means Yahweh is salvation. Joshua served Yahweh’s saving purpose, but Mary’s child is the Savior himself. He is named Jesus, ‘because he will save his people from their sins’ (v. 21). … In the phrase they will call him Immanuel (v. 23), ‘they’ refers to the people whom Jesus saves. ‘God is with us!’ exclaim his redeemed people.” ^[10]J. Knox Chamblin, “Matthew,” in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, vol. 3, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1995), 725. Jesus’ birth showed that God is faithful to fulfill His promises in ways far beyond human expectations, for Jesus was not just a sign of God with us, but God become flesh, God incarnate, God with us in Person. ^[11]Chad Brand et al., eds., “Immanuel,” in Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 810.

Moreover, as GotQuestions.org says “There are many ‘names’ given to Jesus in the Old and New Testaments, and Immanuel is one of them. Isaiah elsewhere prophesied of the Messiah, ‘He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace’ (Isaiah 9:6). Jesus was never called by any of those ‘names’ by the people He met in Galilee or Judea, but they are accurate descriptions of who He is and what He does. The angel said that Jesus ‘will be called the Son of the Most High’ (Luke 1:32) and ‘the Son of God’ (verse 35), but neither of those was His given name.” ^[12]GotQuestions.org, “Why Wasn’t Jesus Named Immanuel?” –> https://www.gotquestions.org/Immanuel-Jesus.html

A second objection is that Jesus’ title-name being “God with us”, if it proves that he is God incarnate, then we would have to say the same of other biblical figures. The Old Testament Joshua’s name meant “Yahweh is salvation”, but Joshua wasn’t Yahweh. Samuel (Hebrew: שְׁמוּאֵל Šəmūʾēl, Tiberian: Šămūʾēl) ^[13]Khan, Geoffrey (2020). The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew, Volume 1. Open Book Publishers. ISBN 978-1783746767. is a male name and a surname of Hebrew origin. It means “name of God”, deriving from the Hebrew Shem (שֵׁם) (which means “name”) ^[14]“Strong’s Hebrew Concordance – 7760. shem”. Does this mean the prophet Samuel was God? Of course not. So then, why would Jesus being called “Immanuel” mean that Jesus is God?

I want to stress the difference between a name that makes a statement about God and a name that declares the person is God’s presence. “Yahweh is Salvation” (Joshua) is a statement of theological belief about God’s action in the world (God saves). It doesn’t mean Joshua is salvation or is Yahweh.”God with Us” (Immanuel): The name Immanuel is interpreted to mean that Jesus, the one named, is the realization of God’s personal presence with humanity. This interpretation is reinforced by the rest of the New Testament, which explicitly attributes divine nature to Jesus (e.g., John 1:1-3, 14; Philippians 2:6-7; Colossians 2:9). There is definitely something to be said about letting scripture interpret scripture, and the Christological meaning of Immanuel being reinforced by everywhere else in the New Testament where Jesus is called God by others, or claims to be God Himself. However, since we’re trying to stay inside of Matthew for the purpose of our project here, we won’t look at those passages. For now, just imagine someone saying “You are Godwithus.”

Thirdly, Matthew begins his gospel with “Immanuel” and concludes it with a similar statement in Matthew 28:20: “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” This creates a literary inclusio (a structural device) where Jesus, the one named “God with us” (Immanuel), ends his earthly ministry by promising his permanent, divine presence with his followers. If Jesus were merely a prophet or great man, his concluding promise of constant, universal, and perpetual presence would be a profound act of blasphemy. Only a divine being could fulfill the promise of being “with you always.”

In summary, my response is that Immanuel is not a common naming convention; it is a divinely revealed messianic title that, when combined with the rest of New Testament evidence, points definitively to the doctrine of the Incarnation—God becoming man.

