In Deuteronomy 18, God told Israel through Moses, “I will raise them up a prophet from among their brothers, like you. I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him. It shall happen, that whoever will not listen to my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.” (Deuteronomy 18:18–19)

Six days after Peter confessed Jesus to be “The Anointed One, the Son of God” (Matthew 16:16), the Transfiguration occurred. Jesus was bodily transfigured before the apostles, and Moses and Elijah appeared. Then, a voice came out of the sky saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Listen to him” (Matthew 17:5).

This is a divine command, not a suggestion—and it includes what Jesus himself has to say about being the word of God.

None of the predominant architects of the Trinity built their Logos theology on Jesus’s own statements about the origin and nature of his words—passages like John 7:16 and John 14:24.

This is worth noting carefully, because Trinitarians will immediately produce proof texts in response. But quoting Scripture accurately does not guarantee the conclusion drawn from it is authorized by Scripture. The devil quoted Psalm 91 accurately when tempting Jesus. Jesus did not dispute the quotation—he disputed the application. The question is never whether a text was quoted—Satan can do that all day long. The question is whether the conclusion represents the original intent or imposes a foreign one. Satan’s temptations are the standard in how to recognize a conclusion being imposed on a text rather than drawing directly from the text.

Trinitarians consistently use Satan’s method. They did it then and they still do it today. They construct their doctrine by combining John 1 with forbidden philosophical categories about reason, substance, and emanation, then reading Jesus’s statements within that framework.

Their whole interpretational method runs counter to God’s commandment to hear Jesus.

If we let Jesus speak, he makes it clear:

John 7:16–18: “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone desires to do his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God, or if I am speaking from myself. He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory, but he who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true…”

John 14:10: “…The words that I tell you, I speak not from myself; but the Father who lives in me does his works.”

John 14:24: “The word (logos) which you hear isn’t mine, but the Father’s who sent me.”

John 8:26: “He who sent me is true; and the things which I heard from him, these I say…”

John 8:28: “…I do nothing of myself; but as my Father taught me, I speak these things.”

John 8:38, 40: “I say the things which I have seen with my Father… But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God.”

John 8:54–55: “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me… I know him, and keep his word.”

John 12:49–50: “For I spoke not from myself, but the Father… he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak… the things therefore which I speak, even as the Father has said to me, so I speak.”

John 17:7–8: “Now… the words which you have given me I have given to them, and they received them…”

John 3:34–35: “For he whom God has sent speaks the words of God…”

Jesus consistently denied being the source of the Word. In no sense does he ever acknowledge, let alone affirm or justify, a pagan philosophical interpretation of logos. Logos for Jesus is simply God’s spoken words. And he clearly said he was a man who spoke God’s Word. Why is that important? Because: “He cannot deny himself” (2 Timothy 2:13). If he were more than a man who spoke God’s words, as he claimed, then he denied himself.

He even explained exactly the framework in which he could be “called god” and that by the true God Himself, and that context is entirely about hearing and receiving God’s word:

John 10:34–38: “[The Jews said to Jesus]… ‘you, being a man, make yourself God.’ Jesus answered them, ‘Isn’t it written in your law, “I said, you are gods”? If he [God] called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture can’t be broken), do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, “You blaspheme,” because I said, “I am the Son of God”? If I don’t do the works of my Father, don’t believe me. But if I do them, though you don’t believe me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.’”

Jesus qualifies more than anyone ever did as one to whom the word of God came. This is the context, ignored and dismissed by Incarnationists, of why Jesus is sometimes called ‘god’ in scripture—God calls those to whom the word of God came, ‘gods.’

