Exposing the Serpent’s Proof-Text Ping Pong: Reclaiming the Biblical Jesus

Trinitarians often accuse Biblical Unitarians of approaching Scripture with a preconceived bias toward a human Jesus, as if we impose our theology onto the text. In reality, this is a projection of their own shortcomings; it is the Trinity that is absent from the Bible: a doctrine never named, proclaimed, confessed, exemplified, explained, or commanded in Scripture (Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:6; 1 Corinthians 4:6). The Trinity doctrine is more akin to the well-known children’s fable about the king’s new (invisible) clothes than to a legitimate biblical teaching.

Biblical Unitarians are on solid ground in affirming that the Bible itself firmly establishes for us the “preconception” of one God and His human Son, by divine commandment and explanation. God openly declares and decrees His oneness: “You shall fear the LORD your God; you shall serve him and hold fast to him” (Deuteronomy 10:20; cf. Deuteronomy 6:4). He promises a human deliverer: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring” (Genesis 3:15). He foretells a prophet like Moses, explicitly so the Israelites will not have to hear God speak to them directly: “I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers… and he shall speak to them all that I command him” (Deuteronomy 18:15–18). He pledges a human heir to David that God declares will be His own Son: “I will raise up your offspring after you… and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son” (2 Samuel 7:12–14). God alone creates: “I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens” (Isaiah 44:24).

These scriptures describe anything but a false, man-made preconceived bias.

It is almost embarrassing that we have to defend the veracity of these clearly stated biblical truths. These clear Scriptures, echoed in Jesus’ own words—“This is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3)—set the foundation for the apostolic faith: “Men of Israel, hear these words! Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God to you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him among you, even as you yourselves know” (Acts 2:22). Thus, the very “shema” (listen) of the apostles on the day of Pentecost established the “preconception” held by Biblical Unitarians, but rejected by Trinitarians, that Jesus is a man approved by God.

“The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.” (Psalm 118:22)

To be fair, we need to state up front that not all synthesis is inherently immoral or deceptive. The Bible itself provides examples of godly synthesis—human ideas that honor God’s morals and plan without negating His commandments. For instance, David’s desire to build a house for God (2 Samuel 7:1-3) was a synthesis of his devotion, which God cherished, refining it into the Davidic covenant fulfilled in Jesus (2 Samuel 7:11-14). Similarly, the Passover plate, a tradition of men honoring the hoped-for Messiah, was upheld by Jesus Himself (John 13-17), as it pointed to God’s redemptive purpose without contradicting His word. These honor God because they amplify His moral intent—obedience, covenant, and redemption—without making His commandments of none effect (Matthew 15:6).

In contrast, synthesis is ungodly when it detracts from or nullifies God’s commands, as seen in Eden when the serpent “synthesized” Eve’s inherent lack of understanding good and evil with God’s provision of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden they were given care over (Genesis 3) and implied God expected them to eat and gain knowledge, and in the Pharisees’ Corban tradition (Mark 7:11), where they declared gifts to God exempt from honoring parents, violating the fifth commandment.

By distinguishing godly from ungodly synthesis, we preempt accusations of hypocrisy: the human “Son of God” view (aka Biblical Unitarian) honors God’s plan (Genesis 1:26–27 as moral calling), while Trinitarianism dishonors it by adding to His word (Deuteronomy 4:2).

Trinitarians, however, are more interested in playing a game of “proof-text ping pong,” rather than keeping God’s first commandment as He Himself articulated it, and also by refusing to hear actual biblical definitions of God and His Son, Jesus the Anointed One. Instead, they point to unclear verses, like Matthew 28:19, Genesis 1:26–27, John 1:1, and claim them to be isolated proofs of a triune God. While not one of those proof texts states what Trinitarians believe. Not even one. Trinitarians rely 100% on what is called “synthesis” which means a man-made conglomeration of what did not exist before man got his hands on it. Think of synthetic fabrics and you get the gist of the meaning.

What I will establish in addressing their proof texts is that the Trinitarian method of interpretation exactly mirrors the serpent’s playbook (Genesis 3:1–6), questioning God’s clear revelation (“Did God really say?”), reinterpreting it through philosophical bias, and replacing the “Son of God” faith with a counterfeit Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:3–4). I will dismantle eight key Trinitarian proof-texts (Matthew 28:19; Genesis 1:26–27; John 1:1; Hebrews 1:8; John 20:28; John 10:30; Titus 2:13; Acts 5:3–4), noting that similar formulaic misreadings, like 2 Corinthians 13:14, are addressed within Matthew 28:19, showing how they align with the biblical truth of one God and His human Son when we listen to Jesus (Matthew 17:5) and reject human traditions that nullify God’s word (Matthew 15:3–9).

Matthew 28:19: A Case Study in the Serpent’s Playbook

Matthew 28:19
“Go therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

According to Trinitarians, this verse is a slam-dunk proof of the Trinity. In reality, this verse is a powerful example of the manner—the mode of operation, if you will—of how Trinitarians elevate their interpretation of their so-called proof texts above and to the exclusion of what the Bible elsewhere explains. In other words, they use these verses the same way the serpent did in tempting Jesus in Matthew 4:5–7 (when he used a scripture to tempt Jesus to jump from a pinnacle). They start by assuming the verse is a “Trinity proof text,” and then claim or imply that there is no other way it can be interpreted. That move sets up a false dilemma, forcing the reader to either accept their tradition or be accused of rejecting Scripture. In doing so, they turn their teaching tradition into a commandment of God—the very error Jesus condemned in Mark 7:7–9 and Matthew 15:3–9.

But if you will notice, nothing in Matthew 28:19 says anything at all about God being a “Trinity of three coequal persons in one substance.” Therefore, the obvious observation is that this has to be read into the text from a preconceived bias that doesn’t come from the text. This verse is a prime example of how Trinitarians routinely use a single line to overturn the entire biblical record of the topic. In this case, it overturns the consistent biblical testimony regarding how the apostles heard and obeyed Jesus’ baptismal command. This exposes that the way they interpret the topic fails the very test Jesus gave in John 8:31–32 and is the clearest example of the serpent’s tactic: using one verse to overturn everything else God has said.

If you can see that pattern clearly here, the hope is that you’ll recognize the same attitude and method in the remaining proof texts we examine.

The Serpent’s Playbook Exposed: Trinitarian Eisegesis of Matthew 28:19

Trinitarians assert that Matthew 28:19 explicitly teaches the Trinity because it mentions “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” in a baptismal context, implying a triune Godhead of coequal persons. This interpretation, however, crumbles under scrutiny when measured against the biblical standard of being, somewhere in the Bible, at the least named, proclaimed, confessed, exemplified, explained, or commanded (Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, 1 Corinthians 4:6, 1 Timothy 1:3). Instead, it perfectly exemplifies the serpent’s playbook; being applied to defend a non-biblical teaching (Genesis 3:1–6), which questions God’s clear words (“Did God really say?”), reinterprets them through human reasoning, and replaces the apostolic faith with a counterfeit (2 Corinthians 11:3–4).

Let’s dismantle this interpretation by applying “six witnesses” to the biblical topic of baptism (What, Why, How, When, Where, Who), which, together, testify to baptism in Jesus’ name and expose the Trinitarian reading as a post-apostolic distortion.

1. Grammatical Clarity: Authorization, Not a Formula

First, let’s address the text itself. Grammatically, Matthew 28:19 is not prescribing a verbal formula to be recited at baptism but authorizing the apostles to baptize “into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The Greek phrase eis to onoma (“into the name”) denotes authority or ownership, not a liturgical script. Jesus is commissioning His disciples to act under the authority of God (the Father), Himself (the Son, God’s human agent), and the Holy Spirit (God’s active power), not dictating words to say. This aligns with the biblically informed Jewish concept of agency, where the Son acts in the Father’s name (John 5:43, “I have come in my Father’s name”) and the Spirit empowers God’s work (Acts 1:8).

