The Triune God:

Towards a Biblical Definition of Deity

Any Christian account of the doctrine of God must at some point address the tension created by
God’s triune nature.1 This complex and cloudy doctrine grounds the entire Christian faith, yet most
Christians cannot give an adequate definition of the Trinity. Now, I say this not because I think that
the church has failed in her duty to teach, but to point out just how difficult this doctrine truly is. I
believe that a large part of the church’s misunderstandings arise from a fundamental misconception
of what it means to be God. The goal of this chapter is to present a model of the trinity that is
compatible with both the monotheism of the Old and New Testaments as well as the New
Testament’s unique and strange claim that both the Son and the Spirit are truly God alongside the
Father.

The Greek Definition of Divinity

To understand how the concept of God has become so muddled, one must first learn how the
doctrine of the Trinity, and in that, the doctrine of God, originally developed. The moment the Gospel
left Israel, perhaps even before it left, it was confronted with the philosophy of the Greco-Roman
world. As history has shown, the Gospel exploded in Rome, which led to a great revival throughout
the nation. This meant that there were many Roman Christian converts, some of whom were trained
thinkers, aka philosophers. These philosophically minded Christians sought to articulate their faith to
non-Christian thinkers. However, these early church theologians, whom we now call the church
fathers, discovered a difficulty in the Gospel they were trying to share. The Bible teaches that there is
only one God, but it also affirms the Father, Son and Spirit each to be God; so which is it, one God or
three?
The church fathers, most of them being Roman, 2 tried to make sense of this maSer according to a
Greco-Roman view of God. The Greeks thought that divinity meant immunity to time; or in other
words, if something was timeless, it was divine. 3 This, however, created some issues; any and all
actions in creation take time to accomplish. If God is immune to time, how does he act in history? We
have returned to Aristotle’s God who is unable to engage creation.
According to this Greek definition, to be a truly divine being meant complete and uSer inactivity. But
this was not the only way to be divine. There were degrees of divinity; a being could be mostly
divine, or half-divine, or a liSle divine, and everything in-between. These were called demigods.
Demigods were partially immune to time, but not so much that they could not act temporally. These

1 I have chosen to use the Greek terms ousia and hypostasis instead of “being” and “persons” because of the either limited
or incorrect connotations the current English translations yield.
2 And therefore, part of the Greek philosophical heritage.
3 The Greeks saw how time devoured all; that is, they saw how everything, living or inanimate, withered away through
the passing of time. They depicted this idea in the story of the god Chronos who eats his children.
1
are what the Greeks called mediators, demigods that could close the gap between the ultimate,
timeless, deity and time-bound mortal beings. The whole Greek idea of divinity was a spectrum that
gradually moved from temporal to timeless. The early church fathers used this definition of the
divine in their aSempt to understand the Bible. This led the church to some of her first heresies.

