Possible Numerical Explanation of the Trinity

Firstly, I’ll say I didn’t write this, plus I don’t even know what is he saying. I’ll just say that with respect to the text, we cannot glean information that the ancients would not know. I mean stuff like the shape of the earth or the biology between man and woman. It’s near the bottom of this article (another website).

My view is that, God used the understanding of His day to write Scripture. He didn’t bother to teach the original readers real science. They wouldn’t understand anyway.

Below are Michael Raatz’s words, brother of Johanan Raatz:

If God is One

Two years ago I posted a note about an explanation of the Trinity that I discovered during a math class. That note was destroyed when I deleted Facebook a while back, but since then I’ve rewritten that work with more careful consideration. As you read please take note of any questions you may have. I’d like to know if there are any points that I can clarify. I’d especially like to know if you can see any potential weaknesses in the argument.
S.D.G.

1. INTRODUCTION
Common to the beliefs of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is the claim that God is one, yet the followers these religions each hold an idea of God that is irreconcilably different. Because of this it is difficult to find an objective ground for intellectual discussion among religions. Naturally so, because beliefs about the nature of God only make sense within a chosen belief system. However, the concept of oneness is more naturally studied in the realms of mathematics and philosophy. This article explores what oneness itself has to say about God.

An intellectually honest believer from any of these religions will be forced to admit that if their God describes himself in any sense as “one”, then the concept of oneness must in some way be consistent with the nature of God. In fact, if any attribute of oneness were inconsistent with God’s nature, then at that point God would have to qualify the comparison by saying that he is only one in this or that sense. This kind of distinction is not found in any of these religions. Such an argument does not mean that God’s nature can be completely described by oneness. In fact, many other concepts are used to describe him. However, it does mean that no matter what information we discover about oneness, that information must also be fully true of God’s nature for the comparison to be true. Atheists, religious skeptics, and thinkers of Judaism, Christianity and Islam as well as of other religions are strongly encouraged to analyze the logical validity of this article and present questions and counter-arguments if they believe it is warranted. So for the moment, we will turn the claim “God is one” on its head and see what falls out. We will also start with no assumptions about what it means to be “one”, except that it is some kind of numeric value.

The first part will study the number one as a mathematical relationship formed between properties that are basic to reality and existence. Once an intrinsic definition is found, the second part will identify key qualities found in the definition. Finally, the author will interpret those qualities according to the religious view that seems to match most naturally. While the author has tried to find a purely unbiased method of observation and reasoning, the persuasion of the author will eventually become apparent. If you, the reader, hold a different view, you are welcomed to point out any fallacies or inconsistencies where you find them.

The need for defining the value of one is not immediately obvious. Why go to all the trouble of inventing the wheel when we already use it? But when asked about the meaning of one, the most common reply is a confused look and, “What do you mean? One is one, of course.” When we start digging it becomes clear that no one can really explain the value of one or what gives it that value. We only know it as the first number. The dictionary describes one as unity or singleness, but the definitions for those two words only describe what we say about the value of one. They do not explain why the value of one has the characteristic of being single, or what makes it a unity.

The task of defining the concept of one seems as though it should be simple, but there is an easy mistake that must be avoided: In what sense are we using the word “one”? We are not using the word in its adjective form. When we say that the object over there is “one” table, that sense of one is as a quantity of some other value- the concept called a table. In this sense “one” describes the table, but now we are not talking about one, we are talking about the table. In this article we will talk about “one” as the object itself: as a real, meaningful concept that has its own unique set of properties and its own objective value and existence.

2. DEFINITIONS
Before we can build a definition for oneness, we must have a clear idea about what qualifies as a definition. Holding up a single finger instead of two will not work. For our purposes, a definition is a “specification of the essential properties of something, or of the criteria which uniquely identify it” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Definition?s=t). An example of this can be found in the field of botany with the identification of plants. A list of specific details about the shape of the leaf and how the leaves are clustered together, the height of the plant, whether the stalk is hollow or solid, whether the flowers are this or that color and how many petals there are- these are features that define a plant. One or more of these features may be found in other kinds of plants, but when all of the features are considered together they provide a uniqueness that no other kind of plant has except that kind. It is this kind of description that we are looking for as a definition for one.

A dictionary will not give us such a list of features. This is because the dictionary is more concerned with relational properties- how a word relates to all the other words we are aware of in the context of human experience. It is not concerned with intrinsic properties- what the concept is in its own nature. However, oneness is not a tangible object that can be measured and observed. In order to find its intrinsic properties, we will have to start by comparing the concept of one to various properties that we know to be true of every concept.

As stated in the introduction, the only assumption we make is that “one” is some kind of number. The language of numbers, or mathematics, is therefore the most natural environment in which to study this concept.

