IS GOD A TRINITY?

 

       Is God a Trinity?  Is God Father, Son and Spirit?   Is this concept of God upheld by the Scriptures?  There are some Christian groups who do not believe the Trinitarian definition of God is scriptural.  Historically, it wasn’t until the fourth and fifth centuries after the Christ event before the doctrine of the Trinity became dogma within the Christian community.  Because the Trinitarian doctrine is a foundational doctrine of mainstream Christianity and yet has its detractors, it is important that we carefully examine this issue and allow the evidence to determine whether God is a Trinity or whether we should understand God in some other way.

      The nature of God is believed by a majority of Christians to be a Trinity.  The word Trinity is not found in the Biblical scriptures but is a word derived from the Latin word trinitus which means “three in one” or “threefold.”  This word is used to describe what many feel is a Biblical identification of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  More specifically, the word Trinity is used to define God as a single Being who exists eternally as consubstantial (being of the same substance), coequal and coeternal persons of Father, Son and Spirit.  God is defined as being of one substance made up of three persons.  All three persons are seen as a single Being of single substance but able to be separately distinguished while never losing the one single substance and identity called God. The three persons, while being of the same substance, are not viewed as separate entities of identical substance but as one single entity having one single substance yet distinguishable as three persons. This is the orthodox concept of God. 

       Any definition of God that runs contrary to this Trinitarian approach is held to be unorthodox and is considered heretical by most orthodox Christians.  Orthodox Christians subscribe to the fourth and fifth century Christian Creeds which proclaim God is a Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Creeds were established as markers of the Christian faith in an attempt to facilitate unity within the Christian community.

       While the Creeds establish a standard and accepted (orthodox) way of looking at scripture and therefore have value in maintaining unity of doctrine, it must be remembered that orthodoxy comes about as a result of certain individuals making decisions based on how they view scripture.  Sometimes those decisions are based on very clear and concise revelation of scripture and sometimes they are not.  The relationship between Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Father has been controversial since inauguration of the Christian Church in the first century.  As will be seen in this series of essays, the scriptures dealing with this issue are looked at in a variety of ways.   

       While I respect the effort and toil that has gone into the creation of the Christian Creeds, I strongly feel we should not take what they teach for granted but should prove all things. Our quest for understanding should not be based on whether something is orthodox, unorthodox, creedal or non-creedal.  Our quest must be based on an objective examination of the evidence and a willingness to follow the evidence wherever it may take us.  In this series of essays, we will bring no assumptions to our examination of the Trinity.  Creedal proclamations regarding the nature of God will be examined objectively.

      I will make every effort to critically examine the claims of both Trinitarians and Non- Trinitarians and see which position provides a preponderance of evidence.  Whatever conclusions we reach will be based on determining what is believable beyond reasonable doubt.  I will present and discuss a variety of viewpoints on this issue and the information presented will be a crystallization of a great deal of material studied by this writer.  Where deemed appropriate, I will provide personal comments on the perspectives advanced by the various sides of this issue. Upon completion of this examination, I will draw conclusions based on where the preponderance of evidence lies.  Unless otherwise indicated, scriptural quotes will be from the New International Version (NIV).  

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW:

       Historically, there have been a variety of positions held as to the nature of God and the relationship between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  Second century theologians such as Irenaeus and Justin appear to have believed in the Deity and eternal existence of the Father and the Son and therefore believed them to be worthy of worship.   However, they also apparently believed the Father and Son were not equal in authority as the Son is viewed as being subordinate to the Father. There is some indication that Justin may not have believed in the eternal existence of the Son, as will be seen in a quote later in this series.

       In the early second century a teaching appeared called Docetism taken from the Greek word dokeo, which means to “to seem" or “to appear.”  This view maintained that Jesus was only Divine and was not at all human but only appeared to be human.  A leading proponent of this view was the philosopher/theologian Marcion.  Marcion taught that there were two Gods, the legalistic God of the Israelites and the forgiving God of Jesus.