Trinitarians, however, read Matthew 28:19 as a doctrinal formula, assuming “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” implies coequal deity. This is a synthesis of human tradition, not Scripture, akin to the Pharisees’ Corban (Mark 7:11), which nullified God’s command (Matthew 15:6). Similarly, 2 Corinthians 13:14 (“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit”) is misused as a Trinitarian formula, yet it reflects blessings through Jesus’ agency, not a triune ontology. Both texts emphasize God’s work through the human Messiah (Acts 2:22) and His Spirit, not three persons. As I argued in I Am Not Alone (Chapter Thirty), Jesus’ authority is derived: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matthew 28:18). Trinitarians jump to an ontological conclusion, ignoring Jesus’ words: “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28).

2. The Six Witnesses: A Biblical Blueprint for Baptism

To expose the Trinitarian misinterpretation, let’s call upon the “six witnesses” from Scripture—What, Why, How, When, Where, and Who—as inspired by the poem:

I have six honest serving men,
They taught me all I knew,
Their names? What and Why and How,
And When and Where and Who
—Author unknown

These witnesses, grounded in 2 Corinthians 13:1 (“In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established”), provide a comprehensive testimony of baptism’s purpose and practice, all pointing to baptism in Jesus’ name, not a Trinitarian formula. Their collective silence on baptizing into “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” is deafening, especially since the Father and Spirit did not die, making Jesus’ name uniquely tied to the gospel’s redemptive work (Romans 6:3–4).

WHAT? Baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ

Scripture consistently describes baptism as “in/into the name of Jesus Christ”:

Acts 2:38 with Luke 24:47: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.”

Acts 8:12–16, Acts 10:48, Acts 19:4–5: Baptism in Jesus’ name across diverse groups: “They had only been baptized in the name of Christ Jesus;” “[Peter] commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.”

Romans 6:3–4, Colossians 2:6,12, Galatians 3:27: Baptism unites believers with Jesus’ death and resurrection.

1 Peter 3:20–21, Mark 16:16, Acts 4:10–12: Salvation through Jesus’ name.

Not once does Scripture describe baptism as “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Matthew 28:19 stands alone, and its Trinitarian interpretation contradicts the uniform apostolic practice. If the Trinity were central, why is the New Testament silent on this formula?

WHY? The Purpose of Baptism Points to Jesus

Scripture explicitly explains why baptism is in Jesus’ name, with no equivalent purpose for a Trinitarian formula:

• Remission of Sins: Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Luke 24:47 link remission to Jesus’ name, as His death atones for sin (1 Corinthians 15:3). The Father and Spirit did not die, so baptizing into their titles lacks redemptive purpose.
• Putting on Christ: Galatians 3:26–27 says baptism in Jesus’ name means “putting on Christ,” uniting believers with Him (2 Corinthians 11:2).
• Salvation: Mark 16:16, Acts 4:10–12, 1 Peter 3:20–21, Hebrews 11:7 tie salvation to Jesus’ name, not a triune formula.
• Burial with Jesus: Romans 6:3–4 and Colossians 2:11–12 describe baptism as burial with Christ, impossible for the Father or Spirit.
• Obedience to the Gospel: 1 Corinthians 15:1–4 and 2 Thessalonians 1:7–9 connect baptism to Jesus’ death and resurrection, not a triune God.
• Obedience to Jesus’ Command: Acts 9:6, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:3–4, and Galatians 3:27 emphasize baptism as obedience to Jesus, not a formulaic recital.

The absence of any stated purpose for baptizing into “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” is fatal to the Trinitarian imposition of their extrabiblical interpretation. If Matthew 28:19 were a Trinitarian command, Scripture would explain its redemptive purpose, as it does for Jesus’ name. Instead, the silence screams that Trinitarians are reading their doctrine into the text, negating the clear “why” of baptism (John 8:31–32). This is a clear case of negating what the scripture does say to impose a teaching that it does not say.

HOW? Immersion into Christ’s Death and Resurrection

The New Testament consistently presents baptism as immersion into Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, symbolizing union with Him:

Romans 6:3–4: “Don’t you know that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.”

Colossians 2:11–12: “Having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.”

This is why the apostolic practice was baptism in Jesus’ name—not as a verbal formula, but as a spiritual act of identification with the Messiah’s death and resurrection. Trinitarians ignore this witness, substituting a ritual formula foreign to Scripture.

WHEN? At Conversion

Baptism occurred immediately upon believing the gospel, not after catechism or creedal confession of the Trinity:

Acts 2:41: “Then those who gladly received his word were baptized. There were added that day about three thousand souls.”

Acts 8:36–38: The Ethiopian eunuch is baptized as soon as he confesses Jesus.

Acts 10:44–48: Gentiles are baptized immediately after receiving the Spirit.

Acts 16:30–33: The Philippian jailer and his household are baptized the same hour of the night.

No creeds, no Trinity recitations—just faith in Jesus and obedience to His command.

WHERE? Wherever Believers Were Found

Baptism took place in rivers, pools, or any place with enough water for immersion:

John 3:23: “John was also baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there.”

Acts 8:36–38: “As they went on the way, they came to some water. The eunuch said, ‘Behold, here is water. What is keeping me from being baptized?’ He commanded the chariot to stand still, and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.”

This shows baptism’s simplicity and immediacy, not elaborate Trinitarian rituals.

WHO? In the Name of Jesus Christ

The consistent apostolic practice was baptism in the name of Jesus:

Acts 2:38: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Acts 8:12,16: Samaritans were baptized “into the name of the Lord Jesus.”

Acts 10:48: Peter “commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.”

Acts 19:5: Disciples of John are rebaptized “into the name of the Lord Jesus.”

Romans 6:3–4; Galatians 3:27: Baptism unites believers with Jesus Christ.

No example exists of anyone being baptized by saying “I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” The formula is a later tradition, not apostolic practice.

Conclusion: Matthew 28:19 in Context

When we allow Scripture to define Scripture, Matthew 28:19 does not teach a Trinitarian baptismal formula. It authorizes baptism under God’s authority, accomplished through His Son and Spirit, and consistently carried out in Jesus’ name. The apostles understood and obeyed this correctly, baptizing in Jesus’ name as the fulfillment of the Great Commission. Trinitarian tradition, however, reads a later theological development back into the text, mirroring the serpent’s playbook: questioning God’s words, reinterpreting them through philosophy, and replacing the biblical faith with a counterfeit.

Genesis 1:26-27: The Serpent’s Dismissal of God’s Moral Calling

Genesis 1:26-27

“Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

This short phrase, “Let us make man in our image,” has stirred centuries of debate. Trinitarians cite Genesis 1:26 as evidence of plurality in God, claiming the “us” and “our” reveal a triune Godhead, with the Father speaking to the Son and Spirit. Some Unitarians interpret the “us” in this passage as a “plural of majesty,” treating it as a grammatical figure of speech devoid of moral weight.

The position I will defend here is that Genesis 1:26-27 is God’s first moral purpose decree—a mission statement, if you will—for humanity, calling us to grow into His likeness through obedience and mutual formation, not a hint of plurality or mere linguistic idiom. This critique dismantles both the Trinitarian misreading and the Unitarian “plural of majesty only” view by prioritizing God’s moral intent, showing that Genesis 1:26-27 testifies to His singular sovereignty and redemptive plan.

Why Genesis 1:26-27 Is God’s First Purpose Decree

Genesis 1:26 is God’s first verbal declaration about mankind. Prior to this verse, God creates, separates, and names—but never gives a reason for why He does so. Genesis 1:26 is the first time God expresses intent or purpose about what He is about to make and why. Notice the language of purpose and outcome: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion…” This is deliberate intention, not spontaneous action. The creation of man is not incidental—it’s purposeful and explained.