3. ESSENTIAL PROPERTIES
A. IDENTITY
By convention, we use a single vertical line to represent the idea of one. Whatever is behind that symbol is the essence of oneness.

1

But we could use any symbol to represent the same idea. For a moment, suppose that symbol is X. In order for X not to mean something else, we have to find a situation involving only X that forces X to mean 1. Now, our concept has some kind of value, so we will say it “equals” that value.

𝑋=?

After a bit of head scratching, we begin with the obvious: It equals itself. Sameness across an equal sign is the property of identity. This meaning of identity in mathematics is similar to the meaning of identity in the natural world. There is an essence that is you, the completeness of who you are that is known only to you. Some people call this the soul. Your character, your personality, your thoughts, your behavior and your appearance, all of these are the representation of who you are, but they are not the essence of who you are. However, there is an equality, or a sameness, between the expression of you and the idea that is “you”. In the same way with numbers, identity means that the essence of something and its representation are equal to each other (Essence = Representation).

𝑋=𝑋

But this is not a situation that forces X to mean one- not yet. Here X could just as well mean two or three or the color blue or something else, and the statement would be just as true. For example, the statement “Red is red” has exactly the same structure and is just as true as “one is one”. X could mean one, or it could mean red. Because of this, there must be some other essential property or properties involved in the definition to make it only mean “one”. Aside from identity, there is at least one other essential property common to all things- the property of existence. Since we are already aware of the concept of one in practical use, it is unnecessary to prove that “one” exists. However, as part of the definition we must find a way to show existence.

B. EXISTENCE
In order to make the idea of existence obvious it will be helpful to start with the idea of non-existence. If we take the number zero and divide it by any number, we have the number zero. But zero is not nothing; it represents its own knowable quantity. We still have an equation for which we can know of an answer- the value of zero divided by any number is zero. But suppose we took any number and divided it by zero. Now we have an equation for which we cannot conceive of an answer. No one knows what X divided by zero is. A helpful way to understand this is that you can have none of something but you cannot have some of nothing.

None of something is zero of that thing:

0/𝑋=0

Some of nothing is not anything:

𝑋/0=?

Mathematicians use one of two similar responses to describe this idea:

𝑋/0=Undefined

Or,

𝑋/0=Does Not Exist

This problem is commonly called the Divide by Zero Error, and it demonstrates the concept of non-existence. It also shows us the concept of existence: If a number divided by zero does not exist, then in order for a number to exist, it must have a denominator that is not zero:

𝑋/𝑛=𝑋, where n≠0

It is easy to understand that you cannot have “some” of “nothing” in real life, so this is not simply a glitch of our mathematical system. There is a genuine error of non-existence that would be present no matter what mathematical system we create.

C. SELF-EXISTENCE
The question then follows, “What number ought to be in the denominator to properly define one?” We cannot assume that we have all of the final variables incorporated into this equation, so we cannot use algebra to say what that number ought to be. However, the answer is deceptively simple. If we do not know the value of one, then we cannot know the value of any other number that is based on the value of one. For example, since two is twice one, we cannot know what two is until we know what one is. Therefore, the only number that is qualified to act as the denominator in this definition is one itself. This also rules out the possibility of negative one, because if we do not know one, we cannot know what its negative value might be.

𝑋/𝑋=𝑋

So we have discovered a third property. In addition to having identity and existence, this idea called “one” must have self-existence. That is, the existence of one is founded on itself and does not need anything else to make it exist.

At this point we must again test our definition to see whether it is complete or whether there are any other properties necessary to make “one” unique. To put it another way, is there any other value that can have this relationship with itself and still be something other than one? The answer is no. In every case, the result of self-division always reduces to one.

𝑋/𝑋=1, 2/2=1, 3/3=1, … 𝑛𝑛=1

When we try to place any other value in the same relationship with itself, it immediately loses one of the three essential properties: it loses its identity, its existence, or its self-existence. To illustrate this point, suppose we try to use two as the value in the relationship. There are only three scenarios that are logically possible:

1. Concept has self-existence (numerator and denominator)

2/2=1

This relationship expresses itself as one. The value loses its original identity, since the result is now different from the value of the numerator.

2. Concept has representation (numerator and result)

2/1=2

This relationship requires a denominator of one for its existence. In this scenario the value gives up self-existence, but in doing so it maintains both identity and existence. The value of two now relies on the value of one for existence.

3. Representation has self-existence (denominator and result)

4/2=2

When the representation of two attempts self-existence (result and denominator), the numerator, which is the essence of the concept, loses its original value so that the equation remains true. The equation now evaluates to 4/1 = 4, which means that the value of two was eliminated in the final analysis. However, even without simplification the equation requires more than one value. In each of these examples, we find that no other value has the ability to remain in all three positions at once.

