¹…Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil… ⁴ But he [Jesus] answered, “It is written…” ⁷ Jesus said to him, “Again, it is written…” ¹⁰ …Jesus said to him, “Get behind me, Satan! For it is written…” (Matthew 4:1–10)

Did you notice that when Jesus was tempted by the devil’s false interpretations of God’s word, his response each of the three times was the same: it is written? Each time, Jesus was able to quote Scripture that clearly exposed the error of the devil’s tempting interpretation. He didn’t resort to deep explanations (exegesis) of the passage the devil quoted, or proof-texting (which is what the devil was doing); instead, Jesus relied on what was actually and clearly stated. And when the devil tried quoting Scripture and basing an idea on it, Jesus responded by saying “it is written again” and supplied a verse that was clearer and more to the point than the devil’s proof text.

In this way, based on his example, Jesus provides us with a biblical rule of interpretation:

Rule #1: Don’t jump to conclusions to define doctrine; instead, quote “it is written again” Scriptures, just as Jesus taught us by example.

Applying this rule is like learning to read, because this is where you learn to “read” or “discern” between true and false teachings. This rule supports the truth that the Scriptures thoroughly provide us with every good and true teaching.

¹⁶Every writing inspired by God is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction which is in righteousness, ¹⁷that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16–17)

This rule teaches us that all necessary Christian teachings are clearly written in the Scriptures. These include doctrines such as Jesus Christ’s virgin conception (Matthew 1:18–20); his death, burial, and resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:1–4); salvation by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8); and many, in fact all, others. These teachings are not hidden in dark sentences or mysterious language that requires a “secret decoder ring” to decipher. They are simply and straightforwardly stated in the Scriptures.

On the other hand, without exception, all false teachings that are claimed to be based on Scriptures have at least this one thing in common: they all jump to conclusions, just as the devil displayed in tempting Jesus. That is to say, all false teachings are arrived at by some form of “interpreting” or “reasoning” other than simply quoting a Scripture that clearly states the teaching.

Keep in mind that no one is immune to falling for jumped-to conclusions. This is one of many temptations common to humanity (1 Corinthians 10:13). It is so common, in fact, that Jesus himself was tempted by and had to overcome it, as we’ve seen above! In Matthew 4:5–7, the devil quoted Psalm 91 to Jesus and actually tempted Jesus to jump from a pinnacle to show he was truly the Son of God. Because, the devil concluded, “it is written, ‘He will give his angels charge concerning you… so that you don’t dash your foot against a stone.’” How did Jesus respond? He answered by quoting Deuteronomy 6:16: “it is written again, ‘you shall not test [or tempt] the Lord, your God.’”

Notice how the following graphic shows what the devil tried to do at the temptation of Christ:

By quoting Scripture, the devil attempted to make his jumped-to conclusion appear completely within the contextual circle of God’s written word. We could say he tried to create a “theological optical illusion.” Thus, the circle on the left partially overlaps (in the gray area) the right circle. We could effectively call the Scripture in the gray area “the devil’s playground.” As Christians, we need not and must not be so naïve as to think such gray areas don’t exist in the Scriptures. Accordingly, the Scripture exhorts us to study the Scriptures and to rightly discern them (2 Timothy 2:15).

“Gray area” Scriptures are any passage(s) that someone feels need to be “explained in other words,” when in fact those “other words” aren’t found in the Bible in a way that clearly states the point the interpreter wants to make. (The key word is “need,” not merely “can be.”) The fact that their teaching or doctrine needs to be explained or rephrased makes it a gray area. This example of the devil’s interpretation of Psalm 91 is the archetype for using a gray-area Scripture in a wrong way.

Let’s look closer at the devil’s gray-area Scripture. The Bible does promise protection, but it doesn’t say that we can take that promise of protection and purposely use it to prove our faith in God and/or God’s stamp of approval on our personal faith. That is why Jesus cited the commandment from Deuteronomy 6:16 not to tempt God, because it directly addresses the idea the devil proposed, which at best was only implied in the Psalm the devil quoted.