       In the late second and early third century a view of God developed called Monarchianism. One form of Monarchianism called Dynamic or Adoptionist Monarchianism taught God was a one of a kind Deity and Jesus was not deity but a created human person filled with the Holy Spirit and thus able to fulfill God’s (His Father's) will.  Some early Adoptionists even believed Jesus was born not of a virgin but from a normal sexual union of Joseph and Mary and later was “adopted” by His Father God at His baptism or at His resurrection at which time He became the Son of God.  This view was held by a Jewish Christian group called Ebionites.    

        Early in the third century a Bishop from Rome named Callistus proposed the idea that the Father actually became Jesus the Son.  This belief was called Patripassian as it postulated that it was the Father who participated in humanity as Jesus. This was an attempt to preserve the monotheism of the scriptures while accounting for the Deity of the Son. This view has present day proponents in what is called Oneness Theology.    

       A form of Monarchianism called Modalism was taught in the third century by a theologian named Sabellius. Sabellius taught that God is only one person, who acts as Father in creating the universe, as Son in redeeming sinners and as Holy Spirit in sanctifying believers. While this position may appear Trinitarian on the surface, it is not Trinitarian as it does not view the one God as made up of the three persons of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  It sees no relationship in God.  It views the one God playing three different roles at different times in history while retaining single personhood.  This view was actually quite popular in the early church as it preserved the oneness of God while allowing for the Deity of Jesus.
   
       Also in the third century, the respected scholar and theologian Origen maintained the subordination of the Logos (Jesus) to God the Father. Origen emphasized the independence of the Logos as well as its distinction from the Being and substance of the Father. Origen apparently believed the Logos was not of the same substance as the Father but merely an image of the Father. Origen believed there could be degrees or grades of divinity, with the Son being slightly less divine than the Father. Origen recognized in John 1:1, John’s use of the definite article in referring to the one and only true God and a second reference to God without the article as indicative of a lesser god.  John chapter one will be discussed in detail later in this series.

       Origen pictured God within a framework of the Father being the Supreme Deity over all things while the Son was over creation in a lesser way with the Spirit acting only within the context of the church.   The Spirit was seen as leading back to the Son and the Son back to the Father. It appears Origen considered the Father and the Son to be Deity and of eternal existence but not consubstantial and coequal as in later Trinitarian thought.

       In the early fourth century a church leader named Marcellus proposed that the Word of God existed eternally as the intrinsic reasoning faculty of God.  When God decided to make the heavens and the earth, the Word became the power and energy through which God created all things.  The Word later became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. In this manner Marcellus strove to maintain the oneness of God.  

       Also in the early fourth century, an Alexandrian presbyter by the name of Arius advanced the idea that the Father alone is God with the Son having been created by the one Father God at some point before the universe was created.  Arius believed it was through the Son that God created the universe and it was the Son who became Jesus by emptying Himself of the glory He had with the Father.  After completing his mission on earth, Jesus returned to the Father where he was restored to his former glory.  Arius felt this view maintained monotheism as opposed to the polytheism he saw in seeing Jesus as equal Deity with the Father.  This view was embraced by a number of Christians but hotly contested by Church leaders who believed the Son to be Deity on par with the Father. Much controversy ensued with Arius being excommunicated by the Bishop of Alexandria  

       The dispute over this matter came to a head at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.  At this council a majority of church leaders sided with the Bishop of Alexandria and a young presbyter named Athanasius who firmly advocated that Jesus is God as much as the Father is God.  Church leaders representing the Athanasius position went head to head with defenders of the Arian position led by Eusebius, the bishop of Nicomedia.  After all was said and done, the Athanasius position prevailed and the belief that the Son is consubstantial with the father (“God of very God”) became the accepted position among many of the church hierarchy.  The Holy Spirit was recognized by this council but not defined as consubstantial with the Father and Son and nothing was said about the Holy Spirit being a person or being worshiped. The tenets of the Nicene Creed pertaining to our discussion read as follows:

       We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;.. And in the Holy Ghost.