Exhibit B: John The Baptist Prepares The Way For YHWH

Matthew 3:1-3 says “In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said ‘The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight.’” (ESV)

Matthew introduces us to John The Baptist and quotes Isaiah 40:3 as being about John. Isaiah 40:3 says “A voice cries: ‘In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD;  make straight in the desert a highway for our God.” (ESV) Notice that LORD is in all caps. This signifies that underneath the Hebrew, the name is YHWH. Matthew tells his readers that Isaiah 40:3 is about John The Baptist. If the “voice of one crying in the wilderness” prepares the way for YHWH and John The Baptist is preparing the way for Jesus, this heavily implies that Jesus is YHWH. How do we know John is preparing the way for Jesus? Well, Matthew 3:11-12 is pretty suggestive. “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.” (ESV, emphasis mine in bold)

Exhibit C: Jesus and The Spoken Word

In Matthew 8:5-13, we read about a centurion who asks Jesus to heal his servant who is sick. He doesn’t want Jesus to come with him because he doesn’t feel that he is worthy for Jesus to come into his house. He says if Jesus merely speaks the word, the healing will happen. The centurion also calls him “Lord”, the Greek word for Lord (Kyrios) being the same as what Yahweh is called in the LXX.

Eugene Carpenter and Phillip W. Comfort say “God’s ‘word’ has power to execute His will. It will not return to Him empty but accomplish that which He purposes (Isa. 44:23; 55:11). By His speech alone, God created the world, and His word upholds it (Gen. 1; Ps. 33:6; Heb. 1:3; 11:3; 2 Pet. 3:5).” ^[15]Eugene E. Carpenter and Philip W. Comfort, Holman Treasury of Key Bible Words: 200 Greek and 200 Hebrew Words Defined and Explained (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 422.

In Genesis 1, God creates everything by just speaking it into being. Repeatedly saying “Let there be” followed by the author of Genesis saying “And it was so”, i.e what God spoke into existence came into existence. By portraying Jesus as capable of healing through a mere spoken word, Matthew might be suggesting a high Christology that connects Jesus to the divine creative power seen in Genesis 1, where God created the world by His speech alone. Notice that Jesus doesn’t pray to The Father for the son to be healed. Jesus simply says the word himself and it is done. It is under the authority of Jesus (and from a distance!) that the centurion’s son is healed! In fact, this is a recurring theme in Matthew and the other synoptics; that Jesus just speaks or acts on his own to make miraculous things happen rather than praying to God first or commanding it to happen in the name of God (e.g like the apostles would do in Acts 3:6). But the most profound example of this is to be discussed below;

Exhibit D: Jesus Calms The Winds and The Waves

Matthew 8:23-27 says “And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him. And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea, so that the boat was being swamped by the waves; but he was asleep. And they went and woke him, saying, ‘Save us, Lord; we are perishing.’ And he said to them, ‘Why are you afraid, O you of little faith?’ Then he rose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm. And the men marveled, saying, ‘What sort of man is this, that even winds and sea obey him?'” (ESV)

Jesus rebukes the storm. The winds and waves stop. The FaithLife Study Bible says “Since in the ancient Near East the sea represented chaotic forces controllable only by God, Jesus’ command of the waves serves as a sign of His deity. See note on Gen 1:2.” ^[16]John D. Barry et al., Faithlife Study Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2016), Mt 8:26. It is noteworthy that Jesus does not pray to the Father for the winds and waves to stop. They stop at His direct command. Moreover, this would have astonished Jews because the domain of weather and waves, as the FaithLife Study Bible note explains, was something a god did, Yahweh in The Old Testament and Baal in the Ugaritic material. Jesus couldn’t have chosen a more dramatic way to underscore his divine identity, as the Old Testament explicitly explains that control over weather is one of God’s particular glories. Specifically, Psalm 89:6-9 emphasizes that only the Lord God of Hosts can calm storms. ^[17]Douglas Mangum, ed., Lexham Context Commentary: New Testament, Lexham Context Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020). Jesus, in rebuking the wind and sea, he demonstrates that only the one who initially created these elements would dare to command them. Their instant obedience reveals his full deity as both Creator and Redeemer. ^[18]R. Alan Cole, Mark: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 2:156. Importantly, the Gospels indicate that only Jesus performed “nature” miracles, because only Jesus is God, and “only God can do God’s work”. ^[19]R. Alan Cole, “Mark,” in New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, ed. D. A. Carson et al. (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 959. This ability to calm a storm was absolutely unprecedented in redemptive history—no Old Testament prophet had ever accomplished such a feat with a simple word of command.