Verse 26 is the mission statement: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…” Verse 27 is the starting point: “God created man in His own image…” But the creation is not completed in likeness or dominion—it is only begun. Even upon completion of verse 27, Adam is innocent, not yet wise. He doesn’t yet know good and evil (Genesis 3:5, 22). God’s image includes moral discernment and faithful rule, both of which require maturity. Man was created able to grow into that image through obedience. God intended man to grow into moral likeness by trusting His definition of good and evil. The serpent’s deception short-circuited that process—offering a shortcut to “be like God” by defining good and evil for oneself (Genesis 3:5). If man were already fully in God’s image, there would be no point in the serpent’s temptation.

A strong indication of this ongoing process is the distinction between the Hebrew words for “make” (asah) and “create” (bara). Asah can refer to fashioning or accomplishing something over time, while bara denotes God’s unique act of creation. Genesis 1:26’s “make” (asah) signals a process initiated in verse 27 (bara), fulfilled through moral growth, not an instantaneous completion.

Most importantly, the New Testament confirms that the image transformation is still in process. These are the passages where God’s intent for mankind is explained in Scripture and that is what makes this view Biblical:

• Romans 8:29: “For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son.”
• Romans 4:17: “…God, who gives life to the dead, and calls the things that are not, as though they were.”
• Romans 12:1-2: “Present your bodies a living sacrifice… be transformed by the renewing of your mind.”
• 2 Corinthians 3:18: “We are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory.”
• 1 Corinthians 3:9-10: “We are God’s fellow workers… like a wise master builder.”
• Galatians 4:19: “I am again in travail until Christ is formed in you.”
• Ephesians 2:10: “We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works.”
• Ephesians 4:11-13: “…until we all attain… to a full-grown man… to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.”
• Colossians 1:28-29: “…that we may present every man perfect in Christ.”
• Colossians 3:10: “…renewed in knowledge after the image of him who created him.”
• 1 Peter 2:5: “You also, as living stones, are being built up.”
• 1 Peter 5:2-3: “…being examples to the flock.”
• 1 John 2:6: “He who says he remains in him ought himself also to walk just like he walked.”
• Matthew 5:14-16: “Let your light shine before men… that they may see your good works.”
• Matthew 28:19-20: “Go, and make disciples… teaching them to observe all things I commanded.”

These passages show that God’s “let us make” was, in effect, a purpose-driven decree, ultimately to include believers to participate in forming one another into His moral image through “one-another” commands: “encourage one another and build each other up” (1 Thessalonians 5:11), “admonish one another” (Romans 15:14), “bear one another’s burdens” (Galatians 6:2), “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15), “provoke one another to love and good works” (Hebrews 10:24), and “teach and admonish one another in all wisdom” (Colossians 3:16). This confirms that the initial creation in Genesis 1:27 did not complete the purpose but initiated it.

By contrast, the plural of majesty explanation offers no such scriptural trail and carries no moral ramifications—it’s as if God were merely talking to Himself. The “plural of majesty” view has no good explanation of why God felt it necessary to talk to Himself in an idiomatic fashion when no one else was around. It is purely an academic term borrowed from post-biblical language theory. It adds nothing to God’s mission. It assigns no responsibility. It provides no calling. It carries zero moral force.

At best, it is a grammatical placeholder. At worst, it is a scholarly distraction—one that potentially shifts our attention away from God’s moral decree to His Creation. From a moral perspective, the “plural of majesty” theory is a textbook example of making man the determiner of good and evil. In this case, it is man taking the prerogative to simply negate a foundational decree given by God as the primary overarching mandate to the very people He was about to create—which, of course, is something only God Himself has the right to do.

Are the two views morally equal?

Absolutely not. The contrast is not interpretive—it is moral.

The purpose-driven calling view leads to fruitfulness, accountability, and purpose—from the very foundation of Creation. The plural of majesty view leads to nothing but academic debate.

And then there is the Trinitarian interpretation.

Trinitarian Eisegesis: Imposing Plurality

Trinitarians read “us” and “our” as a conversation among Father, Son, and Spirit, imposing a triune ontology alien to the text. This violates God’s singular sovereignty: “I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens” (Isaiah 44:24, l’vadi “by myself”). The Son’s role in creation (John 1:3) is as God’s human agent in redemption (Acts 2:23, 1 Peter 1:20), not a preexistent deity. Jesus confirms this: “I can do nothing of myself” (John 5:19, 30; The words I speak not from myself), and “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). Trinitarians’ leap to plurality mirrors the serpent’s lie, “You will be like God” (Genesis 3:5), by redefining God’s oneness (Deuteronomy 6:4) through philosophy (Colossians 2:8).

Historical Context: A Post-Apostolic Shift

The Trinitarian reading of Genesis 1:26 emerged in post-apostolic theology, influenced by Greek philosophy (e.g., Justin Martyr, Tertullian), not the apostles. Early Jewish Christians, like the Ebionites and Nazarenes, saw Jesus as the human Messiah (John 20:31, Acts 2:22). The Nicene Creed (325 CE) formalized plurality, reflecting the “heist” of The Oldest Trick: Part 1, where “philosophy and vain deceit” (Colossians 2:8) replaced the faith once delivered (Jude 3). The “plural of majesty” view, while not Trinitarian, also stems from later scholarly traditions, not Scripture, and lacks the moral continuity of the purpose-driven view.

Final Thought: Recovering God’s Moral Mission

This isn’t abstract theology—it’s ultimately the heartbeat of the gospel: God calling a people to embody and extend His image through obedience. Genesis 1:26-27 is not a metaphor or grammatical puzzle; it is a moral mission. That mission is carried out through our duty to “one-another” each other, as Paul exhorts: “encourage one another and build each other up” (1 Thessalonians 5:11), “bear one another’s burdens” (Galatians 6:2), “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15), and “provoke one another to love and good works” (Hebrews 10:24). These are not optional courtesies; they are expressions of the Genesis 1:26 decree—God’s first moral calling upon mankind.

To dismiss this mission statement view in favor of Trinitarian plurality or a grammatical “plural of majesty” is to substitute moral decree with interpretive subjectivity. It redefines God’s speech as ornamental rather than authoritative, reversing the divine order where man becomes the judge of meaning instead of the servant of revelation. This is not neutral—it’s a moral inversion, a quiet reenactment of the serpent’s deception: “Has God really said…?” (Genesis 3:1).

Trinitarians impose a post-apostolic doctrine, ignoring God’s singular sovereignty (Isaiah 44:24) and Jesus’ words (John 17:3, “the only true God”). Unitarians who cling to “plural of majesty” unwittingly nullify the moral call, replacing it with scholarly detachment. Both approaches negate clear texts (Deuteronomy 6:4, Acts 2:22, Romans 4:17, Romans 8:29, Ephesians 2:10). Let us embrace the simplicity of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:3), the man approved by God (Acts 2:22), and fulfill God’s calling to shape one another into His image (Romans 8:29).

John 1:1: The Serpent’s Philosophical Twist on God’s Word

John 1:1
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Trinitarians claim John 1:1 is a cornerstone proof of the Trinity, insisting there is no other way to understand it than establishing Jesus as a preexistent divine person, coequal with God in a triune Godhead. In reality, the way Trinitarians interpret this verse is another textbook example of the serpent’s playbook (Genesis 3:1–6), where a single text is wrested from its biblical context, infused with philosophical bias, and used to overturn the clear testimony of Scripture, such as Jesus’ own words: “This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3). Like the serpent’s misuse of Psalm 91:11–12 to tempt Jesus (Matthew 4:5–7), Trinitarians impose a doctrine absent from the apostolic faith (Jude 3), creating a false dilemma to nullify God’s word (Matthew 15:3–9).