       Controversy over the relationship between the Father and the Son raged on for another fifty years with both the Arian and the Athanasian views supported by various Church leaders and Roman government officials. Emperor Constantine of Rome apparently died as an Arian.   During this period Arius was reinstated just before his death while Athanasius, who had become Bishop of Alexandria, was alternately condemned by various Church councils and reinstated by others. At times the Arian view prevailed in the Church and at other times the Athanasian view prevailed.  

       It wasn’t until the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. that the Trinitarian concept of God won the day and was further affirmed. The Nicene Creed was updated at this council to include the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father and worthy of worship as is the Father and the Son.  Thus was established a Trinitarian concept of God. This became the orthodox view of God in the Roman Empire  Many outside the Empire, however, continued to follow the Arian position for hundreds of years.  The tenets of the Constantinople Creed pertaining to our discussion are as follows:

       We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (aeons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified.

       Both the Nicene and Constantinople Creed stress that the Son was not made but was begotten by the Father and is of one substance with the Father.  The Nicene Creed appears to define begotten as being of the same substance as the Father and thus distinguishes begotten from being made.  The Constantinople Creed speaks of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father but it also identifies the Holy Spirit as a “who,” thus implying a personhood within the “Godhead.”       

       Another controversy that arose relative to the relationship of Jesus to God was regarding the nature of the Son as Jesus the Christ.  In the early fifth century, Nestorius, the Bishop of Constantinople, reasoned that Jesus had two separate natures and wills, one Divine and one human, making Him two persons in one body.  This position was condemned by a church council convened at Ephesus in 431 A.D. Around 440 A.D., a Byzantine monk named Eutyches taught that Jesus had only Divine nature and not human nature.  This position was condemned at a church synod in 448 A.D. only to be declared orthodox at a church-wide counsel held at Ephesus in 449 A.D.  This issue was again taken up at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. and it was ruled that the Son as Jesus the Christ had two natures, one fully Divine and one fully human.  The Chalcedon Creed reads as follows:

       We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

       One additional creed of interest is referred to as the Athanasian Creed but it is believed by most scholars that this Creed was not written by Athanasius. The oldest surviving manuscript of this Creed dates from the eighth century.  This Creed was originally written in Latin which was not the native language of Athanasius and this Creed addresses theological issues that arose after his death.   Athanasius does not mention this Creed in any of his writings.  Most historians agree that this Creed originated in Gaul around 500 A.D. Its theology is closely akin to that found in the writing of Western theologians, especially Ambrose of Milan, Augustine of Hippo and Vincent of Lerins.  

       This Creed is significant in so much as it reinforces the previous creedal stance on the nature of God and goes so far as to condemn all those that fail to believe the Trinitarian doctrine.  Here are some excerpts from this Creed.

       Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost.  But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one.

       The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal.  And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.d from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcedonian_Creed"

       Much more could be written about the “soap opera” that is the Arian/Athanasian controversy. During the height of this controversy positions often changed, politics influenced decisions and resolutions and Creeds continued to be challenged. Much disagreement was generated by the introduction of diverse ideas as to the relationship between the Father and the Son. Church leaders were routinely condemned and reinstated.  Church councils were being called on a regular basis to deal with the controversies. For those interested in reading further about this time period, I recommend, Truly Divine, Truly Human by Stephen W. Need (2008) and Nicaea and its Legacy by Lewis Ayres (2004).

       Some view the Constantinople Creed as the final chapter in this long controversy.  It is quite apparent, however, that this controversy continues to this very day as a number of Non-Trinitarian groups are extant within the Christianity community and more and more books are being published challenging the orthodox position.

       In this series of essays I had hoped to raise above the fray of this controversy and simply examine the scriptures pertinent to this issue.  While attempting to do this I realized the only way I could properly address this issue is to first elucidate both the Trinitarian and Non-Trinitarian positions, then add personal observations and comments reflecting my reaction to the two positions elucidated, and simply see where the preponderance of scriptural evidence takes me.  So let’s begin!