In Psalm 107:28-29, we read, “Then they cried out to the Lord in their trouble, and he brought them out of their distress. He stilled the storm to a whisper; the waves of the sea were hushed. They were glad when it grew calm, and he guided them to their desired haven.” (NIV) I don’t think this would have been lost on Matthew’s Jewish audience. They would have sung this psalm in synagogues corporately, and probably individually in their own daily lives (just as we sometimes sing hymns outside of church today). But modern Americans don’t know the Old Testament like Second Temple Jews did. So, no, Jesus isn’t saying “I am God” here, but he doesn’t have to. His actions would have undoubtedly spoke louder than His words, prompting the disciples to ask, “What sort of man is this, that even the winds and the waves obey him?”

Finally, there is a possibility that this event alludes to the book of Jonah. Think about it. When Jonah was on a ship to Tarshish (to avoid preaching to the Ninevites) (Jonah 1:3), Jonah fell asleep at the bottom of the ship (Jonah 1:5). God, being angry at Jonah, caused a huge storm to surge (Jonah 1:4). Yet despite how fierce the storm was, Jonah remained asleep until the crew came and frantically woke him up (Jonah 1:6). After Jonah confesses that the storm is God’s doing because God is angry with him, the crew of the boat throw Jonah overboard and the storm ceases (Jonah 1:15). Who caused the storm to become still in this story? Yahweh Elohim, of course. In the gospel event, Jesus (a human prophet like Jonah) is asleep in the boat while a storm rages (Matthew 8:24). The disciples are panicking, and like the crew in the book of Jonah, they have to wake Jesus up. (Matthew 8:25). After waking Jesus up, the storm is stilled, in this case, because Jesus Himself rebuked the storm (Matthew 8:26). Someone greater than Jonah was here indeed! (Matthew 12:41). The comparison between Jesus and Jonah is fascinating because Jesus not only echoes the scene but also transcends it, demonstrating a divine authority that only God exercised in the Book of Jonah.

Exhibit E: Jesus Walking On The Water

Matthew 14:22-32 says “Immediately, he made the disciples get into the boat and go before him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowds. And after he had dismissed the crowds, he went up on the mountain by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone, but the boat by this time was a long way from the land, beaten by the waves, for the wind was against them. And in the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, and said, ‘It is a ghost!’ and they cried out in fear. But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, ‘Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid.’ And Peter answered him, ‘Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.’ He said, ‘Come.’ So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, ‘Lord, save me.’ Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, ‘O you of little faith, why did you doubt?’ And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased.” (ESV)

John Daniels Of Theology In Five says “In the Gospel accounts of Matthew 14:22–33, Mark 6:45–52, and John 6:16–21, Jesus walks on the Sea of Galilee to reach His disciples. This event is not merely a display of supernatural ability. It is a direct confrontation with ancient Near Eastern ideas of chaos and divine power. In the mythologies of the surrounding nations, the sea symbolized the uncontrollable forces of disorder and rebellion. Deities such as Yam in Canaanite texts or Tiamat in Mesopotamian myth personified the chaotic deep. Only a god could walk upon the sea or subdue it.” ^[20]John Daniels, “The Meaning Of Jesus Walking On Water And The Disciples Following Him”, Theology In Five, October 28th 2025. –> … Continue reading Daniels continues by saying, “By walking on the waters of a violent storm, Jesus is not just performing a miracle. He is making a theological claim. He is doing what the Hebrew Scriptures say only Yahweh can do.” ^[21]ibid. And he’s right. The previously quoted Theology in Five article then quotes the following passages showing us that it was Yahweh and Yahweh alone who the Old Testament writers said could walk on the sea. For example, Job 9:8 says, “He alone spreads out the heavens, And treads on the waves of the sea;” (NKJV) ” Psalm 77:19 declares, “Your way was in the sea, Your path in the great waters, And Your footsteps were not known.” (NKJV) Jesus’s action would have been immediately recognized by His Jewish disciples as a sign of divine identity.