I will address the significance of this passage more fully in the next chapter. But for now, notice what Jesus does not do here: he does not answer the charge of blasphemy by affirming his divine nature. A being who truly was God would not need to deflect ‘you are making yourself God’ by appealing to a psalm about humans receiving God’s word. The deflection itself is his explicit denial. Jesus answered as a man who received God’s word—because that is precisely what he was—and provided the precise context. Never is Jesus taught or explained to be the true God by identity. Especially here where he is asked this very question directly and denies it. This is another case of Trinitarians not listening to Jesus as God commanded.

On the other hand, Scripture does explain why Jesus is not qualified to be the true God.

Seed of the Woman

Genesis 3:15: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring. He will bruise your head, and you will bruise his heel.”

God’s first mention of His solution is exclusively the offspring of Eve. No mention of God having to step in and save the day Himself.

Prophet

Deuteronomy 18:15–18: “Yahweh your God will raise up to you a prophet from among you, of your brothers, like me. You shall listen to him. This is according to all that you asked of Yahweh your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of Yahweh my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I not die.’ Yahweh said to me, ‘They have well said that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a prophet from among their brothers, like you. I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.’”

God promised that He would not speak to them directly. Therefore, God’s prophet is disqualified from being the true God according to God’s reply to Israel’s concern. Imagine the ramifications if God gave responses to His people and then simply ignored Himself. The Bible says “let God be true and every man a liar” (Romans 3:4), and this is a case where Trinitarians claim themselves to be true, and God out to be the liar.

Priest

Hebrews 5:1, 4–5: “Every high priest, being taken from among men, is appointed for men in things pertaining to God… No one takes this honor on himself, but he is called by God, just as Aaron was. So also Christ didn’t glorify himself to be made a high priest.”

God’s priest is to be a man taken from among men and cannot take this honor upon himself. God is disqualified since He would not be from among men, and He would have to take the honor upon Himself. Human natures aren’t priests; human beings are.

King / Son of God

2 Samuel 7:12–14: “When your days are fulfilled and you sleep with your fathers, I will set up your offspring after you, who will proceed out of your body, and I will establish his kingdom… I will be his father, and he will be my son.”

Although God can be a King, he cannot be the son of David. God calls David’s offspring, “my Son.”

Messiah / Authority Given

Matthew 28:18: “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.”

God cannot be given authority. He already has all authority by reason of who He is, and that goes for both in heaven and on earth. What could have ever happened in heaven that God would have needed to give God His authority? The idea of God losing His authority in heaven and needing it to be given back is as absurd an imagination as men have ever entertained. Cast that imagination down (2 Corinthians 10:5). If Jesus had to be given authority in heaven and on earth, he would be disqualified from being the true God.

Can Do Nothing of Himself

John 5:19, 30: “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does likewise… I can of myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is righteous, because I don’t seek my own will, but the will of him who sent me.”

Ephesians 1:3, 11: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ… who works all things after the counsel of his will.”

Jesus wasn’t merely saying that he had to work in agreement with the Father and the Spirit. He said of himself that he could do nothing. In saying he could do nothing of himself, he disqualified himself from being the true God, because with the true God, all things are possible, and He works all things according to His own will. And that is true even if he were to be incarnate as a man in the pagan mythological sense.

Second Adam

1 Corinthians 15:45–47: “So also it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living soul.’ The last Adam became a life-giving spirit… However, that which is spiritual isn’t first, but that which is natural; then that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, made of dust. The second man is the Lord from heaven.”

John 4:24: “God is Spirit”

Paul explained that Jesus, as the last Adam, became a life-giving spirit. God is Spirit by identity and nature—He does not become Spirit, He is Spirit. But Paul’s word here is egeneto—the same Greek word John uses in ‘the Word became flesh’ (John 1:14). It marks a real transition, a genuine becoming, from one state to another. A being of eternal, immutable divine nature cannot undergo a genuine becoming of any kind. Once again, Jesus is disqualified from being ‘true God’ because he had to become a life-giving spirit, which is something God eternally is.