NON-TRINITARIANS:

       There are four basic Non-Trinitarian positions currently extant in opposition to the orthodox position. Some Non-Trinitarians believe the Son began His existence when begotten in the womb of Mary.  Because of what Jesus accomplished as Messiah, He was elevated to His Father's right hand and a position of great authority, power and glory.  Under this perspective, only the Father is considered God. Jesus the Son was begotten (generated) by the Father as a totally human agent of the Father.  He was imbibed with a full measure of the Holy Spirit of God (the Spirit is not considered a person) and was crowned with everlasting life and glory upon completion of His mission here on earth.  We will call this the Non-Trinitarian A position.  This position is not to be confused with early Adoptionist theology as position A Non-Trinitarians believe in the virgin birth through the Holy Spirit.

        A second category of Non-Trinitarian belief is that the Son began His existence when created (begotten/generated) by the Father before the creation of the universe and was granted great power and glory at that time as the chief agent of the one and only true God the Father.  It was through this agent God created all things and through whom the Messianic promises where filled.  The Son is seen as emptying Himself of His glory to become a fully human agent in the service of His Father and being returned to His former glory after His earthly mission was accomplished. This position is much like that taken by Arius in the fourth century.  We will call this the Non-Trinitarian B position.

        Both of these positions see the Son, not as consubstantial, coequal and coeternal with the Father, but as a separate created Being to whom the Father has given great power, glory and authority. Therefore, the Son is not seen as being the one true God or some Divine manifestation of the one God but as the highest ranking agent of the one God.  When appearing as Jesus, the Son was not God incarnate but God’s agent who took on humanity to fulfill God’s will.    

          A third Non-Trinitarian position is called “Oneness Theology.”  This position sees God as a single Being who is manifested in Jesus Christ.  Jesus is seen as having both human and Divine nature. He is seen as totally God because the one God is believed to have become the Son.  Jesus is also considered totally human because of His human birth.  Jesus is seen as God incarnate. God (YHWH) is virtually seen as becoming the Son as to the Son’s Divine nature.  Therefore, Jesus is seen as YHWH.  Jesus is not seen as having preexistence as the Son of God but preexistence as the one God who became the Son. Therefore, the one God YHWH and Jesus, as to His Divine nature, are seen as being one and the same. As to His Divine nature, Jesus is the Father since the Father is God.  As to His Divine nature, Jesus is seen as being God as God is God.  This is in harmony with the Nicene Creed which postulates that Jesus is “Very God of very God.”  Jesus having a dual nature is in line with the Chalcedon Creed which postulates the dual nature of Jesus.  Oneness theology differs with the Creeds in that only one person is viewed as God as opposed to the Trinitarian three person Godhead.  It also differs in so much as it sees God becoming the Son at the birth of Jesus rather than the Son having preexistence.   God stands as Father of the Son only as to the human nature of Jesus. God as Father is manifested in the Divine nature of Jesus. Jesus, as the Son of God is seen as beginning His existence at His human birth. The Holy Spirit is seen not as a person but as the manifestation or emanation of the one God.         

       A fourth type of Non-Trinitarian theology sees God as a family of Father and Son into which humans can be born through resurrection from the dead.  Those taking this position believe God and the Son have eternally existed but are separate, individual God Beings existing in a family relationship with the Holy Spirit being a shared mind and power.  The Son is believed to be the YHWH God of the Old Testament who became Jesus Christ when He temporally set aside His prerogatives as a God Being to become a human. The various dynamics of this concept will be dealt with as we proceed in this series.

       As we move through this material, I will primarily discuss the Trinitarian issue within the context of the orthodox Trinitarian position as it contrasts with the A & B Non-Trinitarian positions.  The dynamics of the third and fourth Non-Trinitarian positions will be addressed within our over all discussion of the A & B Positions. 

TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY:

        Under Trinitarian theology, God is one Being of single substance but distinguished as Father, Son and Spirit. God manifested as Father is seen primarily through the person of Jesus in the New Testament scriptures but God as Father is found in the Hebrew Scriptures as well. As Son, God is seen as manifested in the human person Jesus Christ (the incarnation). As Spirit, God is seen as manifested in various ways throughout history and specifically manifested as the comforter and Spirit of truth in the Greek Scriptures.  Since all three manifestations are of the one substance called God, the word Trinity is simply being used as a term to identify and define the Father, Son and Spirit as one God. Trinitarians hold to the doctrine of there being one God but see the one God as composed of three persons, manifestations or distinctions.   