This is the critical part to understand: Jesus’ qualifying Scripture protected the gray-area passage within the right-hand circle, which is to say, strictly within a biblical interpretation. At the same time, Jesus showed that the devil’s interpretation sat clearly outside the circle of biblical truth. Here, displayed graphically, is what Jesus did:

The devil did the opposite of Jesus. He imposed his jumped-to, rephrased, redefined conclusion, which effectively negated the Scripture on the right. The Bible speaks precisely against this type of interpretation when it says “no prophesy of Scripture is of any private interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20).

The Bible also says that “the mind of the flesh is hostile towards God; for it is not subject to God’s law, neither indeed can be” (Romans 8:7). The devil’s temptation is the kind of action this verse refers to. It isn’t that the devil didn’t acknowledge God’s word. It is that he found a way to wiggle out of being subject to God’s complete word. What Jesus recognized was that the devil was trying to pit God’s word against God’s law. Since Jesus was subject to all of God’s law, he wasn’t willing to compromise one aspect in order to keep an exaggerated conclusion based on another aspect. There is a huge difference between what is actually stated in God’s word versus what is added to it to make it appear to say something it never really states. This is the common error of both Trinitarianism and Onenessianism and all other “isms.”

This is how people can seem to be in line with Scripture while they are actually being disobedient!

Here is what these circles are teaching us:

Notice that, while the center gray area could go either way, the far left conclusion and the far right Scripture cannot both be true. They are mutually exclusive. This shows how God’s word really only teaches one truth, though other ideas are often “based on” Scripture without actually being “scriptural.” What makes the complete circle on the left wrong, and therefore evil, is that the conclusion stated on the far left negates certain explicit Scriptures that can be quoted in direct and clear opposition to that far-left opinion. Only the whole right circle is truly interpreting Scripture with Scripture by encompassing “every word of God” (Matthew 4:4). Jesus was determined to be led, and constrained by, all the Scriptures. To the contrary, the devil and his followers are not restrained by, nor do they submit to, God’s commandments; they merely give lip service to them like the devil did! This is the difference between true and false Christian attitudes toward the Scriptures.

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. His commandments are not grievous. (1 John 5:3)

And that is the takeaway lesson in our “Rule #1”: those who are obedient to every word of God will not, knowingly, disobey or diminish one passage or type of Scripture in order to keep a jumped-to conclusion of another. For that is exactly the way the devil, the epitome of evil and wrong thinking, interprets God’s words as given to us in the Bible.

Trinitarianism and the Circles of Discernment

Look at how these circles of discernment reveal the Trinitarian interpretation of Genesis 1:26–27:

²⁶God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…” ²⁷God created man in his own image. In God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:26–27)

Trinitarians claim the “let us make man” phrase indicates their proof that God is a Trinity of three persons. Note in the graphic the Trinitarian conclusion on the left and the biblical qualification on the right.

In opposition to the Trinity, nowhere in the Bible will you find where it explains that three deific persons were involved in Creation. The word for “to make” (v. 26) means something different than “to create” (v. 27). To the contrary of the Trinitarian conclusion, many passages, particularly in Isaiah, clearly explain that God was alone and by Himself when He created the heavens and earth. Using Jesus’ words, these verses are our “it is written again” defense against the Trinitarian interpretation of Genesis 1:26. See for example Isaiah 41:20; 42:5; 43:1–3, 15; 45:6–9, 18. In particular, notice Isaiah 44:24:

Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself. (Isaiah 44:24 KJV)

So, God says He was alone and by Himself when He created the earth. This is the opposite of a Trinity of persons. Trinitarians ignore the qualifying verses and assume that the “us” in Genesis 1:26 could mean three persons; and once they’ve latched onto the possibility, from then on it becomes the only interpretation acceptable to them. In this way, Trinitarians follow the devil’s method of interpreting the Bible rather than Jesus’ method.

Now it isn’t as if Trinitarians ignore such passages as Isaiah; they simply take them as challenges that need to be reinterpreted to fit their preconception. And so, they conclude that such passages are talking about their view of One God in entirety (i.e., as in their formulation “one substance in three persons”), or some such thing. The main point is that they don’t use such Scriptures the way Jesus did, by allowing such verses to qualify their “proof texts.” The problem is that, at best, their proof texts only imply their conclusion.