Exhibit F: Jesus Forgives The Sins Of The Paralytic

In Matthew 9:1-8, we read “And getting into a boat he crossed over and came to his own city. And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.’ And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, ‘This man is blaspheming.’ But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, ‘Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’—he then said to the paralytic—’Rise, pick up your bed and go home.’ And he rose and went home. When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.” (ESV)

In this passage, Jesus tells a paralytic that his sins are forgiven. This prompts charges of blasphemy on the part of the scribes. Mark has a parallel account in Mark 2:1-12. But why were the people upset? What was so blasphemous about what Jesus said here?

C.S Lewis put it well; “Now, unless the speaker is God, this is really so preposterous as to be comic. We can all understand how a man forgives offenses against himself. You tread on my toes and I forgive you, you steal my money and I forgive you. But what should we make of a man, himself unrobbed and untrodden on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men’s toes and stealing other men’s money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give of his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did. He told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whose sins had undoubtedly injured. He unhesitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offenses. This makes sense only if He really was the God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in every sin.” ^[22]C.S Lewis, “Mere Christianity”, pages 51-52

Although Matthew omits the scribes saying “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mark includes it though), the point is well taken and is heavily implied in the fact that the scribes say that in claiming to be able to forgive sins, Jesus is blaspheming. Upon which reason could the scribes possibly make such an objection, except upon the same reason in which they give in Mark’s version of the account, namely that “Only God can forgive sins”. In claiming to be able to forgive sins, Jesus is implicitly claiming to be God.

At this point, I want to respond to two objections to this argument. The first comes from New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman who says, “With respect to the forgiveness of sins: when Jesus forgives sins, he never says ‘I forgive you,’ as God might say, but ‘your sins are forgiven,’ which means that God has forgiven your sins. This prerogative for pronouncing sins forgiven was otherwise reserved for Jewish priests in honor of sacrifices worshipers made at the temple. Jesus may be claiming a priestly, not a divine prerogative.” ^[23]Bart D. Ehrman, “How Jesus Became God: The Exhaltation Of A Jewish Preacher From Galliee”, pages 126-127

There are three problems with Ehrman’s explanation here:

1: If priests talked like this all the time, surely the scribes wouldn’t have objected.

2: Jesus wasn’t even a Levite, much less a priest. He was a carpenter and a rabbi.

3: Although Jesus’ priestly role is a part of New Testament theology, it comes from epistles that Ehrman considers later and undoubtedly have a high Christology (e.g Hebrews)

The second objection is that verse 8 in the passage undermines the argument to Jesus’ divinity. Because Matthew 9:8 says “When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.” (ESV) The argument is that the crowds glorified God because God had given the authority to forgive sins to men. If God has delegated this authority to men, then Jesus can just be a mere human and yet forgive peoples’ sins. What are we to make of this? I honestly find this to be extremely weak. Notice that this isn’t Matthew’s commentary on what happened. This is the opinion of the people in the crowd. “When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.” This crowd of people aren’t speaking under inspiration of The Holy Spirit. Why should we side with the opinion of the crowds that “God had given such authority to men” over the opinion of the Pharisees who said “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (cf. Mark 2:7) and that Jesus was blaspheming by claiming a divine prerogative to himself? But it gets worse for the skeptic, because Jesus connects his claim to be able to forgive sins with his identity as “The Son Of Man”. Now, I won’t unpack this here because I want to unpack it when we get to Jesus’ trial before the Jewish Sanhedrin, but for now suffice it to say that The Son Of Man was a divine character in The Old Testament on the same level as The Ancient Of Days.