Since one has both existence and self-existence, it is natural that one is the value that gives existence to all other values, as seen in points two and three above. When the denominator is changed to something other than one, the representation does not become independent. Instead, it is destroyed.

1/1=1, 2/1=2, 3/1=3, 4/1=4, 5/1=5,
1/1=1, 2/0=?, 3/3=𝑛𝑜𝑡 3, 4/1=4, 5/7=𝑛𝑜𝑡 5

So we find that oneness, or true unity, is that which has at the same time the properties of identity, existence and self-existence. Any value that would have all three of these properties must be one. Therefore, the definition of one is complete.

1/1=1

Is it possible for other properties to be incorporated into one? We cannot prove that we have found all of the properties of one, so yes, it could theoretically be possible. However since one has already been uniquely defined, any additional properties would not be essential to its definition.

It is important to recognize that this is the exact opposite of the way every other concept is defined. In a dictionary it is necessary to never use a word in its own definition. If this happened, then no one could ever really know what the word meant. Here that word is the only word used in its definition, and that is how we recognize it! The stark contrast between this word and every other word is the quality of self-existence. One is the only value that can exist on its own power.

Now that we have established an objective definition for one, we can study it more closely to see what else we can discover. At first glance, we see that it demonstrates everything we understood about one without being able to articulate it. It illustrates exactly what is meant by unity, because it shows a concept that is divisible by no other value than itself. It shows us what is meant by singleness because it is a value that is separate from all other values.

When we use the idea of one as an adjective we are actually applying the properties of one to the thing we are describing. When we say “one table” we subconsciously recognize that the thing we call a table exists and that it has its own identity. Now since one has itself as its own denominator we saw that it has the property of self-existence. Though the table does not share the property of self-existence, it does have a one as its denominator which properly gives it existence. In the same way, every object that exists is formed and given definition in terms of the value of one. It is obvious now that by understanding the properties that give one its value we gain a more meaningful understanding of the world in which we exist. While the value of one can show us all of this about things other than one, there is still much more that we can observe about one itself.

4. OBSERVABLE QUALITIES
A. ETERNALITY
Since the value of one both exists and self-exists, we must say that it has always existed and will always exist, because it does so by its own power. Therefore, the value of one is eternal: no beginning and no end. It is impossible for the value of one not to exist. Furthermore, one is the only concept that has this quality. As we saw previously, in order for something to maintain both its identity and its existence, it must be denominated by one. Therefore, one is the value that gives existence to all other values. In a world where there is chronology and sequence, a thing is always caused by one thing and then causes something else. The only way to avoid the problem of an infinite regression is to admit something that is eternal; an uncaused cause or a cause that causes itself. That is exactly what we find in the concept of one.

B. STATE OF BEING
The part that ties together the expression is the equal sign. The equal sign displays the result of an action that the denominator takes on the numerator. When stated in words that we are familiar with, the equal sign is a form of the verb “to be.” Since the statement is complete, it may be referred to as a “being.” This is true for everything that has being: A being is something that has existence and a unique identity, where its existence is in terms of the value of one.

C. FELLOWSHIP
The expression requires the presence of three characters: Numerator, Denominator and Result. (In mathematics these are referred to as operands.) These operands perform unique functions with respect to each other, and necessarily coexist as distinct from each other. As we saw while searching for the various properties that define one, each of these operands performs a unique and necessary role in the relationship. The numerator performs the role of originating the value. The denominator has the role of dividing the numerator to search out and reveal its value. The result has the role of displaying the value of the numerator as revealed by the denominator. Each of these operands works together to form a unified statement of value, but they remain separate and different in their roles.

D. EQUALITY
The three operands are, obviously, the same value. That means that they are the same substance or made from the same concept. They are also each equally important to the relationship. If one of them was missing, the statement would be incomplete and the expression of value would cease.

E. THE NUMERATOR
This operand is the origin of the expression. Notice that it has no origin outside of itself. It did not come from anything else, nor was it generated by any of the other operands. The numerator is something that “just is” and needs no explanation for being. It has to be present before anything else can be present. However, the numerator is a concept only; in itself it has no substance or representation. Its value can only be known as it is expressed in the result.

F. THE RESULT
This operand comes before the denominator because the idea must first have an expression across the equal sign before the existence of the concept can be declared. The reason for this will be explored in more detail later. In reality, all three operands must occur together or not at all. The result is generated by the numerator and is the exact representation of its value. The value of the result must follow the numerator and behave in exactly the same way as the numerator, even though both operands must be present at the very same moment the other is present. Neither can be said to exist before the other, since the existence of both is equally contingent on the presence of the denominator.