Notice, however, that John 1:1 says nothing about a “Trinity of three coequal persons in one substance” or a preexistent divine person. Such concepts must be read into the text from a preconceived bias, foreign to its Jewish and biblical roots. By elevating this verse above the broader scriptural narrative—especially Jesus’ own words—Trinitarians replicate the serpent’s method: questioning God’s clear words (“Did God really say?”, Genesis 3:1), reinterpreting them through human philosophy, and replacing the apostolic faith with a counterfeit “Jesus” (2 Corinthians 11:3–4). In this chapter, I will dismantle the Trinitarian interpretation by prioritizing Jesus’ own statements, which confirm He is the human prophet foretold in Deuteronomy 18:15–19, speaking God’s word, not incarnating it. Supported by the Old Testament’s view of God’s “word,” the “21 Misunderstandings” (www.1lord1faith.org/21-misunderstandings-in-john) of Jesus’ identity, and the New Creation context of John’s prologue, John 1:1 testifies to God’s redemptive plan, not a triune God.

The Serpent’s Playbook Exposed: Trinitarian Eisegesis of John 1:1

The Trinitarian claim that John 1:1 proves Jesus is a preexistent divine person fails when measured against the biblical standard that a doctrine must be, at least, named, proclaimed, confessed, exemplified, explained, or commanded (Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:6; 1 Corinthians 4:6; 1 Timothy 1:3). Instead, it also follows the “Robbery Blueprint” I outlined in Part 1: questioning God’s clear revelation, reinterpreting it through philosophy, and replacing the “Son of God” faith with a counterfeit (Colossians 2:8). Let’s begin with Jesus’ own words, which set the foundation for understanding John 1:1 as God’s plan fulfilled in a human prophet, not a divine person.

1. Jesus’ Own Words: The Prophet Who Speaks God’s Word

In Chapter 6 of this book, I urged you to listen deeply to Jesus’ voice, as God Himself commanded: “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him” (Matthew 17:5). Jesus’ own statements consistently deny that He is the “person” of God’s “word” or a preexistent deity, instead identifying Himself as a man who speaks God’s word as the prophet foretold in Deuteronomy 18:15–19:

John 8:40: “You seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God.” Jesus calls Himself a man, not God, and attributes His words to God.

John 14:10: “The words that I tell you, I speak not from myself; but the Father who lives in me does his works.” Jesus denies speaking from Himself, pointing to the Father as the source.

John 14:24: “The word which you hear isn’t mine, but the Father’s who sent me.” The logos Jesus speaks belongs to God, not Himself.

John 8:28: “I do nothing of myself; but as my Father taught me, I speak these things.” Jesus’ words are taught by God, fulfilling Deuteronomy 18:18, “I will put my words in his mouth.”

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.” Jesus’ speech is by God’s command, not His own nor from Himself.

John 5:19, 30: “The Son can do nothing of himself… I can of myself do nothing.” Jesus’ dependence on God negates coequality or preexistence.

John 3:34: “He whom God has sent speaks the words of God.” Jesus is God’s sent prophet, not the Logos incarnate.

These statements align with Deuteronomy 18:15–19, where God promised to raise a prophet like Moses: “I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him.” God’s people requested a mediator other than Yahweh Himself (Deuteronomy 18:16), and God honored this: “They have well said… I will raise them up a prophet” (Deuteronomy 18:17–18). To claim Jesus is God incarnate or the Logos as a preexistent person is to say Yahweh lied and came Himself, contradicting His promise. The New Testament confirms Jesus as this prophet:

Hebrews 1:1–4: “God, having in the past spoken to the fathers through the prophets… has at the end of these days spoken to us by his Son.” Jesus is distinct from past prophets only in timing, not as a preexistent Logos.

Acts 2:22–23: “Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God… delivered up by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God.” Jesus’ role was foreknown, not preexistent.

Matthew 17:5: God’s command to “listen to him” underscores Jesus as the prophet who speaks God’s word, not God Himself.

2. The Old Testament “Word”: God’s Plan, Not a Person

Jesus’ words reflect the Old Testament’s view of God’s “word” (dabar in Hebrew), which is His spoken command, creative decree, or redemptive plan, never a distinct person. Consider:

Genesis 1:3: “God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.” God’s dabar creates by decree, not as an entity.

Psalm 33:6: “By the word of the LORD the heavens were made.” The “word” is God’s power, not a person.

Isaiah 55:11: “So shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty.” God’s dabar is His will, not a being.

Jewish thought, rooted in these texts, personified the “word” in Wisdom literature (e.g., Proverbs 8:22–31), but as God’s attribute, not a person. As I noted in I Am Not Alone, theologian Paul Tillich admitted: “If one thinks in Jewish terms, they interpret ‘word’ as ‘word,’ but if in philosophical terms, then as the ‘meaningful structure of reality.’” Trinitarians adopt the latter, imposing a Greek Logos concept (e.g., Stoic or Philonic intermediary) onto John 1:1, claiming it is a preexistent Jesus. This echoes Tertullian’s error (Against Praxeas, Chapter 7), viewing the Logos as a material substance, contrary to God’s incorporeal nature (John 4:24).

John 1:1’s Logos, in its Jewish context, is God’s eternal plan, “with God” in His foreknowledge (Proverbs 8:22; 1 Peter 1:20) and “was God” as His divine will, not a person. Jesus’ testimony (John 14:24, “The word which you hear isn’t mine”) confirms He speaks this Logos, fulfilling Deuteronomy 18:18, not incarnating it. Trinitarians’ philosophical bias negates the clear monotheism of Deuteronomy 6:4 (“Yahweh is one”).

3. The New Creation Context of John 1:1

John’s prologue mirrors Genesis 1 to proclaim a New Creation through the Messiah, not to reveal a metaphysical Trinity. “In the beginning” recalls Genesis 1:1. The “Word” is God’s creative and redemptive plan. “Was with God” indicates its existence in God’s counsel (Isaiah 46:10), not as a coequal person. “Was God” affirms the divine nature of this plan, not identity with God as a person. “All things were made through it” (the plan fulfilled in Christ) refers to the New Creation (2 Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 2:10), not the original material creation. John 1:14, “the Word became flesh,” means God’s plan was embodied in the man Jesus, not that God Himself became a man.

This New Creation reading aligns with the rest of John’s Gospel, where Jesus consistently attributes His words and works to the Father. John 20:31 states the book’s purpose: “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” not that you may believe in a preexistent God-man.

4. Conclusion

John 1:1 does not proclaim a second person in a triune Godhead. It declares God’s redemptive plan, foreordained and with Him, brought to fulfillment in the human Messiah. Trinitarian interpretations follow the serpent’s pattern: twisting words, imposing foreign philosophy, and creating false dilemmas that overturn clear revelation. Jesus and the apostles consistently affirmed Yahweh as the one true God and Jesus as His anointed human Son.

Hebrews 1:8: The Serpent’s Misuse of a Royal Psalm

Hebrews 1:8
“But of the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.’”

Trinitarians point to Hebrews 1:8 as a definitive proof of the Trinity, claiming it shows God Himself declaring Jesus to be God, coequal in a triune Godhead. In reality, the way Trinitarians treat this verse is just another vivid example of the serpent’s playbook (Genesis 3:1-6), where a single text is ripped from its biblical context, infused with a preconceived bias, and used to overturn the clear testimony of Scripture. Like the serpent’s misuse of Psalm 91:11-12 to tempt Jesus (Matthew 4:5-7), Trinitarians assume Hebrews 1:8 proves Jesus’ deity and insist this interpretation is the only valid one, creating a false dilemma: accept the Trinity or deny God’s word. Providing yet another example of how the Trinitarian tactic mirrors Jesus’ condemnation of traditions that nullify God’s word (Matthew 15:3-9, Mark 7:7-9).