        In physical terms the relationship within the Trinity has at times been analogized to that of the fire, light and heat of the sun. The sun is defined as being a single substance of fire, light and heat since all three operate simultaneously all of the time.  Fire, light and heat are associated, inseparable dynamics of the sun. Though inseparable, fire, light and heat are distinct in so much that each can manifest itself in specific ways.  God is analogized with the sun in so much as the Father is compared to the fire, the Son is compared to the light and the Holy Spirit is compared to the heat.  Though inseparable, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct and can manifest themselves in specific ways. The theologian and early Church father Tertullian (late second and early third century) advanced an argument similar to this in regard to the Father and the Son.

       A similar argument is taken from the scriptures in attempting to offer evidence for the validity of the Trinitarian definition of God. This argument is taken from Hebrews 1:3: “The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being.”  The argument is that just as light is the radiance of the sun’s glory in the sun analogy, so the Son is the radiance of God’s glory thus making the Son, as God's radiance, coequal and coeternal with God and therefore God.  It is argued that one cannot have radiance without the source of radiance, or a source of radiance without the radiance itself. Yet we can distinguish between the source of that radiance (God's glory) and the radiance of that glory (the Son). They are distinct, without being separate.

       Another analogy that is sometimes put forth to demonstrate the manner in which God can be one and yet three is the example of water which can be liquid, ice or steam.  It is argued that since the liquid, the ice and the steam are all made up of water all the time, these three are of one substance but distinct from each other and therefore analogous to the one God who is of one substance but differentiated as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  One other analogy which is sometimes used is that of a human male being a father, a grandfather and a husband all at the same time all the time. 

AUTHOR’S COMMENTS:

       While these analogies as explanations of how God is a Trinity appear valid at first glance, they are actually quite problematical.  The light and heat are not consubstantial or coequal with the fire.  While they are dependent on the fire and cannot exist apart from the fire, they are not the fire.  The fire is made from the combustion of combustible materials that produce the light and the heat.  Light and heat are products of the fire and do not exist as co-equal substance with the fire.  While it can be argued that the fire cannot exist without the light and the heat, the fire is not dependant on the light and the heat for its existence whereas the light and heat are dependant on the fire. Therefore to define the sun as fire, light and heat is inaccurate. The Sun is fire only.  It is from this fire that light and heat are produced.  Trinitarian theology defines God existing as coequal and consubstantial Father, Son and Spirit with the existence of the Father not dependant on the Son or Spirit and the existence of the Son and Spirit not dependant on the Father.  God is seen as one unit made up of three distinctions which can all manifest themselves in specific ways.  Therefore the sun analogy does not fit.  The sun analogy is actually better suited to a Non-Trinitarian position that sees Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit not as coequal and consubstantial but as derived from and dependent for their existence upon the one God who is the Father. 

       This same conclusion applies to the Trinitarian interpretation of Hebrews 1:3, which in reality is the same argument as the sun analogy.  The argument is that since the radiance of God’s glory is derived from God it must be coequal and consubstantial with God and therefore God.  Since the Son is seen as the radiance of God, the Son must be God. You can just as easily argue, however, that the glory of God produces the radiance and therefore the Son, as the radiance of God, is not coequal with God but is produced by God who is separate and distinct from the Son just as light and light are not coequal with fire but produced by fire.  Therefore the Son can be viewed as being derived from the Father and dependent for existence on the Father but not coequal with the Father.

       The water analogy is problematical because a given amount of water cannot be liquid, ice and steam all at the same time.  In Trinitarian theology, the one substance called God is seen as Father, Son and Holy Spirit at the same time all the time. For the water analogy to work there would need to be a given amount of water that is liquid, ice and steam all at the same time and all the time.  Even if you were to consider water in general for this analogy, which can exist as liquid, ice and steam at the same time in separate locations, the liquid, ice and steam would be separate from one another.  There is no separation seen in the Triune God.  As with the sun analogy, the water analogy is better suited to a non-Trinitarian position as the water is a liquid essence from which ice and steam are produced. While ice and steam are of the same substance (H2O) as liquid water and cannot exist separately from H2O, they do appear in a different form of the H2O.  Water still stands alone as the single substance from which ice and steam are formed.  In Trinitarian theology, the Father is not considered separate from or the source of the Son or Holy Spirit but the Son and Holy Spirit are considered coequal and coeternal substance with the Father.  