G. THE DENOMINATOR
This operand completes the definition and brings the form of the statement into existence. The denominator is not generated by the numerator or the result, but follows to show the existence of the other two. This is also the operand that performs the work of the expression. It divides the value of the numerator, and reveals that value in the result.

H. ONE WILL BE WHAT ONE WILL BE
After having established such a definition this now comes as a surprise, but we have not actually uncovered the value of one. Since one is the only value that participates in its own definition, it has unlimited autonomy and its meaning is unknowable to any value that is not part of the expression. The idea called “one” is whatever it expresses itself to be, and that can only be known by representation. Therefore the result is the only part of the expression that is visible and knowable. However, if we know the result then we also know the numerator, since the result is the self-expression of the value of the numerator.

I. INTRINSIC VALUE OR WORTH
Philosophers have debated over what sorts of things have value in and of themselves (pleasure, love, good moral will, etc.). One philosopher, G. E. Moore, proposed a thought experiment to test the intrinsic value of a thing. If we consider something in a state of complete isolation and it maintains its value without deriving some part of that value from anything else, then it has intrinsic value (Principia Ethica, “Chapter VI: The Ideal”, § 112). The experiment did not lead to any solid conclusion because all of the things that were considered had value in relation to something else. As we have seen however, the concept of one can exist by itself in a world of absolute isolation because one is defined solely in terms of itself. Therefore, its value is truly intrinsic. In fact, one is the only concept that has this kind of quality, since all other values derive their existence from one. Subsequently, whatever attributes one expresses itself to have become intrinsically valuable, because that value exists in and of itself. Any values derived from one (2, 3, 4, etc.) will share some degree of intrinsic value in the sense that they are formed from the value of one.

5. PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
In the book of Deuteronomy, chapter 6 verse 4, God declares himself to be one. He does not make any qualifications on that statement for us to say that he is one in this or that sense. In view of this verse Christians believe that there is only one God, meaning that they acknowledge only a single Deity. However throughout the Bible and sometimes in the same situation, this Deity shows up as three distinctly different persons. Each of these persons has a nature that is fully God, and in John 10:30, Jesus even says, “I and the Father are one.” Christians summarize this theme throughout the Bible by saying that God is a Trinity, or a unity of three persons (Three-unity).

There has always been fierce debate over how this can be logically possible. Muslims and Jewish people also believe that there is only one God but that he is only one person, not three. They often claim that Christianity is nonsense because of the idea that God can be both one and three at the same time. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that modern Christianity teaches heresy on account of the idea that Jesus can be “begotten but not created” and in the same moment be fully God coexisting with his own Father eternally as the Bible seems to teach (John 1:1, John 3:16, Colossians 1:15-20, etc.). Even though Christians are aware of the teaching of the Trinity, they struggle to explain it other than to say that it is a mystery we may never understand. While it is true that we must first trust by faith what God reveals about himself, Christians need not be accused of intellectual dishonesty. If God truly is one, then by definition of the concept of one, God must be a self-existent, eternal being defined by the inseparable union of three unique persons. Rather than being a contradiction, this is the only truly consistent understanding of God.

Everything that we have discovered about the definition of one is merely a restatement of things found in the Bible using different terminology. The great I Am who revealed himself to Moses is the eternally self-existent One. He says, “I am who I am” (Genesis 3:14). In many footnotes an alternate translation is mentioned: “I will be what I will be.” He decides who he is, and he decides who we are. Any rejection of his sovereign authority over us is intrinsically self-destructive. This is not because he is harsh or cruel, but because he knows that we cannot sustain our own existence. As the common denominator of all existence, God’s Spirit is the giver of life. To have God’s Spirit living in you is the only way to have true identity. The only way to know God is by knowing his only Son, Jesus. Jesus told his disciples, “If you have seen me you have seen the Father.” He is the exact representation of his Father (Hebrews 1:3), and his true nature as God is revealed to us spiritually by the Spirit of God. However, in order to know him we must submit ourselves to the authority of God. This cannot be done by self-effort, but must be done by the power of God’s Spirit.

At this point it is reasonable to ask, “Is God just a number?” Many Christians would take offense at this idea. Those people ought to more carefully consider what a number is. We have the idea that numbers are some sort of lifeless concept that is important only in mathematics and physics and engineering and such- fields that are merely academic and have no relation to the universe we live in. Rather than equating God to a lifeless construct in the mind of a mathematician, this ties the realm of applied sciences directly to its Creator. One is the number upon which the universe was engineered. God is truly one in every sense of the word, but this idea called “one” turns out to be far more than what we initially thought.

6. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
A. ORDER OF PRECEDENCE
What decides the order of precedence: Father, Son, Holy Spirit (or Numerator, Result, Denominator)? The equation would normally be read as, “one divided by one is equal to one”. Since the result comes last in normal human speech would this not reflect the Son being last instead of second after the Father?

To begin, the numerator is the essence of the thing and the focus of the discussion; it clearly must come first. Neither the denominator nor the result could be present without the numerator. But the order of the other two is less clear. In the discussion of the identity property (the result) we saw that the relationship X=X is true of all things. In a world of isolation where this unknown value X is the only value present, the value of X could be one or it could be any other value. We would never know. But at the very least, the equal sign still forms a complete statement of being. Therefore, the relationship of the numerator and the result is consistent with or without a denominator.

Now try to consider the numerator and the denominator without a result. There would be no equal sign, and no statement of being. It would be like trying to form a complete sentence with just a subject and no verb. It cannot be done. Therefore, the presence of a denominator relies on the presence of a result, even though the denominator is stated before the result in common speech.

We might then ask why we need a denominator at all. But a numerator and a result alone is not a definite value. It could be any value, even to itself, meaning that it would be impossible for it to know its own value. The denominator is necessary to narrow down the endless possibilities to a single, precise value. Essentially, the being of God could not be certain of his own nature without the Holy Spirit. In the same way the presence of the denominator is what allows all other values to recognize the value of one.

To summarize, the result comes before the denominator in sequence because the denominator relies on the result to be present whereas the result does not rely on the denominator to be present. The statement of being, or the equal sign, requires a result but does not require a denominator. However, the certainty of the value of one requires both a result and a denominator.

B. ALGEBRAIC REARRANGEMENT
Mathematicians will recognize that the equation can be rearranged and still be consistent. The value of the denominator can be multiplied by both sides of the equation so that it appears as: Multiplicand times Multiplier equals Product.

1∗(1/1=1)∗1 –> 1=1∗1

If the equation is changed to this form, it might be interpreted as what happened when Jesus was baptized. The Father sent the Spirit to empower the Son for ministry. The overarching goal of that ministry was to glorify the Father. Jesus speaking with the Holy Spirit could then also say, as he did in John 14:9, “If you have seen me you have seen the Father.”

The equation can be changed again so that the Result and the Denominator have reversed their previous positions.

1/1=1

This could be said to reflect what happened in Acts 1-2 when Jesus returned to the Father after his resurrection: He sent the Spirit to empower the Church to continue in the ministry that Jesus initiated.

This extension of the equation should be regarded as speculation, however there seems to be warrant for it. If the two sides of the equation were thought of as representing some aspect of our world, it would most closely compare to the places we call “heaven” and “earth.”

C. LIMITATIONS
While the equation that defines one can be taken this far and still be meaningful, we must be careful. God declares that he is one in Scripture, so we can examine the concept of one for things that reflect God’s nature. But the model of one cannot reflect anything of the human-divine nature of Jesus or of the things that he did while he lived on this earth, because nothing of human nature or of his combined nature is revealed to us in Scripture. Likewise, the Scriptures reveal nothing to us about what happened within the being of God when the God-man Jesus suffered his Father’s wrath on the cross and then died. It is at this point that the explanation of one has nothing to say.

7. THE MIRRORS OF HERESY AND ORTHODOXY
A. HOW DOES THIS COMPARE TO THE ATHANASIAN CREED?
For those Christians who are unaware of their history, the discussion about the Trinity was for the first time formally written down around the fifth or sixth century after the life of Jesus. This document is referred to as the Athanasian Creed, and it outlines a number of statements that Christians believe to be Biblically accurate and true about the nature of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. This statement of belief was named in honor of a man named Athanasius who a century earlier had vigorously argued in defense of the eternally divine nature of Jesus as God’s Son. Here is a summary of the statements in the creed:

1. God is one being who consists of three persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
2. The persons remain distinct from each other.
3. The essence of God is not divided among the persons.
4. Each person has all of the divine attributes and all to the same degree: they each are uncreated, unlimited, eternal, and almighty.
5. The Father is neither made nor created, nor begotten.
6. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten.
7. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son*; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding.
8. None of the persons is before or after another, and none is greater than or less than another.

*Some scholars have contested the phrase “and of the Son” because manuscript evidence suggests that it was inserted much later than the original creed. The apparent reason for its insertion was that Jesus declared he would send the Spirit into the world after his departure. A division in the Christian church happened because the reason did not pertain to the internal nature of the Spirit but to the event of the Spirit being sent into the world.