Exhibit G: Jesus Is Lord Of The Sabbath

In Matthew 12:1-8, we read, “At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, ‘Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.’ He said to them, ‘Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.'” (ESV)

Jesus here picks some grain with his disciples to snack on and the Pharisees accuse them of “doing what is not lawful on the sabbath”. Jesus never actually violated Torah, but he did disregard man made rules which Jewish leaders created to help people keep the laws of God. This is called he Hallakha. However, for our purposes here, let’s zero in on two remarkable things that Jesus says. First, he claims that “something greater than the temple is here.” Now, this is very likely referring to Himself as this is the kind of language Jesus used of Himself later in the chapter (verses 41-42). The temple was God’s dwelling place on Earth (1 Kings 8:10-11) Solomon had constructed the first version of this in 956 B.C (1 Kings 3-8, 2 Chronicles 3-7), and when it was destroyed by King Nebuchadnezzar’s army in the 500s B.C (2 Kings 25:8-12), the temple laid in ruins until King Cyrus allowed them to return to their land and they rebuilt it (Ezra 1:1-4; 6:15). The temple was a replacement for the tabernacle that the Jews carried throughout their wilderness wanderings, disassembling and reassembling throughout their travels (Exodus 40:34-35). It was the place where God made his presence especially manifest. God never asked for a temple (2 Samuel 7:5-7), but out of his love for God, David wanted to build him one (2 Samuel 7:2-3). But God would not allow David to build a temple for him because, as a warrior, he had shed much blood (1 Chronicles 22:8). The temple had three compartments: the outer court, the holy place (Exodus 26:33; 1 Kings 6:17), the most holy place, and the holy of holies (Exodus 26:34; 1 Kings 6:16). Only the high priest could enter the holy of holies (Leviticus 16:2), and even then only once a year in order to present a sacrifice to atone for the sins of the people (Leviticus 16:34). This is where God chose to manifest His special presence to the people of Israel (Exodus 25:22; 1 Kings 8:10-11). It is this special place that Jesus is claiming to be greater than. Jesus greater than the temple? What does that say about what Jesus thinks of Himself. If He’s greater than the temple, is He as great as the one who dwells there? That would seem to be the implication. But the only way Jesus could be that great is if Jesus is God.

Secondly, Jesus claims to be “The Lord of the Sabbath.” How could a mere man be the lord of the Sabbath? It was Yahweh who gave the Sabbath in the first place at Mt. Sinai when he said “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates.” – Exodus 20:8–10 (ESV) Wouldn’t Yahweh be the Lord of the Sabbath? It would seem so. The one who initiated and regulated the Sabbath should surely be the lord over it. After all, he’s the one who runs it! So then, if Yahweh is the Lord of sabbath, and Jesus is claiming to be The Lord of the sabbath, then by the logical law of identity, Jesus is claiming to be Yahweh!

Exhibit H: Jesus’ Words Will Never Pass Away

In Matthew 24:35, Jesus says “Heaven and Earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.”

This might not seem like much on the surface, but Matthew and his Jewish audience would most likely hear an echo of Psalm 119:89 which says “Forever, O Lord, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens.” (ESV) and what the prophet Isaiah said in Isaiah 40:8, “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.” (ESV)

It’s subtle, but Jesus here claims that his words will have the same duration as the words of the God of Israel. While this is not as blatant or forceful, some of the other examples I’ve shown here, I think it is something worth considering.

One objection to this argument would be that since Jesus is a prophet, his words are technically God’s words. So of course, Jesus should expect his words to last forever because he is speaking on behalf of God.

While that is a thoughtful response, wouldn’t a prophet not say “My words?” Wouldn’t he phrase it as something like “Heaven and Earth will pass away, but God’s words which I speak unto you will never pass away”?

So, in the end, I do not consider this an airtight argument, but it is highly suggestive. And when you place this alongside all of the other evidence is of a high Christology in the gospel of Matthew, I think Jesus means it in the way that he appears to mean it.

Exhibit I: The Son Of Man Riding On The Clouds

In Matthew 26:63-66 , we read “What is it that these men testify against you?’ But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, ‘I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.’ Jesus said to him, ‘You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.’ Then the high priest tore his robes and said, ‘He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy. What is your judgment?’ They answered, ‘He deserves death.‘ – Matthew 26:62–66 (ESV)

This passage tells us of Jesus’s trial before the Jewish Sanhedren. Caiaphas directly asks Jesus to tell him if He is the Christ, the Son Of The Living God. Jesus affirms that this is correct, but goes on to say that they would “see the Son Of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of Heaven”. Why did Caiaphas declare this to be blasphemy?