Notice, yet again, that Hebrews 1:8, quoting Psalm 45:6, says nothing about a “Trinity of three coequal persons in one substance” or Jesus’ eternal deity. The Trinitarian reading imposes a post-apostolic doctrine onto a verse originally addressed to an Israelite king , ignoring Jesus’ own testimony and the broader scriptural context . By elevating this verse above the consistent biblical narrative, Trinitarians replicate the serpent’s method: questioning God’s clear words (“Did God really say?”, Genesis 3:1), reinterpreting them through human assumptions, and replacing the apostolic “Son of God” faith with a counterfeit Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:3-4).

The Trinitarian interpretation, as we shall see, can be systematically dismantled by simply “hearing” the original context of Psalm 45:6, Jesus’ own explanation of “gods” in Scripture, the temporal nature of the Son in Hebrews 1:5, and Jesus’ denial of aseity, showing that Hebrews 1:8 testifies to Jesus as God’s human agent, not a coequal deity.

The Serpent’s Playbook Exposed: Trinitarian Eisegesis of Hebrews 1:8

The Trinitarian claim that Hebrews 1:8 proves Jesus is God fails when measured against the biblical standard that a doctrine must be at the least named, proclaimed, confessed, exemplified, explained, or commanded (Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, 1 Corinthians 4:6, 1 Timothy 1:3). But the Trinitarian interpretation satisfies none of these characteristics of a biblical teaching. Instead, it follows the “Robbery Blueprint” previously outlined in Part 1: questioning God’s clear revelation, reinterpreting it through tradition, and replacing the faith once delivered with a counterfeit (Colossians 2:8). Let’s unpack this deception through four key points, including Jesus’ own words, as God commands us to “listen to him” (Matthew 17:5).

1. The Original Context: Psalm 45 and the Israelite King

Hebrews 1:8 quotes Psalm 45:6, which was originally addressed to an Israelite king: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; the scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness.” In its Old Testament context, this psalm celebrates a royal wedding, praising the king as a divinely appointed ruler, not as God Himself. The Hebrew term elohim (“God”) is used flexibly in Scripture, often denoting human authorities or judges acting as God’s representatives (e.g., Exodus 7:1, where Moses is called elohim). If Psalm 45:6 makes the Israelite king “God” in the Trinitarian sense, it would absurdly imply that the king was a coequal member of a triune Godhead—an interpretation no Trinitarian would defend.

Applying Psalm 45:6 to Jesus in Hebrews 1:8 does not elevate Him to deity but underscores His role as God’s anointed king, the human Messiah (Acts 2:36). The “throne” and “scepter” symbolize His Messianic authority, given by God (Hebrews 1:9, “God, your God, has anointed you”). Trinitarians, by claiming Hebrews 1:8 declares Jesus’ deity, impose a meaning that would make the original king divine, exposing their inconsistent eisegesis. This mirrors the serpent’s tactic of misapplying Scripture (Matthew 4:6) to support a preconceived doctrine, ignoring the Jewish context of royal hyperbole.

2. Listening to Jesus: “Gods” as Recipients of God’s Word

In Chapter 6 of this book, I urged you to listen to Jesus, as God commanded: “This is my beloved Son… listen to him” (Matthew 17:5). Jesus Himself explains how Scripture uses the term “gods,” directly refuting the Trinitarian interpretation of Hebrews 1:8. In John 10:34-36, responding to accusations of blasphemy, Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6: “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—how 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’?”

Jesus clarifies that those who receive God’s word—His prophets and agents—are called “gods” (elohim in Psalm 82:6) in a representational sense, not as divine beings. As I showed in The words I speak not from myself, Jesus consistently identified Himself as a man who speaks God’s word (John 8:40, “a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God”; John 14:24, “The word which you hear isn’t mine, but the Father’s who sent me”). This fulfills Deuteronomy 18:18: “I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him.” By calling Himself the “Son of God” (John 10:36), Jesus aligns with this prophetic role, not a claim to deity.

Trinitarians ignore Jesus’ explanation, jumping to the conclusion that “O God” in Hebrews 1:8 can only mean coequal deity, creating a false dilemma: either Jesus is God or a blasphemer. This negates Jesus’ own words and God’s command to hear Him (Matthew 17:5), replicating the serpent’s tactic of questioning clear revelation (Genesis 3:1).

3. Born in Time, Not Eternal: Hebrews 1:5

The Trinitarian claim that Hebrews 1:8 proves Jesus’ eternal deity collapses when we examine Hebrews 1:5, which provides a fundamental characteristic of this Son that is devastating to the Trinitarian theory of a coeternal Son: “For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you’?” Quoting Psalm 2:7, this verse describes the Son as “begotten” in time—“today” refers to a specific moment, not eternity. Since time itself began at creation (Genesis 1:1), Jesus, as the Son born in time (Luke 1:32-35, “the holy one who is born from you will be called the Son of God”; Galatians 4:4), cannot be eternal in the sense that God is eternal (Psalm 90:2, “from everlasting to everlasting, you are God”). Trinitarians ignore this altogether or redefine it to pertain only to the Son’s humanity, but that is not what this verse says, any more than it says that “God is a Trinity of three coequal persons in one substance.”

In I Am Not Alone (Chapter Sixteen, “Foreknowledge vs. Preexistence”), I argued that Jesus’ sonship is rooted in God’s foreknowledge (Acts 2:23, “delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God”; 1 Peter 1:20), not preexistence. Hebrews 1:5 confirms this: Jesus becomes the Son at His birth (Luke 1:35) and is declared, or proven, to be God’s Son promised to David by His resurrection (Acts 13:33, applying Psalm 2:7 to Jesus’ resurrection), not as an eternal person. Trinitarians, by claiming eternal deity, contradict the text’s temporal language , imposing a doctrine foreign to the apostolic faith (Jude 3). By jumping to conclusions, they replicate the serpent’s tactic (Genesis 3:1), questioning God’s clear revelation and nullifying His word with human tradition (Matthew 15:3-9).

4. Denial of Aseity: Jesus’ Dependence on God

Trinitarians assert that Jesus, as “God from God,” possesses aseity—self-existence, the premier trait of true deity. Yet, Jesus explicitly denies this, as I highlighted in The words I speak not from myself . In John 5:19, He says, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but only what he sees the Father doing.” Similarly, John 5:30 states, “I can of myself do nothing… I seek not my own will but the will of Him who sent me.” God Himself cannot make these claims—even if He were incarnated as a man—without lying, something God cannot do by self-definition. These denials of self-originated action or will directly contradict aseity, which requires independent existence. This independent existence is absolutely inherent in God’s self definition of “I am that I am” in Exodus 3:14.

As I argued in A Bible Challenge for Oneness Believers, Jesus’ dependence on God (John 8:28, “I do nothing of myself; but as my Father taught me, I speak these things”) aligns with His role as God’s agent, not a coequal person (John 10:36, Exodus 7:1). Trinitarians, by claiming Hebrews 1:8 makes Jesus “true God,” ignore His own testimony, nullifying the “present truth” (2 Peter 1:12) that Jesus is the human Messiah (Acts 2:22).

5. The Broader Context of Hebrews 1: Jesus as God’s Agent

Hebrews 1 contrasts Jesus with angels, not to prove His deity but to establish His superiority as God’s human Son and agent. Key verses clarify:

• Hebrews 1:2: God “has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things.” Jesus is the appointed heir , not an eternal person (cf. Hebrews 1:1-4, The words I speak not from myself ).
• Hebrews 1:9: “God, your God, has anointed you .” The Son has a God, negating coequality (cf. John 20:17, “I ascend to my God and your God”). God cannot be “anointed” because that would imply He had to have authority given to Him. God has all authority inherently simply because He is God and all authority flows from Him, not to Him.
• Hebrews 1:3: Jesus is “the radiance of his glory, the very image of his substance,” reflecting God as His human representative (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:4, Colossians 1:15).