Now consider:
1. One is a numerical being consisting of three operands: Numerator, Result and Denominator.
2. The operands remain distinct from each other.
3. The essence of one is not divided by the operands (it would be if it were any value other than one: 2/2=1, 2/1=2, etc.).
4. Each of the operands has the same attributes as the whole value of one.
a. The value of one is uncreated (self-existing).
b. The value of one is not limited by any value but itself (no other value participates in its definition).
c. The value of one is eternal (both existing and self-existing).
d. The value of one has full determining power over all other numbers (as the basic unit and as the denominator).
5. The Numerator is neither made nor created nor generated by any other value or operand.
6. The Result comes from the Numerator alone; not “created” but generated. (Remember, the numerator and result could in theory form a complete system, but no combination of two involving the denominator could be a complete system.)
7. The Denominator is of the Numerator and of the Result; neither made nor created nor begotten but proceeding. In view of the controversy over this portion of the creed it may be questioned whether the Denominator derives its nature in part from the Result or solely from the Numerator, but we already showed that it is third in order of position in the relationship. Thus in one way or another it follows the Numerator and the Result.
8. None of the operands is before or after another, and none is greater than another. (Remember that all three operands are equally important and must be present in the relationship at the same time for the relationship to exist.)

A final test of this creed can be done by directly substituting the words “One, Numerator, Result and Denominator” with the words “God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit” respectively. When such a substitution is considered, the statements made in the creed remain true and fully consistent mathematically.

B. KNOWN HERESIES
There has always been heresy, or false teaching, taught about the Trinity whenever people tried to reconcile their understanding of it. Many useful illustrations have been attempted, but all of them contain some point of heresy. Where does this explanation fall in relation to those heresies?
The first thing that must be said in response to this question is that this essay differs from an illustration in one key point. An Illustration says that the Trinity is “like” this or that thing (an egg, water in its three states, a tree, etc.). However, Scripture never says that God is “like” one. It says that he “is” one, and leaves the linguists to decipher what exactly is meant by that oneness. Furthermore, every illustration attempts to compare God to something created. As proven above, the concept of one is uncreated, existing eternally on its own power. This essay does not attempt to link similarities between God and something that God made. It takes a familiar idea that God has already used to identify himself and unpacks its meaning.

In his book Systematic Theology, Dr. Wayne Grudem outlines three statements that summarize the various themes about God that are evident in the Bible:
1. God is three persons.
2. Each person is fully God.
3. There is one God (1994 version, page 241).

He goes on to show that incorrect teaching, or heresy, results from denying one of these three points. Since the properties of one seem to provide an explanation of the Trinity, the model should be examined in light of the known kinds of heresy that the Church has already dealt with.

1. MODALISM
If a person rejects the first statement they must say that God is one person who calls himself by three different names. Father, Son and Holy Spirit then, are simply names for how God is choosing to act at a given time in history. The model of one’s properties requires three individual positions with unique and separate functions: Numerator, Denominator and Result. The question that must be decided is whether these positions are three roles, or modes, taken by the same person, or whether they are three persons formed from the same essence or substance.

There are at least two reasons why this model does not contain the error of modalism:

a. The three positions coexist and interact simultaneously. One of the primary points of modalistic belief is that the three roles occur as God reveals himself to us in different ways at different times. However, the three positions which hold the value of one are always acting all the time and together. The numerator generates meaning, the denominator conveys the meaning, and the result represents the meaning.

b. The various properties of one were pieced together without any knowledge of concepts other than one itself. This means that the actions being performed by the three roles of numerator, denominator and result were interactions with each other only, not actions with anything else. Modalism’s idea of one person having three different roles requires the presence of other beings with which the person of God is interacting. Since there are no other beings present when the various roles are considered, the interactions must be taking place between the roles themselves. This fact elevates the positions of numerator, denominator and result from three roles taken by one person, to three persons interacting with each other within one being. Those persons are specifically known by the roles or functions that they take with each other, but they are at work individually and at the same time.

2. ARIANISM, SUBORDINATIONISM & ADOPTIONISM
A denial of the second statement, that each of the three persons is fully God, comes in two directions: against God the Son, and against God the Holy Spirit.

The above mentioned are three different types of false teaching which say that God’s Son, Jesus, was not fully divine like his Father. Arianism teaches that God’s Son was created by the Father and not eternally divine. Subordinationism was a teaching that God’s Son was eternal and uncreated, but not fully divine like the Father. Adoptionism taught that Jesus was “adopted” as God’s son and was not eternal or divine at all, but given supernatural ability.