Heresies
The church developed and rejected quite a few incorrect views of the Trinity in her early years, but
here I only want to look at two of them: modalism and subordinationism. I highlight these two
because I believe them to still be prevalent in the church today.
First, modalism. This is the teaching that the true divine essence, or you could say, the true god, is
hidden behind the Trinity. Since the true god, according to the Greeks, cannot be affected by time and
thus can never act in history, he needs mediators to engage the created world. These mediators are
the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The true god uses the mediating identities of the three as tools to
interact with history; the Father, Son and Spirit become mere visions or theophanies of the true god.
That is to say, the three function more like masks which the true god wears to reveal himself, than
anything else. The true god uses the three to manifest himself in history. This means the Father, Son
and Spirit are merely semi-divine mediators who are subject to another deity. This hereby denied the
divinity of the entire Trinity and diminished the threeness of God to an unnecessary tool. The church
quickly recognized the modalist theory of God to be wrong and rejected it.
Second, subordinationism. The next failed aSempt is what we now call subordinationism. This view
is similar to modalism in that it tries to protect the true god from time by puSing him behind a
mediator, however, in this heresy, the true god is understood to be the Father; the Son and Spirit are
thought to be his mediators. This is surely a step up from modalism because it at least makes one of
the hypostasis the true God, but still has its short comings. In this view, the Father is understood to be
greater than the Son and Spirit. The Father alone is understood to be truly god, while the Son and
Spirit are still only understood as mostly divine. It is important to note that the Son and Spirit are still
referred to as gods, but of a lesser degree. This way, the church could affirm that each hypostasis is
divine, but still hold to a belief in only one true god.
The problem with these two views is that neither of them adequately recognize the threeness of God.
The church fathers did well to defend the oneness of God, but at the cost of the Trinity. Although I do
not believe there are many contemporary Christians who would consciously think, “since God is
timeless I have to protect his eternality by establishing mediators,” I do believe there are many
Christians who have a vague subconscious idea that God is too holy for creation. There remains a
sense that the true god or the “deep core” of God does not interact with the created order. Thus many
Christians imagine the Father as a ball of energy, or a wispy cloud, and the Son and the Spirit as the
instruments by which this nebulous God interacts with the world. This is simply incorrect; there is
nothing in the Bible that gives any idea that God is above interacting with his creation. It was not
until the church fathers realized that they were working with a foreign definition of divinity that they
2
were able to begin to correct what they had done wrong. Similarly, the contemporary church needs to
remember what the church of old has worked so hard to achieve in order to avoid the same mistakes.

The Biblical Definition of Divinity

The Bible gives a very different definition of divinity than the Greeks did. The Bible depicts God not
only making the created order, but even interacting with it. Actually, this is what most of the Bible is:
a record of God doing things in history. As I noted in the last chapter, Yahweh is the living God; he
interacts with creation because it is in his nature to act. What, then, is the biblical definition of
divinity if it is not timelessness? It is to be Creator. The Bible makes a distinction between the Creator
and creature. Unlike the Greek gradation of divinity, the Bible depicts a sharp contrast. You either are
or are not divine, there is no middle ground. The Bible does have a place for mediators, but a biblical
mediator is not a half-breed that connects two different beings. No, the mediator according to the
Bible is something very different— but more on that in a later chapter.
The biblical definition of divinity is to be the Creator. This caused a new problem for the early church;
according to the Greek view of divinity, there could be degrees of the divine. With the Greek
definition it was easy to affirm that there is one true God, while also affirming the Father, Son and
Spirit as all divine to some degree. However, with this new definition of divinity the church could no
longer say such things. The church was now left with a choice: affirm the true divinity of all three and
forsake the oneness of God or deny the divinity of the Son and Spirit and lose the threeness. This new
tension lead to two more important heresies: Arianism and tritheism. I will deal with the former now;
the laSer I will focus on in the next chapter.
Arianism is what surbordinationism becomes when it is synthesized with a biblical definition of God.
Those who follow Arianism teach that the Father is truly god, but the Son and Spirit are merely
creatures. The Son is the first creature, and a perfect one at that, but still only a created being. The
church rejected this model of the Trinity because it could not properly explain the Bible's claim that
all three hypostasis are divine. Thus, the church was again at a loss for words. They simply could not
articulate a way to describe God as one, but also three.

