No One Can Serve Two Masters

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus delivers one of His most profound teachings: “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money” (Matthew 6:24). This passage has long been understood as a moral and spiritual imperative, urging believers to prioritize their allegiance to God over the material temptations of wealth. Yet, a closer examination of this teaching raises an unsettling contradiction within Christian theology—specifically, the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Trinity asserts that God is one essence in three distinct persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit. This doctrine demands that Jesus and God the Father are coequal, coeternal, and inseparably one. However, Jesus’ own words, especially in passages like Matthew 6:24, undermine this theological construction. By examining the implications of His teaching, we find that the Trinity doctrine is not only inconsistent with the logic of Jesus’ statement but also introduces conceptual difficulties that challenge its coherence.

Jesus and God: Two Masters?

To understand the conflict, we must begin with the foundational premise of Jesus’ statement. Serving two masters is presented as an impossibility because two entities cannot simultaneously command absolute allegiance, as the ultimate allegiance must be paid to a single entity. Jesus contrasts God with money in this teaching, but the principle applies universally: any two entities vying for ultimate devotion create a conflict.

The question then arises: if Jesus and God the Father are truly distinct persons, as the Trinity asserts, are they not two separate masters? The Gospels are replete with examples of Jesus distinguishing himself from the Father. He prays to the Father (Matthew 26:39), declares that the Father is greater than he (John 14:28), is affected by fatigue and hunger (Luke 4:1-2), was tempted by the devil with wealth and riches (Luke 4:3-13), and even admits ignorance of the day and hour of the end times, knowledge reserved for the Father alone (Mark 13:32). These distinctions highlight not only separateness but also a hierarchy of authority and knowledge, attributes incompatible with the claim of absolute equality.

If Jesus and God are separate in function, knowledge, and authority, then logically, they are two masters. To claim otherwise would violate the very principle Jesus himself articulated. Furthermore, if one argues that their unity of purpose overrides their distinctness, this argument fails to resolve the contradiction.

The “Unity of Will” Argument and Its Consequences

Proponents of the Trinity often argue that Jesus and God are not truly two masters because they share a perfect unity of will. In this view, Jesus does not conflict with the Father because His desires and actions are always in complete alignment with God’s. However, this reasoning introduces an unintended consequence: it justifies the very thing Jesus condemns in the passage about serving two masters.

To expose this flaw, we turn to another striking teaching of Jesus, one that directly undermines the notion that unity of will overrides distinctness of authority. In Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus describes the Day of Resurrection: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’”

Here, Jesus identifies people who claim to have acted in his name, ostensibly doing works aligned with His will. Yet their supposed alignment with him is insufficient to secure their salvation. Why? Because ultimate allegiance and recognition belong to those who do the will of God, the Father, and not Jesus. This passage reveals that even those who invoke Jesus’ name and seemingly share in his mission may fail to achieve the ultimate aim of serving God. Jesus’ rejection of these individuals—“I never knew you”—demonstrates that invoking his name is not the same as serving God Himself.

This example highlights the problem with the “unity of will” argument. If people who align their works with Jesus’ name can still be rejected for failing to serve God properly, then unity of will cannot collapse the distinction between Jesus and God. It reinforces that allegiance to one does not automatically equate to allegiance to the other. Jesus, acting as a judge, clearly distinguishes between himself and the Father’s ultimate authority.

Consider again the parallel to money. Many people justify their pursuit of wealth by claiming it aligns with God’s will—funding ministries, helping the poor, and creating opportunities for others. Yet Jesus warns that serving money, even for noble purposes, compromises one’s ultimate devotion to God. Similarly, if allegiance to Jesus is distinct from allegiance to God, unity of will becomes irrelevant. The distinction between the two cannot be erased simply by appealing to a shared purpose. Jesus himself shows that what matters is allegiance to the ultimate master—God the Father.

Consider the example of money. Many would argue that money, as a resource, can serve God’s purposes. Philanthropy, social programs, and even church ministries are funded through wealth. By this logic, money can align with God’s will, and one could claim to serve both without conflict. Yet Jesus explicitly rejects this possibility. The issue is not whether money can be used for good but whether it can occupy the place of ultimate devotion. Serving money, even as a means to achieve good, inevitably compromises one’s allegiance to God. The “unity of purpose” argument thus fails, as it cannot apply uniquely to Jesus and God without also applying to God and money—an absurd and heretical conclusion.

In invoking this principle, Jesus not only disqualifies false allegiances but also disqualifies the Trinitarian claim that he and the Father can simultaneously demand equal devotion. By his own teaching, unity of will does not erase distinctions in authority or identity. If anything, it underscores the impossibility of serving two masters, no matter how aligned their purposes might seem.

The Fallacy of Coequality

The tension deepens when we examine the practical implications of the Trinity’s claim of coequality. If Jesus and God are coequal and indistinguishable as “masters,” why does Jesus consistently point beyond himself to the Father? He instructs his followers to pray to the Father (Matthew 6:9), not to himself. He emphasizes that his authority is derived from the Father (John 5:30), not intrinsic to his own nature. These statements suggest a subordinate relationship incompatible with the idea of coequal masters.