On the other hand, it isn’t extrabiblical on our part to say that God is personally one because Jesus himself approved and authorized the Jewish understanding of the “what” of God. He said, “You worship what you do not know; We know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22). The “what” emphatically known by Jews includes their understanding and knowledge of the truth that God is utterly one in personality! This is an irrefutable fact of history. Thus, the truth that God is personally one is part of God’s first commandment as interpreted for us by Jesus in Mark 12:29: “The first of all commandments is, Hear O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord: And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart… this is the first commandment.” Nevertheless, Trinitarians take their liberty to redefine the “what” of God based on jumped-to conclusions, seemingly in spite of what Jesus says! The Bible says not listening to Jesus is a really bad idea:

For Moses indeed said to the fathers, “The Lord God will raise up a prophet for you from among your brothers, like me. You shall listen to him in all things whatever he says to you. It will be, that every soul that will not listen to that prophet will be utterly destroyed from among the people.” (Acts 3:22–23)

Clearly, to be utterly destroyed is the opposite of Jesus’ promise of eternal life though the salvation he offers. Yet Trinitarians, since the days of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and even earlier, have refused to listen to the truth of Jesus’ proclamation in John 4:22. Instead, they “deduce” that there are multiple persons in the godhead. But they didn’t come up with the idea of “persons” out of the blue! They found that form of explanation in worldly philosophy. Here’s how one scholar puts it:

When Justin mentions that Christians believe in the Triad… he refers directly to the discussion among his contemporary Middle Platonists… There is a complete correlation between the two systems, that of Justin and that of Numenius (Table 1)… Marian Hillar, accessed 6/7/2015, www.socinian.org/files/Numenius_GreekSources.pdf.

This scholar explains that the Trinitarians derived their view of God from pagan ideas that were already floating around, and not directly from the Bible or the apostles. This is simply an irrefutable historic fact that even reputable Trinitarian historians admit. But we don’t need to rely only on current or latter day scholars. The early Trinitarians themselves also confessed this to be the case.

One such early Trinitarian was the theologian Gregory of Nyssa. Writing in his Great Catechism, he admitted and revealed the source of the concept and word of “persons” in the godhead. He said, “let… stand… of the Hellenistic, only the distinction as to persons…” Following is the passage where Gregory made this statement.

But since our system of religion [wants] to observe a distinction of persons in the unity of the Nature… there is need… of a distinct technical statement in order to correct all error on this point… The mystery… is separate as to personality yet is not divided as to subject matter. For, in personality, the Spirit is one thing and the Word another, and yet again that from which the Word and Spirit is [i.e., the Father is], another [person]. But when you have gained the conception of what the [personal] distinction is in these, the oneness, again, of the nature admits not division, so that the supremacy of the one [pagan philosophic] First Cause is not split and cut up into differing Godships, neither does the statement harmonize with the Jewish dogma, but the truth passes in the mean between these two [pagan and Jewish] conceptions, destroying each heresy, and yet accepting what is useful to it from each. The Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word, and by the belief in the Spirit; while the polytheistic error of the Greek school is made to vanish by the unity of the Nature… While yet again, of the Jewish conception, let the unity of the Nature stand; and of the [pagan/Greek] Hellenistic, only the distinction as to persons… For it is as if the number of the [Trinity] were a remedy in the case of those who are in error as to the One, and the assertion of the unity for those whose beliefs are dispersed among a number of divinities. Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, 1, 3, accessed 6/11/2015, at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.xi.ii.v.html

The word “Hellenistic” refers to Greek pagan thought—that is where Trinitarians got the concept of distinct persons in the godhead. He said this while claiming to have destroyed the Jewish understanding of God (which Jesus himself had upheld)! This is just the tip of the iceberg of reasons why the Trinity is simply unacceptable to those who truly value biblical teaching.

Onenessianism and Biblical Interpretation

When we compare the method of interpretation used by Trinitarians with the method used by Onenessians, we find a match in methodology but not in their distinct conclusion.

Onenessians are quite correct in criticizing Trinitarians for jumping to conclusions in claiming that the “us” in Genesis means persons “in the godhead,” when the Bible is so clear that God was alone in creation. Onenessians like to congratulate themselves for not falling for this Trinitarian adoption of pagan thought, while ignoring that they do the same thing!