Ousia
Only in and through the first ecumenical council did the church finally find her voice, and with that,
found a way to affirm the Shema, while simultaneously identifying the three distinct hypostasis as the
one God. That is, the church finally found a way to clearly state that God is one ousia and three
hypostasis. The previous sentence probably does not hold much more meaning than “one God in three
persons”; however, once the words have been defined it becomes quite simple… or at least, simpler.
The word ousia has a wide range of meanings and thus, no single English word can capture all that it
entails. The word emphasizes two things: first, it functions much like the word “essence.” It refers to
the unique aSributes of a thing which make it what it is; or in other words, the essence of a thing is
synonymous with its definition. And second, it can mean “being;” not the verb, to be, as in a state of
3
being, but a noun, a thing. In this chapter I will only look at the laSer meaning of the word; I leave the
former meaning for another chapter. What, then, does it mean to be an ousia?
Ousia refers to a thing. But what does it mean that God is one thing? The answer lies in what it means
to be one thing rather than many. Let me explain by first showing how to differentiate physical
objects. A thing begins and ends where its body begins and ends. The way to distinguish a physical
being is based on the thing’s actual physical body. Or in other words, the physical boundaries of an
object distinguish it as different from everything else around it. Thus to be one is to have one distinct
body.
However, things get more complicated when dealing with spiritual, or non-physical, things. Let’s
take for example conjoined twins. On first impression, the conjoined twins may appear to be one
being because they have one body. However, after speaking with them it will quickly become
obvious that although they have one body, they have two minds (that is, they do not share the same
knowledge), two wills (two different sets of desires and intentions), and two self-consciouses (two
self-understandings of “I”). This double set of non-physical faculties, mind, will and sense of self,
imply that there are two beings connected to this one body. Thus, the way to differentiate between
non-physical beings is from observing the non-physical faculties: mind, will and sense of self.
This means that in order for God to be one being (ousia), he must have only one mind, will and self-
conscious. At this point, to properly elaborate on God’s oneness let us look in more detail at the three
faculties of a non-physical being. First, to have one mind means to have one wisdom, memory and
store of knowledge. This means that in order for God to truly be one ousia, each hypostasis must know,
think, remember etc. with the same mind. Second, to have one will, in this case, does not mean to be
in agreement. It is often said, “the people were of one will,” to describe how a group of people are in
agreement with one another. To have one will means to have a single volition. Therefore, each of the
three hypostasis wills with the same divine will. Third, to have one self-conscious means to have one
apperception4, or in other words, one sense of “I” or “me.” The Father, Son and Spirit all understand
themselves with the same divine self-conscious. Therefore, the one God of the Bible is one ousia in
that he has one mind, will and self-conscious.
So far, I have identified the oneness of God and now I will explain his threeness. As noted in the
previous chapter, God’s existence is identical to his essence. Therefore, in order to properly
understand his oneness we must understand how his oneness exists in three hypostasis.

Hypostasis
As earlier noted, I have chosen to leave the word hypostasis in its original Greek because the English
translation, “person,” has gained a connotation that the original word did not have. The word
“person” has gained the idea of individualism. When thinking of a person, usually one thinks of a

4 Apperception is the phenomenon of one's enduring understanding of himself. It describes the reality that: I know that I
am me and I also know that it was me who went to work yesterday. It is the sense of self that connects all personal
experiences together. In other words, apperception is the mental process by which I continue to know that I am me.
4
solitary figure, or of a lone individual or some other similar idea. There is nothing individual about
the triune hypostasis. Because of that misleading connotation I must do away with the term “person"
in search of more accurate language.
Currently, I have found no single word that I think adequately captures what hypostasis means.
However, there are three terms used by theologians throughout the ages that each powerfully
capture a facet of the meaning. Although I do not think any one of these words say enough to replace
the term hypostasis, I do think that when all three are brought together they flesh out the term very
nicely. The terms are “modes of being,” “relations,” and “identities.” 5
First, “modes of being.” This term has wrongly received much criticism in the past for being a form of
modalism. This misunderstanding arises from the similar sounding terminology the two doctrines
use. In reality, the two doctrines posit very different ideas about God. The phrase, “God exists in
three modes of being,” means that God simultaneously exists in three distinct modes. This is different
from modalism in that God does not switch between these modes, but rather, eternally exists as all
three. It also differs from modalism in that the three modes are not mere expressions or projections of
the true god, but are how God himself necessarily exists. That is, God has always existed in three
modes, not because he decided to become three, but because this is simply what it means to be God.
The one God eternally exists in three “modes of being.” These modes are: the mode of the Father, the
mode of the Son and the mode of the Spirit.6
Second, “relations.” This term is used in place of the word “persons” in order to counter the negative,
individualistic connotation of “person.” Today, the word “person” could easily be interchanged with
the word “individual.” This connection makes the term “person” unusable because there is nothing
individual about the three hypostasis. In fact, hypostasis implies just the opposite. The word “relation”
is more precise because it emphasizes the necessary unity the three share. When thinking about a
person it is possible to imagine a solitary individual; however, it is impossible to think of a relation in
isolation. For example, a husband can only exist in relation to his wife. It is logically impossible to
have a single husband, he can only exist in relation to another.
Similarly, a father cannot exist on his own; a father can only exist in relation to his child. Furthermore,
the Father can only exist with the Son, and the Son with the Spirit and the Spirit with the Father. The
three relations necessarily exist with one another. There can only be Father, Son and
Spirit together.7
Third, “identities.” In conjunction with the previous two terms, identities is used to express the
distinct existence of each hypostasis. The term “identity” refers to the way God exists in three modes
that are each uniquely addressable. As the biblical narrative shows, each hypostasis has the ability to