This agency framework, rooted in biblically influenced Jewish thought (e.g., Moses as elohim, Exodus 7:1), explains why Jesus is called “God” in Hebrews 1:8: He represents God’s authority, not His essence. Trinitarians overlook this, imposing a Greek ontological framework (e.g., homoousios from Nicaea, 325 CE) alien to the text.

Conclusion: Listening to Jesus, Not Tradition

Hebrews 1:8, quoting Psalm 45:6, does not declare Jesus as God but honors Him as God’s anointed king, the human prophet who speaks God’s word (Deuteronomy 18:18, John 8:40). Trinitarians impose a post-apostolic doctrine, ignoring the psalm’s original context, Jesus’ explanation of “gods” (John 10:34-36), His temporal sonship (Hebrews 1:5), and His denial of aseity (John 5:19, 30). By jumping to conclusions, they replicate the serpent’s tactic, negating clear texts (Deuteronomy 6:4, John 17:3). Let us obey God’s command to “listen to him” (Matthew 17:5), embracing the simplicity of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:3), the man approved by God (Acts 2:22).

John 20:28: The Serpent’s Misinterpretation of Thomas’ Confession

John 20:28: “Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’”

Trinitarians seize on John 20:28 as a pivotal proof of the Trinity, claiming Thomas confesses Jesus as God Himself, coequal in a triune Godhead. In reality, the way Trinitarians handle this verse is simply another classic example of the serpent’s playbook (Genesis 3:1-6), where a single exclamation is isolated from its biblical context, infused with preconceived bias, and used to overturn the clear testimony of the weight Scripture clearly contradicting the jumped-to conclusion. Like the serpent’s misuse of Psalm 91:11-12 to tempt Jesus (Matthew 4:5-7), Trinitarians assume Thomas’ words declare Jesus’ deity and insist this interpretation is the only possible one, creating a false dilemma: accept the Trinity or deny Thomas’ confession. This tactic echoes Jesus’ condemnation of traditions that nullify God’s word (Matthew 15:3-9, Mark 7:7-9).

Notice, however, that just like all Trinitarian proof texts, John 20:28 says nothing about a “Trinity of three coequal persons in one substance” or Jesus’ divine identity. On the other hand, Thomas’ confession, when viewed in light of Jesus’ explicit teachings and clear explanations of Himself to the contrary of Trinitarian assumptions, recognizes God’s presence with Jesus, not Jesus as God. By imposing a Trinitarian meaning, Trinitarians replicate the serpent’s method: questioning God’s clear words (“Did God really say?”, Genesis 3:1), reinterpreting them through human assumptions, and replacing the apostolic “Son of God” faith with a counterfeit Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:3-4). Once again, we will use scripture itself to dismantle the Trinitarian interpretation by prioritizing Jesus’ own words, examining Thomas’ confession in context, and highlighting Jesus’ denial of independence, showing that John 20:28 testifies to God’s dwelling in His human Son, not a coequal deity.

1. Listening to Jesus: “I Am Not Alone” — The Father is With Me

In Chapter 6 of this book, I urged you to listen deeply to Jesus’ voice, as God commanded: “This is my beloved Son… listen to him” (Matthew 17:5). Jesus Himself provides the key to understanding Thomas’ confession, repeatedly teaching that He is “not alone” because the Father is with Him:

• John 8:16: “Even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent me.”
• John 8:29: “He who sent me is with me. The Father hasn’t left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him.”
• John 16:32: “You will leave me alone. Yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.”

As I explained in I Am Not Alone, Chapter Thirty, “John 20:28 Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’”), Thomas, having learned from Jesus for three-and-a-half years, would not confess Jesus as God Himself. Instead, his exclamation recognizes that where Jesus is, God is also present—fulfilling Jesus’ teachings. The context of John 20:27-29—Jesus’ resurrection—reinforces this: Jesus had taught that His body was a temple (John 2:18-21), and His resurrection proved God’s power dwelling in Him (Romans 1:4). Thomas’ confession aligns with this: seeing the resurrected Jesus, he acknowledges God’s presence in Him, not Jesus as God.

Trinitarians ignore Jesus’ words in explanation of Himself, jumping to the conclusion that “My Lord and my God” means Jesus is God, creating a false dilemma: either Jesus is deity or Thomas is mistaken. This negates Jesus’ own testimony and God’s command to hear Him (Matthew 17:5), replicating the serpent’s tactic of questioning clear revelation (Genesis 3:1).

2. The Temple Analogy: God’s Dwelling Presence, Not Identity

Jesus’ resurrection, central to John 20:28, fulfills His teaching that His body is a temple (John 2:18-21): “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The temple symbolized God’s dwelling presence (2 Chronicles 7:1-2, “the glory of Yahweh filled the house”), but it was never God Himself. In the New Testament, God dwells in believers as temples (2 Corinthians 6:16, “You are a temple of the living God”), yet we are not God. Ultimately, God will be all in all (1 Corinthians 15:28), and Jesus will have false Jews worship at our feet: “…those who say they are Jews… I will make them to come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you” (Revelation 3:9), and yet we still will not “be” God! Similarly, Thomas confesses God’s presence in the resurrected Jesus, the human temple (Acts 17:24-31, God “doesn’t dwell in temples made with hands” but in Christ and believers).

As I argued in The words I speak not from myself, Jesus denied inherent authority (John 5:19-30, “The Son can do nothing of himself… I can of myself do nothing”), attributing His works to God’s commandment (John 10:17-18, “I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. I received this commandment from my Father”). Trinitarians overlook this, refusing to obey God’s commandment to listen to Jesus (Matthew 17:5), choosing instead to impose a meaning that equates Jesus with God, contradicting the temple analogy and Jesus’ dependence on God. This replicates the serpent’s tactic, questioning God’s clear revelation and replacing the apostolic faith with a counterfeit (Genesis 3:1, Colossians 2:8, Jude 3).

3. Father and Son: A Package Deal in Purpose, Not Person

Scripture clarifies that the Father and Son are inseparable in purpose, not person, as I emphasized in
I Am Not Alone, Chapter Thirty:

• 1 John 2:22-24: “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the Antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son doesn’t have the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also.”
• 2 John 9-10: “Whoever transgresses and doesn’t remain in the teaching of Christ doesn’t have God. He who remains in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.”
• John 14:6: “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

These verses explain that the Father and Son are a “package deal”—no one comes to the Father except through the Son—yet they are distinct: the Son is not the Father. Trinitarians (and Oneness advocates) redefine “father” and “son” to fit dual natures or modes, violating the biblical terms’ plain meaning: sons are, by definition, later in time (Hebrews 1:5, 5:5) and morally inferior (Exodus 20:12; Mark 7:10). Thomas’ confession acknowledges this unity: “My Lord [Jesus] and my God [the Father with Him],” not a Trinitarian fusion.

Conclusion: Listening to Jesus, Not Tradition

John 20:28, in context, shows Thomas recognizing God’s presence with Jesus, the resurrected human temple (John 2:18-21), not Jesus as God. Trinitarians impose a post-apostolic doctrine, ignoring Jesus’ teaching that He is “not alone” (John 8:16, 8:29, 16:32), the temple analogy (2 Corinthians 6:16), and the Father-Son unity in purpose (1 John 2:22-24). By jumping to conclusions, they replicate the serpent’s tactic, negating clear texts (Deuteronomy 6:4, John 17:3). Let us obey God’s command to “listen to him” (Matthew 17:5), embracing the simplicity of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:3), the man approved by God (Acts 2:22).

<

John 10:30: The Serpent’s Misinterpretation of Unity

John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.”

Trinitarians wield John 10:30 as a cornerstone proof of the Trinity, claiming it establishes Jesus as ontologically one with God, coequal in a triune Godhead. As I’ve shown with prior proof-texts (Matthew 28:19, John 1:1, Hebrews 1:8, John 20:28), this interpretation follows the serpent’s playbook (Genesis 3:1-6), jumping to conclusions that nullify God’s clear revelation (Matthew 15:3-9). In reality, Jesus’ words in John 10:30, when viewed through His own teaching and the apostolic faith, affirm unity of purpose with the Father, not identity of being. This critique dismantles the Trinitarian misreading by prioritizing Jesus’ explanation in John 17, exposing their ontological leap as a philosophical imposition alien to Scripture (Colossians 2:8).