First, Jesus claims that He will be seated at God’s right hand. To sit at God’s right hand is to sit on God’s throne. To sit on God’s throne is to claim equality with God. Jesus’ message couldn’t be more clear; “I will sit on the highest throne in existence right next to God Himself and from there I will reign.” If this isn’t a claim to be The Most High, I don’t know what is! Jesus’ statement is an allusion to Psalm 110:1 which says “The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.‘” – Psalm 110:1, ESV

Jesus just saying that he’s going to sit on God’s throne is a claim to equality with God, the father in none of itself. But what is interesting about the illusion to the verse in psalm is that David says in Hebrew “Yahweh says to Adonai ‘sit at my right hand'” If you look in your English translation, you’ll see that the first instance of LORD is in all caps, and if you have access to advanced Bible Software like I do, or just have a knowledge of why English translators do that, then you’ll know that the first instance of all of these capital letters indicates that underneath in the Hebrew is the Tetragrammaton. The second use of Lord is Adonai. Now, this is not a special divine name, this is the general word for Lord like we used today. “The lord and lady and having tea.” However, for thousands of years, Jewish people have so revered the name of God that they would refuse to say it out loud. This was to make absolutely sure that they did not violate the third commandment not to take the name of the Lord in vain (Exodus 20:7). Names they would use in substitution to this would be “Adonai” or “Hashem” (The Name). Adherents to Judaism and Messianic Jews still do this to this day. And so, in all likelihood this Psalm would have been sung as “Adonai said to Adonai sit at my right hand.” And hence, this practice would make it sound like there are two Adonais, a Godhead. In the Old Testament! Jesus claims to be this second Adonai who will sit on the throne next to the first Adonai.

Moreover, Jesus says that He is “the Son Of Man” who would come “riding on the clouds of Heaven”.

This is also an allusion to an Old Testament passage; Daniel 7:13-14. This passage says “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.” (ESV)

In a blog post on the Logos Bible Software website, the late biblical scholar Dr. Michael S. Heiser wrote “Throughout the Ugaritic texts, Baal is repeatedly called ‘the one who rides the clouds,’ or ‘the one who mounts the clouds.’ The description is recognized as an official title of Baal. No angel or lesser being bore the title. As such, everyone in Israel who heard this title associated it with a deity, not a man or an angel. Part of the literary strategy of the Israelite prophets was to take this well-known title and attribute it to Yahweh in some way. Consequently, Yahweh, the God of Israel, bears this descriptive title in several places in the Old Testament (Isaiah 19:1; Deuteronomy 33:26; Psalm 68:33; 104:3). For a faithful Israelite, then, there was only one god who ‘rode’ on the clouds: Yahweh.” ^[24]Dr. Michael S. Heiser, “What’s Ugaritic Got To Do With Anything?” Logos.com, https://www.logos.com/ugaritic

So, in other words, Jesus is driving Yahweh’s car. In riding the clouds of Heaven, he is taking on a prerogative that belongs to God alone!

But, if that wasn’t enough notice that the passage says that the Son Of Man is given authority, glory, and sovereign power. That all peoples of every language serve him! He approaches The Ancient Of Days BY riding on the clouds! He enters into the very presence of God by doing the thing that only God can do. This is an extremely exalted figure that Daniel is describing! The Ancient Of Days gives Him an everlasting dominion that will not pass away and one that shall not be destroyed. The Son Of Man is the eternal King! Now, what’s interesting about the language used to describe the Son Of Man’s Kingdom is that this same language is used to describe Yahweh’s Kingdom! In Daniel 4:34, we read “At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever, for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation;” (ESV) This is in the same book too! What are we to make of this! The Most High (and there’s no doubt who he is) gives His eternal kingdom to the cloud riding Son Of Man!

Why The Sanhedrin Found Jesus’ Claim Blasphemous:

1: He would be “seated at the right hand of God”. To sit at God’s right hand is to sit on God’s throne. To sit on God’s throne is to claim equality with God!

