This article presents five Biblical facts which, when considered together, strongly favor the hypothesis that the Biblical authors were Unitarian rather than Trinitarian:
The first Biblical fact that favors a Unitarian hypothesis over a Trinitarian hypothesis is that there is no record of any controversy as to the nature of God in the New Testament. Old Testament Jews had no concept of a God who was three co-equal, co-eternal Persons, with one of those Persons being Jesus of Nazareth. So, such a change would have been a shock to them. It would have required much clarification. And, it would have generated significant controversy from those who did not understand it, or thought it was a departure from how the Jews had always understood God, or otherwise had questions or critiques of this totally new understanding of the nature of God brought about by the supposed Trinitarian New Testament revelation.
This type of controversy is seen in Scripture for other changes brought about by new revelation. Consider, for instance, how much controversy arose over the abrogation of circumcision, and how often the controversy is mentioned in the Bible (Acts 15:1-29, 21:18-22: 1 Corinthians 7:18-19, Galatians 2:3-5, 5:1-13, 6:12-15), and that it is officially ruled on by a council convened by the Apostles (Acts 15:23-29). It seems extremely unlikely, almost unbelievable, that the same early Christians who would be causing controversy over a rather minor matter like circumcision, or dietary restrictions, or other aspects of the Mosaic Law, would be totally silent when it came to being introduced to a new concept of the very nature of God, especially one which requires so much precision and vocabulary to get "right".
Further, there is no defense offered by the writers of the New Testament against any accusation by hostile Jews that the followers of Jesus have made Him a God, or that they are now Polytheists, or any other accusations likely to be lobbed against a Trinitarian view, or a confession of the Deity of Christ, by Jews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah. No defense is offered, no critique is mentioned, and significantly, there is nothing saying that the Deity of Christ is a stumblingblock to the Jews, though it certainly would have been, had it actually been preached. Instead, when a stumblingblock - something that Jews took offense to, and caused them to reject Jesus - is mentioned, it is that the Messiah was crucified (1 Corinthians 1:23). This is highly unexpected for the Trinitarian hypothesis, as if the Apostles and others were going around and preaching the Deity of Christ, it is expected that such a thing would come up in the context of disputes with the Jews, or preaching to the Pagans, or some other intra-Church controversy, which would have warranted a defense or clarification.
The single passage in which it can be alleged that controversy arises over the nature of God is John 10:32-33, in which the hostile Jews say to Jesus, "you, being a man, make yourself God". However, not only did Jesus go on to clarify that He did not say He was God, but rather the "Son of God" (John 10:32-36), comparing this passage with John 5:17-18 demonstrates that the Jews in chapter 10 meant that He was claiming equality with God only in a sense, by claiming to be His Son. In chapter 5, Jesus claims "equality" with God in that He claims for Himself the divine prerogative of determining what is proper work on the Sabbath day for Himself, as the unique Son of God. In John 10, Jesus claims equality in the sense that He, like God, claims to be able to give Eternal Life (John 10:28-29). This is what enrages the Jews, as in their mind, this authority, which has been delegated to Jesus by God (John 17:2), is God's, and since they don't like Jesus, they hate the idea of Him having it. This is the sense in which they accused Him of "making Himself God".
However, by the time of Jesus's trial before His crucifixion, there is not a trace of any controversy as to whether Jesus actually claimed to be God, or was God. Instead, his enemies accuse Him of various things before the High Priest, culminating in the High Priest Caiaphas asking Jesus if He was claiming to be the Christ (Matthew 26:57-63, Mark 14:53-61). If Jesus was understood to have been going around claiming to be Yahweh, that accusation would have been swiftly and loudly raised at His trial, by those eager to implicate Him in blasphemy. And, after Jesus's resurrection and ascension, when the early Church expanded, and came into conflict with the Jews many times, the accusation is likewise totally absent.
Therefore, although there are many instances of controversy in the New Testament, absent completely is what would be expected to be the largest one under the Trinitarian hypothesis - a controversy over how to understand Monotheism. This is highly unexpected under the Trinitarian hypothesis, but expected under the Unitarian hypothesis, wherein there was no such controversy because the early Christians, like the Jews, believed and preached one God, the Father.
This is perhaps the most surprising of all the facts in this article, given the Trinitarian hypothesis. The Trinity is an extremely complicated doctrine, and requires a lot of philosophical vocabulary and clarification when being described in attempt to avoid being charged with Modalism or Tritheism.