       The Human father analogy is problematical because the human male is one person with several different titles identifying different roles performed by the one person. This is no different than the one God having a number of titles which identify Him as judge, warrior, healer and so forth. This is basically the same as the Modalist argument of the third century.  It is also sometimes argued that just as a human father’s son is fully human, so God’s Son must be fully God. While it is true that the son of a human father is fully human, such son is also separate and in many ways different from his father.  Trinitarianism, on the other hand, sees God as one substance consisting of three un-separated coequal and coeternal persons. 

TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY CONTINUED:

       The second part of the above quote from Hebrews 3:1 identifies Jesus as “the exact representation (image in some translations) of his being (person in some translations).”   The one being or person refers to the one God.  The word being or person is translated from the Greek word hypostasis. The Arndt, Gingrich and Bauer Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, defines hypostasis  as substantial nature, essence, actual being or reality of something, often as a contrast of what merely seems to be. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, defines hypostasis as a setting or placing under as that which has foundation.  Hypostasis is also defined as confidence, conviction, assurance and steadfastness. 

       Hypostasis was used by Aristotle and Neo Platonists (third century A.D. followers of the teachings of Plato) to speak of the objective reality of a thing as opposed to its outer form or illusion.  Hypostasis was used by early Church writers such as Origen and Tatian to denote being or substantive reality and this Greek word was not always distinguished in meaning from the Greek word ousia which means individual substance or essence.  In the formulation of the Trinitarian definition of God by church leaders in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D., ousia came to designate God as a single substance made up of the three hypostasis of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  Within Christianity, hypostasis became associated with the Greek prosopon, which is translated into Latin as “persona.”  The Latin "persona," literally means “mask” or a character played by an actor. Since an actor can play several roles by simply changing masks this is felt to analogize to one God in three persons or hypostasis.’

       Hypostasis appears five times in the NT and in most English translations; four out of those five times the word is translated to reflect the second definition of hypostasis which is confidence or assurance.  This rendering best fits the context in these cases.  Only in Hebrews 3:1 is hypostasis translated in such a way as to reflect the first definition as here the context appears to call for the first definition.  The Greek word for “representation” is karizomai and appears just this once in the NT and in Greek means a mark or stamp, such as in engraving, imprinting or etching.

       Trinitarian theology teaches that because the writer to the Hebrews is saying the Son is the stamp, engraving or imprinting of the single substance that is God, the Son must be sharing in this one substantial nature and therefore must be a hypostasis or manifestation of the one God and therefore is God. 

AUTHOR’S COMMENTS:

       The question that must be asked and answered is whether being the engraving or imprinting of something makes one that something?  For example, scripture tells us we humans are made in the image of God.  Yet we obviously are all separate individuals and are not one with God in the Trinitarian sense of being of un-separated substance and coequal.  When coins are engraved, the coins don’t become equal with the engraving device.   

       As to an actor being able to play several roles by simply changing masks, an actor can only play one role at any given moment.  Therefore, this analogy fails to support Trinitarian theology which teaches God is three persona (Greek hypostasis’) all of the time at the same time.  The idea of the actor changing masks to play different roles is much like the Modalistic model of God extant in earlier centuries.      

        The analogies we have discussed do little to support the Trinitarian concept of God.  While there may be other analogies extant that do a better job of this, it must be pointed out that analogies are just that.  They are analogies.   While analogies can be helpful in clarifying a concept, they do not prove the validity of a concept. The validity of a concept must be established through evidence.  Analogies are helpful only if they help clarify what the evidence has already established.  Our objective in this series is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to establish the Trinitarian concept of God.

PART TWO