The same logic applies to his resurrection. Jesus said:

“Therefore the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down by myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. I received this commandment from my Father.” (John 10:17–18)

The fact that Jesus had to be given a commandment to take up his life again disqualifies him from being “true God” who is absolutely immortal and dependent on no one for His life.

Kinsman Redeemer

Hebrews 2:14, 17: “Since then the children have shared in flesh and blood, he also himself in the same way partook of the same… Therefore he was obligated in all things to be made like his brothers.”

The kinsman redeemer (Leviticus 25:25) must share the kinsman’s nature. God shares no nature with fallen humanity by definition. Therefore, Jesus, who was obligated to be made like his brothers to redeem them, is disqualified from being ‘true God’—because God has no such obligation, shares no such nature, and requires no such making.

Mediator

1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

Numenius expressed a sentiment, common among some Christians today, that cuts directly against what Paul explained in Romans 5—that God sent a man to be our mediator and savior:

“…it seems to me that, as the body (by itself naturally) tends to become dispersed, it would need a savior that was a divinity.”—Numenius, The Neoplatonic Writings of Numenius, collected and translated from the Greek by Kenneth Guthrie (Lawrence, KS: Selene Books, 1987), 8.

This is precisely the opposite of what Paul explained in Romans 5 (as noted in Chapter Thirteen):

“Therefore, as sin entered into the world through one man…so death passed to all men because all sinned… For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many…So then as through one trespass, all men were condemned; even so through one act of righteousness, all men were justified to life. For as through the one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one, many will be made righteous.” (Romans 5:12–19)

Only a human being could consciously reverse the fall of Adam by choosing to be faithfully obedient to God. That is what Paul is saying here. God would be disqualified.

Two People to Testify

John 8:17–18: “It’s also written in your law that the testimony of two people is valid. I am one who testifies about myself, and the Father who sent me testifies about me.”

The two whos Jesus identifies are being counted in the same category the law had in mind when it said anthrōpōn—the Greek word for human persons, the same word used in the law of testimony Jesus is citing. Thus, according to Jesus, explicitly, he and the Father are two “whos” in the exact same manner in which two different and separate people are two “whos” that are required as valid testimony. Since we are commanded to believe that God is ‘one He,’ and since Jesus testifies in no uncertain terms that he is not the same person as the Father, Jesus disqualified himself from being ‘true God.’

Sent One / Shaliach

Luke 4:18–19: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to heal the broken hearted, to proclaim release to the captives, recovering of sight to the blind, to deliver those who are crushed, and to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”

John 5:30: “I can of myself do nothing… I don’t seek my own will, but the will of him who sent me.”

John 6:38: “I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me.”

John 17:3: “And this is life in the age to come, that they know you, the only true God, and the one you have sent—Jesus Christ.” (REV)

The concept of agency/shaliach is thoroughly biblical, even if the exact rabbinic term is not. The New Testament picks up the same idea through the Greek apostellō/apostolos (to send/sent one), which the Septuagint often used to translate the Hebrew shaliach.

Biblically speaking, an agent cannot be both the principal and the agent in the same relationship or context. The concepts are mutually exclusive, much like the relational terms “father” and “son” (or “sender” and “sent”) imply distinct roles and entities by definition—one cannot logically or relationally be both in reference to oneself without collapsing the distinction entirely.

The agent is always distinct, subordinate, and accountable to the principal, who bears ultimate responsibility. Biblically, this is exemplified without exception as a one-way delegation:

• Exodus 3:2–6 and Acts 7:30–35: The angel of the Lord appears to Moses in the burning bush and speaks in the first person as God (“I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham…”). Yet Acts 7:30 & 35 both clarify it was explicitly “an angel” acting as God’s agent, not God Himself. The angel represents God fully (principal’s words and authority) but remains distinct—the principal (God) sends, and the agent (angel) is sent. If the angel were also the principal, the distinction collapses, but Scripture insists on separation to highlight mediation (no one sees God directly; John 1:18; Exodus 33:20).
• Numbers 16:28: Moses, as God’s agent, declares, “Hereby you shall know that the Lord has sent me to do all these works, and that it has not been of my own accord.” Moses denies self-initiative, emphasizing he is not the principal (God) but the sent agent. If he were both, his actions would be “of his own accord,” which he rejects.
• Deuteronomy 18:18–19: God promises to raise a prophet (agent) like Moses: “I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.” The prophet speaks “as” God (functional equality) but is not God—the words originate from the principal (God), not the agent.