The purpose here isn’t to refute Trinitarianism as much as it is to show that Onenessians use the same false methods as Trinitarians do to reach their conclusions. The question is, if it can be shown that Onenessians are just as susceptible to jumping to conclusions against Jesus’ words as the Trinitarians are, would you be willing to listen? Because it is just as important to teach the truth to Onenessians as to Trinitarians, and the same goes for us when we are in error.

How do you respond when your beliefs are challenged? Scripture demonstrates the range of possible reactions religious people have when confronted with truths that challenge what they believe: willingness, indifference, or indignation.

Willingness:	11“Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12Many of them therefore believed.” (Acts 17:11–12) “Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?’” (Acts 2:37)
Indifference:	Then Agrippa said to Paul, ‘You almost persuade me to become a Christian.’ (Acts 26:28, NKJV)
Indignation:	33“They answered him, ‘We are Abraham’s seed, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How do you say, ‘You will be made free?’’…48Then the Jews answered him, ‘Don’t we say well that you are a Samaritan, and have a demon?’” (John 8:33, 48) “Now when they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth.” (Acts 7:54)

When Onenessians attempt to approach Trinitarians with their errors, the intention is not to condemn; it is to bring them into a more perfect understanding of Christ. Sometimes the Trinitarians are willing to test the words, and if they are noble like the Bereans in Acts 17, will study and find the Trinity is not in their Bibles. Others are completely indifferent, adopting the attitude of “you have your beliefs, and we have ours; let’s just agree to disagree.” And then there are the ones who instantly become indignant and defensive because their beliefs are being challenged for whatever reason.

Onenessians, in turn, respond in the same ways. It will be up to the reader to choose how he or she will respond. Only one way is actually biblically commanded and acceptable:

Beloved, don’t believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)

This verse is a double-edged sword. Most people who believe they are already right with God tend to react like the believing Jews did in John 8:31–48 above. They initially become defensive and do not see that they are being approached with something legitimate. There is a psychological term for this kind of reaction: confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is the natural tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms our preconceived ideas. This is not the reaction of a truth seeker, nor is it considered in a positive light in the scriptures. It is a natural tendency and not a spiritual one.

Instead, the noble reaction is to study whether those things are so, because you never know when your teaching is the one that God has sent someone to correct. Onenessians should recognize this since they are the product of a long line of restorations of apostolic teachings. First Luther caused a separation from the traditions of Roman Catholicism based on a renewed focus on grace; then the holiness movement emerged; later the Topeka, Kansas, Pentecostal movement; and then came the revelation of baptism in Jesus’ name. God’s restoration to the “faith once delivered” has not been a simple one-step process. Every move away from the traditions of men was met with resistance from those who had once accepted a previous move. And again, some moves weren’t true moves of restoration. The point is, even false moves aren’t effectively challenged by resorting to “gnashing” at people with their teeth, which is likely symbolic of an ad hominem type of attack where, instead of soundly addressing the issues, the character of the person is attacked.

What kind of response will you have, dear reader? Will you be inclined to nobly search the Scriptures whether these things be so? Or scoff at them as not worth your attention? Or instantly become defensive and indignant because someone has dared challenge your position?

With these questions in mind, let’s examine the Oneness position for its jumped-to conclusions.

In his book, The Oneness of God, David Bernard jumps to a classic Oneness conclusion:

Once, when Jesus was talking about the Father, the Pharisees asked, “Where is thy Father?” Jesus answered, “Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also” (John 8:19)… In other words, Jesus tried to tell them that He was the Father and the I AM, and that if they did not accept Him as God they would die in their sins … -David K. Bernard, The Oneness of God (Word Aflame Press: Hazelwood, MO, 1983), 67.

Was Jesus “ trying to tell them” he was the Father, as Bernard claims? Did Jesus actually say that, or does it require or need someone like Bernard to explain it that way to make it appear that’s what Jesus said? The answer is that Jesus certainly did not say “I am YHWH-God incarnate in the flesh,” or Bernard wouldn’t have had to say, “he tried to tell them that…”

Following are some of the words Jesus did say. Let’s ask ourselves whether these support the idea that Jesus was “ trying to say” he was the Father. Or, to the contrary, did he explicitly say he was personally distinct from the Father?

