Hebrews 1 as it Pertains to the Trinity

Hello and welcome back (if you've read my blogs before).  It's been over a year since my last posting, which itself was nearly 3 years after its predecessor.  My blog name and quote remain as they originally were in 2012; maybe I'll change them someday...

Tonight's topic is on the Trinity.  I was inspired to write about it a bit because I was reading Hebrews 1 this evening and I felt that this chapter is quite good in terms of providing a Trinity defense because its use of descriptors and language promotes the difference between God's person of the Father and His person of the Son and I wanted to go through this a bit.

Before we get started, I will give a brief background on my interest in this topic, because I do indeed have an interest in it.  It was not until later in my life that I learned that there are Christian groups who deny that the Trinity is "a thing."  I had always taken it for granted that it was, and when presented with this alternative viewpoint, I was challenged to review it and upon doing so, found no dearth of scripture to support the idea that the three-in-one composition does indeed seem to be a characteristic of God.

I want to take a moment to try to describe the Trinity somewhat.  This is difficult, because although there are analogies that can be made to help explain it, none of them are an exact correlation to it.  So to start, the Trinity is supernatural in nature.  It is not something that exists in the "normal world."  You can find co-dependent beings and you can find things that exist in different states, but you do not find anything that is simultaneously three things and yet one.  The Trinity is entirely supernatural and therefore, we cannot completely comprehend its composition.  I can make an effort to explain it and I will, but I cannot give you a complete logical description of it because it defies worldly logic.  I take it by faith based on two points.  Firstly, that God Himself states in multiple scriptures that He is one God.  Not three Gods, not many Gods, but one God.  Secondly however, the Bible on multiple occasions uses words that clearly indicates that God is a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit, and the language and context used are very clear that each is not the same as the other.  It is clear that they are all God (the same God), but it is also clear that they are not each the same in role.  Because I know that scripture does not contradict itself (if it does, then Christianity has little to no basis), the reconciliation between these two points is that God is supernaturally and simultaneously three and one.  No three separate beings that comprise one unified "team" and not three "hats" on the same one being, but three "persons" and yet one God.  This is the best I can do at the moment.  I want to emphasize the fact that this is a supernatural fact.  The implication of that being that it cannot be completely understood in the physical world where we have nothing to compare it with and therefore draw a more complete understanding of it.

I want to point out a few common opposing points I've seen or heard of and my thoughts on them.

1. I have commonly seen that "unitarians" rely heavily on the many Bible verses in which God explicitly states "I am one God" or "The Lord your God is one God."  My answer to this: This is not a contradiction to a "trinitarian" because by definition, the Trinity is both three and one.  So these verses do not undermine the concept of the Trinity unless you also resort to changing the accepted definition of what the Trinity is.  And if you do that, then you are no longer arguing the same point I am, so you will have gone off topic.
2. Some unitarians resort to "modalism" which is the idea that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are indeed separate, but that God only manifests as one of the three at any one time.  That He has three "modes" which he switches between.  My answer to this: Review the baptism of Jesus.  All three are present at the same time.  Jesus is being baptized, the Father is saying "this is my beloved Son..." and the Holy Spirit is descending in bodily form like a dove.  The idea that God was doing some super fast persistence-of-vision "mode switching" to accommodate this triple presence cannot be defended by scripture and is absurd.  I will not discuss such a possibility with you unless you have other scriptures to try defending the idea with.
3. I have heard the argument that in cases such as the stoning of Stephen in which he says "I see Jesus sitting at the right hand of God" (which would indicate the presence of two beings - Jesus and then God who Jesus was sitting to the right of), that Stephen was "crazy from being stoned."  My answer to this: You are undermining scripture to say such a thing.  And secondly, if you review that particular passage, you'll see that before he makes the statement, the Bible actually confirms in separate sentences that he actually saw it and then told what he saw.

And then lastly before we dive in, why is this important?  I pose two considerations, but there are more I'm sure.  Certainly any concept of importance which could be posed by a unitarian could be placed here as well.  We are ultimately questioning the importance of knowing God's true character and whether it carries significance.

1. Because scripture makes the idea of a Trinity so clear if you study it (you don't have to study too hard I've found), to deny its existence is to deny God's real character.  The potentially dangerous repercussion of this is that you are not actually serving the God of the Bible.  And regardless of intent, there is no getting to heaven if you don't serve the God of the Bible.  Is the difference that heavy?  I am unsure and will leave that risk analysis between you and God.  But do take the idea seriously please.
2. An observation put forth by Kingdom of the Cults (written by Walter Martin and Ravi Zacharias, it's a book which details the theology of a number of cults and how they contradict orthodox Christianity although claiming falsely to be Christian in nature) is that a common trend within cults is that many of them do deny the Trinity.  The logic here does not follow that all unitarians are part of cults, but the observation is interesting and should cause us to think.  It is not like the lost to agree with the living, so when they do, we should take notice and be wary of whether we have made an error.

And with that... let's dive into Hebrews 1.  I would like to be able to have two columns in which I could make points alongside the scriptures themselves, but unfortunately the blog editor is limited in functionality and so I can't do this without getting messy in HTML mode, so I'm just going to interrupt the verses with my input in a different color instead, either in-line or in separate paragraphs as appropriate.  I am using the "good old King James Version."

