I assume the Nicene fathers added the ὁμοούσιος ("homousios", of the same essence or being) requirement because a) The Bible ascribes to Jesus characteristics which in Judaism can only be ascribed to God (e.g. co-Creator, others); and b) Because if Jesus is a god (or is everything that God is), there can only be one God; Monotheism is non-negotiable.
The writer of the Book of Hebrews, whom I believe was Paul, opened his epistle with these words...
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:” Hebrews 1:1-3
These three verses are comparable with the first three verses of that which John would write 30 or so years later in his Gospel. John said that the Word was with God and was God; also that by the Word were all things made that were made (John 1:1-3). Paul says that the Son is “
the brightness” of God’s “glory” and the “
express image” [Gr. χαρακτ ή ρ ]
of God’s “person”, also that through Him the worlds were made. If both authors were inspired they must be saying the same thing. In other words, Christ being the “express image” of God’s person must be the equivalent of saying He is God.
Strong’s concordance transliterates the Greek word χαρακτ ή ρ as charakter. It appears that originally this was an engraving tool or a marker (engraver) but later came to be known as the impression or engraving itself. It is from where we derive the word character. This is the only place in the Bible where this word is used. This is why there can be no comparison of usage.
As do many scholars, Strong describes this word as meaning an exact impression or precise reproduction of persons or things that are original.
An impress in wax is not that which did the impressing. A stamp on a coin is not the die that causes the impress. A footprint in the sand is not the foot that made the print. Each is distinct from the other, but there is the closest of relationships between the original and the impression. Without the original there would not be an image. It is also interesting to note that such an impression is always an integral part of the very substance of which it is impressed (like an impression in wax). It is cut (formed) from the substance but remains a part of it.
The Abingdon Bible Commentary of 1929 (compiled by some 66 professors of biblical exegesis, biblical languages, theology, Christian doctrine and church history etc.) has the following to say with reference to the words “express image” (KJV)
“The word translated ‘very image’ means, literally, the stamp cut by a die, and so the impress made upon a seal; thus the phrase signifies that the essence of the divine nature was stamped on the Person of Christ. He was the ‘impress of God‘s essence.”(Professor H. T Andrews, D.D., The Abingdon Bible Commentary, 1929)
So what does it mean to say that Christ is the “express image” (exact impress) of God’s person? In this Scripture (Hebrews 1:3), the Greek word translated “person” is hupostasis.
It is a compound of two other Greek words. These words are hupo meaning literally under (Matthew 5:15, Luke 13:34, Acts 2:5 and Romans 16:20 etc.) and histemi meaning to be stood, stand, standing, set or be established (see Matthew 2:9, 6:5, 18:16, Mark 9:36, John 1:26, and Acts 24:21). We can see therefore that hupostasis means the foundation or under-girding (sub-structure or substance) of cause of being, or, to put it another way, the essential structure of what makes something what it is. Christ therefore is the “express image” (stamp/impress) of the substance/foundation/under-girding of God.
In other words, what God is so is the Son.
In this respect they are one and the same. One though, the Son, is the image. Paul noticeably avoided using words that could make it appear he was saying it was only in outward appearance that Christ was the “express image” of God’s person. One such word is prosopon, meaning the countenance or appearance (i.e. that which is visibly seen, the visage). We can see therefore that the word hupostasis does not refer to exterior appearance. This can be seen even more clearly when we see how the same author uses this word in Hebrews 3:14 “For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence [hupostasis] stedfast unto the end” Hebrews 3:14
This “confidence” is the substance of our hope (it is that of which our hope is made, the foundation or under-girding). As Paul explains as he uses this Greek word for the third time in this epistle “Now faith is the substance [hupostasis] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1
The substance/confidence (hupostasis) is the ‘stuff’ of which our hopes are made. It is our faith, the foundation or under-girding of our hopes.
Take note of how William Tyndale translated Hebrews 1:3. His was a 16th century translation into English “Which sonne beynge the brightnes of his glory and very ymage of his substance bearinge vp all thinges with the worde of his power hath in his awne person pourged oure synnes and is sitten on the right honde of the maiestie an hye” Hebrews 1:3 Tyndale’s translation
1525 Tyndale’s translation says that the Son is the “very ymage” of God’s “substance”. This is in contrast to the formulators of the KJV who translated hupostasis as “person”. The earlier translation is much clearer to us today than the KJV. It shows exactly what Paul meant by his use of hupostasis.
It is referring to God’s very (inner) being (what God is)
. It is that which makes God God. It is His substructure. Unfortunately today, when we say person, we simply think of this as the entirety of a human being when in fact it can mean the actual self or personality (inner nature/being) of a human being.
Terry Hill.