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

Here in Jesus’ explicit context of two persons—that is to say, two individual personalities—Jesus states that he is “one who” and in contrast to him is “the Father who,” thus clearly indicating two “whos.” So 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. How much clearer would Jesus need to be for us to accept that he was teaching himself as a second or distinct personality from His Father?

Note that this is exactly the same conversation that immediately preceded the Jews’ question and Jesus’ reply, saying “Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.” In other words, just exactly as Trinitarians ignore the context and wording of Genesis 1:27 to maintain their view of Genesis 1:26, so the Onenessians ignore the context and actual wording of John 8:17–18 in order to uphold their theory of what John 8:19 means.

Let’s look at two additional verses where Jesus explains himself. Notice what Jesus says:

Even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent me. (John 8:16)

You will leave me alone. Yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me. (John 16:32)

These important verses speak clearly against the Onenessian view. How so? Onenessians argue against Trinitarians for ignoring the OT Scriptures that say God is alone, yet they are somehow unable to accept that Jesus clearly and often reiterates that he is “not alone” in the NT! This means that the Oneness argument against the Trinity in the OT is one of the biggest arguments against the Oneness view in the NT! Quite simply, in the OT, God was alone; in the NT, Jesus is not alone.

We could (and will) add many additional verses as evidence that Jesus is personally distinct from the Father. There are fifteen just in John 5 and thirteen just in John 8, which is already many more verses than can be found in Isaiah about God being alone.

Of course, Onenessians don’t and won’t openly admit they “reject” the truth that Jesus is “not alone,” any more than Trinitarians would openly admit they believe in three gods or that their position negates the Scriptures where God says he is one and alone. Rather, what they both do is simply reinterpret and redefine what those words and phrases mean until they can make them acceptable to their belief systems.

Trinitarians reinterpret “one God” to mean one in substance or essence rather than one in personality. Onenessians, on the other hand, by using some form of the unbiblical “two natures” doctrine, reinterpret the “not alone” and “two who” Scriptures to mean modes or manifestations of the one person of God rather than the plural personalities these passages clearly describe. Again, the problem is that neither of these two viewpoints is clearly described or explained anywhere in the Scriptures. Each is thus equally unbiblical in jumping to conclusions as the other is.

These last two Scriptures are among Jesus’ “I am” statements. Onenessians claim to love the “I am” statements of Jesus, except, apparently, ones like these two. These two are very descriptive and to the point. Just how clear was Jesus? What if Jesus were to say something like, “Most assuredly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself…” (John 5:19), or something like, “I can of myself do nothing” (John 5:30)? Why can’t Onenessians allow these self-descriptions of Jesus to be just as important as any other? Answer: if they did, like I have, they would no longer accept a Oneness interpretation.

The simple truth is, Jesus saying “I can do nothing of myself” and God saying, “I am that I am” are ways of stating two mutually exclusive sets of personal abilities. The former describes Jesus’ personal utter helplessness, whereas the other denotes God’s absolute, utterly unlimited, personal, self-reliant power. So where did Jesus get his power and authority if not from “himself”? In speaking of his “self” as being incapable of doing anything, was he, “trying to say” he was self-reliant? No, rather he was just as clear about that as anything else for anyone really willing to hear him. He said, “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18).

This is also saying the exact polar opposite of what God meant when He said, “I am that I am” (Exodus 3:14). Being “given” authority is another opposite from being absolutely self-reliant. That’s because “given” authority by definition means it is a derived authority and thus an authority not originating within one’s self. In this way we can see that what is actually “spelled out” and clearly explained by Jesus himself differs considerably to what is imposed by jumping to Onenessian conclusions. Now we can begin to see that what Jesus actually did say, in many places, is as opposite to Onenessianism as the Trinity is to Jewish monotheism.