In no biblical instance does an agent double as the principal in the same act or relationship. Attempts to merge them (e.g., suggesting that the angel in Exodus 3 is literally God) are corrected by explicit clarifications (e.g., Acts 7:30 & 35), thereby preserving exclusivity.

So then, when Jesus said, “he has anointed me… He has sent me…” he disqualified himself, yet again, from being “true God.” First, because no one sends God to do anything. Secondly, because God is ‘one He’ by commandment, and Jesus just distinguished himself personally from that ‘one He’ God.

“Nobody takes this honor on himself, but he is called by God, just like Aaron was. So also Christ didn’t glorify himself…” (Hebrews 5:4–5)

To claim Jesus is ‘true God’ is to imply he did not need to be anointed, because God’s authority doesn’t come from someone else giving Him that authority. If Jesus didn’t need to be anointed, then he wasn’t anointed in sincerity and truth. This is precisely what it means to be “against the anointed”.

“Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Anointed One? This is the Antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2:22–23)

If Jesus is the anointed one, he is disqualified from being the one Who anointed Him, because the one Who anointed him was ‘true God.’

Not of the World

John 17:16, 18: “They are not of the world even as I am not of the world… As you sent me into the world, even so I have sent them into the world.”

Jesus places himself and his disciples in the same category: both are “not of the world” in the same sense, and both are “sent into the world” in the same sense. Since his disciples were not gods come to earth in the form of men, Jesus disqualified himself from being “true God” by placing himself in the same relational category as they are.

Come Down from Heaven

John 6:38: “I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me.”

Incarnationists use this verse to argue that Jesus literally pre-existed in heaven before coming to earth and thus fit the pagan pattern of “gods come to earth in the form of men” (Acts 14:11). But this is not an embarrassment for believers in a human Son of God. Jesus was using a recognized Jewish idiom, and he gave us three concrete examples of exactly that idiom in context.

First: Manna from heaven. Jesus explicitly identified himself as the true manna that came down from heaven (John 6:51). Yet it is plainly absurd to imagine that physical manna literally pre-existed in a heavenly realm before descending to earth. And Jesus himself, in verse 63, explicitly explained what he meant: “The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.” He was speaking about living by his words, not about a literal descent from a prior heavenly existence. Notice also that in both cases—manna and Christ’s flesh—these are physical properties explicitly traced to earthly origins: Christ’s flesh is the offspring of Eve, Abraham, and David.

Second: John’s Baptism. “The baptism of John, where was it from? From heaven or from men?” (Matthew 21:25). No one imagines John’s baptism literally pre-existed in heaven. Jesus himself supplied the interpretive key: “from heaven or from men” means “from the will of God” versus “from human reasoning.” The idiom describes divine commission, not spatial origin.

Third: The Sent One. John 17:18—“As you sent me into the world, even so I have sent them into the world.” Since his disciples were sent into the world without having pre-existed in heaven, and since Jesus frames his own sending in precisely the same terms, “coming down from heaven” means being commissioned by God, not literal preexistence. Jesus disqualified himself from being “true God” by describing his mission in the same terms he used for theirs.

John’s Prologue Revisited

Having established the biblical case for the human Jesus—though not exhaustively—we are now ready to tackle John’s Prologue with the aim of dispelling the unbiblical idea that it can only be understood through pagan philosophical categories. This is the false dilemma that has been foisted upon it since the days of Gnostics and Justin Martyr.