Yet, nowhere in the text of the New Testament did Jesus Christ take time to explain even the basic elements of the doctrine in an unambiguous way, in the form of a lecture to His Apostles, or otherwise, and not a single New Testament author saw it fit to do so either, in any of their epistles. Not even a single chapter dedicated to explaining the doctrine as such can be found in any book of Bible, though, given the complexity and vital importance of the doctrine, an entire dedicated epistle or book would likely be more appropriate, in order to both inform believers of the nature of the God that they worship, and protect them from errors in their faith.
There is not a single passage wherein something is stated like, "Now, brethren, beware of an easy misconception to fall into, and one that we used to believe - a unipersonal concept of God", or, "Now, brethren, be sure to understand that we are not Binitarian, for God is one in three, and this is how that is possible: ..." - nothing of that sort at all. Not even a prototypical attempt at an explanation, or statement that God is three in one, can be found anywhere in the entire New Testament. Instead, Trinitarians believe that the Apostles, and the Lord Himself, were basically dropping little "hints" here and there throughout the New Testament, to be organized and systematized centuries later under councils of bishops called by Roman and Byzantine emperors.
There is no "Trinity section" in Scripture, because the doctrine is not in Scripture. That is why it must be pieced together from verses in various books, and then speculated on endlessly using philosophical language utterly unknown to the Bible.
An observation of the disciples words and behavior is one of the strongest arguments for the Unitarian view of Scripture.
First, observe their words when Jesus calms the storm on the Sea of Galilee (Mark 4:36-41, Luke 8:22-25):
Matthew 8:23-27
23 And when he was entered into a ship, his disciples followed him.
24 And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he was asleep.
25 And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we perish.
26 And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.
27 But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!
If one believes that Jesus is God, they do not exclaim, "What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!". They would think to themselves, "Of course He did that, He is God". Instead, they are astonished because of the works God is doing through Him, a human being ("What manner of man..."). And, from the accounts, it is clear that these disciples are from Jesus's inner circle, probably including at least a subset of the Apostles (Mark 4:34-36), like Peter (Matthew 8:14, Luke 8:45), James, and John (Mark 5:37, Luke 8:51).
The second way that the disciples can be demonstrated to not have believed in the Deity of Christ is by examining their confessions. Notice what they confess when Jesus asks them who He is (Mark 8:27-30, Luke 9:18-20):
Matthew 16:13-17
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Notice above that they first offer a number of options as to Jesus's identity suggested by others - John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. None of them say, "Some say that you are Yahweh", because that option was not even under consideration. Then, Peter confesses for all of them, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God", and Jesus is pleased with that confession, which utterly lacks any mention of Him being God, which would an inextricable part of His identity if it were so.
Another instance of Peter's confession is recorded in the Gospel of John:
John 6:67-69
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
This is highly surprising under the Trinitarian hypothesis, but it is expected under the Unitarian hypothesis. It is extremely unlikely that if the Apostles believed that Jesus was God, they would confess that He is the Christ in these instances, and not mention that He was also God, as if one believes both things, the fact that He is God would be far more striking and important, and would compel someone to mention it in no uncertain terms. Instead, the Apostles say that He is the anointed of God - the Messiah.
Trinitarians, in response, will often point to the confession of Thomas, wherein he says to Jesus, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28), as establishing what the disciples were truly intended to understand about Him. Yet, notice that even after that confession, John himself gives the purpose statement for writing his Gospel, and it is to persuade the reader that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of God" (John 20:31), which seems very anticlimactic in light of the Trinitarian understanding of John 20:28. From a Unitarian perspective, Thomas's confession is best understood in light of John 12:45, 14:5-11, noting that Thomas is specifically named in the account in John 14. Additionally, it is in this Gospel where John records Jesus explaining that the word "God" can be used in the non-absolute sense (John 10:33-36), which Old Testament Jews would have been familiar with. That is why John's purpose statement is not at all anticlimactic - it is perfectly in harmony with the emphasis of the rest of the New Testament.
Thirdly, the preaching of the Apostles demonstrates them to have been Unitarian. When examining the book of Acts, one cannot help but notice how distinctly Unitarian the first sermons and evangelistic messages sound:
Acts 2:22
22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
Acts 2:36
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Acts 3:13
13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.
Acts 3:26
26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.