We also need to ask why Jesus would “try to say” one thing when he was clearly and actually saying the exact opposite in the same discussion? Was Jesus, who is described as the word of God made flesh, not able to say what he really meant? Was Jesus, who is also called the Truth, telling lies to teach truth? For example, why would someone say, “I work busing tables,” if he were trying to say, “I am the president of the USA”? What Jesus did say was actually even more opposite than this because these are both jobs that are done by humans! So again, by saying he “can do nothing of himself,” he absolutely and clearly stated the exact opposite of what it means to say, “I am that I am.” So he certainly did not say, nor was he even trying to say, that he was “I am that I am,” because he had already clearly denied that he could do anything at all of himself.

So who is telling the truth here, Jesus when he said he could do nothing of himself, or the Onenessians when they say he “tried to tell them that He was the Father and the I AM” even though he had already told them he could do nothing of himself? We have chosen to reject handling the word of God deceitfully in that way and have chosen instead to believe Jesus and the whole word of God.

Onenessianism and the Circles of Discernment

Here is the Oneness position as viewed in our circles of discernment:

Again, in no way did Jesus simply say, “I am the person of the Father incarnate.” Rather, in saying he did not speak from his “self,” and then saying the Father was a different “who,” Jesus was explaining himself with very clear and meaningful terms. In this way he actually clearly ruled out the Oneness jumped-to conclusion that there is only one personal “self” in Christ. Onenessians simply refuse to hear him.

Certainly, we are not denying that God the Father dwelled in Jesus to a unique degree. What we are saying is that no Scripture teaches that “indwelling” equals or means “sameness of personality.” In fact, indwelling means precisely the opposite. By searching the Scriptures we learn that all true Christians are also indwelled by God’s Spirit (e.g., Romans 8:11; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 3:17), but that doesn’t make us the same personal “self” as the Spirit that is dwelling in us. In fact, it quite purposely means the exact opposite, that we are not to think we are the God who dwells in us. The truth is that Jesus was indwelt by God more completely than we are, but that is a matter of degree; it was still an indwelling, and being an indwelling it specifically did not mean identification. (We will cover indwelling again and quote these verses in Chapter Thirteen).

On the other hand, what the Oneness doctrine is implying is that indwelling means he is an incarnation of God the Father. The problem is that indwelling means something completely different. This Oneness interpretation (that indwelling, as it relates to Christ, really means incarnation) is yet another man-made tradition that is never, ever clearly spelled out in Scripture. Instead, the Oneness position is imposed on the text of the Bible in the same exact way as the Trinitarians impose their extrabiblical and innovative description of their god on the Bible, which in turn is the same way the devil tried to tempt Jesus.

Now that last paragraph said a mouthful, but it also brings this first rule of interpretation into perspective. Let me demonstrate just how important this rule is. Breaking this rule is actually what enabled the very first sin, bringing the whole world into sin and death. This is monumental, but it is true! When the serpent tempted Eve, he provided a jumped-to conclusion regarding God’s word:

³He said to the woman, “Has God really said, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden?’”… ⁴The serpent said to the woman, “You won’t surely die, ⁵for God knows that in the day you eat it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:1–5)

That was how the serpent tempted Eve—by jumping to the conclusion and proposing the idea that God “meant” (or as some would put it, God supposedly “was trying to say” but didn’t say) that her eyes would be opened and she would become more like God by knowing good and evil.

Let’s look at what Jesus had to say about the devil’s jumping to conclusions (presumably in the Garden):

⁴²Therefore Jesus said to them… ⁴⁴… “You are of your father, the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and doesn’t stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks on his own; for he is a liar, and the father of it. ⁴⁵But because I tell the truth, you don’t believe me. ⁴⁶Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? ⁴⁷He who is of God hears the words of God. For this cause you don’t hear, because you are not of God.” (John 8:42–47)

Most Christians understand clearly that lying and committing murder are sins, but in this passage Jesus directly links both of those sins to the original lie of the devil in the Garden of Eden. Thus, according to Jesus, it is murderously devil-like to interpret God’s word the way Satan does. The serpent’s lie caused death to pass upon all mankind, so Jesus was right to call him a murderer. Likewise, false doctrines negate the true teachings that lead to salvation—through the man God ordained to lead us unto eternal life—thus turning words that were meant for life into words of death.