5 For any who are interested, the terms, in respective order, come from: Karl Barth, Thomas Aquinas and Robert Jenson.
6 I will elaborate on how to distinguish the different modes from one another in the next chapter.
7 I will further elaborate why the three hypostasis must exist together in chapter 4.
5
act and be acted upon.8 Thus to have a unique identity is the ability to be addressed and then to
respond to that address. Therefore, the Father can address the Son and the Son can address the Spirit
and the Spirit can address the Father, etc. This is possible to imagine, even with the strong view of
oneness I have argued for, if one posits that God’s one self-conscious has three centers. Therefore,
God only has one mind, will and apperception, but it exists in three centers of consciousness. When
God converses with himself he is not speaking in an I-thou format, but paradoxically in an I-I format.
God is the only being that can truly talk to himself. The fact that God exists in three identities
solidifies the distinction between the hypostasis.

Conclusion
In summary: God exists as one ousia; that is, he has one mind, will and self-conscious. However,
because to be God is to exist triunely, the one ousia exists in three hypostasis. Meaning, the one mind,
will and self-conscious of God exist in three modes: Father, Son and Spirit. These three modes exist
necessarily together. The modes are not merely projections of the one God because they can address
and converse with one another. This, however, does not mean that they are three beings, but that the
one being of God exists as three centers of consciousness of the same mind, will and apperception.
The purpose of this chapter has been two-fold. First, to defend against the temptation to imagine the
inner triune life of God as a single, undifferentiated being. The church, when thinking about the
triune God, too often falls into modern forms of modalism or subordinationism. This is usually done
in an honest aSempt to protect the oneness of God, but nonetheless, the results have not always been
orthodox. Therefore, I present this model of the Trinity to help the church keep sight of the threeness
of God when thinking about his internal relations.
Second, I wrote this chapter to outline a model of the triune God that is compatible with the
Shema as stated in Deuteronomy 6:4 and with the New Testament reiterations of that same
monotheism,9 as well as, the New Testament’s witness to the true divinity of the Father, Son and
Spirit. Or to put it another way, the purpose of this chapter has been to give an adequate explanation
of Jesus’ final words in the Gospel of MaShew, “Go and baptize in the name [singular] of the Father,
Son and Holy Spirit.”10

8 Think of the way scripture describes interactions between the Father, Son or Spirit throughout the narrative. For
example, the Son can speak to the Father and the Father responds; the Son can send the Spirit and the Spirit will then go.
The hypostasis are able to interact with one another because they are God in three distinct identities.
9 See, Ephesians 4:6, 1 Corinthians 8:4, 1 Timothy 2:5, James 2:19, the list goes on.
10 MaShew 28:19
6
Further Reading

Athanasius- Four Discourses Against the Arians

Gregory of Nazianzus- The Five Theological Orations
Basil the Great- Against Eunomius
Gregory of Nyssa- On Not Three Gods
Augustine- de Trinitate book 5
Thomas Aquinas- Summa Theologica 1.11, 1.27-30
Karl Barth- Church Dogmatics 1.1
Robert Jenson- Systematic Theology Volume 1: chapters 6 and 7
Bruce McCormack- KanPer Lectures: Lecture 6