For instance, in John 13:16, Jesus declares, “No servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.” Here, Jesus not only affirms the principle of servanthood but applies it to himself, acknowledging that he is sent by God and, therefore, operates under God’s authority. This is not the language of coequality but of subordination. Furthermore, Jesus consistently frames his mission in terms of obedience to the will of the Father, declaring that his purpose is to serve and fulfill the work of the One who sent him.

If Jesus identifies himself as a servant and explicitly teaches that a servant is not greater than the master, how can he and the Father be coequal? The very nature of a servant-master relationship refutes the idea of absolute equality. Moreover, this distinction has profound implications for the doctrine of exclusive devotion. Jesus’ servanthood to the Father reinforces that God the Father is the ultimate authority and master. To elevate Jesus to the same level of authority creates the precise problem Jesus warns against in Matthew 6:24: the impossibility of serving two masters. If Jesus and God are distinct in authority and role, they must also be distinct as masters. By his own words, Jesus undermines the Trinitarian claim of coequality, affirming a relationship of distinction and subordination that leaves no room for the idea that Jesus and God are “one master.”

If Jesus were truly inseparable from the Father in essence and authority, there would be no need for such distinctions. The very fact that Jesus defers to the Father demonstrates that he cannot occupy the same position of ultimate devotion. A servant cannot claim to serve one master while continually directing others to a different master—such a scenario defies logic and Jesus’ own teaching.

The Logical Dismantling of the Trinity

The doctrine of the Trinity rests on a paradox: it asserts both unity and distinction between Jesus and God without satisfactorily resolving the tension between the two. Jesus’ teachings, however, consistently dismantle this construct by emphasizing his dependence on God and God’s independence from him. This asymmetry in their relationship fundamentally undermines the Trinitarian claim of coequality.

For example, Jesus declares in John 5:30, “By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.” This statement reveals two critical points: first, that Jesus’ actions are entirely reliant on the authority and will of the Father; and second, that Jesus explicitly disclaims self-sufficiency. This is the hallmark of dependence, an attribute incompatible with the notion of coequality. Conversely, God the Father is never depicted in the Gospels as relying on Jesus to accomplish His purposes. Instead, God is portrayed as the source of all power, knowledge, and authority, entirely independent and sovereign. This unilateral dependency further distinguishes Jesus as subordinate to God rather than equal to Him.

This dependence also exacerbates the problem of divided devotion. If Jesus is reliant on God, yet is also positioned as an object of devotion, believers are placed in a paradoxical situation of potentially serving two distinct authorities. Trinitarian theology attempts to reconcile this tension by appealing to a unity of will, but as shown earlier, unity of will does not erase the distinction of roles and dependence. Moreover, if Jesus’ dependency on God is justified by their supposed shared essence, then the same logic would permit the coexistence of God and money as co-masters—a conclusion Jesus explicitly rejects.

Furthermore, the Trinity’s assertion of coequality also collapses under the weight of its own inconsistencies when considering Jesus’ servanthood. By Jesus’ own words, a servant is not greater than his master (John 13:16), and He frequently emphasizes his role as the one “sent” by God, performing the Father’s will. If Jesus explicitly places himself in a subordinate position, dependent on God’s authority and direction, how can he simultaneously be considered coequal? This contradiction reveals that the Trinity is not only conceptually flawed but also incompatible with Jesus’ own teachings.

Ultimately, Jesus’ dependence on God and God’s independence from Jesus render the Trinitarian framework untenable. God, as the ultimate and undivided master, stands alone in His sovereignty, while Jesus, by his own admission, serves as a subordinate messenger. To elevate Jesus to the same level as God creates the very problem of divided devotion that Jesus warns against, making the doctrine of the Trinity inconsistent both logically and theologically.

A Call to Serve a Single Master: God Alone

The strength of Jesus’ teaching lies in its clarity: devotion cannot be divided. His words challenge believers to choose God above all else, forsaking competing allegiances. This principle is articulated powerfully in Mark 12:28-34, where Jesus is asked by a scribe to identify the greatest commandment. Jesus begins by quoting the Shema, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Mark 12:29), affirming the oneness of God as the foundational truth. He follows this by commanding total love and devotion to God: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength” (Mark 12:30). By emphasizing the undivided nature of God, Jesus reinforces that allegiance belongs solely to God alone.

Ironically, the doctrine of the Trinity introduces precisely the kind of divided allegiance that Jesus condemns. By elevating Jesus to the status of God, it creates a theological framework in which believers are forced to navigate the tension between two masters—a tension Jesus himself rejects as untenable. In the same passage, the scribe acknowledges this truth, affirming that devotion to God and love for one’s neighbor are greater than any religious ritual. Jesus responds by commending the scribe’s understanding, saying, “You are not far from the kingdom of God” (Mark 12:34). This interaction underscores that the kingdom of God is grounded in an undivided devotion to the one true God, just as the Jewish scribe would have understood it.

Perhaps the most faithful response to Jesus’ teaching is to return to the simplicity of his words. God is one, undivided in essence and authority. To serve Him fully, we must reject the conceptual contortions that would place Jesus on equal footing with the Father. In doing so, we honor the clarity and wisdom Jesus taught in both word and action: “No one can serve two masters” (Matthew 6:24).