1. Listening to Jesus: Unity in Purpose, Not Ontology

As I urged in The words I speak not from myself and Chapter 6 of this book, God commands us to “listen to him” (Matthew 17:5). Jesus Himself clarifies the meaning of “I and the Father are one” in John 17, where He repeatedly describes unity as shared purpose, not ontological identity:

• John 17:11: “Holy Father, keep them in your name… that they may be one, even as we are one.”
• John 17:20-21: “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me… that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us.”
• John 17:22: “The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one.”
• John 17:23: “I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one.”

No fewer than four times, Jesus prays that His disciples be “one” in the same way He and the Father are one. This unity is relational and functional—rooted in shared purpose, love, and mission (John 17:18, “As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them”). Jesus’ prayer echoes His earlier teaching: “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing” (John 5:19; cf. John 8:40, The words I speak not from myself). Trinitarians ignore these clear statements, insisting “one” means ontological identity, a conclusion absent from the text and apostolic faith (Acts 2:22, Jude 3).

2. The Trinitarian Leap: A False Ontology and the Serpent’s Lie

The Trinitarian interpretation of John 10:30 creates a devastating corollary: if Jesus being “one” with the Father makes Him ontologically God, then believers, who are to be “one even as we are one” (John 17:22), must also become ontologically God. This aligns with the serpent’s lie in Genesis 3:5, “You will be like God,” promising a divine status Scripture never grants. Paul clarifies the ultimate distinction: “When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28). Even in the eschatological future, Jesus and believers remain distinct from God’s sole divinity (Isaiah 44:24, “I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens”).

In I Am Not Alone, Chapter Thirty, I argued that Jesus’ unity with the Father is a “package deal” in purpose, not person (1 John 2:22-24, “He who confesses the Son has the Father also”). Trinitarians, by imposing an ontological reading, replicate the serpent’s tactic (Genesis 3:1), redefining “one” to fit a triune Godhead never named or commanded in Scripture (Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6).

3. The Jewish Context: Unity Through Agency

John 10:30’s context reinforces unity through agency, not deity. In John 10:24-30, Jesus responds to the Jews’ demand to know if He is the Messiah. He affirms His role as the Good Shepherd, given authority by the Father: “My sheep hear my voice… I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all” (John 10:27-29). The phrase “I and the Father are one” follows, indicating shared purpose in protecting the sheep, not shared essence. Jesus later clarifies: “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), negating coequality.

This reflects Jewish agency, as I discussed in the Hebrews 1:8 critique (Section 5, Exodus 7:1, Moses as elohim). The Son acts as God’s representative, not God Himself (Deuteronomy 18:15-18, “He shall speak all that I command him”). Trinitarians overlook this, imposing a Greek philosophical lens (e.g., homoousios) alien to the Jewish context of John’s Gospel (I Am Not Alone, Chapter Sixteen).

Conclusion: Listening to Jesus, Not Tradition

John 10:30, when heard through Jesus’ own words (John 17:11-23), affirms unity of purpose, not ontology. Trinitarians’ ontological leap—claiming Jesus is God—extends to believers, echoing the serpent’s lie (Genesis 3:5) and contradicting God’s ultimate supremacy (1 Corinthians 15:28). By ignoring Jesus’ explanation and the apostolic faith (Acts 2:22), they nullify God’s word with tradition (Matthew 15:6). As I urged in The words I speak not from myself, we must obey God’s command to “listen to him” (Matthew 17:5), embracing the simplicity of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:3) as the human Son approved by God.

Titus 2:13: The Serpent’s Misreading of God’s Glory

Titus 2:13: “Waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.”

Trinitarians cite Titus 2:13 as proof that Jesus is God Himself, claiming the phrase “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” equates Jesus with the one true God. Like their misuse of other proof-texts (Matthew 28:19, Genesis 1:26-27, John 1:1), this interpretation follows the serpent’s playbook (Genesis 3:1-6), imposing a triune ontology that nullifies God’s clear revelation (Matthew 15:3-9). In reality, Titus 2:13 describes Jesus as the human Messiah through whom God’s glory appears, not as God Himself. This critique dismantles the Trinitarian misreading by prioritizing scriptural context, apostolic testimony, and Jesus’ own words, affirming God’s singular sovereignty and Jesus’ role as His appointed Son.

The Serpent’s Playbook Exposed: Trinitarian Eisegesis

The Trinitarian claim that Titus 2:13 proves Jesus’ deity fails the biblical standard that a doctrine must be named, proclaimed, confessed, exemplified, explained, or commanded (Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, 1 Corinthians 4:6). Instead, it relies on grammatical ambiguity and philosophical tradition, questioning God’s revelation (“Did God really say?” Genesis 3:1), reinterpreting it through human lenses (Colossians 2:8), and replacing the apostolic faith with a counterfeit Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:3-4). Let’s unpack this through two key points.

1. Context: Jesus as God’s Glorious Agent

Titus 2:13’s phrase “the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” is ambiguous in Greek due to the man-made Granville Sharp rule, which Trinitarians use to argue that “God” and “Savior” both refer to Jesus. However, biblical context clarifies that Jesus is the human agent through whom God’s glory appears. Titus 2:11 speaks of “the grace of God” appearing, followed by Jesus’ role as Savior in verse 13. This mirrors 2 Timothy 1:10, where Jesus’ appearing reveals God’s grace, not His essence: “brought to light through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus.” Jesus is God’s appointed Messiah (Acts 2:22), not God Himself, as confirmed by his words: “This is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3).

Furthermore, Jesus said to His disciple’s: “The glory which you have given me I have given to them.” (John 17:22). Trinitarians attempt to claim that since Jesus was given glory from the foundation of the world (John 17:5), that could only mean that He was God. But that is to ignore that Jesus’s death was foreknown and foreordained of Christ before the foundation of the world as well (Revelation 13:8). And yet, Hebrews tells us that he was only slain once:

“¹Now indeed even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service, and an earthly sanctuary… ⁶Now these things having been thus prepared, the priests go in continually into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the services… ¹¹ But Christ having come as a high priest of the coming good things… ¹²…entered in once for all into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption… ²⁴For Christ hasn’t entered into holy places made with hands, which are representations of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; ²⁵ nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest enters into the holy place year by year with blood not his own, ²⁶ or else he must have suffered often since the foundation of the world. But now once at the end of the ages , he has been revealed to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. ²⁷Inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once, and after this, judgment, ²⁸ so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, without sin, to those who are eagerly waiting for him for salvation. (Hebrews 9:1, 6, 11–12, 24–28)

”⁵Therefore when he comes into the world, he says, “Sacrifice and offering you didn’t desire, But a body did you prepare for me…” ⁷Then I said, “Behold, I have come (In the scroll of the book it is written of me) To do your will, God.” ⁹…then he has said, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He takes away the first, that he may establish the second, ¹⁰by which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. ¹¹Every priest indeed stands day by day ministering and often offering the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins, ¹² but he, when he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever , sat down on the right hand of God; ¹³ from that time waiting until his enemies are made the footstool of his feet. ¹⁴ For by one offering he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified… ¹⁸Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. ¹⁹Having therefore, brothers, boldness to enter into the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by the way which he dedicated for us, a new and living way, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh. (Hebrews 10:5, 7, 9–14, 18–20)

No less than six times (as noted above, plus once in the negative at verses 9:25), this passage teaches and reiterates that Christ only died once, and it was not before the world began! But that isn’t to say that this didn’t happen in God’s foreknowledge. Revelations 13:8 is one of those examples where “… as it is written… God… calls those things which do not exist as though they did
…” (Romans 4:17–18, NKJV).