2: Jesus claimed to be Daniel 7’s Son of Man who would (A) be given authority, glory, and sovereign power, (B) would be worshipped by people all over the world, and (C) would have a kingdom that would never end. A Kingdom that rightfully belongs to The Ancient Of Days (I.e God)!

3: He would come in judgment “Riding On The Clouds”. He’s The Cloud Rider. Riding The Clouds In Judgment Is Yahweh’s Job!

This is why Caiaphas tore his robes and accused Jesus of committing blasphemy! Jesus was explicitly claiming to be God! The only way Jesus could have possibly been more clear is if he had said the specific words “I am God”. But he didn’t have to. Caiaphas and the rest of the Sanhedrin knew exactly who Jesus was claiming to be! Jesus claimed to be God! And if Jesus weren’t God, then Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin would be right to condemn him for blasphemy. However, this man went on to die on a cross and then rose from the dead, and this is an event for which we have an abundance of historical evidence for. See my essay “Jesus Christ Is A.L.I.V.E“. If Jesus rose from the dead, then God put his stamp of approval on Jesus’s ministry. 

(4) The Holy Spirit Is God

Now we come to the fourth plank in our Matthean case for the doctrine of the Trinity. What evidence within the gospel of Matthew indicates that The Holy Spirit is God?

Exhibit A: The Unpardonable Sin (Matthew 12:31-32)

This passage defines an unforgivable offense, which is uniquely directed against the Holy Spirit:

“Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” (Matthew 12:31-32, ESV)

Blasphemy is defined as contempt, insult, or irreverence shown to God. The fact that the most serious, unforgivable offense is reserved for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit strongly implies the Spirit’s supreme divine status. To willfully attribute the Holy Spirit’s divine works (which Jesus was performing) to a demonic source is equated with rejecting God himself. The severity of the penalty (unforgivable) underscores the transcendent deity of the Spirit.

Exhibit B: The Divine Conception

Jesus’ conception is attributed directly to the Holy Spirit’s power. The Holy Spirit is the agent of the miraculous, unique, and divine begetting of the Son, which implies a divine creative ability.

“She was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 1:18, ESV)

Exhibit C: He Is Literally Called The Spirit Of God

In Matthew 12:28, Jesus says “But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the Kingdom Of God has come upon you.” (ESV)

The context of this verse is the exorcisms that Jesus performed with the religious leaders in the room attributed to the power of Beelzebub. The Holy Spirit is literally called The Spirit Of God, so….I think that this is honestly self explanatory.

(5) The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit Are Distinct Persons

Exhibit A: Jesus’ Baptism

In Matthew 3:13-17, we read “Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. ¹John would have prevented him, saying, ‘I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?^‘ But Jesus answered him, ‘Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.’ Then he consented. And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.’ – Matthew 3:13–17 (ESV)

This is the account of Jesus’ baptism. We read that when Jesus came out of the water, John The Baptist saw the Spirit of God descend on Jesus like a dove. And then a voice from Heaven said “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” You have all three persons of The Trinity here simultaneously in the same scene. God The Father speaks from Heaven about Jesus, Jesus is the one in the water being baptized, The Holy Spirit is the one descending upon Him. These are clearly distinct persons in this narrative. For us to entertain the idea that The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit are all just one person wearing different faces at different times (in the way that one man can be a son, a husband, and a father, while still remaining just one man), we would need to resort to mental gymnastics that would make the text read awkwardly or make God look like a puppeteer.

If God were just one person, then He would be descending upon Himself and saying to Himself from Heaven “I am my own beloved Son. I am well pleased with Myself.” This is nonsense! God is not his own son! He is not talking to himself! While he is descending upon himself! We clearly have three persons in this narrative here. This passage is not what we would expect if modalism (also known as Sabellianism) were true. 

Moreover, the early church father Tertullian explicitly cited the account of Jesus’ baptism in Matthew 3:16-17 as a definitive proof-text for the distinct persons of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

He used this passage in his famous work, Adversus Praxean (Against Praxeas), which was written to refute the heresy of Modalism (also known as Patripassianism or Sabellianism), which claimed that the Father, Son, and Spirit were merely three modes or manifestations of a single divine person.