So that we can all be in agreement since the Bible's own authority is where unitarians and trinitarians find common ground, I will use the names and titles of God as written.  Let's not get into all the hooplah about changing "The Son" into "Jesus" or saying "The Father is Jesus because Jesus is God and so let's refer to all instances of God as 'Jesus.'"  No.  I want to use the names "as-found" because I'm trying to demonstrate to you that in this passage, God is referring to Himself as two distinct persons/manifestations, with my goal being to ultimately defend the concept of the Trinity as a result.  As a general rule, the trinitarian standpoint is to understand "God" to refer to "God the Father" and "the Son" to refer to "God the Son" who later manifested as Jesus on earth.  So understand that if I annotate "God" in-line, etc. I'm shorthanding "God the Father."  I'll try to be explicit if I'm referring to God as a whole, but I don't think that is going to come up much.

----------------------------------------------------------

HEBREWS 1
VERSE 1
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

VERSE 2
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son

• It doesn't say "spoken unto us directly" but uses words to indicate that someone else is speaking - His (God's) Son.
• He is referring to God the Son as if He were a separate person than just "God" who we are still talking about in terms of how "He" (God) is speaking.  Specifically, He says "His Son."
• We understand that a Father and a Son are separate from one another, so the words used here are significant.  So we are immediately in a position in which we must reconcile the fact that God states elsewhere that he is only one God, and yet here, he speaks as if he is two separate persons.  The idea of a Trinity is able to reconcile this supposed contradiction.

whom He (God) hath appointed heir

• It would be odd to appoint yourself as an heir when you're already the owner of the inheritance.  Unless you have a separate person of yourself that you can pass said inheritance onto of course...

of all things, by whom (the Son), also He (God) made the worlds.

• That is - God the Father made the world via God the Son.
• As a side note, observe the indication here that in terms of the Trinity, this would seem to promote the idea that God the Son is the Creator and God the Father is the authorizer or commander of the action to perform creation.  This puts God the Father in the Trinity as the authoritative role and God the Son as the "action performer."  Such an idea is backed up additionally by verses which indicate that Jesus submitted to the Father's authority (John 5:19 and John 12:49 are two examples, but there are more).  Consider a parallel that when we become saved, we are God's sons (not in terms of being gods, but in terms of being His adopted children), and we are to be His "action performers" under the leading of the Holy Spirit, doing as the Son does.  Being doers of commandment, just like that first Son.  Anyway, I may be getting a little deeper than I'm comfortable speaking too definitively here, but it's something to mull over.

VERSE 3

Who (the Son) being the brightness of His (God's) glory and the express image of His (God's) person, and upholding all things by the word of His (the Son) power, when He (the Son) had by Himself (the Son) purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty (God) on high.

• Reminder: When I'm specifying "the Son" and "God" I'm not just making those up and putting them where I want to.  I'm using the names that the chapter itself already provided.  I'm referring you to which subject those pronouns are linked back to.  Each time I reference "the Son" here in  verse 3, I'm referring you back to verse 2 where it says "by His Son" and each time I say "God" here in verse 3, the subject is "God" as the first word of verse 1.  A logical, grammatical breakdown of the verses should back my reasoning up as far as where I placed each specifier.
• Topic Reminder: Again, we are doing this in order to demonstrate that this chapter is making a clear distinction between God the Father and God the Son.  The way it is worded is speaking as if two different people are involved in the discussion.  We have two separate grammatical subjects with which to associate pronouns as I have demonstrated so far.

VERSE 4

Being made so much better than the angels

• [The Son] being made so much better than the angels...

as He (the Son) by inheritance hath obtained a more excellent name than they (the angels).

• One does not inherit anything from ones own self.  So to say this is to indicate that more than one party is involved.

VERSE 5

For unto which of the angels said He (God) at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?  And again, I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to me a Son?

• Another side note thought here along the lines of the question of "if Jesus is a Son and is therefore the 'offspring' of God, then how can He be God if He didn't always exist, since God by nature is an eternal being?"  Look at what is suggested here in this verse.  Offered as a rhetorical question is "which angel did God ever offer to make His son?"  Read it again - which (already existing [although definitely created]), angel, did God ever offer to make His son?  The answer to the rhetorical question is "none."  That's not the important point.  The significant point is that it is implied that the offer to be God's Son could be made to an already-existing being and therefore "God's Son" did not necessarily have to be created "from scratch."  So as a possible answer to the question of "How could God's Son come into being and yet actually be God if a necessary attribute of God is eternal existence?" is that God declared an already-existent person of His own Trinity to be His Son and therefore at that moment "the Son" came into being and yet the One who now held that title of "God's Son" had always existed.  Anyway, I'm getting off in the deep end again, where I'm less experienced, but it came to mind.

VERSE 6

And again, when He (God) bringeth in the first begotten into the world (the incarnation of Jesus), He (God) saith, And let all the angels of God worship Him (the incarnate Jesus as God's Son).

VERSE 7

And of the angels He (God) saith, Who maketh His angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

VERSE 8

But unto the Son He (God) saith, Thy Throne O God (referring to the Son), is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy (Jesus, God's Son) kingdom.

• Note the significance here of God the Father declaring the Son to be God.  Many cults deny the divinity of Jesus, God's Son.  Jesus was more than just a man.  He was also fully God.

----------------------------------------------------------

For the most part, these first 8 verses are where the primary references for a defense of the Trinity are found.  The remaining 6 verses are mostly about the finite existence of the creation and a brief mention of the purpose of angels.  So I will stop here.

I feel like I've written about the Trinity on other occasions before, but in reviewing my previous blogs, those most have just been Facebook posts or something.  This is my first blog post on the subject (I'm really a horrible blogger in terms of time; this is just where I put my long-winded stuff rather than typing books into Facebook posts).

Hopefully you found this to be useful in some way.  I welcome your comments if you have any.