Acts 4:10
10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
Acts 10:38
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
Acts 13:37-38
37 But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.
38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
Acts 17:30-31
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
The above examples are simply not how one speaks if they intend to communicate that Jesus is God. In fact, the above communicate very unambiguously that Jesus is not God, but is instead one chosen by God.
A fair Trinitarian would be forced to acknowledge that the exact language used in the these sermons - particularly Acts 2:22, 2:36, 10:38 - would likely never be heard in Trinitarian churches today without qualifications and clarifications following, because they would otherwise fear that it would impart a "mistaken" impression. Yet, the Apostles had no such scruples, even when their religion was brand new, and therefore the most subject to misunderstanding.
Fourthly, the writings of the disciples demonstrate that they were Unitarian, as they frequently record Jesus saying that His honor, power, and authority have been given to Him by God, or otherwise speak of Him being exalted by God, without feeling any need to add the later Trinitarian qualifications that such privileges were only in respect to His "human nature", as He already had all of these things in His "divine nature", or anything of that sort (Matthew 11:27, 28:18, Luke 1:32, 10:22, 22:29, John 3:34-35, 5:19, 5:22, 5:26-27, 5:30, 10:17-18, 13:3, 17:2, Acts 2:22, 2:36, 3:13, 5:30-31, 10:38: 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, Ephesians 1:19-20, Philippians 2:8-9, Hebrews 1:1-4, 5:8-10, Revelation 1:1, 2:26-27).
If Jesus is God, why would He speak and be spoken of in such a way that someone else is "granting" Him anything? The Trinitarian doctrine teaches that His divine nature is the same as (consubstantial with) God the Father's divine nature, and that they are one. So, if the Father is granting all of these things to Jesus, using the same divine nature that is in Jesus, how is that really different from Jesus granting these things - which He already has in His divine nature - to Himself or His own human nature? Additionally, given the doctrine of Inseparable Operations, wherein the Father, Son, and Spirit are said to do every action inseparably, the Person of the Son would quite literally be the one giving His human nature these things. None of that is stated or implied anywhere in the verses in question, and makes them into very odd statements indeed.
Fifthly, the writings of the disciples demonstrate that they were Unitarian by frequently and without qualification distinguishing between God and Jesus in a way which seems strange or even misleading if they intended to impart the message that Jesus just is God (Romans 1:1-3, 1:7-9, 2:16, 3:24-26, 5:1, 5:8-11, 5:15, 6:11, 6:23, 7:4, 7:25, 8:3, 8:31-32, 8:39, 10:9, 14:18, 15:5-6, 16:27: 1 Corinthians 1:3, 1:9, 1:30, 8:4-6, 15:15, 15:57: 2 Corinthians 1:3, 5:18-19, Galatians 1:1-4, 4:4, 4:7, Ephesians 1:3, 2:13-18, 3:9, 4:32, Philippians 1:2, 1:11, 2:5-11, 1:12-19, 2:12, 3:17: 1 Thessalonians 1:1-3, 3:11-13, 5:9: 2 Thessalonians 1:1-2, 2:16: 1 Timothy 1:1-2, 2:5, 5:21, 6:13: 2 Timothy 1:2, 4:1, Titus 1:4, 3:4-6, Philemon 1:3, Hebrews 1:1-9, 5:8-10, 7:25, 9:14, 9:24, 10:5-9, 10:12, 12:2, 12:22-24, 13:20, James 1:1: 1 Peter 1:3, 1:21, 2:5, 4:11, 5:10: 2 Peter 1:1-2, 1:16-17: 1 John 3:21-23, 4:9-10, 4:14-15, 5:9-11: 2 John 1:3, Jude 1:1, Revelation 1:6, 5:9-10, 14:12, 21:22):
1 Corinthians 3:23
23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.
1 Corinthians 11:3
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Ephesians 1:17
17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
Colossians 1:2-3
2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
3 We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,
A survey of the New Testament demonstrates that Trinitarianism is deduced philosophically from very few texts, whose interpretations are contentious, and then read into the great majority of clear texts, which actually provide the context for understanding those difficult texts. Given the witness of the many and the clear texts, Jesus is not God, but is frequently and straightforwardly distinguished from Him, without any clarification or qualification.
In summary, the behavior, confessions, and writings of the disciples of Jesus, when analyzed as a whole, fit the Unitarian hypothesis much more closely than the Trinitarian hypothesis.