While defining the value of one, we discovered a peculiar relationship between the numerator and the result. The numerator indeed generates the value of the result in such a way that the result can be called the “son” of the numerator. However, the numerator cannot exist without a result, nor can the result exist without a numerator. Either they both exist together or neither can exist. This is because existence is given by the denominator. Therefore in the substance of one, the result shares the same eternal existence that is found in the numerator. Furthermore, since the result has eternal existence as the value of one, if it combined itself with another value (The Son of God taking on human identity) it would still have its original properties. This is in agreement with the teaching that Jesus was fully man but also fully God from the moment of conception within Mary by the work of God’s Spirit.

While less common, heresy in regard to the Holy Spirit does also occur. However in the model of one, the denominator must be present along with both the numerator and the result in order for the definition of one to be true. This reflects the orthodox view that the Holy Spirit is fully and eternally divine like the Father and the Son.

3. TRITHEISM
A denial of the third point leads to the belief that the three divine persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) are really not one God but three separate Gods. The model of one’s properties requires three individual positions with unique and separate functions: Numerator, Denominator and Result. However these three positions cannot exist independently of each other. This would be possible if the relationship involved addition, but it is not possible with multiplication or division. There is only a single concept participating in the definition of one and as a result, only a single value is expressed.

8. AN EXAMINATION FROM SCRIPTURE
It is true that this model is not stated explicitly in Scripture. Because of this, there is no authoritative proof for its validity. However, Scripture can be examined for verses that either support or disqualify it. The author found considerable support from the following verses:

Deuteronomy 6:4, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.”

There may be several different ways to interpret the word “one” in this context, but no matter which interpretation we choose, we must admit that each of those interpretations is linked to the same concept, and that God is willing to identify himself with that concept. By examining the concept of one we find that God is an eternal being who has identity and self-defined existence. That Being exists independently of all other values (alone, in isolation), but is knowable by the expressed result.

John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.”

This verse, considered literally, shows the Father and Son to be truly united: The numerator and result are permanently matched (1=1). The two operands cannot be broken apart, nor can one or the other be corrupted in value because the denominator is also one.

John 1:1-3, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.”

This verse emphasizes the fact that God’s Son was present with God from the beginning. As mentioned earlier, the result must be present from the moment the numerator is present. A general principle can be seen here: all concepts, if they exist, must always have a corresponding identity by which they are known. A concept that cannot be known is “not conceivable” and therefore not a concept, but the identity is itself the knowledge of the concept.

John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

Translators have rendered this verse several ways in reference to God’s Son: “only begotten Son” (KJV) “only Son” (ESV), “only begotten (unique) Son” (Amplified), and the above (NIV), “one and only Son”. It is possible that the original intent of this verse is to emphasize uniqueness. It is also possible that the intent is to emphasize the “comes from” relationship that the Son has with the Father. In either case, the numerical model is still valid. In the first case, there can be only a single, unique result that completes the expression. In the second case, the result does indeed have a “comes from” or a “generated by” relationship with the numerator. It would not be a stretch to compare the relationship of a numerator and its result with the relationship of a Father and his Son. This does not violate the eternal nature of the Son, because the numerator cannot exist without a result, nor can the result exist without the numerator. They both are mathematically present or absent together, even though one generates the other.

Hebrews 1:3, “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.”

The result is the exact representation of the numerator. Furthermore, the result is the knowable part of the expression. Therefore it is the part that sustains the value of all other numbers.

Colossians 1:15-16, “The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”

In this verse we see even more detail than we do in the Hebrews verse. The “invisible God,” referring to the Father, closely identifies with the numerator in the expression of one. The numerator is the idea, or the thought-stuff that cannot be seen. It is the concept for which the result is its complete self-expression. The phrase “before all things” can be easily seen in the fact that one is the beginning of the number line, as well as the foundation from which all other numbers were formed.

John 5:19, “Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.”

This verse shows the pattern of behavior of God’s Son; that he does only exactly what he sees his Father doing and that he is powerless to act independently of his Father. In the same way, both the essence and the behavior of the result exactly mirror that of the numerator. To parallel the verse, the result cannot act independently of the numerator. It can do only what it sees the numerator doing, because whatever the numerator does, the result also does.

1 Corinthians 2:9-10, “However, as it is written:
“What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived”— the things God has prepared for those who love him—
these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.”

This verse shows perhaps the clearest interaction between the Father and the Spirit within the being of God. The Spirit has the function of examining the substance of who God is and revealing that which is found. The denominator and numerator show this relationship precisely: The denominator performs the action of dividing the numerator to express the result.

Genesis 1:1-3, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.”

This verse shows the Spirit of God present from the very beginning. While there is no direct reference to the nature of the Spirit’s relation to the Father or to the Son, it does seem to indicate something about the Spirit’s role in the Creation in that the Spirit needed to be present for the Creation to come into being. In the creation of the number line, the denominator must be present for the concept of a number to pass from non-existence into existence. Referring to Creation, the phrase “was formless and empty” is aptly depicted by a numerator with a zero denominator: the conception of a thing without a definite existence. Remember that 2/0 = Undefined or DNE (Does Not Exist).