Tertullian said “The succession of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit has been demonstrated… The Father’s voice is heard from heaven, the Son is designated in the water, and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove. The whole Trinity was then manifested.” ^[25]Tertullian, Adversus Praxean, Chapter 30..

Tertullian’s use of the Matthew 3 account was foundational to Trinitarian theology:

• Father: Manifested by the Voice from heaven (“This is my beloved Son”).

• Son: Present in the Person of Jesus Christ in the water.

• Holy Spirit: Present in the form of a Dove descending upon Jesus.

Tertullian contended that if God were a single person merely changing modes (as Praxeas claimed), all three manifestations could not occur simultaneously. The distinct presence of the voice, the person, and the dove demonstrated the “economy” (dispensation or arrangement) of the Godhead, where the divine Unity of substance is distributed into the three Persons (Father, Son, and Spirit). ^[26]CHURCH FATHERS, “Against Parxaes”, Tertullian, New Advent, — https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0317.htm#:~:text=As%20if%20in%20this%20way,however%2C%20not%20in%20condition%2C%20but

Exhibit B: The Temptations Of Christ

In Matthew 4, we read about how Satan tempted Christ in the desert after 40 days of fasting. I won’t quote the entire passage here for the sake of time, but each temptation here presupposes and heavily implies that Jesus is a distinct person from God The Father and The Holy Spirit. Matthew 4:1 has The Spirit leading Jesus into the wilderness, and in Matthew 4:3-4, Satan tries to cast doubt on Jesus’ identity as The Son of God (he’s not the son of himself – that would be absurd), and Jesus responds with a quote from Deuteronomy 8:3, the significance I have detailed in my in-depth essay “An In Depth Look At The Temptations Of Christ” on the Cerebral Faith blog. I won’t say much more here, but the whole of the temptation narrative presupposes or strongly implies the distinction of personhood between God The Father, God The Son, as well as God The Holy Spirit.

Exhibit C: Jesus Prays To The Father

In Matthew 11:25-27, we read “At that time Jesus declared, ‘I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” (Matthew 11:25–27, ESV)

Jesus prays to The Father. The distinction of persons is clear here. Not only is it absurd to think that Jesus is praying to Himself, but when he ends his prayer and resumes preaching, he distinguishes The Father from The Son.

Exhibit D: The Great Commission

In Matthew 28:18-20, we read “And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (ESV)

The use of the singular “name” (Greek: onoma) to encompass the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit indicates that all three share the same essential, divine nature and authority. The Holy Spirit is placed on par with the Father (God) and the Son. A non-divine being would not be given this co-equal status in the formal name of God. Yet at the same time, they are clearly distinct persons. For if they were not, then why wouldn’t Jesus say something like “baptizing them in my name” or “baptizing them in the name of God”? If Sabellianism (a.k.a Modalism) were true, then by saying “Baptizing them in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit”, Jesus would just be referring to Himself thrice! It would be like saying “Me, myself, and I.” It just doesn’t make any sense.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we can see that The Doctrine Of The Trinity is amply supported by the gospel of Matthew. By just staying inside of the gospel of Matthew alone, we’ve managed to get enough data upon which to support all 5 biblical teachings that logically entail the doctrine of The Trinity; (1) There is only one God, (2) The Father is God, (3) The Son is God, (4) The Holy Spirit is God, and (5) The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit are distinct persons.

The only times I went outside of the gospel of Matthew was when citations from Old Testament passages were needed to fill out the context that Matthew and his immediate audience, who mostly consisted of Jews, would have just assumed.

The purpose of this exercise was, again, to show how strongly The Bible supports the doctrine of The Trinity. I do not necessarily have to grab passages from all across the canon to support the 5 points. I can stay within a single gospel and get the job done. This is an essential part of the Christian worldview that many deny. I pray that you can see that if you take scripture seriously, then you should affirm the doctrine of The Trinity.