In the Bible, the Lord said that He sometimes spoke in parables to the masses so that, in essence, those who wanted to twist His words and reject Him would be confounded (Matthew 13:10-16, Mark 4:11-12, Luke 8:10). However, He spoke plainly to His disciples (Matthew 13:11, Mark 4:11, Luke 8:10, John 16:25), and the Apostles spoke plainly to the ones to whom they wrote to instruct them in the faith. Yet, in all of this, no one ever recorded Jesus simply saying "I am God", or better yet, "I am God, and here is what to do with that information so as to avoid hundreds of years of bitter and bloody Christological controversies".
Instead, Jesus unambiguously identified Himself as the "Son of Man" (Matthew 9:6, 12:8, Mark 2:10, 2:28, Luke 5:24, 6:5, John 1:51, 5:27, etc. - over 50 times), which is a Messianic title from Daniel 7:13-14 for a figure who is given honor by God, and is distinguished from God. He also unambiguously identified Himself as the "Son of God" or "Christ" (Mark 14:61-62, John 4:25-26, 5:25, 9:35-37, 10:36, 11:4), even clarifying, when accused of making Himself equal with God, that what He actually said was that He is the Son of God (John 10:33-36). Further, the instances in which the writers of the New Testament call Jesus the Son of God, or the Christ, are innumerable.
This makes sense, and is expected under the Unitarian hypothesis. Under the Trinitarian hypothesis, it is surprising, because it is as if the Lord is laboring to identify Himself as something much lower than His true identity - the one anointed by God is beneath God - while never once unambiguously stating that much higher identity which He is alleged to have possessed.
Instead, what one sees when looking for Jesus's express teaching on His relationship to God, they find Him stating that He has a God (John 20:17, Revelation 3:12), and an unqualified statement that there is one true God, the Father:
John 17:3
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
That the Father is "the only true God" is taught elsewhere in Scripture as well (1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:5-6: 1 Timothy 2:5), which is to say that Jesus's understanding of God and Himself was not confused by His followers. They got the message, because He was clear and unambiguous - there is one God, who is the God of Jesus, and Jesus is His anointed Messiah.
This is another highly surprising fact if the New Testament authors were Trinitarian. If one believes in a plurality within God, they would naturally create a term to refer to all three Persons within that God as a unit, like how the word "Trinity" is used today.
In the New Testament context, this would be especially useful when speaking with the Jews, whose concept of God did not include Jesus, and so when a Christian or Jew in dialogue said "God", there would be confusion, and that would lead to clarifying terms being created, like "Trinity". However, no such term exists in the New Testament. Instead, they go right on saying "God" (theos), just like everyone else, never qualifying or clarifying that they actually mean something radically different from what others mean when they say "God".
Additionally, there is not a single use of the word "God" (theos) in the New Testament which in context refers to all three Persons of the Trinity. This is also highly, highly surprising if the authors of the New Testament are Trinitarian. If the Apostles and authors of the New Testament believed that all three Persons comprise one God, why are there no passages at all in which all three Persons are grouped under the term "God"?
Instead, the term "God" in the absolute sense always refers to a single individual in the New Testament. The distribution is roughly as follows:
So, the New Testament authors use the term "God" to refer to the Father more than 99% of the time. That is highly surprising, given the hypothesis that the New Testament authors were Trinitarian. One would expect a more even distribution amongst the three Persons. Their usage of the word "God" (theos) instead indicates that they believed that God and the Father were numerically identical, and were Unitarian. That hypothesis better fits the data. Additionally, as stated above, under the Trinitarian view, one must believe that God is multi-personal, and yet, never one time in His Word to mankind did He ever specifically call the Trinity as a unit "God" in a clear way so as to demonstrate that. That is extremely unexpected, given the Trinitarian hypothesis.
A Unitarian view of God is the result of looking at the big picture of what is stated, and what is not stated in the Bible, and drawing conclusions from that analysis. It moves beyond proof texting in the sense that the strongest arguments in favor of the position come from analyzing patterns, themes, and what is not present in Scripture, in order to arrive at a conclusion as to what Jesus and His Apostles taught about God, and His Messiah.
The facts examined above strongly favor the hypothesis that the writers of the New Testament held to a Unitarian view of God. A Unitarian view of God not only avoids the immense and endless complexity of the various Trinity theories, it remains true to Scripture, and does away with speculative philosophy in favor of the message of Jesus Christ and His Apostles concerning the nature of God.