Romans 4:17, (speaking of Abraham) “As it is written: ‘I have made you a father of many nations.’ He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not.”

The point of interest in this verse is the phrase “the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not.” The expression of one calls into being other numbers that previously did not exist. It does this by setting itself as the denominator for the other number, replacing a denominator of zero. No matter the condition of the identity (or result) of a value, the value of one can revive it by simply becoming the denominator.

It must be repeated that none of these verses conclusively prove the validity of the meaning of one in its explanation of the Trinity, except perhaps the Deuteronomy reference. However, from each of these references Scripture seems to lend clear support to the model.

9. PHILOSOPHY IN A WORLD OF REAL NUMBERS
After studying the nature of one, it appears that there are three principle parts of everything that has being: the essence, the existence and the representation. Identity refers to the fact that there is a representation corresponding to the relationship of its essence and form of existence. This being has an arithmetic structure:

𝐸𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒/𝐸𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒=𝐼𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑦

The essence is what is meant to be. The existence qualifies the essence and produces the identity. Within this structure we see that a being’s identity can change based upon the kind of value determining its existence. If the existence held is greater than one, the identity becomes less than its essence. If we assume that this arithmetic relation of being cannot be made complex, that is, no fractions in the denominator, then no value smaller than one may substantiate existence. Therefore, a representation cannot become greater than its essence. This holds immediate theological implications if God is one. A being whose existence is defined by anything other than God is a fractured being; only a part of its original essence. Our identity and the nature of our being as humans is at its greatest potential when we are solely relying on God.

Within the being of one, the Essence, the Existence and the Representation hold the same value. This value is not limited by any other value but itself. The influence of one extends over all real numbers in two ways: the essences of all numbers are formed by counting multiples of one. Secondly, the existence of all numbers is sustained because one is the denominator. Once we consider the sovereign quality of this influence and that no other number can hold similar influence, we arrive at a rather startling conclusion: We may justifiably say that in a world where numbers exist, one is God. If it could be proven that our world is mathematically and numerically formed, then the matter of God’s existence could not be reasonably doubted. Someone may argue that we are not just numbers. However, a numeric world is at least conceivable, since all things have some sort of innate value. A number system is nothing more than a sequential ordering of value. A world based on a system of value would also have a logical coherence for all of its parts: each part would relate to each other part because all values are based on the value of one.

Because the value of one has self-existence it is not easy to see which of its terms must come first. However when any other number is considered, it becomes clear that essence must precede both existence and identity. This is shown by the fact that the essence of a number, two for example, may have a zero denominator. Such a state leaves an essence only, with no existence and no identity. This is contrary to the view held by some philosophers, such as Jean-Paul Sartre, that existence precedes essence.

Speaking of our own humanity, we each have an individual essence that is the blueprint of what God designed each of us to be. Our existence is first given by God’s Spirit; however we inherited a corrupted existence and identity from Adam. As we move through life with the corruption of our nature and our resulting rebellion against God and our rejection of his Spirit, our existence is increasingly defined by the things around us that the corrupt nature desires. Thus is our personal identity formed, more or less from God’s Spirit and more or less from the world that we are part of. This ability to directly affect our existence, and thus our identity, may be part of what is meant by the belief that we are made in God’s image.

Animals, plants and inanimate objects also have “being”, but not in the same way. Animals to a lesser extent may have the ability to choose their existence, while plants and inanimate objects are not given this ability. They are what God’s Spirit has created them to be. However, because God has given us the ability to choose our existence, that choice influences not only our existence but also the existence of the animals and plants with whom we interact. So the corruption of human nature influences every other participant in this world.

Identity can be destroyed when existence is removed, but essence is immortal; it cannot be destroyed ever- because the essence of one exists forever. This excludes the idea that the soul is annihilated after death. The soul only loses its representation; then it remains in the state of corruption or perfection chosen by its original existence.

10. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
The three major monotheistic religions believe that God is one, yet they differ sharply on the nature of God, whether he is one person in isolation or three persons in unity. While a study of the nature of God can only be done in the context of a given religious persuasion, a study of the concept of one, or of mathematical unity, can be done purely from the context of logic. If we say that God truly is one in some sense of the word, then we are applying some quality of the nature of oneness to the nature of God. As this study of the nature of one has shown, one is an eternal, self-existing, numeric “being” that is formed from three unique operands. If God is one, then God must have this kind of structure within his being. Any other formulation of God as one would have to find a different way to define the value of one.