We can describe what Satan did in the Garden in many ways. We can say he put words in God’s mouth, as if God had meant something God never said. He made God out to be unclear—as if God tried to say one thing and really meant another—and thus made it appear that people need a religious expert (theologian) to interpret God for them. He implied that the way to interpret God is to lean on your own understanding, which the Bible denounces. He implied that God’s word was hopelessly difficult to interpret correctly, and on and on we could go.

Most important, though, is Jesus’ position toward the devil’s defiance. In fact, we could say Jesus was calling what the devil did in the Garden the granddaddy of all evil, because that lie was what enabled all sin, including murder. In this light, when we think of how evil it is to lie, steal, or murder, we should think the same thing of the devil’s method of interpreting God’s word. It is a sin to use that method, and whoever does so has become a servant of sin and not of God (Romans 6:16). Oneness folks have no problem pointing out to Trinitarians that their teaching breaks the first commandment of God and is thus idolatry. But are Onenessians willing to examine whether or not their own method of interpreting the Bible follows the devil’s example rather than Christ’s?

In the final analysis, those who follow the devil’s technique of jumping to conclusions are not doing themselves or their followers any favors. We as Christians need to be able to discern what teachings are derived by following Jesus’ way, and which are derived by following the opposite way. The Bible gives us this dire warning:

¹³For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as Christ’s apostles. ¹⁴And no wonder, for even Satan masquerades as an angel of light. ¹⁵It is no great thing therefore if his ministers also masquerade as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works. (2 Corinthians 11:13–15)

Those aren’t my words; those are Scriptures. And don’t Onenessians use this same verse in contending against the errors of Trinitarianism and other false teachings? So should Onenessianism be held to a double set of standards? Is Onenessianism so fragile as to be afraid that close scrutiny will wreck it? Doesn’t truth fear no questions? If so, then let’s ask the hard questions of Onessianism and see whether or not it was developed in a biblical manner or after the devil’s way of interpretation.

While the purpose in this chapter is to introduce the proper rules of interpretation, hopefully you see how this first rule has exposed the error of using John 8:19 as a proof text for Onenessianism. The Oneness interpretation is not considering Jesus’ words in a truly “it is written again” manner. The Oneness position jumps to a conclusion over this passage in the same way as their arch-rivals the Trinitarians do with Genesis 1:26.

Now look what remains if we move the jumped-to conclusions of Trinitarianism and Onenessianism away from their respective biblical interpretations.

Notice that what they call “revelations” are really nothing more than man-made interpretations! When we hear Onenessians claim that Oneness is a “revelation,” we can now clearly see that doesn’t necessarily mean their “revelation” is a scriptural one.

¹⁹We have the more sure word of prophecy; whereunto you do well that you take heed, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns, and the morning star arises in your hearts: ²⁰knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation. ²¹For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke, being moved by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:19–21)

We uphold that the “more sure word of prophecy” on the right of each graphic is both explanatory and revelatory, so who has the true biblical revelation? Others claim such extrabiblical ideas on the left are “necessary” teachings even though such explanations are nowhere found as such anywhere in the Scripture. That is simply because the biblical writers never meant their words to teach such conclusions.

Although this single example may not instantly convince you of the error of the Oneness position, you should be able to recognize the error in the method used in this example. And then once you see the sheer volume of repetitions of just such instances we are going to present, we hope you will come to see that jumping to conclusions; that is, interpreting the way the devil does, is, ultimately, the only method that Onenessians use (indeed that they can use) to support their theory that God was personally incarnated as Jesus the Anointed One.

In Summary: This chapter has contrasted jumping to conclusions with legitimate quoting of Scripture in interpreting God’s word. Our conclusion is that all core Christian doctrines are clearly spelled out and explained in the Christian Scriptures. This statement is never so apparent or so true of any other doctrine as when the Bible teaches about the Messiah/Christ, the Son of God and Son of Man.

When considering any teaching, whether from us or from your spiritual leaders or circles, or wherever, you need to prayerfully ask, does it fit with what the Bible clearly says, or is it in direct opposition to one or more verses that just don’t fit that conclusion? In other words:

Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. (Deuteronomy 8:3 and Matthew 4:4)

 Print This Post