All this points to the simple truth of God’s foreknowledge. God foreknew absolutely that Christ was going to have to die for our sins; in fact, God planned it that way from before the foundation of the world. This was God’s plan, His “logos/word/plan,” which was made flesh when Christ was born and lived out this plan. This view of Christ remained in God’s foreknowledge before Christ was born, during the time that Christ lived on the earth, and continues ever afterward. In a manner of speaking, we could say that Christ’s life and sacrifice is forever etched into the forefront of God’s mind!

Another piece of evidence that Jesus’s glory was not that the Father’s glory is Jesus’s explanation that His disciples were not of this world in the same way that He was not of this world:

“¹⁴I have given them your word. The world hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. ¹⁵I pray not that you would take them from the world, but that you would keep them from the evil one. ¹⁶ They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.” (John 17:14-16)

This correlates to the same type of biblical response to John 10:30 where we noted that in john 17 Jesus reiterated four times that His disciples were to be one with the Father even as He is one with the Father.

When we let the Scriptures explain the Scriptures, we come up with a very different understanding than those do who think that the pagan idea of “gods come to earth in the form of men” (Acts 14:11) is a better way of interpreting the Bible than the words of the Bible itself.

2. Apostolic Testimony: Jesus as Human Savior

The apostles consistently describe Jesus as a man approved by God, not God incarnate. Acts 2:22 declares, “Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God to you by mighty works and wonders and signs.” In Titus, Paul calls Jesus “Savior” (Titus 1:4, 3:6), reflecting his role as God’s agent of salvation (Acts 4:12, “no other name under heaven”). The “glory” in Titus 2:13 is God’s, revealed through Jesus’ return (Matthew 16:27, “the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father”). Trinitarians impose deity on Jesus, ignoring his own denial of aseity: “I can do nothing of myself” (John 5:19, 30; The words I speak not from myself).

Conclusion: Reclaiming Jesus’ Role

Titus 2:13 celebrates Jesus as the human Savior through whom God’s glory shines, not as God Himself. Trinitarians’ eisegesis follows the serpent’s tactic, questioning God’s oneness (Isaiah 44:24), reinterpreting Jesus’ role through philosophy, and replacing the apostolic faith (Jude 3). By listening to Jesus (Matthew 17:5, “This is my beloved Son”), we uphold the truth of one God and His human Son (John 17:3, Acts 2:22).

(See also, I Am Not Alone, chapter 21)

Acts 5:3-4: The Serpent’s Misreading of God’s Spirit

Acts 5:3-4: “But Peter said, ‘Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? … You have not lied to man but to God.’”

Trinitarians cite Acts 5:3-4 as proof that the Holy Spirit is a distinct divine person, claiming that lying to the Holy Spirit is equivalent to lying to God, thus proving a triune Godhead. Like their misuse of other proof-texts (Matthew 28:19, Genesis 1:26-27, Titus 2:13), this interpretation follows the serpent’s playbook (Genesis 3:1-6), imposing a triune ontology that nullifies God’s clear revelation (Matthew 15:3-9). In reality, Acts 5:3-4 describes the Holy Spirit as God’s active presence, not a separate person, and Ananias’ sin is against God Himself. This critique dismantles the Trinitarian misreading by prioritizing scriptural context, apostolic testimony, and Jesus’ own words, affirming God’s singular sovereignty and Jesus’ role as His human Son.

The Serpent’s Playbook Exposed: Trinitarian Eisegesis

The Trinitarian claim that Acts 5:3-4 proves the Holy Spirit’s deity fails the biblical standard that a doctrine must be named, proclaimed, confessed, exemplified, explained, or commanded (Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, 1 Corinthians 4:6). Instead, it relies on equating “Holy Spirit” and “God” through human philosophy, questioning God’s revelation (“Did God really say?” Genesis 3:1), reinterpreting it through tradition (Colossians 2:8), and replacing the apostolic faith with a counterfeit (2 Corinthians 11:3-4). Let’s unpack this through two key points.

1. Context: The Holy Spirit as God’s Presence

Acts 5:3-4 does not describe the Holy Spirit as a distinct person but as God’s active presence. In Jewish thought, the Spirit is God’s power or agency, not a separate entity (Isaiah 61:1, “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me”; Psalm 51:11, “Take not your Holy Spirit from me”). Peter’s statement equates lying to the Holy Spirit with lying to God because the Spirit is God’s means of knowing Ananias’ heart (Hebrews 4:12-13, God’s word discerns thoughts).

This mirrors David’s repentance in Psalm 51:4: “Against you, and you only, I have sinned,” acknowledging that all sin violates God’s moral authority, despite wronging others. In 2 Samuel 11, David seduced Uriah’s wife, got her pregnant, and had Uriah killed by placing him at the front of battle and ordering a retreat. If we applied Trinitarian logic here, David’s claim of sinning only against God would absurdly imply Uriah the Hittite was God, since David directly sinned against him. Acts 5:9 reinforces this, as Sapphira “tested the Spirit of the Lord,” meaning God’s authority, not a third person. Jesus confirms God’s oneness: “This is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3).

2. Apostolic Testimony: Jesus as Human Mediator

The apostles never present the Holy Spirit as a divine person but as God’s power working through Jesus and believers. Acts 2:22 declares, “Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God to you by mighty works and wonders and signs,” performed through the Spirit (Acts 10:38, “God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit and with power”). The Spirit is God’s gift to believers (Acts 2:38, “you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”), not a coequal person. Trinitarians impose a triune framework, ignoring Jesus’ words: “I can do nothing of myself” (John 5:19, 30; The words I speak not from myself), and his role as God’s human agent (Acts 4:12).

Conclusion: Reclaiming God’s Singular Spirit

Acts 5:3-4 reveals the Holy Spirit as God’s active presence, not a distinct divine person, as David’s sin was ultimately against God alone (Psalm 51:4). Trinitarians’ eisegesis follows the serpent’s tactic, questioning God’s oneness (Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 44:24), reinterpreting the Spirit through philosophy, and replacing the apostolic faith (Jude 3). By listening to Jesus (Matthew 17:5, “This is my beloved Son”), we uphold the truth of one God and His human Son (John 17:3, Acts 2:22), with the Spirit as God’s power, not a person.

Conclusion: The Trinitarian Lie and the Truth of God’s Oneness

The doctrine of the Trinity is not merely a rejection of God’s first commandment, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4), but a systematic negation of His commands to not add to His words (Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6), to avoid philosophy and vain deceit (Colossians 2:8), and to teach no other doctrine (1 Timothy 1:3). Across the eight proof-texts examined—Matthew 28:19, Genesis 1:26-27, John 1:1, Hebrews 1:8, John 20:28, John 10:30, Titus 2:13, and Acts 5:3-4—Trinitarians consistently question God’s clear revelation (“Did God really say?” Genesis 3:1), reinterpret it through human tradition, and replace the apostolic faith with a counterfeit Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:3-4). This pattern mirrors the serpent’s playbook, as outlined in The Oldest Trick: Part 1, and aligns with the devil’s nature as “a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44).

1 John 2:4 declares, “Whoever says, ‘I know him,’ but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” This is a systemic charge, not a singular event. By rejecting God’s decree that He is one “He” (Deuteronomy 6:4) and Jesus is “a man approved by God” (Acts 2:22), Trinitarians lapse into a habit of lying against what Scripture names, proclaims, confesses, explains, and commands. This is no small matter—it’s a moral inversion, bearing false witness against Biblical Unitarians who approach Scripture with God’s stated truth, while Trinitarians impose a preconceived triune bias, nullifying His word (Matthew 15:3-9). By listening to Jesus—“This is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3)—we reclaim the apostolic faith (Jude 3), honoring God’s oneness and His human Son without adding to His commands.

 Print This Post