The original meaning is restored when logos is interpreted to only mean “word” without the pagan baggage associated with it since the time of Justin Martyr:

“In the beginning was the word and the word was with God: and the word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it and without it was made nothing that was made. In it was life and the life was the light of men and the light shined in the darkness but the darkness comprehended it not.” (John 1:1–5, Tyndale Bible modernized)

Here is a purely biblical way of understanding John 1:1–14:

Verses 1–13: Logos = God’s word/wisdom/purpose—his self-expression, his rational creative authority. This is entirely consistent with the Hebrew dabar and with the OT personification of Wisdom (Proverbs 8) as a literary device rather than an ontological second person.

Verse 14: “The Word became flesh”—this is the hinge. Egeneto (became) marks a transition, an event. Only here does the logos take on personal, historical, embodied existence in Jesus of Nazareth.

The ‘became’ is fatal to pre-existence Christology if read plainly and believed. You don’t say something “became” what it already was. The incarnation is the genesis of the personal agent, not the descent of one. This becoming is identical with the first verse of the New Testament:

Matthew 1:1: “The book of the genealogy [genesis] of Jesus Christ, the son of David…”

This is Scripture interpreting Scripture; Matthew 1:1 interprets John 1 (not pagan Stoic philosophy). Matthew’s opening word is genesis—the same root as John’s egeneto (“became”) in verse 14. This is not coincidental. Matthew is announcing a beginning—the origin point of a person who had no prior personal existence. The genealogy that follows traces a human lineage from Abraham through David to Joseph and Mary precisely to establish where Jesus came from. He came from them. He is the fulfillment of promises made to flesh-and-blood ancestors.

Had Jesus pre-existed as a divine person, Matthew’s genealogy would be irrelevant—a record of the temporary housing unit, not the person. But Matthew treats the genealogy as the genesis of Jesus Christ himself, not merely the genesis of his body. The person begins here. John says the same thing: the Word became—it had a becoming, a genesis, in human history.

The Trinitarian kenosis reading tries to answer this by saying the pre-existent Son merely added humanity at the incarnation—the becoming describes an addition, not an origin. But Matthew will not allow it. He does not title his opening ‘The Genesis of the Human Nature of the Eternal Son.’ He writes ‘The Genesis of Jesus Christ’—and then traces that person, by name, to Abraham and David through flesh-and-blood ancestors. The genealogy is not the story of a vessel. It is the story of a person. And persons who eternally pre-exist do not have a genesis.

Notice also what Matthew calls him: “son of David, son of Abraham”—not “eternal Son of God who temporarily became son of David.” The Davidic sonship is his primary identity, consistent with every Messianic prophecy from 2 Samuel 7 forward. The Trinitarian framework has to demote this identity to secondary status. Matthew won’t allow it.

Many other scriptures completely confirm this reading and understanding:

“Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh…” (Romans 1:3; KJV)

“My relatives according to the flesh… Are Israelites… From whom is Christ as concerning the flesh…” (Romans 9:3–5)

“Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel.” (2 Timothy 2:8; KJV/NKJV)

“For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.” (Hebrews 2:16; KJV)

“Therefore he was obligated in all things to be made like his brothers, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people. For inasmuch as he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted.” (Hebrews 2:17–18)

On the other hand, the Trinitarian reading imports the Stoic/Philosophic hypostatized logos into John’s Prologue. In other words, the foundational move of the Trinitarian reading is to dismiss the first commandment not to have any other gods than ‘one He.’ Having disregarded that commandment, the Trinitarian reads their Stoic hypostatized logos backward into verses 1–13, then treats verse 14 as merely an additional mode of that pre-existent person’s existence. The logos never becomes anything in that framework—it just adds humanity.

This is the difference between letting the Scriptures interpret Scripture versus making common cause with Stoic philosophy; the true pagan origin of the Trinity.

Print This Post